<-- A new (uninspiring) Inglourious Basterds poster for Brad Pitt. He's standing on a pile of dead bodies. Like Katey says, "subtle". My first thought upon seeing it was that The Bride never felt it necessary to pose atop the bodies of the crazy '88s. Oh, sure she claimed that the body parts belonged to her but she didn't actually keep them. She travelled light. And note: she didn't even have a long range weapon like a machine gun to kill off those enemy hordes. In short, Uma Thurman is more of a badass than Brad Pitt.It would be misleading to suggest that Quentin Tarantino's current sadism is "new". His films have always had blood and body counts. I haven't seen Basterds yet, I do wonder if the sadism hasn't been consistently increasing. Think about Death Proof's carnage, Basterds entire plot, Kill Bill's massacre and death list... compare and contrast to Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. The early films were deadly, sure, but weren't the characterizations and dialogue the raison d'etre of the films rather than their bloodshed?
When the multiple character posters thing first started taking off, I loved it. I even wished we could have them for movies gone by. Now I'm starting to feel like it's all overkill. Is today's overhyped movie culture a direct result of how early and how often the marketing department is getting involved these days, or am I just an impatient person? I'm willing to concede that it might be the latter but I'm guessing it's a combination of the two. Do you get impatient after a couple of promotional months?
I'm left feeling about Basterds, like I was feeling for Brüno. Stop teasing me already and just open the damn movie.What's that? Brüno is open?! BYE. I'm off to the movies. I was about to photoshop Brüno posing atop the bodies of vanquished famous homophobes but stopped myself. Perhaps I should see the movie first before implicitly endorsing it as anti-homophobic? As movie|line notes, everyone's got an opinion here on what / who is being mocked and who will have a right to claim the most offense.
*
Posts
11 comments:
Maybe it's because today's films and society in general are more brutal or at least more open about societies brutalness?
I don't know...
Hey, but the characterizations and dialogue still were the raison d'etre of the Kill Bill and Death Proof! There's more violence, ok, but, you know, Kill Bill's big action scene is 30 minute chamber drama couple talk!
This duality brings me joy.
http://www.reeltalktv.com/BrunoPoster.jpg
http://stores.homestead.com/unitedindependentmedia/catalog/Waiting-for-Guffman-DVD.jpg
offtopic: I am very sad because I won't watch Mirren in Epidaurus. Nobody wanted to come with me! I might go to Mendes' The Winter's Tale. I hope Kate comes too. :p
I'm with you. Just open the damn movie already! As for the escalating violent content of Tarantino's films, strangely, it doesn't really bother me. Reservoir Dogs was extremely bloody and Pulp Fiction features a couple of violent deaths only to get trumpeted of sorts by Kill Bill. It's still a Tarantino film and I'll still see it.
Let Tarantino get so violent he can only receive and NC-17 rating. I'm done with him. When he gave a lead role to a New Zeland stunt double I cringed. Giving Brad Pitt a leading role nailed the coffin shut.
I don't know if I agree with the trend you're seeing. If I recall correctly there were only four people killed in all of death proof (five if you count stuntman Mike), and most of that was all in one scene. It was graphic sure, but the movie was downright tame compared to the Robert Rodriguez flick it was paired with. Wasn't it incesent dialouge that people were criticising?
And most of the reviews coming out of Cannes suggested that Basterds was a lot more talky than the advertising would have you believe. The only really high body count in Tarentino's career was in Kill Bill Vol. 1.
The guy really has a way of making movies that you remember being more violent than they actually are. Fewer people died in Pulp Fiction than in Bullets Over Broadway, and most of those killings were very quick and often done offscreen. Its kind of odd that its been remembered as some sort of wildly graphic movie.
I have a feeling you're going to have problems with Brueno and I haven't even seen it yet. However, I have a feeling I'm going to lurve it.
~Vincent
I literally just got back from seeing "Bruno". I live in the midwest in what is probably considered a strongly conservative and unsupportive of homosexuality. My audience was a complete mix of age aand race. A lot of the commentary towards "Bruno" has mentioned a fear that a certain type of audience (re: straight middle Americans) would not get the satire. My audience not only got the satire, but they were roundly supportive of the film. [SPOILER] When a scantily clad Bruno humped a "God Hates Fags" protester, the whole audience burst into applause! [END SPOILER]
Any commentary saying that Cohen only enforces stereotypes is entirely missing the point. After seeing the film, I can only think that to accuse Cohen of doing so shows that the accuser has not seen the film or has imposed that view upon the film before seeing it and won't change their mind.
MJS, there are five people killed in Death Proof (six including Stuntman Mike). The three main chicks from the opening half, Rose McGowen and the drug dealer chick who is driving the car on their way to the summer house.
I just rewatched it last week so I know. :)
And that movie was incredibly bloodless. Sure, there was blood nothing that implied QT was getting some sadistic glee out of it. And the violence Kill Bill Vol 1 was quite cartoonish. At least in the second half.
Post a Comment