Melissa, if you read the comments (which I suspect you do), there are several things I simply feel like I must write, and for a number of reasons. First, about me, then about you, then about the movie and possibly even Eli Roth himself. I seldom leave comments... well, anywhere, mostly because I don't have the time to deal with these sorts of discussions (nor do I , for the most part, believe they can change anyone's opinion), but as a (very very young) scholar, and a movie critic, and an editor of a reputable website and a media house, I simply feel inclined to write to a fellow colleague. As for you, I very much respect you, which is the reason why I decide to write in the first place. A person of your intellect, education, and career deserves nothing but repect and even admiration, and you certainly earned mine. However, it is precisely because of this that it strikes me as more-than-just-mildly odd that you can even think about writing a blog post like that, and that you actually believe that Inglorious Basterds is a bad movie.
Now, on to the movie, and even Eli.
I categorically claim Basterds is a genuis movie... Strangely enough for Tarantino's world, I do not find it to be conceited or arrogant or over bearing or anything negative... all I see when I see it is sheer brilliance... and some sort of unusual soft-porn for females, since most of the male actors in the movie are so goddamn hot. With this endeavor, Tarantino has produced such an overwhelmingly multi-layered piece of work that oozes dedication, love even, and I don't even know where to start the praise for it. The script, which here is better than even Tarantino's filmmaking skills (and you have to say those are more than considerable), is something that could be analyzed by swarms of Ivy League students (they've analyzed works of far lesser quality anyway)... On its Hollywood-plated surface, sure enough, it's a parody, vaudeville-esque genre fantasy film that is supposed to entertain us, make us laugh because of the outrageous remarks and situations, and provide the so-far demasculined Jewish community with some sense of empowerement. On the surface, it brings peace to the Jews, appeases the studios for the lack of solid blockbusters in 2009, and entertaines the rest of us, who then wonder about whether there's more to it... naturally, even to the mediocre movie-goer who drools over Megan Fox in Transformers, it is instantly obvious there is something more, if for nothing else, then at least for the sheer sneer in the super-long, witty dialogues and masterful, simply masterful performances. If you venture far enough to wonder why those performances are su fucking stellar, then you do know it is precisely because of Tarantino, the man who created them... which brings us to the complexity of several of the characters and the brilliance behind the theater-esque ideas of putting all these outrageous characters together to make a semi-coherent whole. Hans Landa alone is enough to earn this movie a place in history, because we all agree (hopefully), that Christoph Waltz effortlesly puts Hannibal Lecter, not to mention the dim-witted medieval literature „villains" to shame. Other characters are not nearly as deep, and their presence at times merely serves a purpose, but when you perceive the movie as a whole, you see that it's not about revenge, or comedy, or even drama, for that matter - it actually ridicules everything we are somehow inherently supposed to believe it is supposed to present. Now, I could really go on and on, and it probably wouldn't change your critique or the way you think, but these things alone - all of which you really can't deny - are enough to make a good movie. And I don't even say it because so many other movies are bad. Tarantino, god bless him, really has incredible cojones to even imagine a movie like this... His cojones are even bigger for the fact that he actually created a movie that has about half a dozen scenes in over 150 minutes and was not afraid to push every actor to their absolute limit... I think Basterds is a perfect fucking movie. Some people obviously don't (which is fine, hey, I even met people who dislike Radiohead and Boston Legal, not to mention LOST... it happens), but I think you should at least respect it for what it is in essence. I am confident that all serious movie-lovers will recognize why it is that they should respect it, even if they dislike it.
Now, Eli... I cannot even imagine why it would be that someone so articulate would want to give us a rant about someone so innocuous without saying something derogatory. Sure enough, he's not much of an actor, but, as someone already said before, he damn well knows it, and it's not his fault that Quentin wanted him to do this. COME ON, would you pass the opportunity to hang out with this crew and create an iconic pseudo-archetype (the Bear Jew idea is hilarious, please don't tell me you think otherwise)??? He only has a few lines in the movie, and while he's not very good, I don't think he's distracting either. Waltz is so menacing in all his scenes, and Fassbender, Schweiger and Bruhl even, are so mesmerizing, that by the time you see the actual Basterds (who are kind of marginalized in the movie, but with a purpose), you don't really think about what Roth looks like leaning over Diane Kruger while she's wounded at the vet's. And I mean it. Seriously, just give the guy a break, if his role was SUPPOSED to be serious and pompous, Tarantino wouldn't cast him... love him or hate him, Quentin IS a smart guy. And as for insulting Eli as a person... well, that's just sad. Normally, I would completely berate any person who says things like that in public, but Melissa is a serious writer, and I wish to stay civil and articulate, even if her sentences weren't. While you, for whatever reason, might not stand Eli's public persona, a few things about his work are factual statements. I won't get into whether he's a good person, it seems that really, really he is from EVERYTHING I hear and read from SO many people, but his work only: We know for a fact that he is a really hard working, semi-reclusive guy who pours all his ideas in his celluloid endeavors. Instead of focusing on more commercial releases, something he could've easily done, he opted for something he actually believed in, which, in all its naivete and cockiness, is a fucking admirable act, not only in Hollywood, but anywhere. It is also a fact that he sacrificed everything to become the director he is today (also sounds cliched, and you might not think he's a good director, but it's still a point worth mentioning) and that his vocabulary and public presence and ideas stretch behind grammatically-butchered one-liners, and obscene thoughtless abbreviations. That alone, and I repeat, THAT ALONE, is very much worth respecting. This has nothing to do with liking, you might think he's ugly (I don't) or stupid (I don't), but just what, as opposed to who, he represents in contemporary Hollywood, is not something you would want to describe with the words you used in your text. What he is is admirable. If everyone in the industry was like Paris Hilton, we wouldn't have material for blogs to exchange opinions in. We wouldn't have movies we could actually discuss. Hell, we'd be illiterate.
P. S. Ultimately, while it's perfectly normal and alright that people have different opinions, and that you and I disagree, the very reasons you listed for disliking the Basterds are strange at best and incomprehensible to me. Furthermore, the way you expressed your sentiments toward Eli, an ultimately innocuous young director who really likes what he does and doesn't really rub it in anyone's face... Is just unnecessary.
On Horror Chick: Why the Heavens Should Crumble If ‘Inglourious Basterds’ Wins (Short Answer: Eli Roth)
Melissa, if you read the comments (which I suspect you do), there are several things I simply feel like I must write, and for a number of reasons. First, about me, then about you, then about the movie and possibly even Eli Roth himself. I seldom leave comments... well, anywhere, mostly because I don't have the time to deal with these sorts of discussions (nor do I , for the most part, believe they can change anyone's opinion), but as a (very very young) scholar, and a movie critic, and an editor of a reputable website and a media house, I simply feel inclined to write to a fellow colleague. As for you, I very much respect you, which is the reason why I decide to write in the first place. A person of your intellect, education, and career deserves nothing but repect and even admiration, and you certainly earned mine. However, it is precisely because of this that it strikes me as more-than-just-mildly odd that you can even think about writing a blog post like that, and that you actually believe that Inglorious Basterds is a bad movie.
Now, on to the movie, and even Eli.
I categorically claim Basterds is a genuis movie... Strangely enough for Tarantino's world, I do not find it to be conceited or arrogant or over bearing or anything negative... all I see when I see it is sheer brilliance... and some sort of unusual soft-porn for females, since most of the male actors in the movie are so goddamn hot. With this endeavor, Tarantino has produced such an overwhelmingly multi-layered piece of work that oozes dedication, love even, and I don't even know where to start the praise for it. The script, which here is better than even Tarantino's filmmaking skills (and you have to say those are more than considerable), is something that could be analyzed by swarms of Ivy League students (they've analyzed works of far lesser quality anyway)... On its Hollywood-plated surface, sure enough, it's a parody, vaudeville-esque genre fantasy film that is supposed to entertain us, make us laugh because of the outrageous remarks and situations, and provide the so-far demasculined Jewish community with some sense of empowerement. On the surface, it brings peace to the Jews, appeases the studios for the lack of solid blockbusters in 2009, and entertaines the rest of us, who then wonder about whether there's more to it... naturally, even to the mediocre movie-goer who drools over Megan Fox in Transformers, it is instantly obvious there is something more, if for nothing else, then at least for the sheer sneer in the super-long, witty dialogues and masterful, simply masterful performances. If you venture far enough to wonder why those performances are su fucking stellar, then you do know it is precisely because of Tarantino, the man who created them... which brings us to the complexity of several of the characters and the brilliance behind the theater-esque ideas of putting all these outrageous characters together to make a semi-coherent whole. Hans Landa alone is enough to earn this movie a place in history, because we all agree (hopefully), that Christoph Waltz effortlesly puts Hannibal Lecter, not to mention the dim-witted medieval literature „villains" to shame. Other characters are not nearly as deep, and their presence at times merely serves a purpose, but when you perceive the movie as a whole, you see that it's not about revenge, or comedy, or even drama, for that matter - it actually ridicules everything we are somehow inherently supposed to believe it is supposed to present. Now, I could really go on and on, and it probably wouldn't change your critique or the way you think, but these things alone - all of which you really can't deny - are enough to make a good movie. And I don't even say it because so many other movies are bad. Tarantino, god bless him, really has incredible cojones to even imagine a movie like this... His cojones are even bigger for the fact that he actually created a movie that has about half a dozen scenes in over 150 minutes and was not afraid to push every actor to their absolute limit... I think Basterds is a perfect fucking movie. Some people obviously don't (which is fine, hey, I even met people who dislike Radiohead and Boston Legal, not to mention LOST... it happens), but I think you should at least respect it for what it is in essence. I am confident that all serious movie-lovers will recognize why it is that they should respect it, even if they dislike it.
Now, Eli... I cannot even imagine why it would be that someone so articulate would want to give us a rant about someone so innocuous without saying something derogatory. Sure enough, he's not much of an actor, but, as someone already said before, he damn well knows it, and it's not his fault that Quentin wanted him to do this. COME ON, would you pass the opportunity to hang out with this crew and create an iconic pseudo-archetype (the Bear Jew idea is hilarious, please don't tell me you think otherwise)??? He only has a few lines in the movie, and while he's not very good, I don't think he's distracting either. Waltz is so menacing in all his scenes, and Fassbender, Schweiger and Bruhl even, are so mesmerizing, that by the time you see the actual Basterds (who are kind of marginalized in the movie, but with a purpose), you don't really think about what Roth looks like leaning over Diane Kruger while she's wounded at the vet's. And I mean it. Seriously, just give the guy a break, if his role was SUPPOSED to be serious and pompous, Tarantino wouldn't cast him... love him or hate him, Quentin IS a smart guy. And as for insulting Eli as a person... well, that's just sad. Normally, I would completely berate any person who says things like that in public, but Melissa is a serious writer, and I wish to stay civil and articulate, even if her sentences weren't. While you, for whatever reason, might not stand Eli's public persona, a few things about his work are factual statements. I won't get into whether he's a good person, it seems that really, really he is from EVERYTHING I hear and read from SO many people, but his work only: We know for a fact that he is a really hard working, semi-reclusive guy who pours all his ideas in his celluloid endeavors. Instead of focusing on more commercial releases, something he could've easily done, he opted for something he actually believed in, which, in all its naivete and cockiness, is a fucking admirable act, not only in Hollywood, but anywhere. It is also a fact that he sacrificed everything to become the director he is today (also sounds cliched, and you might not think he's a good director, but it's still a point worth mentioning) and that his vocabulary and public presence and ideas stretch behind grammatically-butchered one-liners, and obscene thoughtless abbreviations. That alone, and I repeat, THAT ALONE, is very much worth respecting. This has nothing to do with liking, you might think he's ugly (I don't) or stupid (I don't), but just what, as opposed to who, he represents in contemporary Hollywood, is not something you would want to describe with the words you used in your text. What he is is admirable. If everyone in the industry was like Paris Hilton, we wouldn't have material for blogs to exchange opinions in. We wouldn't have movies we could actually discuss. Hell, we'd be illiterate.
P. S. Ultimately, while it's perfectly normal and alright that people have different opinions, and that you and I disagree, the very reasons you listed for disliking the Basterds are strange at best and incomprehensible to me. Furthermore, the way you expressed your sentiments toward Eli, an ultimately innocuous young director who really likes what he does and doesn't really rub it in anyone's face... Is just unnecessary.