Paths of Glory (1957) February 22, 2010

‘Paths of Glory‘ has something special. More than 50 years later, it is watchable and completely original. Was it the best film of 1957? The Academy didn’t think so, giving it zero Oscar nominations. It’s no ‘Twelve Angry Men’, but it’s definitely among the best.

What makes this film so special? Like anything else, it is different. There is a crucial point towards the end of the film where it has to take a stance one way or another. If the three men had not been executed, if the General would have stopped them from dying, it could have been a pro-military film. But he didn’t, the men were executed, and this becomes so clearly an anti-military film.

Inglourious Basterds (a lengthy analysis) February 15, 2010

Chapter One
Get the Tarantino Talk out of the way

I plan to discuss ‘Inglourious Basterds’ at length and, with that, to not confuse the movie itself with its writer/director. I do admire Quentin Tarantino for a few reasons and think ‘Pulp Fiction’ is a truly great film. He has had a good career with one great film (Pulp Fiction), three good films (Kill Bills, Basterds), and handful of films I can stand to watch, but could do without (Death Proof, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown). But, having made a great film, doesn’t that put him above at least 90% of the directors working today? Sure it does. Is he the best currently-working writer/director? Nah.

Chapter Two
I Bet You’re Glad…

… that I didn’t make the first chapter as long as Tarantino did in ‘Basterds’. We’ll get to that in a moment.

One thing Tarantino has always done (and what makes his writing so unique) is take roundabout paths to get to his point. Let’s look at the scene in ‘Pulp Fiction’ where Jules is interrogating Brett about Marsellus Wallace. His whole point is to get Brett to admit that he tried to fuck Marsellus Wallace (if you need a refresher, you can watch the scene here). But Jules begins by asking what Marsellus Wallace looks like, ending up at “does he look like a bitch?” and ultimately “well then why’d you try to fuck him like a bitch?” That scene is almost old enough to be deemed a “classic”. But my point is that the whole scene takes us in loops and we really don’t know what’s going on until the end — and then it’s all so clear. Once it is finished we feel like we went on a ride.

This works when it is with dialog for a few minutes. The problem comes when it is for an entire scene (that is more than a few minutes), which happens at least twice in the movie.

The first is during the opening chapter. At about 17 minutes, we get three things: Hans Landa is The Jew Hunter, smart, and toys with people; that Shosanna escapes and her family was killed by Nazis; and we are placed in World War II. This scene could have been sufficiently shorter and given us the same things. Hans Landa seems to be wasting both LaPadite’s (the farmer’s) time and ours. I understand on a first viewing this scene is tense. I was anxious, just as you were. But when it was finished, I found myself wondering, was all of that really necessary? The problem is that it is at the beginning of the film and we know nothing of Shosanna and her family. Maybe Tarantino was counting on our sympathies for the Jews to make the scene tenser, but I don’t think that was accomplished. Also, whatever happened to LaPadite? Shosanna wasn’t pissed at him, or want revenge against him?

The Hurt Locker December 21, 2009

There is plenty of finesse in the way ‘The Hurt Locker‘ unfolds. Superficially, it is merely a string of anecdotes about bombs; however, our commitment to Sgt. Sanborn and SSgt. James intensifies everything so much that we feel like we’re part of their Company.

Sanborn is all about the rules, and James is all about the adrenaline. Putting opposites on the same team is not a new story-telling technique, but the execution of this particular story is what makes it so good. People get into trouble. People die. James and Sanborn brawl while drunk and hit each other nearly hard enough to break some ribs. This is gritty and the characters have some problems, yes, but when put in front of a bomb, James is nothing but the best. His methods, however unorthodox, work.