Look, I'll stop obsessing about the fact that Inglorious Basterds got good reviews and has opened strongly. Any day now, I promise.
But in the meantime, I have a few observations:
*
The geography of critical reaction is puzzling. Reviews from the United States were good overall, with the notable exceptions of the Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, the New Yorker and Slate.
Yet in England, it was hard to find a good review. The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, the Telegraph are all bad reviews.
The Times, for example:
"When we finally get to it (Tarantino has never been one to cut to the chase when he can masturbate through endless pages of smarty-pants dialogue) , the film’s climax proves to be its downfall."
This surprises me, as I hate most other cultural movements in England at the moment, but at least their critics seem well and truly "over" Tarantino.
I thought the explanation may be that the closer you get geographically to the reality of the War, the more offensive the film may look. But in Germany, the reviews
are apparently enthusiastic. Oh well, it's not as if German sensibilities were ever easy to comprehend. I suspect that giggling about the moustache alone would have prevented Hitler's rise to power in any other European country.
In Australia, it's all positive reviews as far as the eye can see. You would have thought, given our cultural position straddled somewhere between the United States and England, there would be some negative review somewhere, but there isn't, as far as I can tell. Odd.
*
The fans are a worry: those sophisticates who aren't worried about the empty rattling sound made by the space in his head where Tarantino's maturity should reside should at least worry about the types of fanboy they are probably sitting next to in the cinema. I base this on the ridiculously aggressive response you see in comments whenever there is a bad Tarantino review. The worst ones I saw on Rottentomatoes, referring to a desire that the reviewer's wife be raped, have (I think) now been deleted. Let's face it, a lot of his fans get off on the violence.
Full marks to Kenneth Turan at LA Times who wrote:
"As it goes on and on, 'Inglorious Basterds' feels increasingly like the kind of hollow, fanboyish cinema that is all the rage these days."
"Hollow" seems the perfect word when talking about Tarantino.
*
What is it with the Left and movie violence now? Back in the 1960's and 1970's, it seemed that it was primarily the Left that used to disdain unnecessarily graphic movie violence. Revenge and vigilante movies were (correctly I think) seen as an angry right wing phenomena, at a time in which there were still identifiable right wingers working in Hollywood.
Now, virtually all reviewers, and all of Hollywood, come across as Left wing, yet they have embraced a nerdy director with a revenge and violence obsession. They have also, more generally, made their peace with graphic violence and gore, no matter what the context or reason for for it. Even apart from Tarantino, think of the Saw movies and the other examples of an especially grotesque and sadistic slasher genre that has come into its own in the last 10 years.
Yet, as with the extensive amount of real sex in Shortbus, having seen something once or twice seems to mean critics - even those who presumably might be somewhat middle of the road in their politics - won't question the morality or wisdom of what's on the screen anymore. The only issue you will sometimes seen raised is the feminist aspect of a story. A movie perceived as anti-feminist will be still be in for an ideological hiding, but that's about the extent that lefties worry about movie morality now.
Well, that's just not right. Sure, some critics take Tarantino to task for his morally vacuous use of violence, but it's damn few, and to Lefty luvvies like David Stratton and Margaret Pomeranz it doesn't matter a hoot.
Grow some moral testicles again, Lefties, and make a call on the morality or social effect of what you are watching on the screen for a change.