The Hateful Eight
Me: Regarding Hateful Eight: Would you not agree that the picture utterly fails as a mystery? Why explain the poisoning of the coffee in voice over instead of just showing it? How much better would it have been to not mention or show the poisoning of the coffee and just have Kurt Russel and the driver cough up blood and leave everyone to connect the dots? Also, the storytelling devise of going back in time to show the events of that morning really serves no purpose in enhancing the experience. I suggest it could have been shown chronologically to greater effect. I do think that much of what is said and represented by these characters is quite poignant, especially with the picture ending with a black member of the northern army and a southern confederate working together to hang the body of someone that may be symbolic of the country itself while they read a fake note allegedly written by Abraham Lincoln regarding the country's future. Martin Luther King talked about the country one day cashing in on its promissory note. The Lincoln Letter may very well symbolize such idealist hopes and the struggle to see it as verisimilitude. (I do somewhat disagree with your assertion that America is increasingly more demonstrative of intolerance against minorities. Is there intolerance? Of course. Historically, things have obviously been much worse. Also, yes, there have been many wars, but America was in fact also built on pretty radical principles of justice. The tragedy is that we have often lived in opposition of those very principles. I would argue that America has repeatedly shown, at least until this century, the ability to improve despite of itself. And also, are women a minority?)
I also think the picture sort of wasted its 70MM format. I don't have a problem with Tarantino not taking conventional advantage of the exterior landscape of the setting. But like the movie Oxhide, he could have use the scope to frame the minutia of the interior as landscape. Between the blocking of characters in relation to each other within a confined space, and smaller actions such as making coffee.
I very much support the picture at a macro level, but at a micro level I think it fails in its attempt to be compelling cinema.
Roy Comfort Giò Crisafulli • 4 years ago It's the "bomb under the table" effect my friend. By telling the audience beforehand about the poison, we watch in agonizing dramatic irony as Ruth and OB drink the coffee. We see Ruth only sip it before tossing it away, leading us to hope that perhaps his dose was small enough that he may survive. We spend the next 5 minutes sitting in tension for the inevitably terrifying and gory deaths of two characters. Having John Ruth suddenly spout blood without any context only results in a momentary jump scare followed by confusion. Which of those two narratives is more enriching?
Gustavo Godinho Giò Crisafulli: Why explain the poisoning of the coffee in voice over instead of just showing it? 'Show, don't tell' is not a dogma. Tarantino's voice over changes radically the movie pace. Felt so much funnier 'telling, not showing' on that scene. Great article, Pablo
Me: I agree "show don't tell" is not a dogma. I guess you and I just disagree on the merit of that being a funny moment as apposed to an opportunity to create cinematic suspense. I thought it was cartoonish (not that I wish to be derogatory against cartoons). Speaking of funny... I thought "Clue", which I think is a funny movie, was a better mystery than "The Hateful Eight."
HanSoloMorre: Once again lefties taking out the fun of everything. I highly doubt Tarantino new movie is about anything else but a a mix of old westerns and "The Thing". However lefties must find any chance to preach about minorities (besides never being part of it) in any media, and in case of don't finding anything, complain about how the movie is squared and "dated". So now the critic stands on a high moral ground, if you agree with it you are fresh and cool and if you hate it then you are a racist bastard. That is the real picture of USA, not the movie. People trying their best effort in order to stand on high morals and dictate what should and should not be banned merciless. Freedom of speech is dying and any media must agree with Big Brother points of view, or else.... Biggest joke is how the one giving moral lessons is Brazilian socialist affiliate to the Labour Party (PT).
Pablo itself is a hardcore supporter of Roussef corrupt government, countless times putting himself in front of the bullet in order to protect the President and her many, many scandals.
I suggest to anyone to look it up on Google to help puts thing on perspective. This text, as usual, is nothing but propaganda in socialist points of view of "social justice" and the "evil america". There is no critic here.
Me: I know nothing about Pablo Villaca, and please note that my comments to his article were in disagreement with is opinion. But I don't believe your ad hominem attacks on a writer are constructive in a forum like this. You would do much better to articulate an opinion simply on the writing and the actual content of what he is saying.
HanSoloMorre Giò Crisafulli: I don't think it is a ad hominem since the whole "critic" is nothing but a political speech by a notorious Brazilian articulator. That is my whole point. This site should be posting movie critics, not disguised political essays. Even less in movies with nothing political in their core content. Leave the crackpot theories and social concerns to Tumblr and Buzzfeed
Me: You didn't find any political theme in the content of a movie centered around conflict between a black American Civil War Union officer, an American Civil War Confederate General and a Confederate rebel? There's nothing political in the content a movie depicting an alleged correspondence of letters between Abraham Lincoln and a freed slave? I don't believe Villaca's ideas are crackpot since they specifically pertain to content that is in fact on the screen. Even though we disagree on their total merit in cinematic terms. I would suggest to you that characters addressing the massacre of Native Americans, a character claiming that black Americans are safe only when white Americans are disarmed, and a character deciding to allow dogs into her establishment before she would ever allow Mexicans are all social concerns explicit in the content of the movie. I don't mean to sound condescending, but have you seen "The Hateful Eight"?
Some commentators are claiming that this film criticism website should not publish Villaca's article. Can any of you reference something in his article that does not in fact pertain to what is actually in "The Hateful Eight"? Can you explain how the ideas and conclusions in his article in fact have no organic relation to what is in Tarantino's movie? Defining the writer in exclusively political terms solely outside the world of cinematic intellectualism in ways that utterly disregard the language of cinema is bewildering in this forum, especially in relation to an article in which Villaca is not expressing things that are divorced from the conversation many people have had about this movie. If there are people who are so much more interested in Pablo Villaca's politics than they are in the particular aspects of a particular movie that he has directly referenced in this article, it might be better to have your discussion at a web site that does not pertain to film criticism.
Samyra Era de Brainiac: It is clear that his interest is not the movie. Here in Brazil there is a huge confusion between politics and political parties, as this man showed brilliantly with his comments . For many, politics (as the Greek tradition , which says that politics is the way the "polis" moves ) , it is seen as something harmful, sinful , almost criminal . I believe this is due to poor ability to live together and accept different points of view. And of course , a deep class resentment that should not be ignored. Thus, the Villaça´s ideological point of view becomes the only criterion for evaluating their work .
Me: Are you actually suggesting that his point of view as a cinephile is not a criterion for evaluating his writing of cinema? As to whether or not his politics play a part in his outlook on cinema or anything else, I would presume that it very well might. But seeing as how everything he mentions in his article is in direct reference to what was in fact in the movie, I think it's safe to say his interest actually is in the movie, Regarding your notion claim that his ideological point of becomes the only criterion for evaluating his work, I don't see how you are making A + B = C. What aspects of life would you suggest are not to be measured only by one's political ideology?
Samyra: Of course the ideological point of view of someone is a good parameter to evaluate their work. As human beings subject to multiple influences, I believe that our work can also be understood the way we see the world and the way we stand on it . Thus, our ideological point of view (as well as the religious, social , economic, psychoanalytic and so on) , can indeed serve as a basis for criticism. Well, at least consciously . Unconsciously is another story. What I mean is that it can not be the only one. Here in Brazil, due to the current circumstances , the ideological positioning has become the single point of assessment. That's what I think happened here. I like to think that the criticism of the work of someone is more interesting from different references. Just that.
Me: Okay. But please note that you said his political ideology was the only criterion.
Luis Tiago de Mattos Ferreira: Gio' Crisafulli, Samyra was actually agreeing with you. She was explaining to you that there are people in Brazil (like, Apparently, HanSoloMorre) that think "his political ideology was the only criterion." like you well said it. And that she does not agree with that. PS: Just so you have some idea of the kind of person "HanSoloMorre" is, his nick means !!!STAR WARS SPOILER!!! "Han Solo Dies". And just so you know as well... that kind of people have in bunch here in Brazil... He isn't, unfortunately, one of a few...
Me: My apologies for not understanding. Also, I thought that might be the meaning of HanSoloMorre, since it Italian it would be HanSoloMuore, but I thought no one would spoil that so soon after the picture's release. I was wrong. Thank you for clearing that up.