The Name’s Tarantino!

The Hateful Eight — the title for this maverick film maker’s 8th feature (proudly and emphatically proclaimed in the title, by the way!) couldn’t have been more apt. I’m not sure if I can say the subject matter deserves the title; but the treatment of this film surely begs to be called The Hateful Eight.

For those who are a little more than just film watchers; people who proclaim themselves to be film geeks/enthusiasts/devotees/(enter as many words here as you want!), obviously know that the one thing that makes Tarantino, well, Tarantino is love for all things cinema. He is, beyond doubt, one of the greatest postmodern film makers of the 20th century with a romantic eye always planted on pastiche! To quote how much he loves referencing not just the films of other directors; but his own as well, here are a few examples:

• Esmeralda (cabbie in Pulp Fiction who drives Bruce Willis’ character away from the boxing match venue after he kills the opponent in a fixed match)
• Santa Esmeralda (the artist whose song “Don’t let me be misunderstood” was used in the climax fight in Kill Bill — Vol. 1)
• Samurai Sword and Baseball bat (weapons of choice in Pulp Fiction in the gimp sequence)
• Both aforementioned weapons playing an important role in Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds respectively

You get the idea, right? For someone like him, then, referencing himself in his biggest film to date (filmed in Ultra 70mm Panavision, no less!) was not entirely beyond the realm of possibilities.

Now that The Hateful Eight has released in the United States, it’s interesting to analyse the reviews and perhaps, try and deconstruct what the fuck’s the matter with Tarantino?

This film got acclaim, yes — rather universal acclaim. But that’s not to say, that it’s not reviled. It sure as hell is. The funny part is, the reasons for its vilification are not entirely new. It’s the same old accusations of Tarantino being brash, irresponsible, sadistic, misogynist — the works! See that? Nothing new.

Why is it that the conservatives have always had problems with Tarantino? Why is it that he is picked on — every goddamn time? There’s to be a reason. Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel in their analysis of Tarantino in the post-Pulp Fiction cinematic world had said Tarantino is the most non-conformist, uncompromising, and self-promoting film director. The keywords here are “non-conformist and uncompromising”. QT has always pushed buttons on our conventional understanding and embracing of things — particularly with regards to art’s ability to poke where it hurts! With Reservoir Dogs, he took a heist formula, turned it on it’s head and gave us a blackly comic film that celebrated (mocked?) the sheer sadistic nature of criminal mindset coupled with manic thrill-seeking — the result — the “Stuck in the middle with you sequence”. In Pulp Fiction, he took the art of writing screenplays (cocking a snook at Syd Fields’ scriptwriting courses/books) to another level. Within the universe of Pulp Fiction, he played around with concepts of divine intervention, sociopathic lifestyles, random conversations, plot be damned — his characters had more than enough space to breathe, to exist, to evolve, and to behave as crazily as they could, all the while adding colour and style to Tarantino’s over-the-top, zany world view of the criminal underworld. But what was it about Pulp Fiction that made it an instant classic? In my opinion, (and I’ve watched it many a times!), it’s the whole comic-book style deconstruction of the gangster genre while embracing the noir archetypes and shattering them from within by constantly upping the ante on the exaggeration front, and yet by providing a series of ironic climaxes to each segment. The beauty of Pulp Fiction is that it doesn’t have “A” climax; it has many climaxes (read anti-climaxes!).

After working for a while in the crime genre, Quentin Tarantino embraced the historicals. With Inglourious Basterds, he took the WW2 head on. A fascinatingly revisionist look at the most definitive, dramatically potent event of the 20th century. Tarantino brought his love for the Westerns into this film with a bit of Guns of Navarone, Where Eagles Dare and the old war movies into this film. He subverted any established rules for period films, used (un)characteristically anachronistic score, exaggerated the violence, caricatured Hitler, and systematically deconstructed the war film genre for its ability to make a killing at the box office by employing “cheap” thrills. Was he cocking a snook at Hollywood’s fascination with war film genre and exposing the Hollywood stereotypes while embracing them in his own script? Of course, and that is also the reason that Inglourious Basterds never appeals to us the way a serious film like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, and Saving Private Ryan do!

Taking his fascination with historicals, and I (would like to) believe his desire to say something meaningful about the “idea of Americana” to the next level, he gave us Django Unchained. Referencing the old Sergio Corbucci directed film “Django”, QT not only brings Django into his modern day re-imagination of Antebellum South, but he makes him a “nigger” as well. Additionally, he, as the title suggests, “unchains” him. Is he letting America’s racist past have it’s day by metaphorically “unchaining” it? The movie contains scenes of brutal violence — in all shapes and sizes. The violence doesn’t even leave an iota of consideration for genders here. While many people saw that as a sign of misogyny (showing a woman being whipped), I’d like to believe, he was merely underlining the fact that racism, violence, and religion (the slave masters read Bible verses while whipping women) has the least possible consideration for women! More than reading the depiction in that film as the film maker’s point of view on women, I’d like to believe, that reflects his point of view on the point of view of religion and institutions of women (some meta shit there!). Furthermore, in his fictional, alternate universe, he might just have delivered an extremely positive, optimistic political climax — showing a black man emerging triumphant by blowing away the mansion that manifests itself as the symbol of racial oppression. At the time of Obama’s presidency, that climax was timely and hopeful.

Finally, it’s now The Hateful Eight. With this film, QT has been attacked yet again of misogyny and ill-treatment of women. Additionally, he is also accused of creating a climax that is blood soaked, yet again. The tone of the climax has disturbed a lot of people, yet again! There isn’t a single character in Hateful Eight that is likeable — and that’s why I said right at the outset, that the title couldn’t have been more apt. Every single one of the characters is equally repugnant and despicable. Gun shots fly around, brain matter is splattered, woman is beaten, is puked upon — but then, what the hell! Why not? In Tarantino’s universe, women are not treated in a any special way! They are just another entity — capable of equal malice, hatred, cunning and spite as men! They are not discounted in any which way. Perhaps the violence unleashed on the woman and by the woman in The Hateful Eight is Tarantino’s version and vision of gender equality. Finally, the climax, the blood soaked hanging and a sadistic smile, is his way of raising a fundamentally twisted question on the subject of justice. What is it? Well, I don’t know! Perhaps, I need to watch the movie again. But yes, QT is asking difficult questions here, and also making deliciously twisted statements about our equally twisted views on everything, or well — just about! And that’s the reason why Quentin Tarantino matters!

Love and respect to an artist!