Once Upon A Time...

Inglourious Basterds has been in theaters for about a month and the movie is still very much on my mind. I wonder if Quentin Tarantino had not included a disclaimer at the beginning of Inglourious Basterds declaring the movie “NOT based on/inspired by a true story/actual events” if anyone would’ve made such a big deal about the ending. We all know that unless those words “based on” or “inspired by” are tagged to movie that what we’re about to see is a made up story. But even when a fictional story is set against a historical event, we expect certain things to play out in a certain way. Perhaps what surprised us most of all about Inglourious Basterds was that we saw a fictional ending to a fictional film.

Tarantino has said (I’m paraphrasing) that he has never predestined his characters; the actions of the characters determine the plot. Following that logic, the final scenes of Inglourious Basterds make sense, in the world of the Inglourious Basterds. I think it’s important to remember that as much as Inglourious is a “violent revenge fantasy” it’s also about movies and people that love movies. The film itself is a movie that loves movies. Like always, Tarantino loads this film with subtle and obvious references to other movies. The character Shosanna owns a movie theater, she’s the object of a young Nazi war hero turned propaganda movie star’s affection, a German movie star is also spy for the Allies, British Lt. Hicox is chosen for a secret mission because he was a film critic before the war, and, of course, the ending centers around a movie premiere.

Even the Basterds are movie fans

Last year’s Valkyrie also concerned a plot to kill Hitler, except that one was based on a true story. It was a very reverent telling of a true event and as a thriller it’s a modest success. It’s hard to make a good thriller when everyone already knows how it will end. On the other end of the spectrum, I remember hearing that the makers of One Million Years B.C. were well aware that the title was inaccurate, as was the depiction of humans and dinosaurs coexisting, but the filmmakers figured that it was a just a movie, an entertainment not meant to be taken seriously.

A true cinephile like Tarantino wants to give us the most interesting and entertaining movie possible. He does this through long, almost drawn out, scenes to build tension, top-notch (and sometimes eccentric) acting, and, most important in a Tarantino movie, interesting characters that drive the story. It doesn’t matter if what we see is true or not because it’s all meant to be fun, enjoyed, and leave the audience satisfied.

R.I.P. Patrick Swayze

This Christmas, like always, I'll decorate a barstool, gather 'round, and sing one of my favorite holiday songs: "Let's Have a Patrick Swayze Christmas." Then I'll settle in with a DVD of Roadhouse because if Patrick Swayze has taught me anything, it's that a good action sequence does belong at Christmas.

I was going to write about something else this week, but I decided to comment on the unfortunate passing of Patrick Swayze. I'm sure that anything I have to say has already been written elsewhere, but I think he's someone who deserves to have nice things written about him. The outpouring of sentiment this week has had as much to do with Swayze's memorable moments on screen, as with the fact that off screen he seemed like a truly decent guy. He was married to the same woman for over 30 years, promoted dance (before it was cool again), and possessed a refreshing sense of humor about himself and his films.

Swayze is not my favorite actor, but he is someone whose films I simply enjoy watching - someone I am glad to spend a couple of hours with on a rainy day. There are a lot of talented and popular actors for whom I can't say the same. Though he had a sense of humor about his image, when he was on screen he was totally committed to each role and that makes him worth watching.

He played a lover (Ghost) and a fighter (Red Dawn), and occasionally something completely off the radar (Donnie Darko). I think that if he had been born a couple of decades earlier, he could have been a musical star at MGM. For some, Swayze is best remembered as the "sensitive man of action" he portrayed in films such as Roadhouse and Point Break. However, I'll always identify him first and foremost as Johnny Castle in Dirty Dancing. (I'm sure this is a gender and/or generational distinction since most women my age have had Dirty Dancing tattooed on their conciousness, whether wittingly or not!)

As a tribute to Swayze's talent, I'm going to recommend a couple of films I have not yet mentioned in this post: Three Wishes and To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, both from 1995. Neither of these films typecasts Swayze in the sensitive lover or sensitive fighter roles he was known for, but they are both quite charming and perfect for watching on a rainy day.

Roland Emmerich's grudge against Earth and other cinematic disasters

Roland Emmerich is intent on destroying Earth one way or another - be it global warming, alien invasion, or Mayan prophecy. The latest bit of evidence in my case against Emmerich is the trailer for his new film, 2012. In this trailer you can see that while Emmerich hates planet Earth in general, he reserves a particular hatred toward international landmarks.

The mid 1990s resurgence of the disaster film feels like it has never completely gone away, with Roland Emmerich carrying the torch. Of course, I can't really blame him - as CGI keeps getting better, the potential destruction keeps getting more awesome! Just witness the special effects test reel that is the 2012 trailer. However, even with John Cusack attempting to protect a couple of adorable moppets, the film seems pretty soulless and for that reason I'm not really inclined to go see 2012.

If you look back on the disaster film heyday of the 1970s, it is obvious that the evolution of special effects has fundamentally changed the genre. Without the non-stop explosions/tidal waves/disinegration of the Earth's crust, these older films could seem a bit boring to the modern viewer. Large casts of name actors, who each get their own story line, are what drive the films forward rather than visual effects. These films also tend to focus on one major "disaster" and its build-up and/or aftermath, such as the fire in The Towering Inferno (1974) or the capsized ship in The Poseidon Adventure (1972), instead of showing one catastrophe after another.

However, I would definitely recommend checking out some of the classics of the genre. Earthquake (1974) has a definite kitsch appeal, if not just for the chance to see Charlton Heston growl his way across Los Angeles (I believe "GODDAMMIT!" is the opening line of the film.). And, if you've ever been on the Universal Studios tram tour, you have experienced the 8.5 quake depicted in the film - a jolt of such magnitude, not even Heston's renegade cop could stop it!

The Cassandra Crossing (1976) is an interesting, though not completely successful, entry into the genre. The main problem is that the focus switches midway through the film from the threat of a deadly disease to the threat of a train accident. However, I would say it is worth seeing for its odd international cast, including Richard Harris, Sophia Loren, Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner, Martin Sheen, Alida Valli, and O.J. Simpson.

You can see the 2012 trailer here: http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/2012/

Slate.com did an entertaining slide show on disaster films throughout history and the preoccupation with destroying famous landmarks. It has some great video clips, including some impressive footage from the 1933 film Deluge.

Welcome to Cinema Then and Now

Welcome to Cinema Then and Now!

Though we may make film recommendations, our posts are not intended as film reviews. We have created this blog as an outlet for opinions, reactions, and thoughts on film, from classic cinema to current releases.