Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 467-468: Tarantino's Waltz

Back in the 1990s we documented the career of Quentin Tarantino when his second feature film Pulp Fiction was nominated for Best Picture. Since then he had an interesting career helming an adaptation of Elmore Leonard's Jackie Brown and his epic martial arts western Kill Bill. Tarantino suffered somewhat of a slump in the mid noughties with his latest offering, Death Proof going down very badly. However, he turned his fortunes around a few years later when he teamed up with a then unknown Austrian actor by the name of Christoph Waltz.

The film was Inglourious Basterds, in which Waltz makes an instant impression as the charismatically brutal Col. Hans Landa. Just like with Pulp Fiction, Tarantino's World War II movie is split into chapters that focus on different characters before bringing them altogether in a memorable finale. The film's first chapter focuses on Landa, dubbed the 'Jew Hunter' by the Nazi party, who attempts to track down a Jewish family who have so far evaded his detection. This opening scene is a testament to Waltz's power as an actor as he initially appears charming but later demonstrates Landa's brutality in all its glory. It's only after meeting the films antagonist that we meet the eponymous heroes of the piece; a Jew-scalping bunch of American soldiers let by Brad Pitt's over-the-top Aldo Raine. Raine's brand of patriotism and Nazi-scalping made him an off-putting character in my eyes and I had little sympathy for him when he found himself in a perilous situation later in the movie. In fact if Inglourious Basterds does have a sympathetic character then its cinema owner Shosanna, whose family were killed by Landa's platoon in the opening sequence. After her cinema is picked to host a Nazi premiere, Shosanna decides it's the perfect opportunity to get revenge for her family by burning her business to the ground. However, Shosanna didn't count on The Basterds also showing up with a plan of their own which involved the detonation of dynamite strapped to their inside legs. As a self-proclaimed cinema aficionado it does seem apt that Tarantino's film's big scene occurs in a movie-house however I did find the finale a little far-fetched even by the director's normal standards.

Inglourious Basterds is one of those films that has individual elements that work however its ultimately not the sum of its parts. Firstly, at almost two and a half hours, it's far too long and every scene feels a little overstretched. I can event pinpoint the moments where needless dialogue is being inserted into a scene that could've had a better rhythm to it had it not been written by Tarantino. The fact that Tarantino likes to break cinematic convention as much as possible also makes Inglorioius Basterds seem a little too full of itself. The use of modern music for example doesn't always work whilst the random wording that flashes up on the screen every so often is another trick that I found a little hard to stomach. It's quite easy for me to pinpoint which scenes that work and which don't primarily because of the chaptered structure of the film. Despite being the film's antagonist, Hans Landa's scenes are Inglourious Basterds' best as I found him to be a man that oozed charisma. The fact that he leaves the film after the first scene meant that we long to see him again which we do in small helpings elsewhere. Shosanna is another great character, a woman who utilises her knowledge of film to get her revenge on the men that had her family killed. On the flipside I found that any scenes involving the Basterds were overblown, needlessly violent and contained a performance from Brad Pitt that was bordering on a pantomime. The film also wastes great actors like Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger by having them only appear in a handful of scenes despite both of their characters seeming interesting. I did however enjoy Melanie Laurent as the bitter but feisty Shosanna who thankfully got her fair share of screentime before her ultimate demise. But Inglourious Basterds did belong to Christoph Waltz, who won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for portraying Landa. I think that Tarantino owes a debt of gratitude to Waltz who made the film seem a lot better than it actually was. Like it or not, Inglourious Basterds did propel Tarantino back into the mainstream and I feel that that is primarily due to Waltz's fantastic performance.


Three years later Tarantino and Waltz would reunite earning the latter another Best Supporting Actor Oscar and the former his second Best Screenwriting award. The film in question was Django Unchained and was once again a homage to one of Tarantino's favourite genres as he favoured a spaghetti western approach throughout the film. However, with the film being set in America's south, Tarantino has redubbed the film 'A Southern' and has also commented that it his look at the slavery movement. But you know when Tarantino's involved, the film is never going to be straightforward and indeed here he mixes a little social commentary alongside his usual bloody violence and superior soundtrack. The story sees Jamie Foxx's Django being freed from a chain gang by Waltz's bounty hunting Dr. King Schultz who hopes that the former slave will help him track down some wanted men. When Schultz discovers Django's aptitude for the profession of bounty hunting he takes him under his wing whilst also promising to help him locate his lost wife. The pair tracks down Django's wife to the Candyland plantation where the charming yet ruthless Calvin Candie believes that the men are looking for one of his prize fighters. From the point that Schultz and Django enter Candieland the film becomes a dangerous game as our duo face peril not only from Candie himself but also from sneaky servant Stephen. As is usually the way with modern Tarantino films, Django Unchained is about twenty minutes too long and there are some sequences that could easily have been edited down. These sequences including a comedy number including the Klu Klux Klan and a lot of the empty scenes before Django and Schultz arrive at Candieland.

Another issue I had with the final part of the film was the fact that Schultz and Candie had both been killed off in the movie's penultimate shoot-out. This was a shame as they were the two most charismatic characters in the film and without them it was left to the rather bland Django to carry the rest of the movie. Just as he was in Inglourious Basterds, Waltz is a joy to watch here with him playing a considerably more sympathetic role than he did in Tarantino's previous film. Indeed, Schultz is arguably the film's most well-rounded character as we see him go from loner bounty hunter to Django's mentor. Elsewhere it was great to see Leonardo Dicaprio in a role that saw him get to play against type as the film's main antagonist Calvin Candie. Dicaprio appeared to relish playing the role and he certainly gave an enigmatic turn to the extent that I felt he should have been put forward for the Oscar over Waltz. If there's a weak link in the film then it's Jamie Foxx, whose is seemingly outshone by his fellow performers in the lead role of Django. It's telling that when Dicaprio and Waltz aren't on screen the film dips in quality and that final twenty minutes was a chore to get through. It wasn't helped by the fact that Tarantino himself turns up as an Australian miner with his accent being one of the most questionable in cinematic history. In addition I felt that Tarantino let his old mate Samuel L Jackson get away with far too much over-acting as the sadistic Stephen. One thing I do have to applaud Tarantino for is his use of music in the film and particularly the original song written by western movie legend Ennio Morricone. The film is also visually superb with great time taken to get the look of each character right whilst the set of Candieland is similarly memorable. Whilst enjoyable, Django Unchained was far too long for my liking with Tarantino showing even less restraint than he did during Inglourious Basterds. Additionally there was less grit employed in the film with the message being lost beneath a pool of bloody corpses and an out-of-place explosion.

Having watched these two films back-to-back it does seem to me as if Tarantino really needs someone to tell him where he can slash significant portions of his films. But, whilst his films are doing well during the awards ceremonies I can't see this ever happening. I do feel that I'm in the minority when I say this but I don't think Tarantino has been at his best since the first instalment of Kill Bill. While Basterds and Django are both superior to Death Proof they're nowhere near the quality of the likes of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. I do feel that the main reason that Oscar honours Tarantino in the 2010s is just so they can highlight their recognition of edgier fare alongside the more prestigious period pieces and issue-based movies.

Next time we tone down the violence and look at a quirky indie comedy with two strong female characters taking centre stage.

Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 446-447: A Couple More Pitts

After exploring Brad Pitt's back catalogue in the early noughties it appears that the Academy's love affair with the movie star is continuing into the next decade. However, as Brad grows up, so does the films he stars in and this post deals with two very different dramas that he had a a hand in.

We commence with Moneyball, in which Pitt plays Billy Beane, the General Manager to the Oakland Athletics Baseball Team. The film follows the fortunes of Beane as he attempts to construct a new team on a small budget after the departure of his three top players. Instead of listening to his more experienced scouts, Billy decides to follow the advice of Peter Brand a young Yale graduate who he meets at one of the other clubs. Peter's philosophy involves looking at the runs that each player has acquired over a season and working out how each game should be played. As a result of Peter's theory, Billy finds a team for a budget he can afford even though each player has some major flaw whether it be a bad attitude, a lack of confidence or that they're just over-the-hill. Though Moneyball does follow the format of sports films I've watched it the past, what makes it work is its fast-paced script. Based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis, Moneyball has been adapted by the master that is Aaron Sorkin alongside Steve Zaillian. Moneyball does include a lot of dialogue that is pure Sorkin, as Billy and Peter banter back and forth in expert style. Sorkin and Zaillian deftly weave the story of Oakland's 2002 season with Billy's back story in which we learn that he himself was a first draft pick. Unfortunately, Billy suffered from a lack of confidence and later decided that being a scout would be a better role for him than on the pitch. I feel that these flashback scenes make us sympathise more with the character of Billy and we're willing him to succeed as Oakland starts to make a comeback later in the season. If I have one qualm about the script then it's the quite clichéd relationship that Billy has with his twelve-year-old daughter which is basically a set up to the final scene in the film.

Alongside the fabulous script, Moneyball's other ace in the hole is Brad Pitt whose performance in the film is great. I believe that Moneyball ushers in a shift in the tone of Pitt's performances as he adds an extra layer of maturity to the character of Billy. This is best exemplified during the scenes in which Billy is listening to the games being played as he never attends the games mainly due to superstition. Pitt earned his second Best Actor nomination for Moneyball and I have to say that it was a lot more deserved than his previous nod for Benjamin Button. While in that film the make-up did most of the work, Moneyball's realistic feel allows Pitt to be front and centre. Also worthy of praise is Jonah Hill, who left the world of frat boy comedy behind to play the slightly nervous Peter Brand. Hill never played his role for laughs and instead his character formed an awkward relationship both with Billy and the players. Hill's Supporting Actor nomination should have been a turning point in his career but unfortunately he followed this up with the woeful comedy The Sitter. Despite him not having a major role as Oakland's manager Art, Philip Seymour Hoffman still gets to showcase his major skills in a number of scenes. I believe part of the reason Hoffman appears in the film is because it reunites him with Capote director Bennett Miller. Just like in Capote, Miller proves himself to be a solid director as he weaves an easy-to-follow narrative with some brilliant scenes of each individual game. Despite acquiring six nominations at that year's Oscar ceremony, Moneyball ultimately went home empty-handed which I feel is a shame especially for Sorkin and Zaillian. Although I have seen Moneyball before I definitely enjoyed it more this second time around and I feel that it's a solidly enjoyable drama which is bolstered by two fine performances by Hill and Pitt.


Two years later Pitt finally won his first Oscar but it was for his role as producer rather than actor. Pitt does have a small role in Steve McQueen's 12 Years a Slave but his character Samuel Bass only appears in the latter stages of the film. But it was Pitt's Plan B Production Company who financed the project that was first conceived by director McQueen and writer John Ridley. Both had wanted to create a movie about the slave trade and it was only when McQueen's partner read Solomon Northup's book of the same name. When the film begins, Northup is a free man living in proper society and making a living as a violinist. I got the impression that the film would spend more time focusing on Northup's life as a gentleman but instead he was sold into slavery quite early in the film. After being double-crossed by two men, Northup finds himself being sold to plantation owner William Ford. Ford is presented as quite a kindly man who grows fond of Northup, who now goes under the name of Platt, especially when he realises how educated he is. But Northup falls foul of Ford's overseer Tibeats and the two finally come to blows with the former almost being hung to death. The second half of the film is possibly the most memorable as Northup is sold to the tyrannical Edwin Epps, a man who views the slaves as his property. McQueen focuses on the vicious manner in which he punishes the slaves the don't pull their weight at his cotton-picking facility. Meanwhile, cinematographer Sean Bobbitt closes in on the scars that Solomon and his co-workers have following their punishment. Edwin's feelings for female slave Patsey are also described in great detail with his wife taking against her husband's desire for the girl. What follows are more brutal scenes as Edwin's wife takes out her frustrations on Patsey whilst the couple later involve Northup in their torture. It's only when Bass arrives in the final scenes that Solomon finally earns his freedom but McQueen is quick to inform us that the brutality continued for Patsey and her ilk.

In the past I've been a fan of McQueen's work and in particular his second film Shame which was perfectly shot throughout. McQueen's former career as an artist is definitely on show here as there are some brilliant sweeping shots of the New Orleans scenery. As I previously mentioned the cruelties inflicted on the slaves are captured in shocking detail and at times I found 12 Years a Slave hard to watch. The issue I have with a lot of true life tales is that you know how the story will end and that's certainly true of a movie that has the length of Solomon's hardship in its tale. The fact that the audience know that Solomon is a free man makes 12 Years a Slave a frustrating watch as our hero must fight adversity in order to get out of his predicament. As with a lot of 'issue-based' films, 12 Years a Slave occasionally feels overly preachy as McQueen and Ridley's message is a little overbearing. At the same time I think they do their best to avoid sentimentality and instead focus on a man who uses his intelligence to survive his unjust time as a slave. Part of the reason I was involved with the film as I was was due to the fantastic lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon. From the first time Solomon finds himself in chains, Ejiofor is fantastic at using facial expressions to convey just how much his character is suffering inside. Due to the fact that Solomon has decided to keep his head down, Ejiofor doesn't have too many lines of dialogue but tells the story via his body language, which I feel is the mark of any true actor. McQueen's regular collaborator Michael Fassbender excels as the despicable Edwin Epps and is particularly great during the film's harshest moments. Although both Ejiofor and Fassbender were nominated for Oscars it was Lupita Nyong'o who triumphed winning Best Supporting Actress for her role as Patsey. However I wasn't blown away by Nyong'o's performance and I feel that the Academy mainly honoured her due to the suffering her character experiences throughout the film. Ultimately 12 Years a Slave was artistically directed and brilliantly shot while Ejiofor gave a fantastic central turn. But at the same time I don't think I was as emotionally invested in the film as I probably should have been and as much as I respected the film I wasn't ever moved by what happened to Solomon and his fellow slaves.

Next up we continue to evaluate the work of a pair of brothers who have made a major impact at the Academy Awards.