House Logo
Explore categories +

Inglorious Basterds (#110 of 2)

Poster Lab: Django Unchained

Comments Comments (...)

Poster Lab: <em>Django Unchained</em>
Poster Lab: <em>Django Unchained</em>

To be perfectly honest, the first official poster for Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained is primarily featured here because its reveal is something of an event. One doesn’t stare at this thing and marvel at its breathtaking design; it’s all about the art of the tease. It’s certainly somewhat impressive that the image needn’t have a title to get people jazzed—the name of cinema’s most revered pop auteur is magnetic enough. Like a cult answer to the superhero posters that simply brandish a gleaming logo, this one-sheet is both confident in and dependent upon Tarantino’s ardent fan base, its adamant minimalism validated by the need for something—anything—that’s officially linked to the production (two weeks ago, a rough and raw still of Christoph Waltz on set was visual crack for bloggers). The poster looks very Tarantino-esque, and it’s surely in the spirit of what we’ve come to know of the film (Jamie Foxx’s freed slave treks through the Deep South with Waltz’s doctor to face down Leo DiCaprio’s slave owner), but it largely feels like steak for the dogs, who’ve made no small announcement of their collective hunger.

The Conversations: Quentin Tarantino Part One

Comments Comments (...)

The Conversations: Quentin Tarantino Part One
The Conversations: Quentin Tarantino Part One

JASON BELLAMY: Ed, I am daunted. Let’s get that out of the way. This is the last subject I ever expected us to cover—Quentin Tarantino. What a thoroughly thankless assignment! It’s not that there isn’t anything to say about the oeuvre of this 46-year-old filmmaker. Hardly. Since 1992, when his Reservoir Dogs became an indie sensation, Tarantino has inspired as much chatter as one encounters in his tongue-powered films. Diehard film fans from both sides of the aisle have dissected his influence and influences. They’ve celebrated his distinctive style or ridiculed it. They’ve called him the greatest filmmaker of his generation or a plagiarist, and sometimes both at the same time. They have suggested he is a heroic preservationist of film history, a filmmaking Indiana Jones, or they have suggested he is film history’s archenemy, a Nazi-esque figure using others’ masterpieces as kindling for his bonfires. I could go on. Tarantino’s films may be original, brilliant, witty, exhilarating, hilarious, childish, nauseating, offensive, brazen, pathetically derivative, or some combination of the above, but they are always something. Everyone, it seems, is somehow affected by Tarantino. Everyone, it seems, has a take on Tarantino.

Against this wall of noise, what are two more opinions worth? Ed, we’ve never gone into one of these discussions with the attitude of creating the preeminent analysis of the subject in question (neither of us is that arrogant), but in this case I’m not sure we can even hope to produce the most illuminating two-person debate of Tarantino to appear at this blog. As longtime readers of The House Next Door already know, Matt Zoller Seitz and Keith Uhlich set the bar extremely high with the transcription of their live QT debate in April 2007 that they called My Tarantino Problem, and Yours. It was that piece, incidentally, that made me leap at the chance to bring our conversations series here to the House. I’ve read it start to finish at least a half-dozen times, and it never ceases to engage me. And thus it’s that piece that made me think that Tarantino wasn’t a topic worth our time. Save for bringing to the table QT’s seventh—depending on how you count—major directorial effort, Inglorious Basterds, which as of beginning this discussion we haven’t seen, what more is there to say?

Yet, at the urging of our editor, here we are. I’m excited as usual, but, yes, I am daunted. I’d like to think that our conversation can tread lightly on some of those oh-so-familiar Tarantino battlegrounds in an attempt to find some mostly unexplored terrain, but, as simple as that sounds, I am doubtful. I am reminded that at the heart of every Tarantino discussion is a debate over Tarantino’s depth, or lack thereof. And so I wonder: What if in trying to look beyond the surface of Tarantino’s controversial reputation we find that there’s nothing more there? Could it be that the most compelling element of Tarantino’s filmmaking has become our inability to collectively define it?