The Hateful Eight (Quentin Tarantino, 2015)

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

I think I saw David Hess (the actor from LAST HOUSE) during the song credits, so it might even be the same song.

Your hunch is correct—it's the exact same song.

[domino harvey]

Finally saw the 70MM Roadshow version— God bless the Silver Springs AFI for keeping the screenings going even though I don’t think there were even eight of us in that huge theatre today— and now I’m in the unexpected position of defending Tarantino to the board. I think this is pretty easily his best work since Kill Bill and one of the best Westerns (if not the best) since Lonesome Dove. From what I can gather, I may very well like it best of anyone here. Tarantino clearly understands and loves the genre, and his film is filled with smart tweaks on the requisite tropes that his last mediocre effort didn’t even bother to invoke. As someone who has made tracking female representations in Westerns an integral part of how I respond to and think about the genre (to the memorable extent of driving one member to utter meltdown at the idea of— shock— feminist readings being applied to Westerns), the charges of misogyny directed at this film are not only utterly baseless, but strike me as far more sexist than anything found in the movie. The Western genre is not good to women, because, in large part, the West wasn’t either. But Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character is presented highly unusually in the film: she’s made sexless (for reasons which make sense once certain revelations come to light), and indeed, for most of the action, is on equal footing as far as receiving her lumps and bumps just as anyone else would in that position. If feminism is equality, look no further. The only instances of her gender coming into play for the other characters occur fleetingly and are quickly dismissed or adjusted by her behavior or warnings from Kurt Russell, and by the end of the film, we realize how at any given moment she probably knew more about what was going on than any other player in this game of multi-player chess. Leigh moves around throughout the narrative, occupying most of the non-sexual roles afforded to women in the genre, most memorably (and unexpectedly) when she takes the Doris Day role and sings a song (in a wonderfully raw long take)— tweaked to her character, of course. She’s the victim, she’s the tough cookie, she’s the chanteuse, she’s the maternal figure (leader of the gang), &c. By removing sexual threat from the film— which, I must stress, is remarkable for this genre, and to be applauded— Tarantino is attempting to anticipate and undercut unjust cries of outrage over her character's treatment (to little avail, it seems). This is not a “problematic” film just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I'm amazed JJL managed to pull off an Oscar nomination for this performance and role, but it was well-deserved.

[mfunk9786]

LQ would like to have a chat with you - it's her #1 film of 2015.

[flyonthewall2983]

It's way up on my (as yet unmade) list, too. And I'm down with a lot of your review dom. With it's bold-faced take on race relations and male/female dynamics of the time, it manages to outdo Unforgiven as the great anti-Western. And damn if Walton Goggins isn't ready for a proper leading-man role in Hollywood yet, as if the several years stealing the show on Justified wasn't enough.

[movielocke]

Domino nailed it.

[thirtyframesasecond]

I really liked it and I'm pretty Tarantino agnostic myself (only really like Inglourious Basterds / Jackie Brown as a whole).

[Charles]

Loved it, and really appreciate domino's take on it. I had the privilege of catching it at the Regal in NYC -- which was not playing Star Wars, so the auditorium and screen dedicated to the 70mm far exceeded not only my own expectations but most everyone else's reports from around the country. It was, in a word, magnificent. The condition of the film on its last night there was perfect, and the skill and dedication of the projectionist was second to none. It was aevent that would have been repeated had I not already waited till the last minute to get there.

[mfunk9786]

Glenn Kenny's expectedly thoughtful deep dive on The Hateful Eight

[hearthesilence]

Richard Brody's take on it as well.

[domino harvey]

Those were both great reads, thanks for sharing

[domino harvey]

And here's a terrible read from Roger Ebert's site

[Swift]

Glenn Kenny's expectedly thoughtful deep dive on The Hateful Eight

A commenter there points out that in true Tarantino fashion, much of the plot has been lifted from an episode of The Rebel called "Fair Game". It's on youtube with the synopsis:

Spoiler

Yuma meets Pace at a stage depot. They are soon joined by passengers on an arriving stage to wait overnight for a stage connection. Among the passengers on the arriving stage are bounty hunter Farnum with his prisoner Cynthia Kenyon who is wanted for murder. When Farnum is poisoned, the others want to release Kenyon to prevent harm to themselves but Yuma prevents it.

[knives]

You should probably put that in spoilers given what it suggests for a character.

[Mr Sausage]

And here's a terrible read from Roger Ebert's site

Spoiler

Because Jackson's character is the smartest and most compelling of everyone, and he hangs Daisy, the film is naturally endorsing what he does. Seems solid. If only the movie had included a long scene discussing the problems of vigilante lynching to complicate its ending...

That's some terrible, lazy, and worst of all self-serving arguing. That's someone who didn't try to think up any counter argument to her own propositions.

[Altair]

The 'naturally' is what gets me, as if depiction and endorsement are the same thing, in a kind of zero-sum form of film criticism.

[mfunk9786]

I forget who made the argument here that they can't ever watch Mad Men because it's out of bounds to see misogyny depicted on screen in any fashion and still be able to separate the depiction of it from an endorsement of it, but that Ebert.com article reminded me of it. I'm not even one to argue that the treatment of Domergue is without its troublesome elements, but the entire film is meant to make viewers explore and shift their loyalties to eight very nasty people in interesting and surprising ways, not to make one or two of them triumphant heroes. It's a refinement and an improvement on the same sorts of things being done in Reservoir Dogs, which will probably go down as the more celebrated film even though Tarantino's craft has vastly improved since then.

And here's a terrible read from Roger Ebert's site

Spoiler

Because Jackson's character is the smartest and most compelling of everyone, and he hangs Daisy, the film is naturally endorsing what he does. Seems solid. If only the movie had included a long scene discussing the problems of vigilante lynching to complicate its ending...

That's some terrible, lazy, and worst of all self-serving arguing. That's someone who didn't try to think up any counter argument to her own propositions.

The math of this is so baffling. Because a character has a self-important dialogue about something being problematic (and does so disingenuously, as we later find out), that same thing can't occur later on in the film? Because nothing 'problematic' can occur within the confines of a film? Absurd.

[DarkImbecile]

Both Brody and Kenny raise some thoughtful points, both in praise and criticism. It's especially valuable that both address or incorporate not only the common charges of misogyny and racism leveled against this movie, but those thrown at Tarantino more generally: the sadism, the adolescent revelry in shock and provocation, etc. Good to see critics willing to actually grapple with these "problematic" elements of his work rather than using them as excuses to dismiss it; Kenny's line both gently mocking and empathizing with the impulse to flop onto "the Good Liberal Fainting Couch" was particularly good and probably representative of the reflexive and contradictory response of most viewers.

The more I've had a chance to think about it, the more I'm beginning to see some of the initially off-putting structural decisions as deliberate and meaningful, and coming around on this as one of Tarantino's better works, probably in his top three or four with Basterds, Pulp, and Jackie Brown.

[DarkImbecile]

On a middle-school-level side note, after writing the above I was backtracking in this thread to make sure none of my responses to the linked articles were repetitive of my earlier comments, and I happened to notice this:



You came back five days later, after your post had been buried on another page by a half-dozen responses, to throw in some petty insults and derision? You thinking I was Wrong On the Internet bothered you that badly? Really?

[essrog]

This piece appeared about two weeks before the aforementioned, much-maligned essay at rogerebert.com. It's one of the few (maybe only) things I've read on the film that mentions the context and framing of the final shot, which to me seems to repudiate any notion of Tarantino endorsing the other characters' actions.

Spoiler

It is in this context that we finally understand the importance of the letter attributed to Abraham Lincoln and that is carried by Major Warren. Mentioned several times during the film, the letter’s content is fully revealed only after the sadistic execution of Daisy, presenting itself as an ironic comment about the brutality we have witnessed in the last three hours. "We still have a long way to go," writes "Lincoln," adding optimistically: "But, hand in hand, we will get there."
While Mannix read these words, Tarantino pulls back his camera to reveal the suspended body of Daisy—which, of course, is still handcuffed to the severed arm of John Ruth.
That certainly was not what the hopeful "Lincoln" had in mind when he used the phrase "hand in hand."

[aox]

Finally saw the 70MM Roadshow version— God bless the Silver Springs AFI for keeping the screenings going even though I don’t think there were even eight of us in that huge theatre today— and now I’m in the unexpected position of defending Tarantino to the board. I think this is pretty easily his best work since Kill Bill and one of the best Westerns (if not the best) since Lonesome Dove. From what I can gather, I may very well like it best of anyone here. Tarantino clearly understands and loves the genre, and his film is filled with smart tweaks on the requisite tropes that his last mediocre effort didn’t even bother to invoke. As someone who has made tracking female representations in Westerns an integral part of how I respond to and think about the genre (to the memorable extent of driving one member to utter meltdown at the idea of— shock— feminist readings being applied to Westerns), the charges of misogyny directed at this film are not only utterly baseless, but strike me as far more sexist than anything found in the movie. The Western genre is not good to women, because, in large part, the West wasn’t either. But Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character is presented highly unusually in the film: she’s made sexless (for reasons which make sense once certain revelations come to light), and indeed, for most of the action, is on equal footing as far as receiving her lumps and bumps just as anyone else would in that position. If feminism is equality, look no further. The only instances of her gender coming into play for the other characters occur fleetingly and are quickly dismissed or adjusted by her behavior or warnings from Kurt Russell, and by the end of the film, we realize how at any given moment she probably knew more about what was going on than any other player in this game of multi-player chess. Leigh moves around throughout the narrative, occupying most of the non-sexual roles afforded to women in the genre, most memorably (and unexpectedly) when she takes the Doris Day role and sings a song (in a wonderfully raw long take)— tweaked to her character, of course. She’s the victim, she’s the tough cookie, she’s the chanteuse, she’s the maternal figure (leader of the gang), &c. By removing sexual threat from the film— which, I must stress, is remarkable for this genre, and to be applauded— Tarantino is attempting to anticipate and undercut unjust cries of outrage over her character's treatment (to little avail, it seems). This is not a “problematic” film just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I'm amazed JJL managed to pull off an Oscar nomination for this performance and role, but it was well-deserved.

What a beautiful write up. :cheers

You have completely articulated (how I have been unable to) exactly why I love this film. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown aside, this is my favorite of his work. I can't stop watching it. I don't find this film misogynist in the least; nor, do I find the use of "nigger" to be gratuitous or excessive (I grew up in Oklahoma in the 1980s, so I can't imagine what it was like in the 1870s). I find both of these charges baffling and semi-manufactured.

[RossyG]

The virtue signallers are always looking for pop culture things to hitch a ride on and complain about. Depending on the individual, they are either too stupid to know or simply don't care about the difference between racist/sexist films and films about racism or sexism.

They'll just just gasp like outraged seven-year-olds and say, "Ohmagod! He just said the n-word. That's like totally racist. It should be banned. It's like the worst thing ever."

[Luke M]

Welp I finally saw this today and think it's easily Tarantino's weakest film. At 3 hours, it's already a challenge to buy into his indulgence. Making a film with no likable or worse, interesting characters and with the exception of a couple moments, devoid of any humor is quite a lot to ask of your audience. (Apologies for that mess of a sentence)

The gore reminded me of From Dusk Till Dawn - which was at least a lot of fun! Here it didn't seem to serve much purpose. Was 70mm necessary for a film whose 2/3 running time is spent in a confined space? The dialogue was surprisingly all plot driven which meant that it wasn't memorable. All in all, it's an awful film about awful characters and I'm not sure why we're supposed to enjoy it.

[DimitriosMakropoulos]

Enjoyed it much more than I did Django Unchained. If there's less memorable dialogue than usual for a Tarantino film it seemed much to do with the harmony between the actors chosen and script. I can't really conceive of anyone but Walton Goggins playing Chris Mannix, or his dialogue being any the more enjoyable to listen to if spoken by someone else.

Only thing that struck me as 'off' was the corner in to which Tarantino wrote himself with the duel between Marquis Warren and the Confederate General. After that scene it's unthinkable (to me) that Warren and Mannix wouldn't be drawn in to similarly deadly combat. I can see why Tarantino immediately introduced a chapter break and a narrator in order to escape this dilemma - it's the technical equivalent of Edgar Rice Burroughs's '... and with one bound Jack was free'.

[bearcuborg]

Finally saw the 70MM Roadshow version— God bless the Silver Springs AFI for keeping the screenings going even though I don’t think there were even eight of us in that huge theatre today— and now I’m in the unexpected position of defending Tarantino to the board. I think this is pretty easily his best work since Kill Bill and one of the best Westerns (if not the best) since Lonesome Dove. From what I can gather, I may very well like it best of anyone here. Tarantino clearly understands and loves the genre, and his film is filled with smart tweaks on the requisite tropes that his last mediocre effort didn’t even bother to invoke. As someone who has made tracking female representations in Westerns an integral part of how I respond to and think about the genre (to the memorable extent of driving one member to utter meltdown at the idea of— shock— feminist readings being applied to Westerns), the charges of misogyny directed at this film are not only utterly baseless, but strike me as far more sexist than anything found in the movie. The Western genre is not good to women, because, in large part, the West wasn’t either. But Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character is presented highly unusually in the film: she’s made sexless (for reasons which make sense once certain revelations come to light), and indeed, for most of the action, is on equal footing as far as receiving her lumps and bumps just as anyone else would in that position. If feminism is equality, look no further. The only instances of her gender coming into play for the other characters occur fleetingly and are quickly dismissed or adjusted by her behavior or warnings from Kurt Russell, and by the end of the film, we realize how at any given moment she probably knew more about what was going on than any other player in this game of multi-player chess. Leigh moves around throughout the narrative, occupying most of the non-sexual roles afforded to women in the genre, most memorably (and unexpectedly) when she takes the Doris Day role and sings a song (in a wonderfully raw long take)— tweaked to her character, of course. She’s the victim, she’s the tough cookie, she’s the chanteuse, she’s the maternal figure (leader of the gang), &c. By removing sexual threat from the film— which, I must stress, is remarkable for this genre, and to be applauded— Tarantino is attempting to anticipate and undercut unjust cries of outrage over her character's treatment (to little avail, it seems). This is not a “problematic” film just because it makes you feel uncomfortable. I'm amazed JJL managed to pull off an Oscar nomination for this performance and role, but it was well-deserved.

In my experience, I found that disliking the movie in this forum is more at odds than claiming one liking the film more than most. With that said, I'll tread carefully here so I don't piss off the fanboys. Your post was honest - and far from blind gushing though. Bobby Dylan also wrote a rather fine interpretation of the film. But I enjoyed your take, and I'm with you on the anti feminist points...

However, I don't think this film holds a candle to Lonesome Dove in any way. I don't think Tarantino comes close McMurtry's talent as a writer. LD is an emotional juggernaught. And as far as I can tell, the only time I've seen anything close to tenderness in Tarantino's work was D'jango caressing King's hair after he was shot dead, and the final shot of Max in Jackie Brown. Hell, the violence in LD is a hell of a lot more terrifying than anything in Hateful Eight. The arrow in Gus's leg plays, and reads, as a much more gruesome event than anything Tarantino gives us in H8.

That said, I actually enjoyed seeing the movie, and with the exception of Kill Bill/Death Proof...I'm always satisfied that I've made the effort to go into the cinema to see whatever he puts out - even if I've mostly disliked everything since 1997. Halfway through H8 I realized that this film does exactly what it sets out to do...and so I didn't even think to judge it as art. It played more like a horror film than a western. LD is a masterpiece of writing and mini series though.

The two things that bothered me in H8 were the characters of Minnie and narration. Tarrantino has an awful voice...it sounds too cutesy to work for me. I think he could have scrapped the whole flashback to be honest. So this black woman, Minnie, hates Mexicans? She never played that way on screen. I could even make a case for Madsen being wasted. The 70mm didn't work for me either, as I have lost hope in Richardson ever being as great as he was with Stone. But...goddamn - you're right - AFI is a glorious place to see a movie. I love going down there. I made a stop by AFI to see a friend last summer when I escaped the Pope's visit in Philadelphia. I actually went to Assateague Island first, then Silver Springs. Ever been?

[mfunk9786]

You seem tremendously defensive. I don't think that disliking Tarantino's output is as taboo around here as you seem to think it is.