Oscar Predictions: The Major Awards

And we're back with the live telecast of Ed's Oscar Predictions. Hope the adverts weren't too loud and annoying.

Having looked through the Technical Awards with an occasionally surgical, but largely slapdash, precision, I will now be considering the Major categories as defined by me and, judging by the way in which the ceremony is conducted, by the Academy. I'm not saying the Technical Awards aren't important, just saying that if Best Editing was so important to the Academy it'd be the last award they hand out.

As with previous predictions, for each one I'll say who should win, who will win, and who the dark horse will be for each category, since that allows me to hedge my bets and come away from the whole thing claiming I was all clever and shit.


Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
Nominees:

District 9 (2009): Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tatchell
An Education (2009): Nick Hornby
In the Loop (2009): Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Geoffrey Fletcher
Up in the Air (2009/I): Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner

I must not have been the only one surprised and delighted by the nomination for In The Loop. Armando Iannucci, Oscar nominee just seems really strange to me. Pleasant surprise aside, I' can't quite bring myself to believe that it'll win, despite how bizarre and wonderful such an eventuality would be. It just seems too caustic and too British to win through. This category is actually quite interesting since, without a serious Best Picture contender behind any of them (Precious, maybe, but District 9? Can't see it happening) the field is wide open. If I had to choose (and I kind of have to, given the nature of this enterprise) I'm going to plump for Up In The Air. It's attracted plenty of attention throughout awards season and Jason Reitman is already an Academy fave.

What Should Win: In The Loop

What Will Win: Up In The Air

Dark Horse: District 9


Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Nominees:

The Hurt Locker (2008): Mark Boal
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Quentin Tarantino
The Messenger (2009/I): Alessandro Camon, Oren Moverman
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Thomas McCarthy

This category is very tight this year, as four of the nominees are Best Pictures contenders and, since Avatar's cliched, cheesy and downright awful script was rightly ignored, there isn't the sweep factor that usually allows the Best Picture winner to take the screenplay prize along with it. First, the films that definitely won't win: The Coens', despite writing a brilliant film, won't win because A Serious Man is too odd and personal to appeal to a broad selection of voters; and The Messenger won't win because it's a film that almost no one had heard of or was discussing as an Oscar contender prior to the nominations. That leaves Up, Inglourious Basterds and The Hurt Locker. I'd love for Up to win it, if only so Thomas McCarthy could get an Oscar and use the clout to get more films like The Station Agent and The Visitor made, but Pixar have always been bridemaids, never brides when it comes to the Original Screenplay award (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and WALL-E were all nominated for the same award in previous years) and I can't see that trend ending with Up. So, Inglourious Basterds, or The Hurt Locker? I think that Inglourious Basterds will just pip it for having the showier, more loquacious script at the expense of The Hurt Locker's gripping and realistic writing, giving Quentin Tarantino his second Original Screenplay Oscar, after his win in 1995 for Pulp Fiction.

What Should Win: The Hurt Locker or Up

What Will Win: Inglourious Basterds

Dark Horse: A Serious Man


Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Nominees:

Penélope Cruz for Nine (2009)
Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart (2009)
Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Mo'Nique for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)

Even if Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendricks weren't splitting the Up In The Air vote, Mo'Nique's had this award sewn up for months now. Her performance as Mary, the abusive, hateful mother of Precious is truly astounding; she creates a compelling monster who completely dominates every scene she is in, but it's the final scene of the film, in which she breaks down and lays bare the years of abuse visited on her daughter and the reason why she let it happen, is spellbinding. Mo'Nique takes us into the mind of a truly horrible human being and shows us what twisted logic led her to think that letting her husband sexually abuse their daughter for years was not only acceptable, but that somehow it was all Precious' fault. It's a brilliant performance.

Who Should Win: Mo'Nique

Who Will Win: Mo'Nique

Dark Horse: At this point, the rest of the nominees.


Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Nominees:

Matt Damon for Invictus (2009)
Woody Harrelson for The Messenger (2009/I)
Christopher Plummer for The Last Station (2009)
Stanley Tucci for The Lovely Bones (2009)
Christoph Waltz for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

It's interesting that this year both Supporting Awards became foregone conclusions so early in the awards season, and that both will go to actors portraying villains. Unlike Mo'Nique, Christoph Waltz will be waltzing home with an Oscar for playing a villain who is, despite being a Jew-killing Nazi, actually quite charming. Hans Landa, the Jew Hunter, is a man who is very, very good at his job, and from the moment he enters a farm house and asks its owner for a glass of his delicious milk, the audience never takes their eyes from him. He completely dominates every scene he is in and maintains a delicate balancing act between being the embodiment of all that is evil in the world and being downright hilarious.

Who Should Win: Christoph Waltz

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz

Dark Horse: Unless, during the ceremony, Brad Pitt takes Waltz out, I don't think anyone else is going to have a look in.


Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Nominees:

Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side (2009)
Helen Mirren for The Last Station (2009)
Carey Mulligan for An Education (2009)
Gabourey Sidibe for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Meryl Streep for Julie & Julia (2009)

Up until a few months ago, if you had presented me with this list, I'd have said Carrey Mulligan without a moments hesitation. Whilst the rest of the nominees have either seniority on their side (Streep, Mirren, Bullock), or are in films that have real muscle behind them in other categories (Sidibe) none of them display the same insouciant charm and brittle fragility that Mulligan did as a schoolgirl seduced by an older man. That's what I would have said a few months ago, then The Blind Side made $244 million off the back of Sandra Bullock's performance, and suddenly things weren't so clear cut. Though I still think that Mulligan's is the better performance, Sandra Bullock is going to take home the statuette on the night. The Academy loves a comeback, and an Oscar would be the perfect cap to a year in which Bullock appeared in the two biggest hits of her career (The Proposal and The Blind Side) and gained some of her best notices, too. Though, when they talk about her success on the night, I think they'll skim over All About Steve. There's definitely a sense that it's Bullock's turn, whereas everyone else has either won Oscars in the past, or are young and talented enough to get a second crack a few years down the road.

Who Should Win: Carrey Mulligan

Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock

Dark Horse: Gabourey Sidibe


Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Nominees:

Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart (2009)
George Clooney for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Colin Firth for A Single Man (2009)
Morgan Freeman for Invictus (2009)
Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker (2008)

In any other year, Morgan Freeman's performance as Nelson Mandela, a role that he's always seemed just perfect for, or Colin Firth's subtle, achingly sad portrayal of a gay man brought to the brink of suicide by the death of his lover, would be a shoo-in, but there's been a real swell of support for Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart recently. It's not hard to see why, many people have compared his role to Mickey Rourke's role in The Wrestler last year, with his vulnerable, haggard old country star showcasing the sort of affable charm/hidden depths combination that Bridge's does so well. This is also the fifth time Bridges has been nominated, and there seems to be a sense that it's time he won to make up for the times he didn't. This is known as the Scorsese Factor. So, with all that in mind, I think it'll go to Jeff Bridges: Clooney and Freeman have already won in the past; Jeremy Renner, despite giving the best performance out of the lot, is still young and will have other chances; and they gave Sean Penn an Oscar for playing a gay man last year, so they don't have to acknowledge the existence of gay people for at least another decade. It's The Dude's turn.

Who Should Win: Jeremy Renner

Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges

Dark Horse: Colin Firth


Best Achievement in Directing
Nominees:

Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker (2008)
James Cameron for Avatar (2009)
Lee Daniels for Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009)
Jason Reitman for Up in the Air (2009/I)
Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Now, some of you may have gleamed from the rest of this post that I strongly believe that Avatar will win Best Picture, and there's lots of reasons why it will win, some of which I'll list in a moment. Now, generally, Best Picture and Best Director are paired together; of the 80 films that have won Best Picture, 59 have also won Best Director. However, I don't think that this will be the case this year since, whilst Avatar will win Best Picture, Kathryn Bigelow will win Best Director. Given that Bigelow used to be married to James Cameron, director of Avatar, this could be seen as the highest profile divorce settlement of all time ("You take Best Director, I'll take Best Picture. You can have the china plates, I'll have the silverware."), but more importantly it just seems like the wheels of history have turned and brought us to a point where, finally, a woman will win Best Director. It's long overdue and I can't see the Academy missing out on this opportunity to right a wrong that has persisted for far, far too long.

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow

Who Will Win: Kathyrn Bigelow

Dark Horse: Jason Reitman


Best Motion Picture of the Year
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): James Cameron, Jon Landau
The Blind Side (2009): Gil Netter, Andrew A. Kosove, Broderick Johnson
District 9 (2009): Peter Jackson, Carolynne Cunningham
An Education (2009): Finola Dwyer, Amanda Posey
The Hurt Locker (2008): Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicolas Chartier, Greg Shapiro
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Lawrence Bender
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness, Gary Magness
A Serious Man (2009): Joel Coen, Ethan Coen
Up (2009): Jonas Rivera
Up in the Air (2009/I): Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman, Jason Reitman

The decision to expand the list of nominees to ten this year, rather than five - in response to very vocal criticism of the Academy over the exclusion of The Dark Knight last year -has certainly turned up some interesting candidates (who, last summer, could have foreseen that Peter Jackson wouldn't be nominated for Best Picture for The Lovely Bones but for that weird South African science fiction film about giant prawns?) but the award won't go to interesting candidates like the aforementioned District 9, A Serious Man, or Up (the first animated film to be nominated for Best Picture since Beauty and the Beast in 1991, and only the second one ever) or Academy-pleasers like An Education, The Blind Side Up In The Air, but to Avatar.

The monumental success of Avatar makes it pretty much a certainty that it will win Best Picture because, frankly, the film industry needs it to win Best Picture. So much time, money and effort has been spent developing 3-D and telling audiences that 3-D is the future that Avatar seemed to hold the entire history of cinema on its shoulders prior to release. Now that it has been released and, to the shock of pretty much everyone, become the most successful film of all time - unadjusted for inflation, of course - it only seems fitting that they should reward it for, if not changing the course of cinema history, at least offering concrete proof that 3-D is viable. Whilst I maintain, as I have throughout these predictions and elsewhere on the blog, that Avatar is not the best film that was released last year (The Hurt Locker was, naturally) I can't help but feel that Avatar deserves it. Regardless of what I feel about the film, its success is staggering, and James Cameron has, in the face of all the pessimism and jeers of the world, made himself King of the World again. Or the king of his own, bioluminescent world.

What Should Win: The Hurt Locker

What Will Win: Avatar

Dark Horse: The rest of them, but Up In The Air probably has the best chance of causing an upset on the night.

Right, that's your lot. Take your gift bags and piss off.

Oscar Predictions: The Technical Awards

Has it really been a year since I last dusted off my (virtual) tux and sat down to ruminate on the year's Oscars in a vain - in both senses of the word - attempt to try to figure out who is going to win? It has? Oh, well, best get started then. I'm going to do things slightly differently this year by splitting the predictions into two posts: The Technical Awards and the Major Awards. This is mainly because the Technical Oscars are ones that I can write up very quickly, so I'll be able to write this one up sharpish and spend more time on the main ones, but also because, theoretically, two separate posts will be more easily digestible than one turgidly long one.

Let's begin.

Ed's Predictions:

Best Short Film, Live Action
Nominees:

The Door (2008): Juanita Wilson, James Flynn
Istället för abrakadabra (2008): Patrik Eklund, Mathias Fjällström
Kavi (2009): Gregg Helvey
Miracle Fish (2009): Luke Doolan, Drew Bailey
The New Tenants (2009): Joachim Back, Tivi Magnusson

As with the last two years, I haven't seen any of these so will have to use a completely arbitrary system of judgement. This year, I'm plumping for Kavi, because Gregg Helvey was interviewed on an episode of Battleship Pretension a few months ago and he sounded like a nice, interesting guy, and the other nominees could all murder kittens for pleasure, as far as I know.


Best Short Film, Animated
Nominees:

French Roast (2008): Fabrice Joubert
Granny O'Grimm's Sleeping Beauty (2008): Nicky Phelan, Darragh O'Connell
La dama y la muerte (2009): Javier Recio Gracia
Logorama (2009): Nicolas Schmerkin
Wallace and Gromit in 'A Matter of Loaf and Death' (2008) (TV): Nick Park

Easy; Nick Park. Just look at his Oscar track record: nominated five times before, won four of those times, and only lost the fifth because he was nominated twice in the same year; he only lost because he was competing against himself.


Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Nominees:

China's Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province (2009) (TV): Jon Alpert, Matthew O'Neill
The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner (2009): Daniel Junge, Henry Ansbacher
The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant (2009) (TV): Steven Bognar, Julia Reichert
Królik po berlinsku (2009): Bartosz Konopka, Anna Wydra
Music by Prudence (2010): Roger Ross Williams, Elinor Burkett

The Documentary categories are one of the few sections of the Oscars that is, year in year out, allowed to be overtly political. Whilst the main awards will occasionally hand out awards to politically aware and progressive films, they tend to ignore them in favour of glitzier fare. With this in mind, I think The Last Truck will win, since it seems to have a timeliness to it that the others lack.


Best Documentary, Features
Nominees:

Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land (2008): Anders Østergaard, Lise Lense-Møller
The Cove (2009): Louie Psihoyos, Fisher Stevens
Food, Inc. (2008): Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009): Judith Ehrlich, Rick Goldsmith
Which Way Home (2009): Rebecca Cammisa

A decidedly strong bunch here, with much to recommend them; Burma VJ is one of the most vital and incendiary documentaries of the last few years; The Cove is one of the most acclaimed documentaries of the last few years; and Food Inc. has recently seen a surge of popularity after Oprah Winfrey profiled it, making the DVD the number one in America. I think that The Cove will ultimately win out, though, since, much like Man On Wire last year, it's built a strong swell of critical and popular support over the course of the year.


Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
Nominees:

Ajami (2009)(Israel)
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009)(Germany)
El secreto de sus ojos (2009)(Argentina)
Un prophète (2009)(France)
La teta asustada (2009)(Peru)

Gah! Two of the best films I've seen in the last year going head to head in a repeat of last year's Cannes film festival ! Even though I think Un prophète is a better film, I think that Das weisse Band will win out because it's had longer to make an impact and because Michael Haneke is one of those directors who has long been a critical darling but whose work has never been recognised by the Academy.


Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Nominees:

Coraline (2009): Henry Selick
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Wes Anderson
The Princess and the Frog (2009): John Musker, Ron Clements
The Secret of Kells (2009): Tomm Moore
Up (2009): Pete Docter

I think that Up's nomination in the Best Picture category - which I am ecstatic about, by the way - could hurt its chances here, since people may ignore it if they think that it is in with a shot of winning a 'proper' award, even if it almost certainly won't. However, the fact that it is the most successful of the nominees - as well as the most universally praised, though it's a stellar bunch - will see it win out.

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, Andy Jones
District 9 (2009): Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros, Matt Aitken
Star Trek (2009): Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh, Burt Dalton

Even though District 9 and Star Trek are much, much better films that are more inventive and entertaining, Avatar will certainly win this because, as ambivalent as I am about the merits of the film in terms of storytelling, the effects are amazing.


Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gwendolyn Yates Whittle
The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Wylie Stateman
Star Trek (2009): Mark P. Stoeckinger, Alan Rankin
Up (2009): Michael Silvers, Tom Myers

There's a chance that Avatar's visual splendour will bleed into the other categories, allowing it to pick up some of the audio awards along the way, but I think this could be the first win for The Hurt Locker, since the sound of the film is hugely important in creating its unbearably tense atmosphere.


Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson, Tony Johnson
The Hurt Locker (2008): Paul N.J. Ottosson, Ray Beckett
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti, Mark Ulano
Star Trek (2009): Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson, Peter J. Devlin
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009): Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Geoffrey Patterson

Seriously? Transformers gets a nomination? Well, it's certainly the loudest of the nominees, which might count for something, but I think this will be another win for The Hurt Locker, since I've never really understood what the difference is between Sound 'Editing' and Sound 'Mixing', so they tend to go hand in hand.


Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Nominees:

Crazy Heart (2009): T-Bone Burnett, Ryan Bingham("The Weary Kind")
Faubourg 36 (2008): Reinhardt Wagner, Frank Thomas("Loin de Paname")
Nine (2009): Maury Yeston("Take It All")
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Almost There")
The Princess and the Frog (2009): Randy Newman("Down in New Orleans")

I was originally going to give this one to Crazy Heart based purely on the fact that having multiple nominations for songs, as The Princess and The Frog does here, tends to lead to a splitting of the vote, allowing for songs from smaller films to win. The best recent example of this being when 'Falling Slowly' from Once managed to win against three songs from Enchanted. For that reason, and because it's a lovely song, I'm plucking for 'The Weary Kind.'


Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): James Horner
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009): Alexandre Desplat
The Hurt Locker (2008): Marco Beltrami, Buck Sanders
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Hans Zimmer
Up (2009): Michael Giacchino

I'm going to throw my support being Michael Giacchino's beautiful score for Up. Whilst James Horner's score for Avatar is effective, it just isn't as inventive or haunting as Giacchino's repeated motifs and subtle tones in Up.


Best Achievement in Makeup
Nominees:

Il divo (2008): Aldo Signoretti, Vittorio Sodano
Star Trek (2009): Barney Burman, Mindy Hall, Joel Harlow
The Young Victoria (2009): John Henry Gordon, Jenny Shircore

I'm so surprised to see Paolo Sorrentino's Il Divo nominated that I'm going to say it'll win. It seems like one of those La vie en rose nominations that winds up winning because, despite its showier competition, it's just so much better.


Best Achievement in Costume Design
Nominees:

Bright Star (2009): Janet Patterson
Coco avant Chanel (2009): Catherine Leterrier
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): Monique Prudhomme
Nine (2009): Colleen Atwood
The Young Victoria (2009): Sandy Powell

Coco avant Chanel will win for the chic factor, if nothing else.


Best Achievement in Art Direction
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg, Kim Sinclair
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009): David Warren, Anastasia Masaro, Caroline Smith
Nine (2009): John Myhre, Gordon Sim
Sherlock Holmes (2009): Sarah Greenwood, Katie Spencer
The Young Victoria (2009): Patrice Vermette, Maggie Gray

Wow, what a hodge-podge of nominees. This feels like an Avatar win, to me; creating an entire world just seems more impressive that getting period trappings just right.


Best Achievement in Editing
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Stephen E. Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron
District 9 (2009): Julian Clarke
The Hurt Locker (2008): Bob Murawski, Chris Innis
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Sally Menke
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire (2009): Joe Klotz

The battle between Avatar and The Hurt Locker for awards supremacy rages on and The Hurt Locker will win this bout for its visceral action sequences and palpable tension.


Best Achievement in Cinematography
Nominees:

Avatar (2009): Mauro Fiore
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009): Christian Berger
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009): Bruno Delbonnel
The Hurt Locker (2008): Barry Ackroyd
Inglourious Basterds (2009): Robert Richardson

I'm quite delighted to see Harry Potter nominated here. I thought it was one of the most visually arresting films of last year and made for an uncommonly beautiful blockbuster, particularly one that is the sixth in a series. It won't win, but it was nice all the same. Neither will Das weisse Band or Inglourious Basterds, despite both being hugely accomplished pieces of work. It's Team Bigelow and Team Cameron again and, this time, it'll be Avatar that takes the glory.


Right, that's the end of Part One. I shall return tomorrow with my thoughts on the Major Awards.

Stay Tuned; Same Mighty Fine Time, Same Mighty Fine Channel.

Inglourious Proof/Death Basterds

As those of you who read this blog regularly (or anyone who has the capacity to look slightly to the left) will know, yesterday I saw Inglourious Basterds, the latest film about Quentin Tarantino. With the sort of synchronicity that so often befalls in life, I saw the film almost two years to the day after I wrote this long but not too bad article for [sadly now defunct website] Shefsteel.com, which I re-read to see what I had written about his career up to that point.

Apart from my pleasant surprise at seeing how good it is (aside from a few dalliances with grand sweeping statements, a pet hate of mine since it runs the risk of rendering the writing pompous and amateurish, though I think I get away with it), the biggest shock to me was how positive I was about Death Proof, Tarantino's half of the Grindhouse project. This surprises me because, in the subsequent two years, I have become quite hardline, regarding it as a sign of a director of great talent sliding inexorably into a regressive state of creative adolescence and obsolescence. Looking at my article then, I realised that much of what I wrote about Death Proof echoes what I wrote about Inglourious Basterds, and I began to wonder why I turned so strongly against Death Proof, and whether or not, by the time that Tarantino's next film comes out, I will regard it with the sort of barely suppressed contempt that I currently reserve for Death Proof.

Why do I dislike Death Proof so much?

Well, it's at least partly the result of discussions I have had about the film with people who like the film. Being somewhat on the fence about it when it was released, I was always in the centre of the arguments surrounding the film, and the more I encountered people who defended the film, the more I found to dislike in it. It's like an allergic reaction; I produced vitriol as a response to intrusions of contentment.

Aside from this, though, my problem with Death Proof can be summed up fairly simply. The film is (1) too long, in its uncut form, and even in its 90 minute/one half of Grindhouse form it felt sluggish and there were long, dull patches in which (2) the dialogue between the main characters dragged inexorably. Tarantino's dialogue is often the focus of the praise he receives, often justly so, but in Death Proof it falls completely flat. I can't tell if this is the result of the writing or the performers (I lean towards the latter, though more on that in a second) but the language feels tired and strained, it's like a bad cover version of Tarantino-esque dialogue. The film also (3) clearly doesn't know what it wants to be, and it's clear to the audience that Tarantino doesn't know what he wants it to be, though it is ironic how a film that is so unclear so clearly demarcates between the disparate elements that constitute it. Tarantino claims to love exploitation cinema so much and that the film is an homage to it, yet the film seems to feel that it is above the very kind of film that it seeks to emulate. Unlike Robert Rodriguez's half of the Grindhouse project, Planet Terror, which gleefully embraces the sleaze and shittiness of that style of film, Tarantino only really pays lip service to it in his film. The central concept, of a stunt driver who 'Death proofs' his car so that he can get involved in accidents that will kill his passengers but leave him unscathed, is rife with possibilities for a dark and dirty piece of sleaze, yet that aspect of the film so rarely surfaces, and is instead obfuscated by interminable stretches of dialogue between (4) uninteresting characters. Finally, (5) the film is rife with indulgences that distract, most notably the casting of Zoe Bell, a stunt double friend of Tarantino's, as 'Herself'. It's a piece of casting that might have added to the intensity of the film's (too) few chase scenes if Bell could act, but she sorely cannot. This is not wholly her fault, there are few things more daunting than being told to just act naturally in front of a camera or to 'be yourself', especially in a fictional film, but it's a self-consciously quirky idea that detracts from the film immensely.

So, those are my problems with Death Proof, are there any parallels to be drawn between it and Inglourious Basterds? Yes and no.

Both films are overlong, though even though Inglourious Basterds is clearly the lengthier effort, it is Death Proof that feels longer, thanks largely to its boring conversations between boring characters. Basterds gets one over on it thanks to its compelling characters, in the form of Hans Landa, Shoshanna Dreyfus and Bridget von Hammersmark (note how all the best characters in the film are and are played by non-Americans) and from having actors who can deliver the sort of fizzing dialogue with which Tarantino made his name. As much as I love Kurt Russell, he wasn't able to imbue Stuntman Mike with half the malevolence, sadism, intelligence and, perverse as it may seem, charm as Christoph Waltz is able to give to Hans Landa. So there seems to be a pro-, or at least lack of re-, gression on display here.

However, both films show signs that Tarantino's problems as a film-maker are deep-rooted and not down to problems of material or casting. Both films suffer from that confusion - no doubt the result of a hyperactive mind cartwheeling between ideas at the blink of an eye the shutter of a camera the tap of a key - that arises when Tarantino can't decide what film he wants to make. Both films have elements of the sleazy exploitation cinema that Tarantino so adores, yet they also seem like attempts to improve on it, make it serious, essentially stop it from being exploitation cinema anymore. This just doesn't work, making the moments that could be genuinely, unabashedly fun seem arch, and the serious moments seem out of place. Basterds is a better film than Death Proof because its non-exploitation moments (those featuring Hans Landa and Shoshanna) are so compelling, but they highlight one of the main problems with Inglourious Basterds; the Basterds themselves. Only two, maybe three, of the Basterds have any degree of flesh put onto their bones, and they don't show up in the film nearly enough to deserve a title being named after them. They often serve only to divert our attention from the interesting stuff that is going on elsewhere.

Thinking on it, Inglourious Basterds is a Frankenstein's monster of a film that has been assembled from two distinct, possibly unwilling, organ donors. It seems as if Tarantino came up with the subplot about Shoshanna and her cinema, realised how good it was, but was then lumbered with the Basterds, so he cut down their screen time but kept them in to keep the title (and the financial viability it entails). The two stories at no point cross paths, at most they come within an inch of touching each other when they happen to reach their respective crescendos in the same building, and even then they, independent of each other, achieve the same goal. The lack of integration between the plots (in every sense of the word) means that they could, like siamese twins, be surgically removed and the two could survive separated. The Basterds' film might be the weaker twin that dies shortly after the surgery, but it could still function shorn of its stronger sibling.

The two films also share moments of stunt casting that unbalance the film as a whole. Though Zoe Bell does no favours to Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds features the more egregious lapse in judgement on Tarantino's part since he decides to cast that odious spectre of former comedy glory/society's brief descent into idiocy, depending on your take, Mike Myers, in a brief role as a British general. With Zoe Bell you can kind of excuse her performance - she's a stunt person, who could have guessed she would be a bad actress? - but we all know how terrible Mike Myers can be. We've seen Goldmember, and we all fell over ourselves to avoid seeing The Love Guru. Surely any residual warmth felt towards him over Wayne's World can't extend to giving him a small role that you know he will ruin? Apparently not. He is allowed to inflict himself on the audience for an awkward scene of (Basil) exposition that serves only to introduce a character who, despite being played by the brilliant Michael Fassbender, doesn't make any real impact on the story beside being charming and spiffingly British.

Having exorcised some of my demons (and exercised my fingers), what conclusions can we draw? Will I look back on Inglourious Basterds as unkindly as I have looked back on Death Proof? I'd say 'no'. Both films show that Tarantino, whilst talented, has reached a point at which he has stopped trying to improve as a director, instead preferring to work within his own parameters and aiming his work at his fans, but there is more of a spark of the old magic in Basterds than there ever was in Death Proof. The moments that work show how good he can be, and even though the final package disappoints, it gives me a vague sense of hope that he could one day be the man who made Jackie Brown.