…unless they’re referring to “pure cinema” as a particular type of a “cinema of ideas”.
Somehow I am finding the idea of “disposal film” absolutely fascinating, and the focus on Inglourious Basterds in specific (not the rest of the usual love/hate/love to hate banter) both the best way to approach this concept and possibly the worst. I think there’s something behind that question, but I’m not sure it’s in the actual discussion this thread has illicited, and I’m not too sure it’s in the OP’s original intent…
What an interesting use of word, “disposable.” It makes me think of all of the film that was dumped in trashbins behind failed processing joints going out of business from the transfer to video, the permanency and stability of the medium itself as compared to tape, Tarantino’s love of “trash cinema”, and the awareness of his own transfer to video being met with a movie full of, I agree, completely disposable characters and situations, with an excellent central narrative that Tarantino literally disposes of in favor of his more exploitive interests, the history Tarantino disposes of in his own revisionist interest, the tension he disposes of by introducing comedic relief, often at a perfectly timed “wrong time…”
On the other hand, part of what is really annoying about Inglourious Basterds is the very fact that he had such an excellent concept in hand (the story of Shoshanna and The Wolf) and then chose to make a “disposable movie” instead. So is the movie disposable because he chose to, or was it a mistake? My vote goes for mistake. I think Tarantino was aiming for something and missed. The Death of Hitler at the end was supposed to be something important, but really it just confused and unnerved people, and not in the right way, not the “what world are we in wait what is happening the whole logic has changed!” way but the “What the hell is he doing? Is he… uh…. huh.” way.
SO, what about other forms of disposable cinema, including those forms potentially intentionally disposable. What about cinema made to be found in the rubbish bins of out-of-business film developing houses?
“So the great genre masters rarely made films that could appeal to people over 30? Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, etc?”
Yes, they did make very few films that appealed to ‘adults’. (Otherwise, for example, why did the Cahiers folks felt the need to champion Hitch?) The reason why they are held with higher regard among modern cinephiles is because they tried to transcend their genre (or in other words, tried to do more than the typical genre filmmakers)…
(Still, in my not so humble opinion, the genre works of Ford and Hitch receive way too much adulation. While trying to rescue their fame, many critics have overcompensated in the other direction and QT is hanging by their coattails…)
“He tries to exceed or subvert genre, not just play by its rules.”
If that is all one can do, that itself soon becomes a tired cliche (and it is pretty superficial to start with…) How about taxing our brains and reflecting the world in an intelligent manner rather than repeatedly trying to appeal to twentysomethings who are getting exposed to concepts such as ‘subverting the genre’ for the first time? Why should we have such a low expectation of our exalted filmmakers?
“(Still, in my not so humble opinion, the genre works of Ford and Hitch receive way too much adulation. While trying to rescue their fame, many critics have overcompensated in the other direction and QT is hanging by their coattails…)”s
I agree. Hawks is the same boat. I think critics went too far overboard with praise. Even Godard once said he and the rest of the french new wave directors overrated a lot of American genre films from that period. He didn’t specificy which ones though.
I think the complexity in Hawks and Ford movies is largely imagined. no amount of close textual analysis from guys like Wollen has convinced me otherwise. Although there is probably more to Ford than Hawks though.