MovieChat Forums > The Hateful Eight (2015) Discussion > It's intentionally offensive and you hav...

It's intentionally offensive and you have to roll WITH the excesses to be entertained

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8175)
9 replies | jump to latest

This was Tarantino's second Western in a row after 2012's "Django Unchained," which ranks with the best Westerns of all time. This one's not as good, but it certainly has its points of interest, like the great wintery wilderness atmosphere, which is to die for. Moreover, the plot is intriguing. It's basically an Agatha Christie whodunit a la Murder on the Orient Express transferred to the Old West. Roughly 90% of the film takes place in the haberdashery and, less so, a stagecoach. It's basically a theater play masquerading as a movie and I found it a unique setting for a Western.

The movie starts out with spectacular Colorado winter cinematography highlighted by an excellent Ennio Morricone score, his first full-length score in over three decades (!). Compelling extended dialogues have always been Tarantino's strong suit; and so it is here. The amusing melodramatics are entertaining and the story keeps your interest despite the one-dimensional setting. Everything's SO exaggerated that you can't take it seriously. The movie's intentionally offensive and you have to roll WITH the excesses to be entertained; otherwise you'll hate it.

On at least one occasion the overindulgences don't work, like the disgusting fellatio sequence. I get that Marquis (Jackson) was lying to the old Confederate to compel him to draw, but we didn't need a visual on his fabricated story. It's sordid excess that has no place in a Western or any other movie, except gay porn, but Tarantino obviously included it in order to be "edgy" or whatever.

The excellent opening with the figure of Christ dying for our sins keys off the theme, which is humanity's fallen condition and dire need of redemption. The title, "The Hateful Eight," is a perversion of "The Magnificent Seven." The latter celebrates the noble and heroic whereas this movie parodies the base and odious. Tarantino is poking fun at our petty hostilities that separate us based on race, gender, sectionalism, faction-ism, envy and rivalry. Furthermore, men divided by hatred of culture and race can unite in hatred of something else, in this case misogyny.

[–] MovieFan00 (211) 5 years ago

Sorry, are you saying that they can unite in their hatred for misogyny or unite in their misogyny?

[–] Wuchak (8175) 5 years ago

The latter: In the last act John Ruth (Russell) and Major Warren (Jackson) unite in their hateful over-the-top abuse of Daisy Domergue.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

It's a Tarantino movie. He brought us the gimp and Hitler being shot in the face with a machine gun. What else did you expect?

[–] Wuchak (8175) 5 years ago

I've seen all of his movies and am usually well entertaining one way or another, but this one really turned me off the first time I viewed it in 2016, although there were a lot of things I liked as well (cited in the opening post). Seeing it again last summer, however, I 'got' it and found it both amusing and insightful. Like I said above, it's a perversion of "The Magnificent Seven," which celebrates the noble and heroic whereas this movie parodies the base and odious, driving home some pretty potent points.

The reason I wrote the opening post was for people who, like me, didn't like the movie on their original viewing and hopefully spur them to give it a second chance.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

No issue here. I've grown to expect this from Tarantino. Perhaps That's why I didn't have an issue. Im the same way with Uwe Boll and crap films.

[–] zeesha (1760) 5 years ago

"I get that Marquis (Jackson) was lying..."

General Sandy Smithers believed Major Marquis's story when Marquis told him the full name of his son, Chester Charles Smithers. Why don't you?

[–] Wuchak (8175) 5 years ago

Because the Major clearly used hyperbole in his tall tale (e.g. the General's son would've never been able to walk that far totally nude in the frigid cold wilderness, not to mention the ridiculous fellatio element). Marquis absolutely hated the Confederates -- thinking they were either racists or pro-slavery -- and was provoking the proud old warhorse to draw so he could get away with killing him in a room full of witnesses.

As far as Smithers supposedly believing the Major's story, I seriously doubt it. He was simply incensed by the outrageous offensiveness of it, sorta like you'd be offended by someone saying he f***** your Mama last night. You know it's not true, of course, but it totally incites you because it's so over-the-top disrespectful and vexing.

[–] zeesha (1760) 5 years ago

"you'd be offended by someone saying he f***** your Mama"

I hope you don't take the offensiveness of the Major's fellatio story too personal, regardless it is meant to be true or not. Otherwise, stop reading right here and ignore the rest of my reply.
It is obvious that the Major wanted to provoke the General and then shot him. But it is illogical to say that his intention somehow suggests he was lying, because he won't need to fabricate a story if he already has the real account to provoke Sandy. Again the clue- how do you explain that Marquis knew the full name of Sandy's son and the fact that he was dead? Now it might be questionable if Sandy's naked son walked two hours or even 20 minutes in a blizzard that going on outside the haberdashery, but that's not the case and Tarantino showed us what really happened in detail- while the Major was shame-walking that son-of-a-gun, it was a sunny winter day with no wind and that white-ass even had boots on his feet. Perhaps it is too much for some of us to acknowledge that given two hours sounds questionable, the Major choiced to tell the General the truth as if before his own death, that racist old cracker deserve to know what really happen to his son. There is a noticeable difference between two times that Marquis approach to Sandy. When he first saw Sandy, he thought Sandy arranged a revenge party for his boy's killer and the only one Marquis can trust to watch his back is O.B. -- pay attention to those details might help us to understand the movie better.

[–] Wuchak (8175) 5 years ago

Major knew the name of his son, so what? It doesn't make his obvious tall tale true. He was simply trying to provoke the racist old cracker to draw via the image of his thoroughly humiliated son performing oral sex on a black man.

You believe otherwise and that's fine.