Django Unchained kinda sucks IMHO. The fusion of blaxploitation and spaghetti western does not work all that well as evidenced by Take a Hard Ride and what’s worse, DU doesn’t make for a particularly engaging western to begin with; it just feels bloated, wantonly postmodernist and generally self-indulgent.
The Hateful Eight at least is a legit western which is properly narrated, structured and inventively plotted; it taps into Tarantino’s roots with some similarities to Reservoir Dogs and some genuine spaghetti influences percolating through the composition. In other words, it feels like a proper homage to the genre unlike the movie with freaking Django in its title.
I agree on django unchained but the hateful eight is no better, and definitely not a “legit western”. It’s a murder mystery film set in the 1800s. Tarantino in general is not a very good director. He has some good films, Reservoir Dogs and Inglorious Basterds being his best, but he’s incredibly inconsistent. Pulp Fiction has to be one of the most overrated films ever made. I actually enjoy hearing tarantino talk about film more than i do watching his films.
a western can’t have a murder mystery plot? i call b.s. on that. it takes place in the west, the right time, there’s cowboys and bandits, what else does it need for you to consider it “legit” then? a shootdown at high noon? few westerns have that
westerns are usually associated with a style of film that goes beyond merely the setting. Westerns can have a murder mystery story but The Hateful Eight is a murder mystery movie first and foremost. Calling it a western may be technically correct, but it’s misleading to say the least.
i explained above. The Hateful Eight is a murder mystery movie first and foremost. That is the focus of the film. It has almost no stylistic elements that are normally associated with the western genre.
No, time and setting clearly have primacy over style as criteria for classification, as they are less subject to interpretation for which reason they are universally employed to categorize films. Even though many motion pictures implement elements from various other genres, partially departing from established boundaries, they do not cease to be what they are by reason of their time and setting. Style itself is important, but comes secondary, especially when a movie is set in another place and time.
To call Lord of the Rings an adventure film is remarkably misleading to a vast majority of people because it is first and foremost set in an imaginary universe other than that which we inhabit. It may be an adventure film in addition to being a fantasy picture firstly, but to exclude the latter is to render classification effectively useless and meaningless. There is a very good reason why almost everybody calls The Hateful Eight and Lords of the Rings a western and a fantasy flick respectively, even if the former might be an atypical example of the genre.
I realize you may have developed your own understading of classification, but it is evidently at variance with universally agreed upon standards, it’s basically a private set of criteria for classifying movies. For me to concur with you, not only would I have to accept your premise, but also to adopt your personal taste for style as my own so as to arrive at the same conclusions.
Not the case at all, neo noir and neo western genres are all crime dramas with your reasoning, but they aren’t are they, because style matters.
To call Lord of the Rings an adventure film is remarkably misleading to a vast majority of people
It’s not, because adventure is a very broad genre that overlaps with a lot of others… categorizing a film as an adventure film speaks more to it’s scale, scope and pacing more than anything thematic, so it’s not misleading at all.
No, it’s the other way round. Movies are grouped by genres based of their similarities with each other not because of their setting alone. With your reasoning action and romance are the same genre if they have the same setting.
There’s also no “universally agreed upon standards” as the reasoning behind categorization is very inconsistent. Sometime setting takes precedence, sometimes it’s style, sometime it’s time period, sometimes it’s themes and sometimes it’s a combination of all of these. The only consistent factor is that movies are categorized based on similarities with each other… and hateful eight has more similarities with murder mystery movies.
Neo noir films are basically crime dramas differentiated by their style. Yes, they’re a subset of crime movies. Not all crime dramas are neo-noir, but all neo-noir works are essentially crime dramas. They’re a sub-genre. Style matters, but it’s not the only element that matters. Categories form a tree-like structure.
To not call Lords of the Rings a fantasy movie first and foremost is questionable at best. You’re perfectly entitled to do so, but your opinion is wont to cause bemusement in others.
Okay, so let’s look at a definition of the term “setting”:
The time, place, and circumstances in which a narrative, drama, or film takes place.
Now let’s look at a definition of the word circumstances just to be clear:
A condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it; a determining or modifying factor
A determining or modifying factor? So in other words, the so-called inciting incident of the storyline, plot’s starting point. Therefore, these initial circumstances (characters, secondary and tertiary events forming the backcloth etc.) effectively trigger the chain of events adding up to the whole story, giving rise to different plot devices along the way and their focus being ensuant upon that prelude. From this standpoint, action and romance flicks couldn’t be more different, though again, there are various hybrids and mixtures.
Now let’s have a look at the definition of the word style, as it relates to artistic expression in general:
The combination of distinctive features of literary or artistic expression, execution, or performance characterizing a particular person, group, school, or era.
It sounds like it could apply both to setting and overall execution, though within the context of filmmaking, style usually refers to directional execution, performances and the likes rather than writing.
If that were true, it would be contentious to call The Hateful Eight a western… and yet, it isn’t. You’re the first person I’ve encountered who calls The Hateful Eight a whodunit pic first and foremost and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly a war movie with the exclusion of the western category.
Your argument can’t be made with these definitions.
If that were true, it would be contentious to call The Hateful Eight a western… and yet, it isn’t.
That’s because most people don’t argue about these things, because doing so is completely pointless. Only film nerds like us will have a debate regarding something as frivolous as the primary genre/categorization of a specific film.
Well, I picked that definition because it specifically referred to narrative and its context was clearly culture-based as opposed to being location-based, it’s basically one of the top definitions here:
At the very end, after literally ever other genre it falls under. I never said it isn’t a western. I just said it would be misleading to call it that. It’s technically a western, but a “legit western” is a poor description of it as it practically has nothing in common with other films in the genre other than setting.
IMDB, really?
IMDB is a site which is imo not interesting for people who have a deeper interest in film.
Hammerfist, you have for many things your own definitions, I think most here will hardly agree with you.
But if I check e.g. GBU on IMDB, then I find no mentioning of your “war film” category. From that it seems not to be a war film. The first named thing is “adventure epic”, but funnily 2001 seems for IMDB also to be an “adventure epic”. Ohoo, ahaa, uhh …
(actually IMDB categories are listed alphabetically, often divided in 2 parts, and then the category western comes towards the end)
Now if I click on the “western” category, then I find there both QT westerns immediately.
Actually whatever else they may be, they are for me at first westerns, and I’m pretty sure over 95 % of all viewers would also call them at first westerns. Because they are.
For me it would be very misleading not to call them westerns.
Forget IMDB …
The term westerns applies to a broad variety of films, which are often only connected by the fact that they are set in the American west in the 2nd half of the 19th century, and feature men with hats, pistols and horses. And pre westerns are set much earlier, and twilight westerns are often set with purpose in the early years of the 20th century, and post westerns often much later.
let’s just leave 