How To Swallow With Tonsilitis

From image to simulacra

To begin, recall that my entries inspired by my previous reading of Voltaire's Bastards , an essay by John Saul on the tail of reason in Western society over the last two centuries. So far, I have followed quite closely the thinking of Saul, that I now use instead as a springboard. I had to return to the point of departure is to say, this seemingly bottomless void between film critics and the general public, but I bypassed a little longer, deeper question of just this idea of image dead.

I talked a lot about death in image conformity and uniformity television wrongs that have been criticized as in many Hollywood movies, movies that are said also more television. Should first define this aesthetic television: predominance of dialogue, poor image losing its status as virtually narrative as she only serves to account for the dialogue, which essentially translates into worktops, generally close, with characters frontally, almost no depth of field, quick (three or four seconds per plan), a kind of zero degree of staging so that the image is ultimately useless, distracting eyes to better capture Listening attentively to the words (and words only, since we could also add surround sound minimum). It's all about the aesthetics of the television series, filmed mainly on the radio, or perhaps the theater in close-ups (hence the interpretation outrageous, intolerable to so close), the dramas have all of same vocabulary picture book a little richer. The film accuses the TV usually have bequeathed him an aesthetic as flat, having popularized a type of image so simple that it became difficult to provide images more complex and meaningful. Or, he said that since it is distributed largely outside the halls, it is much smaller than seen on the big screen, it adapts to new conditions by adopting the style of the smaller screen, question does not offend the viewer-house. Thus, for a time the cameras were consistent keeping in mind both the movie format (rectangular) that the television format (square), managing to not put too meaningful elements in the margin, since it will disappear when projected on television. That changes a bit today, with digital displays and greater familiarity in panoramic format, but the difference is superficial: the images are more "beautiful", worked more, while remaining as insignificant.

Ah, this Amadeus, key example of a loss of direction in TV format: the disappearance of the two figures flanking the stage may seem trivial, but the character of Salieri is left, our narrator often like that in this primer, a reminder that we face at the point of view, subtlety lost in 4:3 ...

The main reason behind this line is an especially productivity, Hollywood having given the task of producing vast quantities of images. Unlike television, which as we have seen, requires images by its very nature, in the case of film this is not the medium itself which controls the images, but rather the industry so decided. It should not criticize too much television when we impose an aesthetic borrows its ambitions. Finally, to achieve his ideal of productivity, Hollywood has built a production system where the creative elements (first director and the writer) are used in the same way that a single technician. For, in fact, the average Hollywood director is no more than what we see in movies, that is to say a guy (and almost always a guy for that matter) said that action once from time to time. This is not new: the studios also functioned under the aegis of producers, the real architects of this system. The director, producer if not, can not enter an editing room, he does not participate in the scenario, it is present only on the set where he used to place the camera and direct actors.

David Bordwell, in his blog, discusses here this site maintained by the director in Hollywood. To summarize, the problem is that the filmmakers now turning more and more equipment to protect themselves they say (the notion of "coverage"). Thus, when several cameras filming the same scene, where a AFH, there are still others that provide an accurate picture. Multi-camera filming, however, is not an ideal situation: First, it reduces the choice of camera position, since all cameras must stay off camera. So, all cameras may be placed more or less on the same axis, an issue also comply with these good old 180 degrees, one filming the whole, the other a close-up of the character left, and a third a closeup of the character right. This essentially replaces the traditional method of turning a camera where you started with a comprehensive plan, then redo the scene in close-up, then close, alternating actors. Productivity increased at the expense of creativity of course, since the director has no need to wonder where to place the camera in fact it should rather wonder where to put its three cameras to prevent them from filming each other. It is a game of logic, there is nothing that takes the art. Bordwell cites the photo director of Gladiator , who shot some scenes with seven cameras, explaining his choice with that sublime sentence: "I Was thinking, 'Someone has got to Be Getting Something Good." "Finally, get a good image, that is to say an image technically correct, does more than chance.


This way of filming destroyed more creativity that the director has no say in the assembly. Producers want their directors, stage technicians rather, they filmed several cameras for each scene will have several plans with which they can then play their way to mount the stage as they please. The film is no longer on the set, where no election is finally done, but in the editing room, which belongs to the producer, the very man who also had the final word on the script. Some filmmakers skillfully circumventing traditional problem: Hitchcock's example was mounted directly in the shooting, he turned his scenes and even his plans in an orderly and virtually any way it's filmed so there was only one way to go. John Ford also worked well, Soderbergh now refuses to turn on several cameras. It's actually the only remedy of a non-producer filmmaker who wants to keep some control over his work up his film before turning and turn accordingly, so that the editor did not have too much freedom on equipment. This excludes obviously turning as much as possible "to protect themselves." That explains

largely compliance Hollywood: the filmmakers are interchangeable, leaving only the personality of the producers, if ever, by chance, they have. This way multiple cameras to film actually derives from television sitcoms such as who, as public tours before, using multiple cameras so that actors can play their scenes without interruption. In film, the result is essentially the same type of image (same method, same result?), Only to look more slick, more elaborate lighting and art direction technically flawless. Images of banality frightening, hidden under a veneer aesthetisising.

Obviously, the rational structure wanton described by Saul is not alien to this mode of production denying creativity for the benefit of productivity. However, because the contemporary version appears much more evident in our comprehensive report to the image. We must return here on the relationship between word and image on television among others, governed by our priests and journalists. If words are so important on TV, it is obviously that images are not. Just watching a news report tells us nothing, the images which follow are empty and without content, even to the point where it is impossible to know how new it is. For example in the case of murder or an incident with the victim, the police do not always allow reporters to approach the scene. Obliged to produce images, reporters filming the red ribbon and vehicles in the distance, an image without context that tells us absolutely nothing about what is happening. Only the voice of the reporter informs us, the images serve only to words of support. You can say the same of soap opera: cut the sound and it is impossible to know what happens. It's not quite true of Cinema, Hollywood is still rooted in action, not necessarily in the action film with explosion and everything, but the character is revealed by an act by example. The dialogues are essential for the intelligibility of the work, but it is often possible to understand the tenor of events presented only through the image (which is also due to this famous Hollywood redundancy by which everything must be repeated three times often in the image and sound).

But what happens exactly, tells us this image of a typical newscast?

The problem with these images, empty of content injected by speech, interpreted by the words is that they still give us the impression of being meaningful, or, to be exact they seem to us to attend the event, "as if we were there." Yet without the word, it is impossible to know what, exactly, we participate, but the perfection of mechanical reproduction of reality offered by the photographic image gives us the illusion of direct experience and therefore a greater knowledge of the world. And then, the realism of the photographic image becomes particularly dangerous since it is a misconception purveyor of the world. These images that assail us every day are a sham, merely a mechanical reproduction of a reality that was before the eye of a camera almost by chance, and they are certainly not a source of knowledge.

The image is magical, I wrote in my previous post, she takes us into it to make us experience the world. The dummy also gives the impression that we do see the world, but this is an illusion. All we see is the simulacrum as a sham. Therein lies the danger because, as has been repeated so often (and so) Baudrillard simulacrum which is what has now covered the real point of hiding almost completely, the card which now covers the territory. The problem is not the abundance of images, but the abundance of images, images purporting to involve us in the world when they are merely a reflection of themselves. But the realism of the photographic image is so strong that we are easily absorbed by these simulacra, especially since the words that accompany them invite us. When Saul talks about the artist who can no longer serve as a critical pillar of society, is what he describes is the artist ordered to make the flight, the frills and "beautiful" An artist who embellished, so who is sentenced to sham (beauty is the best way to seduce sham).

Do not overlook the repetitive nature of these images, their redundancy, because the important thing is not the content but the stimuli, sensation. Pictures accompany the words in order to satisfy that thirst audio-visual stimulation, these images are intended as a drug and we consume them as such, as if they allowed us to cross time and space, as if we discovered with them ubiquitous. And like a drug, the consumption is increasing with time, while the pace of these images will increase inexorably. Soon, the average time a plan will be only a fraction of a second, we can not content ourselves with a mere 24 frames per second. The mock

leads us to see a world that is false, which is precisely the simulacrum, which is the rational abstraction, so the structure that enabled its emergence. At rub those paltry force visual look heavier and becomes lazy, he does not need to look to see. But while the picture becomes increasingly pervasive, there is a parallel deterioration of language, as if the opportunities offered by a picture reproducing perfectly the reality supplanted the language as a means of communication or even way of thinking . However, thought needs to be articulated abstraction allowed by the words and in any case these images fail to connect that with the words that accompany them. All Languages poorer, that words like image; how do we communicate then, or rather, what is communicated by these juxtapositions audio-visual?

It is often said that today we learn to read an image faster than before. We see so many images, so young that we can easily capture and decode them, so that we can include a series of images that are only a few seconds. Nonsense, of course. Decode these images we so easily do not ask to be decoded, they give us, through this banality that I blame them, by their total detachment from the real deal. Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown purports to show the genius of Da Vinci highlighting the structural elements of the Mona Lisa, some of which are fairly obvious to anyone who stopped for more than three or four seconds on the canvas. The Mona Lisa is probably the most famous painting in the history of art, how is it that we can still be surprised by a detail of an image that we have been overexposed, especially if as is so often said, we are now masters in understanding images?

Film critics often say that Learn to read an image, once done this learning with the tools needed to better appreciate and ultimately criticize. Some knowledge of art history is therefore necessary to appreciate a work. What is true and false: true, insofar as being able to locate a work in context that allows us to better bring out the features. But also false since we work resonates in a personal way, without the context in which they were created intervenes: my favorite movies are movies that have a unique place in history art, but films that have a special place in my story. I would say that this taming of the image is necessary because of our context of overflow and abundance, but we should say, more precisely, that we must not learn to read an image, but to distinguish a living representation of a sham.

Read an image means to learn more technical concepts related to image creation, including the principles of composition, which can be useful but not essential, or even useless. It is possible to understand the content of an image without having to describe more Technically, mentioning only the ideas it raises. We do not need to know how many gold film appreciate Greenaway, or any other conventional notion of proportion, yet its almost always use the frames (especially done in its embedded images). They are not these concepts to be learned, but rather an intuition, emotion may be a sensitivity in any case that is only acquired through a detox, that is to say by prolonged contact with strong images, or simply with real images rather than mock.


I wanted to talk about the abyss-critical audience, I'm still far away ... These paragraphs seem to mean "the critic, however, knows differentiate the image of the dummy so that the public does not know" but frankly I doubt it. First, because some films have a particularly immoral relationship with the image and they are generally acclaimed ( Downfall, Schindler's List more recently here Polytechnic even to this subject text by Andre Habib on Hors Champ ) but also, more Simply because this idea is more theoretical than pragmatic, the difference between the sham and the image "real" is far from being so obvious. In addition, most films produced today have cut almost all ties with reality, they inhabit a fantasy world of cinema. In fact, the cinema has always been a world alongside the reality, but it was attached, the transition is made from one to another (I think this image to fly in Serge Daney Perseverance , but the memory is vague ...) and now the bridges are cut. It seems impossible now talk about reality without a genre: American films of the moment are more politically District 9, which reworks the codes of science fiction to deal with xenophobia, or Inglourious Basterds , which I mentioned here labor image. The reality is dealt with only through the kind of allegory or even a speech on the image, as in these two films. This is especially true in Hollywood, for sure, who hurries to integrate all issues of the day in a known structure, the kind of like State of Play, Thriller ordinary erecting a portrait very lazy journalism paper in decline. To address the world today, this film through references to the cinema of the 70s, he remains in his imagination and referential bubble, confined in the film world, but never dared approach the reality he claims to criticize. I dare

this theory: the public and the critic both appreciate this imaginary world unattached to reality, but in different ways, hence the disagreement. The public feasts on entertainment So fictions away as possible from reality, whose ultimate goal is to have forgotten. The use of a structure reassuring and rational (genus) permits. The criticism, he likes this imaginary world he knows very well, it explores a long time, he is the expert. Him, he treats instead of those films that play in this imaginary world, which construct or deconstruct. State of Play in , what interests him is not the suspense that boast the public, but the fact that it recognizes the codes of the films of Alan J. Pakula. One way or another, we are in both sham and attitudes recognize and appreciate it as such: the public will say frankly that he does not think going to the views that he wants to forget the depressing reality for a while, and it penalizes the simulacrum. The critical way in fun games repositories or continually comparing its securities-games-to-work analyzed the words to those that precede it, acknowledges that the film exists only in his fantasy world, that of cinema - I've never read a newspaper critic who runs a discourse on the image, that is to say who would question the relationship between image and reality. By cons, there is almost always questions about the relationship between image and image, between this film and others. We must believe that whatever the critic knows, the movies, and more.

"The ability of cinema to testify, to be-there-in-the-present, having nearly disappeared, he found himself obliged to invent imaginary worlds to explore the mind. "Said Daney Perseverance in . The cinema, after witnessing the real image, does not testify more than the image by image. Does this mean, like Godard, the film is dead? Or is that Bazin and all others are in the field, it was overvalued the ontology of the image, is what cinema is an art of imagination than of reality? Still following Godard, there is rather pass from one to another, after his failure to testify in history (eg the Holocaust), the image was permanently removed from reality, she sank in the imagination after being unable to represent the Unimaginable. Hence Today the ubiquity of sham ...

Nadine Jansen Milks Milen..

Inglorious Basterds

I interrupt my train of thought before to get rid an obsession out of the last projection of Tarantino ago two weeks I was somewhat mixed, seduced by all and a few moments (ah this first chapter!), but disappointed by the assembly (to quickly: a bit too long I found). Since then, film kept me going for a second, I am eagerly's blog Jim Emerson Scanners , who also seems to be taken in the same monomania, almost all his later texts are devoted to the work tarantinienne . The interpretations and comments are flowing everywhere on the canvas, Emerson outlines here, the discussion most comprehensive and most interesting here is and here, a conversation between two bloggers who have exchanged their impressions about the movie for a week, including responding to the objection by Jonathan Rosenbaum.
The American critic emeritus
had originally written a short article in which he reproached IB be morally similar to a denial of the Holocaust, without much define his position. He argued a bit with the two bloggers mentioned above and took it a little more detail on its website its argument. It is also not the only one to criticize the film its lack of historical truth, or rather his complete detachment from any moral responsibility towards history, this argument was echoed by many critics. As noted by Bill R. (One our blogs), the argument is disingenuous: rework the story is not something new, a whole branch of science-fiction fun to guess the likely consequences of a history deflected as Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick in which the Nazis won the Second World War (or in another register The Plot against America by Philip Roth ). The fictional story of Dick disguises a much more drastic than Tarantino, yet it is one of the most famous books by this author cult. In Tarantino Allies always win the war, only the denouement unfolds differently and a little earlier. It does not divert more history that Oliver Stone, for example, that in JFK requires great conspiracy theory. There is in Stone's film one way to interpret the story that distorts so much immoral as IB , especially since the latter is clearly whimsical in nature, while Stone claims to truth .

In fact, unless it is immoral to be moral has been criticized as Tarantino, the film critics argue, refusing any discussion on the theme of moral revenge by not having that as part of a great entertaining show. Rosenbaum's argument makes more sense when he takes the trouble to define it: "Since Many People Have Been Asking Me to Elaborate Why I think we Inglorious Basterds IS akin to Holocaust denial, I'll try to explain What I Mean as succinctly as possible, by paraphrasing Roland Barthes: Anything That Makes Unreal Fascism is wrong. (He WAS speaking about Pasolini's Salo , I think one CAN aim aussi Anything Say That That Makes Unreal Nazism is wrong.) For me, Inglourious Basterds harder Makes the Holocaust, not Easier to grasp have A Historical Reality. Insofar as it Becomes a movie convention - by Which I mean is derived only from Other Reality movies - Loses it icts Historical reality. "Rosenbaum criticizes Tarantino finally doing what he wanted to do was to say to approach the Second World War a purely cinematic point of view, leaving aside any historical truth.

should first ask if it's more immoral to have fun at the scalp Nazis in a fantasy as such assumed that create emotional catharsis from the Holocaust as Schindler's List in or Life Is Beautiful . Rivette said of abjection, I do not see at Tarantino, it is not the beautiful from the ugly, it does not approach a terrifying reality in a soothing aesthetic comforting, only he built his remarks on the power of the image, it departs from reality to do so. In Life Is Beautiful , the horror of the camps is completely discharged, it is even turned into a whole movie just a game by its main character seeks to divert us from the horror that hides Benigni not only his son but also to the viewer, our innocence then being redeemed by his death ... We mourn his sacrifice which allows the salvation of his son and ours since we will never know through his actions what he has hidden abomination (the camera does not show us either way), big thank you we are so better ... That it is the very definition of abjection as Rivette (which can also been added, but to a lesser extent, in Schindler's List or more recently The Reader), a definition that does not fit at all IB.

This famous abjection ...

For Tarantino's film does not drain at all morality or the reality of his speech, only this film is about cinema as a force of propaganda, then its ability to act on reality. If sailing reality through a movie screen, the better to highlight the fact that this movie was on this reality. We are right in Baudrillard, where there is no real referent, the film works only by allusions to other films but these films cater to a certain vision of Nazism, an iconography that magnifies Tarantino, often to the point of make grotesque, hence the shouting and gesticulating Hitler (slightly more cartoonish than elsewhere in the infamous Ganz Downfall of Hirschbiegel) Goebbels or reduced to a film producer. Tarantino plays with the image of wicked Nazi-built cinema, but this picture is the same one we have when we think of Nazism, long ago we forgot the real referent. I understand more or less the reference to the Holocaust Rosenbaum, only the final scene and the film turned into a crematorium directly recalls the Holocaust, the film focuses on war, not the Nazi extermination policies. The Holocaust is not a convention of theater in IB , war and revenge are and it is here that the movie is played. It is true that the Nazis are seen as the enemy Supreme because of the Holocaust, they are detached from all too human traits to avoid reminding us that they were after all only men on the contrary, they are merely monsters, the film seems to say, a inhuman enemy, but it is exactly this vision of the Nazi monster that Tarantino likes to burst, to massacre with blows from a baseball bat. In fact, especially the abyss by giving some weight to his human characters.



The most obvious example of Nazi portrayed as the archenemy is in Indiana Jones , where our beloved Indy can kill opponents with impunity just because they are Nazis. We do not have to wonder about the moral value of Harrison Ford, he has the right to murder because it attacks the Nazis, only humans (and at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark , mentioned in the cinema flame IB even God melts the evil Nazis, in a gesture akin to easily Spielberg's revenge against the atrocities committed against his people). Already, at Tarantino, the Nazi is not so grotesque, some scenes play on a certain ambiguity : There is such an honorable soldier who refuses to reveal the position of German troops. Tarantino plays on difficult terrain (he himself said in interview with the always excellent Charlie Rose), it gives a certain dignity, humanity to a character who is about to be massacred. Never in the Nazis Spielberg has been shown with much empathy, Indy's enemies are bullies, violence appears justified. It seems the least among Tarantino in every scene of violence he bothers to question it, by making these characters more human, as in this example of honorable soldier or The scene in Louisiana with this young soldier newly father.

Zoller's character breaks alone all this iconography that Tarantino drink from a simple soldier he became a hero Nazi, a sniper who shot exceptionally alone three hundred Allied soldiers in three days. This feat was repeated in the cinema in a propaganda film produced by Goebbels, Nation's Pride, which plays its own role Zoller. Already at its second meeting with Shoshanna, he is reluctant to describe his war efforts, it does not seem particularly proud of his heroism. However, he boasts of being a movie star, moving across the film, it's so big movie buff. But seeing his repeated actions on the big screen, Zoller is nauseated, he can not bear to see this: Tarantino then completely breaks the image of Nazi monster, simple serial killer. And of course, is the film that made him see the horror of his experiences, the film that led him to understand his own life differently. At that time, the abject gestures seen on screen has more to him than what he felt when the has really raised the excitement of cinema is more important than the emotion experienced. Ironically, the image of the Nazi monster movie produced by the then destroyed by the strength of that film. In addition, Nations' Pride serves formatting abyss, it is a game whereby self-referential Tarantino puts us in front of our own pleasure to see the Nazis die while we watch those same Nazis applauding and yelling fun before this Nation's Pride where we see the allied soldiers to be massacred.

It's not just that the character of Zoller Tarantino has a priori as a cartoon before the break gradually. All IB remains in the registry and coarse caricature, not a moment did we feel that we must take this seriously, though some characters appear terribly human. The scene at the tavern for example is so long precisely because Tarantino takes the time to present every person: we are to sympathize with the soldiers as allies with the Nazis or the bartender and his daughter. The tension is built in alternating points of view: the climax of this scene is powerful because we had the time to know everyone, we fear for the fate of all those present, not only for our three heroes. There already is a perspective that goes beyond the mere cartoon, which is especially reinforced by the play on language (present throughout the film, but at this time is her best drama). Tarantino said in an interview that the scene is a reaction to Where Eagles Dare, spy movie in which Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood have to wear a suit to German speaking perfect German. It is here, on the contrary, a certain realism in the course of the stage, in how to use the imperfect German Archie Hicox. And of course, is the film, beyond language, that will save lives (albeit temporarily) to film critic ...



Thus, violence free IB reflects the violence with which the cinema grabbed a historical reality to reduce it to its most simple and easily acceptable, that is to say, the equation = Nazi monster. Tarantino shows the predominance of this image on historical truth, it presents the gap, it does not just play innocently with an iconography. By showing the power of film, strength of pressure on the real (whether as an instrument of propaganda Goebbels, that power play between Shoshanna cinephile and Zoller, a tool for survival of an instrument or Hicox Shoshanna for destruction), it reminds us that the image is stronger than the reality it covers, often the truth of the film is much more important than the truth of the real saying. In general moviegoer, it does not condemn all of the strength of the narrative image, however he did by it, hence the love of cinema that we constantly feel in IB .

So where does Tarantino: not in history but in the cinema. This is primarily a movie moviegoer moviegoers to not only thanks to the countless references (there is a semi-interesting list here), but also the vital function basically occupies the film in the works : this is the film that turns the crematorium, the relationship between Shoshanna Zoller and is built on an exchange where the war is translated into film title (Linder cons Chaplin, Pabst Riefenstalh cons), the world's salvation depends on a double-agent actress and a film critic ... The references are many: the opening scene, one of the greatest moments of cinema in recent years, is a tribute to the opening of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly , with reference to John Ford (a plan that incorporates the famous backlit final The Searchers, a masterpiece on the ultimate reason for the revenge). Most of the films mentioned are also on the same basis of revenge westerns of Leone, Carrie for the grand finale, the opening image that evokes the masterpiece from Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven , etc.. References can also be used ironically: in Nation's Pride , the film Zoller, there is a recovery plan famous ironclad Potemkin (a character with a bullet in the eye) as Goebbels wrote in his memoirs that Eisenstein's film is a great film, but poor propaganda (according to Charlie Rose Tarantino), or even the final scene seems to evoke the Metropolis of Lang's favorite movie of Hitler's last vision he has before he died. Other moments are particularly bold, as this test improvised King Kong as a metaphor for the slave or the scene video for David Bowie. There is more here than mere references amusing, than mind games to meet aficionados of cinema: the same about the film is built on this set of references, these images of war, Nazis or revenge that Tarantino uses is to shift or to take them back to their account, thus enriching his work.

Tarantino ...
Eastwood And ...


The film is more important than reality, the dominant image of reality, all this is staged in the film itself, notwithstanding reference these games or this iconography scratched: several characters have nicknames they stick to the skin and raise the level of myth (Jew Hunter Bear Jew, Aldo Rayne descendant of the legendary Mountain Man, etc..) or Shoshanna to change its name to survive, to adopt a fiction to continue to live or allied soldiers to impersonate Germans in the tavern. The film is thus built on this game of appearances and deceptions, all the tension is built around the same question: will they discover who they really are? The structure of the second chapter also highlights this aspect: this portion is more or less told by a soldier bearing witness to Hitler, it worried about the fact that this story will have on soldiers. So the narrative of the actions of Bastards is important is that it terrifies the German soldiers, the Bastards are being built a myth, an image (by the way we see just what the bastards, the important it is their reputation and the effect they have on the German soldiers, so their propaganda). In the middle of the soldier's story, an omniscient narrator emerges to tell the story of one of the Bastards, too pure product of the picture: all the German soldiers know, all are afraid, because his murderous exploits of Nazi have been widely reported by newspapers. It is a terrifying myth, like the bastards are too. In fact, they are for the Nazis that the Nazis are to us: monsters without souls, a terrifying image. The film does so by inversion, giving the Jews the power to burn on a Nazi swastika as they themselves were marked with the Star of David or by exterminating the Nazi high command in avenging flames (or the character of Zoller, a war hero became a movie star, as Audie Murphy was in Hollywood). That, too, which shocked this answer violence with violence, as if the film was assumed that to kill a monster, we must in turn act monster. IB is a sort of catharsis violent fantasies of revenge sated - a fantasy that only cinema can offer ...

And yet, after all that, I barely touched on what makes the film so memorable, so haunting: Beyond any moral debate, there is the pure pleasure of a rich and consistently brilliant form, the even greater pleasure to discover the talent of Christoph Waltz, absolutely remarkable in the role of Landa the disorientation that comes with a peculiar structure (five-year history distilled into a few long scenes in real time, a fortnight at first glance, long exposure and presentation of all the characters and issues, in three chapters, before the start meet in the fourth chapter, culminating in the final ecstasy, the whole movie built on a single type of scene, interrogation, presented differently each time, the use of long periods dialogues where the tension builds gradually expanded until it bursts into a dazzling short and violent liberation) ... And of course, the pleasure of seeing the movie deal to history, to see a film buff declare openly and without embarrassment that he much preferred the film to reality, love of art that I understand only too well.