I have watched A.I without the sound on and the camera work is mindbogglingly exquisite. Spielberg, prone to sweeping shots and a camera that is always kinetic, is somehow able to convey the right amount of motion, direction, and speed to fully bring about the emotions and elucidate the themes inherit in the individual characters. However, turning off the sound denies one the experience of watching one of the saddest films I have experienced. Consider the protagonists. One is a boy designed to replace the designer’s son and purchased for a similar reason of consolation. It’s a robot designed to replace love as is the second protagonist, gigolo Joe, another robot designed to love, this time focusing on the carnal pleasures of love, as opposed to David’s emotional affinities. Why do humans need to design robots to love? Now the greater themes come into play. Spielberg and Kubrick are commenting on humankind’s inability to connect, to feel with one another. Humans design these robots and eventually they take over and the humans have died out, because while humans understand the concept of humanity they are unable to prove it through practice. Hence, the humans hold flesh fairs where they cheer the destruction of the machine, while the advanced machines, ruling in a post human environment, are contemplative and serene, lamenting the loss of humans, and cherishing the discovery of David who will be their key into the past world of living organisms.

Some argue against the success of the collaboration between Kubrick and Spielberg. I have yet to see a finer teeming in cinema between two distinct minds. Kubrick is the nihilist, who believe in the achievements of man as superior to man himself, while Spielberg is the humanist, who specifically is compassionate toward the innocence of children, placing Spielberg solely in the ranks of Truffaut in that regard. Together they crafted a film that is both tender and brutal, and I relish their achievement.

Another question; I noticed, as you probably did, that Tarantino was recycling music from Kill Bill in scenes of Inglorious. From my standpoint, and aside from the fact that I actually love the music, I was confused, mostly because the music conjured images and feelings from Kill Bill and took away from what he was trying to do on screen. My question is why would he choose to reuse here and is this commonplace in his movies (and I haven’t realized yet) and does is have something to do with the speghetti-western elements he has going in both of these movies?

I didn’t like the film nearly as much as Paul. I think the five chapters can stand alone as five brilliant short films, but they don’t add up to much, primarily because of Tarantino’s overly simplistic story arch. Shosanna represents Tarantino’s dream girl: pulp fiction reading, film loving, director respecting, Nazi killing, blond, French intellectual. She’s the martyr of the story. She sacrifices herself to kill the Nazis and saves the Jewish people. Replace her with Jesus and the Nazis with the Romans and you have Tarantino’s revisionist version of the New Testament. The problem with her character is that we don’t really know who she is as a person outside of her plot motivations. I’m rather shocked that the man who made Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown has made this film where not a single character is a three-dimensional person, only a plot contrivance to push ahead to the final scene (hence my appreciation of the film on a individual chapter basis instead of the sum of its parts).

I suppose in the themes of the film, Shosanna represents the victim’s revenge as a counterpoint to the Basterds’ comparatively motiveless assault on the Nazis. Of course her act of vengeance would not work without the Basterds, whereas the Basterds’ explosives would work just fine without the theater burning down. In fact, it’s Hans Landa who has Aldo’s bomb placed in Hitler’s balcony, so without Landa, Shosanna would not have been able to kill Hitler. Of course she dies completely unaware of this. And That’s why you have hit the exact weakness of the film. The film as a whole is a beautiful shell, with interesting characters doing and saying interesting things, completely holding and absorbing our attention, but the questions of ‘why’ are not good ones to ask because the film will not allow for answers. The film, totally plot based, does not allow for deeper explorations of themes and motivations beneath the surface except for those that connect the dots from the beginning to the end.

I just got around to seeing the movie. Great stuff, but I’ve been bothered by Shosanna’s character; specifically I can’t seem to make sense of her purpose in the movie (besides the practicality) or her relationship with war-hero Zoller. Her character is truly tragic; from the first scene, to her restaurant encounter with Landa, to her death and inability to realize her well-deserved revenge. I understand how I’m suppose to feel about her but where does she fit in the big picture of this movie? Shed some light and help me make some sense of her character.