The Hateful 8th – Is There a Mystery Behind the Hate?

Rating: Null/10 (9 January 2016)

First, this comment doesn't aspire to become a movie review in any proper sense, so I will say nothing about the movie's plot, performances etc. – many others have already done that. Second, devotees of Nietzsche whose "formula for happiness is a Yes, a No, a straight line" may also want to skip this piece and save themselves some time.
Having said that  In truth, the first part of the comment's summary above refers to the feelings that QT's latest seems to have largely induced among its audiences rather than my sentiments. Despite the fact that I've never been into this filmmaker (given Chapter Three – NO PUN intended) or due to it, I didn't hate it myself, nor did I find it overlong and boring. I think it runs as long as it should and can make a single viewing fairly entertaining. Unless, you're to suggest that this stuff shouldn't have been made at all. Which leads us to the second major complaint – the movie has no meaning that could really justify its existence. And that's already serious.
But if we look at the complete filmography of QT, as far as I'm concerned, there's only one entry there with which its author actually said something – that's the very first one. The finale of "Reservoir Dogs" did create a real drama with a real meaning behind it. Moreover, the latter was compellingly conveyed due to the genuine poignancy of the former. It's too bad that Ringo Lam could slightly paraphrase Kurosawa's remark on Leone's "A Fistful of Dollars" and say: "It's a fine finale. But it's MY finale". Undoubtedly, QT's original dialogue and no less than brilliant rearranging of the dramatic structure, along with subsequent competent directing, lifted Lam's material to another level in cinematic terms. But the meaning and its impact were mainly produced by the last scene. And it was also  hmm  lifted.
"Pulp Fiction" followed and was moderately interesting as an extreme postmodern experiment with genre-related "pulp fiction" cinema. And "Jackie Brown" had a glimpse of something truly humanistic. But that's about it. The rest were self-indulgent 'loony toons', stylistic games of different degree of interest (for QT fans) or disinterest (for everybody else). Of course, any of later movies can be seen as making some points or at least trying to do so. However, kind of "serious" meaning can formally be ascribed to practically anything – like any Mike Myers comedy, for instance. But "Godfather" is about legacy (in a way) and "Austin Powers" is about legacy (in a way). Still they do not quite work at the same level, do they?
And here's where the core of the problem lies. QT wants to see his movies as art. But what is art? It's hardly just something capable of being entertaining, even if for whole three hours in a row. I think a work of art is nothing more and nothing less than a necessarily honest and hopefully meaningful utterance on any aspect of reality. And all accomplished ones do deliver such utterances. That's why they are of value. On the other hand, playing with oneself, which QT was primarily engaged in all this time after "Jackie Brown", may be an appropriate activity to be exercised in the privacy of one's home.But why a multi-million "home video" reflecting on this activity should be of interest to anyone else is a minor mystery.
And now we're to get back to the main one – that of the hateful "8th by QT". Since, I believe, in this case pun was definitely intended – what's behind it? Is there anything behind all we have to encounter in the movie? Would it be possible to discern some legitimate meaning there? In principle – yes. Many people stated that they had been put off by the fact that the movie did not have any likable characters. But what if it WAS the whole point? What if implicitly it's not just about racial issues and how the past may be projecting into the present? What if the director is trying to hold a mirror up to our society as a whole – in which if there are innocents they are the first to be gone – and say: "This is how we look like and this is how we are going to end" – just because we are what we are? I mean, look around – honestly, would it really be THAT far-fetched? Quite naturally, nobody wants to recognize themselves in this ugly reflection completely lacking any redeeming qualities. Hence – the hatred, kind of divined and 'word-played' into the title.
My own little problem with this theory is that we are dealing with some sort of a 'junk food' version of something like von Trier's stuff then. Because if, for example, Trier's "quartet for the end of time" ("Dogville", "Manderlay", "Antichrist", "Melancholia") was undeniably totally and utterly starless and bible-black, it was also made through applying appropriate cinematic means. The way in which this movie is made, however, simply does not allow taking it or its message dead seriously, if I may put it so in the circumstance – it's way too, errr  absolutely everything and, albeit in its own fashion, probably TOO keen to entertain. So, instead of being edgy, ultimately winds up with the exact opposite. This kind of art turns out to be just like that Lincoln's letter. It's not bad. But it's still a fake.
So QT should probably indeed consider quitting. Or better still rethink his "I don't care about your dumb movie, I care about my dumb movie" attitude and become a producer. He has knowledge, experience, leverage. Why not to offer it to those who actually have something to say and not afraid of actually doing so? While himself remaining an integral part of the process that would create REAL art.