All this talk of possibly cutting Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” got many people upset and hot under the collar. But is any of it true?
The Wrap first reported that 40 minutes of the film were going to be cut. We were one of the first to point out The Wrap’s bad math (they said 40 minutes to be cut from a 2 hour and 4o minute edit, but the version everyone saw at Cannes was already 2 hours and 28 minutes). That wonly math basically already threw the reporting into question. We’ve seen “Inglourious Basterds” you can’t really cut that much from it.
As we wrote when the report came out, “What ‘Basterds’ could use is some nips and tucks to rambling dialogue, but any major cuts — like 40 minutes worth — would seriously undermine the cohesion of the narrative (that can be clunky enough as it is, see the reason why they’re potentially adding a scene).”
What we wrote to Cinemablend was even more explicit, basically stating that cutting 40 minutes of the film would be impossible, “While Basterds [the film] is meh, the script is sorta jenga. Taking 40 minutes of it would kill it and make it incomprehensible.”
The Wrap have been aggressive since their inception and trying to make a name for themselves. As David Poland puts it, The Wrap’s Sharon Waxman (who wrote the intital 40-minute cut story) is “a serious person, [but] one of the most reckless and irresponsible psuedo-journalists in the game.”
Now Patrick Z. McGavin who writes for Stop Smiling and has also written for, the Chicago Reader, Chicago Tribune, EmanuelLevy.Com, Hollywood Reporter and Screen International, is calling bullshit on the report and not-so-subtly throwing digs at Waxman and the Wrap.
The erroneous report is being now called, “40minutesgate,” and McGavin seems to completely agree with us that cutting 40 minutes is untenable. “You can’t cut Inglourious Basterds. Whatever you think about the movie, it’s of a piece. There are parts of the movie you can tweak, but they tend to be the strongest material in the movie, like the prologue and the bar sequence. Tarantino’s script and the Cannes version are a fresco in which the pieces have their own peculiar logic, narrative shape and emotional movement. It’s simply unrealistic to imagine Tarantino doing any significant cuts because it would require a whole sale shift in his conception of the material.”
McGavin is completely on the money, especially that last bolded sentence (our emphasis). He then basically goes on to say it’s bullshit. “I have my own source on this movie. When the word started circulating in Cannes about Universal or Weinsteins demanding Tarantino cut the film, I asked him to sort it out. ‘Absolutely untrue,’ he told me.”
“Following the recent wave of uninformed speculation, I contacted him again. He wrote back to say, it’s ostensibly a lot of sound and noise, with no basis in fact, other than some bloggers that he thinks are trying to make a name or reputation. (He calls it the “40minutesgate.”) He also makes the very practical and intelligent point that Weinsteins and Universal agreed to and financed a 165-page script. Why would they turn around and demand a highly unrealistic two-hour cut.”
This line seems to be aimed at you know who: “It won’t be the first time, but a lot of bloggers and alleged industry journalists (italics our emphasis) are going to be looking pretty foolish.”
Of course, McGavin’s source is just another source, but given the script, the film and the content, we’re inclinded to believe it. He suspects it’ll be five-six minutes shorter and notes what Anne Thompson has already said about a small additional scene added.