Don't blame Roth, blame Quentin

A full out attack article on Cabin Fever & Hostel director Eli Roth by blogger Melissa Lafsky is pretty much a waste of time because it misses a glaringly obvious p.o.v. I mean, in essence - I understand what Melissa is saying and I will agree with this part as found by Jeff Wells;

"The bulk of the rest of Roth's career -- and even the success of Hostel -- has rested on the unbelievably lucky move of becoming Quentin Tarantino's shoulder monkey,

But to write an article which calls Roth "indefensible" for appearing in the film, well I simply have to take issue with it. Surely the blame should rest with Quentin for hiring him for a part he was never going to be able to carry, you can't really blame Roth for his lack of talent in front of the camera. Sure, you point out he doesn't have it, but to blame him for someone else hiring him, just sounds wrong. Look, we all know he can't act for shit, and Roth himself knows it too, or at least is starting to get the idea now. Remember when Quentin saw himself as an actor in the 90's and only realised after he tested himself in From Dusk Till Dawn that he just didn't actually have what it takes and he subsequently reduced his own screentime in his movies (outside of a brief cameo in Death Proof - he hasn't appeared in the four other movies he has directed since Dawn). I imagine that this feeling has hit Roth after Inglourious Basterds. But let's be clear and fair about this. I don't blame Roth for weakning the Bear Jew character in the Nazi revenge flick and neither should you, I blame Quentin. Like sometimes happens with Quentin, he put friendship and personal relations above what his head told him, and so the casting of Roth for a part he wasn't capable of getting across is his mistake. Put it this way, and if you were Eli Roth - a director with a small niche audience who gets offered a MAJOR cool role in a Quentin Tarantino movie, which includes a moment when you put thousands of bullets into the body of Adolf Hitler - wouldn't you take the part on? Of course you would.