Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds [sic]  (Read 103977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #495 on: August 31, 2009, 11:28:21 AM »
0
nice link mod!  :yabbse-smiley:

03

  • SBD
  • ***
  • Posts: 1701
  • positive energy;
  • Respect: +455
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #496 on: September 02, 2009, 03:02:56 PM »
0
i agree with gt
in this movie whenever there were statements they were usually followed by responses.
there were so many interrogative statements i was like wtf
i also was quite unnerved by the fact that there were characters, a progression of time, a soundtrack, and the pretentious quirk of credits.
a waste of time, hopefully he can make a movie one day that will fulfill everyones expectation of a film that has no elements of anything that can be regarded with any opinion.

children with angels

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Respect: +6
    • The Lesser Feat (blog)
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #497 on: September 02, 2009, 10:11:57 PM »
0
I actually GENUINELY agree with GT about the over-reliance on excessively slow dialogue-heavy scenes.

This seems to be becoming a trademark with Tarantino, and the problem with this for me stems from the fact that he has stopped treating his films as if they were in any way grounded in 'realism'. Pulp and Reservoir were dialogue heavy, but also executed in a way that allowed for spontaneity, messiness, etc. The way they were written, acted and filmed made them seem far less composed, precious, poised and self-consciously artificial than his films feel now. This helps us laugh along with the Like a Virgin scene or the Royale with Cheese scene because of the way they brought a naturalistic streak (in terms of how people actually talk to one another) into contexts where we didn't expect to find it. That kind of relationship to reality has slowly drained away from his work.

From Kill Bill onwards, every piece of dialogue, every character quirk, every tiny movement has felt orchestrated and predetermined along emphatically 'cinematic' lines - whether that be because they are direct references or because Tarantino is trying to construct his own specifically 'Tarantinoesque' aesthetic. To rely on slow, dialogue-heavy scenes in this context makes me lose interest because i can't see the characters as anything other than exquisitely crafted pawns in a game of Tarantino's own devising, and thus care far less about whatever they happen to be talking about. If he stuck simply to plot, genre-fucking or pastiching, the disconnect with the 'real' wouldn't be an issue, but it doesn't create a good environment for being interested in excessively-extended dialogue sequences. This reached crisis point in Death Proof, but it's still certainly evident in Basterds.

Having said all that, I really enjoyed a great deal of this film. Some of it is just such exciting, thrilling cinema, infused with all the enthusiasm for the medium that Tarantino brings with him as standard, and as far as I'm concerned that's impossible to deny. It's also the most morally whacked-out movie he's ever made, and left me reeling, wondering what I made of it ethically. I still haven't decided, but I do know that I'm happy to have had the experience of seeing it (and particularly on the big [face] screen).

Nevertheless, I think there's cause for concern in the direction he's heading, and in what he's now self-consciously constructing as being 'Tarantionesque'.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5514
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +372
    • my site
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #498 on: September 03, 2009, 12:09:46 AM »
0
Well, I considered this film to be a piece of shit. If you want to discredit my opinion, know I am not a Quentin Tarantino fan because you can't be a fan and hang your hat on only liking Pulp Fiction. I went into this film expecting to really like it because I thought the Sergio Leone aspect of the movie would translate to me. Everyone has a sense of genre the same way they have a sense of humor and action is my cup of tea, but Tarantino made an action subject very boring and dry to me.

I think the main problem is that Tarantino tries to inject all of his conversational temperament into this film. Instead of adapting his style into the genre of the story and toning down all the dialogue, he writes the film as if he was still writing Pulp Fiction where he has a plot that is so open ended it really isn't a plot. The conversations do not work here because there are structures and mechanisms at work that are building up to a conclusion. The point is to challenge the patience of someone with a slow story by keeping the story on a continual upward movement to a dramatic conclusion, but Tarantino allows his everyday conversational tone dominant the scenes so much that I felt there were different stories at work here. They all came together by the end, but the scenes would go on for so long I would forget about all the other subplots.

Then the subject matter isn't appropriate for all this dialogue. It was cute to see the quiet niceties of the one SS officer at the beginning because it was unnerving with what happens at the end of the scene, but Tarantino repeats the stale Nazi niceties all through out the film.  They dominate the story because many scenes are the resistance characters dealing with Nazis in their immediate presence so they are reacting to the dominating Nazi tone. I enjoyed the back and forth dialogue when the Basterds were by themselves or controlling the pitch of a scene, but that happens so very little. Most of the time it is the Nazis asking the same questions, doing the same salutes and greetings and finally, raising the same suspicions. The Nazi soldier or officer is a dead character devoid of any interesting individuality, but the way Tarantino allows their characters to talk for the majority of the film, you'd think he thought their banalities were the most interesting.

I know Tarantino isn't trying to copy Leone, but he should take a few more lessons from Leone. Inglourious Basterds reminds me of a Western in that it deals with image driven figures like a Western does. The Western is based on the image and actions of a gunslinger. These figures do not talk at length because there is little to really say about them. Their presence speaks for the majority of their personas. I think the Nazi soldier has the same limitations, especially when you structure the story to make them the primary villians. The image of who they are and what they represent is brought out well enough in their uniforms and look. Tarantino tries to make interesting conversation out of them, but they are monotonous creatures.

If Tarantino was going to do a heavy dialogue film, then he needed to center the story around more independent characters with independent motives and independent histories. He didn't need his characters best characters mainly react to circumstances around them because (as evidenced by the film) that just stunted their output. I know most people here like the movie, but I find it intriguing that the common wish is for more of the Basterds. I also don't think he needed to be so heavy to the detail of every scene. There is no new suspense with showing how a stupid card game is played twice. There is no reason with showing how an SS officer is overly nice before he gets cruel and repeating it at the original long length every time. These things (and others) just kill the motivation to see the film as a gradual build up to a huge conclusion. Leone tested patience with Once Upon A Time in The West, but his slowness wasn't a continuing repetition of actions and things. I think it's easier to stomach a slower story when new things are being shown at all times, but repition is the easiest way to kill interest.

Like I said, I really thought I would like this, but I don't think Tarantino does well with either plot or stories that focus on action before dialogue. With that said, I hope he never does the Western film he dreams of making.

this reads like a conspiracy theorist's film criticism.

but all of your criticisms still don't sound strong enough to warrant the "piece of shit" comment.  they all sound, even by your standards, just minor observations.  I don't understand how they add up to "piece of shit."
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #499 on: September 03, 2009, 01:00:58 AM »
0
this reads like a conspiracy theorist's film criticism.

That really makes no sense to me. You're going to have to explain.

but all of your criticisms still don't sound strong enough to warrant the "piece of shit" comment.  they all sound, even by your standards, just minor observations.  I don't understand how they add up to "piece of shit."

They aren't minor observations. First, I disagree with Tarantino trying to jam all of his dialogue into the film. It's a plot based story so Tarantino needs to respect the mechanisms of the plot. It's not open ended like Pulp Fiction. Second, I think the film is boring and monotonous because the most elaborated upon characters are the Nazi soldiers/officers who are themselves boring creatures of habit that repeat the same lines of dialogue through out the film. The independent/interesting characters like the Basterds seem to be minor players in the story. Third, I think Tarantino discredits the aesthetics of Leone by not understanding how to gradually build up a story to a dramatic conclusion. The scenes play out too long for no real purpose at all. I also think he discredits Leone by not understanding the power of image over dialogue. The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue. He is epitomized by look and action. Leone understood he couldn't give gunslingers lengthy conversations so he relied on their images and actions. Tarantino makes those hallmarks to be small parts of his film so it's an homage on only the most basic levels.


The parts about the film I enjoyed were the standard violent scenes, but they were always too short themselves. Leone based his action scenes on quick moments of shooting, but sustained a violent intensity for long moments. Tarantino tries that in the restaurant scene that ends in a violent shoot out of the crotches. During the scene, from the entrance of the Nazi soldier, we know something bad is going to happen, but it takes so long for the story to get to the point of violent intention that I forgot the men were at odds with each other. I started to lose myself in the banality of the Nazi soldier playing cool with the Basterds who were pretending to be soldiers.

So, in essense, I don't think you understood my review much at all.

tpfkabi

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2670
  • Respect: +22
    • twitter deed, twitter dead. in the heart or in the head?
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #500 on: September 03, 2009, 07:49:01 AM »
0
Question: If he had less talking would you flack him for being too Leone?

I have a feeling it would be said, "This is Tarantino, not Leone. Where's the quotable dialog?"

On the flip side, some of the conversation, though they usually had GREAT payoffs, did feel long.
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4514
  • Respect: +225
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #501 on: September 03, 2009, 09:44:56 AM »
0
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.


socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #502 on: September 03, 2009, 09:53:24 AM »
0
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.

are you grading it?  because sometimes the sound bite doesn't get the point across.

the one last hit that spent you...

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #503 on: September 03, 2009, 10:18:23 AM »
0
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.



haha yeah from a frenchman pov this sounds like nazi-luvin  :salute: haha  :yabbse-cheesy:

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #504 on: September 03, 2009, 10:30:58 AM »
0
interesting perspective GT (regarding the last page or two on this thread), and i think i agree with the majority of your insights, however you weight those things drastically different then myself, and you let small issues have such a strong negative reaction. i think that's what pete is getting at as well, correct me if i'm wrong pete.

i agree (and made a post recently on some thread somewhere) that Tarantino seems to have too much intent with his choices these days; post jackie brown.  for example the worst dialog was the superman speech in kill bill V2, so forced and poorly timed. though, there were moments in Inglorious Basterds that i wasn't aware of watching that Tarantino.  i even felt the bad Tarantino in death proof, it was him writing sassy chicks. I still like those movies, and forgive them of this because they're minor issues i have.  with that said, IB works because i don't need to forgive it, i really got caught up in the drama of the dialog from a few scenes, mainly the jew hunter and the underground bar come to mind.  in those scenes the reward was watching the dialog, the same way i used to feel with the Tarantino of yesteryear. It wasn't forced or poorly timed.

I don't think Tarantino needs to make a leone film.  You also state he's not trying to make a Leone film yet you preface a lot of your criticisms with how he's not living up to the leone bar.  well for anyone that doesn't think that is a fair standard to set, it just comes across like a useless litmus test.  i started to get caught up in the Leone points you were making on how he handled rhetoric, then realized there is more than one way to skin a cat.

i think what's fresh about the film far outweighs what you say. your points come across overly intellectual, like you approached the film from a scholar standpoint, bypassing the entertainment entirely. that's not to say you shouldn't look at it that way, but why not go in to it with a little more glee.  i went in gleeful, and despite the absolutely fucking retarded david bowie sequence, i was very entertained.  This isn't a deep movie, it's a clever movie with some interesting post script insights, that's all.

sadly people are calling it a masterpiece, not even close.  so it's got a WW2 setting and it's got a big scope.  it's a fucking action movie with cheesy shit in it, that's it.  but it's not a piece of shit, you're out on a limb with that.
the one last hit that spent you...

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #505 on: September 03, 2009, 12:16:07 PM »
0
The Nazi soldier is a iconic figure who can't be understood by dialogue.

Please explain what you mean by this, preferably in 50 words or less.

It means we know who the Nazi soldier is. He's explainable in just his look and actions. He's also held to limited dialogue in films because his chatter just represents typical Nazi barbarities. There is no individuality that goes beyond the uniform.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5779
  • Respect: +165
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #506 on: September 03, 2009, 12:40:19 PM »
0
interesting perspective GT (regarding the last page or two on this thread), and i think i agree with the majority of your insights, however you weight those things drastically different then myself, and you let small issues have such a strong negative reaction. i think that's what pete is getting at as well, correct me if i'm wrong pete.

I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film. Tarantino's identity in film is based around his dialogue abilities and I disliked it it on multiple levels. I also disliked other things so you're going to have to explain to me how my complaints are just small things. Even other people in other places who are fans of Tarantino called my criticisms very large.

with that said, IB works because i don't need to forgive it, i really got caught up in the drama of the dialog from a few scenes, mainly the jew hunter and the underground bar come to mind.  in those scenes the reward was watching the dialog, the same way i used to feel with the Tarantino of yesteryear. It wasn't forced or poorly timed.

You didn't think it was poorly timed? They played a card game twice, spent most of the conversation engaging in pleasantries to keep up apperances and finally very late in a long scene, announce they were all there to kill each other so finally got out of the banality business, but even that wasn't that great. Sorry, I have no idea what you mean by good timing.

I don't think Tarantino needs to make a leone film.  You also state he's not trying to make a Leone film yet you preface a lot of your criticisms with how he's not living up to the leone bar.  well for anyone that doesn't think that is a fair standard to set, it just comes across like a useless litmus test.  i started to get caught up in the Leone points you were making on how he handled rhetoric, then realized there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I know Tarantino isn't making a direct Leone homage, but I make the point because he needed more interesting characters like the Basterds at the forefront of his story. That would make the story more interesting and allow Tarantino to operate on a better level of dialogue and interaction. But I say he needs to take better from Leone because he doesn't have the Basterds starring. He has the Nazi soldier instead. It seems his point is to make the Nazi the point of suspense for the story, but he devotes so much time to them that he actually develops them into character types. Leone would have kept the Nazi soldier/office to a strict suspense mechanism.

i think what's fresh about the film far outweighs what you say. your points come across overly intellectual, like you approached the film from a scholar standpoint, bypassing the entertainment entirely. that's not to say you shouldn't look at it that way, but why not go in to it with a little more glee.  i went in gleeful, and despite the absolutely fucking retarded david bowie sequence, i was very entertained.  This isn't a deep movie, it's a clever movie with some interesting post script insights, that's all.

I told my friends I was convinced I would love this film. My exact point is that I thought I would be entertained and nothing more. I thoiught this would be the film where the Tarantino hang ups wouldn't get to me. I had no idea to criticize the film until the movie started to bore me and then depress me while I was watching it. Then I turned on my criticial hat because I wanted to make sense of my boredom, but that didn't happen until after the movie. I finished my viewing experience by hoping things would get fun.

I don't think I over critiicized the film by making points beyond the story. I believe I gaged it well but if you don't think I did, then please explain why.


Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +155
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #507 on: September 03, 2009, 01:13:34 PM »
0
you could have just quit after this;

Quote
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film.
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #508 on: September 03, 2009, 04:24:33 PM »
0
you could have just quit after this;

Quote
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, I dismantled the film.

no because that's not my gripe Neil, it's funny because that simple and short a statement would be the sound bite we just made fun of a few posts ago. I'm not bothered by the analysis or dismantling, I'm bothered by the emphasis. such a strong emphasis that he opened his review with calling it a piece of shit.


thanks for addressing my points GT.  like i said i found your insight interesting, and often agreed with the various points.  i just found it as the foundation for a different film whereas you somehow felt the film was ruined.  i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

I told my friends I was convinced I would love this film. My exact point is that I thought I would be entertained and nothing more. I thoiught this would be the film where the Tarantino hang ups wouldn't get to me. I had no idea to criticize the film until the movie started to bore me and then depress me while I was watching it. Then I turned on my criticial hat because I wanted to make sense of my boredom, but that didn't happen until after the movie. I finished my viewing experience by hoping things would get fun.

I don't think I over critiicized the film by making points beyond the story. I believe I gaged it well but if you don't think I did, then please explain why.

ok i can't argue with that, and i first hand have been through similar situations at the cinema.  a long time ago i gave my impression of when i saw guy richies revolver at TIFF, and i went through a very similar viewing transformaion; to the point of anger.  I guess i'm just amazed that this happened to you with IB. to each his/her own. you gaged it fine for your tastes, for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.
the one last hit that spent you...

New Feeling

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +4
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #509 on: September 03, 2009, 06:18:11 PM »
0

sadly people are calling it a masterpiece, not even close.  so it's got a WW2 setting and it's got a big scope.  it's a fucking action movie with cheesy shit in it, that's it. 

I don't think the setting or scope (which is relatively small) have much to do with why this is being hailed as a masterpiece.  It's actually the subversion of expectations when thinking of "war movies" that makes this such an interesting experience.  And to say that this is simply a "action movie with cheesy shit in it" and that's it is to miss huge portions of this movie that are nothing like that.  This is an action movie for about 10 minutes total.  And there is cheesy shit for about 15 minutes.  And this is indeed a masterpiece. 


 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy