Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds [sic]  (Read 115100 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5795
  • Respect: +177
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #510 on: September 03, 2009, 08:46:38 PM »
0
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #511 on: September 04, 2009, 12:04:22 AM »
0
***SPOILER***


You've been warned...


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. 

these are two different points that don't relate to each other, one about whether or not it's a masterpiece, and the other about said action movie with cheesy shit in it. please don't throw what i said back in my face by referencing the wrong point. i can think it's big in scope, being an epic and still call it cheese. i just don't think masterpiece is exclusive to any genre or style.  so if i come across that way, it's not my intent.

1. it's a big scope in that there are like 4 languages in it, it's almost 3 hours long, it's set during WW2, it involves many speaking parts (none of which take a protagonist role), Hitler is killed in it by the heroes, Paris is set on fire by film itself and etc. I could go on. There isn't a single tarantino film that you could argue is bigger in scope, even kill bill.  it feels like a moot point arguing this, it's his war epic, I'm not unearthing anything by saying that.  it's pretty universally known as such.

yes the subversion of expectations is what makes me love the movie as well and indeed makes it an interesting experience, but doesn't make it a masterpiece. i think you're using the term broadly here if you call it a masterpiece.  it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind, or you're sitting in Vienna listening to Mozart, or watching shakespear, or just read watchmen for the first time.  all four of these examples resonate on many levels and are rewarding experiences because they are entertaining, philosophical and work on many levels.  i'm not saying all masterpieces have those characteristics, but by my standards they do 99% of the time. i think most people would agree.

IB works on one, sometimes 2 levels. the closest that tarantino has ever come to a masterpiece stature is his writing the scene between christopher walken and denis hopper in true romance.  that whole bit was so rich, had 3-4 things going on, and was utterly tight in it's delivery.  the first scene in IB works well in a similar fashion.  you think the way the jew hunter offers to speak english is for the audience's sake, and it's the film being funny about how the explanation is dragged out... like you've seen it done in other movies, so IB is taking the piss outta that. then later you find out it was for something in the plot.  that's another scene that tarantino attempted to play with a similar structure as the True Romance one, it's rewarding but pales in comparison by my tastes.

2. it's a clever film, that works.  and you can't ignore the fact it's cheesy, it doesn't hide that fact.  this isn't the thin red line, or full metal jacket... it's a fun movie with witty shit in it and stuff explodes, and scalping, and carving foreheads. it's an action movie, and there is cheesy shit in it.  like come on eli roth and brad pitt arn't over the top?  they weren't cheesy?  that big fucking pipe wasn't cheesy? what movie were you watching?

I'm just kinda blown away you argued what i said, because i thought those claims weren't even remotely controversial.
the one last hit that spent you...

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #512 on: September 04, 2009, 12:15:10 AM »
0
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.

the big picture for me is in large part the flow. it's like someone said a few pages ago, time flew by and i didn't get bored or notice it flying by. i loved the colours too, and the sets, and the costumes.  i liked the caricatures as well.  over the top was fun. now you did get bored, as we established, so i guess we just can't relate on that level and it's defeatist for me to try and make you feel something you just don't. i did buy the dialog for the most part, only about 5% of it bothered me. when i observe your perspective on the dialog and the Leone factor it's something i agree as an afterthought, and only that. i didn't concern myself with such things while watching because all the factors were coming together and i got lost in the experience.  shit man i don't know any other way to say it, i wish i could.  it just worked.  what didn't work was the Sam jackson stuff and that bowie song (as i mentioned before) but that was part of the 5%. every scene had me on the edge of my seat, thinking "what the fuck is going to happen".  it was so much fun.
the one last hit that spent you...

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5795
  • Respect: +177
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #513 on: September 04, 2009, 12:28:19 AM »
0
i agree with pete in that i don't think the issues you bring up undermine the film to the point of dismissal.

for myself it's trivial when put up against the big picture.

Glad a healthy respect for disagreement was maintained, but I still don't understand how my points are trivial and don't factor into the bigger picture of the film. I keep feeling the need to explain myself further, but what I really need is a perspective from you guys on what made up the greater whole of this film. Some people understand my points as important (even if they don't agree with them), but you guys don't. And all I get is casual disagreement without any real explanation.

the big picture for me is in large part the flow. it's like someone said a few pages ago, time flew by and i didn't get bored or notice it flying by. i loved the colours too, and the sets, and the costumes.  i liked the caricatures as well.  over the top was fun. now you did get bored, as we established, so i guess we just can't relate on that level and it's defeatist for me to try and make you feel something you just don't. i did buy the dialog for the most part, only about 5% of it bothered me. when i observe your perspective on the dialog and the Leone factor it's something i agree as an afterthought, and only that. i didn't concern myself with such things while watching because all the factors were coming together and i got lost in the experience.  shit man i don't know any other way to say it, i wish i could.  it just worked.  what didn't work was the Sam jackson stuff and that bowie song (as i mentioned before) but that was part of the 5%. every scene had me on the edge of my seat, thinking "what the fuck is going to happen".  it was so much fun.

Love it, beautiful. I have eagerly recommended Tarantino to people who I think would love him because he still beats the usual trash every weekend at multiplexes. I have no ordeal with anyone liking him. To each, their own.

It still seems like we just read the film differently, but it seems like you can understand my complaints weren't small because I didn't like the tone of the film, the dialogue, and the whole perspective of the characterization.I hope you can at least understand those to be significant enough complaints that would keep anyone from enjoying the film (if they felt the same way as me).

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5795
  • Respect: +177
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #514 on: September 04, 2009, 12:29:16 AM »
0
And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

You believe this is his best film?

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #515 on: September 04, 2009, 12:37:14 AM »
0

Love it, beautiful. I have eagerly recommended Tarantino to people who I think would love him because he still beats the usual trash every weekend at multiplexes. I have no ordeal with anyone liking him. To each, their own.

It still seems like we just read the film differently, but it seems like you can understand my complaints weren't small because I didn't like the tone of the film, the dialogue, and the whole perspective of the characterization.I hope you can at least understand those to be significant enough complaints that would keep anyone from enjoying the film (if they felt the same way as me).

yep i've come to understand that knowing now how you went into the theatre.  now i can see how that would make me hate the film too, i guess because those qualities weren't under my pet peeve microscope i didn't see it as broad strokes, it is kinda the backbone in regard to tone. though there were moments that i felt the film got real and the facade faded into the background.  fleeting moments, but during some of the intense parts, it felt that way at least... but i've come around full circle, it just wasn't on my radar to notice.

side question: do you only like stuff that is done realistic?  because leone used characterizations as well... well he invented some too.
the one last hit that spent you...

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5795
  • Respect: +177
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #516 on: September 04, 2009, 12:41:33 AM »
0
side question: do you only like stuff that is done realistic?  because leone used characterizations as well... well he invented some too.

No, the implication of my criticism does not extend to me liking realism or not. All my criticisms relate to the film's lack of quality entertainment.

New Feeling

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +4
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #517 on: September 04, 2009, 02:08:16 AM »
0
it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind


no it's more like watching Dr. Strangelove and Kubrick just fucked my mind.  That one's also a masterpiece. 

hedwig

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2144
  • Lazy bones ain't got no time to waste away
  • Respect: +2
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #518 on: September 04, 2009, 02:11:59 AM »
0
Kubrick fucks my mind with every movie he made. fucks it nice and good. :yabbse-thumbup:

New Feeling

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +4
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #519 on: September 04, 2009, 02:29:39 AM »
0
And this is indeed a masterpiece. 

You believe this is his best film?

I don't think "best film" is really assessable with tarantino, or kubrick (since he's been mentioned), or any master artist, because usually they will make a series of works of the highest quality, all of which are immaculately concieved and pure at their core, and to chose between them becomes a matter of mood and familiarity, and recent interpretations.  I consider a masterpiece to be any individual work that can stand on it's own as a great work among the all-time great works, and if it were the only work by said artist would enter them into the realm of the greats.  And in that regard I think Quentin has made nothing but masterpieces.  And if I had to rank them right now I'd do it like this:
    
Pulp Fiction
Inglourious Basterds
Grindhouse
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
Jackie Brown

and now for my most controversial statement, my present top 10 of the decade list has Basterds/Grindhouse/and Kill Bill interchangeably in the 1-3 spots.

for the record Magnolia and Boogie nights are interchangeably my top two of the 90's and have been since 99. Even above my beloved Pulp Fiction.     

New Feeling

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 242
  • Respect: +4
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #520 on: September 04, 2009, 02:45:10 AM »
0
More to the point, some reasons it is a masterpiece include: one of the most breathtaking climaxes in movie history, a style of it's own, self-referential cinema-referential mastery, hilarious comedy, biting satire, exciting action, nail-biting suspense, masterful dialogue, crazy asides, great acting across the board, the aldo/landa dichotomy, and the complex considerations on the nature of war and cinema.  It is clear that there are many ardent fans of this movie and they are interpreting it in many different ways and wether or not you want to call this a "masterpiece" or not there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is an "instant classic".  Close enough.  

tpfkabi

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Respect: +24
    • twitter deed, twitter dead. in the heart or in the head?
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #521 on: September 04, 2009, 11:23:05 AM »
0
i think time has to pass before you know something's classic...unless you're TWBB.
 :yabbse-grin:
I am Torgo. I take care of the place while the Master is away.

OrHowILearnedTo

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 260
  • Respect: +3
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #522 on: September 04, 2009, 12:41:45 PM »
0
I guess it depends on you're definition of "Masterpiece" (re: New Feeling)

there are too many things in Inglourious Basterds that don't work for me to call it a great film. Maybe over time ill grow to appreciate or understand them, but until then...

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #523 on: September 04, 2009, 05:07:11 PM »
0
it's clever, great and many other things but it's not like you're watching 2001 and Kubrick just fucked your mind


no it's more like watching Dr. Strangelove and Kubrick just fucked my mind.  That one's also a masterpiece. 


Kubrick fucks my mind with every movie he made. fucks it nice and good. :yabbse-thumbup:

touche, kubrick was one of those rare artists that shit mona lisa smiles.
the one last hit that spent you...

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +641
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #524 on: September 16, 2009, 10:38:59 AM »
0
Tarantino sees "Basterds" saving Weinstein brothers

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - The storming success of World War Two shoot-'em-up "Inglorious Basterds" is the ticket out of financial difficulty for its backers, the Weinstein Co., director Quentin Tarantino said on Tuesday.

Brothers Bob and Harvey Weinstein have released all of Tarantino's work, beginning in 1992 with "Reservoir Dogs" when they ran Miramax Films. But since launching their new firm in 2005, they have been short on critical or box-office hits.

The New York Times reported last month that the independent Weinstein Co., cash-strapped after seeing a quarter of its releases earning $1 million or less, had sought restructuring advice as well as a bridge loan.

"They were backed up against the wall, and this gives them breathing room. This gets their back off the wall," Tarantino told Reuters during a visit to Israel to promote "Inglorious Basterds", which he said had grossed $200 million worldwide.

"It will give them some cash by the time the whole thing is over with, but it also even helps them inside of the industry and it actually shows Hollywood that they can open a movie."

"I'm actually proud that I was able to do that for them, that I could pay back their faith in me, that I could pay back their support," Tarantino said.

The film, which reportedly cost $70 million to make and which will complete its global screen distribution by November, stars Brad Pitt as chief of a squad of Jewish-American troops who butcher Nazis in occupied France. Their plot collides with that of a Holocaust survivor bent on assassinating Hitler.

The Anglophone, German, Austrian and French cast interact in their own tongues, with some Italian thrown in -- a departure for the 47-year-old Tarantino, whose past films tended to focus feverishly on the style and lingo of American urban toughs.

"One of the things that I think that is very interesting is it is actually putting a lie to the aspect that subtitles aren't commercial," he said.

RISKS OF IMMEDIACY

Though the story is steeped in fantasy -- by Tarantino's own account, it's a spaghetti Western transposed to war-torn Europe -- he said original languages were key for building a sense of immediacy, especially scenes such as a tavern showdown where a faulty accent gives away a British spy disguised as a German.

"This was something I had to offer as far as a World War Two movie was concerned. So it wasn't just to prove to my critics that I wasn't a rube."

Any challenges he had understanding the actors on-set were overcome with the help of dialogue coaches: "It's my dialogue. I know it -- it's just a sixth sense."

"Inglorious Basterds" stirred concern among those who argued it trivialized the Holocaust by showing the fantastical triumph of Jewish brutes and an SS colonel who is both seductive and sinister. Its tone lurches between horror and black comedy.

Tarantino's Israel visit included a trip to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and he said he was keen to gauge his film's reception in the Jewish state, which was founded in the wake of World War Two and has fought regularly with its Arab neighbors.

"That's the curiosity factor involved. American Jews are going to respond to it differently than European Jews, and I have to assume that Israeli Jews are going to respond to it in their own particular way," he said.

The most satisfactory premiere of "Inglorious Basterds," Tarantino said, was in Germany, where he watched the audience.

"Germans are used to cringing in movies, especially about World War Two, and that even happened at the beginning of my movie," he said.

"And then there was this moment in the theater when the Germans realized that they were allowed to laugh with the movie -- not at it, but with it. They were allowed to get into the adventure. So there was this cathartic experience."
“Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art.” - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy