Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds [sic]  (Read 103153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

children with angels

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Respect: +6
    • The Lesser Feat (blog)
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #555 on: December 17, 2009, 08:24:07 AM »
0
It's pretty obvious that the film is on some level calling into question the violent propaganda of hatred that the narrative enacts, given that the movie's big set-piece is the wish-fulfilling killing of countless Nazis while they watch a movie depicting the wish-fulfilling killing of countless allies. There's potentially a question surrounding whether Tarantino is just trying to cover his back, or have his cake and eat it, but the film is certainly far from naive about the troubling implications of its revenge narrative.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

Derek

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 590
  • Respect: +13
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #556 on: December 17, 2009, 09:35:48 AM »
0
I think the last thing Tarantino worries about is covering his back or apologizing. Probably his first priority is to tell an entertaining story and then to piss off everyone waiting for him to be un-PC.
It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #557 on: December 17, 2009, 11:14:55 AM »
0
I think the last thing Tarantino worries about is covering his back or apologizing. Probably his first priority is to tell an entertaining story

Exactly. That's usually the case with every worthy filmmaker out there, from PTA to the coens to woody allen to anyone.

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7042
  • Respect: +1763
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #558 on: December 17, 2009, 03:26:27 PM »
0
I don't think it's too much to say that a filmmaker can aspire to make an entertaining movie while simultaneously having higher goals for it.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5770
  • Respect: +153
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #559 on: December 17, 2009, 05:27:49 PM »
0
It reminds me of Sam Peckinpah's situation in The Wild Bunch. On one hand, he was telling the story that was about the hubris of aging gunfighters who do not know when to stop, but on the other hand, he was relaying the entertainment value of their escapades because he, like the audience, really does admire the men who go to painstaking lengths to live a life of freedom and excess. It's a common subject to make into a theme in movies because the psychological symptom of movies is to generally make characters appear more attractive than they should be, but some filmmakers heighten the entertainment value while specifically counterbalancing it with notions of disdain, tragedy and fraudulence. I think there are aspects of this in Inglorious Basterds, but I don't think Tarantino is that interested in it.

But you don't need Tarantino's permission to make a case for it. Criticism should have no interest in just reinforcing artistic intentions.

Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #560 on: December 17, 2009, 06:48:03 PM »
0
I don't think it's too much to say that a filmmaker can aspire to make an entertaining movie while simultaneously having higher goals for it.

of course not, but it's usually the main concern. i want to point out that by "entertaining" i don't mean "light" or "simple" or "empty".

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #561 on: December 17, 2009, 06:55:44 PM »
0
But you don't need Tarantino's permission to make a case for it. Criticism should have no interest in just reinforcing artistic intentions.

this is why i love GT, preach on brother.  i been saying this for years!
the one last hit that spent you...

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #562 on: December 18, 2009, 02:45:25 AM »
0
artistic intentions is all everyone is talking about here. i think it has some legitimacy in that it provides at least a place to start. does tarantino succeed in his obvious intention? i don't think so. but i agree that the film is obviously well conceived, the structure of the characters plights and the mirror of the propaganda film, the disgust felt by the dude who the movie's about, the fire started from BEHIND the screen, the bloodthirsty nazi hunters...

it's very easy to connect the things i've mentioned and make a sort of enlightening review. i like that the fire started behind the screen for example. something like that can be extended beyond doubt into a sort of vindication of the film quite easily, let's look at things that hide behind surfaces:
1. the jews beneath the floor in the opening of the film, out of which the chick's character is born - bathed in red, which she reprises at the climax of the film.
2. the subtitles. a lot of the speech in the film takes place behind this pre-written tarantino dialogue,. by that i am assuming QT is not proficient in German, French and Italian, instead that he wrote his trademark piece of shit dialogue and had some dude translate it literally or in a way that it would make sense in translation but not in the actual langauge, cos QT's dialogue is barely bearable in english let alone in any other language.
3. the final carving of the film, when pitt looks in the camera and looks through us/at us and says this is his masterpiece.

look the guy obviously put some thought into the film, but so did Haneke - which polkablues brought up - and it's a great comparison because my response is the same, if that's the "point" he's making: SO FUCKING WHAT? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND STOP BORING ME. IF YOU HAVE A STUPID BORING-AS-FUCK POINT TO MAKE THEN WRITE AN ESSAY SO YOU AND HANEKE CAN ROLL IT UP AND STICK IN EACH OTHERS ASSES AT THE SAME TIME.

i just don't give a shit if that's the point he's making,. it's only special because it comes from the revered (what happened to the backlash after he kept making shitty movies?) mind of this guy who is just too full of himself. i am done with Tarantino. his style is unbearable to me now. even if some bullshit about violence was his point --- and i DON'T think it was -- then like pas rap said, he fails on a personal level that cannot be argued. although i don't think any fan of this film can make the case that the dialogue was in any way satisfying or NOT grating, or that the film was well-paced and not a cure for insomnia, or that it can be enjoyed at all if you're not already willing to guzzle whatever comes out of tarantino's penis.

he might be smart, have incredible knowledge of cinema, complete control over his films, but he just can't get over himself and that's a huge turn off to me. the fact this film is so popular doesn't prove anything except that he successfully appealed to the lowest common denominator, it is a meathead film to be sure, and the few ppl who are even capable or hav the time to dissect the film's intricacies of theme must be willing to forgive the absolutely nauseating stench it's encased in.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7042
  • Respect: +1763
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #563 on: December 18, 2009, 02:52:11 AM »
0
So that would be like what... one, one-and-a-half stars?
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #564 on: December 19, 2009, 08:08:02 PM »
0
1. the jews beneath the floor in the opening of the film, out of which the chick's character is born - bathed in red, which she reprises at the climax of the film.




i just don't give a shit if that's the point he's making,. it's only special because it comes from the revered (what happened to the backlash after he kept making shitty movies?) mind of this guy who is just too full of himself. i am done with Tarantino. his style is unbearable to me now. even if some bullshit about violence was his point --- and i DON'T think it was -- then like pas rap said, he fails on a personal level that cannot be argued. although i don't think any fan of this film can make the case that the dialogue was in any way satisfying or NOT grating, or that the film was well-paced and not a cure for insomnia, or that it can be enjoyed at all if you're not already willing to guzzle whatever comes out of tarantino's penis.

point #1 only exists long after a film is made, in the critic/fan/hater's mind. i would be hard pressed to believe anyone ever thinks about this theme you mention as the origin and/or motivation to create a story. sure, if you said it to tarantino he'd probably love the fact you're reading into it and either lie and admit that was his intent, or he'd celebrate his subconscious mind for unknowingly infusing such themes. I'll side with Werner herzog and stephen king on this issue. not to say it's bullshit, but it's overrated and marginal observation because the concept of birth in blood and reprisal is abstract at best.  it's like basing a theme in a film on something that is a philosophical theory, there were tons of people at my film school that spent all their time pointing out these kind of things (or tying to infuse it in their own work) and never made anything worthwhile. i think you can, and should, but it's only an afterthought. this is all an intellectual game with no pay off. i love analytical thinking, but only if what is being dissected has validity. and while the concept is interesting, doesn't really say anything that can remotely resonate beyond a loose analogy to our life cycles. this might read harsh, but i point it out to set up the second part of my response.

This is a fun movie, it's not meant to be in any way approached the way you guys are doing it. i think there is some subtext as well, about violence, mania, subversion etc... but your reaction is unwarranted imo; aside from the last paragraph which i agree Tarantino would suck his own cock if he could. i never once looked at my watch, and it was a long film.  i think that's a great thing he's done.  sounds simple, but fuck man that's the hardest thing to do with an audience.  it's the right rollercoaster ride, which he pulled off with aces.  also, I've quoted in sheer glee moments from the film with friends and they have laughed/cheered along with me.  the dialog is very written, but so what, it works if you let it.  

when i think back to childhood movies, the ones that were seminal in the development of my tastes and love of cinema, before my mind and social circles told me what to like, they in no way concerned themselves with adhering to any of your criticisms/guidelines.  IE. big trouble in little china, the great escape, the goonies, they live, the thing, and so many others had similar bigger than life dialog, with bigger than life characters. i would agree that cinema has too much of this kind of storytelling these days, too much escapism, but i kinda feel like it's shitting on the one guy that still does it well and with the right sensibility. i feel he does go too far, sam jackson was too far, david bowie was way too fucking far.  tarantino is a bit of a douche but this movie is quite amazing when the scales settle.

I honestly wonder if Tarantino hadn't been the name on the poster if you might like it more. i think you should get past your feelings of the man.  hey look i'm with you, he loves every single inch of his own cock. but shit he knows how to tell a good story.

you have to walk in with your heart not your head. or at least that's what i did, and loved it.
the one last hit that spent you...

MacGuffin

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 22985
  • Respect: +638
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #565 on: December 23, 2009, 02:05:31 AM »
0
Exclusive: Quentin Tarantino on the Basterds Prequel, Another Forthcoming Film, and Israeli Versus German Audiences
Source: NY Mag

This weekend, we met with Quentin Tarantino, who was still in town after a MoMA Q&A with Elvis Mitchell this past Thursday. As if the weekend's snowstorm wasn’t inconvenience enough, his Hugo Boss coat — which contained his I.D., credit cards, and about $2,000 in cash — was stolen from the West Village bar Galway Hooker on Saturday. Taking pity on him, we paid for some French-vanilla lattes and mimosas the next day, and took the opportunity to ask him about his next film project and how Germans and Israelis perceived Inglourious Basterds.

So, are we in for an Inglourious Basterds prequel? Apparently not yet — even though Tarantino says he has 40 pages of it written. He’s not giving up on the idea or the script, especially if the original film does well at the awards shows. But he’s got another project, which he’s keeping under wraps, coming first. It’s going to be “smaller, less epic” in scale than Basterds, and in a “different genre entirely.” He says he thinks he can finish it in a five- to six-month period of intensive writing.

Still, he only recently returned from the foreign press tour for Basterds, and the reactions in Germany and Israel were foremost on his mind, for obvious reasons. In the former country, he saw a transformation in the audience. We’ll let him explain:

“When Germans are watching World War II movies, they’re used to cringing. Why they make themselves endure it, I don’t know. That is just the way it is for them, and they expect that that’s the way it’s going to be. And they’re always forced to look at it from the guilt perspective. [It’s a] World War II movie, and nothing’s going to fucking change that. But, as [Basterds] goes on, all of a sudden, that starts dropping away, and they actually got caught up in the story. And they’re really caught up in the story — it starts getting really funny. And it gets laughs. And all of a sudden, you have a German audience watching a movie about World War II — and they’re allowed to laugh! They’re allowed to enjoy it! And the fantasy [of assasinating Hitler] is just as much their fantasy as anybody else’s.”

So, the Germans love it. How about those Israelis?

“So now, in Israel, I’m watching the film, and we get into the theater sequence. And literally, not when Hitler gets killed, but when you hear Shoshanna’s voice say, ‘This is the face of Jewish vengeance,’ the whole theater just erupted in applause. I think there were two guys that started it, but everyone jumped in. And you know something? It was violent. It was scary. There was violence in that cheer. It wasn’t like cheering Indiana Jones. There was something bloodcurdling about it. I don’t want to overstate it, but there was an edge to it. There was violence in it … there was blood in the air, which was wild. It was a wild thing to experience. It was a great experience, and it was real.”

It certainly sounds like a Tarantinoesque moment.
“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

Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +155
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #566 on: January 05, 2010, 10:00:09 PM »
0
I just saw this for the first time a couple of days ago.

Why would anyone feel this is appropriate for applause?

I'm seriously curious.

i want to hear more of your interpretation. i really think tarantino wants the audience to cheer in that moment.

And i don't just mean this section, i mean the whole thing.
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

Pas

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3429
  • Respect: +10
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #567 on: January 06, 2010, 07:17:45 AM »
0
well you can read the whole thread to know reasons why, because most people here seem to have loved it.

I was too, and did read the whole thread, and it didn't change my opinion.

I was looking for something to compare it to and I think I've got it:

Boondock Saints.

children with angels

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Respect: +6
    • The Lesser Feat (blog)
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #568 on: January 06, 2010, 08:24:10 AM »
0
I was looking for something to compare it to and I think I've got it:

Boondock Saints.

Come on - that really is a ridiculous comparison.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

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

Neil

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Being genuine just isn't enough these days.
  • Respect: +155
Re: Inglourious Basterds [sic]
« Reply #569 on: January 06, 2010, 09:48:46 AM »
0
I guess what I'm asking is, am I just being insensitive to the holocaust?

I just don't see the logic in down playing a serious genocide by making hitler less on meth, and humorous.  Only to pump him full of bullets later (yay payoff!).  The characters are too focused on being caricatures, even though this is an actual time and place in history. For that, i don't feel like it works

To me, if you applaud, you're complying with this propaganda made by an american.  The same thing the crazy Nazi's cheered about.  I don't think the film set out to do some study on violence etc, like some have mentioned.  However,  knowing people applauded raises new issues to discuss about the film. 

So, we cheer because the 3rd Reich finally gets what's coming to them?  Ahhh, I can breathe in relief, finally, all that bad stuff never happened.  If the film was supposed to do this it failed. 

This film really baffles me.  With the david bowie, Sam Jackson, and the casual scalping. 

The whole idea of making the soldier leave the theater was done terribly, especially if he was trying to show remorse or regret with that performance.

Aside from having his head in hands, it seemed like he wanted to get laid. Because, after getting the premier moved to Shoshanna's, this allowed the soldier to spout the most original line "after all I've done for you!"

If this movie wanted to be somewhat accurate to what humans in that situation would do, they would have had the soldier stay in his seat to impress all of his fucking peers and superiors, and ride the gravy train.

Nazi's are hard up on their neglectful tradition, and every Nazi in this film proves it, aside from maybe Hanz, who is just a little smarter it seems .  So, why doesn't Fredrick embrace the biggest moment in his Nazi life?  Jewish Puss? Good thing he brought protection, ZING.

But seriously, I've already typed way too much that doesn't say anything.  The film kept me entertained.  not in a "light" way either. 

All of this is subject to get tossed out the window though, i have only watched it once, I would prefer it time to grow on me...I just don't know when I'll ever watch it again.
it's not the wrench, it's the plumber.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy