Inglourious Basterds

[Bosco B Thug]

On the first count, that seems like a fair point, but on the latter, it strikes me as somewhat of a stretch. That strikes me as something you are bringing to the film that isn't really there. There's nothing in the film that suggests their relationship is based on a mutual hatred of the Third Reich or Vichy, and if there was, it would only go towards what I said earlier about their relationship being strictly theoretical. You seem impervious to evocations that exist between the lines, which when picked up on is usually the opposite of someone "imposing" a personal interpretation that isn't there. Isn't the fact that he's a black man quite enough to suggest a romance built around ideals (which doesn't necessarily suggest an empty love, mind you)? I don't see what's such a stretch, just because there's no line of dialogue or scene that shows they are targets of the regime.

The minimalist touch used to depict their relationship and so color it "theoretical," as you label it, seems to me an artistic decision on Tarantino's part. I think Tarantino realizes the tenderness he creates in their scenes together (the tenderness I saw, anyway) needs little exposition... I should stop writing sentences structured like this, but... I'm finding, I think you seem to just have very specific specifications that you look for when trying to determine how meaningful something is. If you're calling the Shosanna/Marcel relationship unpersuasive, are you looking at what's there or are you actually too focused on what isn't there?


Actually, now that you mention, I love how in the first scene, when Aldo is talking about killing Nazis--"...at the end of our bootheels, at the edge of our knives..."--Tarantino inserts a close-up of Donnie smirking lustily. I like the shot, too... but ah, that shot was money in the teaser trailer. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was disappointed the beat it's used is different in the actual film - its placement was just more effective in the teaser.


By the way, this needs to be seen in a single-theater cinema house. If you see it in a multiplex, you haven't really seen the film. ... Why...? I think I know why, but elaborate.

[Ezee E]

But then, of course, at the end it's revealed that there's an actual tactical purpose for the language switch. Brilliant, brilliant writing.

Elaborate please.

[Winston*]

Elaborate please.

So the Jews under the floorboards can't understand them, no?

[Derek]

Elaborate please.

He means at the end of that scene. Landa switched to English because he knew it would be easier for him to get the farmer to betray the family he was hiding if he knew they couldn't understand him.

Damnit Winston*

[Ezee E]

My bad. I was thinking tactical as in the end of the movie, not that scene. Misread.

[baby doll]

You seem impervious to evocations that exist between the lines, which when picked up on is usually the opposite of someone "imposing" a personal interpretation that isn't there. Isn't the fact that he's a black man quite enough to suggest a romance built around ideals (which doesn't necessarily suggest an empty love, mind you)? I don't see what's such a stretch, just because there's no line of dialogue or scene that shows they are targets of the regime.

The minimalist touch used to depict their relationship and so color it "theoretical," as you label it, seems to me an artistic decision on Tarantino's part. I think Tarantino realizes the tenderness he creates in their scenes together (the tenderness I saw, anyway) needs little exposition... I should stop writing sentences structured like this, but... I'm finding, I think you seem to just have very specific specifications that you look for when trying to determine how meaningful something is. If you're calling the Shosanna/Marcel relationship unpersuasive, are you looking at what's there or are you actually too focused on what isn't there?Actually, there's quite a lot to underline that they're both targets of the regime: First, that Shosanna's entire family gets wiped out at the end of the opening sequence, and later Marcel isn't allowed to operate the projector during the premiere because he's black. That said, I didn't see anything in the film to suggest that their relationship is based, either solely or in part, on their being mutual targets of the Nazi regime. Or based on anything really, since all we ever learn about him is that he's a black dude who works as a projectionist. He's a very generic character who exists only to serve the plot (Shosanna needs some one to assist her in her plan to burn down the theatre, and their relationship ties into her resistance to Zoller, as if she needed another reason not to be into him) and to show that Shosanna isn't a racist. If you saw tenderness in their kiss, I can't argue with you, but my point is that it's not a very fleshed-out portrayal of either his character or their relationship that would make this aspect of the story more believable.

[EvilShoe]

"With an atrocious accent, no doubt."

It's not just that. One of my favorite bits of dialogue is when Landa asks the French farmer to switch to English. His sudden switch is hilarious, but it's also a wonderful piss-take on the American movie's tendency to homogenize foreign characters. That's why I roll my eyes at the people complaining that there are too much subtitles. Don't you realize that the movie's making fun of you for it in its first scene?

But then, of course, at the end it's revealed that there's an actual tactical purpose for the language switch. Brilliant, brilliant writing.
Forgot about that, loved the "reveal".
I had actually lost hope in QT for a bit, thinking he had clumsily made the switch to English. Silly me.

[Dukefrukem]

Quentin's biggest opening ever. 37.6 mil.

[Ezee E]

Now hopefully his turnaround is more like it's been instead of Jackie Brown-Kill Bill, and preferbly away from the grindhousey stuff.

[number8]

http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/movie-news/5763-qinglourious-basterds-better-than-the-holocaustqreactions-and-numbers.html

[Bosco B Thug]

[QUOTE=baby doll;198984]Actually, there's quite a lot to underline that they're both targets of the regime: First, that Shosanna's entire family gets wiped out at the end of the opening sequence, and later Marcel isn't allowed to operate the projector during the premiere because he's black. That said, I didn't see anything in the film to suggest that their relationship is based, either solely or in part, on their being mutual targets of the Nazi regime. Or based on anything really, since all we ever learn about him is that he's a black dude who%2

[number8]

I actually think there's a lot in the film to hold a normal Joe's attention. Dialogue parts and all. I love that this film is out there in the multiplexes, teaching people the virtues and advantages of learning multiple languages.

I think the fact that this is received generally well is encouraging. The average joe seems to find it really cool and was able to look past its... errr, "artiness." I showcased the better negative comments there, but most of the ones I read were just from absolute retards, ie "OMG inglourious basterds sux so diappointin BORING SHIT" and "inglourious basterds was wack too much subtitles lol". I really could have died researching that article.

[Bosco B Thug]

I think the fact that this is received generally well is encouraging. The average joe seems to find it really cool and was able to look past its... errr, "artiness." I showcased the better negative comments there, but most of the ones I read were just from absolute retards, ie "OMG inglourious basterds sux so diappointin BORING SHIT" and "inglourious basterds was wack too much subtitles lol". I really could have died researching that article. Oh, so they are out there. Eh, of course. I'm encouraged as well.

OH SH*T what did I do to my last post? Damnit. :(

[ledfloyd]

I think the fact that this is received generally well is encouraging. The average joe seems to find it really cool and was able to look past its... errr, "artiness." I showcased the better negative comments there, but most of the ones I read were just from absolute retards, ie "OMG inglourious basterds sux so diappointin BORING SHIT" and "inglourious basterds was wack too much subtitles lol". I really could have died researching that article.
i've seen it twice now, and both times walking out of the theater the people that seemed to be there to see a 'bad ass movie' were pleased with what they got. no complaints about the subtitles from what i heard.

i enjoyed it more the second time. i'm still not sure what it all means. but it's quite satisfying.

[Wryan]

i've seen it twice now, and both times walking out of the theater the people that seemed to be there to see a 'bad ass movie' were pleased with what they got. no complaints about the subtitles from what i heard.

i enjoyed it more the second time. i'm still not sure what it all means. but it's quite satisfying.

"It was good but there were too many words at the bottom of the screen..."

This from the same old hags that would NOT shut up about the volume or this that or the other. They even had the audacity to ask each other questions about lines of dialogue that they didn't hear, something I thought only happened in comedy routines. I couldn't believe they were actually doing it.

[Spinal]

Inglourious Basterds was friggin' bangerang, Peter Pan.

Diablo Cody?

[number8]

Diablo Cody?

:lol:

[Sycophant]

They even had the audacity to ask each other questions about lines of dialogue that they didn't hear, something I thought only happened in comedy routines. I couldn't believe they were actually doing it.

Don't see a movie with my family.

[Spinal]

My wife's stepmom has the utterly annoying habit of asking questions about a movie not only when she misses something but when the plot point has not unfolded yet. Like she will ask about things that no viewer watching for the first time would know because it has yet to happen or is intentionally supposed to be ambiguous. Then, because she is talking over the top of dialogue, she will not understand things that happen later and ask about that. It's agonizing. I try to avoid watching movies with her whenever possible. And then, only something that I don't really want to see anyway.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, my youngest sister does that too, Spinal. It's obnoxious to say the least.

[ledfloyd]

i have friends that do that as well. "so why are they in bruges?"

[Ezee E]

The second time I saw it, a teenage girl said in the theater, "I don't really even want to see a movie. I just want to talk."

She started talking through the entire beginning with her boyfriend. When the Nazis got to the top of the hill, a few people yelled for her to shut up, and she walked out on her own. ha

[number8]

People need to be more vocal. I don't know why they just bottle it up and bitch about it later. Why let others ruin your experience?

I almost always yell at people to shut the fuck up, and I'll phrase it that way, too, unless I'm in a kids movie. I do the same with people texting. Stop fucking blinding me.

[number8]

I made an exception once, when I sat in front of a mentally challenged person in the Iron Man screening. He was a crazy veteran or something and kept yelling "Get down! Get down! No! Keep moving!" and shit like that during the action scenes, especially the ambush in the beginning. I really had no choice but to endure it.

[Bosco B Thug]

Sorry, I'm gonna try this again...


Quentin's biggest opening ever. 37.6 mil. I'm surprised. Pleasantly. Brad Pitt's the reason.


Actually, there's quite a lot to underline that they're both targets of the regime: First, that Shosanna's entire family gets wiped out at the end of the opening sequence, and later Marcel isn't allowed to operate the projector during the premiere because he's black. That said, I didn't see anything in the film to suggest that their relationship is based, either solely or in part, on their being mutual targets of the Nazi regime. Or based on anything really, since all we ever learn about him is that he's a black dude who works as a projectionist. He's a very generic character who exists only to serve the plot (Shosanna needs some one to assist her in her plan to burn down the theatre, and their relationship ties into her resistance to Zoller, as if she needed another reason not to be into him) and to show that Shosanna isn't a racist. If you saw tenderness in their kiss, I can't argue with you, but my point is that it's not a very fleshed-out portrayal of either his character or their relationship that would make this aspect of the story more believable. First of all, I'm not talking about just their kiss. Come on. Anyway: But like I said... I don't think you're giving full consideration to what's there because you're looking for some concrete "more," and the spareness with which their romance is treated ultimately works as an affecting textural touch.

Then again, I guess I'm trying to persuade you on somewhat subjective things... I guess.

[Fezzik]

i've seen it twice now, and both times walking out of the theater the people that seemed to be there to see a 'bad ass movie' were pleased with what they got. no complaints about the subtitles from what i heard.

i enjoyed it more the second time. i'm still not sure what it all means. but it's quite satisfying.

Led, I just wanted to say...love your avatar :D

I saw it last night, and I'm still digesting. I'm beginning to agree with those that say its Tarantino's best, and am close to declaring it a masterpiece. Waltz turned in one of the best performances in recent years, in my opinion. That opening scene in the French Monsieur's house is one of the most well scripted and staged film openings I have ever seen.

[eternity]

He means at the end of that scene. Landa switched to English because he knew it would be easier for him to get the farmer to betray the family he was hiding if he knew they couldn't understand him.

Damnit Winston*QT also uses it for the American audiences who may be getting impatient over the length of time that it's all subtitled dialogue. It's a great icebreaker in that way too.

[ledfloyd]

Now hopefully his turnaround is more like it's been instead of Jackie Brown-Kill Bill, and preferbly away from the grindhousey stuff.
i can't make sense of this sentence.

[ledfloyd]

quentin on charlie rose (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10567)

these are always such interesting discussions.

[Ezee E]

i can't make sense of this sentence.
Death Proof to IB was two years.
Jackie Brown to Kill Bill was eight years.

[Saya]

Is there any news on his next project?

Can't wait to see IB tonight!

[EyesWideOpen]

quentin on charlie rose (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10567)

these are always such interesting discussions.

Thanks for posting that, great discussion.

[ledfloyd]

Death Proof to IB was two years.
Jackie Brown to Kill Bill was eight years.
ah, gotcha. i agree.


Thanks for posting that, great discussion.
indeed. i liked the bit on subtext in his films. enlightening.

[jamaul]

So, I think this is probably the best thing Tarantino has ever done. A culmination of all of the promise he's shown in his previous films, scene-for-scene, his most impressive use of dialogue, scene structure and character evolution. While there are a couple of things to complain about, my main concern is how revolutionary this film can be. This is the first film Tarantino has made that isn't rooted in the past, but actually looks to the future of the artform. Who would have thought Tarantino would have become one of our most forward-thinking filmmakers?

[ledfloyd]

i'm still kind of torn about the basterds. i'm not sure why the violence irks me here when it didn't in his previous films. is it the fact that we're talking about real characters this time? or is it the torture during war-time type stuff reminding me vividly of the iraq war? it doesn't sit well with me. i'm not sure why people are calling it "humane." but shosanna and landa are unreal. and it's a very rich and deep film that is conducive to discussion in a way very few films are. and for the most part, it's enjoyable and a tour-de-force of filmmaking.

[Ezee E]

Is there any news on his next project?

Can't wait to see IB tonight!
Nothing official. Hell, he has a ton of rumoured projects, but none that are like, "Quentin's next after the Basterds."

[Saya]

Nothing official. Hell, he has a ton of rumoured projects, but none that are like, "Quentin's next after the Basterds."

Yeah, thats how it always is with QT I guess. I do hope he won't wait too long with announcing his next project though. :P

Saw the movie tonight and I really loved it. I'm still digesting it a little bit.

Too bad the baseball bat signing scene got cut from the final version.

That scene sounded excellent in the script to me and I would've loved to see it. Ah well, maybe it will be on the directors cut or something.

[ledfloyd]

Yeah, thats how it always is with QT I guess. I do hope he won't wait too long with announcing his next project though. :P

Saw the movie tonight and I really loved it. I'm still digesting it a little bit.

Too bad the baseball bat signing scene got cut from the final version.

That scene sounded excellent in the script to me and I would've loved to see it. Ah well, maybe it will be on the directors cut or something.
i'm hoping we get to see the maggie cheung scenes at some point as well.

[Sycophant]

Did Maggie Cheung actually shoot scenes? Is this a Michael Jai White/Kill Bill sort of deal?

Also, I know soori was all going on about how Tarantino doesn't have final cut, and how Harvey Weinstein goes around cutting his movies in half and breaking his kneecaps with a hockey stick, for fun, but I don't really expect Tarantino feels he needs a separate director's cut for this movie.

Would make for neat special features, though.

[number8]

Yes, she shot the scenes. Tarantino was editing up until the Cannes premiere and when he finally cut it out, he called up Maggie from France to personally apologize.

[Saya]

Did Maggie Cheung actually shoot scenes? Is this a Michael Jai White/Kill Bill sort of deal?

Also, I know soori was all going on about how Tarantino doesn't have final cut, and how Harvey Weinstein goes around cutting his movies in half and breaking his kneecaps with a hockey stick, for fun, but I don't really expect Tarantino feels he needs a separate director's cut for this movie.

Would make for neat special features, though.

I remember reading an interview with Cheung in which she was asked about having her scenes cut from the movie and she said it's part of filmmaking and because sometimes that happens so I think he actually shot some scenes with her.

[jamaul]

I was thinking about the film today, and I was wondering if we could classify Inglourious Basterds as very self-conscious termite art? Because of this aspect, as well as its B-movie allusions and moral ambiguity, it ain't gettin' anywhere near Oscar, even though it will undoubtedly be better, and a far more rich alternative to a majority of the 'white elephant art' that gets nominated.

[origami_mustache]

Isn't self conscious termite art kind of an oxymoron? Tarantino is apparently "striving for a masterpiece here." Seems more like White Elephant art hiding behind a guise, or at least a director who thinks he can pull that sort of thing off.

[balmakboor]

I'm just getting over some not very pleasant intestinal flu which, unbeknownst to me at the time, was already settling its way in when I saw this movie and made my initial comments. Did that have something to do with my negative reaction? Only another viewing will tell.

But, the point of this post:

To fill my time on the couch over the past three days, I've been re-watching Berlin Alexanderplatz. I've read a lot of commenters going on and on about how French new wave this film's use of posters (including movie posters) is. Hell, the use of posters in Inglourious Basterds reminds me a lot more of Fassbinder.

(Of course, Fassbinder himself was influenced by Godard, etc., but he took things decisively in his own direction.)

[balmakboor]

Isn't self conscious termite art kind of an oxymoron? Tarantino is apparently "striving for a masterpiece here." Seems more like White Elephant art hiding behind a guise, or at least a director who thinks he can pull that sort of thing off.

I just thought I'd toss in that Manny Farber's essay on termite art is one of my all-time favorite critical essays. Of course, Farber is also one of my favorite critics.

[Pop Trash]

I just thought I'd toss in that Manny Farber's essay on termite art is one of my all-time favorite critical essays. Of course, Farber is also one of my favorite critics.

I'd like to read that. What exactly did he mean by "termite art?" Is it like some movie or other art form you watch that burrows into your mind and won't leave? The one time I remember it being invoked was by Nathan Lee in his review of David Fincher's Se7en. That was a pretty influential review since some critics at the time dismissed it as serial killer schlock, but now it's regarded by many to be one of the best films of the mid 90s.

[baby doll]

my main concern is how revolutionary this film can be. This is the first film Tarantino has made that isn't rooted in the past, but actually looks to the future of the artform. Who would have thought Tarantino would have become one of our most forward-thinking filmmakers?Please explain.

[Morris Schæffer]

QT should helm every summer movie from now on. GI Joe, Transformers 2 etc...

The mind boggles. Seriously, what an amazing piece of work this is!

I've few reservations, but it's the year's best movie so far.

[jamaul]

Please explain.

Well, I'm still revising and organizing my thoughts on the whole film, as its riches are deep, its meanings and interpretations complex and varied, so bear with me. It's certainly the most polarizing thing Tarantino has ever done, finally striving for irreverence with a purpose, as opposed to schlock for the sake of schlock. All of the allusion in Tarantino's previous work gave me the feeling he was aiming to be the ultimate hipster, and for me it always revealed a sense of artifice that made his films cool -- as far as surface value is concerned -- but not entirely important. The allusions in IB, rather, have a certain tone to them that feels urgent, and urgency is something Tarantino has rarely explored in his work.

Actually, the whole film felt very meta to me, but not too meta, much in the same way Godard's Contempt, Hitchcock's Rear Window or Fellini's 8 1/2 feel. While any comparison to these films are not immediately warranted, they are still each artist's way of exploring the philosophical implications of their art, through their art. Tarantino has done the same thing in IB, reveling in the power of cinema, the freedom of cinema, and the potential of cinema as a filmmaker with a purpose. To me, this culminates much of what he attempted to do with Kill Bill and Death Proof, only this time allusion hasn't obscured meaning, but divulged it. When Donnie obliterates Hitler, reducing his face to swiss cheese, I felt a sense of pure cinematic bliss: not because of the sadistic implications, but because someone was actually reinventing the rules. So, in a way, Tarantino has reinvented a genre by criticizing the works that preceded it, even the ones he may be alluding to or referencing. By eschewing the supposed limitations of the previous films made in the genre, the flood gates for new and exciting potential in the war film makes Inglourious Basterds the termite art I was suggesting in my previous post. Especially when you compare it to the white elephant art, the Oscar-baiting and History-respecting WWII art of the likes of Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg (to just name two contemporary examples).

But this post is slightly reductive, because I'm focusing more on Tarantino's exploration of theory, and not the absolute brilliance of his scene construction before the big history-defying climax. Or how his dialogue, for once, does not meander in babbling irrelevance, but slowly builds towards purpose and meaning, either for the characters delivering the dialogue or for laying the groundwork for how these French/German/American characters are going to play their roles in rewriting history. It snap-crackle-pops with life, as opposed to having that DOA feel that extended Tarantino talk-a-thons can have when they are at their worst and most indulgent.

In previous Tarantino efforts, his use of allusion always gave me the idea that the filmmaker was trying to tell his audience, 'hey, go watch all of these films I'm referencing so you can be as hip as me, or rather, my characters whom I'm basically speaking through.' As admirable as it can be in its best moments, it still reduces his art to trivia if you really think about it. Here though, Tarantino has revised his tactics by illustrating that, if you can dream it, you can film it. So if the filmmaker believes that film can really incinerate the Third Reich, then the only way to prove it is to film it. It's this concept that makes IB the most intriguing and exciting thing Tarantino has every done, and for all of its implications, I gather that the filmmaker has finally chosen to suggest not that the audience go back and watch the films he references, but instead to reinvent convention wherever one can.

[MadMan]

After I revisit this one again, I'll write a proper review. I've seen all of QT's movies at least twice (with the exception of Jackie Brown). Overall despite some issues with the length (it probably could have been cut down a bit), and a few minor problems, I found this to be to excellent. Quite possibly his second best movie, and highly entertaining as well. Brad Pitt just flat out ruled as Aldo-I'd say this is my favorite performance of his after his role as Jesse James-chewing scenery and lines without going too over the top or being particularly hammy. There were a couple of moments where his expressions and his facial ticks were as funny/awesome as his Southern accent and some of his one-liners.

The re-writting of the ending of WW II caught me by complete surprise. I suspected he was going to kill Hitler, but I didn't think he'd actually go through with it. Nice.

Eli Roth was actually just fine for his bit part, and I liked how BJ Novak and him acted often as a foil for Pitt. Also I agree with my friend who thinks that the ending where Pitt utters "This is my masterpiece" is QT's dig at his critics. Which I can't blame him, considering that even though his movies have gotten good reviews, most think he's only made one masterpiece in Pulp Fiction. Except I agree that it is his only masterpiece, although Jackie Brown, Basterds, and Kill Bill Vol. 2 are all truly great movies.

[Sycophant]

So I've read in a handful of reviews and posts that some are concerned that Tarantino is boring (and thus turning off) some of his audience when he has his characters talk at length about G.W. Pabst and German film and such. However, I don't think I've seen anyone actually say they were bored or irritated by this, just concerned others were. This strikes me as odd.

Allegedly, I should've been bored to tears by all the talk in Death Proof as well, since I didn't really know anything about most of the seventies (and eighties?) action films the characters spent most the movie talking about. But, in my estimation, Tarantino successfully portrayed the characters' passion for these subjects, so even if I'm kind of in the dark, their passion is infectious and entertaining enough to watch, that I get into it.

I suppose your mileage may still vary, but especially in the case of Inglourious Basterds, this criticism strikes me as more of a concern troll.

[Ezee E]

It was boring in Death Proof. Mostly because all that was going on was Kurt Russell sitting in the background, and we waited for them to get in the car.

Whereas here, while they were just talking, there's the undercover suspense that's at stake. There's also being something set up at the same time. We aren't simply waiting for an action scene. This is where Tarantino gets that type of dialog right.

However, I can't figure out why I like the dialog in the first half of Death Proof as opposed to the second half. Better characters? Maybe. Is the second half just a retread? Perhaps. A better setting? Hmm...

[ledfloyd]

However, I can't figure out why I like the dialog in the first half of Death Proof as opposed to the second half. Better characters? Maybe. Is the second half just a retread? Perhaps. A better setting? Hmm...
oddly enough i feel just the opposite. until mike shows up, the dialogue in the first half annoys me, but i think the dialog in the second half is just fine.

[Fezzik]

Whereas here, while they were just talking, there's the undercover suspense that's at stake. There's also being something set up at the same time.

I totally agree.

The whole underlying "something's about to hit the fan" vibe that runs through the entire film put forth incredibly well by Tarantino. The film is amazingly suspenseful for a dialogue-driven piece.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm not sure if you guys caught it, but Landa's brief expression when the waiter casually throws some whipcream on his strudel was priceless!

[Ezee E]

GIMME!

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/basterds33.jpg

Indiana Jones and the Operation Kino.

[balmakboor]

So I've read in a handful of reviews and posts that some are concerned that Tarantino is boring (and thus turning off) some of his audience when he has his characters talk at length about G.W. Pabst and German film and such. However, I don't think I've seen anyone actually say they were bored or irritated by this, just concerned others were. This strikes me as odd.

I made such comments and I can remember being bored at times, more in general than by the Pabst and German film stuff specifically. Then again, I've admitted that my viewing experience may not have been under the best circumstances so I plan to get around to it again and possibly -- quite possibly -- enact a total reversal of opinion. Or maybe not.

Thinking about this. I stumbled upon this:

http://www.cinematical.com/2009/08/22/discuss-giving-a-movie-a-second-chance/

Edit: I should say that my initial review of Pulp Fiction back in the day was a pan. And I thought Kill Bill Vol. I was terrible. Yeah, there's still much hope for Inglourious Basterds and me.

[baby doll]

Well, I'm still revising and organizing my thoughts on the whole film, as its riches are deep, its meanings and interpretations complex and varied, so bear with me. It's certainly the most polarizing thing Tarantino has ever done, finally striving for irreverence with a purpose, as opposed to schlock for the sake of schlock. All of the allusion in Tarantino's previous work gave me the feeling he was aiming to be the ultimate hipster, and for me it always revealed a sense of artifice that made his films cool -- as far as surface value is concerned -- but not entirely important. The allusions in IB, rather, have a certain tone to them that feels urgent, and urgency is something Tarantino has rarely explored in his work.

Actually, the whole film felt very meta to me, but not too meta, much in the same way Godard's Contempt, Hitchcock's Rear Window or Fellini's 8 1/2 feel. While any comparison to these films are not immediately warranted, they are still each artist's way of exploring the philosophical implications of their art, through their art. Tarantino has done the same thing in IB, reveling in the power of cinema, the freedom of cinema, and the potential of cinema as a filmmaker with a purpose. To me, this culminates much of what he attempted to do with Kill Bill and Death Proof, only this time allusion hasn't obscured meaning, but divulged it. When Donnie obliterates Hitler, reducing his face to swiss cheese, I felt a sense of pure cinematic bliss: not because of the sadistic implications, but because someone was actually reinventing the rules. So, in a way, Tarantino has reinvented a genre by criticizing the works that preceded it, even the ones he may be alluding to or referencing. By eschewing the supposed limitations of the previous films made in the genre, the flood gates for new and exciting potential in the war film makes Inglourious Basterds the termite art I was suggesting in my previous post. Especially when you compare it to the white elephant art, the Oscar-baiting and History-respecting WWII art of the likes of Clint Eastwood or Steven Spielberg (to just name two contemporary examples).Changed the rules how, exactly? I mean, Schindler's List wasn't faithful to history either. Isn't that the whole point of Inglourious Basterds that it's impossible to talk about some one without turning them into a myth, whether it's Oscar Schindler or the Hangman of Prague (who Landa mentions by name in the opening sequence)?

[number8]

"Facts can be so misleading. But rumors, true or not, are often quite revealing."

[Saya]

Waltz's performance was really something.

I wouldn't mind a sequel to IB or some spinoff in which Landa is a private detective on Nantucket island!

[Fezzik]

Waltz's performance was really something.

I wouldn't mind a sequel to IB or some spinoff in which Landa is a private detective on Nantucket island!

I'd be all over that.

[ledfloyd]

I'd be all over that.
a buddy comedy with him and aldo.

[baby doll]

A while ago some one asked what Inglourious Basterds was in French. In Quebec City, the film is playing under the title Le Commando des bâtards.

[jamaul]

Changed the rules how, exactly? I mean, Schindler's List wasn't faithful to history either. Isn't that the whole point of Inglourious Basterds that it's impossible to talk about some one without turning them into a myth, whether it's Oscar Schindler or the Hangman of Prague (who Landa mentions by name in the opening sequence)?

Well, everything in Schindler's List, regardless of its historical tweaks, follows very distinctive rules regarding its content, which is considered by most to be, hmmm, quite sacred and not really grounds for the type of mischief Tarantino gets into in Nazi Occupied France. Everything down to its narrative tropes, characteristics of the characters (fictional ones based on real, and probably less-interesting, historical men/women), or even the self-important black-and-white cinematography, or John Williams' manipulative score, give off the feeling that Spielberg (and his screenwriter, Steve Zaillian) are really, really playing it safe. How many dry eyes left the theater when the film released in 1993? Not many. Spielberg's intent in the making of the film was not only just to portray humanity at its best and worst in a historical backdrop, but also to boost the sales of Kleenex boxes also. And for all of its supposed formalism and didacticism, in its worst moments, Schindler's List can be exasperatingly manipulative (the best example is Spielberg's climactic and thematic exclamation mark where Schindler breaks down in front of his Jews). Any historical tweaks were made to round out character and exemplify the themes of the film. None of it was meant to push anything forward, artistically.

None of the above answers your question, and to be honest, I'll probably just have to be content with my theory and leave it at that. There was a very giddy feeling I had at the end of IB, as if my endorphins had burst into flames, watching something on the screen I'd never seen before, and never expected Tarantino to accomplish in a million years. Combining this post with my previous is the closest I'm going to come to explaining my opinion.

[number8]

Waltz's performance was really something.

I wouldn't mind a sequel to IB or some spinoff in which Landa is a private detective on Nantucket island!

LANDA: GUMSHOE OF THE REICH!

[MadMan]

E that poster is amazing. And I agree that Waltz was brilliant in this as well, easily going from charming to monsterous. If anything the fact that Hitler and his band of luntics were able to persuade an entire nation (and people like Landa, who was clearly very cultured) to support and help exterminate 11 million people is far more chilling to me. Than Hitler and the actual Nazi party themselves, full of genoicidal master race deluded loonies. I think QT buys into this too to an extent, considering that Hitler was nothing more than a mere cheap characterization while Landa was a full fleshed out character.

[Yxklyx]

This was fine. I didn't care at all for some of the excessive violence like the head bashing scene. I was kind of surprised to see the nazis come off so well - the film glorified them to an extent (Landa the exception somewhat). I mean if you didn't know anything about them or WW2 and you saw this film - you'd be rooting for them. I was kind of expecting them to be portrayed as evil - thereby somewhat condoning the actions of the basterds. Note, that I didn't find this glorification offensive (not that I have any love for the nazis) - just surprising.

[balmakboor]

If anything the fact that Hitler and his band of luntics were able to persuade an entire nation (and people like Landa, who was clearly very cultured) to support and help exterminate 11 million people is far more chilling to me. Than Hitler and the actual Nazi party themselves, full of genoicidal master race deluded loonies.

This is something that I struggle with about the movie. What fascinates me about Nazi Germany is the complexity of what happened. Trying to answer the question, "What could make so many well-cultured people, including their leader, commit such atrocities?" While your "genocidal master race deluded loonies" certainly has its truth, it can't even approach capturing their entire characters.

Your words describe how they look from the outside. But they didn't see themselves as any of those things -- genocidal, deluded, loony. How such a perceptual disconnect was able to form in their minds is perhaps one of humanity's greatest questions it needs to answer. (Many have tried to answer this. But we still get our periodic Dick Cheneys.)

With Landa, Tarantino has taken bounding strides toward capturing this complexity. As played by Waltz, he may be the screen's greatest portrayal of a Nazi. But, by making almost everything around Landa just one big, cartoonish riff on Spaghetti Westerns, he took, for me at least, just as many equally bounding strides backwards toward cancelling out everything he accomplished with Landa.

[Ivan Drago]

Seeing this either on Saturday or Sunday. Needless to say I'm excited.

[Rousseau]

I believe this is my first post. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The imagery was beautiful, the pacing was great and the casting was pretty good with the exception of Mike Myers who i didn't think belonged in the film. This film had so many twists and turns that it almost felt like the movie equivalent of a through composed song like bohemian rhapsody. I suppose the other thing I didn't quite like was the overly loquacious bits with the Jew Hunter, some were good and appropriate but I felt like the whole bit about switching language to English wasn't really necessary or at least it didn't need to be so tacky.

This may sound bizarre but I loved how red the red was in this movie. from the scalped heads to the Nazi flags.

He also threw in light-hearted and funny scenes in at the right times so that the audience never really sees this as a depressing and gruesome holocaust story.

Was also great to have Samuel L Jackson and Harvey Keitel in the movie.

[D_Davis]

I liked it. Didn't love it, but I liked it.

It felt like bits were missing. Why did only one of the Basterds get the sweet intro/flashback? I would have loved to see more about how and why they were each chosen to become part of the gang.

[Pop Trash]

I liked it. Didn't love it, but I liked it.

It felt like bits were missing. Why did only one of the Basterds get the sweet intro/flashback? I would have loved to see more about how and why they were each chosen to become part of the gang.

I didn't really get that either, but the whole basterds storyline seemed like a red herring to me, so it didn't matter much.

Also, didn't he do that in Kill Bill? I seem to remember O-Ren Ishii getting that cool anime backstory but then no one else in the gang getting one.

[D_Davis]

Also, didn't he do that in Kill Bill? I seem to remember O-Ren Ishii getting that cool anime backstory but then no one else in the gang getting one.

Yeah - that's true. Although I thought it worked a little better there. I thought he did it because she was Japanese, and thus the anime fit with the character. I was trying to think of why that one particular Basterd got the intro...any ideas? How many of the Basterds didn't have any lines? I don't remember the Freaks and Geeks kid talking at all - did he?

[number8]

He wasn't the only one to get a backstory (you learn about Aldo, Donnie and Wicki too); he's just the only one you see done in that style, to really show that he's a Nazi-hating psycho, in order to add to the suspense in the bar scene.

It works. When I saw it, the crowd kept making "oooo"s and small laughs whenever Hellstrom the Gestapo officer slaps Hugo's back. And that lashing flashback there is hilarious.

Sam Levinne had one line. "I'd be shitting my pants if I were you!"

[Ezee E]

And we do see how they all get hired. The beginning of chapter two.

[ledfloyd]

I suppose the other thing I didn't quite like was the overly loquacious bits with the Jew Hunter, some were good and appropriate but I felt like the whole bit about switching language to English wasn't really necessary or at least it didn't need to be so tacky.
it's explained at the end of the scene. the people under the floorboards didn't speak english. also, french was the farmer's first language, so landa was trying to keep him off his game.


I liked it. Didn't love it, but I liked it.

It felt like bits were missing. Why did only one of the Basterds get the sweet intro/flashback? I would have loved to see more about how and why they were each chosen to become part of the gang.
the only other one in the script is of the bear jew and it's more or less superfluous. i suppose the stiglitz one is only effective for the laughs later in the bar scene.

[Amnesiac]

Saw this tonight. Damn, great movie.

[Amnesiac]

By the way, am I the only one who didn't really register the (in hindsight, obvious) parallel between the Nazi's enjoying Nation's Pride and the audience in the theater watching the Basterds' onslaught? I knew something meta was going on there but I didn't really pursue that angle beyond the 'cinema is a weapon' notion. I missed the specific comparison the film put fourth between our audience and the film's audience.

I think this might have to do with my ambivalence regarding the Basterds' violence. Apart from a few witticisms and a well earned head-butt, none of their brutality struck me as the kind you unequivocally cheer on. I didn't instantly relate to the guffaws of Hitler and company. Too markedly opposed to my own reaction to the violence, maybe. I mean, not to sound affectedly sanctimonious, but I was pretty plain faced during some scenes of Basterds-induced violence while others in the audience were chortling and having a good time.

But I suppose the comparison still works insofar as it may be Tarantino's attempt at nudging those who haven't yet begun viewing the Basterds a bit more critically.

[balmakboor]

By the way, am I the only one who didn't really register the (in hindsight, obvious) parallel between the Nazi's enjoying Nation's Pride and the audience in the theater watching the Basterds' onslaught? I knew something meta was going on there but I didn't really pursue that angle beyond the 'cinema is a weapon' notion. I missed the specific comparison the film put fourth between our audience and the film's audience.

I noticed it while watching. Honestly though, I thought it was blunt, obvious, banal. Hardly something worth spending very many words of praise.

[Bosco B Thug]

By the way, am I the only one who didn't really register the (in hindsight, obvious) parallel between the Nazi's enjoying Nation's Pride and the audience in the theater watching the Basterds' onslaught? I knew something meta was going on there but I didn't really pursue that angle beyond the 'cinema is a weapon' notion. I missed the specific comparison the film put fourth between our audience and the film's audience.

I think this might have to do with my ambivalence regarding the Basterds' violence. Apart from a few witticisms and a well earned head-butt, none of their brutality struck me as the kind you unequivocally cheer on. I didn't instantly relate to the guffaws of Hitler and company. Too markedly opposed to my own reaction to the violence, maybe. I mean, not to sound affectedly sanctimonious, but I was pretty plain faced during some scenes of Basterds-induced violence while others in the audience were chortling and having a good time.

But I suppose the comparison still works insofar as it may be Tarantino's attempt at nudging those who haven't yet begun viewing the Basterds a bit more critically. Yeah, exactly. This has been my position throughout the thread.

I agree, I think the "meta-indictment" angle can be aptly applied by people (especially considering how others do react to the film's more "frothy" moments, which are in any case few and far between), but I too didn't sense any intent exploitative-ness or faux pro-belligerence being attempted by the film. To push even further my ideal feelings regarding the film, even the Nazis cheering it up in the theater just strikes me as a strong, well-executed statement instead of any sort of agitative manipulation. I'm not sure if anyone actually feels the otherwise.

[Bosco B Thug]

Friend of Match-Cut Dennis Cozzalio has taken part in an extensive 4-part blogged discussion with Blogger friends over this film, which I've only quickly perused but from the looks of it, covers pretty much everything that could be discussed about this film. I like what I've seen, even if I suspect excessive friendly conciliation ("Oh, for sure I see where you're coming from...") and detail that spills over into trivialness. They take on very directly, also, the moral accusations against the film, particularly Jonathan Rosenbaum's, who takes part in the conversation at one point.

For anyone not burnt out on IB: here's Part 1 (http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/2009/08/revenge-of-giant-fa-ce-conversation.html)

[ledfloyd]

Friend of Match-Cut Dennis Cozzalio has taken part in an extensive 4-part blogged discussion with Blogger friends over this film, which I've only quickly perused but from the looks of it, covers pretty much everything that could be discussed about this film. I like what I've seen, even if I suspect excessive friendly conciliation ("Oh, for sure I see where you're coming from...") and detail that spills over into trivialness. They take on very directly, also, the moral accusations against the film, particularly Jonathan Rosenbaum's, who takes part in the conversation at one point.

For anyone not burnt out on IB: here's Part 1 (http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/2009/08/revenge-of-giant-fa-ce-conversation.html)
friend of match-cut eh?

but yeah, that's definitely the best thing i've read on basterds thus far.

[BuffaloWilder]

Well, he posts on here, at least.

[Ezee E]

Well, he posts on here, at least.
Two posts. Or so.

[Bosco B Thug]

friend of match-cut eh?

but yeah, that's definitely the best thing i've read on basterds thus far. Oh yeah. He popped by on one brief, shining occasion to post some personal defense, in relation to Match-Cut discussion on Speed Racer (which he loooves). Scared the hell out of me. haha.

[ledfloyd]

Oh yeah. He popped by on one brief, shining occasion to post some personal defense, in relation to Match-Cut discussion on Speed Racer (which he loooves). Scared the hell out of me. haha.
awesome, i must have missed that. i didn't get very involved in the whole speed racer thing. not a fan.

[Ivan Drago]

The shot of Shoshanna's film playing over the smoke might be my favorite shot of the decade.

What a phenomenal movie.

[Rousseau]

it's explained at the end of the scene. the people under the floorboards didn't speak english. also, french was the farmer's first language, so landa was trying to keep him off his game.


I agree that the switching from French to English wasn't a superfluous element. It was more the how that I didn't appreciate as much. But it is a small criticism.

[balmakboor]

I agree that the switching from French to English wasn't a superfluous element. It was more the how that I didn't appreciate as much. But it is a small criticism.

I find Chapter 1 of I.B. the best thing Tarantino has done to date and that especially includes the switching of language from French to English and back again.

[Acapelli]

Yeah - that's true. Although I thought it worked a little better there. I thought he did it because she was Japanese, and thus the anime fit with the character. I was trying to think of why that one particular Basterd got the intro...any ideas? How many of the Basterds didn't have any lines? I don't remember the Freaks and Geeks kid talking at all - did he?
well he was the only non-jewish, non-american basterd, so it might have been that

[Amnesiac]

I don't know if this has already been brought up or if it's just a total stretch on my behalf, but did anyone think of the Greenwood score from There Will Be Blood when that music started playing (nearly drowning out the dialogue) after Landa ordered his men inside the cabin?

[Winston*]

This movie that Hugo Stiglitz's namesake stars in sounds fantastic.


Two playboys in the coast of Mexico, Steven, played by Hugo Stiglitz, an American millionaire and Miguel, played by Andrés GarcÃ*a a local swimming instructor, are competing to win the heart of beautiful Patricia. After they fight, Patricia gets eaten by the Tintorera. To cheer themselves up, they become friends and go to a brothel, having fun with two girls. They bring Gabriella, a British girl, with them, and go fishing for sharks and mantas, where Miguel gets eaten by the Tintorera. Gabriella, being shocked, returns to England. Steven, saddened by losing his friend, decides to cheer himself up by going to a brothel again. He throws a party with friends, and invites them to come to his yacht by swimming. Alas, they get eaten by the Tintorera. Steven, being fed up of this predator who goes eating all his friends, decides to eliminate it. He sets up a dragnet and destroys the shark with an explosive capsule.

[Henry Gale]

I don't know if this has already been brought up or if it's just a total stretch on my behalf, but did anyone think of the Greenwood score from There Will Be Blood when that music started playing (nearly drowning out the dialogue) after Landa ordered his men inside the cabin?

It hadn't crossed my mind, but I do think it would be quite a nice and subtle nod if intentional as I know that Tarantino adores (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw) Anderson's film and it'd be one of his more underplayed homages.

[Amnesiac]

It hadn't crossed my mind, but I do think it would be quite a nice and subtle nod if intentional as I know that Tarantino adores (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw) Anderson's film and it'd be one of his more underplayed homages.

Yeah, I actually posted that exact video in the Film Discussion Thread last week and that's part of the reason why I made the TWBB connection upon hearing Chapter 1's overbearing music.

[Morris Schæffer]

Behold, the real Hugo Stiglitz:

http://www.tenosique.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/el_direct.jpg

On the left. :P

[ledfloyd]

i was wondering the same thing, whether that was a track from TWBB or just a similar bit of score.

[Sycophant]

It could well be that QT was referencing PTA's film, but I swear I've seen that device before, even if I can't remember where.

[Amnesiac]

In the video posted above, he mentions that Greenwood's score is one of the greatest modern scores put to film. This adds credence to my assumption but it doesn't confirm it.

[ledfloyd]

a wonderful lengthy discussion on QT up until basterds is up on the house next door. apparently part 2, focusing in on basterds will be up on wednesday.

[Rowland]

a wonderful lengthy discussion on QT up until basterds is up on the house next door. apparently part 2, focusing in on basterds will be up on wednesday.Yep, this was a fantastic discussion. I especially appreciated the significant presence of Reservoir Dogs in the first half of the piece, which I'm beginning to believe may be Tarantino's most impeccably self-contained work, if not quite his outright best.

[baby doll]

Well, everything in Schindler's List, regardless of its historical tweaks, follows very distinctive rules regarding its content, which is considered by most to be, hmmm, quite sacred and not really grounds for the type of mischief Tarantino gets into in Nazi Occupied France. Everything down to its narrative tropes, characteristics of the characters (fictional ones based on real, and probably less-interesting, historical men/women), or even the self-important black-and-white cinematography, or John Williams' manipulative score, give off the feeling that Spielberg (and his screenwriter, Steve Zaillian) are really, really playing it safe. How many dry eyes left the theater when the film released in 1993? Not many. Spielberg's intent in the making of the film was not only just to portray humanity at its best and worst in a historical backdrop, but also to boost the sales of Kleenex boxes also. And for all of its supposed formalism and didacticism, in its worst moments, Schindler's List can be exasperatingly manipulative (the best example is Spielberg's climactic and thematic exclamation mark where Schindler breaks down in front of his Jews). Any historical tweaks were made to round out character and exemplify the themes of the film. None of it was meant to push anything forward, artistically.

None of the above answers your question, and to be honest, I'll probably just have to be content with my theory and leave it at that. There was a very giddy feeling I had at the end of IB, as if my endorphins had burst into flames, watching something on the screen I'd never seen before, and never expected Tarantino to accomplish in a million years. Combining this post with my previous is the closest I'm going to come to explaining my opinion.Well, Russ Meyer also boosted the sales of kleenex boxes, but that doesn't make him any less of an artist.

Anyway, I can't wait for Tarantino's irreverent civil rights movie where Martin Luther King and Malcom X travel back in time to lynch slave owners.

[Bosco B Thug]

a wonderful lengthy discussion on QT up until basterds is up on the house next door. apparently part 2, focusing in on basterds will be up on wednesday. I like it. Although not much of a fan of the "His characters are defined by pop culture" analysis, which they focus on a lot. I don't think it goes anywhere, although maybe a more thorough reading would've helped it.


As you say yourself, the most obvious pop culture references in... [edited to omit Kill Bill stuff]... Death Proof (the Vanishing Point dialogue) turn out to be integral to the films' deeper themes. (And by the way, I don't know why it's so hard to believe that a pair of stuntwomen would be interested in Vanishing Point, and would extol its virtues to their non-gearhead friends; maybe because I know women who love cars and do love that movie. I've always thought the "girls wouldn't talk about Vanishing Point" criticism was kind of sexist.) Yeeeah that's what I'm talking about. The "girls don't talk like that"/"The girls just talk like stock Tarantino characters" criticism always irks me.

[Justin]

I just saw this not too long ago, was trying to let it sit for a while. And wow, fantastic film. It honestly had me at that opening scene, just an absolutely perfect scene. And I honestly did not mind Eli Roth at all, his blank unflinching stare as he fired the SMG was very memorable, he did exactly what was required of him, it would have been interesting to see what Adam Sandler could have done with the role.

And of course I agree that Mike Myers was the only problem with them film, not that he was terrible, his accent was just too much into Austin Powers mode that it briefly took me out of the film.

And that final scene with the projection on the smoke, wow. Probably the most visually striking image in any Tarantino film to date.

[Spinal]

Inglourious Basterds is not only probably Tarantino's best film to date -- at this point in time, I'd say it is -- but more importantly it is a film that I never would have thought him capable of creating. Though certain stylistic flourishes remain, Tarantino drops a few of his crutches (namely the mixtape soundtrack and the barrage of pop culture fetishism) and tackles his subject matter with something his work, even the good stuff, has rarely possessed in the past -- a desire to communicate an important idea.

The film melds Tarantino's mastery of surface pleasures with a newfound commitment to layered, sophisticated thematics and the result is an exhilarating film that is not only a rewrite of history, but in some ways an actual argument in support of historical inaccuracy. Tarantino argues that we have had enough films in which we see the repeated images of strong, powerful Nazis hounding terrified Jews and executing them mercilessly. Those films have their place in telling a history, but what are the consequences of having those images barrage us every year around Oscar season?

Like the film's Nazi propagandists who realize that the cinema can be used to rally a nation and inspire pride, Tarantino audaciously suggests that a film with a band of ruthless Jewish spies who put terror into the hearts of their enemies might have real life value in the way it alters our perceptions. Instead of using cinema to kill the Jews over and over and over, why not use it to burn the idea of Nazism in effigy? Only Tarantino would be so cocky as to use the final line of his film to insinuate that he knows that the film he has created is fantastic. But I have to say that I agree with his assessment.

Inglourious Basterds is a film that is exciting not only because it is perhaps the pinnacle of Tarantino's cinema. It is exciting because it suggests that Tarantino may have reached a new stage in his career. It took him 15 years to live up to the enormous hype of Pulp Fiction. Let's hope it takes far less time for him to match this one.

[Spinal]

Watching that glorious finale in the French cinema, it finally made sense to me why Tarantino loves Dogville so much. At it's core, it's a revenge film. I found that connection really exciting.

[Boner M]

Hooray for Spinal.

[Sxottlan]

I really had a blast with this film.

With that finale, was I the only one thinking of Raiders of the Lost Ark?

The biggest laugh was Eli Roth pretending to be Italian.

[Morris Schæffer]

I really had a blast with this film.

With that finale, was I the only one thinking of Raiders of the Lost Ark?

The biggest laugh was Eli Roth pretending to be Italian.

Antonio Margheriti I believe was Roth's name. An Italian cult director who often used the moniker Antony M. Dawson, helmer of such "classics" as The Hunters of the Golden Cobra.

[Bosco B Thug]

Inglourious Basterds is not only probably Tarantino's best film to date -- at this point in time, I'd say it is -- but more importantly it is a film that I never would have thought him capable of creating. Though certain stylistic flourishes remain, Tarantino drops a few of his crutches (namely the mixtape soundtrack and the barrage of pop culture fetishism) and tackles his subject matter with something his work, even the good stuff, has rarely possessed in the past -- a desire to communicate an important idea.

Hooray for Spinal. Hear, hear.

The film needed to elaborate on intrigue and history to be good, and it did.

[ledfloyd]

part two of that house next door article was good. not quite as exhaustive as cozzalio's conversation but they came at it from a different angle. which was nice.

also, emerson has yet another piece up, and it may be his best one yet.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yeeeah that's what I'm talking about. The "girls don't talk like that"/"The girls just talk like stock Tarantino characters" criticism always irks me.

Generally, the criticism isn't meant to be, 'they're talking about things that no girl could possibly like.' It's that they all sound like the same character, male and female. That character being Tarantino - thus, Tarantino in drag. However, he can avoid this. Look at Jackie Brown.

[Bosco B Thug]

Generally, the criticism isn't meant to be, 'they're talking about things that no girl could possibly like.' It's that they all sound like the same character, male and female. That character being Tarantino - thus, Tarantino in drag. However, he can avoid this. Look at Jackie Brown.
Most times I come across it, it is some variation of "Girls don't talk the way Tarantino imagines they talk," which is what I think is ridiculous.

In the sense you state, I still completely disagree. His characters are uniformly silver-tongued and rambunctious, sure, but I see nothing wrong with that when the characters themselves and what they say are so very distinct.

And then there's that "Tracie Thoms character is just a female Samuel L. Jackson" business. Okay, fine, define this woman as a masculine mannerism, but oh, so she's just that? Just because she knows how to throw in a "Nigga please" means she's a caricature of the completely normative Tarantino man? Argh.

[ledfloyd]

And then there's that "Tracie Thoms character is just a female Samuel L. Jackson" business. Okay, fine, define this woman as a masculine mannerism, but oh, so she's just that? Just because she knows how to throw in a "Nigga please" means she's a caricature of a man? Argh.
there is that whole bit where she goes on about tapping stuntman mike's ass.

[Bosco B Thug]

there is that whole bit where she goes on about tapping stuntman mike's ass. Strong, bombastic, crude and in-your-face, ostensibly clever words. And they can't be conceived in this character's brain and come out of her mouth? Add to that, in these circumstances, it's just absolutely called for - it occurs when they are doing just that, and without the line it would be just a glib visual joke instead of an expression of these women's states of mind; it serves as culminate expression of their seizure of the male advantage (and lingo used) to victimize; and it's the film's (intentionally) bluntest, crudest, most banal and blockhead-like allusion to rape, strategically placed as our heroines get the closest they'll come to assuming the place of a male degenerate blockhead in the film's semi-absurdist finale.

[Gabe L]

Hello all - I was Aragorn Exley on RT, and Derek coaxed me over here (still post elsewhere with Raiders as well). Like I need another place to waste my time...

Figure this is as good a place as any to start - I LOVED this. It's the best theatrical experience I've had since THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and I think it's QT's finest work. Here's my review of it:

http://filmandfelt.com/musings/?p=315

To expand on some of what I wrote - I think this isn't just an ode to cinema's greatness, but an ingenious expression of the unique power film has; to manipulate fact, to manipulate fiction, to manipulate the mind. We see this both in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS itself, and in NATION'S PRIDE within the film. It's brilliant.

More later.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

The White Hell of Pitz Palu was co-directed by "Herr Bergfilme" Dr. Arnold Fanck, so the French (who take their directors seriously) would have listed him next to Pabst on the marquee.

Because of this oversight by Tarantino, the movie is technically historically inaccurate.

[Grouchy]

http://www.proximosestrenos.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/inglourious_basterds_ita.jpg

Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009

Finally getting a chance to see this on a packed house with a fellow film lover yesterday was as close as I can get to emulating that defining theater experience I had with Kill Bill Vol. 1 back in 2003. The thing is, Tarantino is one of the few living directors who considers the movies a unique opportunity to implicate an audience in levels which defy the achievements of 90% of both Hollywood blockbusters and "art cinema". From the opening sequence to the last, every moment is both a commentary on the action and an involving drama. My dislike of Death Proof stems from what I believe is an excessively winking tone which becomes exhasperating and counter-effective to the plot. This film blends both worlds perfectly.

Ostensibly, this is a story about the basterds (the bad spelling, methinks, is a jab at Aldo Raine's illiteracy), a group of Jewish secret service Nazi hunters who scalp their enemies and brand the survivors with svastikas. However, soon the action and the tone shifts abruptly (a QT trademark if there ever was one) and we find ourselves more involved with Shohana, a refugee who owns a movie theater in Nazi-occupied France and who finds it turned into the scenery of the premiere of an important German propaganda film.

With a movie as multi-layered and epic as this one, it's hard to formulate some thoughts after a first viewing. I'm recklessly gonna try. I'm not sure if this is Tarantino's masterpiece as he himself claims in the final line, but it's surely his most meaningful work. The story presents us with an alternate WWII setting in which the war is fought by way of movies that established national identity. The main villain of the film, and also the best character QT has ever written, is Hans Landa, a.k.a. the Jew Hunter. Almost at the end of the film we find out that he's a double-crosser, and I think that's the element that sets him on a lower moral scale than the other characters. He's not proud of his lineage or country - he's a professional detective and merciless killer who fights only for himself.

Other levels of meaning relate to the way in which language works, either to communicate or to break communication. In the opening scene, which borrows shots literally from Lee Van Cleef's introduction in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the Jew Hunter challenges our perception of language in Hollywood movies by specifically shifting gears halfway through the conversation in order to get to his objective. While a recent WWII movie, Valkyrie, changed from German to English in order to better accomodate audiences, this work turns those movie devices into the main topic. Later on, the culture clash and the ignorance of other people's languages become deadly important for our undercover heroes. QT seems to argue that it's that very same cultural racism (for lack of a better expression) that causes the atrocities of war in the very first place.

While other movies about the war limit themselves to portraying atrocities and keeping memory alive, Inglourious Basterds attacks the idea of memory by nonchalantly changing the course of history and creating a bold and attractive catharsis fantasy. This is the stuff most movies should be made of.

P.S.: The only detail that didn't ring true for me was the fact that the movie star German, Zoller, suddenly became an asshole right before getting killed. For me, even in a movie that admits its manipulative techniques, that went over the line. Instead of showing a character which had been portrayed as kind and well-behaved getting randomly killed for getting in the way of vengeance, I suspect QT felt the need to suddenly darken the character so we wouldn't hold his death against the movie and I thought that was a cheap shot. Regardless, Shohana and Zoller's truncated love story is the emotional center of this epic film.

[Ezee E]

Welcome Aragorn! I remember you well from RT. Enjoy posting here!

[B-side]

This was definitely something special. Perhaps Tarantino's best work, or at least his most meaningful.

[MadMan]

Well, Russ Meyer also boosted the sales of kleenex boxes, but that doesn't make him any less of an artist.

Anyway, I can't wait for Tarantino's irreverent civil rights movie where Martin Luther King and Malcom X travel back in time to lynch slave owners.I'd probably go see that movie :P

Good reviews Spinal, Grouchy. I'd post my review, but its not finished yet and its going to be part of my own thread covering QT's work. I'm currently up to Jackie Brown, even though I've only seen it once. I hope to re-visit that one and catch "Basterds" in the theater one more time.

Hey Aragorn. Nice to see yah here-I too, remember you from RT.

[lovejuice]

P.S.: The only detail that didn't ring true for me was the fact that the movie star German, Zoller, suddenly became an asshole right before getting killed.
interesting enough, while i too love the movie and can't stand death proof, i seem to disagree with almost everything said in your review. this is the perfect case in point. i love zoller, the character. i don't think the movie ever states that he's kind hearted. in fact -- and this is why i love QT's writing here -- it purposely does not say anything. instead it used the circumstantial/movie-cliche evident to suggest so. the first rendezvous between zoller and shoshana is staged such that we presume the soldier is a good guy. the movie seems to full of such wrong clues.

[Grouchy]

interesting enough, while i too love the movie and can't stand death proof, i seem to disagree with almost everything said in your review. this is the perfect case in point. i love zoller, the character. i don't think the movie ever states that he's kind hearted. in fact -- and this is why i love QT's writing here -- it purposely does not say anything. instead it used the circumstantial/movie-cliche evident to suggest so. the first rendezvous between zoller and shoshana is staged such that we presume the soldier is a good guy. the movie seems to full of such wrong clues.
Yes, but what I was arguing was that the doomed romance would have been more powerful if the character had stayed a good guy.

[Spinal]

I never really read the relationship as a doomed romance. I read it as a one-way attraction. You're going to have to remind me where she showed any special interest in him beyond cursory politeness.

[Bosco B Thug]

I never really read the relationship as a doomed romance. I read it as a one-way attraction. You're going to have to remind me where she showed any special interest in him beyond cursory politeness.
"Doomed," probably, in that it never did exist, but it should have.

It is a little semantic oversight, but I just defend it because I used it. ;)

[Duncan]

Beyond the first meeting (and even then, he's still really into Nazism in a genuine way), I don't think we were ever supposed to think of Zoller as a good guy. He tries to impress her by bragging about killing a few hundred people. I was waiting for him to finally show his true colours. I think Tarantino foreshadowed that nicely.

[Grouchy]

I never really read the relationship as a doomed romance. I read it as a one-way attraction. You're going to have to remind me where she showed any special interest in him beyond cursory politeness.
I thought it was implied that, had he not been a Nazi, Shohana would've probably liked him. She sort of looks at him in a good way both in their first dialogue and in the coffee shop scene later on, then inmediately something happens that breaks into the moment.

[Bosco B Thug]

Beyond the first meeting (and even then, he's still really into Nazism in a genuine way), I don't think we were ever supposed to think of Zoller as a good guy. He tries to impress her by bragging about killing a few hundred people. I was waiting for him to finally show his true colours. I think Tarantino foreshadowed that nicely.
I'm not too sure. I can't see Tarantino, being Tarantino, concocting a character as purely into movies as Zoller, and then painting him a bad guy.

[Gabe L]

I thought it was implied that, had he not been a Nazi, Shohana would've probably liked him. She sort of looks at him in a good way both in their first dialogue and in the coffee shop scene later on, then inmediately something happens that breaks into the moment.

I interpreted her look in the coffee shop as more bemused and curious by the fawning reaction of his fellow soldiers than "good." Had he not been a Nazi, who knows? His love of cinema might have brought them together...or it might not have. He arrives on the scene as a Nazi, and as such, every reaction Shoshanna has to Zoller is steeped in her loathing for everything he stands for.

I don't really think of the romance as doomed, though the finale does imply that she finally glimpsed a part of him that wasn't "pure" Nazi. I agree with Bosco that WE, as the audience, are not supposed to view Zoller as strictly evil, but I think Shoshanna mostly does, or at the least has a disregard for everything else he might stand for beyond it, as the Nazism trumps all else.

Thanks for the welcome, guys!

[Duncan]

I'm not too sure. I can't see Tarantino, being Tarantino, concocting a character as purely into movies as Zoller, and then painting him a bad guy.

But...he tries to rape her. And he's a zealous Nazi. Seems like a pretty bad guy to me (although not purely evil). I thought Tarantino set up the character to be like most things in the movie, which is a ticking time bomb. You know he's going to go off, and you're just waiting for it. Or at least I was. He's a genuine character, but he's also a suspenseful device. In the coffee shop, I thought Shoshanna's looks varied from, 'Christ, not this guy again,' to 'what's all this fawning about?' to 'is this guy kidding, or does he really think killing a bunch of people who's side I'm on is going to impress me?' He gets progressively more evil as the movie goes on, becoming arrogant, conceded, and eventually feels emasculated when this woman won't obey him, which sends him over the edge. That Shoshanna feels pity for him at the end says more about her character than it does about his. She is able to pity this pathetic, evil man.

[Bosco B Thug]

But...he tries to rape her. Well, no... Please alert me if I really need to see the moment again, but there's no way we can be sure of this.

I thought he served sympathetically, and as the film's statement on the deleterious effect of politics and favor.

[Derek]

Well, no... Please alert me if I really need to see the moment again, but there's no way we can be sure of this.

It can be inferred from when he barged into the projection room speaking of how he's "not the sort of person to say no too" that had she not changed her tune, he would likely have forced himself upon her. So, it's more accurate to say he very likely would have raped her.

[Duncan]

Yeah, I mean what's he going to do in that scene? Just give her a good talking to? She pretends to offer herself to him because she knows he's about to rape her, and she uses the time to get a gun. I thought it was pretty clear.

[lovejuice]

Yeah, I mean what's he going to do in that scene? Just give her a good talking to? She pretends to offer herself to him because she knows he's about to rape her, and she uses the time to get a gun. I thought it was pretty clear.
after the offering, he's pretty stunned and awkward though. I think he's more acting tough. the guy is quite a puppy inside.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Even if he wasn't trying to rape her, however unthreatening Zoller may be moments later or at any point, I think the inference is that Shohana does fear the possibility. He does act quite aggressively, and he is very blunt.

[Duncan]

after the offering, he's pretty stunned and awkward though. I think he's more acting tough. the guy is quite a puppy inside.
I don't know if I'd call him a puppy, but he's definitely a weak, vain person.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, I mean what's he going to do in that scene? Just give her a good talking to? Yes?

In light of everyone's recent posts on this matter, I'll say that I think there's much worth in saying, yes, we're not sure what he'd do.

But saying that an action and a statement more than halfway certifies that he'd then rape her, and that this inference thus damns this character to the "evil Nazi" persona, is counteractive to the film's statement on how politics are not individuals, and that beasts are nurtured (and also that beasts in matters of sex are tantamount as hideous time bombs):

He likes her this much, for reasons not of superficial lust... but Hitler and Goebbels inflate him to this much of this... and then her refusal to accept him - this much! because she's so full of hate - as anything other than a uniform... can result in making him this much, and so sexual and political power brings out the beast.

[Spinal]

I thought it was pretty cleary an imminent rape that was going on there. The whole 'relationship' was a coercive power trip. I felt that the character was simply executing the final logical step in his manipulative game.

[Bosco B Thug]

I thought it was pretty cleary an imminent rape that was going on there. The whole 'relationship' was a coercive power trip. I felt that the character was simply executing the final logical step in his manipulative game. Man, I must have some super rose-colored glasses on.

In one last-ditch attempt... were the fawning autograph-seekers part of the plan? His emotional reaction to the film an executed step? Did he revel in some alacritous certainty that Shosanna would just keep on spurning him, no matter how hard he tried, so that he could finally pounce?

[Spinal]

In one last-ditch attempt... were the fawning autograph-seekers part of the plan? His emotional reaction to the film an executed step? Did he revel in some alacritous certainty that Shosanna would just keep on spurning him, no matter how hard he tried, so that he could finally pounce?

It's not that he envisioned raping her from the beginning. I don't think he suspected that he would need to. Because of who he was, he imagined that she was his for the taking. When she spurned him initially, he followed her. When she spurned him again, he had her picked up off the street by the authorities and forced into a 'date'. When she spurned him again, he went to her knowing that she was vulnerable in the projection booth. When she spurned him again, he refused to leave, trapping her. What comes next? Shosanna knew, which is why she used a trick to lower his defenses. What did she offer him? Cash? Information? Of course not. She offered him what she knew he had come to claim.

So basically it all comes down to how you want to use the word 'rape'. In some respects, his whole line of pusuit is a rape, as he has a clear power advantage over Shosanna. I suspect this is at least partially supposed to parallel Germany's 'rape' of France.

In the strictest sense, using the word as it is most commonly used, no, he is not technically a rapist, though that seems to be more a matter of opportunity rather than temperament.

[Bosco B Thug]

It's not that he envisioned raping her from the beginning. I don't think he suspected that he would need to. Because of who he was, he imagined that she was his for the taking. When she spurned him initially, he followed her. When she spurned him again, he had her picked up off the street by the authorities and forced into a 'date'. When she spurned him again, he went to her knowing that she was vulnerable in the projection booth. When she spurned him again, he refused to leave, trapping her. What comes next? Shosanna knew, which is why she used a trick to lower his defenses. What did she offer him? Cash? Information? Of course not. She offered him what she knew he had come to claim.

So basically it all comes down to how you want to use the word 'rape'. In some respects, his whole line of pusuit is a rape, as he has a clear power advantage over Shosanna. I suspect this is at least partially supposed to parallel Germany's 'rape' of France.

In the strictest sense, using the word as it is most commonly used, no, he is not technically a rapist, though that seems to be more a matter of opportunity rather than temperament. Very good arguments.

On the matter that probably shouldn't (or can't) come to any head (if you'll allow me to put it so awkwardly...): Like I've said, his ostensible threat, and her probable fear, is just not enough for me to feel the film is pushing us to condemn.

In conjunction with the innocence that we are made to see lay beneath this character, I see the film making a clear argument that Zoller is - to some extent for sympathy and understanding - blind and unwitting to his encasement within and susceptibility to the powers he inhabits as, triply, a Nazi officer, a political influence, and as a male (meaning, of course, in relation to Shosanna, as a female). As you suggest, his moment of weakness is a matter of opportunity... as in it's completely spontaneous, a moment of passion.

Your case of an essential courtship made up of coercive acts is very perceptive, and very true. But there's a reason Tarantino psyches us out with the threatening officer who forces Shosanna to get into the car... the reason being the fact that it's not Zoller. It's another arm of the military that works with him, and who he simply has no control over, for he surely would not approve of use of intimidation (corroborated by his unwillingness to leave her with Landa). At that point, he probably feels he can still win her over with his promotion of her theater (because yes, he's that dumb, that much of a simpleton... but not necessarily a monster yet).

Tarantino tempers all their meetings with the bustle of the world and environment around them, with the one exception being their first meeting, when there's not a word from Zoller about his reputation, only movies.

[Skitch]

Great! Can't wait to watch it again.

[Gabe L]

I think it's pretty clear that despite Zoller's admiration and mental lust for Shoshanna, he'd finally reached a breaking point, and he was planning to force himself upon her in that moment of rage. Though I will say this, in partial defense of Bosco's points -- his confused reaction to her saying, "lock the doors" indicates that it was more fury and a hurt ego that spawned it as opposed to any sort of planned action. I don't think he went to the projector room with raping her in mind; rather, I think he hoped that his disenchantment with watching himself murder people would finally cause her to give him a real look. He's a fascinating character in that he symbolizes the sheep of the Third Reich more than the incarnations of pure evil.

I also don't really agree that his cockiness about what he did / his fame caused him to think he "should" have her. Rather, I think his constant discussions of the cinema, his almost embarrassed request to have her theater host the premier...they all indicated more of a schoolboy with a crush than a pompous asshole. His actions throughout were more done to impress her rather than a cavalier attitude of waiting for her to fall into his arms.

[Grouchy]

I side with those who don't think Zoller is gonna rape anybody in that scene - I mean, shouting and punching doors isn't rape. He has a hurt ego and doesn't understand why Shohana behaves the way she does because he's too much of a tool to grasp her hatred of Nazis.

If anything, Shohana doesn't feel pity for him when she approaches him. She's probably more guilty that she killed a man who had been nice to her in cold blood.

[Bosco B Thug]

doesn't understand why Shohana behaves the way she does because he's too much of a tool to grasp her hatred of Nazis. This is a good point to make, too, that Zoller has none of the context we as viewers have regarding her behavior. And I don't think she'd have been quite so decisive pulling the trigger if she wasn't acting equally in protectiveness over and commitment to "The Plan," at least equal to any fear she has for herself (she's surely a tough one, both physically and emotionally) and belief that he deserves being shot dead right then and there.

[Amnesiac]

I'm torn between both sides. I think it's totally plausible that he could have forced himself upon her had she given him the chance and his behaviour seems to support this notion... but I also can understand how some might view his tantrum as merely an exasperated, petulant gesture.

I don't think this debate can reach an answer that is unequivocal. Regardless of the fact that the very next post in this thread will attempt to do that in its first sentence.

[Dead & Messed Up]

He wasn't gonna rape her. He was just uber-pissed, since that was clearly his last-ditch effort to prove his honest interest in her, and she rebuffed him. He was just too damn proud (despite his efforts at modesty) to see what was obvious to us - that Shosanna hated everything he stood for.

[Derek]

I don't think this debate can reach an answer that is unequivocal. Regardless of the fact that the very next post in this thread will attempt to do that in its first sentence.

I think this speaks to the strength of Tarantino's writing, particularly in the dichotomous nature of the two main villains, and Zoller arguably not much of a villain in many people's minds it seems, that there's any confusion over this at all. Initially, he paints them in a positive light and, despite their party of choice, allows them to exhibit their most likable characteristics at the outset before revealing their deviant, cowardly nature as the film unfolds. With Landa, it occurs within the 20-minute opening scene and with Zoller, over his series of encounters with Shoshanna.

To suggest his feelings for Shoshanna were merely that of a puppy dog crush and his violent threat in the projection room not a foreshadowing for more violence to come (perhaps not as far as rape) had she not bent to his will would be no more absurd than thinking, halfway through his conversation with LaPadite, that Landa would peacefully leave the village upon finishing his fresh glass of milk.

[ledfloyd]

I think this speaks to the strength of Tarantino's writing, particularly in the dichotomous nature of the two main villains, and Zoller arguably not much of a villain in many people's minds it seems, that there's any confusion over this at all. Initially, he paints them in a positive light and, despite their party of choice, allows them to exhibit their most likable characteristics at the outset before revealing their deviant, cowardly nature as the film unfolds. With Landa, it occurs within the 20-minute opening scene and with Zoller, over his series of encounters with Shoshanna.

To suggest his feelings for Shoshanna were merely that of a puppy dog crush and his violent threat in the projection room not a foreshadowing for more violence to come (perhaps not as far as rape) had she not bent to his will would be no more absurd than thinking, halfway through his conversation with LaPadite, that Landa would peacefully leave the village upon finishing his fresh glass of milk.
i think it might be a flaw in tarantino's writing, as he's said in several interviews he intended it to be a romeo and juliet type thing. i'm not sure that's in the film, and if he wanted it to be there, but instead we're given this guy who attempts rape at the end, i'm not sure that's good writing.

[Derek]

i think it might be a flaw in tarantino's writing, as he's said in several interviews he intended it to be a romeo and juliet type thing. i'm not sure that's in the film, and if he wanted it to be there, but instead we're given this guy who attempts rape at the end, i'm not sure that's good writing.

My point is that the character is written in an ambiguous enough way where he is evil yet likable and where one person sees an innocent crush, another sees the possibility of extreme violence. Clear intentions do not necessarily = good writing.

[Gabe L]

I think this speaks to the strength of Tarantino's writing, particularly in the dichotomous nature of the two main villains, and Zoller arguably not much of a villain in many people's minds it seems, that there's any confusion over this at all. Initially, he paints them in a positive light and, despite their party of choice, allows them to exhibit their most likable characteristics at the outset before revealing their deviant, cowardly nature as the film unfolds. With Landa, it occurs within the 20-minute opening scene and with Zoller, over his series of encounters with Shoshanna.

To suggest his feelings for Shoshanna were merely that of a puppy dog crush and his violent threat in the projection room not a foreshadowing for more violence to come (perhaps not as far as rape) had she not bent to his will would be no more absurd than thinking, halfway through his conversation with LaPadite, that Landa would peacefully leave the village upon finishing his fresh glass of milk.

If you're referring to me, my point about the "schoolboy crush" wasn't based around his potential for brutal actions later -- I definitely think he was capable of snapping and raping her there. What I meant was that UNTIL that point, many of his actions resembled that of someone who's simply enraptured and willing to do anything to get her GENUINELY (I.E. NOT flaunt his power to do so).

[Derek]

If you're referring to me, my point about the "schoolboy crush" wasn't based around his potential for brutal actions later -- I definitely think he was capable of snapping and raping her there. What I meant was that UNTIL that point, many of his actions resembled that of someone who's simply enraptured and willing to do anything to get her GENUINELY (I.E. NOT flaunt his power to do so).

Nah, I knew what you meant. I was referring to more recent posts that saw his actions in the projection room as more innocent.

What I was referring to in terms of good writing is Tarantino's ability to create a layered, somewhat sympathetic character - one who we view as capable of killing 300 allies yet simultaneously sympathize with. As with the opening scene with Landa, Tarantino disarms the audience by forcing us to let their guards down before smacking us in the face with the reality that these men are Nazis and everything that goes along with that.

[ledfloyd]

My point is that the character is written in an ambiguous enough way where he is evil yet likable and where one person sees an innocent crush, another sees the possibility of extreme writing. Clear intentions do not necessarily = good writing.
touche. i misunderstimated your post.

[Derek]

touche. i misunderstimated your post.

And obviously I meant "extreme violence" not "extreme writing". Need sleep...

[Qrazy]

I was not a fan.

[Amnesiac]

I was not a fan.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/images/bloggers_auto/tarantino.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

I'll try to keep this short, so forgive any conciseness and don't think I'm saying the counterargument doesn't have any ground:


allows them to exhibit their most likable characteristics at the outset before revealing their deviant, cowardly nature as the film unfolds. With Landa, it occurs within the 20-minute opening scene and with Zoller, over his series of encounters with Shoshanna. Don't agree with this. Landa and Zoller are in two different ballparks.


To suggest his feelings for Shoshanna were merely that of a puppy dog crush and his violent threat in the projection room not a foreshadowing for more violence to come (perhaps not as far as rape) had she not bent to his will would be no more absurd than thinking, halfway through his conversation with LaPadite, that Landa would peacefully leave the village upon finishing his fresh glass of milk. Can't agree with this. There's both narrative and emotional ambiguity in one case, and absolutely none in the other.


My point is that the character is written in an ambiguous enough way where he is evil yet likable and where one person sees an innocent crush, another sees the possibility of extreme violence. Clear intentions do not necessarily = good writing. Wouldn't the quality of "ambiguous" necessitate a non-clear-cut "evilness"?


What I was referring to in terms of good writing is Tarantino's ability to create a layered, somewhat sympathetic character - one who we view as capable of killing 300 allies yet simultaneously sympathize with. As with the opening scene with Landa, Tarantino disarms the audience by forcing us to let their guards down before smacking us in the face with the reality that these men are Nazis and everything that goes along with that. So he creates a layered character in order to smack us in the face and instead force a stereotype down our throats? I might have to lower this film's score.

[Gabe L]

Nah, I knew what you meant. I was referring to more recent posts that saw his actions in the projection room as more innocent.

What I was referring to in terms of good writing is Tarantino's ability to create a layered, somewhat sympathetic character - one who we view as capable of killing 300 allies yet simultaneously sympathize with. As with the opening scene with Landa, Tarantino disarms the audience by forcing us to let their guards down before smacking us in the face with the reality that these men are Nazis and everything that goes along with that.

Totally agree with this second paragraph, and I'm not sure there's another working director that could pull this balancing act off.

[Qrazy]

Totally agree with this second paragraph, and I'm not sure there's another working director that could pull this balancing act off.

You don't think there is another working director who can create a layered, somewhat sympathetic character?

[Sycophant]

And obviously I meant "extreme violence" not "extreme writing". Need sleep...

That was confusing to me last night.

[Gabe L]

You don't think there is another working director who can create a layered, somewhat sympathetic character?

Of that magnitude/scope and in this format/style? Not that I can think of. Obviously, QT isn't the only talented director working today.

[Derek]

I was not a fan.

I'm shocked. Why such a high score then?


I'll try to keep this short, so forgive any conciseness and don't think I'm saying the counterargument doesn't have any ground:

Don't agree with this. Landa and Zoller are in two different ballparks.

Of course they are, but Tarantino unveils their evilness in similar ways.


Wouldn't the quality of "ambiguous" necessitate a non-clear-cut "evilness"?

At what point did I indicate otherwise. Zoller's evilness is ambiguous and non-clear-cut...


So he creates a layered character in order to smack us in the face and instead force a stereotype down our throats? I might have to lower this film's score.

Nazi's being violent is a stereotype? My point was that he balances the genuine likability of the character with the reality of the extremely violent acts he committed in the war and his twisted beliefs.


I might have to lower this film's score.

Aw man. You mean that number that will temporarily reside in your signature until you see a few more films? Jesus H. Christ, what have I done? ;)

[Derek]

That was confusing to me last night.

Things that make no sense confuse me as well. :)

[Qrazy]

Hitler laughing at the violence in the propaganda film was an interesting counterpoint to all the teenagers laughing at the Basterds violence. did it completely go over their heads or did Tarantino fail to make his point clearly enough. this is something else that bugs me about the film.

Neither, or perhaps the latter, but more so he's presenting a mixed metaphor. Tarantino revels in glib graphic violence. Sometimes he'll step back and present the violence in a more dramatically realistic fashion (we'll really feel the characters pain), but just as frequently (somewhat here but more so in his films in general) it's used to comic or simply gratuitous effect. To indict the audience for something he's trying to make comic is essentially just indicting his own filmmaking. More to the point I think he's just drawing a distinction between war films with endless violence and something like his film which is more interested in the dialogue, plot and characters.

[Qrazy]

i think we've had enough movies about the tyranny of the director and the need for socially responsible media. what's so fascinating about inglorious basterds is that it also questions the culpability of the audience.

Is it really that fascinating? Haneke, Von Trier, Godard and others have been doing it for a long time now.

[Qrazy]

Shosanna's death didn't strike me at all as a pithy moment of comeuppance for letting down her guard - both their deaths are probably the film's most poignant statement on the self-destructive effects of war (I have to be frank, baby_doll, you have a real tendency for diminishing films' themes into lame sententiousness).


It isn't only a moment of comeuppance but it is very much about her letting down her guard. I mean how is it not?

[Grouchy]

I was not a fan.
Eh, explain.

[Qrazy]

Maybe Orthodox and Hasidic Jews are different groups? I dunno. Any Jewish people around here?

To the best of my knowledge you have to be Orthodox to be Hasidic (ultra-Orthodox), but you don't have to be Hasidic to be Orthodox (a wider group of people).

[Raiders]

Neither, or perhaps the latter, but more so he's presenting a mixed metaphor. Tarantino revels in glib graphic violence. Sometimes he'll step back and present the violence in a more dramatically realistic fashion (we'll really feel the characters pain), but just as frequently (somewhat here but more so in his films in general) it's used to comic or simply gratuitous effect. To indict the audience for something he's trying to make comic is essentially just indicting his own filmmaking. More to the point I think he's just drawing a distinction between war films with endless violence and something like his film which is more interested in the dialogue, plot and characters.

While "indicting" the audience could be part of the plan given their laughter and enjoyment of the violence, to me the film-within-a-film (essentially a reel of repeated violence) is more representative of what we praise returning "heroes" for, what it is that war truly glorifies and that for all the dialogue in the world, most war films, and by extension wars themselves, are characterized almost solely in terms of death and callous "victory."

The Basterds are a dream imagined by Tarantino, on behalf of Shosanna and the Jewish people, with the sole purpose of inciting violence, death and fear. They are a strictly cinematic creation, breathed into life by a filmmakers' whim. Chuck Jones' eternal masterpiece Duck Amuck showed us how what we know can be so easily altered by cinema and the hand of the creator's God complex. Tarantino, as always devoted to cinema and its past and its possibilities, creates in them the extreme solution (consider them the Newtonian equal and opposite reaction to the Nazis' Final Solution), and with their creation a new history, a cinematic history, was born. Evil begets evil, and The Nazis have, in Tarantino's eyes, only brought this on themselves. The "National Pride" agit-prop film shows that the violence of the Nazis was cruel and unnatural to this world, and in their wake came the Basterds, equally cruel and unnatural. We cannot envy or admire them for they are fascists, unfeeling and uncaring. But, as the Nazis cheer for their own, so Tarantino knows we will similarly react with cheers and applause at the Basterds' actions. It is moral ambiguity at its most extreme as no movement in modern history has been as widespread and horrific as the Nazi regime and the Holocaust, and the film's alternate history practically begs us to consider how far does our need for vengeance go before we stop praising the Basterds?

I think it seems natural that the only character in the film Tarantino expects us to ultimately admire and respect is Shosanna, who is by a great margin the best character Tarantino has created and probably the only character in any of his films to breathe something other than celluloid. The great coup at the end is hers, and though I'm a bit wary of such an aggrandized fantasy being applied to a real-life horrific event, I think his love of her character runs so deep he has no choice but to allow this alternate reality come about for her, and the millions she represents, own sake. That doesn't mean her bloodlust is any less troublesome (the image of her growling on the movie screen as the theater burns is haunting to say the least). I think Raine's final comment regarding his "masterpiece" is hardly a throwaway line. It solidifies Tarantino's acknowledgment that war as honored by cinema and movie-goers is most often summed up by who won and how many of the enemy they made to pay. And Raine's swastikas will forever live as a haunting reminder.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm shocked. Why such a high score then? I've been asked what films I've given 9.5s to, but has anyone asked Qrazy what he's actually given As to? Some non-canonized titles, maybe.


Of course they are, but Tarantino unveils their evilness in similar ways.
At what point did I indicate otherwise. Zoller's evilness is ambiguous and non-clear-cut... I don't know. I see what you're saying, that there are different degrees of "evilness," but that's not exactly what I'd call ambiguity. Especially a meaningful, humanistic ambiguity, which is what I want to portion out for this film.

I've said it's very legitimate to think he would have succumbed to real evilness in the one scene. But I don't see why it's "absurd" to believe there's chance he would've pulled himself back, felt bad, apologized, etc. The film clearly leaves it open for speculation.


Nazi's being violent is a stereotype? My point was that he balances the genuine likability of the character with the reality of the extremely violent acts he committed in the war and his twisted beliefs. Yes... "A Nazi is violent" sounds like a stereotype to me. "A Nazi will have twisted beliefs" sounds like one too.

I think it's very important that the Holocaust is respectfully left off the table in this film, so that it can focus on being a statement against having to use the plural "Nazis" in order to perpetuate the systematization (e.g. Hitler's Nazi regime-making) that creates merciless war. So that it, in my eyes, can actually offer Nazis who are completely sympathetic. The soldier at the bar being one.


Aw man. You mean that number that will temporarily reside in your signature until you see a few more films? Jesus H. Christ, what have I done? ;) I'll have you know whenever I speak a film's title in conversation I append my rating at the end. "Have you seen Inglourious Basterds?" "Inglourious Basterds? Eight point five."



It isn't only a moment of comeuppance but it is very much about her letting down her guard. I mean how is it not? I didn't say it wasn't about her letting her guard down. I just brought issue with the idea that the film was trying to communicate and lament weakness on her part with this act.

[Qrazy]

Eh, explain.

Do I have to?

Hehe, alright I liked elements and scenes of the film (as my score attests) but I did not like the film as a whole. I liked Landa obviously. I liked the bar scene and when Landa was having dessert. I liked elements of the Jew/German unsuccessful romance and I liked certain other moments and images.

However, I thought many of the Basterds were poorly played and miscast (including Roth, Novak some peripherals and even Pitt). I only liked the Basterds in the bar scene. I found Tarantino indulged a number of the traits that I find least admirable about his filmmaking (for instance gratuitous cut aways to women being fucked doggystyle, violent money shots, etc). Some of the dialogue works, some of it doesn't (one example of some that doesn't for me: Pitt's basement remarks). I'm extremely tired of some of his more blatant homages (in the opening alone Once Upon a Time in the West and The Searchers). Tarantino has begun to quote himself a bit too much as well (premiere meets The Bride walking around The House of Blue Leaves). I also don't go in for (with Tarantino or in relation to Godard) indulgent dialogue about films and filmmakers. I'm in on the references but it doesn't pique my interest, it just irritates me. What does Charlie Chaplin's The Kid really have to do with anything? I'm of the school of thought that a film's semiotics ought to be tight. It can be sprawling but disparate elements should have significant relevance.

I don't think the elements of the film in relation to the Basterds were well structured. I agree with the criticisms that we learn very little about them. The film certainly doesn't need to be about them (and it isn't) but they are a significant element of the narrative and time which could have been spent fleshing them out is instead spent on largely superfluous content such as the initial rescue of Stiglitz. In terms of the meta-ruminations and indictments people laud Tarantino for, I don't find his reflections particularly nuanced or praiseworthy.

[Qrazy]

I've been asked what films I've given 9.5s to, but has anyone asked Qrazy what he's actually given As to? Some non-canonized titles, maybe.

Haha in the last few months Fires on the Plain, Hud and Aleksei German's catalogue are the only films I've given A's. I'll make my top films list some day but I do have quite a few films I'd give A's to... I just seem to have already seen most of them.


I didn't say it wasn't about her letting her guard down. I just brought issue with the idea that the film was trying to communicate and lament weakness on her part with this act.

Well I find it kind of does do this, or rather it doesn't lament but communicates the sentiment that war is war. If you let your empathy get the better of you in the face of the enemy, you will die. The scene also communicates a great deal more about the relationship of these two characters, but I do think that's the primary element.

[Grouchy]

However, I thought many of the Basterds were poorly played and miscast (including Roth, Novak some peripherals and even Pitt). I only liked the Basterds in the bar scene.
I don't even think the film is about the Basterds beyond the chapter that's devoted to them - they're a red herring at best. As proof, four of them barely even have lines.


I found Tarantino indulged a number of the traits that I find least admirable about his filmmaking (for instance gratuitous cut aways to women being fucked doggystyle, violent money shots, etc).
A matter of taste, but some of those cut aways (not really the sex one, but the Hitler one talking about the premiere) made me wonder how extended are the deleted scenes for this movie. Wikipedia only mentions an Eli Roth scene where he gets his baseball bat and the one with Maggie Cheung where we learn how Shohana got his cinema.


Some of the dialogue works, some of it doesn't (one example of some that doesn't for me: Pitt's basement remarks).
Yeah, maybe. That thing about the basement is a little gratuitous.


I'm extremely tired of some of his more blatant homages (in the opening alone Once Upon a Time in the West and The Searchers). Tarantino has begun to quote himself a bit too much as well (premiere meets The Bride walking around The House of Blue Leaves). I also don't go in for (with Tarantino or in relation to Godard) indulgent dialogue about films and filmmakers. I'm in on the references but it doesn't pique my interest, it just irritates me. What does Charlie Chaplin's The Kid really have to do with anything? I'm of the school of thought that a film's semiotics ought to be tight. It can be sprawling but disparate elements should have significant relevance.
The opening scene has more in common with Good, Bad and Ugly than with any other Leone, though. The thing that makes me champion these visual homages is that they are permanent in QT's work and a lot of times they're even about the same films. So I don't see them as random, I see them as part of the things Tarantino loves about cinema. There is a similar Searchers reference in the church scene in Kill Bill.

And normally I'd agree with you about long, sprawling dialogues about movies, but when a film is ostensibly about cinema as a weapon, one of the characters owns a movie theater and another one has just starred in a propaganda film... Eh, I think it kind of goes with the territory.


I don't think the elements of the film in relation to the Basterds were well structured. I agree with the criticisms that we learn very little about them. The film certainly doesn't need to be about them (and it isn't) but they are a significant element of the narrative and time which could have been spent fleshing them out is instead spent on largely superfluous content such as the initial rescue of Stiglitz. In terms of the meta-ruminations and indictments people laud Tarantino for, I don't find his reflections particularly nuanced or praiseworthy.
True, if the film isn't about the Basterds, they occupy a lot of the running time. But I think QT is using them as a red herring and also, ultimately, an indication that the movie is about something other than shooting Nazis - which is what the dialogue itself tells us the movie is gonna be about. So, in a way, I feel they serve their purpose even by not achieving what we expect from them.

[Yxklyx]

Next Tarantino Movie An Homage To Beloved Tarantino Movies Of Director's Youth (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/next_tarantino_movie_an_homage _to?utm_source=a-section)

[Sycophant]

Next Tarantino Movie An Homage To Beloved Tarantino Movies Of Director's Youth (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/next_tarantino_movie_an_homage _to?utm_source=a-section)

I think I'd like this movie.

[Qrazy]

The opening scene has more in common with Good, Bad and Ugly than with any other Leone, though. The thing that makes me champion these visual homages is that they are permanent in QT's work and a lot of times they're even about the same films. So I don't see them as random, I see them as part of the things Tarantino loves about cinema. There is a similar Searchers reference in the church scene in Kill Bill.


I thought I remembered a 'get me something to wash up with and then go inside' segment to the opening of Once Upon a Time in the West but perhaps I'm misremembering.

edit (rewatch): Ah he just tells the boy to go inside and wash up.

[lovejuice]

True, if the film isn't about the Basterds, they occupy a lot of the running time. But I think QT is using them as a red herring and also, ultimately, an indication that the movie is about something other than shooting Nazis - which is what the dialogue itself tells us the movie is gonna be about. So, in a way, I feel they serve their purpose even by not achieving what we expect from them.
i like that while the movie is ostentatiously anti-nazi, the besterds are matching stereotype of stupid american militarism that becomes quite a cliche now but hasn't existed back then. this is another thing i disagree with your review, grouchy. to me, landa is the character we, the liberal, cultured audience of the 00s, identify with. pitt's double cross at the end is meant to repel and make us more sympathized to landa.

[Qrazy]

i like that while the movie is ostentatiously anti-nazi, the besterds are matching stereotype of stupid american militarism that becomes quite a cliche now but hasn't existed back then. this is another thing i disagree with your review, grouchy. to me, landa is the character we, the liberal, cultured audience of the 00s, identify with. pitt's double cross at the end is meant to repel and make us more sympathized to landa.

I don't really think it's meant to repel all that much. I think we're pretty much supposed to root for the fact that Pitt is branding Landa since we've since what Landa is capable of. Although the violence is certainly still portrayed as ugly even when the 'good guys' perform it. I also think that reading you and others have latched onto is problematic since the Basterds are supposed to be a troop of Jews. Extrapolated on a political level should we read the film as saying anything about America/Israel? If we maintain this extrapolated reading is what it's saying reasonable?

[ledfloyd]

i like that while the movie is ostentatiously anti-nazi, the besterds are matching stereotype of stupid american militarism that becomes quite a cliche now but hasn't existed back then. this is another thing i disagree with your review, grouchy. to me, landa is the character we, the liberal, cultured audience of the 00s, identify with. pitt's double cross at the end is meant to repel and make us more sympathized to landa.
uh, i don't know what film you saw. i certainly didn't sympathize with landa in any way shape or form.

[Spinal]

Couldn't disagree more, l/j. In Tarantino's revenge fantasy film world, them's just desserts. It's a moment that is brutal, but also darkly humorous.

[Bosco B Thug]

The Basterds are a dream imagined by Tarantino, on behalf of Shoshanna and the Jewish people, with the sole purpose of inciting violence, death and fear. They are a strictly cinematic creation, breathed into life by a filmmakers' whim.

Evil begets evil, and The Nazis have, in Tarantino's eyes, only brought this on themselves. The "National Pride" agit-prop film shows that the violence of the Nazis was cruel and unnatural to this world, and in their wake came the Basterds, equally cruel and unnatural. We cannot envy or admire them for they are fascists, unfeeling and uncaring.

It solidifies Tarantino's acknowledgment that war as honored by cinema and movie-goers is most often summed up by who won and how many of the enemy they made to pay. And Raine's swastikas will forever live as a haunting reminder. I think this is the best excuse for the Basterds' role - and their diminished role - in the film. The fact that they don't make any realistic sense.

The lack of backstory, emotional stakes, any sensical context, and their raffish impassivity is a real blessing, since it contrasts their more arbitrary, autopilot acts (grouped with everyone working militarily, which includes the British intrigue and Von Hammersmarck's also contextless Allied persuasion) to the impassioned, personal justice Shosanna looks for.

Haha in the last few months Fires on the Plain, Hud and Aleksei German's catalogue are the only films I've given A's. I'll make my top films list some day but I do have quite a few films I'd give A's to... I just seem to have already seen most of them. Yeah, and you of all posters, I wouldn't really be able to name any pet films of yours. Well, except German. Wish I knew how to say "fanboy" in Russian.


i like that while the movie is ostentatiously anti-nazi, the besterds are matching stereotype of stupid american militarism that becomes quite a cliche now but hasn't existed back then. this is another thing i disagree with your review, grouchy. to me, landa is the character we, the liberal, cultured audience of the 00s, identify with. pitt's double cross at the end is meant to repel and make us more sympathized to landa. Landa is the only Tarantino villain of pure calculatedness. He's entirely made of smarts, which is why I'm intrigued by your statement... but his morals don't benefit from it. I think it's quite condemning. One can say he has no qualms in "Turning good" and spitting on his flag and nation, which is more than can be said of a lot of figures - but then that just makes him all the worse.

[Qrazy]

After a quick perusal of RT, one thing that annoys me is when a critic says something such as (not explicit to Tarantino necessarily)... 'It's so rich in cinematic value, his most mature film, it means next to nothing, full of instant classic moments' etc... and then does nothing to elaborate on or back up such statements. The remark can be positive or negative, either way it's a peeve for me.

[MadMan]

In my review of Jackie Brown, I mock the "Mature film" tag that seems to accompany it. What the hell is that supposed to even mean? Maybe I just don't give a damn if his movies are really "Immature" or not.

[lovejuice]

Landa is the only Tarantino villain of pure calculatedness. He's entirely made of smarts, which is why I'm intrigued by your statement... but his morals don't benefit from it.
to me, landa is good as much as we, or at least i, can't seem to identify very well with the besterds or even shoshanna. the besterds, as portrayed by QT, doesn't seem to represent anything beside machochism, and shoshanna, revenge.

[Ezee E]

I'd say that Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown is a villain that is full of calculatedness. His way of manipulating Chris Tucker, and attempts at Jackie are all very smart. Jackie just happened to be smarter.

[Derek]

Personally, I can relate to someone wanting to avenge her families death and take down the Nazi regime more than someone who hunts down innocent Jews and takes the coward's way out in the end.

[Grouchy]

Seriously, I don't think we're meant to sympathize with Landa in any way. Probably the only moment in which we're shown the ugliness of the Basterds violence is when they club that guy with the Cross of Iron who refuses to reveal his location in the map.

Next to that guy, Landa is a treacherous coward. An intelligent one, but a cowardly son of a bitch all the same.

[number8]

Next to that guy, Landa is a treacherous coward. An intelligent one, but a cowardly son of a bitch all the same.

Yeah, which is a quintessential QT villain. Tarantino doesn't define good guys and bad guys by morality or vices, but by honor. I think that's the most obvious influence of John Woo and Leone on him. His heroes are just as violent, callous and amoral as his villains, but they are not treacherous and/or cowardly.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, which is a quintessential QT villain. Tarantino doesn't define good guys and bad guys by morality or vices, but by honor. I think that's the most obvious influence of John Woo and Leone on him. His heroes are just as violent, callous and amoral as his villains, but they are not treacherous and/or cowardly.
Great point. Although it's tough to say that Samuel L in Jackie Brown isn't an obvious bad guy.

[Bosco B Thug]

to me, landa is good as much as we, or at least i, can't seem to identify very well with the besterds or even shoshanna. the besterds, as portrayed by QT, doesn't seem to represent anything beside machochism, and shoshanna, revenge. Landa represents pure, cold politics, though... devoid of even Hitler's repugnant-but-all-too-human neuroticism. Like I said, your angle intrigues me in that he's smart and almost transcendent in his rhetorical intelligence and perceptivity of the world's pithy emotions and human vulnerability and foolishness, but Landa being as "good" as us? Morally?


I'd say that Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown is a villain that is full of calculatedness. His way of manipulating Chris Tucker, and attempts at Jackie are all very smart. Jackie just happened to be smarter. True. I mostly meant that more esoteric level of "smart" I was trying to get at just above.

Even Ordell is vulnerable to primitive, brute emotion, which would put him more in line with Stuntman Mike than Landa. Tarantino loves inhabiting his characters with sensitive histories and longing emotional needs or weaknesses, which is why it's impressive to get such an analytical film like Inglourious Basterds and given such a pure materialist character with Landa, one who Tarantino actually doesn't want us to empathize with on any level.

[lovejuice]

Landa represents pure, cold politics, though... devoid of even Hitler's repugnant-but-all-too-human neuroticism. Like I said, your angle intrigues me in that he's smart and almost transcendent in his rhetorical intelligence and perceptivity of the world's pithy emotions and human vulnerability and foolishness, but Landa being as "good" as us? Morally?
to answer with 8's comment, i have never particularly found honor very moral. i don't exatly equate intelligence to ethical, but tempt to do so many times.

[Qrazy]

KILL BILL AND BASTERDS SPOILERS

I'm not sure that I buy what I interpret to be many peoples central argument, which is that Tarantino is heavily indicting/criticizing the Basterds and in turn critiquing the audience for 'rooting' for them. The only real evidence I've seen for this argument is that the Basterds vengeance/violent action is portrayed as just as graphically ugly as any other violent act from the antagonists (in this case Nazis). And I would agree that Tarantino always recognizes the physical fragility/humanity (pretty much all the characters in his films feel genuine pain) of both his heroes and his villains and that this is a strength of his work (following off of Peckinpah).

However, I don't think that in any of his films he is especially critical of violence on a general level (in the sense that while much of his work thematically may be about how violence will end up killing everyone involved in the narrative, tonally he very much embraces violence). What Tarantino is critical of is indiscriminate violence, violence towards innocents and 'unhonorable' violence. But frankly I think he quite enjoys showing violence for it's own sake. He may use it for tragedy, comedy, shock or whatever else, but I usually feel that he experiences some perverse joy in demonstrating depravity. For instance I don't think there's a major thematic or narrative need for the Bride to be regularly raped in her sleep and then to brutally dispatch her attackers. Nor do I feel it was absolutely necessary to see Landa strangle the actress to death (at least the way it was shown). Both of these elements work fine in the context of an exploitation film (and are even elevated to the level of an art film by the nuance of the performances) but is the ugliness of these scenes especially necessary?

Comparatively, like the Basterds, sure the Bride kills people in gruesome ways, but we're led to believe that these people had it coming and while we may feel sorry for them (pretty much all of the deadly vipers except for perhaps Elle), ultimately the Bride wins and gets the happy ending. In the case of the Basterds, yes they're killing people in gruesome ways as well, but they're killing Nazis. That is to say people who have committed heinous acts, endorse a twisted ideology and by and large deserve to die. Now I don't feel this way, but I feel the film does feel this way. There is certainly moral ambiguity (particularly in the hero German romantic and the Nazi with a wife and child) but even in these semi-ambiguous situations the Nazi is shown to be capable of evil (the father just killed a number of the people in the room, almost reneged on a deal and the hero almost rapes his love interest). Are we ever presented with a truly innocent Nazi in the film? They're certainly presented as nuanced characters, as human beings who can feel pain, but they're also presented as a treacherous and cowardly lot.

So Raiders, in response to your comment, "the film's alternate history practically begs us to consider how far does our need for vengeance go before we stop praising the Basterds?" If this was what the film wanted to communicate I do not feel it did so effectively, because I do not feel the Basterds were sufficiently indicted. However, I don't think that this is what the film wanted to communicate. The Basterds will certainly get their hands dirty but they don't kill innocents and they have some honor (they'll brand someone but they will honor their word to let him live). One reason I don't feel the film is about the troubling conception of the Basterds is because so many of Tarantino's scripts are unadulterated wish fulfillment (who's wish is of course another question). Now this film is perhaps much less angry young man wish fulfillment than something like the script for True Romance, but I think the connection holds. Tarantino is certainly a self-aware director, but I don't think he's a particularly self-critical one.

---

On another note I liked that Clouzot was referenced in the background of the film 2 or 3 times. It reminded me I still have to see L'assassin habite... au 21.

[Yxklyx]

...The only real evidence I've seen for this argument is that the Basterds vengeance/violent action is portrayed as just as graphically ugly as any other violent act from the antagonists (in this case Nazis)...

I would not agree with this at all. When I line up the violence side by side, the Basterd's violence is shown to be much greater than the Nazis. The only scene of visual graphic violence with relation to the Nazis that I can recall is when Landa chokes the actress to death. Note that in the first scene where the family under the boards is killed we see nothing of it. We don't see bullets entering anyone's body and we even see Landa NOT kill a person when he has the chance - that scene is played out old-school. All the brutal visual new-school violence in this film is caused by the Basterds. If you had no idea who the Nazis were before watching this film, the Nazis would come off very well and you would not be able to condone the Basterds in any way shape or form. The only reason viewers can is because they're bringing they're knowledge of history to the film. They see Nazi and immediately think Evil.

[Ezee E]

I would not agree with this at all. When I line up the violence side by side, the Basterd's violence is shown to be much greater than the Nazis. The only scene of visual graphic violence with relation to the Nazis that I can recall is when Landa chokes the actress to death. Note that in the first scene where the family under the boards is killed we see nothing of it. We don't see bullets entering anyone's body and we even see Landa NOT kill a person when he has the chance - that scene is played out old-school. All the brutal visual new-school violence in this film is caused by the Basterds. If you had no idea who the Nazis were before watching this film, the Nazis would come off very well and you would not be able to condone the Basterds in any way shape or form. The only reason viewers can is because they're bringing they're knowledge of history to the film. They see Nazi and immediately think Evil.
Is that a bad thing?

[Pop Trash]

Tarantino has long been a proponent of movie violence being different from real life violence. He also understands the vicarious nature of movie violence and the audience's cathartic need for it. This is different from say, Michael Haneke, who via Funny Games and interviews I've read with him seems to believe movie violence can very easily translated to real life violence. Personally, I think Haneke is being a bit of a hypocrite considering his movies often contain graphic, disturbing violence, but then scold us for viewing said violence.

That said, and this is something that the terrific House Next Door article touched on, I think Tarantino's movies are more complex than that. Like Tarantino himself, his movies are often multi-layered. I remember when Reservoir Dogs came out, many criticised it for presenting violence as cool, but my interpretation of it was more of a critique of the Steven Seagal/Van Damme/Rambo action movies that were popular at the time where violence had no consequences. Res Dogs has a guy who gets shot only once and proceeds to scream bloody murder in a pool of his own blood practically in real time.

[Qrazy]

I would not agree with this at all. When I line up the violence side by side, the Basterd's violence is shown to be much greater than the Nazis. The only scene of visual graphic violence with relation to the Nazis that I can recall is when Landa chokes the actress to death. Note that in the first scene where the family under the boards is killed we see nothing of it. We don't see bullets entering anyone's body and we even see Landa NOT kill a person when he has the chance - that scene is played out old-school. All the brutal visual new-school violence in this film is caused by the Basterds. If you had no idea who the Nazis were before watching this film, the Nazis would come off very well and you would not be able to condone the Basterds in any way shape or form. The only reason viewers can is because they're bringing they're knowledge of history to the film. They see Nazi and immediately think Evil.

In Kill Bill the violence is also primarily that of the Bride's because she is the main character of the story. The Basterds are major characters so it makes sense that we primarily witness their violence. The violence of the enemy is primarily alluded to rather than shown. So I'm not sure why, if we are to read the Basterds in this way, I've never heard someone extend this perspective to Kill Bill or Lady Snowblood or perhaps even Oldboy or any other revenge fantasy film. The protagonist's desire for revenge is often viewed as tragic, but the enemy is also usually shown as getting their just desserts (just as Landa is at the end of this film).

However, in response to your comments that only history informs our dislike of the Nazis in the film, I don't think that's true at all. Although overt violence isn't shown in the opening, machining gunning a family through floorboards via misdirection is certainly an evil act. Also in the scene in the bar we see violence perpetrated from both sides. In terms of non-violence the Nazis in the film also frequently go back on their word, are shown to be pathetic and childishness characters (Goebbels and Hitler), and in their dialogue are extremely racist, sexist and cruel.

I also don't agree that the Basterds violence is shown as uniformly ugly or unnecessary. Sure they beat someone to death with a bat and the beating is disgusting but that beating also allowed them to procure important tactical information and the procurement demonstrated that (a) while they do brand individuals, they'll honor their word about letting someone go and b) while one Nazi holds strong the other betrays his comrades and is thus presented as a coward). This scene is also played for humor (not the beating) but the Nazi giving up the information afterward. Tarantino also stacks the deck in terms of our commitment to the Basterds. For instance we are made to worry how Pitt and his men will do when the first plan fails (it could have been someone other than Hitler they were going to take out, I don't agree that our historical bias plays a role... the filmmaking in the vet scene is geared to get us caught up in the success or failure of their plan), we see a Basterd in slo-mo have to take out a Nazi in order to preserve his friend's welfare and we also see that the Basterds are capable of self-sacrifice for a greater cause (ending the war).

[Spinal]

Personally, I think Haneke is being a bit of a hypocrite considering his movies often contain graphic, disturbing violence, but then scold us for viewing said violence.

Absurd. The difference is that he does not use the violence for thrills, but rather asks his viewers to consider the impact and the consequences. His violence is often accompanied by long stretches of time where the viewer is given an opportunity to process and reflect on what has happened. This is not a hypocritical position. I think that critique of Haneke is tiresome and lazy.

[Qrazy]

Tarantino has long been a proponent of movie violence being different from real life violence. He also understands the vicarious nature of movie violence and the audience's cathartic need for it. This is different from say, Michael Haneke, who via Funny Games and interviews I've read with him seems to believe movie violence can very easily translated to real life violence. Personally, I think Haneke is being a bit of a hypocrite considering his movies often contain graphic, disturbing violence, but then scold us for viewing said violence.

That said, and this is something that the terrific House Next Door article touched on, I think Tarantino's movies are more complex than that. Like Tarantino himself, his movies are often multi-layered. I remember when Reservoir Dogs came out, many criticised it for presenting violence as cool, but my interpretation of it was more of a critique of the Steven Seagal/Van Damme/Rambo action movies that were popular at the time where violence had no consequences. Res Dogs has a guy who gets shot only once and proceeds to scream bloody murder in a pool of his own blood practically in real time.

Oh I entirely agree that he treats the fall out of violence with gravitas and that all of his characters can feel real pain. But I just don't think he's condemning the Basterds use of violence. I think he includes the violence precisely because he finds it engaging. Although the film is certainly not just wall to wall violence (I think the propaganda film in the middle is much more a criticism of that kind of film) and instead Tarantino focuses on dialogue, character and tension. But when the violence comes it's as much his own cathartic release as it is for that of the audience. I think in many ways he's actually justifying the Basterds violence in that in two situations (the bat and Pitt poking the wound) the torture allowed the Basterds to receive pertinent information.

[Pop Trash]

Absurd. The difference is that he does not use the violence for thrills, but rather asks his viewers to consider the impact and the consequences. His violence is often accompanied by long stretches of time where the viewer is given an opportunity to process and reflect on what has happened. This is not a hypocritical position. I think that critique of Haneke is tiresome and lazy.

Haneke has been somewhat critical of Tarantino in the press before (there was a NY Times Sunday Magazine with him on the cover that dealt with some of this) and Tarantino often does the same thing Haneke does. Not to mention some of the movies I think Haneke would put in his bullseye (let's just take the Last House on the Left remake or Rob Zombie movies for example) don't exactly shy away from the consequences of violence either. It annoys me.

[ledfloyd]

i don't know that he condemns the violence. he does seem to indict the audience slightly with hitler laughing at the premiere. but he certainly doesn't make the violence as easy to revel in as, say, the bride taking out the crazy 88 in the house of blue leaves. he did this in death proof too, making the audience anticipate and demand the violence and then making it unsettling. where as i can't think of much unsettling violence in pulp fiction, and what little there is in jackie brown is abrupt and not very visceral. he's certainly not condeming violence and he's probably not indicting the audience, but he is asking us to think about it to some extent.

[Spinal]

... Tarantino often does the same thing Haneke does.

Completely disagree, though I like both filmmakers.

[Grouchy]

I'm going to watch this again, bitches!

[Henry Gale]

Saw this again today and it's even better the second time (which I didn't think would be possible). The second to final sequence is maybe the most strangely moving thing in any movie of the last couple of years.

It has now solidified itself as my #2 Tarantino behind Jackie Brown.

[Qrazy]

With Landa, Tarantino has taken bounding strides toward capturing this complexity. As played by Waltz, he may be the screen's greatest portrayal of a Nazi. But, by making almost everything around Landa just one big, cartoonish riff on Spaghetti Westerns, he took, for me at least, just as many equally bounding strides backwards toward cancelling out everything he accomplished with Landa.

Hrm I don't see Landa as a particularly psychologically complex character. He's certainly well sketched and unique but his motivations are almost entirely self-serving. This to me doesn't capture the intricacy of the Nazi question. I've yet to see a film that truly elaborates the Nazi rise to power. Amarcord's notion of Nazism as an extension of perennial adolescence perhaps comes closest. But I would like to see a film that truly realizes the social Darwinistic perspective and inherited element of Nazism. These people truly believed in eschewing basic morality for their conception of a higher morality and to a certain extent this mentality was inherited. Young Nazis were indoctrinated into this belief system.

[Ezee E]

Hrm I don't see Landa as a particularly psychologically complex character. He's certainly well sketched and unique but his motivations are almost entirely self-serving. This to me doesn't capture the intricacy of the Nazi question. I've yet to see a film that truly elaborates the Nazi rise to power. Amarcord's notion of Nazism as an extension of perennial adolescence perhaps comes closest. But I would like to see a film that truly realizes the social Darwinistic perspective and inherited element of Nazism. These people truly believed in eschewing basic morality for their conception of a higher morality and to a certain degree this mentality was inherited. Young Nazis were indoctrinated into a certain mentality.
Have you seen Max? It's a wonderful movie about John Cusack as an art teacher while Hitler is still growing up. It's sort of a "what if..." movie as in what if Hitler became interested in art instead of politics. It is excellent at showing how Hitler was able to become so charismatic when doing his speeches.

[Qrazy]

Have you seen Max? It's a wonderful movie about John Cusack as an art teacher while Hitler is still growing up. It's sort of a "what if..." movie as in what if Hitler became interested in art instead of politics. It is excellent at showing how Hitler was able to become so charismatic when doing his speeches.

Nope, haven't seen it. I'll look into it, thanks for the rec.

[Qrazy]

I side with those who don't think Zoller is gonna rape anybody in that scene - I mean, shouting and punching doors isn't rape. He has a hurt ego and doesn't understand why Shohana behaves the way she does because he's too much of a tool to grasp her hatred of Nazis.

If anything, Shohana doesn't feel pity for him when she approaches him. She's probably more guilty that she killed a man who had been nice to her in cold blood.

Can't say I agree. She says something to the effect of you hurt me (when he slams open the door) and he is unresponsive. There's also the fact that he coughed in order to lure her over to him so that he could blow her away. I side with those who feel that while he's not condemned utterly, he's not portrayed as a particularly good guy.

[Bosco B Thug]

I'm not sure that I buy what I interpret to be many peoples central argument, which is that Tarantino is heavily indicting/criticizing the Basterds and in turn critiquing the audience for 'rooting' for them. I'm in this stance. But he has no reason to, because the film does not promote cheering and laughter and rooting for the Basterds.


However, I don't think that in any of his films he is especially critical of violence on a general level

tonally he very much embraces violence I've had this argument before about Death Proof, in which I believe every act of violence is studded with tragedy and concern (yes, even the final one), but regarding Inglourious Basterds (which, as I stated above, I don't see very much being a statement against violence either): just because Tarantino knows how to direct violence like Peckinpah, and then stages some throwaway "badass" kills (most during the killing reel during the Stiglitz interlude, in any case), is that what constitutes it a film that embraces violence?


What Tarantino is critical of is indiscriminate violence, violence towards innocents and 'unhonorable' violence. But frankly I think he quite enjoys showing violence for it's own sake. Those two sentences seem to bring up two different issues.

The first point is a little troubling, unless by"indiscriminate" you mean the type of killing that has people squaring off just because they are from different countries.

The second point is true - Tarantino likes having violence in his movies. But...


He may use it for tragedy, comedy, shock or whatever else, but I usually feel that he experiences some perverse joy in demonstrating depravity.

But I just don't think he's condemning the Basterds use of violence. I think he includes the violence precisely because he finds it engaging. I feel as if his violence is distanced enough. I suppose "perverse joy" is a bit of it, but I don't believe there is mutual exclusiveness between that and his commentary. I'm surprised I'm saying this, but I think the violence is very forgivable, if he's making a statement behind it (a strong one, and - necessarily - against it).

He does not so much sanctimoniously condemn it, for he'd be condemning himself also (for feeling such feelings against the Nazi), which is a useless gesture - but he is acknowledging that revenge-fantasy is just that, and also that cruelty is not a one-sided thing.


For instance I don't think there's a major thematic or narrative need for the Bride to be regularly raped in her sleep and then to brutally dispatch her attackers. I don't think I'll ever warm up to the Kill Bill films' fantasy world of honorable violence.


Nor do I feel it was absolutely necessary to see Landa strangle the actress to death (at least the way it was shown).
Both of these elements work fine in the context of an exploitation film (and are even elevated to the level of an art film by the nuance of the performances) but is the ugliness of these scenes especially necessary? I thought that was a very non-flashy, realistic look at a brutal, unflinching murder. It's ugly, but I don't see what is objectionably exploitative...


In the case of the Basterds, yes they're killing people in gruesome ways as well, but they're killing Nazis. That is to say people who have committed heinous acts, endorse a twisted ideology and by and large deserve to die. Now I don't feel this way, but I feel the film does feel this way. In a way it does, but in the way that's informed totally by the petrification of a nation's shameful period in history by History (thus giving impetus to the film's fantasy-history elements), attributing almost complete blame on Hitler - and some may argue Goebbels even more so, since Tarantino's film seems mostly an outcry over abuse of cinema - diabolically perfecting war's ability to create such crystallized heartlessness and pettiness in all parties.


There is certainly moral ambiguity (particularly in the hero German romantic and the Nazi with a wife and child) but even in these semi-ambiguous situations the Nazi is shown to be capable of evil (the father just killed a number of the people in the room, almost reneged on a deal and the hero almost rapes his love interest). Are we ever presented with a truly innocent Nazi in the film? They're certainly presented as nuanced characters, as human beings who can feel pain, but they're also presented as a treacherous and cowardly lot. Okay... so this soldier kills people when shooting erupts, and a guy (I still insist non-conclusively) "almost-begins-to-maybe-beat-and-then-maybe-even-then-rape-if-he-has-it-in-him" a woman he's crazy for and very mad at... and these are particularly Nazi attributes? It's a testament to the film that it doesn't need to show us a Nazi with a heart in order to make us understand it's rhetorical vantage point that their negative representation is, yes, something they have to live with, but something that is contrived - a distinct parallel to the fact that Hitler contrived this evil ideology and the mass serving it. It is not a people, it is the ill of nationalism and desperation and insecurity, blown up and preyed upon in a grand political scale by Hitler.


The Basterds will certainly get their hands dirty but they don't kill innocents and they have some honor (they'll brand someone but they will honor their word to let him live). One reason I don't feel the film is about the troubling conception of the Basterds is because so many of Tarantino's scripts are unadulterated wish fulfillment (who's wish is of course another question). Tarantino is certainly a self-aware director, but I don't think he's a particularly self-critical one. I think the fact that they are wish fulfillment is what ultimately makes Tarantino's unabashed support for them acceptable. It's like wishing bad for someone you hate, knowing they do deserve it, but also knowing you have to be aware what you're perpetuating emotionally by doing so. I suppose I could agree "self-critical" is not the strongest trait of Tarantino. I'd have to think about it, but maybe he does prioritize craftsmanship and indulging aesthetic before thinking if his thematic critique is still pure.


I would not agree with this at all. When I line up the violence side by side, the Basterd's violence is shown to be much greater than the Nazis. The only scene of visual graphic violence with relation to the Nazis that I can recall is when Landa chokes the actress to death. Note that in the first scene where the family under the boards is killed we see nothing of it. We don't see bullets entering anyone's body and we even see Landa NOT kill a person when he has the chance - that scene is played out old-school. All the brutal visual new-school violence in this film is caused by the Basterds. If you had no idea who the Nazis were before watching this film, the Nazis would come off very well and you would not be able to condone the Basterds in any way shape or form. The only reason viewers can is because they're bringing they're knowledge of history to the film. They see Nazi and immediately think Evil. I don't know about this. Interesting, imagining how it would be if we weren't aware how terrible a regime Nazism was, but I think it's pretty clear who the good guys and bad guys are from an emotional standpoint. The Nazis are defined by politics, while Shosanna and Fredrick have soulfulness in their love of cinema. And the Basterds are embodiment of some such. It's kind of interesting thinking now about Von Hammersmarck, who is cunning and mercenary in the same way Landa is, only she's on the side that isn't involved in the practices of genocide.


In Kill Bill the violence is also primarily that of the Bride's because she is the main character of the story. The Basterds are major characters so it makes sense that we primarily witness their violence. The violence of the enemy is primarily alluded to rather than shown. So I'm not sure why, if we are to read the Basterds in this way, I've never heard someone extend this perspective to Kill Bill or Lady Snowblood or perhaps even Oldboy or any other revenge fantasy film. The protagonist's desire for revenge is often viewed as tragic, but the enemy is also usually shown as getting their just desserts (just as Landa is at the end of this film). Yeah, I think you answered it - there's no tragic background story or whatever for any of the Basterds. They just embody blithe prejudice and the wartime automaton.


I also don't agree that the Basterds violence is shown as uniformly ugly or unnecessary. Sure they beat someone to death with a bat and the beating is disgusting but that beating also allowed them to procure important tactical information and the procurement demonstrated that (a) while they do brand individuals, they'll honor their word about letting someone go and b) while one Nazi holds strong the other betrays his comrades and is thus presented as a coward). I think the thing about their violence is its excessiveness. It's "cool kill" factor.


and we also see that the Basterds are capable of self-sacrifice for a greater cause (ending the war). Again, I think the lack of personal stakes with any of them is their entire purpose. They wouldn't mind if the war went forever, I sense.


Hrm I don't see Landa as a particularly psychologically complex character. He's certainly well sketched and unique but his motivations are almost entirely self-serving. This to me doesn't capture the intricacy of the Nazi question. I've yet to see a film that truly elaborates the Nazi rise to power. Amarcord's notion of Nazism as an extension of perennial adolescence perhaps comes closest. But I would like to see a film that truly realizes the social Darwinistic perspective and inherited element of Nazism. These people truly believed in eschewing basic morality for their conception of a higher morality and to a certain extent this mentality was inherited. Young Nazis were indoctrinated into this belief system. That would be very impressive, for Tarantino to do a truly didactic exercise as something like that. I suppose I'll concede: he is a pulp filmmaker. But only in the way that that label means pretty much nothing: that most filmmaking is pulp, instead of highbrow.

He did, in some relation, relatively fine (probably somewhat broad, but still fine) work here, though, with the subject of propaganda cinema. Ill take it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Saw this again today with my grandparents. I don't think anyone has mentioned it (or at least I haven't seen it), but does anyone else think that Diane Kruger is kind of bad in this?

[Derek]

Saw this again today with my grandparents. I don't think anyone has mentioned it (or at least I haven't seen it), but does anyone else think that Diane Kruger is kind of bad in this?

No one has mentioned it because it's not true. She's great.

[Qrazy]

Saw this again today with my grandparents. I don't think anyone has mentioned it (or at least I haven't seen it), but does anyone else think that Diane Kruger is kind of bad in this?

I found her to be fine. Melanie Laurent I disliked in a couple of moments (some close-up overreactions) but I think that was really just Tarantino's direction that I had a problem with.

[Mysterious Dude]

I liked Michael Fassbender. Made me want to see Hunger.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, Kruger is great.

[Rowland]

Riveting from beginning to end, with what is easily Tarantino's most amibitious thematic material. The more I chew on it in retrospect, the more rigorous and ingenious it appears.

Now to read the thread.

[Derek]

I found her to be fine. Melanie Laurent I disliked in a couple of moments (some close-up overreactions) but I think that was really just Tarantino's direction that I had a problem with.

Is it weird that I can't read a majority of your posts without singing "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one"?


Riveting from beginning to end, with what is easily Tarantino's most amibitious thematic material. The more I chew on it in retrospect, the more rigorous and ingenious it appears.

Now to read the thread.

Sweet, look forward to your responses/ext. thoughts.

Don't forget the "u" in "Inglourious"!

[Spaceman Spiff]

No one has mentioned it because it's not true. She's great.

Really? I can think of more than a few moments where she's wooden as hell. Mostly during her first scene with the Basterds.

[Qrazy]

Is it weird that I can't read a majority of your posts without singing "I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one"?


http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-graphs-jay-z-99-problems.gif

[right_for_the_moment]

Bordwell's a fan...
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=5446

[Pop Trash]

So my history buff father saw this yesterday and had mixed feelings about it. One of the points he mentioned as a criticism was that the allies never would have dropped the Basterds behind enemy lines without them knowing French. Now, putting aside that the movie is obviously a WWII fantasy, are there any WWII scholars here that can confirm or deny this? I said that it was possible and that the one guy knew German and that was enough, but then I got to thinking...where do the Basterds sleep? Do they stay with the French resistance?

[balmakboor]

Bordwell's a fan...
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=5446

Cool. I read bits and pieces and it seems tasty. I'll read it all later.

[Qrazy]

So my history buff father saw this yesterday and had mixed feelings about it. One of the points he mentioned as a criticism was that the allies never would have dropped the Basterds behind enemy lines without them knowing French. Now, putting aside that the movie is obviously a WWII fantasy, are there any WWII scholars here that can confirm or deny this? I said that it was possible and that the one guy knew German and that was enough, but then I got to thinking...where do the Basterds sleep? Do they stay with the French resistance?

In Kill Bill they carry swords on planes.

[number8]

In Kill Bill they carry swords on planes.

They actually have a sword-holder on each seat.

[Qrazy]

They actually have a sword-holder on each seat.

For all your sword-holding needs.

[lovejuice]

In Kill Bill they carry swords on planes.
not to mention it's very unlikely the furor died in the kino incident.

[number8]

I think the furor continues to this day.

[Grouchy]

I watched this again yesterday with my girlfriend, who loved it. A couple of new thoughts:


At the beginning, in the landscape shot that's directly lifted from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, instead of Morricone's "Il Tramonto", Quentin begins with something that sounds like Beethoven's "Para Elisa" and then blends into another spaguetti western score. It made me wonder if QT wasn't linking "Il Tramonto" with its classical music foundations.
I no longer think it's stupid for Landa to find both the shoe and the autograph in the afternath of the basement shoot-out, because I think I detect a little bloat in the character now, as in, he's a smart person but he likes to project much more intelligence than he really has, which is why a fuckwit like Aldo is able to double-cross him in the end. I really doubt that Leonardo Di Caprio could have pulled off this character.
Adding into the meta-film stuff, there are a couple of instances where Quentin deliberately reveals movie props and equipment. For example, in the shot where they're painting Hitler's image, the painting is being illuminated by what's obviously a movie light. When Shohana is walking down the stairs in the beginning of the last chapter we can clearly see the tops of the set panels.
The sequence with Shohana set to David Bowie might be the most exhilarating of Quentin's entire career. I love the opening dissolves and how there's a film poster with an actress right next to Melanie Laurent's face.

[Qrazy]

Don't worry, just throw "Tarantino" somewhere in there and you should be sufficiently on topic.

Haha sorry thought this was the film discussion thread.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Impressive. I'm not as enamored as some, mainly because, while highly entertaining and fun to watch, I found the exercise somewhat... superficial? It's a revenge film of high quality, but I'm not sure I'd be excited to see it again. What was most impressive to me was, aside from a the title cards and musical cues (oh, and the sporadic narration, which was a big mistake), it didn't scream "I'M QUENTIN TARANTINO AND I LOVE OTHER PEOPLE'S MOVIES!!!", which is something I wasn't sure he was capable of anymore. Major kudos to Christoph Waltz. He was fantastic. He was like the anti-Eli-Roth.

[Dukefrukem]

This movie was everything I expected it to be.... but still not as good as Pulp Fiction.

Tarantino's second best effort.

[Adam]

Impressive. I'm not as enamored as some, mainly because, while highly entertaining and fun to watch, I found the exercise somewhat... superficial? It's a revenge film of high quality, but I'm not sure I'd be excited to see it again.

This is how I feel about the Kill Bill films - They're way shallow and superficial and they most definitely do not hold up to repeat viewings. I'm pretty sure Inglourious Basterds does hold up, though. I loved this movie for many reasons, but just in terms of how it deconstructs the concept of revenge and revenge-based movies: The key scene, I think, is when Eli Roth and that other dude brutally massacre all the boss Germans as the theater burns down. So many levels of meta-irony here. First off, the Nazis in the movie theater just got finished cheering and applauding their hero gun down hundreds of helpless enemies high up in his perch and we, the audience of the real film, are meant to be at our Nazi-hating peak here. Then Shosanna uses the power of celluloid to blow up her theater. She speaks English in her final message to the Nazis, which is important, because it means she's actually talking to us

Then the two Basterds come in and start sniping off flaming Nazis from a perch of their own, which is exactly what the Nazis were watching and applauding two seconds ago. So at first we're meant to cheer, but then we're meant to realize what we're cheering and then we're meant to look at the sadistic glee the two Basterds are getting and then we're meant to stop cheering. This all happens very fast and it undercuts any satisfaction you might have gotten from their grand revenge. But then you think why shouldn't you be happy a bunch of Nazis are being murdered and on and on

And all that's without even getting into the Melanie Laurent / Daniel Bruhl tete-a-tete that goes down just before the theater blows up; which is even more playfully meta and continues the thread of Tarantino playing off his audience's expectations

[Robby P]

Consider me thoroughly unimpressed. I'm not buying the defense of this being anything more than juvenile torture porn. What a disappointment.

[Mysterious Dude]

I could buy 'revenge fantasy,' but 'torture porn'? There was hardly any torture in it.

Of the movie's five chapters, I think four of them culminate with violence, but there is a lot of talk leading up to the violence in every case, and the violence was usually very quick. The talk is what makes the movie worthwhile, to me.

[Watashi]

Consider me thoroughly unimpressed. I'm not buying the defense of this being anything more than juvenile torture porn. What a disappointment.
You should stick to talking about baseball.

[Derek]

I'm not buying the defense of this being anything more than juvenile torture porn.

It's not a defense as much as it is incontrovertible fact. Like it or hate it, fine, but the basterds are only in a small portion of the film and most of it is dialogue rather than action/torture-heavy.

[Morris Schæffer]

It's not a defense as much as it is incontrovertible fact. Like it or hate it, fine, but the basterds are only in a small portion of the film and most of it is dialogue rather than action/torture-heavy.

Yeah, it's a weird appraisal of this movie. Sorry Robby ;)

[number8]

Did you only watch the last 15 minutes or something...?

[Chac Mool]

I'm not as enamored as some, mainly because, while highly entertaining and fun to watch, I found the exercise somewhat... superficial? It's a revenge film of high quality, but I'm not sure I'd be excited to see it again.

It's much more than a revenge film. Think about it this way -- here is a WW2 movie set in Europe without a single battlefield scene. The film argues that wars, rather than being won by massed forces coming together, are decided behind the scenes, through targeted guerilla warfare, ideological propaganda, opportunism and unpredictable, unexpected turns of fate. I can't think of another war movie that packages such a genuinely complex position into such an entertaining, unique package.

[number8]

You forgot language, which was actually what inspired Tarantino to make the movie like this. He theorized that the European theater of WWII was the last big war in which a bunch of white dudes fought a bunch of other white dudes, and one side can pass for another simply by learning the language and culture of the enemy. So he then thought, like you said, that the most interesting and suspenseful battles of WWII must not have been the tank-blowing and beach-storming, but in the moments where these combatants size each other up, figuring out what's genuine and what's espionage. And it's all fought using language.

[Robby P]

Either I've expressed myself poorly or my statement was taken far too literally.

I'm aware that the movie is primarily conversational long-takes interrupted by casual bouts of graphic violence. Unfortunately, I found most of these scenes to be largely long-winded, self-indulgent and simply uninteresting.

My point, however, was that I do not accept the argument that this movie is intended to be an indictment of violence as some reviewers I've skimmed have suggested. I don't believe the movie is intended to force the audience to question their moral codes or lust for vengeance. If that was the intent, it was communicated very clumsily, in my opinion. I felt the movie was more interested in simply eliciting an emotional response through its displays of graphic violence than postulating any meaningful philosophical questions. The intent was titillation, in my opinion, not self inflection.

[Fezzik]

I felt the movie was more interested in simply eliciting an emotional response through its displays of graphic violence than postulating any meaningful philosophical questions. The intent was titillation, in my opinion, not self inflection.


I'd say that if the intent was titillation, Tarantino failed massively. Not one person I know felt 'titillated' by the violence. On the contrary, most said they felt uncomfortable.

Emotional response? Sure, I'll buy that. But not titillation. An emotional response, though, can lead to philosophical questions - it did when me and my friends discussed it.

[Qrazy]

Either I've expressed myself poorly or my statement was taken far too literally.

I'm aware that the movie is primarily conversational long-takes interrupted by casual bouts of graphic violence. Unfortunately, I found most of these scenes to be largely long-winded, self-indulgent and simply uninteresting.

My point, however, was that I do not accept the argument that this movie is intended to be an indictment of violence as some reviewers I've skimmed have suggested. I don't believe the movie is intended to force the audience to question their moral codes or lust for vengeance. If that was the intent, it was communicated very clumsily, in my opinion. I felt the movie was more interested in simply eliciting an emotional response through its displays of graphic violence than postulating any meaningful philosophical questions. The intent was titillation, in my opinion, not self inflection.

I'm with you.

[Benny Profane]

Brad Pitt was unbearable in this. Really, he was awful.

After an amazing first scene, it went downhill from there, though found its footing in some places.

[Mysterious Dude]

I actually agree that Brad Pitt was the biggest problem (although I like the way he said "Gratzi.") But he didn't ruin the movie for me because after chapter two, it seemed like he was hardly even in it.

[number8]

I thought Pitt was pitch-perfect.

[Benny Profane]

I never bought his character or accent for a second. It just looked like Brad Pitt trying to be over the top and looking foolish/not funny.

And BJ Novak must wake up every morning and thank the lord that he keeps getting away with it.

[Dukefrukem]

I never bought his character or accent for a second. It just looked like Brad Pitt trying to be over the top and looking foolish/not funny.


I think you may have convinced me of this. The scene that was most embarrassing for him was when he was speaking Italian. Very poor attempt at humor. Makes me cringe thinking of it.

[Ezee E]

I think you may have convinced me of this. The scene that was most embarrassing for him was when he was speaking Italian. Very poor attempt at humor. Makes me cringe thinking of it.
Disagree fully.

[Melville]

This is the first time I have disagreed with every criticism leveled at a Tarantino film. I thought the simultaneous revelry-in-violence and undercutting-or-questioning-of-said-revelry worked perfectly; I really liked how Landa and the Basterds were like flip sides of the same humorously bloodthirsty coin. And the scene where Raine tries to speak Italian with Landa was hilarious.

[Qrazy]

This is the first time I have disagreed with every criticism leveled at a Tarantino film. I thought the simultaneous revelry-in-violence and undercutting-or-questioning-of-said-revelry worked perfectly.

I've never seen a film which has succeeded at this in my eyes. To me it's always like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either you make a film with violence (preferably not overly disgustingly indulgent) which engages viscerally (most action films) or you make a film that's completely opposed to that mentality (Come and See). Spielberg like Tarantino here is another example of someone who tries to do both (Ryan and Munich) and isn't all that successful imo.

[Sycophant]

Disagree fully.

Yeah. I couldn't disagree with something more.

[Sven]

I've never seen a film which has succeeded at this in my eyes. To me it's always like they're trying to have their cake and eat it too. Either you make a film with violence (preferably not overly disgustingly indulgent) which engages viscerally (most action films) or you make a film that's completely opposed to that mentality (Come and See). Spielberg like Tarantino here is another example of someone who tries to do both (Ryan and Munich) and isn't all that successful imo.

Just to keep the disagreement chain going, I very much disagree with this.