Inglourious Basterds

[Spinal]

Brad Pitt was not believable as a realistic character.

He was also fantastic in his role.

Both of these things are true.

[Rowland]

If anything, I think it enhances what Tarantino was going for by rendering Raine an unconvincing character played self-consciously by the film's only obvious movie star. Same goes for the Roth character, another bad-is-good reasoning enhancing the satire of the piece.

[Qrazy]

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

Which films do you think succeed in that regard? This one?

[Qrazy]

If anything, I think it enhances what Tarantino was going for by rendering Raine an unconvincing character played self-consciously by the film's only obvious movie star. Same goes for the Roth character, another bad-is-good reasoning enhancing the satire of the piece.

Nice! I'm heading down to the courthouse tomorrow so I can change my name to Tarantino. Then I'm going to film a piece of dog shit and project my film which given my new name will now be imbued with meta-ironic significance!

[number8]

If you do it as well as QT does, then, yes, I suppose you can.

[Derek]

Nice! I'm heading down to the courthouse tomorrow so I can change my name to Tarantino. Then I'm going to film a piece of dog shit and project my film which given my new name will now be imbued with meta-ironic significance!

Cool, I'm gonna hire a bunch of Russian actors and film them in black & white so you can go off on how brilliant it is.

[Sven]

Which films do you think succeed in that regard? This one?

Off the top of my head, I would say that Starship Troopers is a film disgusted by, but simultaneously fascinated by, violence. I actually have yet to see this film, but I thought that Death Proof, in my one viewing of it, also succeeded in reveling in its violence while simultaneously looking at it.

I suppose it's the same logic that demonstrates that you cannot have a film that realistically comments on pornography without featuring actual pornography.

[Mysterious Dude]

There's a line in Jules and Jim after the gang has seen a play, and one of them criticizes it for "preaching virtue but reveling in vice." I think a lot of movies do that. In fact, almost all of them do.

[Sven]

There's a line in Jules and Jim after the gang has seen a play, and one of them criticizes it for "preaching virtue but reveling in vice." I think a lot of movies do that. In fact, almost all of them do.

Interesting, as Truffaut is famous for saying that there is no "true" anti-war film, because filming violence is inherently exciting. Only Night and Fog qualifies. Which I think is a neat idea, but ultimately not the case.

[Bosco B Thug]

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. IB isn't realliy concerned with wagging its finger at us for being moviegoers embracing movieland violence. It's more concerned about the reality of violence in war. Now Death Proof is definitely about voyeuristic violence and troubling movieland power, and on a personal scale (i.e. gender, female vulnerability).
The case people make for IB is not that it wags its finger at us for being moviegoers propogating bloodlust and power due to an incontrovertible divison (as is the message in Death Proof, with the division being sex), but that we're put into this position in the first place when there is no division (we're all human, with human-ness, regardless of nationality or race). It puts us in the same position as Shosanna. Why have we been justified to sacrifice part of our humanity (manifested in the relationship she could've shared with Zoller)? Because of politics, which have contrived our divisions, and made violence somehow justifiable for some (to enact) and deserved by others (to bear), when in a perfect world, political divisions wouldn't exist. Violence made justifiable and deserved is the definition of war. The film makes us feel that. that violence and war is petty - even though we're placed on the side of the "justified" and can revel in Hitler's death.

Stuntman Mike may have been vile, but he's human - the girls killing him had no profit but their personal empowerment. What Hitler did to humanity in WWII is very much not, and Tarantino wants our response to the violence in IB to more about that (as opposed to for seeing Evil Germans get killed begging for their lives! which few in the film do), which Tarantino realizes is nothing to finger wag at.

[Qrazy]

Cool, I'm gonna hire a bunch of Russian actors and film them in black & white so you can go off on how brilliant it is.

It can also be in color... just as long as it's Russian. :lol:

[Qrazy]

Off the top of my head, I would say that Starship Troopers is a film disgusted by, but simultaneously fascinated by, violence. I actually have yet to see this film, but I thought that Death Proof, in my one viewing of it, also succeeded in reveling in its violence while simultaneously looking at it.

I suppose it's the same logic that demonstrates that you cannot have a film that realistically comments on pornography without featuring actual pornography.

Well Come and See features violence. I'm talking about the treatment of the violence. Similarly a film about pornography could feature explicit sex (I have no idea why it would have to) but it doesn't have to titillate.

[Melville]

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.
I think there are two different potential conflicts here. First, can a film make violence viscerally engaging while still asking the audience to ponder it? Sure. I don't see why not. Making something viscerally engaging isn't antithetical to making it thought-provoking or questionable. The relationship between those two aspects makes them each more interesting, not less. I think Munich is actually a case where that works quite well, though the assassination attempts become purposefully more weary and less tense as the film progresses. Sven's example of Starship Troopers also works. And your favorite, Funny Games, works too.

The second issue is whether or not a film can actively revel in the violence while still making us ponder that revelry. Inglourious Basterds goes beyond making the violence viscerally engaging: it dives right in and celebrates a grand historical vengeance. That's something quite different from merely making it exciting. However, I still don't think that prevents it from simultaneously asking us to ponder the violence and our response to it. The tension between the two conflicting goals, the ideas and experiences bouncing around with one another, are what makes the treatment of violence interesting.


Why have we been justified to sacrifice part of our humanity (manifested in the relationship she could've shared with Zoller)?
I don't think the movie suggests that. Shosanna was already involved with another man whom she loved.


IB is concerned with the reality of violence
That doesn't sound quite right. The whole movie is a movie-movie. It's a wildly moviefied version of history, a mashup of history and film. It's not directly concerned with the reality of anything: it's working with movie-symbols and movie-scenes. When the cinematic revenge in the cinema occurs and invites us to question the nature of the cinematic violence it showcases, it's pointing at a reality outside cinema, but that reality is at least two or three levels deep.

[Robby P]

I think I'd be more willing to buy the claim that the movie is saying "indiscriminately killing Nazis is just as immoral as indiscriminately killing Jews" if at least one of the characters had, at some point, made even a passing reference to this ironic realization. I'm not saying QT had to spell it out for his audience but given the circumstances it might be prudent to at least hint at this moral conundrum. Given Tarantino's track record of graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, I'm skeptical that his thought process went to the same levels of depth and maturity that others have suggested.

The Italian scene, I thought, was comedic bliss. It was played pitch perfectly (Pitt's deadpan of "buon giorno" was worth the price of the rental, alone) and was one of the few attempts at humor that succeeded admirably.

I've softened on my initial harsh response and the movie has admittedly been on my mind the past few days. A second viewing is definitely in order.

[Melville]

Given Tarantino's track record of graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, I'm skeptical that his thought process went to the same levels of depth and maturity that others have suggested.
He said explicitly in a Charlie Rose interview that his thought process did go along the lines that we've suggested, though maybe not to the same depth. Not that that thought process was necessarily born out in the film, but I thought the movie-theater scene, and in particular the Nazis' reaction to the propaganda film therein, was definitely intended to make us think about the nature of the revenge we were witnessing. Also, the Basterds' amoral, cartoonishly violent selves seemed like sufficient suggestion that maybe their actions weren't intended to be taken as entirely praiseworthy.

[Qrazy]

I think there are two different potential conflicts here. First, can a film make violence viscerally engaging while still asking the audience to ponder it? Sure. I don't see why not. Making something viscerally engaging isn't antithetical to making it thought-provoking or questionable. The relationship between those two aspects makes them each more interesting, not less. I think Munich is actually a case where that works quite well, though the assassination attempts become purposefully more weary and less tense as the film progresses. Sven's example of Starship Troopers also works. And your favorite, Funny Games, works too.

Actually I don't think any of those work (as criticism... they certainly work on the visceral level) so no, I disagree.


The second issue is whether or not a film can actively revel in the violence while still making us ponder that revelry. Inglourious Basterds goes beyond making the violence viscerally engaging: it dives right in and celebrates a grand historical vengeance. That's something quite different from merely making it exciting. However, I still don't think that prevents it from simultaneously asking us to ponder the violence and our response to it. The tension between the two conflicting goals, the ideas and experiences bouncing around with one another, are what makes the treatment of violence interesting.

Or facile.

[Melville]

Actually I don't think any of those work (as criticism... they certainly work on the visceral level) so no, I disagree.

Or facile.
Your response is facile. And so's your face!

EDIT: regarding Starship Troopers, I actually don't think it works on a visceral level. It's all way too silly. However, the satire is hilarious.

[Qrazy]

Your response is facile. And so's your face!

It certainly is... and that's how I intended it! Thereby imbuing it with meta-irony!


EDIT: regarding Starship Troopers, I actually don't think it works on a visceral level. It's all way too silly. However, the satire is hilarious.

I think it works on both levels but I don't think it's a satire which condemns the violence of war (which is what I meant with my initial post). Instead it satirizes propaganda/power structures/the military/etc.

[Melville]

I think it works on both levels but I don't think it's a satire which condemns the violence of war (which is what I meant with my initial post). Instead it satirizes propaganda/power structures/the military/etc.
Ah, gotcha. Now where's that damn top 100 you promised me?

[Qrazy]

Ah, gotcha. Now where's that damn top 100 you promised me?

Aghhh it's too hard because my list of all the movies I'd seen was robbed from me when my computer was stolen a few years back. Now I feel like I'll just be leaving stuff out.

[soitgoes...]

Aghhh it's too hard because my list of all the movies I'd seen was robbed from me when my computer was stolen a few years back. Now I feel like I'll just be leaving stuff out.Too bad, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

[BuffaloWilder]

I know this isn't unexpected, coming from me, but what the hey, it's relevant - don't the Mad Max films kind of engage in viscerality while at the same time questioning the motives and observing the after-effects of said viscerality? I think they do - at least, the first and the second.

[Qrazy]

Too bad, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

You guys have probably seen almost all of them. Aside from maybe like 20 (which you've probably seen anyway) I think my choices are fairly canonical... or at least their directors are canonical.

[Sven]

I think it works on both levels but I don't think it's a satire which condemns the violence of war (which is what I meant with my initial post). Instead it satirizes propaganda/power structures/the military/etc.

I don't disagree. I guess I was responding to the idea that a film cannot simultaneously employ a perspective and acknowledge the problems with that same perspective. Which is definitely something I think a film can achieve, the way Starship Troopers does with its ability to suck the viewer into the sci-fi action good human bad bug narrative while also addressing the fact that the viewer is basically watching propaganda.


Well Come and See features violence. I'm talking about the treatment of the violence. Similarly a film about pornography could feature explicit sex (I have no idea why it would have to) but it doesn't have to titillate.

I guess it's the "show, don't tell" rule of economics. You can talk around subjects and emotions and ideas and perspectives and produce them through exclusion. But I would think the most effective way is to engage the viewer directly with your subject or emotion or idea or perspective or whatever.

I do realize that suggestion is an incredibly effective concept. And of course I do not demand graphic content from films dealing with graphic themes. But it's definitely effective. I mean... violence is a thrilling thing. Why shouldn't a filmmaker capture it in an exciting way? Also--

--I think Melville addressed this quite well in his longer post a few back: "Making something viscerally engaging isn't antithetical to making it thought-provoking or questionable. The relationship between those two aspects makes them each more interesting, not less." Until I can see the connection between a visceral treatment and endorsement, I do not know what else to say.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't think the movie suggests that. Shosanna was already involved with another man whom she loved. Forgoing her love for Marcel is not what I mean, it's her denying any sort of relationship with a man who loves film as much as her, which, no two ways about it, is obviously an elevated spiritual bond in Tarantino's eyes.


That doesn't sound quite right. The whole movie is a movie-movie. It's a wildly moviefied version of history, a mash up of history and film. It's not directly concerned with the reality of anything: it's working with movie-symbols and movie-scenes. When the cinematic revenge in the cinema occurs and invites us to question the nature of the cinematic violence it showcases, it's pointing at a reality outside cinema, but that reality is at least two or three levels deep. You're right, but I think we're talking around two different aspects of the film's thematics at this point. All you say is definitely right, for it's inherent in Tarantino's aesthetic and style and movie-movieness, but the layer to the film involving its intellectual points on politics and war don't mesh with any moralizing on cinema spectatorship. Both exist, but can't be looked at together. A "for instance" is that, a point to be made about exploitation cinema (which is what Death Proof is all the way through, and IB in one aspect) is and should be a somewhat different point than that to be made about propoganda film (which is the other aspect of IB). There's a straight-up moralizing clarity to pointing out the trouble in our revelry in DP's violence, but there's more to it than that in our revelry in IB (though yes, there most certainly is that), which is all I'm trying to vocalize.


I think I'd be more willing to buy the claim that the movie is saying "indiscriminately killing Nazis is just as immoral as indiscriminately killing Jews" if at least one of the characters had, at some point, made even a passing reference to this ironic realization. I'm not saying QT had to spell it out for his audience but given the circumstances it might be prudent to at least hint at this moral conundrum. Given Tarantino's track record of graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, I'm skeptical that his thought process went to the same levels of depth and maturity that others have suggested. The brilliance of IB is that it makes this point without giving us a "Nazi with a heart of Gold" or a "non-Nazi with a change of heart." We're all the same, and, in the movie, everyone's bastards, in this environment of war. If it gave us a Nazi with a heart of Gold, it would be an apologia (as Valkyrie is), and if it gave us a non-Nazi with a change of heart, it would be showing us "Ah, there is non-pettiness in the political world of battle... as long as you're not a Nazi."


--I think Melville addressed this quite well in his longer post a few back: "Making something viscerally engaging isn't antithetical to making it thought-provoking or questionable. The relationship between those two aspects makes them each more interesting, not less." Until I can see the connection between a visceral treatment and endorsement, I do not know what else to say. I agree with this.

[Fezzik]

I can say, without a drop of irony, that this is one of the more interesting discussions I've had the pleasure of reading on Match-Cut.

I love this place so much :)

[Grouchy]

It's interesting, but I have trouble buying a lot of the arguments (both pro- and anti-movie) because I don't think Inglourious Basterds is about the atrocities of war at all. I think its themes can best be summed up as: language, culture clash, propaganda and (again) language used as weapons, and movies.

I don't think it qualifies as an anti-war movie. It's a movie analyzing war as a political and social institution.

[Pop Trash]

It's interesting, but I have trouble buying a lot of the arguments (both pro- and anti-movie) because I don't think Inglourious Basterds is about the atrocities of war at all. I think its themes can best be summed up as: language, culture clash, propaganda and (again) language used as weapons, and movies.

I don't think it qualifies as an anti-war movie. It's a movie analyzing war as a political and social institution.

To me (like most QT movies) it's celebrating the inherent fictionality of narrative films. The only difference is that this is the first Tarantino movie that is based on something that actually happened. Which is where the controversy comes in. It's like a reply to all the "based on a true story" movies (most prominently Spielberg's) where people criticize them for fudging the facts. Tarantino is saying all movies are fiction, even when they are based on actual events, so celebrate that and love that.

[Grouchy]

To me (like most QT movies) it's celebrating the inherent fictionality of narrative films. The only difference is that this is the first Tarantino movie that is based on something that actually happened. Which is where the controversy comes in. It's like a reply to all the "based on a true story" movies (most prominently Spielberg's) where people criticize them for fudging the facts. Tarantino is saying all movies are fiction, even when they are based on actual events, so celebrate that and love that.
Yet another valid reading.

But how is the movie commenting on violence at all? The violence is incidental. It's there because its protagonists are a girl hellbent on revenge and a team of black ops soldiers. How is violence a theme?

[Qrazy]

Forgoing her love for Marcel is not what I mean, it's her denying any sort of relationship with a man who loves film as much as her, which, no two ways about it, is obviously an elevated spiritual bond in Tarantino's eyes.

I think you're completely misreading that relationship and giving him way too much credit.

[Qrazy]

--I think Melville addressed this quite well in his longer post a few back: "Making something viscerally engaging isn't antithetical to making it thought-provoking or questionable. The relationship between those two aspects makes them each more interesting, not less." Until I can see the connection between a visceral treatment and endorsement, I do not know what else to say.

Alright then, once you see it we'll talk more.

[Winston*]

Zoller was a twerp and Shoshanna thought he was a twerp.

[Sven]

Alright then, once you see it we'll talk more.

Do you disagree with this?: If X is a stimulating action, a faithful representation of X would capture that stimulation.

Help me out, here. Connect the two things for me. It seems to me to do so would be to invalidate all attempts at perspective bifurcation. But that's, like, an effective and well-established technique of pretty much every art.

[Bosco B Thug]

Zoller was a twerp and Shoshanna thought he was a twerp. A twerp, certainly. A figure of innocence, in otehr words. A villain, no.


I think you're completely misreading that relationship and giving him way too much credit. Perhaps, but then he is just a movie character. He's indisputably being seen a movie lover by some and a child to others (like Winston), and Tarantino wrote him that way, clearly and for a reason. How empty would that reason be if in the end, all he amounts to is a wolf in sheep's clothing?

[Winston*]

A twerp, certainly. A villain, no.



The implication is that he would've raped her had she continued to resist him. Pretty villainous IMO.

[ledfloyd]

tarantino has said in interviews he views shoshanna and zoller as his 'romeo and juliet' tragic lovers that can't ever be together because of circumstances they have no control over. so he probably would support that reading.

[Bosco B Thug]

The implication is that he would've raped her had she continued to resist him. Pretty villainous IMO.

Well, we've had this discussion before... I was pretty squarely in the minority, so I'll assume I won't get anywhere.

But no, I still do not see it that way, that simply.


tarantino has said in interviews he views shoshanna and zoller as his 'romeo and juliet' tragic lovers that can't ever be together because of circumstances they have no control over. so he probably would support that reading. Ah, right, there's this too.

[Qrazy]

Do you disagree with this?: If X is a stimulating action, a faithful representation of X would capture that stimulation.

Help me out, here. Connect the two things for me. It seems to me to do so would be to invalidate all attempts at perspective bifurcation. But that's, like, an effective and well-established technique of pretty much every art.

I don't think we're really on the same page. So I'm going to re-clarify what I'm talking about and you can take it from there.

To respond to what I take to be your general position... No, I do not think sex or violence has to be expressed in a titillating manner in order to criticize/comment on such things. I think that such a position is kind of absurd actually and that tossing perspective bifurcation into your sentence does little to change that absurdity. If that is not your position then I am glad and we have no disagreement.

Furthermore, I think that engaging an audience via titillation actually does tend to undercut any criticism/commentary by the artist in regards to the sex or violence itself. For instance the way in which violence was handled in Watchmen (the movie).

[Qrazy]

tarantino has said in interviews he views shoshanna and zoller as his 'romeo and juliet' tragic lovers that can't ever be together because of circumstances they have no control over. so he probably would support that reading.

Ah k so it's not so much that the character is being misread as that Tarantino failed miserably at effectively communicating the character he wished to.

[Sven]

To respond to what I take to be your general position... No, I do not think sex or violence has to be expressed in a titillating manner in order to criticize/comment on such things. I think that such a position is kind of absurd actually and that tossing perspective bifurcation into your sentence does little to change that absurdity. If that is not your position then I am glad and we have no disagreement.

My mention of bifurcation was addressing the concept of subjective/objective opposition in perspective, not titillation, so please be more careful where you employ your sarcasm.


Furthermore, I think that engaging an audience via titillation actually does tend to undercut any criticism/commentary by the artist in regards to the sex or violence itself. For instance the way in which violence was handled in Watchmen (the movie).

Here is where we differ. How does it undercut? I have already attempted an illustration of how it is possible to avoid contradiction.

[Qrazy]

Here is where we differ. How does it undercut? I have already attempted an illustration of how it is possible to avoid contradiction.

It depends what it's goal is. If the goal is to show the horror of violence and to communicate the position that as viewers we ought not be titillated (because true violence is actually terrible), then a film which tries to demonstrate this but presents it's violence in a titillating manner will flounder (Come and See is one of the few examples of a film which does not present titillating violence and so it's anti-war statement is effective).

If the goal is not anti-violence per se but rather anti-military (Starship Troopers) then the film can have lots of sex and violence and still succeed on it's own terms... although tangentially I find most of Verhoeven's sci fi features express a general air of stupidity (not thematically but in the way he directs drama) which keeps them from succeeding on other levels. Still, he'll always have Turkish Delight and Soldier of Orange.

[Sven]

It depends what it's goal is. If the goal is to show the horror of violence and to communicate the position that as viewers we ought not be titillated (because true violence is actually terrible), then a film which tries to demonstrate this but presents it's violence in a titillating manner will flounder (Come and See is one of the few examples of a film which does not present titillating violence and so it's anti-war statement is effective).

If the goal is not anti-violence per se but rather anti-military (Starship Troopers) then the film can have lots of sex and violence and still succeed on it's own terms... although tangentially I find most of Verhoeven's sci fi features express a general air of stupidity (not thematically but in the way he directs drama) which keeps them from succeeding on other levels. Still, he'll always have Turkish Delight and Soldier of Orange.

But there aren't really any strictly "anti-violence" films, because pretty much everyone senses that violence is bad, so it would be a redundant message. The point is to show the ways in which violence functions. And there are some truly incredible things that violence can accomplish, and I don't think that using that innate tension to generate a physical reaction in the viewer is at all antithetical to commenting on the negative ways in which that violence functions. Just as a poem or novel or song can present a single sentence that can be processed with more than one diegetic viewpoint, I think so film can present ideas and images and sequences that can achieve a similar joint meaning.

Plus, what titillates varies. There are those who've pleasured themselves to concentration camp nudity. I think Truffaut may be onto something: there is something inherently exciting about seeing that which to most of us is a fantasy, even if it is filmed realistically or in a gruesome fashion. Come and See, for example, is a pretty big hit with young adults whose interests are comparatively puerile or naive, but the film's mode of expression is undoubtedly thrilling.

[Qrazy]

But there aren't really any strictly "anti-violence" films, because pretty much everyone senses that violence is bad, so it would be a redundant message.

That's not really what I'm talking about. Some directors use violence to titillate (most action movies). Other directors portray violence the way it truly occurs, as horrific (another example being Haneke perhaps). Some directors try to straddle both positions. I have no problem with the first kind of movies (as long as they're not overly exploitative and they're well done) and I have no problem with the second kind of movies. I feel that the directors who try to do both tend to fail. As I've now said this a few times and also communicated why I feel this way I don't think there's any reason to say it yet again.


The point is to show the ways in which violence functions. And there are some truly incredible things that violence can accomplish, and I don't think that using that innate tension to generate a physical reaction in the viewer is at all antithetical to commenting on the negative ways in which that violence functions. Just as a poem or novel or song can present a single sentence that can be processed with more than one diegetic viewpoint, I think so film can present ideas and images and sequences that can achieve a similar joint meaning.

Your opinion is noted.


Plus, what titillates varies. There are those who've pleasured themselves to concentration camp nudity. I think Truffaut may be onto something: there is something inherently exciting about seeing that which to most of us is a fantasy, even if it is filmed realistically or in a gruesome fashion. Come and See, for example, is a pretty big hit with young adults whose interests are comparatively puerile or naive, but the film's mode of expression is undoubtedly thrilling.

Ahh k so Come and See is for puerile and naive young adults and Starship Troopers is for the sophisticated intellectual. Got ya. You know your attempts to act the condescending elitist would probably go over better if you didn't continually spout such complete nonsense. I can't wait to hear more about the brilliant insights of Crank 2. Perhaps today we'll stumble upon a new and exciting metaphor for the psychiatrist's vomit.

[Sven]

Ahh k so Come and See is for puerile and naive young adults and Starship Troopers is for the sophisticated intellectual. Got ya. You know your attempts to act the condescending elitist would probably go over better if you didn't continually spout such complete nonsense. I can't wait to hear more about the brilliant insights of Crank 2. Perhaps today we'll stumble upon a new and exciting metaphor for the psychiatrist's vomit.

Man, talk about needlessly nasty. If you read my post, you will see that I'm talking about how some less sophisticated viewers can find visceral things to appreciate about a more sophisticated work. I don't say a thing about the film, except that there are reasons to be thrilled by it. You are now off my Nice List.

[Sven]

I reread what you responded meanly to and I can see how you can gather that I was saying that Come and See was specifically FOR the less sophisticated. This is not what I meant. And I really don't think it warranted such a nasty swipe like that.

[BuffaloWilder]

Yes, that was kind of a douchey move there, Qrazy. Bad form.

[number8]

Someone forgot to spit, not swallow, the asshole biscuit.

[Qrazy]

I reread what you responded meanly to and I can see how you can gather that I was saying that Come and See was specifically FOR the less sophisticated. This is not what I meant. And I really don't think it warranted such a nasty swipe like that.

Sorry.

[Grouchy]

Ah k so it's not so much that the character is being misread as that Tarantino failed miserably at effectively communicating the character he wished to.
He communicated it pretty well for me too. I just don't see Zoller as a bad guy, which is why I don't like the outburst of violence Tarantino wrote for him near the end. I think that was sort of playing it too convenient for the audience, which isn't what makes Tarantino a great writer at all.

[Qrazy]

He communicated it pretty well for me too. I just don't see Zoller as a bad guy, which is why I don't like the outburst of violence Tarantino wrote for him near the end. I think that was sort of playing it too convenient for the audience, which isn't what makes Tarantino a great writer at all.

There's much more than the outburst. He forces her to come see him at the party. He's incredibly vain. And he maintains the belief systems of a Nazi. He doesn't just happen to be a Nazi by association.

[Grouchy]

There's much more than the outburst. He forces her to come see him at the party. He's incredibly vain. And he maintains the belief systems of a Nazi. He doesn't just happen to be a Nazi by association.
He's vain and he's stupid because he has no ability to perceive what he really represents to Shohanna. Never in a million years would he imagine that his beloved Nazi party could destroy this beautiful girl's life.

But, if he had been on the field as anything else other than a sniper and had witnessed the first scene of the movie, his entire belief system would have crashed down on him, because he's not really a bad guy, just a naive soldier boy. At least that's how he was written for most of the movie.

And come on, he forced her to go to the party because he wanted to get it on with her.

[Qrazy]

He's vain and he's stupid because he has no ability to perceive what he really represents to Shohanna. Never in a million years would he imagine that his beloved Nazi party could destroy this beautiful girl's life.

But, if he had been on the field as anything else other than a sniper and had witnessed the first scene of the movie, his entire belief system would have crashed down on him, because he's not really a bad guy, just a naive soldier boy. At least that's how he was written for most of the movie.

And come on, he forced her to go to the party because he wanted to get it on with her.

To me he seemed like a fairly bad guy pretending to be a better guy than he was in order to get in a girl's pants. His capacity for abusing for abuse of power was always lurking just below the surface.

Simply because he knows a thing or two about films doesn't alter his moral compass imo. I feel like there's enough evidence in the film outside of the potential rape to draw into question his dubious character.

It felt like he was frequently expressing faux-humility around Shoshannah. To me he seemed manipulative rather than naive.

[Dead & Messed Up]

He communicated it pretty well for me too. I just don't see Zoller as a bad guy, which is why I don't like the outburst of violence Tarantino wrote for him near the end. I think that was sort of playing it too convenient for the audience, which isn't what makes Tarantino a great writer at all.

I don't know. I took that moment as a point where he gave in to his uniform. Much of the film is about disguises, deceptions, and whether people are what they appear to be on the surface. Landa tries to escape his uniform at the end, considering his Jew Hunter persona a mere outfit he can dispose of at his own whims. Raine nicely corrects him on that. Zoller, meanwhile, succumbs to his outfit, evolving from a brat with a sense of humility (fake?) to an entitled, violent rapist. Because he thinks his status as a Nazi hero allows him that privilege. Both men are the worst of what being a Nazi entails, and they're both in a form of denial about their identity.

That's my theory, anyway.

[D_Davis]

I don't know. I took that moment as a point where he gave in to his uniform. Much of the film is about disguises, deceptions, and whether people are what they appear to be on the surface. Landa tries to escape his uniform at the end, considering his Jew Hunter persona a mere outfit he can dispose of at his own whims. Raine nicely corrects him on that. Zoller, meanwhile, succumbs to his outfit, evolving from a brat with a sense of humility (fake?) to an entitled, violent rapist. Because he thinks his status as a Nazi hero allows him that privilege. Both men are the worst of what being a Nazi entails, and they're both in a form of denial about their identity.

That's my theory, anyway.

That was a bingo!

[Adam]

Hmmmm, there's no happy medium here. Everybody's either giving QT too much credit or not enough, it seems. I am going to give him too much credit

Looking past Zoller's Nazism and soldier massacring for a sec here, I think Tarantino drew him as pretty endearing. Obnoxious and oblivious, maybe, but weirdly likable. He had a crush on Shosannah and she has moments where she's clearly into him in spite of herself, too. So the idea is that, in another life, maybe these two people could've been together. A major theme in Inglourious Basterds is "the power of film." Lotsa stuff about propaganda and in the end hundreds of Nazis are literally destroyed by a movie. Shosannah and Zoller were united by their love of film and, for Tarantino, that's enough

Also, I think Daniel Bruhl's performance in this movie is way under-appreciated. Fassbender, too. Those two were just as fun to watch as Christoph Waltz was

[Melville]

Zoller, meanwhile, succumbs to his outfit, evolving from a brat with a sense of humility (fake?) to an entitled, violent rapist. Because he thinks his status as a Nazi hero allows him that privilege.
I pretty much agree with your take, but I think there's one more step involved. One of the things I like about the almost-rape scene is that Zoller goes up to the projection booth disgusted by the symbol that the Nazis have made him into. Like Landa, he thinks he can throw off his old role. He thinks he can take on the new one of the nice guy. And he thinks that as the nice guy, he should get the girl. But he's carrying the inflated ego that came with his old symbolic role: he thinks that he's not just the nice guy, but the nice guy who has rejected and overcome the propagandistic Nazi symbolism assigned to him. And if that doesn't guarantee him the girl, then what does? But when his new self-assigned role doesn't get him what he thinks he deserves, he immediately succumbs to the old one and the sense of privilege and force that it entails.

So, basically, I think both Landa and Zoller try to escape their symbolic roles, but they both end up stuck with them (for different reasons).

[Qrazy]

I pretty much agree with your take, but I think there's one more step involved. One of the things I like about the almost-rape scene is that Zoller goes up to the projection booth disgusted by the symbol that the Nazis have made him into. Like Landa, he thinks he can throw off his old role. He thinks he can take on the new one of the nice guy. And he thinks that as the nice guy, he should get the girl. But he's carrying the inflated ego that came with his old symbolic role: he thinks that he's not just the nice guy, but the nice guy who has rejected and overcome the propagandistic Nazi symbolism assigned to him. And if that doesn't guarantee him the girl, then what does? But when his new self-assigned role doesn't get him what he thinks he deserves, he immediately succumbs to the old one and the sense of privilege and force that it entails.

So, basically, I think both Landa and Zoller try to escape their symbolic roles, but they both end up stuck with them (for different reasons).

Personally I think when the character claims that he is full of crap. He stops watching the film not because he is disgusted with what it is portraying or the symbol he has become, but because he is self critical of his performance in the recreation. I don't think he has any problem being a war hero personally. I think he simply critical of his own acting in the film. Furthermore just to be clear I have no problem with Zoller being portrayed the way I feel he is being portrayed. But I don't agree with those (including Tarantino) who think that he and Shoshannah would have had any kind of lasting relationship in any other context. The guy is a worm.

[Qrazy]

I'm actually watching Crumb right now and one particular quotation sums up my feelings about Tarantino's direction here quite well. I'm just going to provide the Crumb specific line, the particulars are easily shifted in the mind of the reader (substitute 50s satire with war/cinema/violence commentary). The comment is in relation to a Crumb cartoon in which 1950's suburban parents have sex with their children.

"On the one hand, it's a satire of the 1950s, the healthy facade of the American family, and it kind of exposes the sickness under the surface. But at the same time you sense that Crumb is getting off on it himself in some other way, and on another level it's an orgy, it's a self-indulgent orgy... I think this theme in his work is omnipresent. It's part of an arrested juvenile vision."

[Adam]

"On the one hand, it's a satire of the 1950s, the healthy facade of the American family, and it kind of exposes the sickness under the surface. But at the same time you sense that Crumb is getting off on it himself in some other way, and on another level it's an orgy, it's a self-indulgent orgy... I think this theme in his work is omnipresent. It's part of an arrested juvenile vision."

Even if this were true of Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds, isn't that just even more wonderfully meta? It's joyous masturbation, yeah, but at the same time, he's chiding his audience and himself for enjoying it. You've gotten into it in this thread why you feel this kind of thing doesn't work, but for me, it totally can and it's all in the execution. I actually find this approach more honest and interesting than something like Funny Games, where it's just 100 minutes of Haneke preaching. Inglourious Basterds entertains, but then it pulls the rug out from under you. The movie's always operating on a number of different levels. I can see why you liken this to having your cake and eating it, too, but I dig it


Personally I think when the character claims that he is full of crap. He stops watching the film not because he is disgusted with what it is portraying or the symbol he has become, but because he is self critical of his performance in the recreation. I don't think he has any problem being a war hero personally. I think he simply critical of his own acting in the film. Furthermore just to be clear I have no problem with Zoller being portrayed the way I feel he is being portrayed. But I don't agree with those (including Tarantino) who think that he and Shoshannah would have had any kind of lasting relationship in any other context. The guy is a worm.

Doesn't Zoller have a moment, though, where he brushes off Goebbels in the theater? That's kind of evidence he's being genuine in his disapproval

And like I said, I think it's pretty clear Shosannah had times where, in spite of herself, she was interested in Zoller. So I dunno how unimaginable a relationship is there, if not for their situation. They both love movies!

I think DaMU and Melville nailed it except, yeah, I was definitely more sympathetic towards Zoller than everybody else seems to have been. Also, just on the idea of trying to escape a symbolic role, I love how in the first chapter of the film, Landa has this big spiel about how much he embraces being seen as this Jew Hunter and all. But then when we see him again a few years later, he completely resents it

[Qrazy]

Even if this were true of Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds, isn't that just even more wonderfully meta? It's joyous masturbation, yeah, but at the same time, he's chiding his audience and himself for enjoying it. You've gotten into it in this thread why you feel this kind of thing doesn't work, but for me, it totally can and it's all in the execution. I actually find this approach more honest and interesting than something like Funny Games, where it's just 100 minutes of Haneke preaching. Inglourious Basterds entertains, but then it pulls the rug out from under you. The movie's always operating on a number of different levels. I can see why you liken this to having your cake and eating it, too, but I dig it.

Fair. I mean I do feel it to be the cake issue but I also feel both films have their strengths and weaknesses. Funny Games strength lies in it's performances and reaction to violence. It's weaknesses have already been well documented. And I think I got into what I feel to be Basterds strengths early in the thread.


Doesn't Zoller have a moment, though, where he brushes off Goebbels in the theater? That's kind of evidence he's being genuine in his disapproval.

I'm not sure if it's a condemnation of the content (in the sense of the perspective on the enemy and violence... it is a reaction to the dramatic content) of Goebbels film. I took it to be more his reaction to the crappy filmmaking and distaste with the enthusiasm of the crowd. Above all I think Goebbels film functions as Tarantino's criticisms of war films of a certain type... death after death... little interest in dialogue or character.


And like I said, I think it's pretty clear Shosannah had times where, in spite of herself, she was interested in Zoller. So I dunno how unimaginable a relationship is there, if not for their situation. They both love movies!


Women are frequently interested in assholes, but that doesn't mean the dynamic will lead to a loving, lasting relationship.

[Melville]

Personally I think when the character claims that he is full of crap. He stops watching the film not because he is disgusted with what it is portraying or the symbol he has become, but because he is self critical of his performance in the recreation.
Maybe I'm misremembering the scene, but I recall it clearly showing him being upset by the film's presentation of him and its celebration of bloodshed.


I'm actually watching Crumb right now and one particular quotation sums up my feelings about Tarantino's direction here quite well. I'm just going to provide the Crumb specific line, the particulars are easily shifted in the mind of the reader (substitute 50s satire with war/cinema/violence commentary). The comment is in relation to a Crumb cartoon in which 1950's suburban parents have sex with their children.

"On the one hand, it's a satire of the 1950s, the healthy facade of the American family, and it kind of exposes the sickness under the surface. But at the same time you sense that Crumb is getting off on it himself in some other way, and on another level it's an orgy, it's a self-indulgent orgy... I think this theme in his work is omnipresent. It's part of an arrested juvenile vision."
I agree that Tarantino's films, as well as the quotes I've heard from him, show that he relishes on-screen violence and has an unsavory moral vision. But I just don't see why conflicting elements in a work of art are necessarily a bad thing. By making the art more challenging, complex, and provocative, the conflicting elements add to the whole, in my eyes at least. And in the case of Inglourious Basterds, the two elements, and their self-reflexive combination, seem perfectly suited to the set up of the film as a kind of postmodern playground of symbols, movies, and history. Unless the "arrested juvenile vision" overwhelms the commentary, or somehow renders it void, why does it lessen the overall work?

EDIT: also, Crumb rocks. Crumb, too.


I actually find this approach more honest and interesting than something like Funny Games, where it's just 100 minutes of Haneke preaching.
But Funny Games isn't just preaching. If you take out the preaching, you're still left with a damn tense movie. It doesn't relish the violence like Tarantino does, in the mode of an action movie, but it does successfully employ it in the mode of a thriller.

[Qrazy]

Maybe I'm misremembering the scene, but I recall it clearly showing him being upset by the film's presentation of him and its celebration of bloodshed.

I'm not sure I remember it perfectly either. I remember him looking up at the screen, seeing himself, and then looking away and shaking his head with his hand on his face.


I agree that Tarantino's films, as well as the quotes I've heard from him, show that he relishes on-screen violence and has an unsavory moral vision. But I just don't see why conflicting elements in a work of art are necessarily a bad thing. By making the art more challenging, complex, and provocative, the conflicting elements add to the whole, in my eyes at least. And in the case of Inglourious Basterds, the two elements, and their self-reflexive combination, seem perfectly suited to the set up of the film as a kind of postmodern playground of symbols, movies, and history. Unless the "arrested juvenile vision" overwhelms the commentary, or somehow renders it void, why does it lessen the overall work?


In relation to the film itself I spoke earlier in the thread about what I thought worked, and where I felt it overreached itself, or certain readings of the film went too far. So I guess I do feel Tarantino's id overwhelms the picture in places. More generally and also specifically though, I don't see that slowly carving a swastika into a guy's head makes the work more challenging or complex. Conflicting elements in a work of art is not necessarily a bad thing.

[ledfloyd]

So, basically, I think both Landa and Zoller try to escape their symbolic roles, but they both end up stuck with them (for different reasons).
interesting that raine is the only one that doesn't change over the course of the film and he comes out on top for remaining true to himself, even though he's not exactly virtuous.



I'm actually watching Crumb right now and one particular quotation sums up my feelings about Tarantino's direction here quite well. I'm just going to provide the Crumb specific line, the particulars are easily shifted in the mind of the reader (substitute 50s satire with war/cinema/violence commentary). The comment is in relation to a Crumb cartoon in which 1950's suburban parents have sex with their children.

"On the one hand, it's a satire of the 1950s, the healthy facade of the American family, and it kind of exposes the sickness under the surface. But at the same time you sense that Crumb is getting off on it himself in some other way, and on another level it's an orgy, it's a self-indulgent orgy... I think this theme in his work is omnipresent. It's part of an arrested juvenile vision."
i agree with this. but i like crumb, and i like tarantino. both are juvenile. but the fact that they don't merely give into those urges and criticize them while indulging in them is what makes them interesting to me. if crumb made porn comics or tarantino made completely mindless films i would sympathize with the criticism more. but the artist wrestling with his own desires is incredibly intriguing to me. he's always made movies about movies, and he still is, but with death proof he has introduced a new layer to his work that i find very intriguing, if not as immediately satisfying.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah, I didn't get any vibe from Shosanna that she'd be interested in Zoller. She went from being either annoyed to flat-out disgusted by him, and I didn't notice anything outside of that range.

[Ezee E]

I haven't read the last few pages, but are people still thinking that Shoshanna was interested? If so, I wonder if they even watched the movie.

[Fezzik]

I haven't read the last few pages, but are people still thinking that Shoshanna was interested? If so, I wonder if they even watched the movie.

She never even hinted at being possibly interested, which is why I'm not sure I buy Tarantino's "Romeo and Juliet" thing. She always came off as annoyed by his presence. If there'd been interest there, she'd at least have shown it in some way, even if she did it when he wasn't around.

Why did she check on him at the end? No idea, but my guess is that it was a combination of a typical human response with a sudden fascination based on his status as a movie icon, although I think the latter is pretty weakly established.

[Qrazy]

interesting that raine is the only one that doesn't change over the course of the film and he comes out on top for remaining true to himself, even though he's not exactly virtuous.



i agree with this. but i like crumb, and i like tarantino. both are juvenile. but the fact that they don't merely give into those urges and criticize them while indulging in them is what makes them interesting to me. if crumb made porn comics or tarantino made completely mindless films i would sympathize with the criticism more. but the artist wrestling with his own desires is incredibly intriguing to me. he's always made movies about movies, and he still is, but with death proof he has introduced a new layer to his work that i find very intriguing, if not as immediately satisfying.

Yeah but the quotation is about specific comics of Crumb, not everything he's done. It's also about criticizing a certain element of the work (of that comic), not the work in total. That's why the first half of the quotation is devoted to saying... 'on the one hand it's about something'... 'on the other hand'.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I didn't get any vibe from Shosanna that she'd be interested in Zoller. She went from being either annoyed to flat-out disgusted by him, and I didn't notice anything outside of that range.

Yeah the moment of weakness at the end seemed to me more of a 'moment of pity after (almost) killing someone' rather than an interest in the guy romantically.

[Benny Profane]

Yeah the moment of weakness at the end seemed to me more of a 'moment of pity after (almost) killing someone' rather than an interest in the guy romantically.

Why would she feel pity? She was about to incinerate a whole theater full of Nazis and knew he'd be included.

I thought she just wanted to make sure he was dead. This sort of "surprise, I'm not dead!" move happens all the time in Hollywood movies, which just added to the whole idea of movie-movie theatricality that QT was striving for.

[Qrazy]

Why would she feel pity? She was about to incinerate a whole theater full of Nazis and knew he'd be included.

I thought she just wanted to make sure he was dead. This sort of "surprise, I'm not dead!" move happens all the time in Hollywood movies, which just added to the whole idea of movie-movie theatricality that QT was striving for.

Well there's a difference between setting up a killzone and going through with a murder without feeling anything at all. Seeing him struggle (another feigned act which seems to express his general personality), bleeding to death on the ground, this seemed to evoke pity in her. If she wanted to make sure he was dead she could have shot him again from a distance. Her expression conveyed pity for his suffering I thought.

[Benny Profane]

Her expression conveyed pity for his suffering I thought.

I definitely didn't notice that.

[Adam]

I thought she clearly connected with him on some level. There are tons of little moments where she's obviously considering him, almost in spite of herself. And when she goes to check on him at the end, Benny, there's a tenderness there that indicates she wasn't just making sure he was dead. Maybe it was meant to be pity, but I dunno. Maybe this is just a projection of my obliviousness with women in real life. Pretty sure she was at least somewhat into him, though

[Ezee E]

I thought she clearly connected with him on some level. There are tons of little moments where she's obviously considering him, almost in spite of herself. And when she goes to check on him at the end, Benny, there's a tenderness there that indicates she wasn't just making sure he was dead. Maybe it was meant to be pity, but I dunno. Maybe this is just a projection of my obliviousness with women in real life. Pretty sure she was at least somewhat into him, though
I'd say it's more of reality hitting her that she just killed someone. It'll be easier to blow up the place, because she's going with it, and won't see any suffering firsthand. However, by shooting him, she sees the suffering right in front of her. That'll be tough for anyone. Even if it is someone you don't like.

[Fezzik]

I'd say it's more of reality hitting her that she just killed someone. It'll be easier to blow up the place, because she's going with it, and won't see any suffering firsthand. However, by shooting him, she sees the suffering right in front of her. That'll be tough for anyone. Even if it is someone you don't like.

That actually makes sense...it feeds into the whole facelessness of violence and the "looking into the mirror" that Tarantino was going for.

In blowing up the theatre, its not as "real" to her because, as you said, she is going with it and won't see the suffering, so it will play more like a film in her mind than actual death (which is punctuated by her filmed message to the Nazis).

But seeing Zoller dying on the ground affected her in a completely different way because she acted, saw the consequences of her act and was forced to deal with it in some manner.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, that was a lot to get through, but I remain convinced assuming the worst about this character is not the way the film wants us to operate. Off the top of my head, I'm afraid, and I'm sure most of you are done with the topic, but I can't resist:

1. I wouldn't argue that Shosanna ever shows interest in him. I actually agree that she never likes him one bit. But that doesn't belie the fact Tarantino has created these two characters to suggest a relationship, romantic or otherwise, he thinks should have happened if these two people were allowed to retain the innocence he allows both of them to embody.

2. Nothing suggests Zoller forced Shosanna to the party. One of the subtlest and most brilliant touches is having Shosanna be coerced to the luncheon, and then be greeted by Zoller with surprise that she even accepted his invitation. It speaks to the invisible arms power has and the way militaristic power has wormed invisibly

3. So he's a bad guy. He's thoroughly corrupted. I mean, he does freaking shoot her in the end. But why does that mean we're not supposed to sympathize with him? Why should that take away from the fact he's given aspects in order to represent a past innocence?

4. Going along with #3, Tarantino can be making the point I'm trying to argue the film is making - that the "Nazi identity," or the uniform, can be shaken off - while, in the events of the film, present a person unsuccessfully shaking it off (so Zoller is indeed straight up vile).

It's not the good character of Zoller I'm trying to salvage or make exist, it's a humane message. That the film isn't callous, at all.

[Qrazy]

2. Nothing suggests Zoller forced Shosanna to the party. One of the subtlest and most brilliant touches is having Shosanna be coerced to the luncheon, and then be greeted by Zoller with surprise that she even accepted his invitation. It speaks to the invisible arms power has and the way militaristic power has wormed invisibly


To me it's suggested this is just another one of his lies. Given his devious nature, most fully presented in his murderous action at the end of the film, I'm not sure why you guys buy into the perceived honesty of this character.

He may wish for her to give herself willingly, but that's more representative of his desire to dominate her completely, than it is of any inherent kindness.

[Bosco B Thug]

To me it's suggested this is just another one of his lies. Given his devious nature, most fully presented in his murderous action at the end of the film, I'm not sure why you guys buy into the perceived honesty of this character.

He may wish for her to give herself willingly, but that's more representative of his desire to dominate her completely, than it is of any inherent kindness. I don't see why you guys buy into some subtextual dishonesty in the character. :)

But, well, this last point of ours is something pretty up in the air.

[Qrazy]

I don't see why you guys buy into some subtextual dishonesty in the character. :)

But, well, this last point of ours is something pretty up in the air.

Because he plays possum so that he'll be able to establish a kill shot? It's textual, not subtextual.

[Bosco B Thug]

Because he plays possum so that he'll be able to establish a kill shot? It's textual, not subtextual.
Nothing concretely suggests he's being duplicitous and conniving. All I have to prove my stance is how I perceived his demeanor, it seems, unfortunately. Your stance has more than that?

[Qrazy]

Nothing concretely suggests he's being duplicitous and conniving. All I have to prove my stance is how I perceived his demeanor, it seems, unfortunately. Your stance has more than that?

1. Gets shot.
2. Lies on ground face down and moves around a little bit suggesting defeat.
3. Shoshannah goes over to see what she's done.
4. He flips over and blows her away. Turns out he had enough energy to lure her in and kill her!

This kind of thing is pretty much a staple of Nazi films. Never trust a Nazi. They will ultimately betray you while using your emotions against you.

1) 49th Parallel
2) Lifeboat

[Raiders]

Never trust a Nazi. They will ultimately betray you while using your emotions against you.

Just like cylons!

<--------- has nothing useful to add to the conversation

[Qrazy]

Just like cylons!

<--------- has nothing useful to add to the conversation

It's true. If Hitler had won the war and created AI we'd have a bunch of Cylonzis running around all over the place.

[Bosco B Thug]

1. Gets shot.
2. Lies on ground face down and moves around a little bit suggesting defeat.
3. Shoshannah goes over to see what she's done.
4. He flips over and blows her away. Turns out he had enough energy to lure her in and kill her!

This kind of thing is pretty much a staple of Nazi films. Never trust a Nazi. They will ultimately betray you while using your emotions against you.

1) 49th Parallel
2) Lifeboat Suggests nothing (to me, anyway) about his interiority through the film. I've acknowledged the thorough rottenness of his final action. So what? But I've already made my arguments about how this film's commentary is about the liquidity and meaninglessness (and tragedy, especially if Zoller is as much an irredeemable person as you suggest) of political identity.

So it's a quotation. Cute. Also, reason IB is more interesting than Lifeboat.

[Qrazy]

Suggests nothing (to me, anyway) about his interiority through the film. I've acknowledged the thorough rottenness of his final action. So what? But I've already made my arguments about how this film's commentary is about the liquidity and meaninglessness (and tragedy, especially if Zoller is as much an irredeemable person as you suggest) of political identity.


So you're suggesting that he's really a good guy but just makes a bad choice at the end or? I don't buy it. His last violent action is incredibly manipulative and could only be committed by an individual of a certain character. He didn't just kill her. It was the way in which he killed her.

I don't really care about his political identity so I guess I"m with you there? I care about his moral identity. He makes certain ethical decisions throughout the film which suggest his lack of moral scruples. Anyway I never said this was a problem with the character. All I'm saying is I don't see him and Shoshannah hooking up if he wasn't a Nazi (simply because he likes film).

He repeatedly makes the choice to abuse his power. It may be left unsaid that he forced her to the luncheon but personally I think the implication is there, compounded by his final actions. It was always clear (to me) in all of their interactions that he was the one in power and that she can only spurn his advances for so long.

Here's the death scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMCLLiX5mRA

Note how he even puts a final bullet in her. He is the systematic killer that she is not. Also for those who questioned her pity note the way she responds to the noises he makes (:40) and her tender approach.

Out of curiosity does anyone know what/why there seems to be a mini-explosion when Shosanna is first shot?


So it's a quotation. Cute. Also, reason IB is more interesting than Lifeboat.

I don't know what this sentence means.

[ledfloyd]

she did shoot him first. i'm not saying violence justifies violence. but from what i can tell he had no intention of killing her until she shot him.

also, i don't think she shows much interest in him in the film. because he's a nazi. but it is implied that if he wasn't a nazi, there would be a potential there. yes, it's just a common love of film. but you underestimate how much that means to tarantino.

[Qrazy]

she did shoot him first. i'm not saying violence justifies violence. but from what i can tell he had no intention of killing her until she shot him.

Of course he didn't, why would he? It's not fun having sex with a corpse.


also, i don't think she shows much interest in him in the film. because he's a nazi. but it is implied that if he wasn't a nazi, there would be a potential there. yes, it's just a common love of film. but you underestimate how much that means to tarantino.

I don't care how much a love of film means to Tarantino. It means nothing in relation to behavior (that is to say, ethical decision making). Whether he was a Nazi or not, if he was any position of power he would abuse that power. I don't even know what it means to say if he were not a Nazi, a soldier, and not in a position of power they could have a relationship. If he were none of those things he wouldn't be the person he is, making the immoral choices he does. And frankly even if he were none of those things she is already in a perfectly loving relationship. Why would she leave her lover (who presumably knows just as much about film) for some other dude who also knows something about film. Because he's more of a manipulative asshole? Because he's whiter? Where is this Romeo and Juliet romance? Was Juliet already in love with someone else at the time? I'm really not seeing the guy's allure here.

[Bosco B Thug]

So you're suggesting that he's really a good guy but just makes a bad choice at the end or? I don't buy it. His last violent action is incredibly manipulative and could only be committed by an individual of a certain character. He didn't just kill her. It was the way in which he killed her.
Here's the death scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMCLLiX5mRA

Note how he even puts a final bullet in her. He is the systematic killer that she is not. Also for those who questioned her pity note the way she responds to the noises he makes (:40) and her tender approach. Again, you're mistaking my remarks as attempting to justify his personal virtue when I'm merely claiming the message of the film, regarding how human beings (and he is humanized to an extent, unlike Goebbels and Landa) are corrupted and pettily politicized, means for us to see tragedy in this character, not just disgust, even with how pitilessly he kills her.


I don't really care about his political identity so I guess I"m with you there? I care about his moral identity. He makes certain ethical decisions throughout the film which suggest his lack of moral scruples. I'm unconvinced your position (and many others, I'll give you that) has any more evidence than mine does. We're just accepting the demeanor of this character in different ways.

Really, it shouldn't matter. As I said earlier, your take on the character takes no skin off the back of the film's rhetorical commentary. Fine, he's evil and he's despicable - but that Evil and Despicableness that has inhabited him is one of socialization and politicalization. The way he approaches the art of film is a remnant of an innocence inherent in him, even though he's a Nazi.

But, to not be too conciliatory, I'm still unclear what these "ethical decisions throughout the film" are.


Anyway I never said this was a problem with the character. All I'm saying is I don't see him and Shoshannah hooking up if he wasn't a Nazi (simply because he likes film). Have I admitted this yet? I don't either.


He repeatedly makes the choice to abuse his power. It may be left unsaid that he forced her to the luncheon but personally I think the implication is there, compounded by his final actions. It was always clear (to me) in all of their interactions that he was the one in power and that she can only spurn his advances for so long. I don't see it. Sorry. We'll have to agree to disagree. And remember, you've got most on your side.


I don't know what this sentence means. It's "a" reason IB is more interesting than Lifeboat.

Which is no useless slight on Lifeboat, if that's what you're thinking. I'm trying to point out how meaningless it is to superimpose one film's moral code as IB's moral code. So he wanted to "quote" the old tradition of the victims paying for pitying the monster. That doesn't mean IB doesn't offer its very intricate, mature analysis of the monster that Lifeboat doesn't offer. Lifeboat's fine without it, IB's all the better with it.

[Bosco B Thug]

And frankly even if he were none of those things she is already in a perfectly loving relationship. Why would she leave her lover (who presumably knows just as much about film) for some other dude who also knows something about film. Because he's more of a manipulative asshole? Because he's whiter? Where is this Romeo and Juliet romance? Was Juliet already in love with someone else at the time? I'm really not seeing the guy's allure here. You're not trying very hard to turn the other cheek, you know.

OKAY, my final exacerbating point maybe:

Forgoing her love for Marcel is not what I mean, it's her denying any sort of relationship with a man who loves film as much as her, which, no two ways about it, is obviously an elevated spiritual bond in Tarantino's eyes. Alright, so don't see Zoller as virtuous in any way and that his MO is all manipulations.

It's not just his worthwhileness that's at stake, it's also her humanity. Or at least, her - an individual human being's - life left un chokeholed by not-at-all substantial political/social hatreds she and others hold (whether her with Nazis or Nazis with the non-Aryan).

He numerous times tries to appeal to her at a philosophical level. NOT that I can't accept that it's all an act (and NOT that I want her character to be weak and mushy or befriend a Nazi), but her coldness, I feel, is also (in addition to the Zoller innocence I'm making up) meant to be seen as tragic, even if his ultimate Evilness puts her in the right.

[Qrazy]

Again, you're mistaking my remarks as attempting to justify his personal virtue when I'm merely claiming the message of the film, regarding how human beings (and he is humanized to an extent, unlike Goebbels and Landa) are corrupted and pettily politicized, means for us to see tragedy in this character, not just disgust, even with how pitilessly he kills her.

Really, it shouldn't matter. As I said earlier, your take on the character takes no skin off the back of the film's rhetorical commentary. Fine, he's evil and he's despicable - but that Evil and Despicableness that has inhabited him is one of socialization and politicalization. The way he approaches the art of film is a remnant of an innocence inherent in him, even though he's a Nazi.

I don't think the film delves very deeply into this personally (substitute evil for abuse of power) although if it wanted to make a meaningful statement about social ideology and historicity it probably should (raise the issues of a) Nazi ideology... beyond Waltz's initial monologue which is a gross simplification b) The manifold reasons people became Nazis c) The general psychological tendency to rationalize an ideology once you are committed to it d) The conflation of nationalism with social darwinism and even more so with prejudice and hate).


But, to not be too conciliatory, I'm still unclear what these "ethical decisions throughout the film" are.

I feel like I've already cited them so yes, agree to disagree.


Have I admitted this yet? I don't either.

Fair enough but that's what the crux of all that I'm arguing is about (I wasn't so much arguing with you then as with others who were maintaining they would have gotten together).


Which is no useless slight on Lifeboat, if that's what you're thinking. I'm trying to point out how meaningless it is to superimpose one film's moral code as IB's moral code. So he wanted to "quote" the old tradition of the victims paying for pitying the monster. That doesn't mean IB doesn't offer its very intricate, mature analysis of the monster that Lifeboat doesn't offer. Lifeboat's fine without it, IB's all the better with it.

I wasn't saying anything about whether he was quoting or not. I was simply saying that he seems to be following in that tradition. Personally I don't think that IB presents a particularly mature analysis of what it means to be a Nazi or why people become Nazis. More intricate than Lifeboat? For sure, but that's no hard feat given that Lifeboat is a borderline propaganda piece.

[Qrazy]

He numerous times tries to appeal to her at a philosophical level. NOT that I can't accept that it's all an act (and NOT that I want her character to be weak and mushy or befriend a Nazi), but her coldness, I feel, is also (in addition to the Zoller innocence I'm making up) meant to be seen as tragic, even if his ultimate Evilness puts her in the right.

It may be tragic but it is a necessary tragedy. It is necessary to sustain one's own life.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't think the film delves very deeply into this personally (substitute evil for abuse of power) although if it wanted to make a meaningful statement about social ideology and historicity it probably should (raise the issues of a) Nazi ideology... beyond Waltz's initial monologue which is a gross simplification b) The manifold reasons people became Nazis c) The general psychological tendency to rationalize an ideology once you are committed to it d) The conflation of nationalism with social darwinism and even more so with prejudice and hate). Fair enough, IB is certainly coasting off high, superficial drama rather than deep theory. I still think there's a profound rhetoric and almost-theory going on underneath that superficial drama, but yes, perhaps it's not exactly learned. I believe it touches upon many of those things, though.

A tangential indulgence, not directed at you (although you do call it a gross simplification, in some way, which I won't argue): I really love Waltz's initial monologue. The first scene was a'ight when I first watched it, but in 2nd viewing, it practically contains the whole message of the film! We often irrationally categorize groups i.e. verminous, plague-spreading rats vs. cute squirrels. But rats don't deserve it as there's hardly, truly a difference - just prejudices that last from stigmatized histories and the unfortunateness of social groupings.


I wasn't saying anything about whether he was quoting or not. I was simply saying that he seems to be following in that tradition. Personally I don't think that IB presents a particularly mature analysis of what it means to be a Nazi or why people become Nazis. More intricate than Lifeboat? For sure, but that's no hard feat given that Lifeboat is a borderline propaganda piece. Okay, semi-truce.

I have no opinion of Lifeboat, for the record.

[Grouchy]

Of course he didn't, why would he? It's not fun having sex with a corpse.
You have no idea.

[Qrazy]

You have no idea.

True, that was presumptuous of me.

[number8]

I've seen Visitor Q. It did not look pleasurable.

[BuffaloWilder]

...no, that sounds about right. Keep going.

[kuehnepips]

Give me a break guys. There is nothing really important about this film aside from perhaps the performance of Waltz. ... Tarantino once again proves how amazing he is at ... stealing music from his favorite movie scores, name dropping more important historical filmmakers than himself along with his knowledge of pre and post war German cinema, and satisfying his foot fetish.

....

Laughing at the violence in Trash cinema is perfectly exceptable and likely welcomed so I don't find that disturbing. I suppose the disturbing part is that a Trash film surrounding the Holocaust was even made to begin with.

Exactly.

[Benny Profane]

I know this is probably a silly question that's been covered in the thread already, but why is the title misspelled?

I thought it might have something to do with the content of the film, but if it does, I missed it.

[kuehnepips]

Well, there is an original "Inglorious Bastards". :rolleyes:

BTW don't read Zadie Smith.

[ledfloyd]

Well, there is an original "Inglorious Bastards". :rolleyes:

BTW don't read Zadie Smith.
btw, don't listen to him.

[kuehnepips]

Her.

[Ezee E]

It's written on Brad Pitt's bat that way. I'm guessing he's not very educated and thought that's how it was spelled. Hence, the title as a result. They just decided not to show the scene, if it's actually there.

[ledfloyd]

Her.
oops, sorry.

[Grouchy]

It's written on Brad Pitt's bat that way. I'm guessing he's not very educated and thought that's how it was spelled. Hence, the title as a result. They just decided not to show the scene, if it's actually there.
Yeah, that's what I think as well.

[Qrazy]

Also the new spelling turns it into 'our' which has some interesting connotations. That is to say they are the protagonists... those which we root for... but to what degree should we? They are also 'our' boys... America... nationalism... etc.

[number8]

Uhhh, if you want the real answer, it's because Quentin Tarantino doesn't know how to spell.

[BuffaloWilder]

This would not surprise me.

[number8]

I have some of QT's original scripts. He's really just abominable when it comes to spelling. Worse of all is that his vocabulary is superb, so he uses big words a lot (correctly), but misspells them.

[balmakboor]

I re-watched the first four chapters this afternoon and then got sidetracked, but I was definitely digging what I was seeing a whole lot more than the first time. I'm sure it will follow the same path for me as so many other Tarantinos.

1st viewing - meh
2nd viewing - great
3rd viewing - classic

I'll probably watch chapters 4 and 5 tomorrow and know for sure.

Two Tarantinos didn't follow that path for me though. Jackie Brown and Death Proof were both:

1st - great
2nd - classic
3rd - classic

[[ETM]]

Pretty awesome commissioned posters for Inglorious Basterds by Alex Pardee, Sam Flores, David Choe, and about 10 others to be sold only six prints each, $300 a piece, proceeds go to Haiti. (http://omgposters.com/2010/02/17/the-lost-art-of-inglourious-basterds/)

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e158/mcnail/OMG3/alex-pardee.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e158/mcnail/OMG3/martinez-hand-ib.jpg

[balmakboor]

;242993']Pretty awesome commissioned posters for Inglorious Basterds by Alex Pardee, Sam Flores, David Choe, and about 10 others to be sold only six prints each, $300 a piece, proceeds go to Haiti. (http://omgposters.com/2010/02/17/the-lost-art-of-inglourious-basterds/)


Only six each and signed by Tarantino and looking that awesome. Why are they giving them away for $300.00? They should be able to get ten times that if they do this properly.

[[ETM]]

Only six each and signed by Tarantino and looking that awesome. Why are they giving them away for $300.00? They should be able to get ten times that if they do this properly.

Agreed. They could auction them off for insane amounts.

[DavidSeven]

Six months late to the party as usual. I’m sure anything smart to be said about the film was well covered in this thread. I will just add that it is in this moment, some 16 years later, that Tarantino finally removes himself from the shadow of Pulp Fiction. This film’s characters and scenarios are perhaps not as immediately iconic as the one that earned him a career’s worth of good will, but it is certainly his richest piece to date. In many respects, it is a film that I, and I am sure others, did not even realize he had in him. I’m a huge fan. Always was. But the thematic complexity, use of imagery, and restraint on display here break free from the limitations we placed on him (as we do to all directors) as his body of work developed. This all while he avoided compromising what we actually like about him as a filmmaker and while hitting a level of naturalism that he has strained for since Jackie Brown. We have not seen Tarantino construct individual scenes this riveting, this precise, and this memorable in ages. Landa’s introduction, The Tavern, and The Revenge of The Giant Face join the ranks of The Bonnie Situation, Vincent and Mia, and Hopper vs. Walken. Add to that an unexpected social insightfulness and marked evolution in technical competence and we have a new benchmark in Tarantino’s canon. I recall that Tarantino was once asked in an interview (circa ’94) if he thought he would ever make his own Schindler’s List (a film that would transform him from a genre filmmaker to a “serious” one). He responded that he would love to make a movie as cool as Schindler’s List one day. Sorry Quentin, looks like you have actually made something 100 times cooler.

I apologize and understand if the gushing is passé and even sickening at this point. I was unaware of this film's critical/MC reception going in, and this damned thing knocked me off my feet.

[Qrazy]

Naturalism and restraint are the two last words I'd use to describe this film. Precision fits though.

[DavidSeven]

Naturalism and restraint are the two last words I'd use to describe this film. Precision fits though.

Naturalism in the sense that I felt the dialogue, characters, etc. didn't feel forced or at least as self-conscious as they did in something like Kill Bill.

Restraint in that I feel Tarantino reveals a lot about the substance and narrative through very minor actions that propel the story/dialogue forward (e.g. the switch from French to English, Landa's love and then subsequent disdain for his Nazi-hunter nickname).

[megladon8]

This was really good, but I'm not "OH MY GOD, IT'S A MILLION OUT OF TEN, SO FUCKING AWESOME!!!" like some of my friends and other people I know who loved the film.

I was particularly impressed with the opening segment "Once upon a time...in Nazi occupied France". I would have loved to have seen this segment as a simple short film.

That segment, in itself, I would give a 10 out of 10. Brilliant writing, direction, acting. Just incredible stuff.

However, much of the rest of the film feels like a mish-mash of Tarantino's usual self-masturbatory tendencies, where he lets himself wander off onto too many unnecessary (or at least unnecessarily long) tangents. The segment in the bar, with Michael Fassbender, felt unending. And not in a good, stylistic way. I was bored.

The film is at its most interesting when it's dissecting the cultural importance of film, and the incredible power of acting.

I actually find it quite funny that so many here at MatchCut received this film and its analyses so well, because the film is such a testament to acting - an area of film that many MatchCutters are either uninterested in, or have little respect for. We often devote much more serious talk to the writing, directing, editing, mise en scene, etc. The acting is often an after-thought.

But every scene in the film involves the characters acting, both subtly and outright. Hans Landa bases his entire career off his incredible skills as an actor capable of keeping his emotions in reserve and hiding his true face. Hitler is pathetic and incompetent because he cannot control his emotions in any way. Every time we see him he is at the mercy of his feelings, entirely unable to keep up his act. And in Tarantino's world, this makes him a weakling.

The film has incredible, interesting layers, but Tarantino's usual excesses seem painfully out of place. When we see Shosanna dressing up for the premiere, putting on her make-up like war-paint to some '80s power ballad, it feels insincere. Like Tarantino needed to remind movie-goers that "hey, don't take this too seriously! Remember, I'm the guy who made the Kill Bill movies!" as if the dialogue and constant movie-chatter wasn't enough of a hint that it was him behind the camera and pen.

So, in the end, I really enjoyed this. A lot more than I thought I would. And I look forward to watching it again.

And while I can't say that I think Tarantino has outdone Pulp Fiction yet, Inglourious Basterds was refreshing after the oh-so-disappointing Kill Bill saga.

[Grouchy]

Can't believe you waited so long to watch this.

[megladon8]

Can't believe you waited so long to watch this.


Why?

[Grouchy]

Why?
Because it took you so long to watch it.

[megladon8]

Because it took you so long to watch it.


OK, you answered by saying the same thing.

I'm not exactly a Tarantino lover. And the movie is really long, so finding a time when I felt I could sit and watch the whole thing was hard.

And there were (and still are) about 100 2009 releases I'm more interested in seeing.

[megladon8]

So I take it this movie's been talked to death already on here.

I think I might watch it again soon.

[number8]

Almost 40 pages' worth. :lol:

[kuehnepips]

OK, you answered by saying the same thing.



:lol:

Very common here.

I'll not watch it again BTW.

[transmogrifier]

The movie is basically a string of exquisitely directed and written set pieces with very little else operating under the hood. Yes, there is a parallel between the patriotic fervor that the German's lapse into during the screening of the propaganda film and the supposed reaction of the audience to Tarantino's film, but it a hoary device, and leads to some way over-the-top, triple underlining annoyances, like Roth at the end in the theatre. And the scene in the projection booth, seeing the demise of two characters, is very poorly thought out and executed.

But forget all that, because IB is a movie of isolated moments of genius that are so impressive that it keeps you hanging in there through the blank spots (Austin Powers? Really?).

[Grouchy]

:lol:

Very common here.

I'll not watch it again BTW.
Huh, I knew I was using the same words.

Geez.

[D_Davis]

The movie is basically a string of exquisitely directed and written set pieces with very little else operating under the hood. .

They're all about suspense - IB is basically a suspense film. The tension in the major sequences is practically unbearable, and it's all built through expertly written dialog, and delivered by quality actors. Tarantino really knows how to direct these dialog-driven set pieces.

[Skitch]

... after the oh-so-disappointing Kill Bill saga.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e125/skitchthemovieman/Net%20Fun/simpsons.jpg

[transmogrifier]

They're all about suspense - IB is basically a suspense film. The tension in the major sequences is practically unbearable, and it's all built through expertly written dialog, and delivered by quality actors. Tarantino really knows how to direct these dialog-driven set pieces.

It is a suspense film only in those sequences though. Outside them, the film is piecemeal and a little hollow and dull. The whole sequence with Mike Myers is a drag, for example.

[D_Davis]

The whole sequence with Mike Myers is a drag, for example.

Yeah - that part is pretty lame. Totally took me out of the movie. It just doesn't belong at all.

[lovejuice]

It is a suspense film only in those sequences though. Outside them, the film is piecemeal and a little hollow and dull. The whole sequence with Mike Myers is a drag, for example.

which scene is that?

[ledfloyd]

i thought it was pretty funny.

'down with hitler'
'all the way down sir'

[Mysterious Dude]

which scene is that?
The scene in which Michael Fassbender (Lieutenant Archie Hicox) is recruited to go undercover in Germany, and they talk about Hitler's film industry. Mike Meyers, under a lot of makeup, plays the British general. I like that scene.

[number8]

I like that scene a lot, too. Fassbender did that scene beautifully.

[Sven]

Without reading anybody's comments in detail on the film yet, I look forward to being convinced that there's something to this movie. I thought it was loathsome, interminable, and phony. Not necessarily in that order. Cat People? Really? Absolutely did not like it.

[transmogrifier]

I think it's incredibly phony, but that's part of its charm.

[Sven]

I think it's incredibly phony, but that's part of its charm.

Phony can be great, but there is nothing to this film's artifice. And even that is too glossy to be really interesting. I cannot figure out what this movie has to offer in the way of human experience.

By the way, just to get under some skin, commenting on the one thing that I figured Tarantino would ace, I didn't even think the scenes were all that tense. The outcome of every scene (every loooooong, draaaawwwwwn oooouuuut, bloooooaaaaated scene) was completely predictable. Of course the people under the floor were gonna get caught, because that's the way scenes like that play out in movies. Of course the tavern scene was gonna end in a massacre. Because that's the way scenes like that play out in movies.
The way they're executed leads one to think that Tarantino makes movies for people who don't absorb the way movies function. At least in this film, his scenes operate fully on an amassing of tropes. The first hour of the film could've made a good opening 20 minutes.

[Adam]

I remember Mike D'Angelo wrote that he was disappointed with IB because Tarantino kept telling the audience what was going to happen and then proceeding to do exactly that. But I think that a unique brand of tension can bubble up when you know what's coming next if it gets drawn out in a precisely, interestingly excruciating way. QT pretty much nails that in the best scenes of this film. For me, at least

[Boner M]

The outcome of every scene (every loooooong, draaaawwwwwn oooouuuut, bloooooaaaaated scene) was completely predictable.
Tension often has everything to do with anticipation of the expected.

EDIT: Heh.

[number8]

I remember Mike D'Angelo wrote that he was disappointed with IB because Tarantino kept telling the audience what was going to happen and then proceeding to do exactly that. But I think that a unique brand of tension can bubble up when you know what's coming next if it gets drawn out in a precisely, interestingly excruciating way. QT pretty much nails that in the best scenes of this film. For me, at least

I remember an early review in Script mag was actually praising it for exactly that, calling the film a successful example of Hitchcock's "show the bomb under the table" theory.

[Sven]

Hey, man, you guys are preaching to the choir on that. Don't pretend like you think I'm dumb enough not to know that already. But we all understand, I hope, too, that things can also really be a drag and that scenes aren't tense JUST because we know what's going to happen. Know what I mean? Tension is born from investment. Am I supposed to be interested in what happens to a guy just because he's a dapper, mustachioed British film critic (and seriously, that's all)? I don't care about him, or some German actress (about whom all I know is that she is female) or the stereotyped Jew/Nazi romance engaged in their generic goings-on. Too little attention to the human element. Few characters achieved even a second-dimension. I guess I'm just not that interested in another treatise on meta-cinema-violence or film history or whatever. This movie was long and foul.

[Sven]

And seriously, guys: Cat People?

Also, might I add: flashback-slow-motion-Nazi-walking-guy-cut-to-Til-Schweiger-big-70s-graphic-distorted-electric-guitar-chord-another-flashback-Samuel-L-Jackson-narration thing was practically the worst thing I've ever seen.

I wouldn't hate the anachronisms if they weren't so annoying.

[Watashi]

Wait. You just saw this now?

What the hell Sven?

[Adam]

Isn't it a given at this point the characters in his films aren't going to forge especially distinct personalities (although in this movie I think the performances are uniformly excellent enough to offset that a bit) and that, yes, there are going to be at least three or four incredibly lame or cringe-worthy sequences?

Either way, oof, Cat People montage is dynamite

[Watashi]

You honestly didn't expect QT to make a straight WWII without injecting some of his off-the-wall Tarantinoisms, did you?

I was surprised how restrained he kept them. I was expecting more.

[Sven]

Isn't it a given at this point the characters in his films aren't going to forge especially distinct personalities (although in this movie I think the performances are uniformly excellent enough to offset that a bit) and that, yes, there are going to be at least three or four incredibly lame or cringe-worthy sequences?

Nope. I like Tarantino's characters. From Pulp Fiction to Death Proof, I've never had much beef with either his people or his scenes. Maybe a couple in Kill Bill.


Either way, oof, Cat People montage is dynamite

A woman puts on make-up?

The iris window design was used much better in the beginning of Color of Night. Though I won't deny its relevant placement here.

[transmogrifier]

Either way, oof, Cat People montage is dynamite

Actually, when I mentioned pointless scenes that didn't work earlier, this could have been Exhibit A. It's very, very boring.

[Sven]

Worst line: "I will not be tripping the light fantastic on the red carpet" or whatever that was. I think I did gag.

Best line: "Ask him how many Germans."
[German soldier says]
[translator:]
"'Round about twelve."

[Boner M]

Hey, man, you guys are preaching to the choir on that. Don't pretend like you think I'm dumb enough not to know that already.
Well, your original post gives that impression. Also a lot of your criticisms are just reducing the film to its basic plot elements with added pejoratives. Although I will agree w/ you on 'meta-cinema-violence' being a very, very tired theme.

And what's wrong with the Cat People montage? A director loves his lead actress and wants to express it in a crazy irrational way. C'mon, surely there're a ton of films you love with the same kind of irrationality, where you watch 'em and think "I know this probably doesn't work for some people, but gee golly!...".

[Sven]

Well, your original post gives that impression. Also a lot of your criticisms are just reducing the film to its basic plot elements with added pejoratives. Although I will agree w/ you on 'meta-cinema-violence' being a very, very tired theme.

Just using the word "predictable" is enough to get a lecture on what "tension" is? Lame. Also, I haven't really gone into criticism mode. Mostly I've just been expressing my immediate displeasure.


And what's wrong with the Cat People montage? A director loves his lead actress and wants to express it in a crazy irrational way.

Nothing happens in the Cat People montage. That is my complaint. A woman looks sullen and puts on some make-up. This does not seem adequate enough to import glam rock, though I did think it was kind of intriguing that the actress does look slightly like Nastassja Kinski, who was in the Schrader film of Cat People, which used the song. Still, that's a pretty dumb reason the import the song, too. It's too precious. I think it, along with the sensibility that decided to include it, does a lot to unravel the impact of the film, which could've packed a great emotional punch where the violence is concerned. Irrational is great, but this was almost as tacky as the music accompanying her and Nazi dude shooting each other, at which I chuckled and balked in equal strength.


C'mon, surely there're a ton of films you love with the same kind of irrationality, where you watch 'em and think "I know this probably doesn't work for some people, but gee golly!...".

Nope. Not a one. Straight-face.

[Fezzik]

Of course the people under the floor were gonna get caught, because that's the way scenes like that play out in movies. Of course the tavern scene was gonna end in a massacre. Because that's the way scenes like that play out in movies.


I'm actually kind of stunned by this particular bit of criticism. In what movies do these things happen? In my experience, the "tropes" are rising tension, making the audience think "thing A" is going to happen, only to have some miraculous turn of events prevent it from happening and causing the audience to let out a nervous sigh of relief.

[Ezee E]

I'm actually kind of stunned by this particular bit of criticism. In what movies do these things happen? In my experience, the "tropes" are rising tension, making the audience think "thing A" is going to happen, only to have some miraculous turn of events prevent it from happening and causing the audience to let out a nervous sigh of relief.

Also to note:
A)Not everyone does die under the stairs, and it sets up the rest of the movie.

B)At what point did you know it would end in a massacre? Also, did you think everyone would die? Not I, and if you did, you're a freakin' genius to think that some of the main characters would be killed so easily.

[Grouchy]

Nothing happens in the Cat People montage. That is my complaint. A woman looks sullen and puts on some make-up.
Yeah, sure, if you weren't paying any attention to the rest of the movie, then you're right, it's just a montage of a woman putting on make-up.

Really, I'm willing to accept reasonable criticism, but all you're saying is mentioning great scenes and moments from the film and arbitrarily calling them "lame". So far you haven't said one thing that convinces me you got a reason to dislike it.

[Derek]

This <-----10 foot pole-----> Me

[D_Davis]

This <-----10 foot pole-----> Derek <<pushing<< Me

[Derek]

This <-----10 foot pole-----> Derek <<pushing<< Me

Ow! Stop that!! :lol:

[Skitch]

What is the cat people montage you guys are referring to? Sorry if dumb question, its been a while.

[Derek]

What is the cat people montage you guys are referring to? Sorry if dumb question, its been a while.

The Bowie song that plays while Shoshana puts on her make-up before the premiere is called "Cat People (Putting Out Fire)".

[Mysterious Dude]

I thought it was pretty clear that "putting on make-up" was kind of a metaphor for going into battle, like Sylvester Stallone putting on black make-up to camouflage himself in the jungle, or something like that. (Is that real or did I make it up? Maybe it was Arnold Schwarzenegger.) Anyway, it seemed purposeful to me. She also loads a gun in the same scene.

[Pop Trash]

It's just war paint. That's all it is. And the moment with the song is just a "pump you up" moment for both the character and the audience. C'mon Sven...

[megladon8]

I, too, thought the song was terribly out of place.

It was almost painfully bad the way that scene was constructed. It felt like someone trying really hard to be like Tarantino and failing in every way.

[Qrazy]

I didn't like the scene either, contrived.

[Pop Trash]

I didn't like the scene either, contrived.

You mean a movie that is about the love of film fiction would have contrived moments? You don't say.

[Qrazy]

You mean a movie that is about the love of film fiction would have contrived moments? You don't say.

"obviously planned, artificial, or lacking in spontaneity; forced; unnatural; labored"

[B-side]

Qrazy is pretty obviously planned, artificial, lacking in spontaneity, forced, unnatural and labored.

[Qrazy]

Qrazy is pretty obviously planned, artificial, lacking in spontaneity, forced, unnatural and labored.

You suck at this.

[B-side]

You suck at this.

http://apleasingfiveness.files.wordpr ess.com/2009/04/no_u.jpg

[Skitch]

The Bowie song that plays while Shoshana puts on her make-up before the premiere is called "Cat People (Putting Out Fire)".
Ahhhhh. Thank you sir. I found that part awkward, but I tend to find QT films to be a collection of awkward filmmaking hairpin turns. That's definately not a defense, just that I didn't find it unusual...for a QT film.

[number8]

I don't really know what's wrong with the song.

[Sven]

I don't really know what's wrong with the song.

Oh, the song is fine. The song is actually pretty awesome.