Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => Movie Talk (Spoiler Edition) => Topic started by: bb6634 on August 21, 2009, 03:08:48 AM

Title: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: bb6634 on August 21, 2009, 03:08:48 AM
Just came back from midnight screening.  Apologies if this is somewhat incoherent.   There is so much here, so much I need to parse... 
 -This movie is in love with movies.  It exists within  its' own world, its' own history, which bares very little relation to ours.  Call it Tarentinoland.   IB has some epic historical revisionism that would give World War 2 historians coronaries, but within the world that Tarentino builds not only is it acceptably,  it's exactly what I wanted.   The audience I was with went into a cheering frenzy when Donowitz guns down Hitler.   
 -Surprised how little the Inglorious Basterds of the title are actually on the screen;  they are definitely the center of the movie but it is as much about the    Shosanna Dreyfus character as it is the Basterds.
-Christoph Waltz is a lock for best supporting actor.  Lock.  Put all the money on this cause there is no way he is not getting nominated.  Out-standing performance!
-The pacing is all over the place and I suspect there is a longer version of this film.  Hopefully we'll get it on the DVD release.
-There are scenes that don't work and one musical cue - a David Bowie song - that pulled me completely out of the film.  And not just any David Bowie song but the theme to Cat People, which, I am sure QT was alluding to in the sequence it being placed.  Still, didn't work.
-the Mike Myers cameo had people in giggles, which I don't think was the intent.
-Great-  No, let me re-phrase: GREAT use of Ennico Morricone.   Wow, to hear the Master on the big screen. Absolute treat!
I can't wait to see it again.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 21, 2009, 04:01:44 AM
there was a musical cue that I found odd but I don't know if it was that song. when Hitler was first shown in his room, I think around when the soldier is being brought in.

ditto on Waltz, phenomenal.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 21, 2009, 06:27:15 AM
Loved the pacing: chapter splits make it move like a series of short films stitched together into one epic narrative.  Same structure as Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs, no?

Like every other Tarantino film, it takes its time building character and suspense through dialogue. 

I don't know how a music cue can pull you out of one of his films, doesn't his style demand you be half outside of it at all times?

I really dug it from start to finish.  Haven't been this happy with one of his films since Kill Bill Vol. 1.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on August 21, 2009, 01:15:10 PM
Liked this a lot more than I thought I would since, for some reason, the trailers really didn't do that much for me.

Went to a Midnight show and even at two-and-a-half hours it didn't feel long. 

The performances are all very good to outright exceptional.  Christopher Waltz is as good as all the hype.  He is absolutely hilarious and ridiculously scary at the same time.  Brad Pitt is equally funny as the zealous Nazi hunter, and Michael Fassbinder is awesome as a British operative that joins the Basterds.  I even liked Eli Roth quite a bit, which I never, ever would have thought possible.

The violence is brutally funny.  Just so over-the-top you can't help but chuckle as you cringe.

The ending is one of the most outrageous, thrilling and just plain fun things I've seen on screen this year.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 21, 2009, 02:39:14 PM
Loved the pacing: chapter splits make it move like a series of short films stitched together into one epic narrative.  Same structure as Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Reservoir Dogs, no?

Like every other Tarantino film, it takes its time building character and suspense through dialogue. 

I don't know how a music cue can pull you out of one of his films, doesn't his style demand you be half outside of it at all times?

I really dug it from start to finish.  Haven't been this happy with one of his films since Kill Bill Vol. 1.

I absolutely, 100% loved the movie, in case that wasn't clear (though I think you were talking more to the OP than me).

but one music cue made me laugh so I figured I'd mention it (I literally turned to a friend and said 'what a weird music cue'). I wouldn't change it for anything, because the whole package was thoroughly enjoyable. chalk it up to me not wanting to gush TOO much, and taking a cue from the OP and something I remembered from the theater.

I enjoyed Myers scene. I laughed a couple of times but I don't think it was unwanted... at the least by Myers, and unless Tarantino is blind by him too.

I loved the flashback for the one bastard, I wish I could remember the names. the one who killed all the nazis so they recruited him. that was some funny and brutal stuff.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: bb6634 on August 21, 2009, 03:06:26 PM

I don't know how a music cue can pull you out of one of his films, doesn't his style demand you be half outside of it at all times?


I don't think his style demands that you have to be outside at all time.  I get what QT is doing, whether it be playing with film iconography or genre without being pushed outside the story.  I was in that world almost throughout the entire movie even with the usual QT affectations. But it was keeping to period detail up on till then.  When that song was played it felt way too contemporary and pulled me out, at least temporarily.  But this is a minor quibble.  I absolutely loved this film.   
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 21, 2009, 03:52:54 PM
Chapter 5 was the best.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 21, 2009, 04:01:34 PM

I don't know how a music cue can pull you out of one of his films, doesn't his style demand you be half outside of it at all times?


I don't think his style demands that you have to be outside at all time.  I get what QT is doing, whether it be playing with film iconography or genre without being pushed outside the story.  I was in that world almost throughout the entire movie even with the usual QT affectations. But it was keeping to period detail up on till then.  When that song was played it felt way too contemporary and pulled me out, at least temporarily.  But this is a minor quibble.  I absolutely loved this film.   

I can see that.  I think I felt the same way when Mad Men used a Decemberists song at the start of a Season 2 episode.  After the initial shock though, it really works.

I think the Bowie song works the same way in that even though it isn't period appropriate, it is mood appropriate.  I really didn't notice it at all, in fact.

I haven't seen mentioned yet, but also loved: the uncredited voices of Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 21, 2009, 04:19:01 PM
I didn't like this film. Had too many bad sensibilities. More on this in the near future.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 21, 2009, 05:46:05 PM
Glenn Kenny (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/tarantinos-minimalist-maximalism.html) on Inglourious Basterds's structure and the audacity of making a 2 1/2 hour film that has only 16 scenes.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on August 21, 2009, 06:16:03 PM
That reminds me: I need to check out the Maximus/Minimus truck downtown :)
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 21, 2009, 07:00:38 PM
Glenn Kenny (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/tarantinos-minimalist-maximalism.html) on Inglourious Basterds's structure and the audacity of making a 2 1/2 hour film that has only 16 scenes.
Yea, I noticed how few scenes were in the film yet each one was so freaking long. That was one of my problems with the film.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on August 21, 2009, 07:04:24 PM
I haven't seen mentioned yet, but also loved: the uncredited voices of Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.
Who are they voicing? I had to suffer through the dubbed version :(
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 21, 2009, 07:07:06 PM
I haven't seen mentioned yet, but also loved: the uncredited voices of Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.
Who are they voicing? I had to suffer through the dubbed version :(
They are the narrators I believe.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 21, 2009, 07:24:42 PM
I haven't seen mentioned yet, but also loved: the uncredited voices of Samuel L. Jackson and Harvey Keitel.
Who are they voicing? I had to suffer through the dubbed version :(
They are the narrators I believe.

Narrator for Sammy and the general on the phone at the end for Harvey, I think.
Title: Re: Inglorious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 21, 2009, 07:28:28 PM
FLY's got it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 21, 2009, 07:53:49 PM
The word is used too often, nonetheless this movie is a masterpiece. Plain and simple. When I get of my iPhone I will elaborate.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 21, 2009, 11:46:31 PM
The word is used too often, nonetheless this movie is a masterpiece. Plain and simple. When I get of my iPhone I will elaborate.

I completely agree. Might have even shot to my favourite of the year so far.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Mike Myers thing was supposed to be giggle-inducing. In fact, that scene, to me, was the funniest in the movie. I couldn't stop laughing. They were just so over-the-top British.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 22, 2009, 12:13:50 AM
Uh oh, we may be approaching critical mass.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 01:38:01 AM
This is one of my favorite movies in a long time. It is easily Tarantino's second best movie, and dare I say it, it might be better than Pulp Fiction. I thought it would be pretty hard for The Hurt Locker to be surpassed as my best of the year, but IG easily takes the #1 spot.

The acting is almost universally great, although I did not love the Mike Myers cameo. Waltz puts on a performance that is guaranteed to earn him an Oscar. I hated Brad Pitt in the trailer but I loved him in the movie. He is perfect.

Do you tell James Joyce that he should not write in stream of conscience? Do you tell Picasso he should have painted with water color and not oil? Of course not. And you dont tell a film maker that he is not allowed to structure his film any way he chooses. Especially when it works so well. I loved the chapter structure and slow burn of the scenes in this movie. The scenes are long but they build to a crescendo in every case.

Take the first chapter, and the best in my opinion. It is a 25 minute conversation that slowly builds to a violent explosion much like the 1812 Overture builds slowly to the cannon fire. Chapter one is a love poem to Leone and Morricone. It even has the famous scene framed by the door. This is the single best scene I have watched in many years.

This is a revenge fantasy. It changes history. This is not a fault of the movie but a strength. It is not meant to be accurate. Everything about this film is a love letter to spaghetti westerns and mission films.

It is a masterpiece.



Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 22, 2009, 01:47:58 AM
Uh, Kenny likes the movie a lot.  He's praising it for its structure.

His review (http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/everything-is-cinema-inglourious-basterds.html).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 01:49:08 AM
Uh, Kenny likes the movie a lot.  He's praising it for its structure.

Lol I guess I should have read it first! I assumed he was trashing it given what people where saying.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 22, 2009, 01:49:48 AM
I agree with Clovis in most every way. Except I will continue to believe the Mike Myers cameo was delicious parody.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 02:27:31 AM
"Tarantino's scenes go on and on because he's in love with the sound of his character talking. This gets especially maddening in Inglorious Basterds because much of the dialogue is in German, so the words are three times as long. "

-Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)



Are there actually people this f*cking stupid on earth?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ian on August 22, 2009, 03:42:28 AM
Just saw it this evening. It is opening week in Australia so I expected the cinema to be crowded but it wasn't.

Well there were some very violent scenes in this movie. Long quiet parts punctuated by extreme violence - supposedly that's what war is like.

Surprisingly the two most grossed out people I saw were teenage boys row in front of me. The woman to my left was a little freaked but was keeping quiet about it. Maybe that means she was more freaked out.

Biggest laugh in the theatre was Lt. Raine speaking Italian with a thick American accent to the SS guy. People didn't really cheer when Hitler was getting shot, I think they were just confused at that point about the alternative history aspect of it. Though I'm sure there were a number of people who had heard about it beforehand.

Well there was no attempt in this movie to be politically correct and say Germans aren't Nazis and Nazis aren't Germans. The Nazis in this movie were very German, discussing philosophy and playing parlour games.

I liked the way Shosanna's face was projected on the smoke at the end.

I don't understand how everyone died so quickly in the bar, surely there would have been more survivors/wounded.

Drinking warm milk… ugh.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: masterofsparks on August 22, 2009, 08:00:04 AM
-There are scenes that don't work and one musical cue - a David Bowie song - that pulled me completely out of the film.  And not just any David Bowie song but the theme to Cat People, which, I am sure QT was alluding to in the sequence it being placed.  Still, didn't work.

In a movie where Hitler is murdered on-screen a music cue is what pulled you out?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: tjwells on August 22, 2009, 08:04:16 AM
Why don't I remember this shot at all?

(http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5523026f588340120a5489790970c-800wi)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: tjwells on August 22, 2009, 08:09:16 AM
"Tarantino's scenes go on and on because he's in love with the sound of his character talking. This gets especially maddening in Inglorious Basterds because much of the dialogue is in German, so the words are three times as long. "

-Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)



Are there actually people this f*cking stupid on earth?


I just sent him a strongly-worded comment questioning his age and gender.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 22, 2009, 08:52:44 AM
Why don't I remember this shot at all?

(http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5523026f588340120a5489790970c-800wi)
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 22, 2009, 08:59:59 AM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: scooterb23 on August 22, 2009, 09:26:21 AM
I have to admit that I was really hoping to see more of the Basterds doing their thing.  I really enjoyed (sick, huh?) their scenes immensely. 

Having said that, this movie was wonderful.  For it being 2 and a half hours long...with many extremely long scenes...I never got bored, never let my eyes wander from the screen.  It was all extremely interesting.  I wonder if it'd hold up that well under repeated viewings?

I'm not sure where I'd put this in my rankings for the year.  It was quite a bit different than I was expecting (maybe even hoping) but it was so well done.  I'll have to give it some more thought.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ian on August 22, 2009, 10:12:55 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 10:18:16 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Which I think was genius. He is basically saying everyone wanted to kill the nazi high command, which is true.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 22, 2009, 10:25:59 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 10:27:44 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D

You gotta love that out of the 12 or so main characters all but 3 die! Even for Tarantino that is impressive.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 10:30:18 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D

At first I was thinking the same, then they immediately flash onto their faces and you can see they are having so much fun killing nazis they wouldn't notice the end of the world around them.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 22, 2009, 10:36:34 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D

At first I was thinking the same, then they immediately flash onto their faces and you can see they are having so much fun killing nazis they wouldn't notice the end of the world around them.

Yep, I'm convinced this is a straight-up comedy. IMDB says Action, Drama, War only but then again they couldn't find the 'comedy' label for the hilarious Planet Terror.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 10:37:47 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D

At first I was thinking the same, then they immediately flash onto their faces and you can see they are having so much fun killing nazis they wouldn't notice the end of the world around them.

Yep, I'm convinced this is a straight-up comedy. IMDB says Action, Drama, War only but then again they couldn't find the 'comedy' label for the hilarious Planet Terror.

It's all things.  ;D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Moviebuff28 on August 22, 2009, 11:22:11 AM
Melanie Laurent deserves an Oscar nomination.

It was really nice that they got a bunch of Jewish actors and actresses to play Jewish characters.  Eli Roth, Samm Levine, BJ Novack, Paul Rust, and Melanie Laurent are all Jewish in real life.  Obviously Brad Pitt is not Jewish but the rest were all Jewish.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on August 22, 2009, 01:15:24 PM
The same way all the Germans are played by German actors (or Austrian at least) for a change.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 22, 2009, 02:03:43 PM
Melanie Laurent deserves an Oscar nomination.

It was really nice that they got a bunch of Jewish actors and actresses to play Jewish characters.  Eli Roth, Samm Levine, BJ Novack, Paul Rust, and Melanie Laurent are all Jewish in real life.  Obviously Brad Pitt is not Jewish but the rest were all Jewish.

Pretty sure Aldo wasn't Jewish anyway. I was hoping for more Samm Levine. Can't ever get enough Neil Schweiber.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: The Mighty Celestial on August 22, 2009, 05:09:04 PM
My favorite thing about the Basterds is that they take no prisoners because they are not in the prisoner taking bidness.
They're in the killing Natzi bidness.
And cousin, bidness is abooming.
On a scale of 1 to 10,
I give this movie a "9! 9! 9! 9! 9! 9! 9!"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Dracula on August 22, 2009, 05:19:26 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Let's not forget Daniel Brühl who I thought did a great job walking the line of being a loyal Nazi and being a pretty nice guy, great chemistry with Laurent too. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 22, 2009, 06:47:06 PM
The handling of language and cultural custom was amazing. The reasons people changed languages and the way they approached changes was completely realistic. Also, things like the differences in how an english person would signal 3 with their hands versus how a german person would do the same. These little touches really added to the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Verite on August 22, 2009, 07:19:36 PM
Also, things like the differences in how an english person would signal 3 with their hands versus how a german person would do the same.

There's something similar in Black Book or some other recent WW2 film. Edit: Actually, it wasn't a recent film.  It was The Big Red One - The Reconstruction.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Dracula on August 22, 2009, 08:16:26 PM
Also, things like the differences in how an english person would signal 3 with their hands versus how a german person would do the same.

There's something similar in Black Book or some other recent WW2 film. Edit: Actually, it wasn't a recent film.  It was The Big Red One - The Reconstruction.

Which was directed by Sam Fuller, who is one of QT's biggest influences
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: tjwells on August 22, 2009, 09:01:41 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 22, 2009, 09:06:12 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

 :) :) :) Glad you agree! That strudel scene was unbelievable and as good as her break-down was, it didn't linger, and we were off on the next thing...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 22, 2009, 09:07:44 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

 :) :) :) Glad you agree! That strudel scene was unbelievable and as good as her break-down was, it didn't linger, and we were off on the next thing...

Agreed agreed agreed.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on August 22, 2009, 10:12:52 PM
Just got back from this and I'm still processing it. I really enjoyed it, despite an annoying out-of-place contact lens that persisted throughout the movie, but the extent of how much I liked it is up in the air. Unlike other Tarantino films, the episodic nature feels a little bit choppy. While I felt everything in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill flowed together exquisitely, the chapters here seemed to alternate oddly, and it shook me a bit. I echo some of the concerns about music cues as well, some of the modern music QT uses just doesn't feel organic (an exception being the scene where Melanie Laurent is putting on her make-up before the premiere, I thought the music there was perfect). Also, Diane Kruger just didn't do it for me here - and it didn't help her that Laurent completely steals the show from her.

But on the whole loved most of the film, and I got into it just as much as I did Kill Bill. In my opinion, there's been far too much controversy about Tarantino trivializing the Holocaust and the rest of WWII here. This movie isn't about that, and it never was. It's about the movies that were about those events, and about other genres of movies put in this kind of setting. It's about the war setting in general - what does it mean to place a film in war time? What if you take a very non-war story style film and place it in the middle of a war?  I really loved what Tarantino did with it.

Also, as most have said, Waltz is fantastic. Loved Fassbender too. I'll also throw some love Denis Menochet's way as the French farmer playing opposite Waltz in the first chapter. He held his own in that scene beautifully and was every bit as good as Waltz in my opinion.

One last comment: I agree with FroHam that the Mike Myers scene was supposed to be funny. There's a reason Tarantino cast Mike Freaking Myers and not, say, Ian Holm. Rod Taylor spends the whole time sitting on a chair in the middle of the room serving little more purpose that to look like Winston Churchill, it's supposed to be ridiculous.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 22, 2009, 10:18:43 PM
Quick question about the Kenny analysis (which was very cool, BTW, thanks for that link!).

He says that the fourth chapter (the one in the village pub) has the very long scene in the pub, interrupted by only one flashback--I can't recall that.

Don't have anything to add right now except hearty agreement with the positive comments above on the standout actors.  This was a really fun movie.  The only thing that bothered me some was that everyone seemed completely unmoved by the deaths or presumed deaths of their comrades, particularly fellow Basterds.  After all they had been fighting together for a long time, it seemed.  I know they were all larger than life fantasy characters and maybe the stoicism was as overblown as the rest of their traits.

I too wanted to see more of the Basterds, particularly how they evolved from the group in the recruitment scene to the unstoppable terrifying force they were in the next scenes.  I'm also hoping for an extended director's cut.

If there weren't so many other movies I want to see right now, I would totally go see this again.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on August 22, 2009, 10:21:58 PM
The one flashback was Til Schweiger's character thinking about his time spent being whipped in a German prison.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 22, 2009, 11:33:53 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm the only one around these parts who disliked this film. I don't think it's bad, I just don't like it. I could cover a lot of the stuff that annoys me but I already posted a review (http://wp.me/pC1yx-11) and don't feel I have much more to say about the film than what I already put in the review.

Colleen is right that you don't really care much about these characters. It's because they are all pretty much bad. There is no one admirable here. In previous Tarantino films we usually at least end up liking the characters. Here everyone is pretty much a rotten human being who deserves to die.

If you really want me to I'll make a one man stand but I'm pretty sure no matter what I say everyone will tell me I'm wrong, making the discussion a bit one sided.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 23, 2009, 12:10:23 AM
The one flashback was Til Schweiger's character thinking about his time spent being whipped in a German prison.

Oh yeah.  It was so quick and his character was such a cipher it went right out of my mind.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 23, 2009, 12:23:29 AM
Interesting trivia on imdb:

Eli Roth and Omar Doom were nearly incinerated filming the fire sequence in the theater. During tests the flame temperatures reached 400 degrees centigrade, and during the take the set burned out of control and the temperature of the ceiling above them reached 1,200 degrees centigrade (2,000 degrees fahrenheit.) Quentin Tarantino was seated on a crane operating the camera in a fireproof suit, and none of them wanted to back down and ruin the shot. Fire marshalls said that another fifteen seconds of filming and the steel structure would have collapsed, incinerating the actors. Roth and Doom were treated for minor burns.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 23, 2009, 01:18:31 AM
Interesting trivia on imdb:

Eli Roth and Omar Doom were nearly incinerated filming the fire sequence in the theater. During tests the flame temperatures reached 400 degrees centigrade, and during the take the set burned out of control and the temperature of the ceiling above them reached 1,200 degrees centigrade (2,000 degrees fahrenheit.) Quentin Tarantino was seated on a crane operating the camera in a fireproof suit, and none of them wanted to back down and ruin the shot. Fire marshalls said that another fifteen seconds of filming and the steel structure would have collapsed, incinerating the actors. Roth and Doom were treated for minor burns.

I know eh! Just when you thought things couldn't get any cooler.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 23, 2009, 01:31:13 AM
Don't have anything to add right now except hearty agreement with the positive comments above on the standout actors.  This was a really fun movie.  The only thing that bothered me some was that everyone seemed completely unmoved by the deaths or presumed deaths of their comrades, particularly fellow Basterds.  After all they had been fighting together for a long time, it seemed.  I know they were all larger than life fantasy characters and maybe the stoicism was as overblown as the rest of their traits.

I took it as them checking their humanity at the door when they decided to become a merciless killing machine; they seemed to care little about whether they lived or died, like they were already dead (they were basically on a suicide mission from the start anyway).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: roujin on August 23, 2009, 02:03:54 AM
The scene with Shosanna putting on her makeup is probably the best thing that Quentin has ever done. Along with the shot of the two Basterds firing away in manic glee as everything around them burns. I don't know what look Eli Roth has at the end of that scene but it's almost quasi-orgasmic.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 23, 2009, 09:00:00 AM
The scene with Shosanna putting on her makeup is probably the best thing that Quentin has ever done. Along with the shot of the two Basterds firing away in manic glee as everything around them burns.
Those were my two least favorite parts of the film. The first because of the awful music and the second because of how ridiculously over the top it was.
Title: Basterds
Post by: JolietJerry on August 23, 2009, 09:42:36 AM
Like most of my QT movie going experiences, I feel the need to see this again to really take it in. No matter how hard I try, I seem to go into his movies with a preconception of what I'm about to see...and it ends up being so different, I'm jarred a little. I liked it but right now it's only above Death Proof. That means very little though as I didn't think much of Pulp Fiction the first time I saw it (and now it's in my Top 5) and thought Kill Bill was a let-down (and now I love it.) I'll see it again sometime this week.

I will say that Waltz (I agree he should get a supporting actor Oscar nod) and Laurent were fantastic, followed closely by Pitt. I also enjoyed Denis Menochet's Chapter 1 scene with Waltz...they were both perfect. You gotta love Hitler's revised demise.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 23, 2009, 10:39:20 AM
The scene with Shosanna putting on her makeup is probably the best thing that Quentin has ever done. Along with the shot of the two Basterds firing away in manic glee as everything around them burns.
Those were my two least favorite parts of the film. The first because of the awful music and the second because of how ridiculously over the top it was.

um that was the WHOLE point!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 23, 2009, 11:10:39 AM
I was just thinking that I really loved how the Pitt character had an obvious rope burn on his neck, yet they never really mention it in the film. He probably survived a lynching, but its just treated as background to his character. These little touches really elevate the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on August 23, 2009, 11:16:26 AM
Inglorious Basterds

Everything that is good and bad about Tarantino.  Shamelessly exploitative, incredibly self indulgent and in bad need of editing.  But also smart, funny, exhilarating, and just plain a blast to sit through.

The Nazi officer was incredible, so swarthy and loathsome.  He is like a cross between the boss from The Office and Anton Chigurh.  Everyone else is great as well, even actor I normally dislike like Brad Pitt and Mike Myers are great.  The scene at the bar and the finale were absolutely incredible with the slow burn set up and the sudden explosions of brutality.

On the negative side, the whole thing was about forty minutes too long.  There were a couple of scenes that could have been cut (The Basterds sitting in the basement), and a couple more that could have been made alot shorter (the whole explanation of how Shoshana got to host the premiere).

Still overall a pretty great film

8/10        
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on August 23, 2009, 11:49:02 AM

Colleen is right that you don't really care much about these characters. It's because they are all pretty much bad. There is no one admirable here. In previous Tarantino films we usually at least end up liking the characters. Here everyone is pretty much a rotten human being who deserves to die.
 

There's where I'd have to disagree with you. I can't really think of many "honorable" characters in Tarantino's movies, period. I think Roger Ebert once described Tarantino's movies as being "all villains," there's really no good character to be found (really the only exception I'd name would be Max Cherry in Jackie Brown). I couldn't think of anybody in Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill who's anymore honorable than the characters of Inglourious Basterds. And you'd be hard pressed to find previous Tarantino characters who are more charming than Hans Landa (who much like Bill is a reprehensible person that you just can't help but be seduced by), Archie Hilcox (a character that represents pretty much all there is to love about the British) or Shoshana Dreyfuss (who on top of being ridiculously attractive is just as deep and easy to root for as The Bride).
Title: Re: Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 23, 2009, 11:53:54 AM
Like most of my QT movie going experiences, I feel the need to see this again to really take it in. No matter how hard I try, I seem to go into his movies with a preconception of what I'm about to see...and it ends up being so different, I'm jarred a little. I liked it but right now it's only above Death Proof. That means very little though as I didn't think much of Pulp Fiction the first time I saw it (and now it's in my Top 5) and thought Kill Bill was a let-down (and now I love it.) I'll see it again sometime this week.

I had a similar reaction to Pulp Fiction. Thought is was meh first time around and then realised upon further viewings how amazing it is. While I don't need repeat viewings to know I loved IB, I hope they help you.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 23, 2009, 12:01:42 PM
Sorry about all these one thought posts but I am working out all my ideas before I write a long review.

I also really like how the Pitt character steals snuff from the dead Nazis. Snuff (dry tobacco) is the more refined version of smokeless tobacco. Being a hillbilly the Pitt character would probably use dip, a moist cheaper version. The snuff is a higher class version, and QT is using it to emphasize how the Nazis felt they were more refined or higher class.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Holly Harry on August 23, 2009, 03:52:11 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Basil on August 23, 2009, 03:55:02 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.

The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Holly Harry on August 23, 2009, 03:59:44 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.

The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!

Whatever it is QT did with the cut, it works. Big time. Hilarious film that is nothing more than a movie for movie lovers. A Rio Bravo about cinema.

Who else got secretly giddy over some of the references? The Clouzot marquee made me smile.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 23, 2009, 04:10:31 PM
There's isn't much difference between the cuts.  He added one scene (Pitt and Fassbender talking before the bar scene) and made a few trims throughout the film.  The result is the film's about one minute longer than it was at Cannes.

As for the different reaction: who knows?  Cannes critics think like sheep.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: duder on August 23, 2009, 04:11:54 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.

The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!

Source? I think I remember reading in an interview with QT that there was no recutting (I could be wrong).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Alan Smithee on August 23, 2009, 04:17:15 PM
"Tarantino's scenes go on and on because he's in love with the sound of his character talking. This gets especially maddening in Inglorious Basterds because much of the dialogue is in German, so the words are three times as long. "

-Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)



Are there actually people this f*cking stupid on earth?


I just sent him a strongly-worded comment questioning his age and gender.

I dont think people thought it was going to have so many subtitles a lot of people in the theatre i saw it in were complaining.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Alan Smithee on August 23, 2009, 04:20:22 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Alan Smithee on August 23, 2009, 04:24:09 PM
Interesting trivia on imdb:

Eli Roth and Omar Doom were nearly incinerated filming the fire sequence in the theater. During tests the flame temperatures reached 400 degrees centigrade, and during the take the set burned out of control and the temperature of the ceiling above them reached 1,200 degrees centigrade (2,000 degrees fahrenheit.) Quentin Tarantino was seated on a crane operating the camera in a fireproof suit, and none of them wanted to back down and ruin the shot. Fire marshalls said that another fifteen seconds of filming and the steel structure would have collapsed, incinerating the actors. Roth and Doom were treated for minor burns.


Yeah you can even see Eli Roth flinch in the final shoot out scene.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 23, 2009, 05:28:12 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.

Yeah I was pretty glad they kept his role to a minimum.  From all his name was thrown around and featured, I expected to see a lot more of him and was happy not to!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 23, 2009, 05:30:02 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.

Yeah I was pretty glad they kept his role to a minimum.  From all his name was thrown around and featured, I expected to see a lot more of him and was happy not to!

I thought he was great.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on August 23, 2009, 05:31:24 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.

Yeah I was pretty glad they kept his role to a minimum.  From all his name was thrown around and featured, I expected to see a lot more of him and was happy not to!

I thought he was great.

He was not annoying and pretty great at the end. I guess he directed Nation's Pride, too.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Dracula on August 23, 2009, 05:36:00 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.

Yeah I was pretty glad they kept his role to a minimum.  From all his name was thrown around and featured, I expected to see a lot more of him and was happy not to!

I thought he was great.

I thought that the five minutes he was in the movie were fine, I don't think anyone would be complaining about him if he was a random dude from central casting rather than a known director (which is the same thing I say about Tarentino, Spike Lee, and M.Night Shyamalan whenever they do cameos that people complain about). 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 23, 2009, 05:37:09 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Ah yes. And I totally agree, I LOVED her. After Waltz easily my favorite performance in the film. I love when she breaks down as soon as he leaves the room at the lunch with Goebbels.

I loved her as well on the other hand Eli Roth was terrible.

Yeah I was pretty glad they kept his role to a minimum.  From all his name was thrown around and featured, I expected to see a lot more of him and was happy not to!

I thought he was great.

I thought that the five minutes he was in the movie were fine, I don't think anyone would be complaining about him if he was a random dude from central casting rather than a known director (which is the same thing I say about Tarentino, Spike Lee, and M.Night Shyamalan whenever they do cameos that people complain about). 

Probably true.  And good point.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on August 23, 2009, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: some dude on IMDB
End of opening chapter, why did Landa let Shosanna escape? I've tried to rationalize it a number of ways, but none of them make much sense. Was it simply because he wanted to give her a "head start," knowing he would eventually catch up to her and relishing in the sadistic satisfaction that she would live out the rest of her days in fear? That was the best explanation I could give to the friend who went to see it with me.

Which I thought was a pretty good question, especially coming from IMDB. So I responded:

Quote from: this guy with the thumbs
I think he didn't care much about killing Jews (evidenced by his conversation with the guy hiding her family), he cared about figuring things out. He figured out that her family was hiding below the floor and that was all he wanted, really. He had to kill the family because it was job but she could have easily "gotten away". He is a bad man, to be sure, but he is mostly looking out for number one, I think.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 23, 2009, 07:17:51 PM
Quote from: some dude on IMDB
End of opening chapter, why did Landa let Shosanna escape? I've tried to rationalize it a number of ways, but none of them make much sense. Was it simply because he wanted to give her a "head start," knowing he would eventually catch up to her and relishing in the sadistic satisfaction that she would live out the rest of her days in fear? That was the best explanation I could give to the friend who went to see it with me.

Which I thought was a pretty good question, especially coming from IMDB. So I responded:

Quote from: this guy with the thumbs
I think he didn't care much about killing Jews (evidenced by his conversation with the guy hiding her family), he cared about figuring things out. He figured out that her family was hiding below the floor and that was all he wanted, really. He had to kill the family because it was job but she could have easily "gotten away". He is a bad man, to be sure, but he is mostly looking out for number one, I think.

What do you think?

I agree. I think he took the term jew hunter to mean finding not killing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Basil on August 23, 2009, 07:31:49 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.
The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!
Source? I think I remember reading in an interview with QT that there was no recutting (I could be wrong).

There was definitely some, even though the running time is about the same. From Karina Longworth:

Quote
I saw the film again, this week, in New York, in a version said to be different from the one I saw at Cannes. Some scenes are said to be shorter, although I couldn’t tell you specifically which ones; one scene excised before the French premiere has been reinstated.

Even if the changes are somewhat minimal, their effect seemingly wasn't, which explains the negative response in Cannes, at least partially.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 23, 2009, 09:52:18 PM
"Tarantino's scenes go on and on because he's in love with the sound of his character talking. This gets especially maddening in Inglorious Basterds because much of the dialogue is in German, so the words are three times as long. "

-Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)



Are there actually people this f*cking stupid on earth?


I just sent him a strongly-worded comment questioning his age and gender.

I dont think people thought it was going to have so many subtitles a lot of people in the theatre i saw it in were complaining.

LOL, God people are stupid. I love listening to French - and Spanish and Italian too for that matter (especially Brad Pitt's Italian).

I also thought Eli Roth was good.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 23, 2009, 10:52:56 PM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.
The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!
Source? I think I remember reading in an interview with QT that there was no recutting (I could be wrong).

There was definitely some, even though the running time is about the same. From Karina Longworth:

Quote
I saw the film again, this week, in New York, in a version said to be different from the one I saw at Cannes. Some scenes are said to be shorter, although I couldn’t tell you specifically which ones; one scene excised before the French premiere has been reinstated.

Even if the changes are somewhat minimal, their effect seemingly wasn't, which explains the negative response in Cannes, at least partially.


It's more likely that Longworth was infected by Cannes groupthink which she's since been freed from.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 24, 2009, 12:15:56 AM
Quote from: some dude on IMDB
End of opening chapter, why did Landa let Shosanna escape? I've tried to rationalize it a number of ways, but none of them make much sense. Was it simply because he wanted to give her a "head start," knowing he would eventually catch up to her and relishing in the sadistic satisfaction that she would live out the rest of her days in fear? That was the best explanation I could give to the friend who went to see it with me.

Which I thought was a pretty good question, especially coming from IMDB. So I responded:

Quote from: this guy with the thumbs
I think he didn't care much about killing Jews (evidenced by his conversation with the guy hiding her family), he cared about figuring things out. He figured out that her family was hiding below the floor and that was all he wanted, really. He had to kill the family because it was job but she could have easily "gotten away". He is a bad man, to be sure, but he is mostly looking out for number one, I think.

What do you think?

excellent read. I was wondering that myself and you've left me satisfied.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 24, 2009, 12:17:25 AM
"Tarantino's scenes go on and on because he's in love with the sound of his character talking. This gets especially maddening in Inglorious Basterds because much of the dialogue is in German, so the words are three times as long. "

-Jeffrey Westhoff
Northwest Herald (Crystal Lake, IL)



Are there actually people this f*cking stupid on earth?


I just sent him a strongly-worded comment questioning his age and gender.

I dont think people thought it was going to have so many subtitles a lot of people in the theatre i saw it in were complaining.

LOL, God people are stupid. I love listening to French - and Spanish and Italian too for that matter (especially Brad Pitt's Italian).

I also thought Eli Roth was good.

as much as I agree with you, I can understand someone not expecting that and being bothered by it.

they will miss a lot of great stuff, but they probably wouldn't appreciate it anyway.

heh, I'm trying to sound less snobby and I think I'm coming off worse :P
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Basil on August 24, 2009, 01:28:45 AM
What was with the bad buzz coming out of Cannes? Totally the movie of the year so far.
The cut that played at Cannes was very different from the one being released. Harvey Scissorhands ftw!
Source? I think I remember reading in an interview with QT that there was no recutting (I could be wrong).

There was definitely some, even though the running time is about the same. From Karina Longworth:

Quote
I saw the film again, this week, in New York, in a version said to be different from the one I saw at Cannes. Some scenes are said to be shorter, although I couldn’t tell you specifically which ones; one scene excised before the French premiere has been reinstated.

Even if the changes are somewhat minimal, their effect seemingly wasn't, which explains the negative response in Cannes, at least partially.


It's more likely that Longworth was infected by Cannes groupthink which she's since been freed from.

So you attribute all the negative buzz out of Cannes to some snobby French groupthink? The overwhelming positivity of the response to the theatrically distributed cut seems to point to something else. Nearly every reputable source suggest that Tarantino has made significant changes to the film since the May premiere. Eli Roth at the Montreal premiere is also quoted as saying Tarantino had trimmed as well as added several scenes, based on Cannes reactions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 24, 2009, 03:10:27 AM
Everything I've seen on the changes is what I said above: one additional short scene, a few trims here and there, adding up to a film one minute longer.  While I'm sure these changes have improved the film, I really doubt they're what to credit for the differing reactions.  If Longworth can't even remember how it was different, how can you assert that its the changes that changed her mind?

We see this at Cannes every year, and lots of other places as well.  critics aren't immune to basic human fitting-in impulses.  Every year, something new becomes hip to dislike.  Two years ago, it was Wong Kar-wai, and every review of My Blueberry Nights said the same things.  When the film finally got released, most people who bothered to see it found it wasn't nearly as bad as they'd heard.  Nothing different this time around.

Besides, the snootiest of the film critics (the old folks like Jonathan Rosenbaum and the guys who hang around davekehr.com) have hated Tarantino films for years (except for Jackie brown, which is exempt for some reason, most likely its relative unpopularity).  And they're a big, trendsetting faction at Cannes.

Moviecitynews had a link to an article posted a few days ago that outlined all the changes, by someone who'd actually seen both versions.  It says what I've been saying, but I've been unable to find it now that its off the mcn frontpage.  Have you got anything that makes a case for big, important changes?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 24, 2009, 03:18:09 AM
Aha!  Found it (http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/08/inglourious-basterds-cannes-cut-vs.html).

"Don't get your hopes up too high, the changes aren't radically different, but there are a few minor tweaks here and there. Quentin Tarantino has already said the U.S. cut is about one minute longer and considering the official running time info, this appears to be true (It was 2 hours and 32 minutes with end credits in Cannes and the new running time is listed as 153 minutes or 2 hours and 33 minutes with end credits)."

"In terms of major or noticeable changes that's about it. In other words, if you liked 'Basterds' before, you'll like it now and if you disliked or had problems with the Cannes cut, there aren't enough changes to likely sway your opinion of the film."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 24, 2009, 03:23:33 AM
From the front page of the same site:

"One thing's for sure, 'Basterds' did a great about face. The film was met with mixed and mediocre reviews at Cannes when it first played, but by the time it reached U.S. shores critics either sang a different tune on a second helping and those that hadn't seen it before seemed to give it a big thumbs up. But let's please, please, not put that on the "new cut" of the film, there is very, very little different aside from nips and tucks throughout (we did a comprehensive look at the changes) and they weren't enough to radically change ones position on the film. "
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ian on August 24, 2009, 03:58:37 AM
Maybe European movie critics are a bit more sensitive about WW2.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: phazedplasma on August 24, 2009, 07:55:42 AM
Best movie of the year, and Quentins best.

I believe it was Hitchcock that said something like "In movies people sitting at a table talking is boring...but if we show the audience that a bomb is under the table...it's intense, scary and far from boring".

Its genius that we're watching a movie laughing about Nazis getting killed and they're watching a movie laughing about Americans getting killed.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 24, 2009, 12:21:24 PM
Its geniusracist that we're watching a movie laughing about Nazis getting killed and they're watching a movie laughing about Americans getting killed.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 24, 2009, 12:25:38 PM
Its geniusracist that we're watching a movie laughing about Nazis getting killed and they're watching a movie laughing about Americans getting killed.

I don't get how it's racist at all. It is somewhat disturbing, but not racist.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 24, 2009, 12:38:24 PM
Its geniusracist that we're watching a movie laughing about Nazis getting killed and they're watching a movie laughing about Americans getting killed.

I don't get how it's racist at all. It is somewhat disturbing, but not racist.

You don't get it because it's simply not true. First, neither Germans nor Americans are a race. Perhaps someone could argue, incorrectly, that it is ethnocentric. Everyone, except the smallest fraction of insane racists, hates Nazis. I am guessing, the movie is a revenge fantasy for Germans (who have to live the stigma of WWII) as much as it is for Jews.

edit: I just realized you are referring to the inter-film. My bad.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 24, 2009, 12:45:26 PM
I like how my friend put it after coming out of the theatre last night. "The intense satisfaction I felt at the end of the movie revealed to me a place deep down inside of me that I didn't know was there."

That has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with revenge.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 24, 2009, 01:21:41 PM
Its geniusracist that we're watching a movie laughing about Nazis getting killed and they're watching a movie laughing about Americans getting killed.

I don't get how it's racist at all. It is somewhat disturbing, but not racist.

You don't get it because it's simply not true. First, neither Germans nor Americans are a race. Perhaps someone could argue, incorrectly, that it is ethnocentric. I seriously doubt many Germans are watching the movie laughing at Americans getting killed. Everyone, except the smallest fraction of insane racists, hates Nazis. I am guessing, the movie is a revenge fantasy for Germans (who have to live the stigma of WWII) as much as it is for Jews.

I read it as it being ironic that we are watching a movie being entertained by Nazis being killed; during the movie we are watching the Nazis watching a movie and being entertained by Americans being killed.  I hadn't thought of it before but I like it.

And it's not racist.  Disturbing, maybe.  Amoral or even immoral, you can make an argument.  But not racist.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 24, 2009, 01:34:54 PM
Colleen, thanks for being awesome. Inglourious Basterds is far from racist.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Basil on August 24, 2009, 02:07:22 PM
Have you got anything that makes a case for big, important changes?

Nah, never suggested that. They're all clearly minor, but I can't imagine them being so insignificant that the extreme difference in reaction can be attributed solely to the snootiness of Cannes-goers.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Moviebuff28 on August 24, 2009, 02:07:42 PM
That scene is where they needed somebody to do the sound for their film. It followed seemlessly after Shosanna alluded to using violence to get what she and Marcel wanted.

With Waltz and Pitt so lively and insistent it's easy to overlook Mélanie Laurent. Her role demanded subtlety and finesse but also the fire in the belly; the steadfast commitment to her principles common to many other Tarantino women. Laurent shined in this role and just shined generally - Tarantino embraced her unreservedly, always captivating on screen, a visual delight.

Let's not forget Daniel Brühl who I thought did a great job walking the line of being a loyal Nazi and being a pretty nice guy, great chemistry with Laurent too. 
Tarantino said at the Q&A that I was at that he intended the shot of both of them lying dead to be Romeo & Juliet esque.  I loved Bruhl in the role especially since I just saw Goodbye Lenin and he couldn't be playing a more different character.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 24, 2009, 07:23:57 PM
This is why Jeffrey Overstreet is my favorite critic (http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/my-pitch-for-the-next-tarantino-movie/) Removed :-[

He removed it. To hot for the internet apparently.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 24, 2009, 09:08:26 PM
This is why Jeffrey Overstreet is my favorite critic (http://lookingcloser.org/2009/08/my-pitch-for-the-next-tarantino-movie/)

Warning: Might offend those who are religious or are allergic to any religious references

This linked me to an error ...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FifthCityMuse on August 25, 2009, 01:33:31 AM
I really wasn't struck by Waltz. Good, but nothing special. Certainly not on the level Laurent is. Roth is serviceable.

I loved the music, which never detracted. The music over the closing credits was so great. I sat there wondering if there's a brass band arrangement available.

I thought the presence of Sam Jackson was totally, totally unnecessary. Of course, so was the narration in parts.

I wonder how much of a reference having Shosanna's partner named Marcel is to Marcel Camus? Or maybe that was just me.

It seemed so obvious that Tarantino was pulling stuff from everywhere, and it shouldn't've worked, but I thought it totally did. Like the presence of the labels pointing at the two other third reich members we hadn't been at that stage, which were totally incongruous, but I totally loved them.

The make up sequence is awesome. The face being projected onto the smoke, is, quite possibly, my single favourite moment of the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Jared on August 25, 2009, 10:16:34 AM
Waltz probably gave my favorite Tarantino movie performance after Jackson in Pulp Fiction, so hopefully it is adequetely recognized at the end of the year. Really impressive how he can slide between 4 different languages so effortlessly throughout the movie while holding together all of the little idiosyncracies from his character.

i purposely didnt read much on this movie, and it was much different then I expected. I thought we were going to get 2.5 hours of Chapter 2 (not that that would have been bad).

A lot of fun and does just about everything well. I really liked this a lot
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ¡Keith! on August 25, 2009, 04:43:57 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 25, 2009, 04:53:40 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"

I expect the reviews on our site to be at least 50 times better.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 25, 2009, 04:57:55 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"
I expect the reviews on our site to be at least 50 times better.
I've read good reviews on both sides. It has more to do with thinking skills and writing ability than which side you are on. I mean, why even draw sides? We all love movies, right?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mattybgame on August 25, 2009, 05:01:06 PM
if i ever come close to saying: "a modified Juan Marichal moment in which a Basterd uses a baseball bat to bash the sense out of some Nazis: Three Reichs and you're out." feel free to relieve me of my duties ...

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 25, 2009, 05:04:10 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"

I expect the reviews on our site to be at least 50 times better.


No hyperbole. That is the most annoying thing I have ever read.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 25, 2009, 05:22:39 PM
Man, that is a TERRIBLE article.  I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a review or a profile of Lawrence Bender for the local angle.  The writer is so busy being clever with puns and jamming the titles of every Tarantino movie into the article that he often forgets what he was originally trying to say in a particular sentence, if he ever knew.  And the article has, seriously, 5 different leads in the first 5 paragraphs of the article--none of those thoughts/sentences connect with each other and all sound like the author is repeatedly clearing his throat and starting over. 

Weird, annoying and not at all informative about the actual movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 25, 2009, 05:37:54 PM
I've never read anything so terribly written in my life.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 25, 2009, 05:52:16 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"
I expect the reviews on our site to be at least 50 times better.
I've read good reviews on both sides. It has more to do with thinking skills and writing ability than which side you are on. I mean, why even draw sides? We all love movies, right?

Site, dude.  Not side.  Unless you are trolling me, in which case  :P :P :P :P
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 25, 2009, 07:56:41 PM
wow, this review (http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/19445/) frightens me.  How can a person start that many paragraphs with "As for?"
I expect the reviews on our site to be at least 50 times better.
I've read good reviews on both sides. It has more to do with thinking skills and writing ability than which side you are on. I mean, why even draw sides? We all love movies, right?

Site, dude.  Not side.  Unless you are trolling me, in which case  :P :P :P :P
ahh, sorry. I blame the fact I've been staring at Hebrew letters half the day.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 25, 2009, 09:37:47 PM
I've never read anything so terribly written in my life.

Surely the kid has superhuman ADHD or something and is not in control. Surely.

Back at school, some kid in my class had to write a modern take on a Shakespeare play for English. I don't remember which play he was interpreting, but he punctuated his opening paragraph with 'niggas' and 'struggles in da street' in every sentence and then quoted the lyrics from Eminem's 'Lose Yourself.' Yes. Every single word. That was pretty bad...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 25, 2009, 09:43:38 PM
I've never read anything so terribly written in my life.

Surely the kid has superhuman ADHD or something and is not in control. Surely.

Back at school, some kid in my class had to write a modern take on a Shakespeare play for English. I don't remember which play he was interpreting, but he punctuated his opening paragraph with 'niggas' and 'struggles in da street' in every sentence and then quoted the lyrics from Eminem's 'Lose Yourself.' Yes. Every single word. That was pretty bad...

I've read some pretty terrible stuff written by kids, and at least those don't attempt to make terrible puns every sentence. Unforgivable.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 25, 2009, 11:43:41 PM
I have no patience for going through 8 pages, so Ill just dump this out.

On the acting: Christophe Waltz puts on the same kind of over-the-top performance that Daniel Day-Lewis did last year. I thought both were fantastic, I just wanted to place the connection (further evidence that he's an awards lock). Pitt did a fantastic job of channeling half the stars of American Westerns from 1940-1970. I wholeheartedly loved Daniel Bruhl and thought he delivered everything that character was meant to (this was only injured by the woman who cheered when he shot Shoshanna and caused me to go all queasy). Til was good if not great. I'd say very little was asked of him. Melanie Laurent's performance sticks with me, but I'm not sure why. Other than Myers, no one else made an impression, but they were all on the good side of not making one. As for Myers, it was neither funny nor dramatically effective for me, which makes it garbage.

The pacing was mostly wonderful. My only complaints are the scene in the basement before the meeting with Von Hammersmark, which just dragged and felt double long for me, and the first half of Chapter 5, before anything is really set into motion. The bloated pace of the first half thankfully melted away thanks to how fantastic its second half was, but the pacing along with the two terrible music cues and generally over (or perhaps under if the longer cut is improved) detailed story telling really turned this small portion into the worst part of the film.

Two aspects of this film seemed exceptional to me in terms of Tarantino: The framing and what I'm interpreting as its themes. The framing was just more than I've come to expect from him, including the close-ups which were both frequent and exquisite. The way the film presents the most common plots from within World War II narratives all in one film and yet cycles them back to the ideas of human cost and greater good is surprising for a revenge film, let along for Tarantino. He even presents a more layered perspective on Nazis than most films, but that is faint praise.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 01:05:30 AM
Inglourious Basterds: The Good, The Rad and the Ugly.

The Good

So I have now seen this film three times in the theater, and given it has been in release for less than a week this fact probably makes me, at least, partly insane. It is also a personal record. Fight Club is the only other film I saw multiple times in theaters during its first week of release. Needless to say I think it is a masterpiece, Tarantino's best film, and one of the greatest films of the decade.

Much has been said about Christoph Waltz, and I agree he is amazing. However, I fear his showy role is shadowing other great performances. I think Mélanie Laurent equals Waltz in her portrayal of yet another "Tarantino woman", equal parts sexy and dangerous. The rest of the cast is also very good, including Pitt and Roth.

The film is filled with some of Tarantino's best dialogue scenes. His writing is poetic. He can fit more action into two people having a conversation (Chapter one) than Micheal Bay could create with a 500 million budget. The many dialogue scenes are even better in this film as they are each punctuated with a short staccato burst of violence. They are framed like the 1812 Overture, slowly building to a loud and visceral crescendo.

The chapter structure gives the film a forward momentum that has been lacking in some of Tarantino's last films (Kill Bill vol 1 and Death Proof). Not since Pulp Fiction has a film felt so swift and seemed to be over so fast. At almost 2 1/2 hours, it feels like 45 minutes. Some have complained that the bar scene was too long, but the dialogue is so good it is riveting and never drags.

Visually this is the best looking Tarantino film. He is really maturing as a film maker. The makeup scene is pure cinematography and is art at its highest form. Cut out from the film it would make a riveting short film even though there is not a word of dialogue.

In some ways this is the most violent of his films. Unlike most of his other movies, where the violence it actually off-screen (even though it is so well done that some people swear they saw things in his films that are not on screen), we see the violence in this movie, up close and gory. This is not an accident. It is a requirement of a revenge fantasy. How can we quench our thirst for Nazi blood without the blood? We can't. Tarantino knows this.

Like all Tarantino films the soundtrack is great. The mix of Marconi score and modern music helps us place the film in it historical context and emphasize that we are watching a Tarantino film. Some have complained about a few of the musical cues but I loved them all.

The Rad

This is the most "Tarantino" of all his films. It is a true pastiche or collage being heavily influenced by Spaghetti westerns and WW II films. Some have argued that these types of references are just Tarantino showing off his film knowledge and have little more meaning. While this may be true for some of his earlier films, the many references in this film have a deeper subtext. They are meant to provide us, the audience, additional information about the movie or its characters. When he copies the massacre scene from Once Upon a Time in the West, he is telling the audience that this is not the standard WWII film where the action is driven by bullets. This is a spaghetti western were the action will be driven by dialogue. When the cinema marquis is advertising Le Corbeau, we are being told an entire back story about Nazi censorship. More than any recent film the subtext here is as important as the text.

While the movie can be enjoyed without understanding these references, an entire subtextual layer is revealed when we make the effort. It's the cinematic equivalent of adding butter to your dish. Butter helps everything. References to Leone films can only enhance your movie.

The Ugly

I think the film is nearly perfect, however there are a couple minor problems. The most glaring is the Mike Meyers cameo. This whole scene does not work. Meyers is too much of a caricature, bringing his Austin Powers baggage to his role. He really took me out of the movie. Really this is the only scene in the film that does not seem to have a purpose. Everything we learn about Operation Kino, we later hear about in the bar scene and veterinarian scene. Hopefully a future cut will remove this whole scene. Roth spoke of cut scene of his character back in the US having his bat signed by elder jews who had escaped the Holocaust. I think this sounds amazing and certainly would add more than the Meyers scene.

The End
Tarantino is a true auteur in the strictest Truffaut sense. While his films are a collage of other masters work, he is able to take the parts and create an equally brilliant whole. I think this film will make future lists of the greatest films ever made. It is the rare Hollywood movie that is both fun and brilliant cinema. In some ways, it is Tarantino's doctoral thesis on film history masquerading as a WWII jewish revenge fantasy.





Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 26, 2009, 01:45:54 AM
Inglourious Basterds: The Good, The Rad and the Ugly.


The Ugly

I think the film is nearly perfect, however there are a couple minor problems. The most glaring is the Mike Meyers cameo. This whole scene does not work. Meyers is too much of a caricature, bringing his Austin Powers baggage to his role. He really took me out of the movie. Really this is the only scene in the film that does not seem to have a purpose. Everything we learn about Operation Kino, we later hear about in the bar scene and veterinarian scene. Hopefully a future cut will remove this whole scene. Roth spoke of cut scene of his character back in the US having his bat signed by elder jews who had escaped the Holocaust. I think this sounds amazing and certainly would add more than the Meyers scene.


You need to watch the movie again ;) and really look at how awesome of a parody that scene is. It is totally winking at you about how ridiculously "British" it is and how in a lot of ways it is totally not important. There's a point near the end of the scene where Fassbender replies to something Myers says with a completely contextually inappropriate "Indeed." It's pure brilliance.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 01:48:34 AM
We may need samsex for the blog just to offer a dissenting opinion on this one.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 06:59:21 AM
Inglourious Basterds: The Good, The Rad and the Ugly.


The Ugly

I think the film is nearly perfect, however there are a couple minor problems. The most glaring is the Mike Meyers cameo. This whole scene does not work. Meyers is too much of a caricature, bringing his Austin Powers baggage to his role. He really took me out of the movie. Really this is the only scene in the film that does not seem to have a purpose. Everything we learn about Operation Kino, we later hear about in the bar scene and veterinarian scene. Hopefully a future cut will remove this whole scene. Roth spoke of cut scene of his character back in the US having his bat signed by elder jews who had escaped the Holocaust. I think this sounds amazing and certainly would add more than the Meyers scene.


You need to watch the movie again ;) and really look at how awesome of a parody that scene is. It is totally winking at you about how ridiculously "British" it is and how in a lot of ways it is totally not important. There's a point near the end of the scene where Fassbender replies to something Myers says with a completely contextually inappropriate "Indeed." It's pure brilliance.

Indeed! :) I would have to say it was the funniest scene in the movie for me, though I don't think I actually lol'd.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 26, 2009, 07:24:34 AM
Inglourious Basterds: The Good, The Rad and the Ugly.
*Groans*

In fairness you have some good thoughts but the title is too cheesy.

We may need samsex for the blog just to offer a dissenting opinion on this one.
I've already offered my opinion elsewhere but if you really need a contrasting opinion I might whip up something new.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 26, 2009, 07:27:23 AM
Great review Clovis and this is a great thread! You are, of course, completely wrong about a lack of momentum in Kill Bill: Vol. 1 which does not require the same urgency in terms of plot progression as for Inglourious Basterds. IB satisfies every second, while KB1 satisfies in waves.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ian on August 26, 2009, 09:03:02 AM
I think the film is nearly perfect, however there are a couple minor problems. The most glaring is the Mike Meyers cameo. This whole scene does not work. Meyers is too much of a caricature, bringing his Austin Powers baggage to his role. He really took me out of the movie. Really this is the only scene in the film that does not seem to have a purpose.

Take you out of the movie to where? The cinema, the Kino. No, that's too far fetched. I think it was just to give the audience a break from the tension.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 10:12:23 AM
Saw this last night and wanted to lay down some thoughts before reading what other people thought.

1) Best new movie I've seen this year, blowing away the now #2 Moon.  Probably my fourth favorite of the decade, behind Synecdoche, No Country and TWB Blood.  

2) It took all of 3 lines of Brat Pitt dialog to have me going from rolling my eyes to having me completely won over.

3) I'm guessing the historical "modifications"  are getting some discussions - I thought that was perfect perfect perfect.  I was rooting for that result from the moment the plan was first hatched.

4) The 25 minute Leone-eque scene - fabulous.  I was thinking to myself - thank goodness we are getting this whole scene.   (I saw the Hurt Lock right after.  What an jolting shift to the jump cut steady cam slow mo styled bit)

5) I'm hoping Christoph Waltz is getting some early Oscar buzz.  My favorite scene is with him negotiating terms over the phone. (Nantauket)

6) Little things is what make this great - like they never explain why Aldo has a noose's scare around his neck.

7) I can see where people might have gotten a bit annoyed with some scenes that dragged on a bit.  I've caught up on some reviews this morning and a few mention the the Basement / King Kong scene as an example.  But it worked for me

8. It's a personal thing - but I really go to see superhero movies to watch a superhero kick butt for 2 hours.  The Incredibles got this so right, where so many others got it so wrong in my book.  (Class example: Tim Burton's Batman, where we see this ultra cool Bat plane shot down in like 2 seconds)  Likewise, I like to watch my nazi-killing band of misfits kill nazis and not spend most of the third act in perril.  This film did not disappoint.  I maybe would have wanted to see two more short example scenes of them kicking butt early on, but I guess the ended made up for that.

9) Mélanie Laurent was great casting.  If Uma Thurman had this role I probably wouldn't have even bothered to see this.  Great casting all around, really.

10) The Mike Meyers scene.  Loved it.  A very Peter Sellers feel to it right down to the bar in the globe.

11) It was beginning to get a bit keystone cops toward the end in the theater, which always baffels me - we've got a commando unit of the best of the best, but they can't walk out of the aisle of a theater without tripping over.  But - hey I think that redeemed itself in short order.

13)  I am no QT apologist by any stretch.  I never wanted to see Jackie Brown, I have no interest in the Kill Bills and refuse to watch grindhouse....so .  This movie has me wondering what I might have been missing out on.

14)  The last line of the movie: brilliant, and I agree.  When it cut to black I was the guy who started the applause in the theater.  

Now I'll go back and hear what y'all had to say




Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 10:29:44 AM
You ought to. I thought their story was the best.

Shosanna was also my favorite character. I kept expecting the Basterds and Shosanna to get together at some point but they both executed their plans without ever meeting.

Haha, silly to expect anything in this universe! How funny was Eli Roth and the other guy unloading the barrage of gunfire, seemingly oblivious to the theatre burning down. Did it even occur to them that something else was going on? Jeez, I can't wait to see the hilarity again!  :D

(Sorry as I go through old comments and reply out of sequence here)


Not only are they seemingly oblivious to the theater burning down, but the fact no one can escape because the front doors were locked!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 10:50:51 AM
10) The Mike Meyers scene.  Loved it.  A very Peter Sellers feel to it right down to the bar in the globe.
I just want to use this to clarify my previous position. This is exactly what I believe the scene was meant to be (I included the conflicting dramatic position just because I can imagine the other reading), but the simple fact that i don't think the humor is effective at all is why it doesn't work.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 11:14:33 AM
I dont think people thought it was going to have so many subtitles a lot of people in the theatre i saw it in were complaining.

LOL, God people are stupid. I love listening to French - and Spanish and Italian too for that matter (especially Brad Pitt's Italian).


If you are older, have any kind of reading disability ,or have bifocal related stuff, subtitles can be very difficult - or hell if you just can't read that fast...so it's nice to know ahead of time if that's what you're getting into...so I can understand the complaint on that level.  My wife is dyslexic and has a really hard time with subtitles.  It's very frustrating for her because she gets in a panic to read faster than she can.  But even as a preference thing I can't really look down on someone for not being into that.  It really is like an 80% subtitled movie.

For my part, I'm with you - I totall agree with you on the beauty of hearing those languages and I'll take the subtitles over what something like Valkerie did every time.  (I loved the fact that by design where were times that you didn't a translations as well.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 11:31:22 AM
Inglourious Basterds: The Good, The Rad and the Ugly.

While the movie can be enjoyed without understanding these references, an entire subtextual layer is revealed when we make the effort. It's the cinematic equivalent of adding butter to your dish. Butter helps everything. References to Leone films can only enhance your movie.


I'll be the first to admit that I recognized nearly NONE of the references, yet I enjoyed it thoroughly.  I remember watching the Godfather for the first time and in the course of the 2 hours finally getting the joke in a dozen different Simpsons episodes.  So as I spend the next 20 years filling up my filmography, I look forward to getting IG references in the same way!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 11:45:40 AM
Some disorganized thoughts.

I didn't get any pleasure out of spotting the resemblance between Inglorious Bastards and other films of which I'm a fan. Why would I? It takes the mystery out of every scene and character. The opening scene between Landa and Lapadite IS the scene in TGTB&TU where Van Cleef enters the home of the Mexican peon. Angel Eyes makes himself at home, Landa makes himself at home. Angel Eyes eats their food, Landa drinks their milk (Leon?). Angel Eyes is Gentlemanly, refined, coy, conscientious (in his own way), but a killer nonetheless; Landa is all of those things too. They both smoke fancy pipes even. And in the end, the shooting happens. The difference is that the scene in Inglorious Bastards has no tension. How can it when you know how it's going to end?

It's not just the ending to the scene which is spoiled, but every moment along the way. The characters and scene are so laden with references to other films that it limits their every move. It's this constrictive nature of IG which frustrated me. The film was like a dog on a short leash. Any time it attempted to run in any direction it was jerked to a halt, while Tarantino replayed another one of his favourite scenes. It's so preoccupied being referential that it fails to be it's own thing.

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level. 

Saying IG is an homage to other films is like saying a photograph of a tree is tree-like.  ::)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
Some disorganized thoughts.

I didn't get any pleasure out of spotting the resemblance between Inglorious Bastards and other films of which I'm a fan. Why would I? It takes the mystery out of every scene and character. The opening scene between Landa and Lapadite IS the scene in TGTB&TU where Van Cleef enters the home of the Mexican peon. Angel Eyes makes himself at home, Landa makes himself at home. Angel Eyes eats their food, Landa drinks their milk (Leon?). Angel Eyes is Gentlemanly, refined, coy, conscientious (in his own way), but a killer nonetheless; Landa is all of those things too. They both smoke fancy pipes even. And in the end, the shooting happens. The difference is that the scene in Inglorious Bastards has no tension. How can it when you know how it's going to end?

It's not just the ending to the scene which is spoiled, but every moment along the way. The characters and scene are so laden with references to other films that it limits their every move. It's this constrictive nature of IG which frustrated me. The film was like a dog on a short leash. Any time it attempted to run in any direction it was jerked to a halt, while Tarantino replayed another one of his favourite scenes. It's so preoccupied being referential that it fails to be it's own thing.

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level. 

Saying IG is an homage to other films is like saying a photograph of a tree is tree-like.  ::)

I have read dozens of reviews online and you are literally the only person who did not like the first scene and find it suspenseful.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on August 26, 2009, 12:09:48 PM

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level. 

i love this. 

that said, i really liked it and i really can't wait to see this film again

obviously this is a film about film(s), but also, and i don't think i've read anyone write on this yet, it is about going to the movies and the importance of movies as cultural meaning-makers.  movies impart values. 

on that point, Tarantino is teaching us to do cultural analysis, as he most famously did in Resevior Dogs with Like a Virgin, where he here gives us the example of significations for Rat and Squirrel.  if only people on the boards would be more receptive to close reading  ;D

i loved the way the film started by setting the nazis up as horrible people killing for their agenda and abruptly made the analogy to the americans doing the same thing.  unfortunately, i think this perspective gets lost in the film, i am hoping a second viewing clarifies things a bit for me on this point

i went to the first show of the day yesterday, so the gigantic theatre i was in had only about 100 people in it and crowd reaction was not ideal/a bit muffled.  but, when Shosanna gets dragged to the dinner and was thanked for "accepting the invitation" a guy in the theatre stood up and yelled "asshole!" - so great
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
Some disorganized thoughts.

I didn't get any pleasure out of spotting the resemblance between Inglorious Bastards and other films of which I'm a fan. Why would I? It takes the mystery out of every scene and character. The opening scene between Landa and Lapadite IS the scene in TGTB&TU where Van Cleef enters the home of the Mexican peon. Angel Eyes makes himself at home, Landa makes himself at home. Angel Eyes eats their food, Landa drinks their milk (Leon?). Angel Eyes is Gentlemanly, refined, coy, conscientious (in his own way), but a killer nonetheless; Landa is all of those things too. They both smoke fancy pipes even. And in the end, the shooting happens. The difference is that the scene in Inglorious Bastards has no tension. How can it when you know how it's going to end?

It's not just the ending to the scene which is spoiled, but every moment along the way. The characters and scene are so laden with references to other films that it limits their every move. It's this constrictive nature of IG which frustrated me. The film was like a dog on a short leash. Any time it attempted to run in any direction it was jerked to a halt, while Tarantino replayed another one of his favourite scenes. It's so preoccupied being referential that it fails to be it's own thing.

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level.  

Saying IG is an homage to other films is like saying a photograph of a tree is tree-like.  ::)

I have read dozens of reviews online and you are literally the only person who did not like the first scene and find it suspenseful.

It's true I did not find it suspenseful. But I didn't say I didn't like it. It's tricky to describe how I feel about it exactly. There's nothing wrong with it, any more than there is anything wrong with it in TGTB&TU. But in IG that scene feels more like a reenactment than a piece of art. A counterfeit.

It's like this. If you point a gun at my face, I will be afraid. If I become aware that the gun is not a gun, but a water pistol, I stop being afraid. It may still look at feel like a real gun, but suddenly I don't respect it. It's the same reason some people aren't satisfied with a replica Picaso, no matter how much it looks like the original. There is a feeling that goes along with knowing something is the genuine article. That feeling was missing when I watched IG. Perhaps this is a personal shortcoming or moral flaw. My own selfishness or ego coming into play. I haven't figured that part out yet. My feelings are genuine though, I promise you that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 12:13:17 PM
Some disorganized thoughts.

I didn't get any pleasure out of spotting the resemblance between Inglorious Bastards and other films of which I'm a fan. Why would I? It takes the mystery out of every scene and character. The opening scene between Landa and Lapadite IS the scene in TGTB&TU where Van Cleef enters the home of the Mexican peon. Angel Eyes makes himself at home, Landa makes himself at home. Angel Eyes eats their food, Landa drinks their milk (Leon?). Angel Eyes is Gentlemanly, refined, coy, conscientious (in his own way), but a killer nonetheless; Landa is all of those things too. They both smoke fancy pipes even. And in the end, the shooting happens. The difference is that the scene in Inglorious Bastards has no tension. How can it when you know how it's going to end?

It's not just the ending to the scene which is spoiled, but every moment along the way. The characters and scene are so laden with references to other films that it limits their every move. It's this constrictive nature of IG which frustrated me. The film was like a dog on a short leash. Any time it attempted to run in any direction it was jerked to a halt, while Tarantino replayed another one of his favourite scenes. It's so preoccupied being referential that it fails to be it's own thing.

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level.  

Saying IG is an homage to other films is like saying a photograph of a tree is tree-like.  ::)

I totally get what you're saying.   And maybe I'm much better for not knowing a lot of the references in the same way that I can enjoy wine that comes out of a box cuz I know nothing about 1962 Chablah blah blah.

But I will debate that knowing the reference doesn't give away the result of the first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 12:15:13 PM


But I will debate that knowing the reference runs that first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.

lol well said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 26, 2009, 12:17:32 PM
Why are people shortening it to IG? Should be IB.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 12:19:20 PM
i went to the first show of the day yesterday, so the gigantic theatre i was in had only about 100 people in it and crowd reaction was not ideal/a bit muffled.  but, when Shosanna gets dragged to the dinner and was thanked for "accepting the invitation" a guy in the theatre stood up and yelled "asshole!" - so great

Nice :)

During the finger in the leg scene someone at my theatre really lost it and blurted out "OH GOD NO!" and the whole crowd laughed. He was sitting right across the isle from me, and was really really cringing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 12:21:15 PM
Why are people shortening it to IG? Should be IB.

'cause the B and G keys are close to each other!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 12:21:34 PM
Why are people shortening it to IG? Should be IB.

That must be my fault lol.

(http://s147.photobucket.com/albums/r307/freecommenttags/import//graphics/funny_pictures/moron.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on August 26, 2009, 12:23:13 PM
Why are people shortening it to IG? Should be IB.

That must be my fault lol.

(http://s147.photobucket.com/albums/r307/freecommenttags/import//graphics/funny_pictures/moron.jpg)

yeah, that was a classically nice touch by Tarantino for the film's title :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 12:25:00 PM
Why are people shortening it to IG? Should be IB.

GD, that's me.  Shoot.  Owa tagoo siam.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 12:27:40 PM
i went to the first show of the day yesterday, so the gigantic theatre i was in had only about 100 people in it and crowd reaction was not ideal/a bit muffled.  but, when Shosanna gets dragged to the dinner and was thanked for "accepting the invitation" a guy in the theatre stood up and yelled "asshole!" - so great

Nice :)

During the finger in the leg scene someone at my theatre really lost it and blurted out "OH GOD NO!" and the whole crowd laughed. He was sitting right across the isle from me, and was really really cringing.

Two great stories there. 

I'm pretty stone faced about such things but I was curled up in the seat cringing on that last scene of the movie.  

I'm wanting to watch this again.  You guys are motivating me to wait until Friday for a packed house.  We had about 15 people in the theater last night

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 12:28:41 PM
I totally get what you're saying.   And maybe I'm much better for not knowing a lot of the references in the same way that I can enjoy wine that comes out of a box cuz I know nothing about 1962 Chablah blah blah.

But I will debate that knowing the reference doesn't give away the result of the first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.
Heh, this is true. Perhaps where I'm hung up is that there aren't enough surprises along the way. An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 12:31:44 PM
I totally get what you're saying.   And maybe I'm much better for not knowing a lot of the references in the same way that I can enjoy wine that comes out of a box cuz I know nothing about 1962 Chablah blah blah.

But I will debate that knowing the reference doesn't give away the result of the first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.
Heh, this is true. Perhaps where I'm hung up is that there aren't enough surprises along the way. An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.


I think this makes sense for his character. He does not like killing jews. He likes finding them. Killing them is sometimes part of his job. He basically makes this point in his speech about his nickname.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 12:32:16 PM
I totally get what you're saying.   And maybe I'm much better for not knowing a lot of the references in the same way that I can enjoy wine that comes out of a box cuz I know nothing about 1962 Chablah blah blah.

But I will debate that knowing the reference doesn't give away the result of the first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.
Heh, this is true. Perhaps where I'm hung up is that there aren't enough surprises along the way. An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.


True.  The Landa turn at toward was probably the one other big surprise for me .

I liked that runaway scene too :)   I love the explanation earlier in this thread about how it was allowed because Landa was really in it for the hunt and not necessarily for the extermination.  

EDIT: Clovis beat me to it!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 26, 2009, 12:35:58 PM
Some disorganized thoughts.

I didn't get any pleasure out of spotting the resemblance between Inglorious Bastards and other films of which I'm a fan. Why would I? It takes the mystery out of every scene and character. The opening scene between Landa and Lapadite IS the scene in TGTB&TU where Van Cleef enters the home of the Mexican peon. Angel Eyes makes himself at home, Landa makes himself at home. Angel Eyes eats their food, Landa drinks their milk (Leon?). Angel Eyes is Gentlemanly, refined, coy, conscientious (in his own way), but a killer nonetheless; Landa is all of those things too. They both smoke fancy pipes even. And in the end, the shooting happens. The difference is that the scene in Inglorious Bastards has no tension. How can it when you know how it's going to end?

It's not just the ending to the scene which is spoiled, but every moment along the way. The characters and scene are so laden with references to other films that it limits their every move. It's this constrictive nature of IG which frustrated me. The film was like a dog on a short leash. Any time it attempted to run in any direction it was jerked to a halt, while Tarantino replayed another one of his favourite scenes. It's so preoccupied being referential that it fails to be it's own thing.

Watching IG is like watching someone else play video games. You sit waiting patiently for your turn (which never comes), while Tarantino has all the fun. "Watch this, Watch this!" he yells, "Yeah, that's great" you lie. I really don't care that Tarantino can beat the game and I probably can't even get past the first level. 

Saying IG is an homage to other films is like saying a photograph of a tree is tree-like.  ::)

I have read dozens of reviews online and you are literally the only person who did not like the first scene and find it suspenseful.
I don't like it either for the same reasons. I knew how it was going to end from shot one. No suspense. That whole scene was such a drag.

Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 12:47:26 PM


Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 26, 2009, 12:47:43 PM
Cringing:  I had to turn away on all the scalpings and swastika carvings; it only made me notice the equally unnerving juicy sound effects.  Brrrr.  Just shuddered again typing about it.

The Landa turn at the end being a surprise:  agreed.  I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, that it was all a big set up, and Landa was playing them.  I was worried that Aldo seemed to be falling for it, but also assumed he had another double cross up his sleeve as well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 12:57:56 PM
Something else that struck me about this, besides the obvious Jewish Revenge theme, was that it is very appealing on the level of these are Americans fighting for a cause that is not ambiguious in any way.  It's been a while since you could root for Americans to succeed unilaterally in a mission not involving aliens or asteroids, so that was an additional carthartic element to it.  Case in point, I watched the Hurt Locker right after. 

It probably bears mention too, that the French in WWII have been heavily criticized by history - so I can see some French audiences getting some satisfaction in this revisionist conclusion as well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 12:59:07 PM
I totally get what you're saying.   And maybe I'm much better for not knowing a lot of the references in the same way that I can enjoy wine that comes out of a box cuz I know nothing about 1962 Chablah blah blah.

But I will debate that knowing the reference doesn't give away the result of the first scene.  I think you know it's going to end badly the second you see the Nazi cars driving up the dirt road.  They weren't going to be selling Magazine subscriptions.
Heh, this is true. Perhaps where I'm hung up is that there aren't enough surprises along the way. An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.


I think this makes sense for his character. He does not like killing jews. He likes finding them. Killing them is sometimes part of his job. He basically makes this point in his speech about his nickname.

Hmm, yeah you're right. That works for me.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 26, 2009, 01:00:58 PM
Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.
This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!
Take for instance the John C. Riley character in Hard 8 (Or Sidney). He doesn't carry around matches because once they exploded in his pocket. PTA even shows a short shot where this happens. This is a nod to the Edward G. Robinson character in Double Indeminity who also doesn't carry around matches for the same reason. It's a small asside, a character quirk, but PTA makes it his own.

Contrast this to Tarantino who pretty much just yanked plot points and images from other movies and tossed them into IB. He didn't earn it the way PTA did. In fact, he might even be considered a cinema plagiarist. He needs to make his own film, not rip bits and pieces of great films.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 01:02:18 PM
Something else that struck me about this, besides the obvious Jewish Revenge theme, was that it is very appealing on the level of these are Americans fighting for a cause that is not ambiguious in any way.  It's been a while since you could root for Americans to succeed unilaterally in a mission not involving aliens or asteroids, so that was an additional carthartic element to it.  Case in point, I watched the Hurt Locker right after. 

It probably bears mention too, that the French in WWII have been heavily criticized by history - so I can see some French audiences getting some satisfaction in this revisionist conclusion as well.

I also think Germans probably find it cathartic. Imaging living the Nazi legacy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on August 26, 2009, 01:02:29 PM

It probably bears mention too, that the French in WWII have been heavily criticized by history - so I can see some French audiences getting some satisfaction in this revisionist conclusion as well.

which reminds me of the/an other bit i really liked about the film, that Shosanna, and assuredly others like her, are ready to commit acts of revolution :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 26, 2009, 01:03:12 PM


Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!

While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it.  While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head.  You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him.  It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal.  He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it.  Or that's how it feels to me.

In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek.  His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.

That said, I still liked the movie a lot.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 26, 2009, 01:05:57 PM
One shot that my feelings changed for was the shot in the burning theater of the giant nazi emblem falling into the flames.  When I was watching it I was like, hmmm that was kind of lazy and cliched.

Then I read about how hairy the actual scene was and how much hotter than expected the fire burned, and supposedly the big emblem wasn't supposed to fall at all, but the heat of the flames melted the steel cables holding it up.  Then my thought changed to, hey, good for them for catching it and being able to use it.

Now as I type this and think about it again I'm thinking, OR that would be a good story to put out and the shot was meant to be that way all along...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on August 26, 2009, 01:09:44 PM


Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!

While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it.  While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head.  You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him.  It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal.  He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it.  Or that's how it feels to me.

In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek.  His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.

That said, I still liked the movie a lot.

i don't really have a problem with it.  first, i am not familiar with the vast majority of the references, so nothing is "ruined" for me.  but also, and i wrote on this a bit earlier, he is clearly also commenting on the importance of pop culture to us as a shared language, this, i think, is pretty great
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 01:14:48 PM


Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!

While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it.  While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head.  You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him.  It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal.  He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it.  Or that's how it feels to me.

In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek.  His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.

That said, I still liked the movie a lot.

Tarantino is trying to be obvious in his film references. He mostly references low-brow cinema (exploitation, slasher, martial arts). He is not referencing The 400 Blows or 8 1/2. It is meant to be in your face and populist.

I bet anything, that if you told him:

"His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart."

he would respond; "F*CK YA, that is exactly what I want".

The difference between PTA and QT is that PTA adds small homages to his films, while QT films are ENTIRELY homages. It's the difference between a painter using black and white as an homage to Picasso's Guernica, and a collage artist creating something new by cutting and pasting together all of Picasso's art.


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
... he is clearly also commenting on the importance of pop culture to us as a shared language, this, i think, is pretty great

I like this comment.  There is a bit of synecdoche going on here.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: roujin on August 26, 2009, 01:16:44 PM
while QT films are ENTIRELY homages.

This seems like a totally backhanded compliment (http://thelifecinematic.com/board/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 01:17:51 PM
while QT films are ENTIRELY homages.

This seems like a totally backhanded compliment (http://thelifecinematic.com/board/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)

only if you think collage is also not real art! IB is the film equivalent of this great piece of art...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Hoch-Cut_With_the_Kitchen_Knife.jpg/476px-Hoch-Cut_With_the_Kitchen_Knife.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 01:25:33 PM


Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!

While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it.  While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head.  You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him.  It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal.  He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it.  Or that's how it feels to me.

In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek.  His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.

Well said Colleen

What I love about Jackie Brown is that I get the dialogue, the music, the style of Tarantino without that "Look how much I love movies" thing. Is this because I'm unaware of the references? I'm not sure. Does Jackie Brown borrow as heavily from other films as IB? To my knowledge, it's not even close. Perhaps this has something to do with it being based on a good book and so Tarantino wasn't able to shoehorn in as many references as he otherwise would've? In anycase, It feels like an original work to me and shows me Tarantino has the ability to do his own thing and do it well, but he chooses not to.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 01:31:08 PM
I guess it is just me, but I find it rather odd that someone who regularly frequents a film board, and therefore obviously loves films, could not like a movie that is equally in love with film. QT movies are a love letter to people just like us. Oh well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 02:09:24 PM
while QT films are ENTIRELY homages.

This seems like a totally backhanded compliment (http://thelifecinematic.com/board/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)

only if you think collage is also not real art! IB is the film equivalent of this great piece of art...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6b/Hoch-Cut_With_the_Kitchen_Knife.jpg/476px-Hoch-Cut_With_the_Kitchen_Knife.jpg)

Not sure which side of the debate this argues for, but there's a lot to enjoy looking at the collage!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 02:19:48 PM
I guess it is just me, but I find it rather odd that someone who regularly frequents a film board, and therefore obviously loves films, could not like a movie that is equally in love with film. QT movies are a love letter to people just like us.

I'm sure it is as you say, but...

Loving movies is a tricky thing. Sometimes you can turn people off by being too in love a film. I'm certainly guilty of this. The temptation to champion films, without restraint, in the hopes that you'll inspire others to see them and love them too, can actually be counterproductive. Depending on how it's presented, and the person presenting it, it can come off as a superiority thing. Sort of like how it feels when someone tries to jam a religion down your throat. People will like or dislike something on their own, agree or disagree. When a recommendation comes wrapped in the condition that "if you don't appreciate this, it's because you don't comprehend it", it feels like your being put on trial, or that your judgement is being questioned. Or in Tarantino's case it's like he's saying "I love movies more deeply than you".

I'm not questioning his intentions, but in the case of IB it didn't stop me from feeling I was a being given a patronizing lecture.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a fault of Tarantino, after all I'm the one who's feeling defensive, but I think it explains where I'm coming from.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 02:28:51 PM
I guess it is just me, but I find it rather odd that someone who regularly frequents a film board, and therefore obviously loves films, could not like a movie that is equally in love with film. QT movies are a love letter to people just like us.

I'm sure it is as you say, but...

Loving movies is a tricky thing. Sometimes you can turn people off by being too in love a film. I'm certainly guilty of this. The temptation to champion films, without restraint, in the hopes that you'll inspire others to see them and love them too, can actually be counterproductive. Depending on how it's presented, and the person presenting it, it can come off as a superiority thing. Sort of like how it feels when someone tries to jam a religion down your throat. People will like or dislike something on their own, agree or disagree. When a recommendation comes wrapped in the condition that "if you don't appreciate this, it's because you don't comprehend it", it feels like your being put on trial, or that your judgement is being questioned. Or in Tarantino's case it's like he's saying "I love movies more deeply than you".

I'm not questioning his intentions, but in the case of IB it didn't stop me from feeling I was a being given a patronizing lecture.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a fault of Tarantino, after all I'm the one who's feeling defensive, but I think it explains where I'm coming from.

Fair enough. However, to me, this would make more sense if he was "lecturing" you on Truffaut, Wells, or Goddard and not Van Peebles, Fujita and Sarafian. He is "lecturing" us with the cinema of the masses, so I find it hard to see it as elitist or pretentious.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on August 26, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
I don't believe the film homages were working agaisnt the movie because I don't look for that even in Tarantino movies. I am always looking at a film saying "What is Tarantino presenting, and does it work?" And so maybe, with a second viewing and a much, much bigger knowledge of film I could pick out references but they never ever annoyed me unless Tarantino would derail a scene just to fit a reference in.

I don't get most of the references, its true. Having only been a film fan for three years and having to deal with the life and laziness of being a 15 year old irish kid, i don't know enough to get every tiny reference. Of course I see the Morricone cues, but the other stuff passes me by.

But I believe that Tarantino's film references arent derailing. Take the aforementioned Morricone cues. They are used to fantastic effect, especially at the denoument of the opening chapter, as Waltz calls the nazis into the hut. If Tarantino used these cues as simple references, it wouldnt work. But his use of the score works fantastically well.

But, once again, I'm not one to compare films by using phrases such as "Boogie Nights is the Nashville of the 90's"(first example that came into my head, sorry). No. Each film is unto it's own. Boogie Nights is Boogie Nights. Nothing more. I will call out a movie if it feels totally ripped off from something else,  but each film has it's own style and I respect that.

And so it is with Basterds. It is not, I believe a collection of references, but it's own creation, and should be judged that way. I believe it's a magnificent movie, and will say more about it when I get to it a second time and write it up, but it should not be judged on references. Once again, I barely spotted any references(only the Morricone and a small shot that seemed to resemble the look into your heart scene in Miller's Crossing) and maybe they'll come up more a second time, but I don't go into the cinema looking for that.

Sorry to get off on a tangent and to go off track of the conversation a bit, but I had some interesting thoughts and thought you might like to hear them.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 03:21:44 PM
I guess it is just me, but I find it rather odd that someone who regularly frequents a film board, and therefore obviously loves films, could not like a movie that is equally in love with film. QT movies are a love letter to people just like us.

I'm sure it is as you say, but...

Loving movies is a tricky thing. Sometimes you can turn people off by being too in love a film. I'm certainly guilty of this. The temptation to champion films, without restraint, in the hopes that you'll inspire others to see them and love them too, can actually be counterproductive. Depending on how it's presented, and the person presenting it, it can come off as a superiority thing. Sort of like how it feels when someone tries to jam a religion down your throat. People will like or dislike something on their own, agree or disagree. When a recommendation comes wrapped in the condition that "if you don't appreciate this, it's because you don't comprehend it", it feels like your being put on trial, or that your judgement is being questioned. Or in Tarantino's case it's like he's saying "I love movies more deeply than you".

I'm not questioning his intentions, but in the case of IB it didn't stop me from feeling I was a being given a patronizing lecture.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a fault of Tarantino, after all I'm the one who's feeling defensive, but I think it explains where I'm coming from.

Fair enough. However, to me, this would make more sense if he was "lecturing" you on Truffaut, Wells, or Goddard and not Van Peebles, Fujita and Sarafian. He is "lecturing" us with the cinema of the masses, so I find it hard to see it as elitist or pretentious.
I really disagree with you in calling his references "cinema of the masses". While it could be argued that art-house cinema targets a limited crowd of self-identified intellectuals, the kinds of exploitation and low-budget films Tarantino cites aren't for the masses, but for a similarly limited crowd. The average film-goer wasn't going to see either side, but rather whatever MGM was putting out. Tarantino's loves have been seen by probably comparable numbers of people and have only recently had any life after theatrical release while the art-house classics have gotten endlessly recirculated for years. You seem to be equating "masses" with the perception of "low-brow" and beyond having many theoretical issues with that, it gives the impression of a wider audience that I don't believe you've corroborated.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 03:26:14 PM
Oh, sam, I have a bit of issue with your argument as well. However, it's completely unsubstantiated, but I have to say I look at the usage of reference by PTA and QT as entirely uncomparable. PTA does everything he can to seamlessly integrate all his usage while QT's is directly on the surface. Now, it seems you agree with that, but the difference I see is that because I feel both are entirely deliberate, I don't understand what you see that's comparable? To me that's like saying all use of stock footage or green filters has the exact same effect, intention, purpose and ideal usage.

However, if you don't buy anything I'm saying, I'm pretty sure there's not a lot we can do beyond this.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 26, 2009, 03:32:55 PM
IB is made up entirely of references? Thank God my film knowledge is so poor.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 03:40:16 PM
IB is made up entirely of references? Thank God my film knowledge is so poor.
No, I'm sure it's not. My phrasing was likely just poor.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 26, 2009, 03:41:26 PM
Sorry to get off on a tangent and to go off track of the conversation a bit, but I had some interesting thoughts and thought you might like to hear them.

LOL That comment could be tacked on to the end of every post on these boards!  That's what we all do, pretty much.  Don't worry about it.  and don't apologize for having thoughts to throw into the mix.

Even while I confess to being annoyed by the way QT does what he does, I still mostly enjoy it in a movie like IB or Pulp Fiction.  I guess I find a lot of his personality, or at least his public persona, sort of obnoxious (the person who said he projects "I love movies so much more than you" hit it on the head I think), and I don't know if his style of homage is reflecting the obnoxious part of his personality or my opinion of his obnoxiousness is coloring how I see his style.  Probably the latter, but it is what it is.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 26, 2009, 04:00:56 PM
IB is made up entirely of references? Thank God my film knowledge is so poor.
No, I'm sure it's not. My phrasing was likely just poor.
Ah that wasn't pointed directly at you, I thought I had seen a couple other posters as well discuss that when talking about QT and PTA.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on August 26, 2009, 04:07:06 PM
Sorry to get off on a tangent and to go off track of the conversation a bit, but I had some interesting thoughts and thought you might like to hear them.

LOL That comment could be tacked on to the end of every post on these boards!  That's what we all do, pretty much.  Don't worry about it.  and don't apologize for having thoughts to throw into the mix.

That reminds me of a speech I heard someone give where he was talking about the education system killing creativity and he mentioned that creativity is usually bred when people aren't afraid to make mistakes, and that education was making out mistakes as the worst thing children could make, which in turn killed creativity. I think that's what's so great about these boards is that, not only is everyone so nice and unique, but the whole atmosphere is welcoming and new ideas are being tried every day, and so people aren't afraid to try new things.

Now, how's that for a non-sequitor.

Even while I confess to being annoyed by the way QT does what he does, I still mostly enjoy it in a movie like IB or Pulp Fiction.  I guess I find a lot of his personality, or at least his public persona, sort of obnoxious (the person who said he projects "I love movies so much more than you" hit it on the head I think), and I don't know if his style of homage is reflecting the obnoxious part of his personality or my opinion of his obnoxiousness is coloring how I see his style.  Probably the latter, but it is what it is.

Well, I do enjoy Pulp fiction, and being 15 years old I am more lenient for films like this. And I don't really see his persona shine through more then you, I guess it's just a personal reation. But IB is a much more mature film, styallistically and emotionally then his previous films. Yes, there's still over the top violence. But take a look at the la louisiane scene, or more specifically, the moment where Fassbender realises what he has to do. Tarantino's colours are much more saturated and, while I think most of that moment is Fassbender's great acting, he lets the emotion build up. We would not have seen this moment in Pulp Fiction, in Kill bill, or even in Reservoir Dogs. So, I think you can construe Tarantino, or pre IB Tarantino as obnoxious, but with IB he is maturing as a filmmaker, and he has created something that is not all style and cool lines, but that has emotion built up.

Now ganted, the use of Bowie during Shoshanna's shooting is more like the Tarantino from PF, but I think La Louisiane signals the Tarantino that is developing before us and I think that this is great.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 04:25:34 PM
There were certainly times where I wasn't aware of any references. Fredrick Zoller and Shosanna were completely original characters as far as I was concerned. And all of their scenes together seemed equally original. Unfortunately I didn't find either of their stories especially compelling.

The basement pub scene was probably the best part of the film for me, but even it was too slowly paced for my liking. It seemed to want to build the tension by drawing things out, but I didn't think the film had much of any tension to build upon in the first place. The reason being, I was never made to care about the Bastard's. And as individuals I cared about them even less. I rooted for them, but only in a general way. The way you root for anyone who kills nazis. Why this particular group was special was not demonstrated well enough imo, and it should've been. I already know how the war ends, I needed something else to root for.

Shosanna's story was limp in the same way. Yes, I wanted to see here get revenge, as I might for any of the countless victims of the war, but no more no less.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 26, 2009, 04:50:50 PM
So much stuff in the last 4 hours. Let me comment at least on the stuff directed at me:

Pretty much all the references annoyed me. There's a difference here between the kind of PTA references and IB referencing. PTA makes them his own, Tarantino just changes the names and stuffs the scene with a ton of dialogue.

This might be the single most incorrect thing ever posted on the board!

While I don't have the level of disdain for Tarantino's referencing that Sam has, I do have to agree that he's a little too in your face with it.  While some film-makers are content with a subtle homage that speaks to them, maybe the original filmmaker being homage-d (if they are around to see it) and a few geeks in the audience, Tarantino's homages are of the kind that bonk you over the head.  You HAVE to notice and appreciate what he's doing or it doesn't work for him.  It's all part of his "aren't I just the most clever, po-mo, ironic director you have EVER SEEN?" deal.  He doesn't do it for himself only, he does it to be noticed and complimented for it.  Or that's how it feels to me.

In a way he kind of dumbs down being a film geek.  His references are so obvious that anyone with a Blockbuster card can recognize them and feel smart.

That said, I still liked the movie a lot.
Dumbing down=bad. I generally don't like movies for the masses because I think you lose a lot of the intricacies. I don't know if I would say he dumbed it down, but he made it so obvious what he was ripping off all I could think of was how great that film was and how this one totally butchers the scene with all its chattiness.

I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche. It also makes for rather uncreative writing as you just rip cool ideas and moments from other film instead of making them your own (Like PTA).

I guess it is just me, but I find it rather odd that someone who regularly frequents a film board, and therefore obviously loves films, could not like a movie that is equally in love with film. QT movies are a love letter to people just like us. Oh well.
Maybe because I'm more interested in the quality of the film than anything else? I don't see how any film that shows love for movies should automatically make it endearing to my heart. Fanboys is a movie in love with Star Wars, but that doesn't make it a great movie to everyone who loves those films.

The bottom line for me is this: is the film good? IB is a good movie, but I have a lot of things I don't like about it. Is it a great movie, no? Why? I think I've made my reasons clear at this point. You can disagree, but don't go making sweeping generalizations and apply them to me just so you can subvert my points altogether.

Oh, sam, I have a bit of issue with your argument as well. However, it's completely unsubstantiated, but I have to say I look at the usage of reference by PTA and QT as entirely uncomparable. PTA does everything he can to seamlessly integrate all his usage while QT's is directly on the surface. Now, it seems you agree with that, but the difference I see is that because I feel both are entirely deliberate, I don't understand what you see that's comparable? To me that's like saying all use of stock footage or green filters has the exact same effect, intention, purpose and ideal usage.

However, if you don't buy anything I'm saying, I'm pretty sure there's not a lot we can do beyond this.
I like subtlety in my film. If a film is telling me something I tend to lose interest, as I did a lot in this film. I felt that almost all of the QT references (in this film)screamed out like "look at this bit I pulled from *some film*, isn't it badass?"

It reminds me of those kids who make those store bought lego sets with a few minor tweaks and show them to you like they came up with the whole thing themselves. "Isn't it sweet? Isn't it like the coolest thing ever? I made it all by myself? Don't you like how I shaped the wings?" No kid, go back in your corner, smash up that thing and make something new and original instead of just shifting around the work of other people.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 04:52:26 PM
So you buy my assessment and simply stand against the kind of usage of Tarantino? (Which is fine.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 26, 2009, 05:03:54 PM
So you buy my assessment and simply stand against the kind of usage of Tarantino? (Which is fine.)
Only in the context of IB. Of the two I prefer PTA.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 26, 2009, 05:35:33 PM

The basement pub scene was probably the best part of the film for me, but even it was too slowly paced for my liking. It seemed to want to build the tension by drawing things out, but I didn't think the film had much of any tension to build upon in the first place. The reason being, I was never made to care about the Bastard's. And as individuals I cared about them even less. I rooted for them, but only in a general way. The way you root for anyone who kills nazis. Why this particular group was special was not demonstrated well enough imo, and it should've been. I already know how the war ends, I needed something else to root for.
What did you think of the restaurant scene? When the two are alone... I loved it. Very tense.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 06:05:01 PM
What did you think of the restaurant scene? When the two are alone... I loved it. Very tense.

Oh yeah! Good call. Probably the most tense scene in the film. On top of being evil, Landa is one of those characters you just can't take your eyes off of. Watching him operate in that scene was riviting.

I also felt the tension when Zoller comes up to the projection room at the end. I really didn't want to see the plan fail at that point. So when Shosanna got shot I was genuinely surprised. I wasn't sure if everything was already in place at that point or not. Luckily it was.

I wasn't sorry to see either of them die though. I wasn't attached to their characters.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 06:06:21 PM
What did you think of the restaurant scene? When the two are alone... I loved it. Very tense.

Oh yeah! Good call. Probably the most tense scene in the film. On top of being evil, Landa is one of those characters you just can't take your eyes off of. Watching him operate in that scene was riviting.

I also felt the tension when Zoller comes up to the projection room at the end. I really didn't want to see the plan fail at that point. So when Shosanna got shot I was genuinely surprised. I wasn't sure if everything was already in place at that point or not. Luckily it was.

I wasn't sorry to see either of them die though. I wasn't attached to their characters.
Were you the one in my theater that cheered when Shoshanna got shot?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 06:15:46 PM
lol, that's outrageous :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 26, 2009, 06:49:51 PM
What did you think of the restaurant scene? When the two are alone... I loved it. Very tense.

Oh yeah! Good call. Probably the most tense scene in the film. On top of being evil, Landa is one of those characters you just can't take your eyes off of. Watching him operate in that scene was riviting.

I also felt the tension when Zoller comes up to the projection room at the end. I really didn't want to see the plan fail at that point. So when Shosanna got shot I was genuinely surprised. I wasn't sure if everything was already in place at that point or not. Luckily it was.

I wasn't sorry to see either of them die though. I wasn't attached to their characters.

Shosanna was an interesting character for me (not to mention the actress O.O hot), but I wasn't really attached either now that you mention. I did have an overwhelming feeling of "Yes, please, burn these Nazi's in a great inferno of justice" but her backstory was.. meh. One character I wish we would have had more of was her lover, who I forget the name of. He was so devoted and his "Oui, Shosanna" line and big smile was awesome to me.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on August 26, 2009, 07:01:12 PM
Marcel.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 26, 2009, 07:03:31 PM

i went to the first show of the day yesterday, so the gigantic theatre i was in had only about 100 people in it and crowd reaction was not ideal/a bit muffled.  but, when Shosanna gets dragged to the dinner and was thanked for "accepting the invitation" a guy in the theatre stood up and yelled "asshole!" - so great

Absolutely classic!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 26, 2009, 07:32:12 PM
What did you think of the restaurant scene? When the two are alone... I loved it. Very tense.

Oh yeah! Good call. Probably the most tense scene in the film. On top of being evil, Landa is one of those characters you just can't take your eyes off of. Watching him operate in that scene was riviting.

I also felt the tension when Zoller comes up to the projection room at the end. I really didn't want to see the plan fail at that point. So when Shosanna got shot I was genuinely surprised. I wasn't sure if everything was already in place at that point or not. Luckily it was.

I wasn't sorry to see either of them die though. I wasn't attached to their characters.

Shosanna was an interesting character for me (not to mention the actress O.O hot), but I wasn't really attached either now that you mention. I did have an overwhelming feeling of "Yes, please, burn these Nazi's in a great inferno of justice" but her backstory was.. meh. One character I wish we would have had more of was her lover, who I forget the name of. He was so devoted and his "Oui, Shosanna" line and big smile was awesome to me.

Mmm yeah. I remember being really worried for the guy, I was totally expecting him to get caught and roughed up by some Nazis while he was running around locking the doors.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 26, 2009, 10:51:56 PM
Marcel.
Oh right, Marcel. Yes. I really liked Marcel.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 11:10:44 PM
Marcel was naturalistic as hell.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 26, 2009, 11:14:03 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 26, 2009, 11:15:51 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

That thought occured to me this evening.  My concluded that he figured she could only compromise his plans from that point forward.  I tend to agree. As good intentioned as she was, she really screwed up big time
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 11:18:39 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

That thought occured to me this evening.  My concluded that he figured she could only compromise his plans from that point forward.  I tend to agree. As good intentioned as she was, she really screwed up big time
No no, that was a completely emotional murder, hence the strangulation. She was a former lover and he felt personally betrayed that she had strayed to the American side. It's part of where the film conflates national love with other human emotions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 11:20:25 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 11:24:12 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 26, 2009, 11:42:00 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.

I agree it was a spur of the moment lose of control and completely emotional.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 26, 2009, 11:47:05 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.

I agree it was a spur of the moment lose of control and completely emotional.

I guess that makes sense.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 26, 2009, 11:50:05 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.

I agree it was a spur of the moment lose of control and completely emotional.
That makes total sense.
Thanks hamster.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 26, 2009, 11:51:31 PM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.

I agree it was a spur of the moment lose of control and completely emotional.
That makes total sense.
Thanks hamster.

Any time!  :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 27, 2009, 02:51:41 AM
The one character moment I still don't understand is Landa killing Bridget. Why did he do that?

I think it was a combination of two things. First, she was a traitor to Germany which would really piss Landa off given he values loyalty. Second, and I think this is more important, she insulted his intelligence with the mountain climbing story, as we see from his over the top reaction. His ego is tied to how others see his intelligence.  Insulting that would be the gravest sin to Landa.
I sort of buy this, but frankly, the way he's willing to turn his back on Germany shows his lack of devotion to any side. His devotion to his intelligence, however, is unquestioned. I think the emotional/sexual relationship relates to his own sense of charm.

Either way, it was directly an act of passion.

Shoot I don't remember references to them having had a relationship?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 27, 2009, 03:38:02 AM
Just saw it again and it's better than I thought. Chapters 1 and 5 in particular. Chapter 5 is so gorgeous, loud, tragic, violent, empowering and so much more.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 27, 2009, 03:42:37 AM
Just saw it again and it's better than I thought. Chapters 1 and 5 in particular. Chapter 5 is so gorgeous, loud, tragic, violent, empowering and so much more.

Remind me which chapter that chapter 5 is?  

EDIT: NM. Found it: "Revenge of the Giant Face"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 27, 2009, 03:55:20 AM
Oh one problem I had: why are they using Hugo in the undercover operation when all the Germans know he is a basterd? Even Landa recognises him when surveying the carnage in the pub. Oh and why did Bridget leave her shoe there?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Emiliana on August 27, 2009, 04:54:22 AM
About Bridget leaving her shoe: she was severely injured, so the whereabouts of her shoes would not be a top priority for her at that moment.

About the film in general, I have just a few random thoughts:
- I really, really liked it, much more than I ever thought I would.
- OMG, Germans and Austrians were played by Germans and Austrians! The German language used was idiomatic and always translated accurately in the subtitles - what a nice surprise.
- It was great to be able to understand all three main languages used, and to watch the actors shift between them. I had no idea Daniel Brühl spoke such excellent French.
- I made a complete fool of myself when I shouted "Rainer Bock!" at the screen (He's one of my favourite actors at the best theatre here in Munich, I see him there all the time. He was in IB for a only a minute and had two or three lines at most. The people around me looked at me as if I was nuts).
- How familiar are people outside of Germany with Karl May and Winnetou??
- I'm not entirely sure if I understand Landa's motivation - so he's not really a Nazi (as he's eager to wipe out the Nazi leaders), but was their best Jew-killer simply he enjoyed the intellectual challange of the hunt?

And then there's this:
Something else that struck me about this, besides the obvious Jewish Revenge theme, was that it is very appealing on the level of these are Americans fighting for a cause that is not ambiguious in any way.  It's been a while since you could root for Americans to succeed unilaterally in a mission not involving aliens or asteroids, so that was an additional carthartic element to it.  Case in point, I watched the Hurt Locker right after. 

It probably bears mention too, that the French in WWII have been heavily criticized by history - so I can see some French audiences getting some satisfaction in this revisionist conclusion as well.

I also think Germans probably find it cathartic. Imaging living the Nazi legacy.

I have been thinking about this post for a few hours now, and I haven't been able to come up with a response that I'm happy with yet. Maybe that's partly because I am afraid to voice any opinion for fear of becoming the voice of Germans in general. This is just good, old, little Emiliana, responding to the film in her very personal, not particularly politically-minded way. But here are a few ramblings anyway:

Sometimes I get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany. On first hearing about Tarantino's plan to make a film about Nazi killers, that was my immediate reaction, because I feared it would be little more than sadistic slaughter-porn that didn't bother to make a distinction between Nazis and Germans, and between Germany then and Germany now.

That said, I can't stress strongly enough how important it is for this topic to be as big a part of popular culture and public discussion as it is. Ok, I had visited a concentration camp three times by the time I was twelve years old, and was thus thoroughly, utterly imprinted down to my very essence about just how horrible the Holocaust was. As a consequence, the omnipresence of the topic could feel slightly tiresome to me at times. However, I became aware very soon that not everone had my experiences, and that it was of the utmost importance that that chapter of history should never be forgotten, and that there were always new young people who needed to learn about it in the same clear terms as I had done.

In the end, I decided not to worry about which political agenda the film might have, but to see what it was like just as a film. And I thought it was a pretty damn great one, and the audience agreed (approximately two thirds German, one third American, English and other places) - cheers, applause... But I wouldn't want to say whether the cheers were due to a release of hereditary guilt - all I know is that I don't think that it was the case for me, but rather a result of the film's perspective and stakes, that automatically had you utterly loathe the nazi characters and deeply invested in Shosanna's story.

I was positively surprised that the film was quite clearly a revenge fantasy rather and not a depiction of actual history. Will the film help to cement Germans as brutal ex-Nazis in the minds of those non German movie-goers that maybe aren't very much interested in thinking outside the box and looking beyond their own nose? Maybe. Do I mind that? To a certain extent, yes. Do I think IB shouldn't have been made? Hell no, it's a fantastic film.

Don't know if any of this is coherent or insightful, but I'm not sure if I'll ever have anything better or more to say.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 27, 2009, 06:07:03 AM
About Bridget leaving her shoe: she was severely injured, so the whereabouts of her shoes would not be a top priority for her at that moment.



Sometimes I get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany. On first hearing about Tarantino's plan to make a film about Nazi killers, that was my immediate reaction, because I feared it would be little more than sadistic slaughter-porn that didn't bother to make a distinction between Nazis and Germans, and between Germany then and Germany now.

I was positively surprised that the film was quite clearly a revenge fantasy rather and not a depiction of actual history. Will the film help to cement Germans as brutal ex-Nazis in the minds of those non German movie-goers that maybe aren't very much interested in thinking outside the box and looking beyond their own nose? Maybe. Do I mind that? To a certain extent, yes. Do I think IB shouldn't have been made? Hell no, it's a fantastic film.


Bridget should have remembered given all the danger. But anyway why didn't all the basterds check everything when they left. Silly.

You get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany which is fair enough but this opinion is not that relevant here solely because this is hardly even a WWII film, given its huge departures from history. Your opinion is valid and I agree with it, but it will carry more weight when brought up during a discussion of a WWII film that maintains some semblance of accuracy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Emiliana on August 27, 2009, 06:34:08 AM
You get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany which is fair enough but this opinion is not that relevant here solely because this is hardly even a WWII film, given its huge departures from history. Your opinion is valid and I agree with it, but it will carry more weight when brought up during a discussion of a WWII film that maintains some semblance of accuracy.

I am actually agreeing with you (which was maybe not clear enough in my initial post) that many of my thoughts and concerns simply weren't as relevant any more as soon as I realised that we were clearly presented with an alternate, fantastical version of reality.
Actually, my post is less a direct reaction to the film, but rather an attempt at a reaction to Clovis' post in which he speculates if Germans would find the film cathartic as we are "living the Nazi legacy". I'm only trying to clarify (probably more for my own benefit than for anyone else's), how this one German, very personally, experienced the film and where I'm coming from with my reaction.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on August 27, 2009, 06:44:00 AM
I think you're making things a bit easy for yourself there, chardy. IB doesn't exist in a historical void, instead it very deliberatly modifies a specific part of history and turns it into a film that hinges on the satisfaction that you get from said modification. I don't know about you (well, actually I do) but I for one find that far more interesting than what most WW2 movies do in terms of recreating history.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on August 27, 2009, 06:50:48 AM
You have to go into IB knowing Tarantino is not presenting World War 2. He is only using it to allow you to easily identify villians, heros, etc.. You have to notice that Tarantino is not presenting fact, and the fact that he does kill Hitler at the end represents this fact. He is living inside his own world, a completely created world, and it has no social conventions at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 27, 2009, 06:52:36 AM
Oh one problem I had: why are they using Hugo in the undercover operation when all the Germans know he is a basterd? Even Landa recognises him when surveying the carnage in the pub. Oh and why did Bridget leave her shoe there?

Nono. ONLY Landa recognizes him. He tells the other men about the Basterds. It isn't clear how Landa knows so much other than to say he is damn amazing at his job, and if we don't think he would interrogate each and every one of their swastika-marked survivors, well I simply don't think we are operating on a level of mutual respect.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on August 27, 2009, 06:55:57 AM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on August 27, 2009, 07:26:56 AM
I think the nazis were to drunk to recognise anybody.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 27, 2009, 07:41:33 AM
I think you're making things a bit easy for yourself there, chardy. IB doesn't exist in a historical void, instead it very deliberatly modifies a specific part of history and turns it into a film that hinges on the satisfaction that you get from said modification. I don't know about you (well, actually I do) but I for one find that far more interesting than what most WW2 movies do in terms of recreating history.

Mononoke's thinking is more along my lines.

I'm not sure what you think I think, but I would say IB is more interesting than any WWII movie I've seen, but on the other hand I would not classify it as a WWII movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on August 27, 2009, 07:57:53 AM
I think you're making things a bit easy for yourself there, chardy. IB doesn't exist in a historical void, instead it very deliberatly modifies a specific part of history and turns it into a film that hinges on the satisfaction that you get from said modification. I don't know about you (well, actually I do) but I for one find that far more interesting than what most WW2 movies do in terms of recreating history.

Mononoke's thinking is more along my lines.

I'm not sure what you think I think, but I would say IB is more interesting than any WWII movie I've seen, but on the other hand I would not classify it as a WWII movie.

I'm not sure. I think this is only a world War 2 movie in the simplest of terms i.e. There are nazis, americans, Jews, British, etc.. the weaponry is the same as the period. But this is not a WW2 war movie. This is a Tarantino war movie. He is creating his war.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: roujin on August 27, 2009, 09:02:13 AM
- OMG, Germans and Austrians were played by Germans and Austrians! The German language used was idiomatic and always translated accurately in the subtitles - what a nice surprise.

The German dialogue was translated by Tom Tykwer.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 27, 2009, 09:13:45 AM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".

Sure, but only Hugo. Because he was famous for other reason. He didn't necessarily recognize the Basterds, but he knew who they were because of the stories that were spread.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on August 27, 2009, 09:47:04 AM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".

Sure, but only Hugo. Because he was famous for other reason. He didn't necessarily recognize the Basterds, but he knew who they were because of the stories that were spread.

Yes and Hugo is the problem. If the SS and all the Germans officers etc. know who Hugo is then why is he picked to sneak into the premiere as part of a German film crew or whatever? He wouldn't make it past the front door ...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 27, 2009, 09:59:58 AM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".

Sure, but only Hugo. Because he was famous for other reason. He didn't necessarily recognize the Basterds, but he knew who they were because of the stories that were spread.

Yes and Hugo is the problem. If the SS and all the Germans officers etc. know who Hugo is then why is he picked to sneak into the premiere as part of a German film crew or whatever? He wouldn't make it past the front door ...

Because the Basterds are somewhat incompetent. They really only succeed because of how they manage to spread fear.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 11:08:50 AM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".

Sure, but only Hugo. Because he was famous for other reason. He didn't necessarily recognize the Basterds, but he knew who they were because of the stories that were spread.

Yes and Hugo is the problem. If the SS and all the Germans officers etc. know who Hugo is then why is he picked to sneak into the premiere as part of a German film crew or whatever? He wouldn't make it past the front door ...


You are forgetting one big point. Everyone in Germany would know his name, nobody would know his face. This is pre TV and pre Internet so his picture would maybe have been in the paper a couple times but he would hardly have the face recognition we are used too today.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 11:21:48 AM


And then there's this:
Something else that struck me about this, besides the obvious Jewish Revenge theme, was that it is very appealing on the level of these are Americans fighting for a cause that is not ambiguious in any way.  It's been a while since you could root for Americans to succeed unilaterally in a mission not involving aliens or asteroids, so that was an additional carthartic element to it.  Case in point, I watched the Hurt Locker right after. 

It probably bears mention too, that the French in WWII have been heavily criticized by history - so I can see some French audiences getting some satisfaction in this revisionist conclusion as well.

I also think Germans probably find it cathartic. Imaging living the Nazi legacy.

I have been thinking about this post for a few hours now, and I haven't been able to come up with a response that I'm happy with yet. Maybe that's partly because I am afraid to voice any opinion for fear of becoming the voice of Germans in general. This is just good, old, little Emiliana, responding to the film in her very personal, not particularly politically-minded way. But here are a few ramblings anyway:

Sometimes I get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany. On first hearing about Tarantino's plan to make a film about Nazi killers, that was my immediate reaction, because I feared it would be little more than sadistic slaughter-porn that didn't bother to make a distinction between Nazis and Germans, and between Germany then and Germany now.

That said, I can't stress strongly enough how important it is for this topic to be as big a part of popular culture and public discussion as it is. Ok, I had visited a concentration camp three times by the time I was twelve years old, and was thus thoroughly, utterly imprinted down to my very essence about just how horrible the Holocaust was. As a consequence, the omnipresence of the topic could feel slightly tiresome to me at times. However, I became aware very soon that not everone had my experiences, and that it was of the utmost importance that that chapter of history should never be forgotten, and that there were always new young people who needed to learn about it in the same clear terms as I had done.

In the end, I decided not to worry about which political agenda the film might have, but to see what it was like just as a film. And I thought it was a pretty damn great one, and the audience agreed (approximately two thirds German, one third American, English and other places) - cheers, applause... But I wouldn't want to say whether the cheers were due to a release of hereditary guilt - all I know is that I don't think that it was the case for me, but rather a result of the film's perspective and stakes, that automatically had you utterly loathe the nazi characters and deeply invested in Shosanna's story.

I was positively surprised that the film was quite clearly a revenge fantasy rather and not a depiction of actual history. Will the film help to cement Germans as brutal ex-Nazis in the minds of those non German movie-goers that maybe aren't very much interested in thinking outside the box and looking beyond their own nose? Maybe. Do I mind that? To a certain extent, yes. Do I think IB shouldn't have been made? Hell no, it's a fantastic film.

Don't know if any of this is coherent or insightful, but I'm not sure if I'll ever have anything better or more to say.

Interesting Emilana. I was not trying to suggest that Germany is only about WWII (which I think you understood). I was pointing out, as you did, that Germany is often associated with WWII and this must get frustrating. Whether QT tried to make a distinction between Germans and Nazis (a distinction all but the dumbest people must understand), it must be somewhat cathartic to see Hitler and the SS get blown away. I imagine most Germans, like most people everywhere, wish the SS met QT's imagined fate, because in many ways, after Jews, Germans lost the most to the third Reich.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: facedad on August 27, 2009, 12:00:08 PM
- It was great to be able to understand all three main languages used, and to watch the actors shift between them. I had no idea Daniel Brühl spoke such excellent French.
He also speaks decent Spanish.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 12:07:21 PM
- It was great to be able to understand all three main languages used, and to watch the actors shift between them. I had no idea Daniel Brühl spoke such excellent French.
He also speaks decent Spanish.

I noticed that too since it is the only other language I speak.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Emiliana on August 27, 2009, 12:16:37 PM
I was not trying to suggest that Germany is only about WWII (which I think you understood). I was pointing out, as you did, that Germany is often associated with WWII and this must get frustrating. Whether QT tried to make a distinction between Germans and Nazis (a distinction all but the dumbest people must understand), it must be somewhat cathartic to see Hitler and the SS get blown away. I imagine most Germans, like most people everywhere, wish the SS met QT's imagined fate, because in many ways, after Jews, Germans lost the most to the third Reich.

Clovis, I'd say we absolutely understand each other. It just took me a little time and thought to figure out why I had enjoyed the film, and what exactly you meant by "cathartic". What you describe is about anger, rage etc, and not about guilt - and being made to feel guilty all the time for something I have no direct connection with is an aspect of why the endless WWII-association can feel frustrating sometimes, so that's why I was a bit touchy about that. But the way you described it just there, yes, that may well be part of many people's reaction to the film.

- OMG, Germans and Austrians were played by Germans and Austrians! The German language used was idiomatic and always translated accurately in the subtitles - what a nice surprise.

The German dialogue was translated by Tom Tykwer.

Interesting, I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 27, 2009, 12:19:04 PM


Sometimes I get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany. On first hearing about Tarantino's plan to make a film about Nazi killers, that was my immediate reaction, because I feared it would be little more than sadistic slaughter-porn that didn't bother to make a distinction between Nazis and Germans, and between Germany then and Germany now.

Very good points Emiliana.   I sometimes have the same annoyance about how "Americans embranced slavery" when my ancestors risked house and family every day harboring escaped slaves on the the underground railroad.  
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jbissell on August 27, 2009, 12:37:25 PM
Some minor responses to bits and pieces that I picked up on over these 15 pages.  Not picking on Clovis, he just happens to be the biggest champion of the film.

His writing is poetic.

Sounds like someone listened to his interview with Elvis Mitchell.

Quote
Not since Pulp Fiction has a film felt so swift and seemed to be over so fast. At almost 2 1/2 hours, it feels like 45 minutes.

Weird, it felt pretty long to me.  That's not to say that was the case for each chapter, because I was surprised when I read how long Chapter 1 actually is.

Quote
The makeup scene is pure cinematography and is art at its highest form.

Not a phrase I'd ever imaging seeing connected with QT.

Quote
The mix of Marconi score and modern music helps us place the film in it historical context and emphasize that we are watching a Tarantino film.

As much as I love love love Morricone, using his cues has really become a crutch for QT.  What's wrong with getting an original score? Shit, he's still alive, why can't QT convince Ennio to make something for him?

Quote
References to Leone films can only enhance your movie.

Yeah, but not when you overuse them.  I think he's right on the edge, the next reference will put him over it.

Quote
I think this film will make future lists of the greatest films ever made. It is the rare Hollywood movie that is both fun and brilliant cinema. In some ways, it is Tarantino's doctoral thesis on film history masquerading as a WWII jewish revenge fantasy.

I guess this is one of those times when I just don't get it.  Overall I liked it, but it's probably my least favorite of his films.

In fact, he might even be considered a cinema plagiarist. He needs to make his own film, not rip bits and pieces of great films.

I don't think any of the criticisms being offered re: the various references are anything new, it's the same stuff that we deal with in every QT film.  I know some people think he handles it well, while others think it's lazy and artless.  I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.


I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 27, 2009, 12:57:15 PM
Some minor responses to bits and pieces that I picked up on over these 15 pages.  Not picking on Clovis, he just happens to be the biggest champion of the film.

His writing is poetic.

Sounds like someone listened to his interview with Elvis Mitchell.

UGH.  I heard that too.  That was almost a parody of himself giving an interview.   Really bad.  Not sure whether to recommend people check it out or not.

look for the link on this page:  http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt (http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 01:16:31 PM
Some minor responses to bits and pieces that I picked up on over these 15 pages.  Not picking on Clovis, he just happens to be the biggest champion of the film.

His writing is poetic.

Sounds like someone listened to his interview with Elvis Mitchell.

Quote
Not since Pulp Fiction has a film felt so swift and seemed to be over so fast. At almost 2 1/2 hours, it feels like 45 minutes.

Weird, it felt pretty long to me.  That's not to say that was the case for each chapter, because I was surprised when I read how long Chapter 1 actually is.

Quote
The makeup scene is pure cinematography and is art at its highest form.

Not a phrase I'd ever imaging seeing connected with QT.

Quote
The mix of Marconi score and modern music helps us place the film in it historical context and emphasize that we are watching a Tarantino film.

As much as I love love love Morricone, using his cues has really become a crutch for QT.  What's wrong with getting an original score? Shit, he's still alive, why can't QT convince Ennio to make something for him?

Quote
References to Leone films can only enhance your movie.

Yeah, but not when you overuse them.  I think he's right on the edge, the next reference will put him over it.

Quote
I think this film will make future lists of the greatest films ever made. It is the rare Hollywood movie that is both fun and brilliant cinema. In some ways, it is Tarantino's doctoral thesis on film history masquerading as a WWII jewish revenge fantasy.

I guess this is one of those times when I just don't get it.  Overall I liked it, but it's probably my least favorite of his films.

In fact, he might even be considered a cinema plagiarist. He needs to make his own film, not rip bits and pieces of great films.

I don't think any of the criticisms being offered re: the various references are anything new, it's the same stuff that we deal with in every QT film.  I know some people think he handles it well, while others think it's lazy and artless.  I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.


I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.



I don't know who Elvis Mitchell is so I didn't hear his review. I am hardly alone in thinking QT writes some of the best dialogue in film. As for your other points, fair enough, we see the film differently. I agree I am obviously the biggest champion of the film however the vast majority of people loved the movie, both on the board and in general. Those who dislike it are in the minority, which is fine, but because I have been very vocal in my support some people are making it sound like I am crazy for my love of the film.

For the record, I can see how my championing of this film might make me look like a QT fan boy. The funny thing is I am far from it. I love Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. I think the Bill movies are ok, but not great, and I didnt like Deathproof (except the end) or Jackie Brown. I HATE nearly all his collaborative stuff (zombie crap etc).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jbissell on August 27, 2009, 01:32:01 PM
I am hardly alone in thinking QT writes some of the best dialogue in film. As for your other points, fair enough, we see the film differently. I agree I am obviously the biggest champion of the film however the vast majority of people loved the movie, both on the board and in general. Those who dislike it are in the minority, which is fine, but because I have been very vocal in my support some people are making it sound like I am crazy for my love of the film.

I didn't say I dislike his dialogue, I just thought it was funny that this morning I listened to QT describe his words as poetry, and then read your post only a little bit later.

Also, I never said I disliked the film, just that I was surprised at my lack of a positive or negative reaction to it.  While I'm not in any rush to revisit it, I suspect I'll like it a little more the second time (or maybe I'll hate it, who knows).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 01:33:51 PM
I am hardly alone in thinking QT writes some of the best dialogue in film. As for your other points, fair enough, we see the film differently. I agree I am obviously the biggest champion of the film however the vast majority of people loved the movie, both on the board and in general. Those who dislike it are in the minority, which is fine, but because I have been very vocal in my support some people are making it sound like I am crazy for my love of the film.

I didn't say I dislike his dialogue, I just thought it was funny that this morning I listened to QT describe his words as poetry, and then read your post only a little bit later.

Also, I never said I disliked the film, just that I was surprised at my lack of a positive or negative reaction to it.  While I'm not in any rush to revisit it, I suspect I'll like it a little more the second time (or maybe I'll hate it, who knows).

I didnt mean to suggest you disliked it, you gave it 7/10 after all. I was more responding to sam's dislike.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 27, 2009, 01:58:36 PM
Where is your new avatar from clov?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on August 27, 2009, 01:59:40 PM
Where is your new avatar from clov?

It's a small foreign film I don't like to talk about very much because it's too personal.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 27, 2009, 02:00:46 PM
;D Good answer.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 27, 2009, 04:08:49 PM
I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.
You are probably right. The difference is that I probably haven't see the films those reference. To be honest I can take or leave those two films. (I assume you are referring to Kill Bill vol. 1)

I had about the same reaction as jbizz. I came out of the theater lukewarm. It's just with all this unending wave of IB love I'm getting painted as person who hates this film just because I'm probably the person who dislikes it the most around here (besides Bill, but aparently everyone expected that).

I don't think it's a bad film, and I certainly didn't go into wanting to hate it. In fact, this was the only film I looked forward to all summer. So when I ended up coming out of it underwhelmed It was after wanting this film to rock. I image I'll rewatch it at some point and maybe I'll like it more then, I certainly will never love this film. It just have too many problems and annoyances with this film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Adam on August 27, 2009, 04:29:47 PM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".
His line is everybody has "heard" of Hugo Stiglitz, and there's the answer... they've heard of him, they wouldn't all recognize him. Landa obviously would since he probably interrogated him at some point.

Or basically what Clovis said...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jbissell on August 27, 2009, 05:54:30 PM
The guy that gets beaten with a bat by Eli Roth recognizes him too. I think he even says something like "everybody in the SS knows him".
His line is everybody has "heard" of Hugo Stiglitz, and there's the answer... they've heard of him, they wouldn't all recognize him. Landa obviously would since he probably interrogated him at some point.

Or basically what Clovis said...

Can't wait to hear what you and Matty have to say about it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jbissell on August 27, 2009, 05:56:06 PM
I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.
You are probably right. The difference is that I probably haven't see the films those reference. To be honest I can take or leave those two films. (I assume you are referring to Kill Bill vol. 1)

The diner scene in Death Proof really sticks out because they're talking about Vanishing Point and how badass the car from it is, plus later they take it for a test drive.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 27, 2009, 06:04:46 PM
I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.
You are probably right. The difference is that I probably haven't see the films those reference. To be honest I can take or leave those two films. (I assume you are referring to Kill Bill vol. 1)

The diner scene in Death Proof really sticks out because they're talking about Vanishing Point and how badass the car from it is, plus later they take it for a test drive.
Yea, that was one of my problems with the film even though I haven't seen Vanishing Point.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 27, 2009, 06:18:07 PM
Chapter hierarchy...

5 > 2 > 1 > 4 > 3
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on August 27, 2009, 08:53:05 PM
3 is the cafe, right? Actually that part had me on the edge of my seat. Especially at the end with the milk bit.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 27, 2009, 09:54:13 PM
I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.
You are probably right. The difference is that I probably haven't see the films those reference. To be honest I can take or leave those two films. (I assume you are referring to Kill Bill vol. 1)

The diner scene in Death Proof really sticks out because they're talking about Vanishing Point and how badass the car from it is, plus later they take it for a test drive.
Yea, that was one of my problems with the film even though I haven't seen Vanishing Point.

your problem is that they mention another movie? or that scene?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jbissell on August 27, 2009, 10:00:58 PM
I think his references in other films aren't as blatant, but here, he wears them all on his jacked which says: "I am the coolest and most knowledgeable movie geek ever," which automatically makes you a douche.

I don't know, Kill Bill and Death Proof are pretty explicitly blatant in their references.
You are probably right. The difference is that I probably haven't see the films those reference. To be honest I can take or leave those two films. (I assume you are referring to Kill Bill vol. 1)

The diner scene in Death Proof really sticks out because they're talking about Vanishing Point and how badass the car from it is, plus later they take it for a test drive.
Yea, that was one of my problems with the film even though I haven't seen Vanishing Point.

your problem is that they mention another movie? or that scene?

It's not the mention of the movie, it's the waxing on about it for minutes on end.  It just wasn't interesting (and I like Vanishing Point quite a bit).  I actually like Death Proof as a whole, just really don't care for that particular scene.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mattybgame on August 28, 2009, 10:23:42 AM
Hans Landa, homosexual?

The blonde kid killed at the end ...

Adam, raised this last night off-air, and I have to admit I'm digging it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 28, 2009, 10:33:09 AM
Hans Landa, homosexual?

The blonde kid killed at the end ...

Adam, raised this last night off-air, and I have to admit I'm digging it.

Interesting..I can see that
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 28, 2009, 10:35:22 AM
...He reminded me of Tom Hulce (Amedeus, Parenthood...)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 28, 2009, 10:43:49 AM
Hans Landa, homosexual?

The blonde kid killed at the end ...

Adam, raised this last night off-air, and I have to admit I'm digging it.

It's possible, but I don't see how you could get that one way or another from the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on August 28, 2009, 11:26:19 AM

Sometimes I get sick and tired with Hitler and WWII being the only thing anyone ever seems to associate with Germany. On first hearing about Tarantino's plan to make a film about Nazi killers, that was my immediate reaction, because I feared it would be little more than sadistic slaughter-porn that didn't bother to make a distinction between Nazis and Germans, and between Germany then and Germany now.

Emiliana, your commnets from the post were tangible in my mind when I watched Valkyrie last night.  Apart from the question of the question of how good Valkyrie was as a piece of filmmaking, it was a remarkable story (to the extent is can be excepted as unaltered truth) in that it showed Germany as an "occupied country" as much as any other in Europe at the time.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 28, 2009, 01:59:51 PM
I do not like the newsweek article linked on the filmspotting front page at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 28, 2009, 02:51:28 PM
3 is the cafe, right? Actually that part had me on the edge of my seat. Especially at the end with the milk bit.

Maybe? That part's great, but it's undercut severely by the Mike Myers scene.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 28, 2009, 03:33:43 PM
3 is the cafe, right? Actually that part had me on the edge of my seat. Especially at the end with the milk bit.

Maybe? That part's great, but it's undercut severely by the Mike Myers scene.

The Mike Myers scene (which was amazing btw) was the start of Chapter 4: Operation Kino.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 28, 2009, 03:36:21 PM
Ah, but the bar fight is also Chapter 4 as well, correct?

Something dull happens at some point in Chapter 3, I think. Either way, I should state that I do not think any of the Chapters are bad and being what I consider the worst is hardly a blow leveled at the film's quality.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on August 28, 2009, 03:38:43 PM
Ah, but the bar fight is also Chapter 4 as well, correct?

Something dull happens at some point in Chapter 3, I think. Either way, I should state that I do not think any of the Chapters are bad and being what I consider the worst is hardly a blow leveled at the film's quality.

Chapter 3 is all Shoshanna and Zoller and some Landa. Chapter 4 is the Mike Myers scene, the prep before the basement, the basement, the shootout, the scene in the vet's office.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 28, 2009, 03:41:16 PM
Right. That early stuff with Freddie didn't have me too hot, that was probably it. Either way, all the chapters are pretty great.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 28, 2009, 03:50:54 PM
I liked how "british" that first scene in Chapter 4 was. The writing almost says, like that picture I saw a while ago, "I'm so british I shit the queen." Some good laughs to break it up, I guess.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Holly Harry on August 28, 2009, 04:10:14 PM
I liked how "british" that first scene in Chapter 4 was. The writing almost says, like that picture I saw a while ago, "I'm so british I shit the queen." Some good laughs to break it up, I guess.

It seemed like an absurdist, post-modern version of a scene out of "The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp" or something.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on August 28, 2009, 04:41:57 PM
His line is everybody has "heard" of Hugo Stiglitz, and there's the answer... they've heard of him, they wouldn't all recognize him. Landa obviously would since he probably interrogated him at some point.
The flashback thing for Stiglitz starts with a shot of him making the headlines, including a mugshot. Of course his recognizability is debatable but the film never implies that only Landa knows his face. The real issue for me was however
why are they using Hugo in the undercover operation?
That was the plan, wasn't it? Surely someone would have recognized him there.

An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.
What the script says, allegedly. (http://i25.tinypic.com/vikx75.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 28, 2009, 05:05:13 PM

An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.
I'm pretty sure I said that :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on August 28, 2009, 05:14:15 PM
Ok, I'm going to need someone to explain why Eli Roth is so bad at acting. I didn't notice anything, but I know nothing about acting.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on August 28, 2009, 06:26:56 PM
An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.
What the script says, allegedly. (http://i25.tinypic.com/vikx75.jpg)

I think this works with what I was saying way earlier in the thread. Landa is a smart dude and he can figure out what the ramifications of a certain action are. It's more evidence that he likes the thinking over the doing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on August 28, 2009, 06:31:24 PM
An exception would be Landa letting Shosanna run away at the end. I didn't understand it, I didn't expect it, but I liked it.
What the script says, allegedly. (http://i25.tinypic.com/vikx75.jpg)

I think this works with what I was saying way earlier in the thread. Landa is a smart dude and he can figure out what the ramifications of a certain action are. It's more evidence that he likes the thinking over the doing.
He must've been a hide-and-go-seek fanatic as a child.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on August 28, 2009, 09:45:59 PM
Ok, I'm going to need someone to explain why Eli Roth is so bad at acting. I didn't notice anything, but I know nothing about acting.

I feel the same way, although matty's comments make me think I may just not have been watching him enough.

honestly I wasn't even sure it was him because I found his performance so inoffensive :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Scalzo on August 30, 2009, 10:39:59 PM
There was a cool interview with Christoph Waltz on one of my fav. comedians, Adam Carolla's podcast: http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2009/08/23/adam-and-christoph-waltz/ (http://www.adamcarolla.com/ACPBlog/2009/08/23/adam-and-christoph-waltz/)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: CHW on September 01, 2009, 01:35:36 AM
I don't mean to be so continually contrarian, but I kind of hated this movie.  Easily the worst Tarantino film yet, and I loved/liked the rest of his oeuvre (except for Death Proof).

Quote
    Inglourious Basterds is a ludicrous, impenetrable mess. The film is made up of a collection of loose, plodding scenes, and a large cast of ugly, buffoonish caricatures, none of which are interesting or worth caring about. The closest thing to a sympathetic protagonist is Laurent's Shosanna, but even she isn't well developed enough be anything more than just a personification of vengeance, something Tarantino has already essayed with far greater nuance with Kill Bill's The Bride.

    Stylistically, the film is a step back from his previous works, featuring unnecessary title cards, inexplicable closeup inserts, jarring use of narration, and ill-timed, ill-fitting music cues – again, including many tracks used to much greater effect in Kill Bill. And while some of Inglourious Basterds' action is impressively quick and brutal, most of the violence seems largely gratuitous. Consider, for instance, the completely needless cutaway to 3 Basterds shooting an enemy vehicle, or the insert of rough Nazi sex – and the predominantly gleeful tone that accompanies most of the brutality.

    With Inglourious Basterds, there's an overwhelming feeling that Tarantino thinks himself much more clever than he is actually is. None of his previously effective elements work in this film, including the slow pacing, stylistic gimmicks, and over-the-top violence. With a meandering, nonexistent plot and an entire cast filled with dumb, despicable characters, it's hard to really see anybody enjoying this movie. I would call the film an ambitious failure, but I'm not even certain what the filmmakers intended when they set out to make this thing.

    (ONE out of five)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on September 01, 2009, 10:01:45 AM
Good review. I share a similar view of it.

I believe some of the problems you mentioned are a product of Tarantino overworking the project. Doubtless we've all heard about the years and years he spent developing the film. The thing is though, the time spent working at something doesn't always bring you closer to perfection. It is possible to over do it. If you polish a car too long, you reach bare metal. If you knead a lump of dough for hours rather than minutes, your bread will come out tough and chewy. In Tarantino's case, if you overwork a film you end up with IG.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 01, 2009, 02:40:38 PM
So the non-existant plot of killing Nazi's, and ultimately, Hitler doesn't exist but is the main goal for the Basterds, the British, and Shosanna?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jleigh on September 07, 2009, 03:28:16 PM
I apologize I'm a little late to the discussion but it took me a couple weeks to get to the theater.  But there's been something nagging at me that I haven't seen talked about yet in any IB discussions.

During the screening of Nation's Pride, I initially thought it was kind of hilarious that the entire movie was just Zoller shooting people, not that I expected anything different since he was just a sniper in a tower.  But as the scene played on I thought Tarantino might actually be saying something rather heavy and I wonder if I'm reading too much into it.  Nation's Pride was obviously propaganda, and the film is a lot about propaganda, and it was rather sickening to watch the audience take such glee in the killing of American soldiers.  But then a few minutes later, Tarantino has us watch as a few hundred Nazis are shot and/or burnt to death and seems to expect us to have our own gleeful reaction. 

Is he trying to say something here?  Are WWII films all propaganda?  Are all action films propaganda?  Is Inglourious Basterds itself propaganda?  And is that such a bad thing?  I'm wondering what y'all's thoughts are...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on September 07, 2009, 03:39:06 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head there. I said the same thing to my roommate as we walked out of the theater.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on September 07, 2009, 04:00:16 PM
Nice jleigh. And good questions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jleigh on September 07, 2009, 04:13:01 PM
Okay, I did a little google-ing and this definitely seems to be Tarantino's intention.  Here's a bit from an interview at Rotten Tomatoes:

All your films talk about cinema, but in this film, cinema is something more serious...

QT: The metaphor is not lost, you know, in that, via these film prints and via her cinema, Shosanna is intending to put the Nazis in an oven and create her own final solution. I must say, that's an aspect that most people don't talk about with regard to The Dirty Dozen, and to me it's one of the strongest aspects of that film. I don't know how much people contemplated that when the film came out. But now that we're so knowledgeable about the Holocaust, when you see that film now, you can't not see it: they create their own oven for the Nazis. And not just the Nazis: their wives, their girlfriends, all the collaborating-with-the-enemy bitches that are hanging out with them. They pile up those grenades and they douse them with gasoline, creating their own napalm, and they just burn 'em. [laughs] I mean, it's pretty f---ed up!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 07, 2009, 08:56:57 PM
yeah, it quite amazes me that this isn't painfully obvious.  i literally just had this conversation less than 30min ago with my partner, she said something about how it was obvious and how it would be unbelievable not to pick up the critique, i replied with how mind-numbingly dim some people are :(

pretty sure my initial write-up noted the critique as the film is set-up with nazis being closed-minded killers only to flip to Aldo giving his speech about killing nazis - both groups are equally abhorrent
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on September 10, 2009, 12:06:43 PM
I do believe the intent there, but I don't think it's fair to say both groups were equally abhorrent.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on September 11, 2009, 10:29:23 AM
The idea that Nazi's are bad and deserve to die is longstanding belief. Sure it lacks nuance, but it's one of those 'good enough' conclusions that most everybody has come to, and held, for years and years. In my opinion, the fact that people don't think to, or care to, reexamine that conclusion once they've reached it does not mean they are dim. That they don't acknowledge (or notice) the "obvious" similarities of watching Nazis burn in an oven-like room, or the supposed hypocrisy in enjoying it does not mean they are idiots. This is just how it is with people who are steadfast in a conclusion. It's not stupid and it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't given it a lot of thought at one point in time.

You'll never make it through a day if you stop to hum and haw every time one of your imperfect beliefs are up for questioning. It becomes a natural tenancy to overlook things when you've reached a conclusion so you get on with your life, or in this case enjoy the film (which is the primary, or sole, reason some people see movies!!!!). There's nothing right or wrong about it.

I don't blame people if they don't want to consider the fact that they're somehow Nazi-like. It's a bitter pill to swallow. It doesn't mean they aren't contemplative (ever), and certainly not dim.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on September 12, 2009, 09:20:15 AM
'Nazi-like' is slightly inaccurate. If you approximate our reactions to those of the citizens in the theatre, then we are merely supporters of the Nazis. We aren't actually killing people ourselves (as the Nazis are).

I'd also just like to LOL @ people hearing that Tarantino is 'style over substance' and reiterating it to sound like they know what they are talking about. I'm not saying that expression is inaccurate, but it is certainly funny how people utilise it.  :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: masterofsparks on September 15, 2009, 05:38:35 AM
I finally saw this. Considering all the time I've spent reading about it (not to mention the not-inconsiderable amount of time involved in actually watching it), I wish it provoked more of a reaction than it did. I walked out of the theater feeling profoundly neutral.

I did enjoy elements, of course. The opening scene was really terrific. I wish Tarantino hadn't seemingly felt equally enamored of it to the point where he felt it necessary to repeat 2 or 3 times throughout the rest of the movie. There were times when it would've been nice to see that one of his characters could walk by a table full of others without sitting down and striking up a 15-minute conversation.

And I really, really hope Eli Roth's Boston accent was supposed to be a joke or a reference to some dumb exploitation movie that QT loves. If that was supposed to be a straight run at that accent, all I've gotta say is Roth must be able to score the best coke in Hollywood because otherwise there's no reason QT should keep doing him favors.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Osprey on September 15, 2009, 08:21:03 AM
Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.

The idea that Nazi's are bad and deserve to die is longstanding belief. Sure it lacks nuance, but it's one of those 'good enough' conclusions that most everybody has come to, and held, for years and years. In my opinion, the fact that people don't think to, or care to, reexamine that conclusion once they've reached it does not mean they are dim. That they don't acknowledge (or notice) the "obvious" similarities of watching Nazis burn in an oven-like room, or the supposed hypocrisy in enjoying it does not mean they are idiots. This is just how it is with people who are steadfast in a conclusion. It's not stupid and it doesn't necessarily mean that they haven't given it a lot of thought at one point in time.

You'll never make it through a day if you stop to hum and haw every time one of your imperfect beliefs are up for questioning. It becomes a natural tenancy to overlook things when you've reached a conclusion so you get on with your life, or in this case enjoy the film (which is the primary, or sole, reason some people see movies!!!!). There's nothing right or wrong about it.

I don't blame people if they don't want to consider the fact that they're somehow Nazi-like. It's a bitter pill to swallow. It doesn't mean they aren't contemplative (ever), and certainly not dim.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 09:04:56 AM
Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Osprey on September 15, 2009, 09:17:54 AM
Not even remotely similar.

Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 09:32:27 AM
Not even remotely similar.

Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?

why not?  i think T sets it up that way, the way the first basterds scene - really, the first lines delivered by Aldo - is a parroting of the hate-speech we get from Hitler&co.  really obvious.  funny we have two threads where you have missed the literal text of the film - not even subtext  :D  who are you?  :-*
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on September 15, 2009, 09:43:49 AM
Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?

Those guys did some bad things, and a lot of people have died, but they didn't exactly set out to complete wipe out the existence of a whole race or races of people.


I do believe the intent there, but I don't think it's fair to say both groups were equally abhorrent.

And really this is the point. We are supposed to on some level enjoy the fact that brutal revenge is taking place, because the people being killed really are just that terrible. But we are also left to question the idea that we would enjoy seeing anybody so brutally massacred, no matter who they are or what they've done.

It reminds me of Adolf Eichmann's execution in Israel. There has never been a death penalty in Israel, but when Eichmann was captured and put on trial he was given the death penalty. The man did things that were so horrible it was felt the only way to settle the matter was through retribution. Was it the right thing to do? I have no idea. Was it the right thing to do on a human level and on the level of moral standard? Possibly not. But it IS satisfying to know, to a certain extent, that the man who was responsible for devising the Final Solution is gone from this world.

That's exactly the kind of moral complexity Tarantino presents in the final chapter of the film. He offers no answers, and he doesn't really dwell on the matter, but its all there being thrown at you if you want to catch it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 10:16:14 AM
Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?

Those guys did some bad things, and a lot of people have died, but they didn't exactly set out to complete wipe out the existence of a whole race or races of people.


but not all nazis did, either.  just as there were plenty of americans not identified as nazis that were perfectly happy with the final solution.  and, major corporations helping make the holocaust possible.  and, that the holocaust was about more than wiping out a race of people - don't forget, it started with the extermination of disabled people.  when it was clear that people were letting tens of thousands of disabled people get shipped off and killed, it was clear that ramping up "production" was doable

anyway,  i agree with you that IB is asking us to question violence
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on September 15, 2009, 12:34:26 PM
I think there are two questions here that you guys fail to separate.

1.  Did the Nazis deserve to die (within the movie universe)? 

The answers is yes.  These people obviously had it coming and needed to be killed for the common good.  I don't think anything in the movie suggests that Tarantino is opposed to the killing at the end.

2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?

Here is the thing, what was done by the Nazis in Europe, and what is done to the Nazis in return (in the film) is not analogous.  You cannot say that killing mass murderers is the same as killing civilians.  Where the lines do get blurred is with the audience reaction to the killing.  Sure, the Nazis had it coming, but why do we get such a joy out of them getting their comeuppance?  That is what the theater scene is about, why do we get such a visceral thrill out of watching the glorification of the act of murder?  The joy we feel watching the bad guys getting shot and burned cannot be entirely explained by our desire for the war to end or for justice to be served, we enjoy the actual act, we enjoy watching people murdered; and that is a pretty interesting insight into the human race.

             
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 12:54:29 PM
I think there are two questions here that you guys fail to separate.

1.  Did the Nazis deserve to die (within the movie universe)? 

2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?
             

but not all of us do enjoy watching them die, or get joy out of it.  if you get that joy, it is a great question for you, i suppose.  my engagement with the film's violence is quite different. 

on your first question, i don't think it is obvious in the movie universe that the nazis deserved to die.  the fact that we are introduced to Aldo giving his venomous speech about killing nazis immediately after the venomous rhetoric we are previously introduced to from the nazis is no coincidence, these sentiments are clearly meant to echo.  this is meant to complicate the assumption that (uniformed) nazis deserve to die, that the work of the Basterds is honorable
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 15, 2009, 02:33:38 PM
2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?

Here is the thing, what was done by the Nazis in Europe, and what is done to the Nazis in return (in the film) is not analogous.  You cannot say that killing mass murderers is the same as killing civilians.  Where the lines do get blurred is with the audience reaction to the killing.  Sure, the Nazis had it coming, but why do we get such a joy out of them getting their comeuppance?  That is what the theater scene is about, why do we get such a visceral thrill out of watching the glorification of the act of murder?  The joy we feel watching the bad guys getting shot and burned cannot be entirely explained by our desire for the war to end or for justice to be served, we enjoy the actual act, we enjoy watching people murdered; and that is a pretty interesting insight into the human race.

             
How sweet vengeance is. Nice post, zarodinu.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Osprey on September 15, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
Remember, Shoshonna doesn't just kill a bunch of random Nazis.  It's the Nazi high command, and it'd be pretty hard to feel sorry for them.


in the same way it would be hard to feel sorry for killing W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and that circle of fools, right?

Those guys did some bad things, and a lot of people have died, but they didn't exactly set out to complete wipe out the existence of a whole race or races of people.


but not all nazis did, either.  just as there were plenty of americans not identified as nazis that were perfectly happy with the final solution.  and, major corporations helping make the holocaust possible.  and, that the holocaust was about more than wiping out a race of people - don't forget, it started with the extermination of disabled people.  when it was clear that people were letting tens of thousands of disabled people get shipped off and killed, it was clear that ramping up "production" was doable

anyway,  i agree with you that IB is asking us to question violence

I don't think there's much arguing about the guilt of the leading lights of the Nazi high command.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Osprey on September 15, 2009, 03:50:53 PM
I think there are two questions here that you guys fail to separate.

1.  Did the Nazis deserve to die (within the movie universe)? 

2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?
             

but not all of us do enjoy watching them die, or get joy out of it.  if you get that joy, it is a great question for you, i suppose.  my engagement with the film's violence is quite different. 

on your first question, i don't think it is obvious in the movie universe that the nazis deserved to die.  the fact that we are introduced to Aldo giving his venomous speech about killing nazis immediately after the venomous rhetoric we are previously introduced to from the nazis is no coincidence, these sentiments are clearly meant to echo.  this is meant to complicate the assumption that (uniformed) nazis deserve to die, that the work of the Basterds is honorable


Or is it giving justification for Aldo's speech?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on September 15, 2009, 04:09:30 PM
I think there are two questions here that you guys fail to separate.

1.  Did the Nazis deserve to die (within the movie universe)? 

2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?

but not all of us do enjoy watching them die, or get joy out of it.  if you get that joy, it is a great question for you, i suppose.  my engagement with the film's violence is quite different. 

The theater I was in exploded in cheer during the climax, and I live in Ithaca NY, the most peacenik town in America.  I am pretty sure Tarantino intended for us to cheer for the bad guys demise, the scene is clearly filmed in a very dramatic and exploitative fashion, nowhere is any pathos shown to the Nazeees.  How else can you possibly react to that scene?  Shed a single tear for poor Adolf?

on your first question, i don't think it is obvious in the movie universe that the nazis deserved to die.  the fact that we are introduced to Aldo giving his venomous speech about killing nazis immediately after the venomous rhetoric we are previously introduced to from the nazis is no coincidence, these sentiments are clearly meant to echo.  this is meant to complicate the assumption that (uniformed) nazis deserve to die, that the work of the Basterds is honorable

Disagree completely.  Aldo's speech wasn't venomous at all, it was clearly meant to be humorous or atleast tongue in cheek (killin nazeees).  The showing of Nazi barbarity before the speech is not meant to show any similarity, its how all revenge films are structured.

Scene 1:         A terrible crime by villain
Scene 2:         Hero vows revenge
Rest of Movie:  Hero gets revenge 

Scene 1 makes us hate Nazis all over again, scene 2 makes us giddy for the revenge to come, the ending is the culmination of that promise of vengeance.  Again, nowhere is any equivalence drawn between the heroes and the Nazis. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 05:32:56 PM
I think there are two questions here that you guys fail to separate.

1.  Did the Nazis deserve to die (within the movie universe)? 

2.  Why do we as an audience, ENJOY watching them die?

but not all of us do enjoy watching them die, or get joy out of it.  if you get that joy, it is a great question for you, i suppose.  my engagement with the film's violence is quite different. 

The theater I was in exploded in cheer during the climax, and I live in Ithaca NY, the most peacenik town in America.  I am pretty sure Tarantino intended for us to cheer for the bad guys demise, the scene is clearly filmed in a very dramatic and exploitative fashion, nowhere is any pathos shown to the Nazeees.  How else can you possibly react to that scene?  Shed a single tear for poor Adolf?


you don't think this film draws that kind of crowd?   you think a lot of peaceniks went to this one?  hmmm.   the two times i saw it nobody cheered when nazis were killed, though one guy did stand up and scream "asshole" when Shosanna was thanks for accepting the invitation to the restaurant, but i'm pretty sure i wasn't there with a bunch of peaceniks, either.

i agree no we are not meant to cry for the poor nazis.  i am just saying i didn't experience joy when they were killed, and it is very reasonable to think that Tarantino is trying to show some similarity between the violence of the nazis and the Basterds.  is he trying to literally equate them?  of course not.  as folks point out, there is nazi violence and the revenge violence, and while different, they are clearly birds of a feather.

didn't you used to live in Oregon (if so, when did you move to Ithaca)?

on your first question, i don't think it is obvious in the movie universe that the nazis deserved to die.  the fact that we are introduced to Aldo giving his venomous speech about killing nazis immediately after the venomous rhetoric we are previously introduced to from the nazis is no coincidence, these sentiments are clearly meant to echo.  this is meant to complicate the assumption that (uniformed) nazis deserve to die, that the work of the Basterds is honorable

Disagree completely.  Aldo's speech wasn't venomous at all, it was clearly meant to be humorous or atleast tongue in cheek (killin nazeees).  The showing of Nazi barbarity before the speech is not meant to show any similarity, its how all revenge films are structured.
 
Scene 1:         A terrible crime by villain
Scene 2:         Hero vows revenge
Rest of Movie:  Hero gets revenge 

Scene 1 makes us hate Nazis all over again, scene 2 makes us giddy for the revenge to come, the ending is the culmination of that promise of vengeance.  Again, nowhere is any equivalence drawn between the heroes and the Nazis.


of course Also's speech is also meant to be humorous, but the fact that he has a silly accent doesn't mean what he is doing is tongue-in-cheek.  maybe venomous isn't the right word, but the speech is solely about killing nazis - it is clearly meant to echo the earlier nazi rhetoric.  it seems really weird to deny this while naming "nazi barbarity" as that seems a pretty apt description of the work of the Basterds - letting nobody escape*, scalping, etc.  that "this is how all revenge films are structured" is not an argument that denies this similarity, IB can use this structure (whether or not that matters) and still make comment on the theme of violence, showing the similarity between the nazis and the basterds, and still have revenge as the organizing objective.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on September 15, 2009, 06:07:01 PM
of course Also's speech is also meant to be humorous, but the fact that he has a silly accent doesn't mean what he is doing is tongue-in-cheek.  maybe venomous isn't the right word, but the speech is solely about killing nazis - it is clearly meant to echo the earlier nazi rhetoric.  it seems really weird to deny this while naming "nazi barbarity" as that seems a pretty apt description of the work of the Basterds - letting nobody escape*, scalping, etc.  that "this is how all revenge films are structured" is not an argument that denies this similarity, IB can use this structure (whether or not that matters) and still make comment on the theme of violence, showing the similarity between the nazis and the basterds, and still have revenge as the organizing objective.

...I can see how that interpretation could work.  I guess the biggest evidence I can produce against it is the tone Tarantino chooses to use the whole film.  The killing is just too exploitative to deliver a message about violence.  Every dead Nazi is a joke, the murder of these people is never taken remotely seriously, the scalping are more or less a running gag.  If I was the director, and I wanted to deliver your message to the audience, I would give the constant killing a little more weight.  I would not play every single scene of violence for laughs.  Just think about that last scene in the forest, the shooting and scalping of Landa's "friend" is basically a joke, and the carving of the swastika with Tarantino breaking the fourth wall through Brad Pitt is also played for sadistic laughs, wouldn't this scene be shot completely different if the film was trying to deliver a message about violence? 

didn't you used to live in Oregon (if so, when did you move to Ithaca)?
   

Spent three years in Cornell, dropped out, spent 3 years in Oregon, and just moved back to finish my Bachelor.  Drove all the way here with a friend from Toronto.  Amazing drive, especially Yellowstone and Chicago.  If you never done one of those across America road trips, can't recommend it enough.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 15, 2009, 06:17:42 PM
didn't you used to live in Oregon (if so, when did you move to Ithaca)?
   

Spent three years in Cornell, dropped out, spent 3 years in Oregon, and just moved back to finish my Bachelor.  Drove all the way here with a friend from Toronto.  Amazing drive, especially Yellowstone and Chicago.  If you never done one of those across America road trips, can't recommend it enough.

i remember that now.  yeah, i really love driving across america.  hmmm.   which road films did you end up watching before your trip?

and on violence as funny, i kinda get that - and agree on the last scene - but i do think the way he uses all of the german film as a backdrop to the holocaust is also meant to key us into the importance of film as shaping a country's ideas.  i think we agree that this film is making us question our relationship to the violence, and i'm not sure any of his other films do this, so that's pretty cool
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 15, 2009, 06:27:38 PM
Spent three years in Cornell, dropped out, spent 3 years in Oregon, and just moved back to finish my Bachelor.  Drove all the way here with a friend from Toronto.  Amazing drive, especially Yellowstone and Chicago.  If you never done one of those across America road trips, can't recommend it enough.
Where in Oregon were you?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on September 15, 2009, 06:32:43 PM
didn't you used to live in Oregon (if so, when did you move to Ithaca)?
 

Spent three years in Cornell, dropped out, spent 3 years in Oregon, and just moved back to finish my Bachelor.  Drove all the way here with a friend from Toronto.  Amazing drive, especially Yellowstone and Chicago.  If you never done one of those across America road trips, can't recommend it enough.

i remember that now.  yeah, i really love driving across america.  hmmm.   which road films did you end up watching before your trip?

Ended up watching Tu Mama, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Two-Lane Blacktop (big discovery for me, thanks for recommending), and Badlands.  Yeah, the trip was a right of passage of sorts for me, and I am glad I did it in a car with all kinds of adventures along the way, a quick plane ride would be too jarring a transition.      

i think we agree that this film is making us question our relationship to the violence, and i'm not sure any of his other films do this, so that's pretty cool

Good films have a message, great films have a message that cannot be summarized in a sentence or wrapped up in a neat little package.  I love filmspotting precisely because of the difference of opinion you get here.  

Where in Oregon were you?

I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 15, 2009, 07:09:07 PM

I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Nice! I like Coos Bay alright. Ever make it to Eugene?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on September 15, 2009, 07:24:06 PM

I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Nice! I like Coos Bay alright. Ever make it to Eugene?

Yep, love Eugene, its like a big college town and I mean that as a complement.  Watched Moon in the Bijou movie theater.  Do you live there?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on September 15, 2009, 08:34:22 PM
I once again agree with zarodinu.

I would add that critiquing violence in such an arduous academic fashion is probably not how I would look at it. I feel like their intentions and manner are more important factors dictating our impression of the Nazis and the Basterds. They create a mood, a relationship - the violence is the culmination of their ideals in a real physical world. So we draw our conclusions of peoples' character before the violence and based on how the violence goes down we cheer/cry/despair/laugh/feel nothing, whatever ...

So it's less a study of our 'relationship to violence' as it is a 'relationship to characters.'

I hope I make sense...  :-[
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on September 16, 2009, 12:04:37 AM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: skjerva on September 16, 2009, 12:17:27 AM
I once again agree with zarodinu.

I would add that critiquing violence in such an arduous academic fashion is probably not how I would look at it. I feel like their intentions and manner are more important factors dictating our impression of the Nazis and the Basterds. They create a mood, a relationship - the violence is the culmination of their ideals in a real physical world. So we draw our conclusions of peoples' character before the violence and based on how the violence goes down we cheer/cry/despair/laugh/feel nothing, whatever ...

So it's less a study of our 'relationship to violence' as it is a 'relationship to characters.'

I hope I make sense...  :-[

no sense.  i really don't know what you are referring to.  there is some "arduous academic" critique - kinda funny, that.  then there is some "their" referred to; then some "they"...

I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

really?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on September 16, 2009, 02:13:05 AM
I once again agree with zarodinu.

I would add that critiquing violence in such an arduous academic fashion is probably not how I would look at it. I feel like their intentions and manner are more important factors dictating our impression of the Nazis and the Basterds. They create a mood, a relationship - the violence is the culmination of their ideals in a real physical world. So we draw our conclusions of peoples' character before the violence and based on how the violence goes down we cheer/cry/despair/laugh/feel nothing, whatever ...

So it's less a study of our 'relationship to violence' as it is a 'relationship to characters.'

I hope I make sense...  :-[

no sense.  i really don't know what you are referring to.  there is some "arduous academic" critique - kinda funny, that.  then there is some "their" referred to; then some "they"...
really?

'their' refers to Nazis and Basterds. 'they' refers to intentions and manner. That was a bit unclear.

I'm basically saying analysing the people is more important than analysing the violence.

And like froham, I loved the nazi killing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 16, 2009, 04:05:02 AM

I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Nice! I like Coos Bay alright. Ever make it to Eugene?

Yep, love Eugene, its like a big college town and I mean that as a complement.  Watched Moon in the Bijou movie theater.  Do you live there?
Yeah, attending the U of O until I can hopefully go down to cali for film school. I also caught Moon at the Bijou  :P Nice!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: duder on September 16, 2009, 07:38:56 AM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

Weird.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: edgar00 on September 16, 2009, 09:48:53 AM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

I'm not much of a Nazi fan and I was taken aback by the 'massacre theatre' at the end when all hell breaks loose.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: masterofsparks on September 16, 2009, 10:23:24 AM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

I agree. In fact, I think they should start televising the executions of death row prisoners.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on September 16, 2009, 11:08:57 AM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

I'm not much of a Nazi fan and I was taken aback by the 'massacre theatre' at the end when all hell breaks loose.

Taken aback is fine. So was I. I also found it satisfying.
Title: Re: Movie Buzz
Post by: skjerva on September 16, 2009, 01:19:46 PM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.
Title: Re: Movie Buzz
Post by: FroHam X on September 16, 2009, 01:22:36 PM
I don't understand how any viewer wouldn't get at least some level of satisfaction from seeing the Nazis get killed unless they themselves are Nazis or some such thing.

I'm sorry, are you so above violence in film that you also don't get satisfaction from seeing Hans Gruber fall off that skyscraper? Or how about the Nazis melting in Raiders?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on September 16, 2009, 01:34:11 PM

I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Nice! I like Coos Bay alright. Ever make it to Eugene?

Yep, love Eugene, its like a big college town and I mean that as a complement.  Watched Moon in the Bijou movie theater.  Do you live there?
Yeah, attending the U of O until I can hopefully go down to cali for film school. I also caught Moon at the Bijou  :P Nice!

Another Oregon-livin type person.  Nice.  (Sorry about Boise St there.  Has everyone backed off the ledge yet?)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 16, 2009, 02:21:42 PM
Nazi's being melted in Raiders wasn't nearly as good as the Nazi destruction in Basterds, but close!


I was working in a hospital in the glorious city of Coos Bay OR.  Lots of beautiful beaches and lonely 40 year old nurses.  Little else though.  Its half way between Portland and San Fran but on the coast.
Nice! I like Coos Bay alright. Ever make it to Eugene?

Yep, love Eugene, its like a big college town and I mean that as a complement.  Watched Moon in the Bijou movie theater.  Do you live there?
Yeah, attending the U of O until I can hopefully go down to cali for film school. I also caught Moon at the Bijou  :P Nice!

Another Oregon-livin type person.  Nice.  (Sorry about Boise St there.  Has everyone backed off the ledge yet?)
I certainly haven't.. :( We may have beat Purdue but I'm very wary of our new head coach.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on September 16, 2009, 02:42:59 PM
Anyway, I've probably said this before, but in relation to the Nazi thing, I found little to no satisfaction in the final massacre scene simply because the people being killed were high ranking Nazi officials. Also, pretty sure that QT meant for it to be that way. These were just faceless people as far as I was concerned, being brutally gunned down like fish in a barrel. My initial inclination was to pity them. Conversely, by specifically singling out Hitler, I can admit that there was a certain satisfaction in seeing that play out.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: jleigh on September 17, 2009, 01:12:35 AM
of course Also's speech is also meant to be humorous, but the fact that he has a silly accent doesn't mean what he is doing is tongue-in-cheek.  maybe venomous isn't the right word, but the speech is solely about killing nazis - it is clearly meant to echo the earlier nazi rhetoric.  it seems really weird to deny this while naming "nazi barbarity" as that seems a pretty apt description of the work of the Basterds - letting nobody escape*, scalping, etc.  that "this is how all revenge films are structured" is not an argument that denies this similarity, IB can use this structure (whether or not that matters) and still make comment on the theme of violence, showing the similarity between the nazis and the basterds, and still have revenge as the organizing objective.

...I can see how that interpretation could work.  I guess the biggest evidence I can produce against it is the tone Tarantino chooses to use the whole film.  The killing is just too exploitative to deliver a message about violence.  Every dead Nazi is a joke, the murder of these people is never taken remotely seriously, the scalping are more or less a running gag.  If I was the director, and I wanted to deliver your message to the audience, I would give the constant killing a little more weight.  I would not play every single scene of violence for laughs.  Just think about that last scene in the forest, the shooting and scalping of Landa's "friend" is basically a joke, and the carving of the swastika with Tarantino breaking the fourth wall through Brad Pitt is also played for sadistic laughs, wouldn't this scene be shot completely different if the film was trying to deliver a message about violence? 


But if you again look at it as the role of film and propaganda I think it still works, particularly if you compare it to the Nazi film being shown.  Those killings were played with an extreme, heavy hand as well with the specific purpose of being a "laugh" of sorts.  This is the kind of violence we often enjoy in cinema and that's part of what he's playing with.  Is he trying to make a serious statement about violence?  I think not.  Is he playing with the ideas of cinema and violence and propaganda and villains without having a specific agenda?  I think so.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 18, 2009, 09:11:59 AM
There is a marked difference between Basterd violence and Nazis violence, the most obvious is that Tarantino plays the Basterd violence for laughs. You are meant to enjoy it, enjoy the revenge but also it acknowledges the difference between the Basterds' motives the Nazis. We not only laugh when things are funny, we also laugh when we are uncomfortable - this cartoonish violence makes us uncomfortable because these acts are still being perpetrated on humans - villains or not.
There are only two actual acts of violence perpetrated by Landa on screen one is the massacre of the Dreyfus family which is cold and impersonal and played very straight. At no time does Landa even truly acknowledge their humanity with no reaction or display of emotion. He is cold and clinical in his questioning of La Pedit and can only compare the Jew to a the rat, dehumanizing an entire race.  The other is when Landa strangles Hammersmark, this is Nazis on German violence and it is done in the most intimate way possible - by Landa himself and he is obviously affected/stimulated by it. He has killed a person, a traitor no doubt, but he even comments on her death to Raines and in the process humanizes her.
The entire reasoning behind Raines' campaign of terror on the Nazis is based in their inherent humanity - the are obviously meant to have feelings and he and the Basterds are, obviously, meant to affect them. The scalping and the brutality cannot deny or erase the fact that even the Nazis are people in fact it only heightens it. Even in revenge - Raines and the basterds are better people than the Nazis and their actions, however brutal, are more noble.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 18, 2009, 02:48:11 PM
There is a marked difference between Basterd violence and Nazis violence, the most obvious is that Tarantino plays the Basterd violence for laughs. You are meant to enjoy it, enjoy the revenge but also it acknowledges the difference between the Basterds' motives the Nazis. We not only laugh when things are funny, we also laugh when we are uncomfortable - this cartoonish violence makes us uncomfortable because these acts are still being perpetrated on humans - villains or not.
There are only two actual acts of violence perpetrated by Landa on screen one is the massacre of the Dreyfus family which is cold and impersonal and played very straight. At no time does Landa even truly acknowledge their humanity with no reaction or display of emotion. He is cold and clinical in his questioning of La Pedit and can only compare the Jew to a the rat, dehumanizing an entire race.  The other is when Landa strangles Hammersmark, this is Nazis on German violence and it is done in the most intimate way possible - by Landa himself and he is obviously affected/stimulated by it. He has killed a person, a traitor no doubt, but he even comments on her death to Raines and in the process humanizes her.
The entire reasoning behind Raines' campaign of terror on the Nazis is based in their inherent humanity - the are obviously meant to have feelings and he and the Basterds are, obviously, meant to affect them. The scalping and the brutality cannot deny or erase the fact that even the Nazis are people in fact it only heightens it. Even in revenge - Raines and the basterds are better people than the Nazis and their actions, however brutal, are more noble.
Speaking of humanity, I think I Remember Landa showing concern when Aldo and his fellow Basterd killed Landa's Nazi escort in the forest.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on September 18, 2009, 04:51:35 PM
I think that concern was more out of concern for his own well-being, realizing that Raine and Utivich weren't going to entirely hold up their end of the deal. Though as judging by the thread dedicated to Landa, there's some debate about that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on September 18, 2009, 05:38:12 PM
I think that concern was more out of concern for his own well-being, realizing that Raine and Utivich weren't going to entirely hold up their end of the deal. Though as judging by the thread dedicated to Landa, there's some debate about that.
Ah good point, I'll have to go give that a read then I guess.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on September 18, 2009, 07:44:32 PM
gateway is spot on. Nazi ain't got no humanity.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on September 18, 2009, 08:56:18 PM
Everyone has humanity in the sense that they are human...there is no denying that reality.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Shaw13 on September 21, 2009, 12:45:31 PM
I think the final sequence loses something when viewing it without the prior knowledge of what the Nazi's did in full detail. Unless you know Goebbels and Goering going into the film, then you don't appreciate or find as much justice and joy in the massacre. Maybe Tarantino could have made shown their personalities better (especially Goering) rather than letting the audience use their own prior knowledge of the men and their positions in the Third Reich, which in some cases, is not much.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on October 20, 2009, 11:53:59 AM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

I think it's true that the film is totally manipulating our desire for revenge, QT even admits he's manipulating his audience. Whether or not that manipulation is good or bad is debatable but I think it's a major part of the identity of the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on October 20, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

I think it's true that the film is totally manipulating our desire for revenge, QT even admits he's manipulating his audience. Whether or not that manipulation is good or bad is debatable but I think it's a major part of the identity of the film.

I think that article is completely off the mark, but I only have my iPhone so Ill get into it later when I have a computer around.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 20, 2009, 01:27:55 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

I think it's true that the film is totally manipulating our desire for revenge, QT even admits he's manipulating his audience. Whether or not that manipulation is good or bad is debatable but I think it's a major part of the identity of the film.

Good article Sam - a lot to think about.
Personally - I think all artists, to some degree are attempting to maipulate their audience into a particular emotional reaction. I don't think it's a bad thing - rather - it's the nature of art.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 20, 2009, 08:18:00 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

I think it's true that the film is totally manipulating our desire for revenge, QT even admits he's manipulating his audience. Whether or not that manipulation is good or bad is debatable but I think it's a major part of the identity of the film.

Good article Sam - a lot to think about.
Personally - I think all artists, to some degree are attempting to maipulate their audience into a particular emotional reaction. I don't think it's a bad thing - rather - it's the nature of art.



Exacatly Martin. Of course he is manipulative that is his whole job description! Artists are manipulators in every sense of the word.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 20, 2009, 09:45:38 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

Wow. Thanks for that link, sam; it was as great read. I'm still going to finish catching up on the Tarantino canon and see Death Proof and IB soon (the only two I've not seen), but I've not much hope, based on what this writer says in both parts of his article, that I'll begin loving Tarantino if I haven't already. What he says, as in this snippet:

No filmmaker leaves me feeling so conflicted, torn between admiration and revulsion. Two things complicate my experience. First, the violence. It’s not that his movies are violent; it’s how they’re violent. He knows how to make us squirm like bugs pinned to a board. He cultivates riveting suspense through conversation and editing, until the threat of violence becomes certainty. The violence itself isn’t so remarkable—it’s that edgy and tangential talk during the buildup, and in the bloody aftermath. But he does it so often, and to such extremes, he makes me feel tortured.

captures, absolutely, my feelings about Tarantino films so far. Yes, all artists manipulate us to some extent, but with Tarantino for me personally so far, it's very akin to torture.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 20, 2009, 10:10:50 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

Wow. Thanks for that link, sam; it was as great read. I'm still going to finish catching up on the Tarantino canon and see Death Proof and IB soon (the only two I've not seen), but I've not much hope, based on what this writer says in both parts of his article, that I'll begin loving Tarantino if I haven't already. What he says, as in this snippet:

No filmmaker leaves me feeling so conflicted, torn between admiration and revulsion. Two things complicate my experience. First, the violence. It’s not that his movies are violent; it’s how they’re violent. He knows how to make us squirm like bugs pinned to a board. He cultivates riveting suspense through conversation and editing, until the threat of violence becomes certainty. The violence itself isn’t so remarkable—it’s that edgy and tangential talk during the buildup, and in the bloody aftermath. But he does it so often, and to such extremes, he makes me feel tortured.

captures, absolutely, my feelings about Tarantino films so far. Yes, all artists manipulate us to some extent, but with Tarantino for me personally so far, it's very akin to torture.

That is perfectly fair OAD as long as it is viewed as a personal response and not a fault of QT, which is how too many people portray it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on October 20, 2009, 10:18:14 PM
My problem with that article is that the writer is viewing Tarantino's violent streak in the wrong light. Tarantino love violence in films on its own level. QT revels in the violence, and there is no question he expects his audience to revel in it. The beauty of the Basterds is that he puts that same violence in a context that causes the audience to question that revelry. And he furthers that by having most of the film be completely non-violent, with only relatively brief spurts of the old ultra-violence. If the person who wrote the article generally does not revel in Tarantino's violence, then that is his issue, and it doesn't change what QT does with it or expects from it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on October 20, 2009, 10:36:15 PM
I think the violence in context of the film, while it does question our enjoyment of it, is, for the most part overstated to the point of becoming pornographic. I think it was unbridled and unrestrained and while it fits with the character it makes for tactless film-making. There's something to be said for the implication of violence and I feel that's something we haven't seen from QT since the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 20, 2009, 10:40:08 PM
QT revels in the violence, and there is no question he expects his audience to revel in it.

Exactly. So I guess I'm not his target audience.  :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 20, 2009, 10:44:09 PM
There's something to be said for the implication of violence and I feel that's something we haven't seen from QT since the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs.

This is just not true sam. The most interesting thing about his violence is that you rarely actually see it (head shot in PF, the rape in PF, all the shooting deaths in JB, and much of the violence in the Bills. IB is really his only film with violence we actually see (some in the Bill movies).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on October 20, 2009, 11:03:53 PM
One of these days I'm gonna see this movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 20, 2009, 11:41:37 PM
Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

I think it's true that the film is totally manipulating our desire for revenge, QT even admits he's manipulating his audience. Whether or not that manipulation is good or bad is debatable but I think it's a major part of the identity of the film.

Good article Sam - a lot to think about.
Personally - I think all artists, to some degree are attempting to maipulate their audience into a particular emotional reaction. I don't think it's a bad thing - rather - it's the nature of art.

Not that I want to open up this can of worms again but I found a thoughtful piece (http://bit.ly/2AH1zR) on the film.

Wow. Thanks for that link, sam; it was as great read. I'm still going to finish catching up on the Tarantino canon and see Death Proof and IB soon (the only two I've not seen), but I've not much hope, based on what this writer says in both parts of his article, that I'll begin loving Tarantino if I haven't already. What he says, as in this snippet:

No filmmaker leaves me feeling so conflicted, torn between admiration and revulsion. Two things complicate my experience. First, the violence. It’s not that his movies are violent; it’s how they’re violent. He knows how to make us squirm like bugs pinned to a board. He cultivates riveting suspense through conversation and editing, until the threat of violence becomes certainty. The violence itself isn’t so remarkable—it’s that edgy and tangential talk during the buildup, and in the bloody aftermath. But he does it so often, and to such extremes, he makes me feel tortured.

captures, absolutely, my feelings about Tarantino films so far. Yes, all artists manipulate us to some extent, but with Tarantino for me personally so far, it's very akin to torture.

BTW: Is "manipulate" really the word we want to use with art? Isn't something like "all artists want to evoke a response" better? Kieslowski evokes a definite response in me that I know he intends, but I don't feel manipulated (toyed with?) by him as I do with Tarantino. With Tarantino, it feels like a cat and mouse kind of thing to me, a cat playing with its prey because its got all the power and can. Someone like Kieslowski has a great deal of power, but he just doesn't seem to personally luxuriate in it as I feel that Tarantino does. I feel "safe" going where Kieslowski wants me to go; I don't feel safe with Tarantino. And it could very well be the subject matter that plays into my feelings about safety, but there's an attitude there with the filmmaker that makes my feeling related to more than just the subject matter. And definitely yes, Clovis, this all is a very personal response, but since others seem to have had the same response, maybe it's worth talking about.

(Must go see IB soon to be able to say more. Probably can't this weekend. Too many essays. Grrr.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on October 21, 2009, 12:06:03 AM
I suppose manipulate is the pejorative of evoke; one would only use the term if their reaction to a film is negative, but it's kind of the same thing.

BTW: Is "manipulate" really the word we want to use with art? Isn't something like "all artists want to evoke a response" better? Kieslowski evokes a definite response in me that I know he intends, but I don't feel manipulated (toyed with?) by him as I do with Tarantino. With Tarantino, it feels like a cat and mouse kind of thing to me, a cat playing with its prey because its got all the power and can. Someone like Kieslowski has a great deal of power, but he just doesn't seem to personally luxuriate in it as I feel that Tarantino does.
What side of this does Hitchcock fall on?

I feel "safe" going where Kieslowski wants me to go; I don't feel safe with Tarantino. And it could very well be the subject matter that plays into my feelings about safety, but there's an attitude there with the filmmaker that makes my feeling related to more than just the subject matter.
I'm curious about this. I get it in the sense of violence on screen and feeling uneasy about what you might be exposed to, but do you mean something more when you mean you feel "safe" with Kieslowski and not with Tarantino?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on October 21, 2009, 12:12:12 AM
There's something to be said for the implication of violence and I feel that's something we haven't seen from QT since the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs.

This is just not true sam. The most interesting thing about his violence is that you rarely actually see it (head shot in PF, the rape in PF, all the shooting deaths in JB, and much of the violence in the Bills. IB is really his only film with violence we actually see (some in the Bill movies).

I wouldn't say it's the only one with violence that you actually see, and I would also point out that for the most part even the violence you do see is sharp and quickly cut. There are only a few moments where he lingers upon the violence (a couple of the scalpings and the carving of the swastika at the end.) All the other violence, even the stuff in the climax, is either not actually all that bloody, or it's extremely gory but also extremely quickly edited.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 21, 2009, 12:39:41 AM
I suppose manipulate is the pejorative of evoke; one would only use the term if their reaction to a film is negative, but it's kind of the same thing.
Yes, true, they're kind of the same, but the negative connotation of the one and not the other is significant, I think. Would anyone really ever say, "I love art because of the way it manipulates me"? That seems a little masochistic, doesn't it? I don't know; I guess I'm wondering why the discussion about Tarantino has seemed so intent on neutralizing the negative implications of the word "manipulate" and also why people don't generally describe art as primarily something that "manipulates" the viewer?

BTW: Is "manipulate" really the word we want to use with art? Isn't something like "all artists want to evoke a response" better? Kieslowski evokes a definite response in me that I know he intends, but I don't feel manipulated (toyed with?) by him as I do with Tarantino. With Tarantino, it feels like a cat and mouse kind of thing to me, a cat playing with its prey because its got all the power and can. Someone like Kieslowski has a great deal of power, but he just doesn't seem to personally luxuriate in it as I feel that Tarantino does.
What side of this does Hitchcock fall on?
Heh, excellent question. I'm not sure. I should definitely ask myself whether I feel like Hitchcock is luxuriating in the way he's manipulating me . . .  I haven't felt that way, I don't think. I wonder if it's because Hitchcock's films feel like they're "about" something more than just the experience of being manipulated? I think with Tarantino, I feel like the manipulation is an end in itself and the films, ultimately, just feel very self-reflexive, being about nothing more than themselves, if that makes any sense. I don't take away from them anything that makes my life deeper - something that I guess I want art to do, especially art that is asking me to go to a dark place. Although some films are just entertainment - they're not really about anything except the ride - and I can definitely enjoy those films . . . Eh, I don't know - I'm talking in circles a bit - I haven't, obviously, clearly thought this out very well.

I feel "safe" going where Kieslowski wants me to go; I don't feel safe with Tarantino. And it could very well be the subject matter that plays into my feelings about safety, but there's an attitude there with the filmmaker that makes my feeling related to more than just the subject matter.
I'm curious about this. I get it in the sense of violence on screen and feeling uneasy about what you might be exposed to, but do you mean something more when you mean you feel "safe" with Kieslowski and not with Tarantino?
Yes, I'm not sure exactly how to describe what I mean. I think it has to do, again, with what seems like Tarantino's goal - to manipulate me into feeling something, to push me into an experience just to see how I'll respond (and then, I feel, he expects to respond with applause for him as a filmmaker). I feel like with filmmakers like Kieslowski, he's going for something much deeper - an idea, a truth about life, something that he himself feels very deeply and wants me to somehow feel or know, too. In that sense, I feel that Kieslowski is "in it with me," so to speak - it's a kind of humility that comes through somehow. He's sharing a film with me rather than shoving it at me maybe. And yeah, I don't really know if I can defend these feelings at this point - I need to query them further, too.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on October 21, 2009, 01:12:45 AM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 21, 2009, 01:36:29 AM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on October 21, 2009, 02:38:09 AM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)

Yep, exactly.

In a pseudo-mathematical sense, Tarantino goes from A to B in 10 seconds, whereas Kieslowski takes 10 years. They both have an impact but Tarantino has the shorter impulse. Subsequently, our human brain attributes it as being more 'manipulative.'
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on October 21, 2009, 07:43:03 AM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)
I'd agree that both are trying to evoke reactions but I feel that Kieslowski is giving me space to project myself into the film instead of simply assault me with everything going on. I like that assault sometimes. It's certainly the reason why I like Alien and Reservoir Dogs.

And I could totally be off about QT and violence in his other films. It just seems like progressively we've seen more and more of the violence on screen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on October 21, 2009, 02:32:19 PM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)

That may be one reason, but I think Tarantino is a filmmaker who likes to elicite very certain reactions from his audience, and usually very visceral ones, which makes some of his movies hard to love(I have trouble, for all it's genius, loving Pulp fiction). It's fantastically crafted, but the response he wants is strong. However, Kieslowski is a much more delicate filmmaker, he allows his films to speak for themselves and creates worlds which make you react but never tries to shock you, but instead makes you think yourself about what you've just seen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 21, 2009, 03:41:42 PM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)
I'd agree that both are trying to evoke reactions but I feel that Kieslowski is giving me space to project myself into the film instead of simply assault me with everything going on. I like that assault sometimes. It's certainly the reason why I like Alien and Reservoir Dogs.

That may be one reason, but I think Tarantino is a filmmaker who likes to elicite very certain reactions from his audience, and usually very visceral ones, which makes some of his movies hard to love(I have trouble, for all it's genius, loving Pulp fiction). It's fantastically crafted, but the response he wants is strong. However, Kieslowski is a much more delicate filmmaker, he allows his films to speak for themselves and creates worlds which make you react but never tries to shock you, but instead makes you think yourself about what you've just seen.

I agree, sam and 'Noke. And it seems like this makes my (our?) objections to Tarantino come down to a matter of taste? - I ultimately prefer the Kieslowski kind of film where I can participate more actively on both an emotional and intellectual level in what's happening on screen and where the themes or ideas and/or beauty (not necessarily beauty though) resonate in my life long after the film is over.

I do love a film that takes me on a ride; I love Jaws and Alien, for example, but I think when a film is so violent (like Reservoir Dogs for me), I want it to have a very good reason for that violence, a reason that's fundamentally related to something else besides the rush of that violence.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on October 21, 2009, 04:22:13 PM
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.

This is an interesting way of putting it.

Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?

(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)
I'd agree that both are trying to evoke reactions but I feel that Kieslowski is giving me space to project myself into the film instead of simply assault me with everything going on. I like that assault sometimes. It's certainly the reason why I like Alien and Reservoir Dogs.

That may be one reason, but I think Tarantino is a filmmaker who likes to elicite very certain reactions from his audience, and usually very visceral ones, which makes some of his movies hard to love(I have trouble, for all it's genius, loving Pulp fiction). It's fantastically crafted, but the response he wants is strong. However, Kieslowski is a much more delicate filmmaker, he allows his films to speak for themselves and creates worlds which make you react but never tries to shock you, but instead makes you think yourself about what you've just seen.

I agree, sam and 'Noke. And it seems like this makes my (our?) objections to Tarantino come down to a matter of taste? - I ultimately prefer the Kieslowski kind of film where I can participate more actively on both an emotional and intellectual level in what's happening on screen and where the themes or ideas and/or beauty (not necessarily beauty though) resonate in my life long after the film is over.

I do love a film that takes me on a ride; I love Jaws and Alien, for example, but I think when a film is so violent (like Reservoir Dogs for me), I want it to have a very good reason for that violence, a reason that's fundamentally related to something else besides the rush of that violence.


I'm not sure if I feel as strongly as you do, but I do think that Tarantino is a hard director to love because of those reasons. Because his violence is not for reveling in, he's always been a director who does not want to gloss over violence for the sake of cool, but also one who just puts scenes out there and says "How do you feel about that?"

However, I do think that what surprised me about IB is that with all the bits of shocking violence (Scalps, drawings on foreheads) here is also a lot of very nice emotional moments, most notably With Kruger and the shoe, with Lauent and Maurice, and especially those end scenes with Fassbender. "You know, there's a place in hell for people who waste good scotch." The way that's delivered just breaks my heart.

(I know I have more to say, but I have to go quickly. maybe I'll have more thoughts for tomorrow.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Abomination on October 21, 2009, 05:45:20 PM
Is Reservoir Dogs really that violent?  I think it only has a few instances of violences that are each more concerned with the implications of them than the acts themselves. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 21, 2009, 06:58:30 PM
Is Reservoir Dogs really that violent?  I think it only has a few instances of violences that are each more concerned with the implications of them than the acts themselves. 

no its hardly violent at all. I think there about five shootings and the ear scene. There is way more violence in an ep of 24. People always exagerate the violence in QT movies because while there is actually no that much it is viceral.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 21, 2009, 07:04:59 PM
Is Reservoir Dogs really that violent?  I think it only has a few instances of violences that are each more concerned with the implications of them than the acts themselves.  

no its hardly violent at all. I think there about five shootings and the ear scene. There is way more violence in an ep of 24. People always exagerate the violence in QT movies because while there is actually no that much it is viceral.

I was going to comment on this as well.
It's interesting how the implication of violence seems to have more impact than seeing the act itself - take for example Funny Games or even OAD's example of Jaws - now there is a violent film. That first attack on the woman swimmer at night was grisly, the sound alone was disturbing.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on October 21, 2009, 11:08:57 PM
Yeah the violence isn't that graphic but that doesn't really matter to OAD - the implication is enough. Everyone's put forward good points and I think we could all agree that it comes down to personal preference. I, for one, love both QT and KK.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 21, 2009, 11:12:53 PM
Yeah the violence isn't that graphic but that doesn't really matter to OAD - the implication is enough. Everyone's put forward good points and I think we could all agree that it comes down to personal preference. I, for one, love both QT and KK.

I agree, with this small change. The violence in QT movies is graphic but you actually dont see it very often, you just see the consequences.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 21, 2009, 11:18:17 PM
Is Reservoir Dogs really that violent?  I think it only has a few instances of violences that are each more concerned with the implications of them than the acts themselves.  

no its hardly violent at all. I think there about five shootings and the ear scene. There is way more violence in an ep of 24. People always exagerate the violence in QT movies because while there is actually no that much it is viceral.

I was going to comment on this as well.
It's interesting how the implication of violence seems to have more impact than seeing the act itself - take for example Funny Games or even OAD's example of Jaws - now there is a violent film. That first attack on the woman swimmer at night was grisly, the sound alone was disturbing.
I knew you guys (or somebody) were going to comment on this.  :)  I haven't seen either version, but is Funny Games violent even though most of the violence happens off screen? Yes, right? It's the way Tarantino deals with the violence and the suggestion of/presence of violence  as I've seen it so far - rather than than actual scenes with blood or knives or whatever that makes it ultra violent in my mind - it's the knowledge that a guy's ear has just been cut off by a person who is utterly gleeful and/or blase about it, it's Mr. Orange quietly bleeding away in a corner while the other guys are just talking. Maybe that's not your interpretation of violence, but it is mine. And I don't see any point to it except to make me feel like crap.

Yeah the violence isn't that graphic but that doesn't really matter to OAD - the implication is enough. Everyone's put forward good points and I think we could all agree that it comes down to personal preference. I, for one, love both QT and KK.
Yes, to both parts of what chardy said.

However, I do think that what surprised me about IB is that with all the bits of shocking violence (Scalps, drawings on foreheads) here is also a lot of very nice emotional moments, most notably With Kruger and the shoe, with Lauent and Maurice, and especially those end scenes with Fassbender. "You know, there's a place in hell for people who waste good scotch." The way that's delivered just breaks my heart.
I do look forward to seeing if I can emotionally connect with IB in some way rather than being so put off by the other stuff. Here's hoping.  :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 21, 2009, 11:24:08 PM
I agree OAD. I think the fact that we dont see the violence in QT movies makes it more visceral and this is what I appreciate. I dont find it hard to imagine alot of people disliking it. My only problem is when his critics confuse their distaste for that style (which is perfectly legitimate) with some kind of failing on QT part, when in fact it shows how good he is a director.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 21, 2009, 11:29:29 PM
I agree OAD. I think the fact that we dont see the violence in QT movies makes it more visceral and this is what I appreciate. I dont find it hard to imagine alot of people disliking it. My only problem is when his critics confuse their distaste for that style (which is perfectly legitimate) with some kind of failing on QT part, when in fact it shows how good he is a director.

I agree. I hope it doesn't seem like my distaste sounds like I'm not acknowledging his skill as a filmmaker.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 21, 2009, 11:30:33 PM
I agree OAD. I think the fact that we dont see the violence in QT movies makes it more visceral and this is what I appreciate. I dont find it hard to imagine alot of people disliking it. My only problem is when his critics confuse their distaste for that style (which is perfectly legitimate) with some kind of failing on QT part, when in fact it shows how good he is a director.

I agree. I hope it doesn't seem like my distaste sounds like I'm not acknowledging his skill as a filmmaker.

Not at all. It was not directed at you. It is just a common logical error I see many of his critics make.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 22, 2009, 12:49:10 AM
I agree OAD. I think the fact that we dont see the violence in QT movies makes it more visceral and this is what I appreciate. I dont find it hard to imagine alot of people disliking it. My only problem is when his critics confuse their distaste for that style (which is perfectly legitimate) with some kind of failing on QT part, when in fact it shows how good he is a director.

I agree. I hope it doesn't seem like my distaste sounds like I'm not acknowledging his skill as a filmmaker.

Not at all. It was not directed at you.

Oh, good.  :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Emiliana on October 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM
Unsurprisingly, I am with OAD on all this. The thing that has been baffling me the most about this discussion is the statement that we don't really see the violence in QT's films. I am trying really hard to verify this for me - ok, maybe we don't see Mr. Orange getting shot, we "only" see pools of blood and him cringing and crying out in horrible pain. In Pulp Fiction, we don't see the guy's head being blown off by Travolta's gun, we "only" see blood and brains splattered all over the car and the faces and hair of Travolta and Jackson. In Kill Bill 1, in the mass Yakuza slaughtering scene, we definitely see loads and loads of the violence on screen, so much so that the screen goes black and white so that we "only" see this easier to handle version of it.

I'm sorry, but to me, these qualifications don't mean that there isn't really all that much violence to see in QT's films. The violence is there in spades, and I definitely feel that it is lingered on and to be reveled in. I guess I am agreeing with marty that the implications and direct aftermath of the violence are every bit as (if not more) off-putting as the actual act of violence. Even though I'd still say that there is plenty of actual violence left.

So maybe I have to conclude that I simply don't like that aspect of Tarantino's style because I find it cruel and torturous and uncomfortable and unnecessary and sadistic, and have to live with the fact that this might spoil my enjoyment of all his other qualities as a filmmaker. On the one hand I don't want to stop watching his films because I appreciate so many of the films' other facets, but the violence might very well be a dealbreaker. Hm.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on October 22, 2009, 06:52:24 AM
I think I remember hearing Tarantino say he'd like to make a 1950's Douglas Sirk-esque melodrama, but feared people would laugh. He'll stick to his guns (pun always intended).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on October 22, 2009, 08:58:33 AM
Just a reminder - film is subjective and nobody is "right" or "wrong" in their analysis.
I hope nobody feels attacked or singled out.
This is why I mostly stay out of film discussion. Somebody is bound to feel attacked and no one should ever feel this way - everyone's opinions are equally valid. :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on October 22, 2009, 10:03:23 AM
I agree OAD. I think the fact that we dont see the violence in QT movies makes it more visceral and this is what I appreciate. I dont find it hard to imagine alot of people disliking it. My only problem is when his critics confuse their distaste for that style (which is perfectly legitimate) with some kind of failing on QT part, when in fact it shows how good he is a director.
This is why I think IB is Tarantino's worst film because it's so blatant in its portrayal of violence. It's pretty much all there to see and I'd prefer that it was off screen. It's also why I really don't like Kill Bill Vol. 1. I just don't see the need for that level of violence when it's more effective when its off-screen.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on October 22, 2009, 12:27:31 PM
This is why I think IB is Tarantino's worst film because it's so blatant in its portrayal of violence. It's pretty much all there to see and I'd prefer that it was off screen. It's also why I really don't like Kill Bill Vol. 1. I just don't see the need for that level of violence when it's more effective when its off-screen.

There are different types of violence that are used to different effect. Most of the violence in Kill Bill is way over the top, almost to the point of comedy, which is why it doesn't bother me. It's as stylized as the rest of the movie and fits the larger-than-life martial arts revenge story. IB purposefully plays up the gruesome nature of the violence with its lingering closeups, but I think it does it for interesting reasons. I don't believe the violence in either of these are to be taken that "seriously".

Off-screen or implied violence can be extremely effective, but it's a technique to be used when it fits the material.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on October 22, 2009, 12:50:38 PM
I loved the way Kill Bill: Vol. 1 handled violence. The brutality, the humour, the grace, the ugliness were all so very effective.

However, the thought of another discussion arguing the merit of this statement makes me queasy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 22, 2009, 01:32:10 PM
So maybe I have to conclude that I simply don't like that aspect of Tarantino's style because I find it cruel and torturous and uncomfortable and unnecessary and sadistic, and have to live with the fact that this might spoil my enjoyment of all his other qualities as a filmmaker. On the one hand I don't want to stop watching his films because I appreciate so many of the films' other facets, but the violence might very well be a dealbreaker. Hm.

These thoughts resonate with me, and I have to question, too, how much does violence (including the way its handled) does it take to ruin my enjoyment of the other great things about his films? So far, the violence has seriously jeopardized my enjoyment.

And I think it's not just the violence that puts me off; the writer in the article sam linked to said this, "Tarantino is, at times, like one of those popular, flamboyant, egomaniacal orchestra conductors, gesticulating wildly and turning to the audience to make sure we know that the show’s about him. It’s a shame, because the concert really is impressive." His films so often feel like a showcase of himself, and I can't concentrate on the story or the characters without seeing him, without seeing him seeing himself, to be more specific. It's a little bit like the complaint I've heard with Michael Moore, I guess - somehow in his films since Roger and Me, he is so present that I get really distracted and put off. His presence, for me, overwhelms what I think he's trying to say, overwhelms the people the film is about so much that the film doesn't really seem about them anymore. I loved Roger and Me and I quite liked Jackie Brown (though it had some elements that made me intensely uncomfortable) - both of those films have less of the filmmakers' egos present, I think. I think about the story and the people in those films, more than the filmmakers. I can see how other people wouldn't be bothered by the way these particular filmmakers are present in their films, but for me, I find it very hard to get past.  (I've been thinking a bit about Herzog - 'cause he's definitely very present in his films - some might say (skjerva?) in an egomaniacal way - but I've loved everything I've seen of Herzog, and I can't help but be absolutely fascinated by Herzog as a person. I'm trying to figure out what makes Herzog different for me.)

So QT's ego coupled with the in my face violence? So far, those things (generally, not always) overwhelm and quell my admiration for genius of his films.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on October 22, 2009, 04:44:18 PM
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on October 22, 2009, 05:49:04 PM
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

That's probably one of the key differences, yeah.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on October 22, 2009, 10:15:40 PM
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

I agree QT is a boring character (although I love hearing his talk about films). I have made this point before but whenever he steps on screen his films fall from genius to terrible with an atomic thud!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Harris Telemacher on November 17, 2009, 04:16:32 PM
Figured there might be some interest in these fake "Jack Kirby" comic book covers for Inglourious Basterds: they're some really great stuff:

http://forum.superpouvoir.com/showthread.php?p=313021#post313021 (http://forum.superpouvoir.com/showthread.php?p=313021#post313021)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on November 17, 2009, 04:28:13 PM
Figured there might be some interest in these fake "Jack Kirby" comic book covers for Inglourious Basterds: they're some really great stuff:

http://forum.superpouvoir.com/showthread.php?p=313021#post313021 (http://forum.superpouvoir.com/showthread.php?p=313021#post313021)

Those are SOOOOOOO awesome.  Thanks Harris!!!

This one is my favorite:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/j7dwed.jpg)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on November 18, 2009, 11:12:13 PM
He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

Who is?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on November 19, 2009, 01:10:31 PM
He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

Who is?

Tarantino.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on November 19, 2009, 01:19:52 PM
He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

Who is?

Tarantino.
I don't think any director is as compelling as Herzog.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on November 26, 2009, 01:14:58 AM
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

I agree QT is a boring character (although I love hearing his talk about films). I have made this point before but whenever he steps on screen his films fall from genius to terrible with an atomic thud!

I like Jimmy in Pulp.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on November 26, 2009, 03:14:45 AM
Pulp Fiction - The Jimmy Situation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-7f7vVCqvI#normal)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on November 26, 2009, 02:08:30 PM
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

I agree QT is a boring character (although I love hearing his talk about films). I have made this point before but whenever he steps on screen his films fall from genius to terrible with an atomic thud!

I like Jimmy in Pulp.

Sorry Clovis, but you misinterpreted my comment completely. When I said I didn't like Tarantino character, I didn't mean when he acted in his films. I mean the persona he has.  Tarantino's persona is one who enjoys putting violence up close and personal, who adores film, who like smart dialouge. And I think all those things help his film, but I can see people not enjoying his persona and so not enjoying some of his earlier films, especially Kill Bill vol. 1(noting I havent seen vol 2 and death proof). However, something like Reservoir Dogs has less of his chracter and IB has the least so far. It's still there, and I'm glad it is, but it doesn't take over the film.

And I really like Kill bill vol. 1, but I think it gets hindered by Tarantino's chracter being too imposed, although thats not too much of a criticism. And Pulp Fiction doesnt have it as much in full force, but its there and not in a hindering way. My problems with PF are completely different to that (although its a film I still really like.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on December 01, 2009, 10:27:18 AM
I really don't want to open up this can of worms again--although it is fun--but I found a fascinating NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112440754).

And yes, it's going to be a source in my paper.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on December 01, 2009, 11:03:28 AM
I really don't want to open up this can of worms again--although it is fun--but I found a fascinating NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112440754).

And yes, it's going to be a source in my paper.

Really interesting listen, although it doesn't have anything to do with the movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on December 01, 2009, 11:07:28 AM
I really don't want to open up this can of worms again--although it is fun--but I found a fascinating NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112440754).

And yes, it's going to be a source in my paper.
That is really fascinating. Thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on December 01, 2009, 11:11:59 AM
I really don't want to open up this can of worms again--although it is fun--but I found a fascinating NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112440754).

And yes, it's going to be a source in my paper.

Really interesting listen, although it doesn't have anything to do with the movie.
I think it has some parallels (at least as far as my paper is concerned). I mean at one point they almost optioned her father's book so I'd say it was fairly relevant to the subject of the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on December 01, 2009, 11:14:58 AM
I really don't want to open up this can of worms again--although it is fun--but I found a fascinating NPR interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112440754).

And yes, it's going to be a source in my paper.

Really interesting listen, although it doesn't have anything to do with the movie.
I think it has some parallels (at least as far as my paper is concerned). I mean at one point they almost optioned her father's book so I'd say it was fairly relevant to the subject of the film.

It parallels for sure. I just mean that the fact that IB is not historical is not a problem with the film as has been said before. It is in no way trying to be historical.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Soderman on December 15, 2009, 10:27:57 AM
I just bought the bluray and am going through some of the extra features.  It's a power house of bonus features.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 15, 2009, 10:42:17 AM
I just picked up the bluray too. I wish the Alliance wasn't so stupid and just used the same cover art as the American release.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 15, 2009, 10:51:08 AM
trying to get this via Netflix.... but that whole program has sucked the last 3 months... you can't get ANY new release for atleast 2 months.... they need to increase movie volume or offer more streaming
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: OmNom on December 15, 2009, 06:57:19 PM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

Inglourious Basterds is a great looking movie.  "Beauty" isn't a word that comes to mind when I think about Tarantino. Usually I think about dialogue, music, and of course, violence.  But I'm watching this DVD right now, and my overall impression is that each scene is beautiful to just look at.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: bb6634 on December 16, 2009, 03:03:38 PM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

I feel the same way re: wanting a commentary. Definitely would have been a bonus.  Tarantino won't do commentaries for his own films.  I don't know why not.  However,  he will do them for other film makers/friends' films (i.e. Hot Fuzz).   He did do one for True Romance though (not his since Tony Scott directed).  His commentaries are a treat.  They come off as  mini-film classes.  His breadth of film knowledge is awesome.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: OmNom on December 17, 2009, 10:33:25 AM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

I feel the same way re: wanting a commentary. Definitely would have been a bonus.  Tarantino won't do commentaries for his own films.  I don't know why not.  However,  he will do them for other film makers/friends' films (i.e. Hot Fuzz).   He did do one for True Romance though (not his since Tony Scott directed).  His commentaries are a treat.  They come off as  mini-film classes.  His breadth of film knowledge is awesome.

Really?  I did not know that.  I would totally rent a DVD just to listen to Tarantino's commentary. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 17, 2009, 10:39:19 AM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

I feel the same way re: wanting a commentary. Definitely would have been a bonus.  Tarantino won't do commentaries for his own films.  I don't know why not.  However,  he will do them for other film makers/friends' films (i.e. Hot Fuzz).   He did do one for True Romance though (not his since Tony Scott directed).  His commentaries are a treat.  They come off as  mini-film classes.  His breadth of film knowledge is awesome.

I'm really torn about director's doing their own commentaries.  I rarely listen to them myself and I kinda honor The Coen's, Tarantino and Kaufman for refusing to do them for their own movies - but the few times I do listen to them (most recently Shanley's for Doubt) I am rewarded.  I actually LOVE third party commentaries.  Maybe these three should do a swap.  Can you imagine a Tarantino commentary for Fargo, or the Coen's doing one for Synecdoche, NY, and Kaufman doing one for Kill Bill vol2!  :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: OmNom on December 17, 2009, 10:52:39 AM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

I feel the same way re: wanting a commentary. Definitely would have been a bonus.  Tarantino won't do commentaries for his own films.  I don't know why not.  However,  he will do them for other film makers/friends' films (i.e. Hot Fuzz).   He did do one for True Romance though (not his since Tony Scott directed).  His commentaries are a treat.  They come off as  mini-film classes.  His breadth of film knowledge is awesome.

I'm really torn about director's doing their own commentaries.  I rarely listen to them myself and I kinda honor The Coen's, Tarantino and Kaufman for refusing to do them for their own movies - but the few times I do listen to them (most recently Shanley's for Doubt) I am rewarded.  I actually LOVE third party commentaries.  Maybe these three should do a swap.  Can you imagine a Tarantino commentary for Fargo, or the Coen's doing one for Synecdoche, NY, and Kaufman doing one for Kill Bill vol2!  :)

That would rule!!   :D

I'm still waiting rather anxiously for Adam & Matty's film commentaries.  I might send them a donation specifically earmarked for this!  The "Make OmNom's Dream Come True" fund. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on December 19, 2009, 03:35:33 AM
see, I find it easy to believe that the Coen's might not make a great commentary. Tarantino I have evidence that he can do good ones either with someone (dusk til dawn, hot fuzz) or alone (true romance). but not everyone can do that and knowing what to talk about is difficult.

now that I say that, though, I don't know how great tarantino would be alone on one of his more recent movies. so much of the true romance commentary is him talking about writing it and getting into the business which is fascinating but doesn't relate directly to the film. when you have a great director, alone, talking about their own film... they can talk about stuff on set but that wouldn't quite be satisfying... but then what would be? to have them explain the purpose to each line/shot would get old fast and ruin the relationship you as a viewer develop towards the film. I'd definitely specifically want to have tarantino +... either someone he worked with or a friend of his (like hot fuzz and dusk til dawn are). then again Fincher on Zodiac was good...

ahh. rather than ramble further I'll say: sometimes it's nice to not be able to get exactly what you think you want. and yes I'm saying this to myself as much as anyone else.

but I have to comment on Shandley... listening to him on the screenwriter interview podcast (name escapes me but they mention it on filmspotting plenty) I knew he could carry a commentary because he speaks so personally about his films. It was really refreshing to hear in the interviews and I still need to pick up a DVD of his to hear em. doubt is as good a candidate as any, I enjoyed that a fair bit. not sure what other movies of his have one.

... whew.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: bb6634 on December 19, 2009, 04:47:16 AM
but I have to comment on Shandley... listening to him on the screenwriter interview podcast (name escapes me but they mention it on filmspotting plenty) I knew he could carry a commentary because he speaks so personally about his films. It was really refreshing to hear in the interviews and I still need to pick up a DVD of his to hear em. doubt is as good a candidate as any, I enjoyed that a fair bit. not sure what other movies of his have one.
... whew.

Shanely has a commentary of the Deluxe version of Moonstruck.  

He does give really good commentary, and the Coens'...  if you have ever heard them talk about their films they can be very....  "cagey" for lack of a better word.  They seem to often mock the very idea of explaining their films.  Jeff Goldsmith's podcast interview with them for No Country for Old Men is a good example. "Obtuse" doesn't begin to describe their answers to his questions.   Which I kind of understand.  So many of their films are interpretive and it's up to the viewer to take from them what they want.   I think them explaining their films diminishes the potential for the viewer to project their own interpretations.   With a film like A Serious Man, this is especially true.   I suspect Tarantino probably feels the same way.  

I love Stevn Soderberg's commentaries.  He will give commentaries for his idols and friends' films (i.e. Mike Nichols' The Graduate, Virginia Wolf, and Catch 22).  He has also given commentaries for sex, lies and videotape (with Neil LeBute) and The Limey (with screenwriter Lem Dobbs).  I think his commentary for The Limey is up there as one of the best, simply because it is one of the few I have listened to where the director and screenwriter clearly had different interpretations of the material and decided to hash it out during the commentary.  They don't argue exactly... but Dobbs 'Limey' is not the film that Soderberg made, and I think you can hear that in Dobbs' commentary.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on December 19, 2009, 04:48:49 AM
I'd definitely specifically want to have tarantino +... either someone he worked with or a friend of his (like hot fuzz and dusk til dawn are). then again Fincher on Zodiac was good...


I'd love to see a Tarantino-Eli Roth commentary. Regardless of your opinion of him as an actor/director, the guy is just downright fascinating to listen to when talking about film.

Also, regarding The Limey, the AV Club actually made the DVD commentary track a member of their New Cult Canon a while back (as far as I know it's the only commentary they've done, usually it's only films). It's a fascinating read.
http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-new-cult-canon-the-limey-filmmaker-commentary,23702/ (http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-new-cult-canon-the-limey-filmmaker-commentary,23702/)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Hal Warren on December 19, 2009, 05:13:08 AM
I picked up the DVD today.  I'm a little disappointed.  I appreciate the "round table discussion" with Tarantino and Pitt, but I think an audio commentary would have been better.

I feel the same way re: wanting a commentary. Definitely would have been a bonus.  Tarantino won't do commentaries for his own films.  I don't know why not.  However,  he will do them for other film makers/friends' films (i.e. Hot Fuzz).   He did do one for True Romance though (not his since Tony Scott directed).  His commentaries are a treat.  They come off as  mini-film classes.  His breadth of film knowledge is awesome.

Yeah, I loved his commentary with Robert Rodriguez on From Dusk Till Dawn. I really wish he'd do more, I love hearing him talk abuot film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 20, 2009, 09:02:37 PM

but I have to comment on Shandley... listening to him on the screenwriter interview podcast (name escapes me but they mention it on filmspotting plenty) I knew he could carry a commentary because he speaks so personally about his films. It was really refreshing to hear in the interviews and I still need to pick up a DVD of his to hear em. doubt is as good a candidate as any, I enjoyed that a fair bit. not sure what other movies of his have one.


Funny you should mention this.  i was just talking to my wife about this interview (This was The Creative Screenwriter magazine, with they guy that thinks we listen for him and not the interview subjects)

I love his line "I wouldn't want to rob you of your opinioni"

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Variable on December 20, 2009, 10:25:57 PM

but I have to comment on Shandley... listening to him on the screenwriter interview podcast (name escapes me but they mention it on filmspotting plenty) I knew he could carry a commentary because he speaks so personally about his films. It was really refreshing to hear in the interviews and I still need to pick up a DVD of his to hear em. doubt is as good a candidate as any, I enjoyed that a fair bit. not sure what other movies of his have one.


Funny you should mention this.  i was just talking to my wife about this interview (This was The Creative Screenwriter magazine, with they guy that thinks we listen for him and not the interview subjects)

I love his line "I wouldn't want to rob you of your opinioni"



yeah he's so damn good. there's a later ep of the creative screenwriting podcast where it's a roundtable of everyone nominated for an academy award that year in writing, and he's excellent. it's a mixed bag because some of them are great and some not so good, but he jumps between all of them. thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't listened.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 09:51:18 AM
Okay... finally saw this.... let's just say, had a hard time staying awake....

I enjoyed the first two chapters ALOT... the table discussion in the beginning was classic tension building cinema at it's finest... then the introductions to the Basterds was kick-ass.......... BUT, then we go into this world of the Jewish girl wanting to burn down the cinema, the Nazi war hero... YAWN.... The bar scene was okay, and held my interest... but the movie as a whole was brought down by an awful last two chapters....

plus, the Basterds and the Allies seems a bit "dumb" at the end.... why was the Jewish film owner better equiped and prepared to take down the Nazis then the Basterds.... suicide bombing?  Really?...... like they couldn't have left the explosives under their seat and then locked the doors...

5.5/10

I know theres alot of love for QT on these boards... but, he is batting .500 right now..


The Good
Res Dogs
Pulp Fictuon
Kill Bill

The Bad
Jackie Brown
Death Proof
Inglorious Basterds
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 10:09:50 AM

but I have to comment on Shandley... listening to him on the screenwriter interview podcast (name escapes me but they mention it on filmspotting plenty) I knew he could carry a commentary because he speaks so personally about his films. It was really refreshing to hear in the interviews and I still need to pick up a DVD of his to hear em. doubt is as good a candidate as any, I enjoyed that a fair bit. not sure what other movies of his have one.


Funny you should mention this.  i was just talking to my wife about this interview (This was The Creative Screenwriter magazine, with they guy that thinks we listen for him and not the interview subjects)

I love his line "I wouldn't want to rob you of your opinioni"



yeah he's so damn good. there's a later ep of the creative screenwriting podcast where it's a roundtable of everyone nominated for an academy award that year in writing, and he's excellent. it's a mixed bag because some of them are great and some not so good, but he jumps between all of them. thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't listened.

Awesome - yeah that was a great roundtable.  I thought he and Andrew Stanton (Wall-E) really stood out in that interview.  I loved Courtney Hunt (Frozen River) in that too.  Eric Roth (Ben Button) was terrible.

Sorry - got way off subject here.  People should listen to this podcast though. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 10:22:36 AM

...plus, the Basterds and the Allies seems a bit "dumb" at the end.... why was the Jewish film owner better equiped and prepared to take down the Nazis then the Basterds.... suicide bombing?  Really?...... like they couldn't have left the explosives under their seat and then locked the doors...


As much as i LOVE this movie, after watching it a bunch of times I'm thinking it would be fun to do a fan commentary ripping apart the entire ending - Historical Fiction aside - I mean the amount of suspension of disbelief necessary for the lack of security at the theater, especially after a basement bar full of Nazi's were shot a mere 24 km away....Even if Landa had planned lackluster security because he was staging his exit right along...there is not enough even for his own plausible    deniability.  How does a "negro man" manage to walk around the lobby with two crow bars and go to the front entrance with them?  There is NO ONE posted outside the doors?  One could go on and one once you break this apart.

I've thought about this  - and I'm willing to let this just be a Taratino conceit.  

For instance the brief segue on nitrate film - Taratino needed to explain the significance of the nitrate film and couldn't build it honestly into the diaglog between the two theater people.  So he said "f-it" and he did a full blown over-to-top "hi, I am an exposition"  scene.  

So perhaps the lack of security in the theater was a conceit like this.  Instead of playing a ton of games with holes in security he just made it basically non-existent.  I dunno.  Anyone else have a take on this?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 21, 2009, 10:26:02 AM
It's what you said. It's a conceit and Tarantino runs with it. It doesn't need to make sense, and in the moment it really doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 10:44:52 AM
It's what you said. It's a conceit and Tarantino runs with it. It doesn't need to make sense, and in the moment it really doesn't matter.

sure it did.... to have no military inforcements in France, when HITLER was attending a film premier was eye roll inducing... I'm sorry, but that is the biggest load of crap.... not to mention they allowed people into the theater, who were strangers, and didn't search them?  give me a break....

I would normally be like "hey, it's just a movie, and serves to move the story along"  but like a poster said above... they go to such lengths to explain every other little detail... how this guy got his nickname.... how the film is extrememly flammable, etc... to just be like "go with it" seemed lazy... almost like QT got to the ending in his screen play, and just wanted to finish it...

oh, and it just so happened that no one tried to use the doors for the ten minutes they were locked before the film interuption?  right?  
So basic QT story telling, concentrate the plot on insignifigent areas, like the English solider meeting the Basterds, or someones accent, but overlook things such as military presense and the gun shots in the projector booth that everyone should hear.... the second set happened when there was no guns noises on screen... so, there is no way the audeinces didn't hear them

And it's good to see Hitler hired two Stormtroopers to keep guard outside his private balacony...


I think the movie itself sets itself up for being a dissapoinemnt because the first two chapters are so strong.... followed by sub par story telling after that....
I really wanted to love this film...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 10:56:38 AM
It's what you said. It's a conceit and Tarantino runs with it. It doesn't need to make sense, and in the moment it really doesn't matter.

sure it did.... to have no military inforcements in France, when HITLER was attending a film premier was eye roll inducing... I'm sorry, but that is the biggest load of crap.... not to mention they allowed people into the theater, who were strangers, and didn't search them?  give me a break....

I would normally be like "hey, it's just a movie, and serves to move the story along"  but like a poster said above... they go to such lengths to explain every other little detail... how this guy got his nickname.... how the film is extrememly flammable, etc... to just be like "go with it" seemed lazy... almost like QT got to the ending in his screen play, and just wanted to finish it...

oh, and it just so happened that no one tried to use the doors for the ten minutes they were locked before the film interuption?  right?  
So basic QT story telling, concentrate the plot on insignifigent areas, like the English solider meeting the Basterds, or someones accent, but overlook things such as military presense and the gun shots in the projector booth that everyone should hear.... the second set happened when there was no guns noises on screen... so, there is no way the audeinces didn't hear them

And it's good to see Hitler hired two Stormtroopers to keep guard outside his private balacony...

All great points.  If you start looking closely there are tons more examples even earlier in the film.

See I think a phantom-review-eque fan commentary would be very satisfying to detractors of the film.  

But again - (trying to establish the right tone here in the English written word) - I LOVE this film.  :)  Not sure why I'd find any satisfaction in tearing it down.  Maybe just to confront my own second-guessing straight on and exocrise those demons!





Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 21, 2009, 11:01:15 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

Also, the gun shots in the projection booth would not have been heard. First of all, projectors are really CINECAST!ing loud, meaning you probably would have trouble hearing the gun shots just down the hall, let alone in a theatre auditorium. Also the gun shots are happening as loud shots are ringing out in the film the audience is watching. This is clearly meant to be understood as a viable reason why the shots may not have been heard.

Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained. Trust me. I've gotten too many people asking me how come the DVDs they use at home aren't as good as the ones in the movie theatre, and whether we use "HD DVDs" and stuff like that. A show once broke down on me and a woman downstairs was yelling at the ushers saying that they should let her upstairs because she knows how to fix DVD players since she's done so at home several times. I would never assume that and audience understands the mechanics of modern film projection, let alone the fact that old nitrate stock was incredibly flammable.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 11:08:00 AM
Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained....

I agree with you on this.  I think it was totally the wise thing to "break character" and go into full-frontal exposition there.  Adding Sam Jackson to round out the conceit is a very nice touch. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 21, 2009, 11:08:47 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 21, 2009, 11:09:46 AM
Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained....

I agree with you on this.  I think it was totally the wise thing to "break character" and go into full-frontal exposition there.  Adding Sam Jackson to round out the conceit is a very nice touch. 

I agree, it was necessary. And the fact is, I enjoyed it, it was well puty together, and I'm happy they pulled someone with a distinctive and awesome voice like Jackson instead of boring Voice over guy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 11:11:01 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 21, 2009, 11:14:02 AM
Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained....

I agree with you on this.  I think it was totally the wise thing to "break character" and go into full-frontal exposition there.  Adding Sam Jackson to round out the conceit is a very nice touch. 

And that's what I love about this movie: Tarantino knows its a movie and so he's able to just run with things.

"Hey Tarantino, film is flammable?"
"Old film was. Shit, I guess I should just put in a scene with Sam Jackson and old stock footage to explain it."

"Hey Tarantino, wouldn't there be security at the premiere?"
"There was some security, and we can also assume Landa took the security down a good notch considering he plans on Hitler dying and he is in charge of security for the premiere. Also, it's a CINECAST!ing movie, so who cares?"

"Hey Tarantino, how is it that a guy got blown out of that circular window during the explosion at the end? Shouldn't everyone have been locked up in the auditorium?"
"Ummm... It looks awesome when the guy flies out the window."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 11:14:56 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

Also, the gun shots in the projection booth would not have been heard. First of all, projectors are really CINECAST!ing loud, meaning you probably would have trouble hearing the gun shots just down the hall, let alone in a theatre auditorium. Also the gun shots are happening as loud shots are ringing out in the film the audience is watching. This is clearly meant to be understood as a viable reason why the shots may not have been heard.

Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained. Trust me. I've gotten too many people asking me how come the DVDs they use at home aren't as good as the ones in the movie theatre, and whether we use "HD DVDs" and stuff like that. A show once broke down on me and a woman downstairs was yelling at the ushers saying that they should let her upstairs because she knows how to fix DVD players since she's done so at home several times. I would never assume that and audience understands the mechanics of modern film projection, let alone the fact that old nitrate stock was incredibly flammable.


have you ever heard a german officers ss pistol being discharged... trust me, it would have been heard....
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 11:16:47 AM
Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained....

I agree with you on this.  I think it was totally the wise thing to "break character" and go into full-frontal exposition there.  Adding Sam Jackson to round out the conceit is a very nice touch.  

And that's what I love about this movie: Tarantino knows its a movie and so he's able to just run with things.


"Hey Tarantino, film is flammable?"
"Old film was. Shit, I guess I should just put in a scene with Sam Jackson and old stock footage to explain it."

"Hey Tarantino, wouldn't there be security at the premiere?"
"There was some security, and we can also assume Landa took the security down a good notch considering he plans on Hitler dying and he is in charge of security for the premiere. Also, it's a CINECAST!ing movie, so who cares?"

"Hey Tarantino, how is it that a guy got blown out of that circular window during the explosion at the end? Shouldn't everyone have been locked up in the auditorium?"
"Ummm... It looks awesome when the guy flies out the window."

"Hey Tarrentino, you know your film dives off in the third act"
"Of course it does, films ussualy tend to dissapoint in the third act, that's why I made mine like that"

Now it smakes sense... the ending it supposed to be dumb!!!

That's the thing that bugs me about Tarrentino films... that there is this trump card that his fans like to have... if a movie of his has a short coming, it's because "its supposed to"....  it almost makes him critic proof
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

Also, the gun shots in the projection booth would not have been heard. First of all, projectors are really CINECAST!ing loud, meaning you probably would have trouble hearing the gun shots just down the hall, let alone in a theatre auditorium. Also the gun shots are happening as loud shots are ringing out in the film the audience is watching. This is clearly meant to be understood as a viable reason why the shots may not have been heard.

Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained. Trust me. I've gotten too many people asking me how come the DVDs they use at home aren't as good as the ones in the movie theatre, and whether we use "HD DVDs" and stuff like that. A show once broke down on me and a woman downstairs was yelling at the ushers saying that they should let her upstairs because she knows how to fix DVD players since she's done so at home several times. I would never assume that and audience understands the mechanics of modern film projection, let alone the fact that old nitrate stock was incredibly flammable.


have you ever heard a german officers ss pistol being discharged... trust me, it would have been heard....

Have you ever been inside a projection booth that's playing a really loud action movie? Trust me, nothing would be heard. Rather, nothing would be loud enough to be seriously noticed. Nevermind that booths back then were actually even loader than today. And again, part of the conceit is that the shots happen as shots are being fired on screen as well. Also, it's a movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 21, 2009, 11:23:00 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 11:26:43 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.

Oh Sorry 'Noke.  Sorry to invoke the wrong thing there.  I meant it as the highest of compliments to Magnolia.  I'd never sat so stunned in awe watching a film in my life.    I think I knew where you were going with your original comment but glad you explained more.  This really does sum it up:

... the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it...

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on December 21, 2009, 11:30:37 AM
Here's clovis jokernick, always having logic ruin his movie-going experiences.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 21, 2009, 11:32:43 AM
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.

Oh Sorry 'Noke.  Sorry to invoke the wrong thing there.  I meant it as the highest of compliments to Magnolia.  I'd never sat so stunned in awe watching a film in my life.    I knew where you were going with your original comment (but I'm also glad you rounded it out with these additional thoughts!! :) )

No worries. the Frogs were the first thing I thought of as a plot device used in such a blatant way, it just made sense. I really want to rewatch it now, and do a long writeup on it. Or a commentary. That would be fun.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 11:41:00 AM
Here's clovis jokernick, always having logic ruin his movie-going experiences.

lol... no, I just don't like it when a film concentrates on some aspects dealing with logic, then compleltely ignores others that are glairing to the overall plot...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on December 21, 2009, 11:44:10 AM
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 01:40:23 PM
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.

Logic issues... was one of them... the other was the strong first two chapters... they were soooo good, and I felt the rest of the movie was just a let down... I wanted to see the Basterds in action...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on December 21, 2009, 02:12:02 PM
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.

Logic issues... was one of them... the other was the strong first two chapters... they were soooo good, and I felt the rest of the movie was just a let down... I wanted to see the Basterds in action...

How was the final scene not the Basterds at their peak?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 02:13:56 PM
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.

Logic issues... was one of them... the other was the strong first two chapters... they were soooo good, and I felt the rest of the movie was just a let down... I wanted to see the Basterds in action...

How was the final scene not the Basterds at their peak?

The movie star gets found out... Pitt is captured... and the other guys, for no real reason, decide to kill Hitler with their guns, even though the bombs would have done the deal?   

spectacular timing too Eli Roth... glad to see he somehow knew to get out of the theater before the doors were locked!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 21, 2009, 02:16:01 PM
I wanted to see the Basterds earning their rep.... scalping Nazis, etc..... we saw the beginning, and the end....

Did I miss the scene where they machine guns the jeep through the windshield?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 02:46:35 PM
I wanted to see the Basterds earning their rep.... scalping Nazis, etc..... we saw the beginning, and the end....

Did I miss the scene where they machine guns the jeep through the windshield?

Yeah...it's there - VERY briefly at about the 2/3 mark as a flashback kinda thing. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on December 21, 2009, 03:46:09 PM
I wanted to see the Basterds earning their rep.... scalping Nazis, etc..... we saw the beginning, and the end....

Did I miss the scene where they machine guns the jeep through the windshield?

Yeah...it's there - VERY briefly at about the 2/3 mark as a flashback kinda thing. 

Yep, part of Stiglitz's little bio flashback.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on December 21, 2009, 07:05:53 PM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 07:09:57 PM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.

It's so funny that we do this, but I'm right there with ya!

(and I did applaud! :) the only time in two years in the cimena! )
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on December 21, 2009, 09:11:26 PM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.

It's so funny that we do this, but I'm right there with ya!

(and I did applaud! :) the only time in two years in the cimena! )

Oh no! You're not one of those people are you haha? Well only twice maybe you can be forgiven, but seriously, if you aren't watching a play where the actors can hear the applause it does seem silly.

I gave a big internal applause-double fist pump-triple chair spin combo.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 21, 2009, 11:04:48 PM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.

It's so funny that we do this, but I'm right there with ya!

(and I did applaud! :) the only time in two years in the cimena! )

Oh no! You're not one of those people are you haha? Well only twice maybe you can be forgiven, but seriously, if you aren't watching a play where the actors can hear the applause it does seem silly.

I gave a big internal applause-double fist pump-triple chair spin combo.

I am SOOOO not that guy.  I'm pretty well known for my stinginess in the clapping arena - so this was kinda a big deal!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on December 21, 2009, 11:52:00 PM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.

It's so funny that we do this, but I'm right there with ya!

(and I did applaud! :) the only time in two years in the cimena! )

Oh no! You're not one of those people are you haha? Well only twice maybe you can be forgiven, but seriously, if you aren't watching a play where the actors can hear the applause it does seem silly.

I gave a big internal applause-double fist pump-triple chair spin combo.

An addendum to this rule: applause IS permitted if you are seeing the movie at a film festival and one or more of the cast and/or crew members are present.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on December 21, 2009, 11:57:02 PM
I see nothing wrong with applauding after a movie in the right circumstances. It's not for the filmmakers benefit, it's a social thing. A way to express your excitement at a shared experience. Same reason people clap after a rollercoaster.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on December 22, 2009, 12:53:30 AM
You've seen people clap after a roller coaster ride?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 22, 2009, 09:21:50 AM
Plot holes become obvious and irritating when the movie is shit.
When it is awesome, we don't care.
When it is awesome, and is well aware of its plot holes and the like and still DOES NOT CARE because it is so awesome, we just have to applaud.

Basterds fits into the third category.

that is completely subjective my friend.... you could sit there and make the same argument for Transformers 2... not that I think it's awesome, because I find it a loud of monkey shit covered in bile....

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 22, 2009, 01:01:18 PM
I see nothing wrong with applauding after a movie in the right circumstances. It's not for the filmmakers benefit, it's a social thing. A way to express your excitement at a shared experience. Same reason people clap after a rollercoaster.

Yah, Except I hate the people who clap when a plane lands.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on December 22, 2009, 03:46:59 PM
You've seen people clap after a roller coaster ride?

Clap, cheer, hoot & holler, in fact.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on December 22, 2009, 04:26:38 PM
You've seen people clap after a roller coaster ride?

Clap, cheer, hoot & holler, in fact.

Yep me too - especially at Cedar Point in Ohio.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on December 22, 2009, 06:02:11 PM
I have never heard anyone clap after a rollercoaster or a plane trip.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on December 22, 2009, 06:04:15 PM
I have never heard anyone clap after a rollercoaster or a plane trip.

Then never fly Ryanair.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on December 22, 2009, 06:32:45 PM
I have never heard anyone clap after a rollercoaster or a plane trip.

Then never fly Ryanair.

If that is a real company it is the scariest name for a plane company I have heard. Makes it sound like one person named Ryan is single-handedly in control of a whole fleet of planes. Pass!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on December 23, 2009, 08:27:43 AM
I have never heard anyone clap after a rollercoaster or a plane trip.

plane for me..... we got caught in a pretty bad storm, and the plane was getting shook like it was in the care of a british nanny.... people were crying... etc... I felt like I was on Space Mountian and enjoyed it... but when the plan got out of the storm, and all was calm, people started cheering and clapping...

and of course, when that all stopped, I shouted "lets do that again... EXCITING!"... to which I got booed.....
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on December 26, 2009, 05:12:28 PM
You've seen people clap after a roller coaster ride?

Clap, cheer, hoot & holler, in fact.

Yep me too - especially at Cedar Point in Ohio.

No doubt here.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ricoshea on December 31, 2009, 12:16:41 AM
Why hasn't anyone noticed the window Shosana stands at near the end is the Death Star weapon circle?  It's totally an homage to Star Wars movies where the Empire were modeled on the Nazi's.... good vs. evil.... destruction of the Death Star equals the burning of the cinema.... complete with Nazi banners.  Anyone else see this?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on December 31, 2009, 12:25:55 AM
Why hasn't anyone noticed the window Shosana stands at near the end is the Death Star weapon circle?  It's totally an homage to Star Wars movies where the Empire were modeled on the Nazi's.... good vs. evil.... destruction of the Death Star equals the burning of the cinema.... complete with Nazi banners.  Anyone else see this?

Nope. I just thought it was cool CINECAST!ing set design. Not sure you're right, but it's a damn cool thought.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on December 31, 2009, 11:20:08 PM
Just watched this again and if I go by EST - this is my first film of 2010 (3rd time seeing it). The maniacal glee of Hans Landa is impossible to not like. If he doesn't get an Oscar nod I will be surprised.

The scene where Shoshanna encounters Landa in the restaurant with the strudel is impressive - her reactions are great and she says so much w/o very much dialogue.

Still awesome and still POSSIBLY (maybe) Tarantino's masterpiece (I am still partial to Pulp Fiction)...

*****/5
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 01, 2010, 06:36:30 AM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on January 01, 2010, 09:20:42 AM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?

yeah i noticed. She was the only daughter he kissed on the hand, too, and once he sat down he cotinued to stare at her. I put it down to the fact that he probably just wanted to dump his muck up it. I actually thought that this may have possibly an improv by the actor?

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!

Im not sure what could have been got out of another showdown scene between them. Considering where the film went after the strudle scene im cant see that it would have aided the flow of the film at all as, for me, IB could have done with being at least 30 minutes shorter rather than having extra scenes thrown in....
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 01, 2010, 12:15:23 PM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?

yeah i noticed. She was the only daughter he kissed on the hand, too, and once he sat down he cotinued to stare at her. I put it down to the fact that he probably just wanted to dump his muck up it. I actually thought that this may have possibly an improv by the actor?

If you don't want your bubble burst slightly don't read on.



In the script (that's widely available for purchase) there were supposed to be three girls and a wife. It seems like for whatever reason they didn't get a woman to play the wife, and so they transferred everything involving her to one of the daughter. The dialogue is almost exactly the same too. It's a little bizzare. I actually find it adds to the scene, because it feels off-kilter and raises the tension of the situation some.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on January 01, 2010, 12:26:41 PM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?

yeah i noticed. She was the only daughter he kissed on the hand, too, and once he sat down he cotinued to stare at her. I put it down to the fact that he probably just wanted to dump his muck up it. I actually thought that this may have possibly an improv by the actor?

If you don't want your bubble burst slightly don't read on.



In the script (that's widely available for purchase) there were supposed to be three girls and a wife. It seems like for whatever reason they didn't get a woman to play the wife, and so they transferred everything involving her to one of the daughter. The dialogue is almost exactly the same too. It's a little bizzare. I actually find it adds to the scene, because it feels off-kilter and raises the tension of the situation some.

Definitely. It gives Landa a real creepiness. Combined with how superficially charming he is it establishes the character. Charming scumbag.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: bb6634 on January 01, 2010, 02:00:03 PM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 01, 2010, 08:10:20 PM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

This is what I thought too. It's just the same as the milk-drinking or the bigger pipe or whatever in the back and forth that demonstrates that Landa is in control at all times. Plus it is creepy.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 01, 2010, 08:19:44 PM

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!

That doesn't necessarily mean they spoke again. Landa simply could have had one of his officers request the use of Shoshanna's office.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 02, 2010, 12:19:21 AM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

Actually, now that I think about it, your theory seems to make sense, considering the fact that we really never got to see what happened to the family after Shossana starts running from the farmer's house. We only get to see Landa bidding "Au revoir Shossana!!" while Shossana escapes and the scene gets cut after that. We don't really know whether or not Landa (being the sadistic scumbag that he is!) kept up his side of the agreement that he would let go of Lapadite and his daughters, if LaPadite pointed out where Shossana and her family were hiding. For all we know he might have killed Lapadite and his daughters except the youngest daughter. Landa might have taken the younger daughter with him and raped her. This is the reason I loved this scene, not only because Christoph Waltz's acting is convincingly downright creepy, but also because the scene is left open ended. I like open ended scenes because in that way, it's left to the audience to imagine/assume what might have happened!

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 02, 2010, 12:28:38 AM

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!

That doesn't necessarily mean they spoke again. Landa simply could have had one of his officers request the use of Shoshanna's office.

True. But since he never mentioned about having sent one of his officer's to request her for the office, I think it is quite possible that he might have done it himself. This is Landa we are talking about. I'm sure he would not miss out another opportunity to scare Shossana (like the strudel-eating scene). I wonder if there is any deleted scene of it in the DVD?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 02, 2010, 02:26:42 PM
Or maybe he just put up shop there w/o asking and said she let him do it...(the most likely scenario)...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 02, 2010, 08:32:19 PM
Another question I didn't see addressed in the previous 29 pages  ::)  :)  although, I admit, I didn't read each and every post incredibly thoroughly:

Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I'd be open to suggestions for her motivation or to an explanation detailing why she's not, in fact, kneeling out of compassion at all, but so far, this inconsistency in the characterization of Shosanna is indicative of part of the problem I had with the film. A number of the characters' actions didn't make sense to me (again, I'd be happy for an explanation - maybe I'm just being dense and I've seen the film only once):

1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way? Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally? I've read in this thread suggestions that he did it out of passion because a) he had a previous relationship with von Hammersmark and b) he was mad 'cause she insulted his intelligence. First, indications of the previous relationship seemed pretty slight to me. Did I miss a look or a line of dialogue that showed he was enraged or still in love with her? I sensed no spark between them that would have lead to a crime of romantically related passion. Second, he seemed too confident a character to be so incensed by a silly lie. He was sure of his intelligence, and I didn't see any previous indication in the film that insults to his intelligence would elicit such a response. Frankly, I think the whole thing was just an excuse for some brutal violence (and another shot of a woman's feet), a character's consistency be damned.

3) Was it really consistent for Raine not to be on his guard after von Hammersmark was taken? Really? He thought he'd just stand there after the Jew Hunter had taken her into an office alone? For a Basterd who'd been successfully ambushing and escaping Nazis, he suddenly seems remarkably stupid in this scene. Someone else mentioned the leaving of the shoe and the handkerchief in the bar, too - again, really? The Basterds would not have taken those things with them? Again, it just seems character consistency is sacrificed for the sake of plot points.

Plot holes I'm think I'm more ok with, but when characters aren't consistent, I have a much harder time excusing a film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zblaesi on January 02, 2010, 08:39:47 PM
I think people get the "OMG ANOTHER TARANTINO FILM" reaction when they watch IB and overlook its flaws. I can't help but wonder if the script isn't as tight as it seems. For example, a few of the Basterds disappear in the film's final act without explanation. We never learn what happened to them. When the Basterds are fairly one-dimensional and cartoonish to begin with, letting them disappear without explanation only adds to the problem. I suppose this is the result of Tarantino cutting a bunch of scenes out of the film to bring it down in length.

Of course, I loved the film, just saying there might be flaws in the script people tend to overlook. As noted above, Shoshanna's motivations for killing Zoller might be another example.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 02, 2010, 08:44:06 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.

The other things you bring up are more plot holes than character inconsistencies and even so, they are relatively minor. I mentioned this elsewhere, but if you aren't that invested in a story, these little things grate on you more and more.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zblaesi on January 02, 2010, 08:51:22 PM
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Quote
1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way?


For me, Landa's actions in the final act of the film make perfect sense.

Landa is not pure evil, and his actions are not driven by irrationality. He's a cold-blooded opportunist. Unlike his peers who are motivated by blind nationalism, Landa cares only for himself and how to progress in wealth and honor. He probably realizes that Germany cannot ultimately win the war, and that soldiers such as himself will be tried for their crimes. It is a downhill battle. Landa sees an opportunity to end the war and benefit himself when he captures the Basterds, and being the opportunist that he is, he takes advantage of that opportunity (quite excessively I might add).

That's how I saw it, anyway.

Maybe I'm messed up in the head, but I can't help but think of Landa as a sort of dark hero. He's intelligent, successful, manipulative, rational, and also fierce. Then again... he ruthlessly murders people to get ahead. He's the capitalist's hero anyway.

The fact that Landa - at least for me - comes off as appealing is no doubt a result of Waltz's performance.



Quote
Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

I don't know. Maybe his ego got in the way.
Quote
2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally?

I never thought about it to be honest.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 02, 2010, 09:29:54 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.
Again, where in the film do you see this as a part of his character? Give me some details - otherwise, it's only a possibility, not something that's clearly from the film itself. I don't see enough depth in his relationship with Bridget for there to be a culmination of anything.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 02, 2010, 09:41:43 PM
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Yeah, I don't know what else to say except that I didn't buy it. What was the glimpse of Zoller's humanity? The groan? That's it?

Quote
1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way?


For me, Landa's actions in the final act of the film make perfect sense.

Landa is not pure evil, and his actions are not driven by irrationality. He's a cold-blooded opportunist. Unlike his peers who are motivated by blind nationalism, Landa cares only for himself and how to progress in wealth and honor. He probably realizes that Germany cannot ultimately win the war, and that soldiers such as himself will be tried for their crimes. It is a downhill battle. Landa sees an opportunity to end the war and benefit himself when he captures the Basterds, and being the opportunist that he is, he takes advantage of that opportunity (quite excessively I might add).

That's how I saw it, anyway.
I don't want a "he probably realizes." I need film to give me the answer. Even a just a hint, but something. I get that he's an opportunist and that he's not a nationalist, but I need to understand more clearly why he thinks switching sides (and making a deal with and putting himself in the hands of the Basterds who hate him and want to kill him) is his best bet.

Maybe I'm messed up in the head, but I can't help but think of Landa as a sort of dark hero. He's intelligent, successful, manipulative, rational, and also fierce. Then again... he ruthlessly murders people to get ahead. He's the capitalist's hero anyway.

The fact that Landa - at least for me - comes off as appealing is no doubt a result of Waltz's performance.
Yes, I know what you mean. Landa's intelligence - a kind of Holmesian intelligence - is strangely captivating. And weirdly, had much more appeal to me than anything Shosanna offered.

Quote
Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

I don't know. Maybe his ego got in the way.
I want more than a maybe. :)


Quote
2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally?

I never thought about it to be honest.
Tarantino was clearly quite taken with the scene, the way he lingered on it. I, honestly, thought it was the most brutal death, so I'd like there to be a reason for it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 02, 2010, 10:06:35 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.
Again, where in the film do you see this as a part of his character? Give me some details - otherwise, it's only a possibility, not something that's clearly from the film itself. I don't see enough depth in his relationship with Bridget for there to be a culmination of anything.


1.He knows you need to kill the big four to end the war. He planted the bomb behind Hitler. He also knows about all the dynamite in the theatre. Basically he knows it is ending and wants to save his skin.

2.The details of their history isn't important - just that they have one. He is offended by her mountain-climbing story (proved by the over-laughing) which mocks his intelligence - she should obviously know better he thinks. He is offended by Raine when he and the other Basterd are at the table with Landa at the end.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 02, 2010, 10:09:14 PM
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Yeah, I don't know what else to say except that I didn't buy it. What was the glimpse of Zoller's humanity? The groan? That's it?

It's the first time she's killed someone, so there's that. It's also a situation where she has gottent o know the person she killed. On top of that, in the moment, seeing his face on the movie screen and realizing that she has killed him and that there is a humanity to him despite his actions and affiliations, she feels a connection to him. All I can say to add to that is that I totally bought it and it never crossed my mind as inconsistent, but it did for you and that's that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 02, 2010, 10:30:12 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.
Again, where in the film do you see this as a part of his character? Give me some details - otherwise, it's only a possibility, not something that's clearly from the film itself. I don't see enough depth in his relationship with Bridget for there to be a culmination of anything.


1.He knows you need to kill the big four to end the war. He planted the bomb behind Hitler. He also knows about all the dynamite in the theatre. Basically he knows it is ending and wants to save his skin.

2.The details of their history isn't important - just that they have one. He is offended by her mountain-climbing story (proved by the over-laughing) which mocks his intelligence - she should obviously know better he thinks. He is offended by Raine when he and the other Basterd are at the table with Landa at the end.
So you're saying he's basically deciding to the end the war though he could just have well prevented the end because he think he's going to gain more from ending it somehow? I guess I still don't see why, from the info in the film, ending it is any better than not ending it, in terms of what he has to gain. It's still a big risk to put himself in the hands of the Basterds.

I still don't see that the bare fact of their having a history means much. He does over laugh (haha, that was pretty great, btw), but I still don't get that that means he's so offended he's going to brutally strangle her?
I guess I'd need to watch it again to see the clues that he's super-sensitive about his intelligence.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 02, 2010, 10:34:14 PM
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Yeah, I don't know what else to say except that I didn't buy it. What was the glimpse of Zoller's humanity? The groan? That's it?

It's the first time she's killed someone, so there's that. It's also a situation where she has gottent o know the person she killed. On top of that, in the moment, seeing his face on the movie screen and realizing that she has killed him and that there is a humanity to him despite his actions and affiliations, she feels a connection to him. All I can say to add to that is that I totally bought it and it never crossed my mind as inconsistent, but it did for you and that's that.
Yes, true, it's the first time she's killed someone, but she certainly didn't hesitate at all in the doing of it. She's gotten to know him and despises him, don't you think? I just don't see how she feels a connection to him. Sorry.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 02, 2010, 11:51:43 PM
Or maybe he just put up shop there w/o asking and said she let him do it...(the most likely scenario)...

If the above scenario is correct, then my theory is still quite possible that Landa and Shossana spoke again. Finding Landa sitting in her office with out her permission most probably scared her off. But even if Shossana was avoiding Landa, Landa most probably took every opportunity he could to speak to her and creep her out.I just can't accept the fact that Landa would let go of Shossana so easily. Being the Sherlock-Holmes-detective that Landa happens to be, I'm 100 percent certain that Landa investigated "Emmanuelle Mimieux's" background and found a lot of clues pointing to the fact that the real Emmanuelle Mimieux was dead, and done further investigation to figure out who was the young girl who had taken on "madam Mimieux" as her alias, and found some information which indicated to him that this was the same Shossana who escaped from him four years ago.

Remember that Landa is a sadist. He likes playing mind-games with his victims. Which is why I find it very hard to believe that he would let go of Shossana so easily after realizing that she was alive after everything that happened to her and her family four years ago because of Landa. Which is why I'am lead to the conclusion that he most probably spoke to her again to creep her out as much as possible, and gaining access to Shossana's office was one such opportunity that Landa used to speak to her again. Also lets not forget that Landa is in charge of the security in the theater. He was most probably hanging around the theater for quite some time (I'm assuming at least a few weeks) before the screening of the movie took place. Such a scenario is ripe with a lot of opportunities for Landa to confront Shossana.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 03, 2010, 12:06:58 AM
I remember thinking that IB wouldn't generate much discussion. wrong. Sorry, WRONG.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 03, 2010, 12:14:42 AM


2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally? I've read in this thread suggestions that he did it out of passion because a) he had a previous relationship with von Hammersmark and b) he was mad 'cause she insulted his intelligence. First, indications of the previous relationship seemed pretty slight to me. Did I miss a look or a line of dialogue that showed he was enraged or still in love with her? I sensed no spark between them that would have lead to a crime of romantically related passion. Second, he seemed too confident a character to be so incensed by a silly lie. He was sure of his intelligence, and I didn't see any previous indication in the film that insults to his intelligence would elicit such a response. Frankly, I think the whole thing was just an excuse for some brutal violence (and another shot of a woman's feet), a character's consistency be damned.


It's a good thing you brought this up, because my next question was whether I was the only one who felt that there was a slight sexual undertone to the strangulation scene? I just can't seem to put my finger on it, but there was definitely something sexual about that (and I certainly don't mean that in a good way)...I've read in another website, I'm not sure who posted it, but somebody mentioned that since it's been hinted to the audience that Landa was a womanizer at one time, and also considering the fact that he and Bridgette Von Hammersmark seem to be have met each other before, many years back, it's quite easy to assume that he and Bridgette might have dated each other some years back, and their relationship might not have ended well, which might explain the sexual undertone to the strangulation scene. This theory makes sense, because I'm sure that the younger, womanizing-Landa, would not pass up a good opportunity to date one of Germany's most famous, successful and beautiful actress.    
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 03, 2010, 11:35:20 AM
People are assuming that Landa knows who Shoshanna is - to me - if he had known, his ego would not have allowed for her to continue living. This over sight could be a way of showing his fallibility thus setting up the scene in the forest at the end where he obviously didin't account for Raines shooting his driver and then carving a swastika on his forehead - forever ruining Landa's chances for a totally consequence free escape. He is forever marked a Nazi.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 03, 2010, 11:37:26 AM
People are assuming that Landa knows who Shoshanna is - to me - if he had known, his ego would not have allowed for her to continue living. This over sight could be a way of showing his fallibility thus setting up the scene in the forest at the end where he obviously didin't account for Raines shooting his driver and then carving a cross on his forehead - forever ruining Landa's chances for a totally consequence free escape. He is forever marked a Nazi.

Just a thought.

You are a gentleman and a scholar, and you are totally correct.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 03, 2010, 04:43:42 PM
I remember thinking that IB wouldn't generate much discussion. wrong. Sorry, WRONG.

  ;D It's just that I tend to enthusiastically participate in lengthy discussions and debates about books and movies I love or admire, and being a major Tarantino-fan, IB is no exception to that rule.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 03, 2010, 08:11:02 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.


I can give you one very clear one: in the scene where Hitler decides to attend the premiere of Nation's Pride, he says that the Allies have just recently landed at Normandy. At that point, things weren't looking particularly good for Germany, and any smart German officer who wasn't blindly loyal to Hitler could see that.

As for your questioning of Landa's betrayal, that's even simpler to pinpoint. Think back to the (excellent) first scene where Landa compares Jews to rats, saying that Jews are capable of doing anything to survive and he can think in exactly the way they do. Landa's betrayal is him behaving in exactly the way he described - he's doing what he can to ensure his own survival.

And for one last comment regarding Landa taking offense to Von Hammersmark insulting his intelligence, I think the best piece of evidence is in the "speaking Italian scene." He keeps forcing Raine to repeat his name in his thick Tennessee accent, and makes Donnowitz do the same thing when he fails to mask his Boston accent at first, embarassing and unnerving both of them as punishment for creating such a pitiful facade. But when Pvt. Ulmer pronounces "Dominic Dicoco" in a passable Italian accent, he gives him a nod of approval. When it comes to Von Hammersmark, the stakes get raised quite a bit. First of all, Landa and Von Hammersmark have a history together, so he knows that she should know full well that she won't get anything past him, especially such a ridiculous story as mountain climbing. Add that to the fact that she herself is a renowned actress and should be better than that, and it becomes an even greater offense to Landa.

Landa defines himself by his intellect, as shown by air of superiority he carries around and his constant need to play mind games with people, such as the the previously mentioned "speaking Italian" scene or his stunt with his pipe at the farmer's. He also demands that he be respected, which you see when he is the only German officer who treats Zoller like the private that he is. Ergo, if you don't respect his intellect, you are directly insulting Landa - and as a punishment, all is fair in love and war I guess.

(And as a more roundabout explanation, the film is about propaganda, which is only as effective as it is convincing. Hence why the characters who fail to be convincing, Hilcox and Von Hammersmark, are punished.)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: pixote on January 03, 2010, 08:23:04 PM
(By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

She's a film buff in the 40s.  Not sure this convention was yet in place.  :)

But, yeah, it's a silly movie.

pixoxote
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oneaprilday on January 03, 2010, 11:58:19 PM
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.


I can give you one very clear one: in the scene where Hitler decides to attend the premiere of Nation's Pride, he says that the Allies have just recently landed at Normandy. At that point, things weren't looking particularly good for Germany, and any smart German officer who wasn't blindly loyal to Hitler could see that.

As for your questioning of Landa's betrayal, that's even simpler to pinpoint. Think back to the (excellent) first scene where Landa compares Jews to rats, saying that Jews are capable of doing anything to survive and he can think in exactly the way they do. Landa's betrayal is him behaving in exactly the way he described - he's doing what he can to ensure his own survival.

And for one last comment regarding Landa taking offense to Von Hammersmark insulting his intelligence, I think the best piece of evidence is in the "speaking Italian scene." He keeps forcing Raine to repeat his name in his thick Tennessee accent, and makes Donnowitz do the same thing when he fails to mask his Boston accent at first, embarassing and unnerving both of them as punishment for creating such a pitiful facade. But when Pvt. Ulmer pronounces "Dominic Dicoco" in a passable Italian accent, he gives him a nod of approval. When it comes to Von Hammersmark, the stakes get raised quite a bit. First of all, Landa and Von Hammersmark have a history together, so he knows that she should know full well that she won't get anything past him, especially such a ridiculous story as mountain climbing. Add that to the fact that she herself is a renowned actress and should be better than that, and it becomes an even greater offense to Landa.

Landa defines himself by his intellect, as shown by air of superiority he carries around and his constant need to play mind games with people, such as the the previously mentioned "speaking Italian" scene or his stunt with his pipe at the farmer's. He also demands that he be respected, which you see when he is the only German officer who treats Zoller like the private that he is. Ergo, if you don't respect his intellect, you are directly insulting Landa - and as a punishment, all is fair in love and war I guess.

(And as a more roundabout explanation, the film is about propaganda, which is only as effective as it is convincing. Hence why the characters who fail to be convincing, Hilcox and Von Hammersmark, are punished.)
Your first paragraph above is the best, most compelling reason I've seen yet for why Landa might be trying to get out. Yet it still seems skimpy to me. It's still not obvious to me that Landa knows Germany's defeat is at hand.

Your second paragraph: It's not Landa's ability or hesitation to be a traitor - to be a rat - if necessary that I question. It's the proper motivation to go ahead and do it. Even with your first paragraph, I'm still not convinced he thinks he needs to turn traitor to survive.

I didn't see him as being offended in the speaking Italian scene at all. He completely had the upper hand there. He knew they were bogus, and von Hammersmark knew he knew it. He was taunting them - I don't see how a taunt means he was offended.


(By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

She's a film buff in the 40s.  Not sure this convention was yet in place.  :)

But, yeah, it's a silly movie.

pixoxote
You're probably right. :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on January 03, 2010, 11:59:40 PM
I should see this movie.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 04, 2010, 12:11:30 AM
I should see this movie.
If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be in this thread.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on January 04, 2010, 12:18:15 AM
I should see this movie.
If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be in this thread.
Spoilers aren't that big of a deal to me. Besides, I was only skimming, Mr. Bossypants  :).
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 04, 2010, 12:35:08 AM
I should see this movie.
If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be in this thread.
Spoilers aren't that big of a deal to me. Besides, I was only skimming, Mr. Bossypants  :).

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2dgp0s4.jpg) KING OF THE WORLD
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on January 04, 2010, 12:38:19 AM
 :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: edgar00 on January 04, 2010, 10:28:58 AM
I should see this movie.
If you haven't seen it, you shouldn't be in this thread.
Spoilers aren't that big of a deal to me. Besides, I was only skimming, Mr. Bossypants  :).

(http://i45.tinypic.com/2dgp0s4.jpg) KING OF THE WORLD


When are we getting Alien 5?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 04, 2010, 10:40:18 AM
After I invent the technology that can bring my vision to life.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: edgar00 on January 04, 2010, 10:41:52 AM
After I invent the technology that can bring my vision to life.

Like face acid popping out of the walls (or real acid)?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 05, 2010, 04:11:10 AM
People are assuming that Landa knows who Shoshanna is - to me - if he had known, his ego would not have allowed for her to continue living. This over sight could be a way of showing his fallibility thus setting up the scene in the forest at the end where he obviously didin't account for Raines shooting his driver and then carving a swastika on his forehead - forever ruining Landa's chances for a totally consequence free escape. He is forever marked a Nazi.

Just a thought.

I don't know if you've read this interview of Christoph Waltz taken on august 25th 2009, in which the interviewer asks him about the strudel scene:

Right. In the script, what do you feel Landa is communicating non-verbally to Shosanna as they eat their strudels? He seems to be savoring the moment, or maybe it’s pure…

Christoph Waltz: Well, it’s not so pure. It’s not so pure. You see, it’s very, very important that I hold back on my explanation, my interpretations, verbalizations and descriptions of what I do. It’s very important for, let’s call it, the “interior process.” To arrive at something that translates into an action, that’s what an actor does. Yet, I do not want to impede on any of your interpretations as a writer. This is what I do. I do it. And then you look at it. And you come up with a result. I am just, let’s say, the intermediary, between Quentin and you.

What did Christoph mean by that? ??? What are your interpretations? To me it sounds like he is indirectly trying to tell us that Landa did know who Shossana was. Here is the link to the interview:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/25/interview-christoph-waltz-on-playing-hans-landa-in-inglourious-basterds-working-with-quentin-tarantino-and-brad-pitt-and-the-legendary-strudel-scene/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/25/interview-christoph-waltz-on-playing-hans-landa-in-inglourious-basterds-working-with-quentin-tarantino-and-brad-pitt-and-the-legendary-strudel-scene/)





Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: smirnoff on January 05, 2010, 10:43:27 AM
face acid? lol ;)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 05, 2010, 01:04:16 PM
People are assuming that Landa knows who Shoshanna is - to me - if he had known, his ego would not have allowed for her to continue living. This over sight could be a way of showing his fallibility thus setting up the scene in the forest at the end where he obviously didin't account for Raines shooting his driver and then carving a swastika on his forehead - forever ruining Landa's chances for a totally consequence free escape. He is forever marked a Nazi.

Just a thought.

I don't know if you've read this interview of Christoph Waltz taken on august 25th 2009, in which the interviewer asks him about the strudel scene:

Right. In the script, what do you feel Landa is communicating non-verbally to Shosanna as they eat their strudels? He seems to be savoring the moment, or maybe it’s pure…

Christoph Waltz: Well, it’s not so pure. It’s not so pure. You see, it’s very, very important that I hold back on my explanation, my interpretations, verbalizations and descriptions of what I do. It’s very important for, let’s call it, the “interior process.” To arrive at something that translates into an action, that’s what an actor does. Yet, I do not want to impede on any of your interpretations as a writer. This is what I do. I do it. And then you look at it. And you come up with a result. I am just, let’s say, the intermediary, between Quentin and you.

What did Christoph mean by that? ??? What are your interpretations? To me it sounds like he is indirectly trying to tell us that Landa did know who Shossana was. Here is the link to the interview:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/25/interview-christoph-waltz-on-playing-hans-landa-in-inglourious-basterds-working-with-quentin-tarantino-and-brad-pitt-and-the-legendary-strudel-scene/ (http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/08/25/interview-christoph-waltz-on-playing-hans-landa-in-inglourious-basterds-working-with-quentin-tarantino-and-brad-pitt-and-the-legendary-strudel-scene/)



In the previous paragraph Waltz has this to say:

Quote
Christoph Waltz: [laughs] Well, Landa’s energy has to go somewhere. But you are right. In a way it’s a sublimation of aggression. Maybe. I don’t know. I didn’t look at it that way. I really thought, “The scene is there,” and I take what is there. I didn’t really try to put my own two-cents worth in. You know, Quentin’s script is on such a level that you should be busy trying to figure out how to eat it, not try to figure out what, you know, what you can layer on top of it. You know, with all of the scenes, I wasn’t doing any of the method or any semi-esoteric acting. I was doing script study. It was really “at the desk,” so to say.

I think you can interpret it many ways and I think Tarantino means for it to be vague and leave the final interpretation to us. Good art should mean all things to all people.

What I hear Waltz saying is that he took the words at face value and let the writer/script do what was intended.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on January 05, 2010, 06:22:37 PM
People are assuming that Landa knows who Shoshanna is - to me - if he had known, his ego would not have allowed for her to continue living. This over sight could be a way of showing his fallibility thus setting up the scene in the forest at the end where he obviously didin't account for Raines shooting his driver and then carving a swastika on his forehead - forever ruining Landa's chances for a totally consequence free escape. He is forever marked a Nazi.

Just a thought.
Was a conclusion already made as to why he let her live in the first Chapter? I'm not seeing how encountering her again would change much
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 06, 2010, 03:42:52 AM
I think it's fairly clear that he didn't simply let her live. By the time he set up his shot, she was much too far out of range, especially for a pistol. Whether he continued the search after that, we can guess either way, but he didn't take the shot simply because he knew it would be futile to do so.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 06, 2010, 05:04:11 AM
I think it's fairly clear that he didn't simply let her live. By the time he set up his shot, she was much too far out of range, especially for a pistol. Whether he continued the search after that, we can guess either way, but he didn't take the shot simply because he knew it would be futile to do so.

This was covered much earlier in this thread and I think this 'out of range' explanation is completely wrong. Landa had already won the mind game and the actually killing was merely perfunctory: a carrying out of his job description. He derived the real pleasure from the inquest.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 06, 2010, 06:07:26 AM
I think it's fairly clear that he didn't simply let her live. By the time he set up his shot, she was much too far out of range, especially for a pistol. Whether he continued the search after that, we can guess either way, but he didn't take the shot simply because he knew it would be futile to do so.

This was covered much earlier in this thread and I think this 'out of range' explanation is completely wrong. Landa had already won the mind game and the actually killing was merely perfunctory: a carrying out of his job description. He derived the real pleasure from the inquest.

Yeah, and also apparently, there was a deleted scene (but it is present in the script) in which, when Landa is back in his car, the driver asks him why he let Shossana free, to which he replies stating that, as it is there was very little chance for Shossana to live due to starvation, cold (from having no proper clothes or shelter) and the shock of having lost her family, so there was no point in shooting a bullet in her back.

But I'm still confused with the whole "not so pure" description that was given by Christoph Waltz to the strudel-eating scene. And yes, I agree with St. Martin the Bald good art should mean all things to all people  :) But I'm still confused.

And I'm gonna agree with chardy999 on this one. Landa is a sadist. He is the predator and his victims are his prey. The thrill of the hunt and the chase is what Landa is looking for. Not the kill. He gets a sadistic kick out of watching the terrifying effect he has on his victims. It makes him feel superior. His interrogation-techniques and the mind-games he plays on his victims, are the 'weapons' he has at his disposal to play out the 'hunt' with gusto! And as Christoph Waltz himself said it, Landa is not ideological. I personally feel that the only reason he is supporting the Nazis is so that he can give an outlet to his sadistic urges (as well as all the badge of honors, name and fame that he has gained with his job description).

Nobody is born evil. Not even Hitler. It is the environment you are born in that changes you. Circumstances, life-experiences, education (type of education or the lack of education), religion, values, ideologies, your parent's opinions, friend's opinions, the type of culture you were born in etc. are the conditions which are drilled into your head during your childhood years as well as the adult years of your life, which change your character (unless you are the rebellious-type, questioning everything that is being drilled into your head by the society you live in).

Which brings me to my next question: What was it that influenced Landa's sadism? Did he have an abusive childhood? Or violent upbringing? Here is an interesting quote from IB which points in that direction: Consequently, a German soldier conducts a search of a house suspected of hiding Jews. Where does the hawk look? He looks in the barn, he looks in the attic, he looks in the cellar, he looks everywhere *he* would hide, but there's so many places it would never occur to a hawk to hide. However, the reason the Führer's brought me off my Alps in Austria and placed me in French cow country today is because it does occur to me. Because I'm aware what tremendous feats human beings are capable of once they abandon dignity.

To me, it sounds like Landa himself has experienced a lot of similar situations (and I'm guessing violent situations) where he has had to hide from someone (out of fear that that 'someone' was going to hurt him, harm him, abuse him, or trying to kill him), which caused him to abandon his dignity at some point as a counter-reaction to adapting to the violent and hostile environment he was living in, so to speak. Then again, my theory could be altogether wrong.  
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 06, 2010, 09:52:53 AM
Adam started a whole discussion related to what you are bringing up. His theory is that Landa is gay.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 06, 2010, 11:22:53 AM
Adam started a whole discussion related to what you are bringing up. His theory is that Landa is gay.

This did pop up in my head lately - I can work that into my interpretation but we are not given any clear signals about Landa's sexuality - in fact - Von Hammersmark talks of his "former conquests" and obviously (to me) they are women.
I think we need to file this next to the glowing briefcase from Pulp Fiction.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on January 06, 2010, 11:53:42 AM
Adam started a whole discussion related to what you are bringing up. His theory is that Landa is gay.

This did pop up in my head lately - I can work that into my interpretation but we are not given any clear signals about Landa's sexuality - in fact - Von Hammersmark talks of his "former conquests" and obviously (to me) they are women.
I think we need to file this next to the glowing briefcase from Pulp Fiction.

Well, he would obviously not be open about it (and possibly overcompensate by bragging about his manly conquests). That doesn't negate the possibility in my mind.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 06, 2010, 12:52:36 PM
Landa being gay removes the enigma from Landa.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on January 06, 2010, 01:08:48 PM
Landa being gay removes the enigma from Landa.

Only if it's conclusive, which it isn't.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 06, 2010, 01:19:13 PM
Landa being gay removes the enigma from Landa.

Only if it's conclusive, which it isn't.

Even the idea seems to be. The idea of him being Gay, not that it's bad, but it brings up the idea that Landa is the kind of man who forms human connections, whether it's with a man or a woman. That is not Landa. He seems disposed of any sexual feelings at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on January 06, 2010, 01:40:40 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 06, 2010, 02:42:00 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I can't remember that line and am trying to place it in my memory of the film, then I could be able to argue.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 06, 2010, 02:48:02 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I can't remember that line and am trying to place it in my memory of the film, then I could be able to argue.

Von Hammerschmark makes a comment to Landa about his "former conqests" in the lobby before the premiere. He didn't confirm or deny the allegation, but it seemed clear that Landa did have some reputation in this regard.

I'm of the opinion that Tarantino instructed purposely wrote the Strudel scene as ambiguously as Shanley wrote Doubt.  Shanley said that he himself did not know the answer - and purposely left himself in Doubt.  I'd love to think Tarantino had the same attitude about Landa and Shoshana
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 06, 2010, 03:02:29 PM
Oh yah, I just read a version fo the script and found the line.


hmm...Is it toying with people? I'm not sure. The idea of Landa's conquests being women seems strange to me buy the way he's played, as a capitalist, as a man very much not worried about bedding women, even for selfish purposes.

Just my view.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 06, 2010, 03:21:45 PM
Oh yah, I just read a version fo the script and found the line.


hmm...Is it toying with people? I'm not sure. The idea of Landa's conquests being women seems strange to me buy the way he's played, as a capitalist, as a man very much not worried about bedding women, even for selfish purposes.

Just my view.

I think selfish is him.  That's the key word.  He wants a bunch of nice stuff: house on Nantucket, etc.  He enjoys a smoke, dessert, a hard drink.   This isn't capitalist, it's "comfortablist". -  I'm thinking a warm body or two on the side wouldn't hurt either.  Just my take.  I love that the character is rich enough that a debate like this is worth having!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on January 06, 2010, 03:39:34 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 06, 2010, 03:41:03 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.

Yeah - i totally thought of that as well.  Damn.  You guys all have me wanting to rewatch this again today.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Melvil on January 06, 2010, 04:29:03 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.

Exactly, that's my angle on it as well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 06, 2010, 04:32:55 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.

I think it would - considering the history of gays and the nazis. If he were gay - maybe his betrayal of the 3rd Reich is retribution (in his mind) avenging the death of a lost lover, his sadistic glee in hunting jews is the survival instinct at it's strongest (abandonment of dignity) and letting Shoshanna live is a momentary lapse of humanity.
Perhaps he was once very much in love and connected to his partner - it was his traumatic past that caused his break with humanity.

This is the beauty of this character, that nearly all options are on the table and possible. Great discussion.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 06, 2010, 11:31:29 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.

I think it would - considering the history of gays and the nazis. If he were gay - maybe his betrayal of the 3rd Reich is retribution (in his mind) avenging the death of a lost lover, his sadistic glee in hunting jews is the survival instinct at it's strongest (abandonment of dignity) and letting Shoshanna live is a momentary lapse of humanity.
Perhaps he was once very much in love and connected to his partner - it was his traumatic past that caused his break with humanity.

This is the beauty of this character, that nearly all options are on the table and possible. Great discussion.

Love this theory and I completely agree with your last comment
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 07, 2010, 01:04:41 AM
I would be especially happy if Tarantino dealt with Landa's childhood, adolescent and young adult years, if he ever decided to write a prequel. It would be interesting to see what were the seeds that were planted in Landa's childhood years that caused him to grow into the sadistic person that he is today. At least one thing is certain in that Landa's obsession with milk is apparently leftover from an innocent time (according to Christoph Waltz himself). 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on January 07, 2010, 03:01:09 AM
Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2nqczma.png)
He is so good at building tension with dialogue. I’ve heard people criticize it for being indulgent and tedious, but hey, that’s what QT does best. It may just be a series of little vignettes, but I was with it for the most part, and I’m not so sure that’s such a bad thing anyway. Also, I thought Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Laurent, and Brad Pitt were all great. Yes, even Brad Pitt. I liked it quite a bit, but it’s not perfect by any means: Eli Roth is of course awful, the theatre finale was kind of goofy, and it peaks too early with the incredible opening twenty minutes. Also, I feel like I never really got to know the Basterds, in two and a half hours you think their legend could have been better conveyed. I’m not talking about character development, I just wanted a little more evidence of their formidability. Also, BJ Novak just sits on the screen like a lump, why is he there? I’m kind of piling on here, but despite these flaws, the writing and acting is just so engrossing that I really did like this movie. As for the historical inaccuracies, I get why that offends a lot of people, but it wasn’t an issue for me.
Grade: B+
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 07, 2010, 03:31:31 AM
Eli Roth is of course awful

After seeing IB about a half-dozen times in the past week, Roth's acting is beginning to grow on me. I still have some issues with his later scenes (VON HAHMMAHS-MAHK), but his role as a whole works more with each viewing. In particular, I really like what he did with the introduction of The Bear Jew persona.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zblaesi on January 07, 2010, 08:43:40 AM
I remember Matty and Adam ridiculing Roth's performance. Unfortunately, I never can seem to tell what exactly makes a "bad" actor - unless it's really obvious.

I thought Roth's sinister grin as Raine described the mission was fitting. I also thought the bat beating scene was decent as well.

Maybe I'm just blind, though. I not only need to learn more about what makes a good shot, but what makes a good actor as well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: chardy999 on January 07, 2010, 10:19:20 AM
Something mildly interesting I remember: we all know Tarantino has a foot fetish. Twice Landa asks something like "what is it they say about shoes/feet?"

1. Looks like the shoe's on the other foot.
2. If the shoe fits you must wear it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FLYmeatwad on January 07, 2010, 10:39:28 AM
Watched this again last night for the first time since the theatre. You really notice the film's flaws the second time around, which is a shame. It's still pretty great film, and I noticed a few other minor things that completely passed me over the first time, like how the final shot playing on the screen when the theatre doors are locked is a Nazi insignia being carved into wood, which the audience cheers. It's a nice touch. I haven't watched the Nation's Pride feature on the Blu-Ray, so I don't know how coincidental it is that that portion is playing, but I doubt it's there by accident given the film's conclusion.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 07, 2010, 10:55:35 AM
Eli Roth is of course awful

After seeing IB about a half-dozen times in the past week, Roth's acting is beginning to grow on me. I still have some issues with his later scenes (VON HAHMMAHS-MAHK), but his role as a whole works more with each viewing. In particular, I really like what he did with the introduction of The Bear Jew persona.

In never stuck out for me at all until the watching it in DVD after hearing months of people complain about it.  I have to embarressingly admit I had no idea who the guy was.  Every time I heard Eli Roth I was thinking of the guy from Godfather Part II.

And...Much can be said about the "arriva derchee" scene.  If the lovers and haters aren't split at this point this scene will force you to take sides.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on January 07, 2010, 04:03:34 PM
Something mildly interesting I remember: we all know Tarantino has a foot fetish. Twice Landa asks something like "what is it they say about shoes/feet?"

1. Looks like the shoe's on the other foot.
2. If the shoe fits you must wear it.
Thank goodness the shots of feet in this weren't as blatant as the toe-sucking scene in From Dusk Till Dawn. Ew.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 08, 2010, 01:13:45 AM
I remember Matty and Adam ridiculing Roth's performance. Unfortunately, I never can seem to tell what exactly makes a "bad" actor - unless it's really obvious.

I thought Roth's sinister grin as Raine described the mission was fitting. I also thought the bat beating scene was decent as well.

Maybe I'm just blind, though. I not only need to learn more about what makes a good shot, but what makes a good actor as well.

I don't really think you have to worry about being acting-blind at all. The quality of someone's acting is probably one of the most subjective parts of a film, what works for some people may turn other people off. I think Adam and Matty discussed this when they did their Top 5 Off-putting Actors.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: philip918 on January 08, 2010, 03:48:36 PM
How do you account for the remark about Landa's former conquests that Marty mentioned above, then?

I took the remark to be sarcastic and/or suggestive that Landa's conquests might not be women.  He can be gay and not form human connections just easily as he could be straight and not connect with people.  I don't think his sexual preference really changes his character at all.

I think it would - considering the history of gays and the nazis. If he were gay - maybe his betrayal of the 3rd Reich is retribution (in his mind) avenging the death of a lost lover, his sadistic glee in hunting jews is the survival instinct at it's strongest (abandonment of dignity) and letting Shoshanna live is a momentary lapse of humanity.
Perhaps he was once very much in love and connected to his partner - it was his traumatic past that caused his break with humanity.

This is the beauty of this character, that nearly all options are on the table and possible. Great discussion.

Very true.  I think there are hundreds of possible explanations for why Landa does what he does.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 09, 2010, 10:15:53 AM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

This is what I thought too. It's just the same as the milk-drinking or the bigger pipe or whatever in the back and forth that demonstrates that Landa is in control at all times. Plus it is creepy.

I was just re-reading the older posts and started doing a little googling on sexual abuse and rape during world war 2. I came across this website http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html) which contained a lot of information and interviews, taken of some of the female survivors.

I found out that it was in fact very common for SS officers to rape/sexually abuse Jewish women. So since it is a historical fact, I would not be surprised if Landa actually didn't live up to his promise of letting go of La padite's family. For all we know (as I have mentioned before on this thread that we never got to see what happened to La Padite and his daughters) Landa might have instead shot La Padite and his eldest daughters and he and the other three SS officers with him gang-raped and murdered the youngest daughter.

Another thing I've been thinking about lately is what do you think Landa was up to in the four days that passed after the theater got blown up and before he arrived at the forest near the American lines? What do you think transpired in those four days? Landa obviously spent those four days with Raine and Utivich tied up. The audience never got to see this interaction, which means it is a "missing moment". I for one would have loved to see the conversations and chatting going on between Raine and Landa in those four days that passed!

Not only that but I would have loved to see the look on Landa's face if he had ever come to know about Shossana's plan! Do you think there were any survivors from that explosion? If there were what would have happened if the Basterds questioned or interrogated the survivors and came to know about Shossana's plan? What would have happened if Landa came to know from some of the survivors (or the Basterds reveal this information to him at some point) that the theater owner's real name is Shossana Dreyfus (which Shossana anyway reveals to the audience as the smoky figure of her face was burning on the screen before the bombs were set off. So if there were any survivors from that explosion, the survivors will most probably remember her name) and not only that but of Shossana's successful plan of burning the theater? I'm sure Shossana's plan must have spread through word-of-mouth (few weeks after the explosion) from some of the survivors from the explosion as the American soldiers investigate the explosion and interrogate the survivors.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 11, 2010, 01:37:34 PM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

This is what I thought too. It's just the same as the milk-drinking or the bigger pipe or whatever in the back and forth that demonstrates that Landa is in control at all times. Plus it is creepy.

I was just re-reading the older posts and started doing a little googling on sexual abuse and rape during world war 2. I came across this website http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html) which contained a lot of information and interviews, taken of some of the female survivors.

I found out that it was in fact very common for SS officers to rape/sexually abuse Jewish women. So since it is a historical fact, I would not be surprised if Landa actually didn't live up to his promise of letting go of La padite's family. For all we know (as I have mentioned before on this thread that we never got to see what happened to La Padite and his daughters) Landa might have instead shot La Padite and his eldest daughters and he and the other three SS officers with him gang-raped and murdered the youngest daughter.

Another thing I've been thinking about lately is what do you think Landa was up to in the four days that passed after the theater got blown up and before he arrived at the forest near the American lines? What do you think transpired in those four days? Landa obviously spent those four days with Raine and Utivich tied up. The audience never got to see this interaction, which means it is a "missing moment". I for one would have loved to see the conversations and chatting going on between Raine and Landa in those four days that passed!

Not only that but I would have loved to see the look on Landa's face if he had ever come to know about Shossana's plan! Do you think there were any survivors from that explosion? If there were what would have happened if the Basterds questioned or interrogated the survivors and came to know about Shossana's plan? What would have happened if Landa came to know from some of the survivors (or the Basterds reveal this information to him at some point) that the theater owner's real name is Shossana Dreyfus (which Shossana anyway reveals to the audience as the smoky figure of her face was burning on the screen before the bombs were set off. So if there were any survivors from that explosion, the survivors will most probably remember her name) and not only that but of Shossana's successful plan of burning the theater? I'm sure Shossana's plan must have spread through word-of-mouth (few weeks after the explosion) from some of the survivors from the explosion as the American soldiers investigate the explosion and interrogate the survivors.



very good points, one and all.

I always wonder about that final scene on the lines.  There was no checkpoint or guards - which struck me as strange.  I can see non-lovers of the film using this to rip on it.  On the other hand if some time had passed, then soilders would have abandoned their checkposts.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 11, 2010, 01:39:23 PM
Wow. 34 pages of mental masturbation. i like it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 11, 2010, 01:42:19 PM
Wow. 34 pages of mental masturbation. i like it.

Combine those from all the rest of the films from this poll (http://www.filmspotting.net/boards/index.php?topic=7214.0) and it won't even be half posts.  Makes me wonder if IB is a bit underrespresented in that poll
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 11, 2010, 03:34:35 PM
Wow. 34 pages of mental masturbation. i like it.

Everyone knows that wanking is fun. :)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on January 11, 2010, 03:45:18 PM
34 Pages of pure shit....

this movie sucked
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 13, 2010, 01:43:48 AM
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

This is what I thought too. It's just the same as the milk-drinking or the bigger pipe or whatever in the back and forth that demonstrates that Landa is in control at all times. Plus it is creepy.

I was just re-reading the older posts and started doing a little googling on sexual abuse and rape during world war 2. I came across this website http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html (http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html) which contained a lot of information and interviews, taken of some of the female survivors.

I found out that it was in fact very common for SS officers to rape/sexually abuse Jewish women. So since it is a historical fact, I would not be surprised if Landa actually didn't live up to his promise of letting go of La padite's family. For all we know (as I have mentioned before on this thread that we never got to see what happened to La Padite and his daughters) Landa might have instead shot La Padite and his eldest daughters and he and the other three SS officers with him gang-raped and murdered the youngest daughter.

Another thing I've been thinking about lately is what do you think Landa was up to in the four days that passed after the theater got blown up and before he arrived at the forest near the American lines? What do you think transpired in those four days? Landa obviously spent those four days with Raine and Utivich tied up. The audience never got to see this interaction, which means it is a "missing moment". I for one would have loved to see the conversations and chatting going on between Raine and Landa in those four days that passed!

Not only that but I would have loved to see the look on Landa's face if he had ever come to know about Shossana's plan! Do you think there were any survivors from that explosion? If there were what would have happened if the Basterds questioned or interrogated the survivors and came to know about Shossana's plan? What would have happened if Landa came to know from some of the survivors (or the Basterds reveal this information to him at some point) that the theater owner's real name is Shossana Dreyfus (which Shossana anyway reveals to the audience as the smoky figure of her face was burning on the screen before the bombs were set off. So if there were any survivors from that explosion, the survivors will most probably remember her name) and not only that but of Shossana's successful plan of burning the theater? I'm sure Shossana's plan must have spread through word-of-mouth (few weeks after the explosion) from some of the survivors from the explosion as the American soldiers investigate the explosion and interrogate the survivors.



very good points, one and all.

I always wonder about that final scene on the lines.  There was no checkpoint or guards - which struck me as strange.  I can see non-lovers of the film using this to rip on it.  On the other hand if some time had passed, then soilders would have abandoned their checkposts.

You are right. I completely forgot about that. But then again Germany surrendered in those four days that passed after the explosion. So yeah, like you said, the soldiers must have abandoned their check-posts.

Another thing that struck me was that some people might say that there is no reason for Landa to not live up to his promise of letting go of La Padite and his daughters because although he is evil, he is fair, unlike the Basterds. But I really think that this is inaccurate observation, for the simple fact, that this is the same person who pretended to La Padite that he had no idea about the whereabouts of the Dreyfuses, only to turn around moments later and reveal to La Padite that he knew all along that he was hiding them under the floorboards. He basically lied to La Padite. It's one of his interrogation techniques, in order to catch his victims off guard. This is the reason I feel that Landa might have lied about his promise to La Padite too. All of Landa's actions are self-serving and opportunistic (not to mention sadistic). So if he could gain something out of lying to La Padite about his promise, why would he not lie?

And one more thing I found out was an interview given by Christoph Waltz last year in which he gives a much more solid (rather than vague) answer regarding the question of why Landa didn't shoot Shossana in the starting. I've quoted him below:

Q: They're hiding, they're burrowing, they're nesting underneath the house [referring to the Jewish family hiding under floorboards in the movie's opening scene].
Waltz: Yes, they understand how to survive under terrible circumstances. They still know to survive. [Col. Landa] says that, because he appreciates what immense feats human beings are capable of.
Q: Do you mean Shosanna [the family member who gets away]?
Waltz: Maybe. What would have happened if he had shot her [when she ran away in the opening scene of the movie]?
Q: Yeah, I was wondering what his motivation was. If it was actually physical because she was out of range? Or if it was a decision? It definitely seems like a decision.
Waltz: That's a good guess. What would have happened had he shot her?
Q: There wouldn't have been a movie.
Waltz: Yeah, absolutely! Why not?
Q: Because there's no drama for him [Landa] in it.
Waltz: There you go! Exactly.
Q: He's not doing it for intrigue.
Waltz: For testing, if you want. Or what?
Q: Is there a certain level of respect for her, because she got out that far?
Waltz: Yes, possibly. Absolutely, absolutely. And, admiration for [her] guts, and to prove his theory.



And in another interview, the interviewer asks him about the Strudel-eating scene (about whether or not Landa knew who Shossana was). And this time, finally, Christoph's reply was DEFINITELY not vague:

Atomic Popcorn: Yeah, those moments where you would interact with the other characters and they would think they have everything covered but you would still just break them down layer by layer and you could see it on their face, they would all think in their heads “Oh, God, he’s got us!” There was another scene I liked where you with Melanie Laurent at the restaurant after Goebbels left and you offered her strudel with cream. Every time you spoke you were hammering her down and you see her slowly trying not to break down. When you were supposed to ask a question, do you think your character knew who she was or do you think he totally forgot?

Christoph Waltz: what do you think?

Atomic Popcorn: I think he knew because I think the way things were going towards the end of the film, he basically used her to his advantage to help smooth out his plans. That’s what I thought it was.

Christoph Waltz: Well that’s important. I tend to agree, let’s put it that way, I would have been disappointed had you said something else. But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view, why doesn’t he disclose it to her that he knows? Well, it’s in, a way, the same reason that he doesn’t shoot her, because disclosing that he knows would in a way [have] the same effect as shooting her. But he doesn’t.

Atomic Popcorn: Maybe he’s curious to see what’s going happen next. And see how far she goes, as he already noticed she’s around the war hero of Germany?

Christoph Waltz: Yeah exactly – that’s what I think, too.


You can read the first interview at http://www.moviefill.com/Interview-With-Christoph-Waltz-From-Inglourious-Basterds-18056/ (http://www.moviefill.com/Interview-With-Christoph-Waltz-From-Inglourious-Basterds-18056/) and the second one (dealing with the strudel-eating scene), here  http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/interview-with-a-basterd-christoph-waltz/ (http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/interview-with-a-basterd-christoph-waltz/)

34 Pages of pure shit....

this movie sucked

Different strokes for different folks! :D
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 13, 2010, 09:27:43 AM
But it's not Waltz's film and he also stresses that:
Quote
But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view

I can see that from Waltz's interpretation, he feels as though Landa knows who she is but he never got a look at her as she ran away. But QT as the director never talls us definitively anything about it leaving it open to any interpretation.

I feel ya but I am not buying Waltz's take on it - for me - mine works better. :P
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 13, 2010, 11:46:56 AM
But it's not Waltz's film and he also stresses that:
Quote
But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view

I can see that from Waltz's interpretation, he feels as though Landa knows who she is but he never got a look at her as she ran away. But QT as the director never talls us definitively anything about it leaving it open to any interpretation.

I feel ya but I am not buying Waltz's take on it - for me - mine works better. :P

Photographs were available at that time, so I'm guessing (and this is just my personal interpretation) that he already knew how each of member of the Dreyfus family looked like, including Shossana, before he came to La Padite's house.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 13, 2010, 12:55:05 PM
Again - not communicated to the audience and as Waltz says - QT will tell you what you need to know (any director will). My approach to watching film is that I only take the information given to me by the director. I understand the process but to me it feels "not truthful" to the director's intentions.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: gateway on January 13, 2010, 04:40:56 PM
I'm not really buying any of the speculation that Landa killed La Pedite's family after that scene ends. Could it have happened? Sure, it could have happened. Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I think Landa's sadism is being overplayed. Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 13, 2010, 04:48:32 PM
Agreed
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 13, 2010, 04:57:18 PM
Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I like this theory
:)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 13, 2010, 04:58:20 PM
...Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.

I agree with all this.  Well said
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 13, 2010, 05:03:30 PM
There is so much mental masterubation going on in this thread that I seem to have become lost.

Quoting out of Context approved!


Was anybody ever interested in QT showing how Shoshana came to own the theatre?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: libra_1989 on January 13, 2010, 10:46:33 PM
I'm not really buying any of the speculation that Landa killed La Pedite's family after that scene ends. Could it have happened? Sure, it could have happened. Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I think Landa's sadism is being overplayed. Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.

I'm not denying that most of what Landa does throughout the movie are for self-serving, opportunistic reasons, as well as to prove to himself and the people around him, that he is smarter, more capable and clever than everybody else. I'm just saying, that I personally view this as only partly the reason that he is in this job. The other part being, that he is in this job, to give himself an outlet for his narcissistic and sadistic tendencies. So I'm going to agree to disagree :) (especially on the whole "He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark" part). I guess that's the beauty of the Tarantino-films (and art in general), in that, everyone has a unique point of view, by looking at the same scene in ten different angles.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: zarodinu on January 19, 2010, 03:59:26 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that the opening interrogation scene everybody gushes about is stolen from The Good the Bad and the Ugly?  First scene with Angel Eyes.  Coming into a mans home, threatening his family, etc.  The way its filmed is also very, very similar.   
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Abomination on January 19, 2010, 11:50:27 AM
Everything in this film is stolen from some other film. It is just stolen very well.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 19, 2010, 01:32:08 PM
Everything in this film is stolen from some other film. It is just stolen very well.

A good artist knows how to do just that.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Tequila on January 19, 2010, 02:13:55 PM
Isn't there some Morricone playing over that scene too?

Anyway, I learned today that the German version of Inglourious Basterds runs slightly longer than the other ones, apparently Tarantino decided to insert some additional 50 seconds of footage in Bar scene. I believe these scenes can be found as deleted scenes on the DVDs but it seems that Tarantino wanted them to be part of the film for us.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on January 19, 2010, 11:56:01 PM
Just came across this from an entirely different direction, from a Jewish blog:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y)

Interesting on the reaction.  I wish there was a podcast of the panel discussion afterwards but I can't find any.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 20, 2010, 09:55:01 AM
Just came across this from an entirely different direction, from a Jewish blog:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y)

Interesting on the reaction.  I wish there was a podcast of the panel discussion afterwards but I can't find any.

Hmm. From the sounds of it I would not like what those guys are saying. Do they not forget that on Passover we also commemorate the Egyptians who died, because even though they supposedly enslaved and oppressed the Israelites, they were still human beings and still God's children? The Bible is pretty clear on murder for revenge's sake.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on January 20, 2010, 04:22:36 PM
Just came across this from an entirely different direction, from a Jewish blog:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18basterds.html?_r=1&fta=y)

Interesting on the reaction.  I wish there was a podcast of the panel discussion afterwards but I can't find any.

Hmm. From the sounds of it I would not like what those guys are saying. Do they not forget that on Passover we also commemorate the Egyptians who died, because even though they supposedly enslaved and oppressed the Israelites, they were still human beings and still God's children? The Bible is pretty clear on murder for revenge's sake.
The difference there is God killed all the Egyptians as an act of judgment, not the Jews. "Vengeance is mine, says the LORD" and all that jazz. ;)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 20, 2010, 04:37:25 PM
That was kinda my point.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on January 20, 2010, 04:48:01 PM
That was kinda my point.
Ahh, okay, we can go back to being amiable.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 23, 2010, 11:16:22 PM
Sorry for this.

Somebody posted recently praising Christoph Waltz.  Said to watch him during the scene at the theatre talking about Bridget von Hammersmark's broken leg.

I'm watching the film again, and I can't find the post to know what I should be looking for.  Search function not helping.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oldkid on January 24, 2010, 12:16:51 AM
Okay, I've been pondering and reading about and discussing IB all day.  I've read about a third of the thirty five pages here, as well as some of the reviews linked.  I'm tired, and so I'm going to summarize my conclusions for the day's hard work:

1. I hate revenge fantasies.  They disgust me.  That was my first reaction to IB.
 See: http://stevekimes.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-absolutely-despise-inglorious.html (http://stevekimes.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-i-absolutely-despise-inglorious.html)

2. I'm not sure that IB is a revenge fantasy.  It takes on the semblance of one, certainly, but I am unsure that the revenge is the point.  So I don't know how I feel about it.

3. Most people see this film as a revenge fantasy.  So I find that Tarantino's release of this movie to be immoral.  Because getting emotionally  enthused by violence only breeds more violence-- not necessarily by those who were enthused, but by those being encouraged by those enthused, e.g. sons being encouraged to go to war.

4. I think that Tarantino finds our enthusiasm for revenge fantasies to be hypocritical.  The Nazis can enjoy watching Americans being slaughtered, and we are disgusted, but when we see Nazis being slaughtered, we are cheering.  This is morally weak and so those who cheer deserve swastikas carved on their heads.

5. I really tried to put this movie aside today.  I watched other things, spent time with my family... but I kept coming back to IB.  Now, a movie that I openly declared that I absolutely hated... I want to see again.  To see what else I missed.  I don't know what's wrong with me. 

6. I do know that Tarantino is a great director, though.  And Waltz really was fantastic.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on January 24, 2010, 08:30:17 AM
Those are some very interesting insights Steve. While I, myself, do not have a problem with violence, I can see where you headed with this and I can agree about QT's comparison of the audience and the Nazis. I am not sure he is making a judgement call as much as he is letting us decide.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Sam the Cinema Snob on January 24, 2010, 09:10:14 AM
2. I'm not sure that IB is a revenge fantasy.  It takes on the semblance of one, certainly, but I am unsure that the revenge is the point.  So I don't know how I feel about it.
I think the closing shot seals it for me. It's a revenge film. Also, if you hear him talk about the film it's fairly clear that he believes Nazis get everything they deserve in this film. I don't disagree, I just think the Basterds ought to get their own as well if he's going to play it that way.

4. I think that Tarantino finds our enthusiasm for revenge fantasies to be hypocritical.  The Nazis can enjoy watching Americans being slaughtered, and we are disgusted, but when we see Nazis being slaughtered, we are cheering.  This is morally weak and so those who cheer deserve swastikas carved on their heads.
But the problem is that he pains the Nazis as if they deserve it. For instance, the young Nazi seems to suggest that there are Nazis who aren't just one dimensional maniacal killers but at the end he just makes him a one dimensional maniacal killer so he can kill him off.

Yea, I struggled a lot with the same questions when I first saw the film. I always came back to the director's intention and I think it's clear, especially if you read even one of his many interviews around the time the film came out.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 24, 2010, 10:19:55 AM
To 1SO,

I'm sorry the film didn't work for you as well the second time. The film is no longer too suspenseful for me, obviously, but I find joy in precisely the element you found grating upon review. The fact that everyone is constantly repeating themselves is hilarious, and is often brought about due to language issues. I think we get at least two, and maybe three explanations of Wilhelm's baby. I find it adds to the sense that these conversations are all naturally progressing. It's just a small part of the film, but it's a detail I appreciate immensely.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on January 24, 2010, 01:30:01 PM
2. I'm not sure that IB is a revenge fantasy.  It takes on the semblance of one, certainly, but I am unsure that the revenge is the point.  So I don't know how I feel about it.
I think the closing shot seals it for me. It's a revenge film. Also, if you hear him talk about the film it's fairly clear that he believes Nazis get everything they deserve in this film. I don't disagree, I just think the Basterds ought to get their own as well if he's going to play it that way.



all but two die.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 25, 2010, 02:00:29 PM
Something's bugging me and I think it's because I wasn't paying careful attention.

Wasn't Bridget von Hammersmark's three escorts for the premiers supposed to be Archie Hicox, Wilhelm Wicki and Hugo Stiglitz?  The same 3 that all died in the basement tavern?

I ask this because Hugo Stiglitz is very well known and would be identified right away.  (Hans Landa had no trouble identifying both basterds in the tavern.)  Doesn't that mean if things had gone as planned in the tavern, Hans Landa would have ruined the plans when they all showed up at the Premiere?

Things that go wrong actually go more right.
Just like how the 3rd best Italian speaker is the only one who Landa finds acceptable.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 25, 2010, 02:08:44 PM
You're exactly right. It's a sign from the start that these guys do not know how to put together a plan. Then again, the Nazis in teh tavern didn't recognize Hugo, so maybe he was more famous as a legend than for his face.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on January 25, 2010, 02:14:33 PM
We had this debate a little earlier in thread but it's quit possible people would not recognize him in a pre-TV pre-mass media era. Everyone would know his name but it would be easy to forget his face even after seeing it a few times in the paper.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 25, 2010, 02:31:21 PM
Either way, Landa spotted him right away in the tavern and would've done the same at the theatre.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on January 25, 2010, 02:32:38 PM
Either way, Landa spotted him right away in the tavern and would've done the same at the theatre.

yes this is true.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 25, 2010, 02:34:05 PM
Either way, Landa spotted him right away in the tavern and would've done the same at the theatre.

Like I said, part of the hilarity is that the plan is terrible from the start, yet somehow it all works out even better than expected.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Abomination on January 25, 2010, 05:39:03 PM
I'm pretty sure Landa pretty much recognizes all of the Basterds.  It wouldn't have matter who went to the theatre.

The only reason the plan worked is because Landa let it.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on January 28, 2010, 01:54:23 PM
Okay... I gave this one another chance last night... thinking that maybe I missed something

it's even worse then I remember...

I'm confident, if I you removed QTs name on this film, the prasie would dissapear....


QT fanboys are getting worse then Lucas fanboys
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 28, 2010, 02:05:33 PM
Okay... I gave this one another chance last night... thinking that maybe I missed something

it's even worse then I remember...

I'm confident, if I you removed QTs name on this film, the prasie would dissapear....


QT fanboys are getting worse then Lucas fanboys

How would you compartmentalize someone who is not a QT fanboy who loved this film?  Do you have a pigeonhole for that somewhere?

(probably labeled "closet fanboy", right?)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 28, 2010, 02:26:02 PM
How would you compartmentalize someone who is not a QT fanboy who loved this film?  Do you have a pigeonhole for that somewhere?

(probably labeled "closet fanboy", right?)

Hi!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Fugee on January 28, 2010, 02:26:19 PM
Okay... I gave this one another chance last night... thinking that maybe I missed something

it's even worse then I remember...

I'm confident, if I you removed QTs name on this film, the prasie would dissapear....


QT fanboys are getting worse then Lucas fanboys

I laughed at this, and then realized you might not be joking...
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: joker on January 28, 2010, 02:57:52 PM
Okay... I gave this one another chance last night... thinking that maybe I missed something

it's even worse then I remember...

I'm confident, if I you removed QTs name on this film, the prasie would dissapear....


QT fanboys are getting worse then Lucas fanboys

How would you compartmentalize someone who is not a QT fanboy who loved this film?  Do you have a pigeonhole for that somewhere?

(probably labeled "closet fanboy", right?)

you got it ;D

but seriously... someone explain to me in a few sentences, what makes this movie so great... BTW, I love Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction, and Res. Dogs........... Jackie Brown and his segment of Grindhouse were pretty bad though.....

When I put the BR in last night, I sat there saying "this is a good movie, this is a goood movie"... then it went to "this is a okay movie, this is a okay movie"... too "this isn't that bad, this isn't that bad"... and lastly "do not fall asleep you have to take the garbage out, don't fall asleep you have to take the garbage out"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Colleen on January 29, 2010, 10:08:05 AM
It was suggested that I copy this here, it was a paragraph that got away from me in a discussion over nominations for costuming in the Filmspots 2009 thread:

Watched IB again last night (3rd time!  I can't remember the last time I watched a movie for a third time, let alone in the same year!) and it's fresh in my mind, and I'm thinking about how integral the costumes were to the whole thing--the perfect SS uniform on Landa, the glamorous suit and hat on Bridget von Hammersmark in the tavern scene, her red carpet outfit later, Shoshana's practical yet sexy trouser outfits, Goebbels' interpreter's grotesque cat hat, even down to the way Stieglitz in the tavern scene is wearing his Nazi uniform more sloppily, like he can't stand to have it too close to his skin.  And the ridiculous outfit Hitler was wearing while having his portait painted!  When I pay more attention to it (as I did this third time through) I realize how much thought went into the costuming and how much the costumes said about the characters.

Speaking of things noticed on repeat viewings, this is the first time I really caught that Landa himself plants the dynamite (confiscated from Aldo) under the seats in Hitler's box.  It also really hit me that all the people working to destroy the theater understood it was a suicide mission (Marcel, Shoshana, Aldo, Donnie and the other guy, and possibly von Hammersmark as well) but no one really talks about it or acknowledges it, the closest acknowledgement is Marcel and Shoshanna saying goodbye to each other.  And both plans probably would have worked alone to kill most or all of the targets, but together they were brilliant.  Without ever knowing there were two plans going on.

Probably totally obvious to everyone else but the first time I was just following the basic action and not really thinking it through, the second time I was watching with Filmspots/Oscars in mind and watching the acting the most.  I wish I had time to rewatch more movies, I'd probably have a lot more understanding and insights into them if I did (or realize they aren't as good as I thought).

Also, I talked Jan into trying to watch it with me (she's not a big QT fan, I'm not sure she even made it through Pulp Fiction); I had to tell her to shut her eyes on a couple of the gross things (scalping, the Jew Bear and the bat scene) but I knew she was hooked when she laughed out loud at the introduction to Hugo Stieglitz.  She said that she liked it after it was over and is even considering giving PF another chance.

Jokernick, I'm not really sure why the movie doesn't catch you, you seem to have an anarchic streak in you that the movie should appeal to. 

Why I think it's a great movie:  It's a terrific story, it's the ultimate wish-fulfillment fantasy, it is masterfully cast, with a great deal of thought put into every aspect of the design, it's horrific at times, suspenseful pretty much from start to finish, yet often hilarious too.  My Jewish side LOVES seeing all the Nazi big bads mown down.  The acting is top notch pretty much across the board (with maybe one notable exception but he didn't have THAT much to do) and the story subverts expectations over and over.  You think eventually Shoshanna will warm up somewhat to Zoeller--he's got his puppydog moments, especially in his admission that he is uncomfortable with his own film--and a typical movie would have the heroine sympathizing with him and encouraging that better side.  Instead she coldly shoots him--THEN sympathizes with him only when  she sees him acting on the screen, goes to him--and he shoots her in return.  She knows all the artifice of movies, working in a theater and seeing dozens of them, and yet it still sucks even her in.  And then--should I feel a little sad because she dies without seeing the fulfillment of her plan?  Or feel better for her because she is spared burning to death (you can see the flames rising in the projection booth fairly early on in the fire)?  Speaking of subversion of expectations, all throughout the first time I saw the movie I kept waiting for the twist or the double or triple cross that would save Hitler after all--because we KNOW he didn't die that way, right?  I mean, I was expecting a big reveal right up until the credits rolled the first time.  And then I was laughing in disbelief that Tarantino pulled off such an audacious plot.  I was so hooked into waiting for/anticipating that that it wasn't until the 2nd time I saw it that I could just enjoy the story unfolding.

Furthermore, the style of the film pays homage to a wide variety of genres (spaghetti western, the "Dirty Dozen" type of suicide mission movie, actual World War II movies) while doing something original with the mashup of styles and genres.  There's a lot of talk of this being the "age of the remix" where making something new out of bits and pieces of other things is coming into its own as its own artform.  If that is true, I would say that Inglourious Basterds is exhibit A for this claim.  And finally, it seems like it's been a long time since a movie in serious Oscar contention has been this much damn fun.  It's like a button I used to have a long time ago:  "CINECAST! art, let's dance" -- except that in my opinion, when Tarantino chose to just dance wherever his vision was taking him, he created real art.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 29, 2010, 10:20:34 AM
Speaking of subversion of expectations, all throughout the first time I saw the movie I kept waiting for the twist or the double or triple cross that would save Hitler after all--because we KNOW he didn't die that way, right?  I mean, I was expecting a big reveal right up until the credits rolled the first time.  And then I was laughing in disbelief that Tarantino pulled off such an audacious plot...

So true.  I feel bad for everyone who had this ending revealed to them before seeing it.  That ending is so thoroughly satisfying. 

Great comments Colleen from start to finish.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 'Noke on January 29, 2010, 10:22:14 AM
Funny, because I remember whispering to my dad right before the movie started "You know, I wouldn't be surprised if he kills off Hitler."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 29, 2010, 10:54:41 AM
Can somebody remind me...

There's a great line and edit right before the film spins into total fantasy.  Landa is talking about the way people will view history if they end the war that night.  Can somebody please tell me the line?

I remember cutting immediately from that line back to the theatre is what set up the end fantasy and made what happens acceptable to me.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on January 29, 2010, 11:00:58 AM
"Well, what are the history books going to read?" *cut to Shossana looking through projection booth window.

At least I think that's what he says. Considering the number of times I've seen the movie now I should just be able to say for certain, but alas my memory is too filled with BTTF trivia and quotes from the first six seasons of The Simpsons.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 29, 2010, 11:09:53 AM
"Well, what are the history books going to read?" *cut to Shossana looking through projection booth window.

At least I think that's what he says. Considering the number of times I've seen the movie now I should just be able to say for certain, but alas my memory is too filled with BTTF trivia and quotes from the first six seasons of The Simpsons.

Then what's the line Bart says after Homer sings "that name again is Mr Plow" in the TV commercial ?  ;)
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on January 29, 2010, 11:21:27 AM
"You're fully bonded and licensed by the city, aren't you Mr. Plow?"
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: ferris on January 29, 2010, 11:22:09 AM
"You're fully bonded and licensed by the city, aren't you Mr. Plow?"

nicely done.  Those first few seasons were great
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: rambler on August 06, 2010, 02:28:13 PM
Ultimately this film is an example of what Tarantino is best at, creating a film that is full of momentum and then packing it with so much text and subtext that you can argue about it for years.

So I had write a short essay about my thoughts after a 3rd viewing.


What role race has in this film and what that means in terms of a western; and more specifically what it means that this is a western-fantasy.


Jews vs Nazis - very deliberate choice because it informs us contextually which side we are rooting for

Westerns - Tales of independence and individual violence that are outside the ability of the larger society to regulate, all set in a world of racial conflict; an environment of a genocidal occupying force and a minority pushed to extremes.

Fantasy.... "Once upon a time in Nazi-Occupied France"
The traditional phrasing of a fantasy introduces to us a realm of familiar themes. A fantasy setting is a world of good and evil, and most importantly a world where the underdog can win.


I propose to you that these elements add together in a very intentional way, giving us a reverse western. This is a story, nearly a parable, of vengeance being carried out on US.
We are the cowboys, the white oppressor, the genocidal evil spreading across the continent. The heroes of this movie are the Indians, the victims of racial prejudice, the hand of justice striking back.

This is a story that has to be told in fantastical terms of good versus evil, because it is being told to us, to the historical winners of the struggle. It's still way too early for us to accept this storyline in a true western, we're not ready to see the settlers and the cavalry losing and cheer. But Tarantino can subvert the accepted roles of the War movie genre to tell the story in a way that has us doing just that.

Here Germany parallels the Eastern United States, the developed home where the enemy is either exiled or packed away as neatly as possible into camps and from which the cavalry is dispatched.
France is the West, the frontier; pockets of occupation and resistance living side by side. It is also a land slowly being homogenized.

The Basterds are a roving band of warriors who ambush and scalp; the classic roles of Indians in cinema. These are the "young bucks" of their people; ready to push back as soon as they have a leader to rally behind.
Initially they are content to exact whatever vengeance they can, and then we enter the fantasy when they have a chance to strike at the "Great White Father" himself.


How the main characters impact this theme:

Aldo Raine:
The character's relationship to Jim Bridger (intentionally or not) links 3 lines of subtext together; he is a western icon, an independent man with one foot in both American and Indian cultures, and a famous fantasy-spinner.

{Bridger became so associated with tall-tales that many stories invented by others were attributed to him.
Supposedly one of Bridger's favorite yarns to tell to greenhorns was about being pursued by one hundred Cheyenne warriors. After being chased for several miles, Bridger found himself at the end of a box canyon, with the Indians bearing down on him. At this point, Bridger would go silent, prompting his listener to ask, "What happened then, Mr. Bridger?" Bridger would reply, "They killed me." }

This film is all about telling tall tales that play with and against expectations.



Shoshana:
Shoshana is a half-breed torn between the memory of "her people" and the fact that she could make a successful life for herself among the Germans. Her non-jewish aunt owned the cinema, and she could pass herself off as "racially acceptable" if she had not been driven by revenge. Embracing her heritage she puts on war paint just before fully committing herself to the battle.

Her only ally is a black man, a footnote in western movies, but one of the most complex chapters of American history. Examples from history show great potential for very sympathetic relationships between African and Native americans. Perhaps a reflection of the tribal influences still present in the African-American communities of the time, or an example of how welcoming each community was to diversity, or at the very least a case of "a common enemy".

For perspective consider that a number of our cherished historical and artistic figures have mixed African & Native ancestry dating from the late 1800's and early 1900's. (I have not vetted this list for accuracy) James Brown, Redd Foxx, Jimi Hendrix, Lena Horne, James Earl Jones, Rosa Parks, Tina Turner.



Hans Landa:

The personification of everything "cultured" and "civilized", suave and in control; but capable of both very detached violent "business dealings" and intimate personal violence.
He is the cavalry scout who can "think like an Indian". But he is also the consummate opportunist, without loyalty and willing to betray for personal advantage.

I am reminded that what doomed the Native cultures in America was not politics, or racism, or a "lack of space". Capitalism doomed Native culture, because in reality the ultimate embodiment of self-loyalty, the systematized consummate opportunist, never made the mistake of thinking that supporting the underdog would be in it's favor.


Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 06, 2010, 02:44:28 PM
Quote
I am reminded that what doomed the Native cultures in America was not politics, or racism, or a "lack of space". Capitalism doomed Native culture, because in reality the ultimate embodiment of self-loyalty, the systematized consummate opportunist, never made the mistake of thinking that supporting the underdog would be in it's favor.

Who is smallpox then?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: rambler on August 06, 2010, 02:46:54 PM
Quote
I am reminded that what doomed the Native cultures in America was not politics, or racism, or a "lack of space". Capitalism doomed Native culture, because in reality the ultimate embodiment of self-loyalty, the systematized consummate opportunist, never made the mistake of thinking that supporting the underdog would be in it's favor.

Who is smallpox then?

ummm.... Smallpox makes a VERY small cameo in this movie as Mike Myers?




on reflection though I do wish I had clarified that more strongly as my own subjective association and not as something I feel was implied in the film.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 07, 2010, 01:38:00 AM
Oh sure.  Tarantino says he doesn't plant subtext intentionally.  He just assumes it's there.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: pappaus on August 11, 2010, 04:28:28 PM
Quote
What role race has in this film and what that means in terms of a western; and more specifically what it means that this is a western-fantasy.

On an nit-nat kind of aside

It is coming up on 70 years since WWII.  That is about the time differential between the events in the old west and the 1940s and 50s when so many classic westerns were made.   The time may be ripe for a new bunch of WW2 westerns.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: rambler on August 11, 2010, 04:46:24 PM
It is coming up on 70 years since WWII.  That is about the time differential between the events in the old west and the 1940s and 50s when so many classic westerns were made.   The time may be ripe for a new bunch of WW2 westerns.

Very interesting observation.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: sdedalus on August 12, 2010, 02:36:18 AM
I'd say that that's been going on since the late 90s:  Saving Private Ryan, Thin Red Line, Band of Brothers, U-571, Enigma, Enemy at the Gates, Pearl Harbor, Hart's War, The Pianist, Life is Beautiful, Windtalkers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of our Fathers, The Pacific, Atonement, Lust Caution, The Counterfeiters, Miracle at St. Anna, Valkyrie etc etc.

Looks like there's more WW2 films in the 2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films#2000s), especially in the US, than any of the three prior decades.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: mañana on August 12, 2010, 12:14:47 PM
Looks like there's more WW2 films in the 2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films#2000s), especially in the US, than any of the three prior decades.
A lot of people in Hollywood read Brokaw's book and were inspired.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on May 23, 2011, 01:40:52 AM
YAY!
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Totoro on May 23, 2011, 02:20:00 AM
27 pages of denial, confusion, and over praise.

On the 28th page, Rambler gives the most thought provoking post of the entire thread.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on May 23, 2011, 02:25:33 AM
27 pages of denial, confusion, and over praise.

On the 28th page, Rambler gives the most thought provoking post of the entire thread.

Way to dismiss 28 pages and thousands of words of thoughtful discussion by people with varying points of views. I mean, come on, even skjerva (maybe you're not familiar?) found enough in Inglourious Basterds to discuss some really interesting points regarding the film's sense of morality/immorality.

Here I must ask, did you even read through the thread at all?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Totoro on May 23, 2011, 02:29:56 AM
No, I take that back.

filmsnobing and Sam had some good points as well. :P

But there are entire segments throughout this thread devoted to figuring out what happened in the film. So...

Edit: Ahhhh...

No, while I believe Rambler has the best possible argument for influencing me to liking the movie more, I believe that there is a lot of great Basterds-dislikers conversation here that I feel support my point that the film is pretty average.

Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on May 23, 2011, 02:36:03 AM
Oh come on! I'm not even defending my own posts here. Many members have contributed to this, one of the longest spoiler threads on the forum, and I'd like to think that most of them found their discussion valuable.

And to the point of figuring out what happened? Yeah, there were some places with that sort of discussion. That is sort of the idea behind a spoiler thread. But beyond that, many of those discussions lead to discussions about how certain mechanics of the plot relate to themes developed in the film.

Also, Sam did have some good points, and I enjoyed reading them and debating them.

Jeez.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Totoro on May 23, 2011, 02:37:12 AM
I edited the second post, Mr. Hamster.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on May 23, 2011, 02:40:25 AM
As evidenced by your appreciation of Rambler's points, there is no reason why you should only think the discussion is worthwhile if it fits into your point of view, negative or otherwise.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Totoro on May 23, 2011, 03:15:01 AM

Chapter 1: Once Upon a Time on the Filmspotting Forum...
Appreciation and caring are two different things. I appreciate that some of you people discussed the film in an intellectual manner. Note: some. I believe somewhere on the internet there's a 60 page discussion of Pootie Tang and a 5 page discussion about Tropical Malady. This doesn't equate to saying that Pootie Tang is better than Tropical Malady just because it's discussed more.

Chapter 2: Operation Violence
Violence is only as good as the emotional connection to the characters. The Nazis got what they deserved, those who became obsessed with vengeance got what they deserved, and Bridget's ignorance got what she deserved. Do I care about any of these characters? No. Does the violence disturb me? The violence, aside from the choking scene, does not go far enough to make any real statement about anything really. Before I continue let me state this: I give this film a 3/5. The choking scene makes the statement that the most violent acts are usually the most animalistic. That I feel a shred of sympathy for her character adds to the disturbing quality of the scene. But does that truly tell me anything that basic psychology doesn't tell me already? That a shot of a gun will never compare to the grip of a hand? No.

Chapter 3: 1+1=???
Is this film a revenge fantasy? Uh, none of this stuff actually happened, right? Fantasy. Shosanna and the Basterds want revenge for the Nazis killing their own, right? Revenge. If it sounds like one and looks like one it most likely is one. There's some heavy denial throughout this thread from what's very clear even from the trailer.

Chapter 4: A little explanation
I like this film, I just don't love it. Bad Tarantino does not equate terrible quality films. It's shallow entertainment that panders to his fans, young Jews who feel the weight of the Holocaust even if it's A). 60 years ago or B). possibly part of the reason they're alive today (butterfly effect), old Jews who once lived in Germany during the time of the Holocaust (very few), and some cinephiles.

Chapter 5: Inglouriously Tired
I don't know if this is a particularly great post, but I'm done rewriting.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: edgar00 on May 23, 2011, 11:40:14 AM
27 pages of denial, confusion, and over praise.

On the 28th page, Rambler gives the most thought provoking post of the entire thread.

denial: that's sort of a strange accusation...I'm not sure what you mean by that.

confusion: I always felt confusing films to be interesting. If Inglourious Basterds is confusing people, I honestly fail to see what the problem is.

over-praise: Well, that's a question of taste. You're entitled to that opinion.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on May 23, 2011, 11:43:27 AM
The ending is just as violent as the choking scene and makes the thesis statement of the whole movie.

Yes, the movie takes the form of a revenge fantasy. I think it's pretty clearly doing something to comment on the problems that arise within the genre. None of them are good guys by the end of the movie. I was grinning at the end of the movie but it wasn't because Landa was getting what he deserved as would be the case in a typical revenge fantasy, it was because I was admiring the sheer audacity of Tarantino ending the movie in that fashion. If you liked Brad Pitt by the end of the film you're watching it wrong.

I have plenty of friends that aren't Jewish or cinephiles that loved the movie and understood the nuances. I don't know if that part of your post was serious or not but I just had to throw it out there.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: FroHam X on May 23, 2011, 02:47:33 PM
I think Inglourious Basterds appealed to people who enjoyed it, and that works on many different levels.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Totoro on May 23, 2011, 02:52:48 PM
I enjoyed it, but I don't think it's anything special.

Agree to disagree.

Criticism/Analysis is always more important than praise. There's a lot of praise here and a lot of discussion over confusion of the film's plot/themes/characters. The denial part is just the whole, "this film isn't a revenge fantasy" when it explicitly is. Sorry if I offended anyone here.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2011, 05:41:15 PM
I haven't read the thread and to be honest, I've argued for Tarantino so much in the past I can't quite bring myself to catch up properly!

I thought Inglourious Basterds was flawed, but brilliant, and had moments that were the best cinema I'd had the pleasure of seeing for myself on the big screen. Your comment intrigued me, Totoro...

The denial part is just the whole, "this film isn't a revenge fantasy" when it explicitly is. Sorry if I offended anyone here.

Well, you didn't offend me because that's what it is. Tarantino loves the exploitation genre and he coupled it up to WWII. In some ways, it's the ultimate revenge fantasy!

I've upset people in the past because I feel that Tarantino embraces that genre with a real love for its themes, but adds what was always missing: talent. He makes them watchable. I prefer Jackie Brown over Pam Grier's classic roles, because JB actually gives her a character that proves how good she really is and respects her.

Inglourious Basterds is pure exploitation and it's fantastic. 
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on May 23, 2011, 05:57:02 PM
Ok. Are you guys denying that there is more to the revenge aspect than what appears on the surface? Is there nothing more to the story outside what is presented at the surface? Is there no nuance?
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2011, 06:28:30 PM
Absolutely there is nuance. That's why I love it. He's taken a grungy, nasty, violent, naive even, basic comic book fantasy which would have been enough for a dozen straight to video junk releases 30 years ago, and added elegance. The delicate restaurant scene is incredible, for one. That it is in the same film as, and makes sense beyond, a narrative with an ultimate purpose of "wouldn't it be fun to kill Hitler", is only possible in Tarantino's world, I think. It really works.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Clovis8 on May 23, 2011, 06:32:14 PM
Absolutely there is nuance. That's why I love it. He's taken a grungy, nasty, violent, naive even, basic comic book fantasy which would have been enough for a dozen straight to video junk releases 30 years ago, and added elegance. The delicate restaurant scene is incredible, for one. That it is in the same film as, and makes sense beyond, a narrative with an ultimate purpose of "wouldn't it be fun to kill Hitler", is only possible in Tarantino's world, I think. It really works.

Perfectly stated.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: pinko on June 25, 2011, 10:39:59 AM
Little late in the game here and I haven't read through all 30 pages of this so please forgive me if I'm repeating someone, but: revenge fantasy or not, I think, is besides the point. Tarantino, at least how I read the film, is more making a point about HOW propaganda (revenge fantasies and the like) work solely from your own perspective and are absolutely appalling if you're the target of them.

So we have the Basterds, who are by pretty much every indication terrorists.  They murder indiscriminately, they strap suicide bombs on their bodies, they even are flat out called terrorists at one point by Landa. But because we know, historically, their cause is just (from our perspective) (I mean it's hard to argue in the perspective of the nazis, which is why I think Tarantino chose them) - all their actions are not even just tolerable, but cheers-worthy. The movie we're watching is pretty much the modern version of the film that the Germans are watching in the cinema. I don't think Tarantino is injecting any moral judgments here, and there's little to no chance that he's arguing nazis get a bum deal in cinema.  But he has talked before about always identifying with the Indians in cowboy movies, never understanding why the hell they were always the bad guys. I DO, then, think he's making a point that terrorism only seems like terrorism when you're on the receiving end, and our media is always sure to craft a flattering narrative about ourselves, which we lap up.

You could argue that's reading too much into it, but then I could counter that he does stop the movie halfway through to have a character give an allegorical reading/essay on King Kong. Even if Tarantino is not flat out asking you to do the same work with his film here, he's at least saying 'this is how I sometimes think about movies."
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Najemikon on June 25, 2011, 10:53:15 AM
I'd never thought of it from that perspective, but I think it works, Pinko. I'm about due to watch this again and I'll bear in mind what you said.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: Junior on June 25, 2011, 12:20:41 PM
That's totally the main point of the movie. Why else would we see nazis get blown up as they watch a movie about Americans getting shot? We say boo them and yay us and QT is pointing that out pretty clearly, I think.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: oldkid on June 26, 2011, 12:42:55 PM
That's the conclusion I came to as well.   Eventually.
Title: Re: Inglourious Basterds
Post by: 1SO on July 06, 2014, 12:22:47 AM
Sam, I re-read your review (http://cinemasights.com/?p=63), and afterwards I created a Wordle of it to confirm I suspected.

(http://i.imgur.com/iV8HQfp.png)

Sure enough, you use the word 'film' 51 times, and your repetition of that word does a very good job of helping you make your point.