Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 102121 times)

FLYmeatwad

  • An Acronym
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28785
  • I am trying to impress myself. I have yet to do it
    • Processed Grass
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #300 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.

jleigh

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #301 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.

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #302 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.
Hey, nice marmot!

Fugee

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #303 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.

gateway

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Boom De Ah Da.
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #304 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.
"I hope someday to be rich enough to smoke giant cigars while cackling maniacally."
- Nathan Rabin (echoing my thoughts exactly)

Fugee

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #305 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.

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #306 on: September 18, 2009, 07:44:32 PM »
gateway is spot on. Nazi ain't got no humanity.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11205
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #307 on: September 18, 2009, 08:56:18 PM »
Everyone has humanity in the sense that they are human...there is no denying that reality.
Hey, nice marmot!

Shaw13

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 221
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #308 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.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #309 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 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.