Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 60513 times)

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 18423
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #520 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

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.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #521 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.
Hey, nice marmot!

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 24543
  • A Monkey with a Gun
    • Creative Criticism
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #522 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.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #523 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.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11719
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #524 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.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31474
  • Marathon Man
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #525 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.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #526 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.
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11719
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #527 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.


1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31474
  • Marathon Man
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #528 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.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11719
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #529 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.