Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 61552 times)

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #150 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.

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #151 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 :)
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5907
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #152 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.

Colleen

  • Hot Fuzz
  • Godfather
  • *
  • Posts: 5907
  • Let's be careful out there!
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #153 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...

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #154 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
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #155 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.



ferris

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10832
  • "Bravo Vincent....Bravo!"
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #156 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.

"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs" - Exodus 8:2 KJV
(switchboard)

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 15494
  • it's all research
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #157 on: August 26, 2009, 01:16:44 PM »
while QT films are ENTIRELY homages.

This seems like a totally backhanded compliment

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #158 on: August 26, 2009, 01:17:51 PM »
while QT films are ENTIRELY homages.

This seems like a totally backhanded compliment

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


« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 01:20:46 PM by Clovis8 »

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 25149
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #159 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.