love

Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 102117 times)

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #320 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 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 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.)

mañana

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 20862
  • Check your public library
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #321 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?
There's no deceit in the cauliflower.

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #322 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.
"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

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #323 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.

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #324 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.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #325 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.)

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #326 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.'
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #327 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.

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #328 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.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #329 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.

 

love