Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 62844 times)

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #330 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.)
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Abomination

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #331 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. 

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #332 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.

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11057
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #333 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.
Hey, nice marmot!

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #334 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.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #335 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.

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 #336 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.  :)

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #337 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.

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 #338 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.

Clovis8

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11720
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #339 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.

 

love