Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 102088 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 #340 on: October 22, 2009, 12:49:10 AM »
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.

Oh, good.  :)

Emiliana

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2239
  • Life is a Cabaret!
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #341 on: October 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM »
Unsurprisingly, I am with OAD on all this. The thing that has been baffling me the most about this discussion is the statement that we don't really see the violence in QT's films. I am trying really hard to verify this for me - ok, maybe we don't see Mr. Orange getting shot, we "only" see pools of blood and him cringing and crying out in horrible pain. In Pulp Fiction, we don't see the guy's head being blown off by Travolta's gun, we "only" see blood and brains splattered all over the car and the faces and hair of Travolta and Jackson. In Kill Bill 1, in the mass Yakuza slaughtering scene, we definitely see loads and loads of the violence on screen, so much so that the screen goes black and white so that we "only" see this easier to handle version of it.

I'm sorry, but to me, these qualifications don't mean that there isn't really all that much violence to see in QT's films. The violence is there in spades, and I definitely feel that it is lingered on and to be reveled in. I guess I am agreeing with marty that the implications and direct aftermath of the violence are every bit as (if not more) off-putting as the actual act of violence. Even though I'd still say that there is plenty of actual violence left.

So maybe I have to conclude that I simply don't like that aspect of Tarantino's style because I find it cruel and torturous and uncomfortable and unnecessary and sadistic, and have to live with the fact that this might spoil my enjoyment of all his other qualities as a filmmaker. On the one hand I don't want to stop watching his films because I appreciate so many of the films' other facets, but the violence might very well be a dealbreaker. Hm.

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #342 on: October 22, 2009, 06:52:24 AM »
I think I remember hearing Tarantino say he'd like to make a 1950's Douglas Sirk-esque melodrama, but feared people would laugh. He'll stick to his guns (pun always intended).
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 #343 on: October 22, 2009, 08:58:33 AM »
Just a reminder - film is subjective and nobody is "right" or "wrong" in their analysis.
I hope nobody feels attacked or singled out.
This is why I mostly stay out of film discussion. Somebody is bound to feel attacked and no one should ever feel this way - everyone's opinions are equally valid. :D
Hey, nice marmot!

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #344 on: October 22, 2009, 10:03:23 AM »
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.
This is why I think IB is Tarantino's worst film because it's so blatant in its portrayal of violence. It's pretty much all there to see and I'd prefer that it was off screen. It's also why I really don't like Kill Bill Vol. 1. I just don't see the need for that level of violence when it's more effective when its off-screen.

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #345 on: October 22, 2009, 12:27:31 PM »
This is why I think IB is Tarantino's worst film because it's so blatant in its portrayal of violence. It's pretty much all there to see and I'd prefer that it was off screen. It's also why I really don't like Kill Bill Vol. 1. I just don't see the need for that level of violence when it's more effective when its off-screen.

There are different types of violence that are used to different effect. Most of the violence in Kill Bill is way over the top, almost to the point of comedy, which is why it doesn't bother me. It's as stylized as the rest of the movie and fits the larger-than-life martial arts revenge story. IB purposefully plays up the gruesome nature of the violence with its lingering closeups, but I think it does it for interesting reasons. I don't believe the violence in either of these are to be taken that "seriously".

Off-screen or implied violence can be extremely effective, but it's a technique to be used when it fits the material.

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #346 on: October 22, 2009, 12:50:38 PM »
I loved the way Kill Bill: Vol. 1 handled violence. The brutality, the humour, the grace, the ugliness were all so very effective.

However, the thought of another discussion arguing the merit of this statement makes me queasy.
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 #347 on: October 22, 2009, 01:32:10 PM »
So maybe I have to conclude that I simply don't like that aspect of Tarantino's style because I find it cruel and torturous and uncomfortable and unnecessary and sadistic, and have to live with the fact that this might spoil my enjoyment of all his other qualities as a filmmaker. On the one hand I don't want to stop watching his films because I appreciate so many of the films' other facets, but the violence might very well be a dealbreaker. Hm.

These thoughts resonate with me, and I have to question, too, how much does violence (including the way its handled) does it take to ruin my enjoyment of the other great things about his films? So far, the violence has seriously jeopardized my enjoyment.

And I think it's not just the violence that puts me off; the writer in the article sam linked to said this, "Tarantino is, at times, like one of those popular, flamboyant, egomaniacal orchestra conductors, gesticulating wildly and turning to the audience to make sure we know that the show’s about him. It’s a shame, because the concert really is impressive." His films so often feel like a showcase of himself, and I can't concentrate on the story or the characters without seeing him, without seeing him seeing himself, to be more specific. It's a little bit like the complaint I've heard with Michael Moore, I guess - somehow in his films since Roger and Me, he is so present that I get really distracted and put off. His presence, for me, overwhelms what I think he's trying to say, overwhelms the people the film is about so much that the film doesn't really seem about them anymore. I loved Roger and Me and I quite liked Jackie Brown (though it had some elements that made me intensely uncomfortable) - both of those films have less of the filmmakers' egos present, I think. I think about the story and the people in those films, more than the filmmakers. I can see how other people wouldn't be bothered by the way these particular filmmakers are present in their films, but for me, I find it very hard to get past.  (I've been thinking a bit about Herzog - 'cause he's definitely very present in his films - some might say (skjerva?) in an egomaniacal way - but I've loved everything I've seen of Herzog, and I can't help but be absolutely fascinated by Herzog as a person. I'm trying to figure out what makes Herzog different for me.)

So QT's ego coupled with the in my face violence? So far, those things (generally, not always) overwhelm and quell my admiration for genius of his films.

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #348 on: October 22, 2009, 04:44:18 PM »
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.
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 #349 on: October 22, 2009, 05:49:04 PM »
The difference between someone like Herzog and Tarantino is that Herzog himself is a fascinating chracter. In something like grizzly Man, Herzog keeps objectivity as a director, but as a narrator and a character, he becomes one of the many people who comment on Treadwell as a person.

Tarantino, on the other hand, is a much more interesting filmmaker then character. I like the world of film he conveys, and the way he portrays events, what he puts on screen and how, etc. This is what interests me personally, and what gets us having such an interesting discussion. But I don't listen to much of the interviews Tarantino has because his chracter doesn't interest me as much. He's not as compelling a person as say someone like Herzog.

That's probably one of the key differences, yeah.