Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 60347 times)

joker

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #390 on: December 21, 2009, 11:14:56 AM »
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

Also, the gun shots in the projection booth would not have been heard. First of all, projectors are really CINECAST!ing loud, meaning you probably would have trouble hearing the gun shots just down the hall, let alone in a theatre auditorium. Also the gun shots are happening as loud shots are ringing out in the film the audience is watching. This is clearly meant to be understood as a viable reason why the shots may not have been heard.

Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained. Trust me. I've gotten too many people asking me how come the DVDs they use at home aren't as good as the ones in the movie theatre, and whether we use "HD DVDs" and stuff like that. A show once broke down on me and a woman downstairs was yelling at the ushers saying that they should let her upstairs because she knows how to fix DVD players since she's done so at home several times. I would never assume that and audience understands the mechanics of modern film projection, let alone the fact that old nitrate stock was incredibly flammable.


have you ever heard a german officers ss pistol being discharged... trust me, it would have been heard....
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel

joker

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #391 on: December 21, 2009, 11:16:47 AM »
Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained....

I agree with you on this.  I think it was totally the wise thing to "break character" and go into full-frontal exposition there.  Adding Sam Jackson to round out the conceit is a very nice touch.  

And that's what I love about this movie: Tarantino knows its a movie and so he's able to just run with things.


"Hey Tarantino, film is flammable?"
"Old film was. Shit, I guess I should just put in a scene with Sam Jackson and old stock footage to explain it."

"Hey Tarantino, wouldn't there be security at the premiere?"
"There was some security, and we can also assume Landa took the security down a good notch considering he plans on Hitler dying and he is in charge of security for the premiere. Also, it's a CINECAST!ing movie, so who cares?"

"Hey Tarantino, how is it that a guy got blown out of that circular window during the explosion at the end? Shouldn't everyone have been locked up in the auditorium?"
"Ummm... It looks awesome when the guy flies out the window."

"Hey Tarrentino, you know your film dives off in the third act"
"Of course it does, films ussualy tend to dissapoint in the third act, that's why I made mine like that"

Now it smakes sense... the ending it supposed to be dumb!!!

That's the thing that bugs me about Tarrentino films... that there is this trump card that his fans like to have... if a movie of his has a short coming, it's because "its supposed to"....  it almost makes him critic proof
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:19:23 AM by jokernick »
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #392 on: December 21, 2009, 11:17:57 AM »
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

Also, the gun shots in the projection booth would not have been heard. First of all, projectors are really CINECAST!ing loud, meaning you probably would have trouble hearing the gun shots just down the hall, let alone in a theatre auditorium. Also the gun shots are happening as loud shots are ringing out in the film the audience is watching. This is clearly meant to be understood as a viable reason why the shots may not have been heard.

Also, the film being flammable needs to be explained. Trust me. I've gotten too many people asking me how come the DVDs they use at home aren't as good as the ones in the movie theatre, and whether we use "HD DVDs" and stuff like that. A show once broke down on me and a woman downstairs was yelling at the ushers saying that they should let her upstairs because she knows how to fix DVD players since she's done so at home several times. I would never assume that and audience understands the mechanics of modern film projection, let alone the fact that old nitrate stock was incredibly flammable.


have you ever heard a german officers ss pistol being discharged... trust me, it would have been heard....

Have you ever been inside a projection booth that's playing a really loud action movie? Trust me, nothing would be heard. Rather, nothing would be loud enough to be seriously noticed. Nevermind that booths back then were actually even loader than today. And again, part of the conceit is that the shots happen as shots are being fired on screen as well. Also, it's a movie.
"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

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #393 on: December 21, 2009, 11:23:00 AM »
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

ferris

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10832
  • "Bravo Vincent....Bravo!"
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #394 on: December 21, 2009, 11:26:43 AM »
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.

Oh Sorry 'Noke.  Sorry to invoke the wrong thing there.  I meant it as the highest of compliments to Magnolia.  I'd never sat so stunned in awe watching a film in my life.    I think I knew where you were going with your original comment but glad you explained more.  This really does sum it up:

... the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it...

« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 11:34:47 AM by ferris »
"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs" - Exodus 8:2 KJV
(switchboard)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28117
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #395 on: December 21, 2009, 11:30:37 AM »
Here's clovis jokernick, always having logic ruin his movie-going experiences.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #396 on: December 21, 2009, 11:32:43 AM »
Obviously there are tons of holes in the film. But the reason details like Landa's nickname are fixated upon is that those are the things that have more relevance to the thematic progression of the story. Landa needs to be called The Jew Hunter. Hitler needs to die, and so Tarantino comes up with a wild and crazy way in which to do so, without the need to dwell on details like security.

It's like the Frogs in Magnolia.

NOTHING IN FILM is like the Frogs in Magnolia.  :)

Please don't take my words that way. The frogs are amazing, but what I meant is that they are this elusive, elliptical plot device. Most filmmakers, when needing a plot device, will take the lowest common denominater, take the one that fits in slightly and seems, maybe out of chracter, but plausible and the easiest to swallow. But as Hitler said, the bigger the lie, the easier the public will swallow it. These lies get noticed by Matty and Adam and all those other critics and called upon.

but what sets Anderson and to the extent Tarantino apart is they won't do that. First off, Magnolia. The Frogs, are beautiful, elliptical, they are a plot device but Anderson is also trying to make you think. He is challenging you, he is confronting you. He is confriming that this is a movie, these things happen. In the end, it is just a plot device, but the way he says it is "Ok, the audience will feel as if these evetns happening will be strange anyways, so why not Frogs? Why not?" It's an amazing moment.

Tarantino too, is confirming that this is not a World War 2, Schindler's List-esque movie. On a lesser scale, he by passes all sorts of logic because he is working within his own parameters. We need small bits of info, the auditorium is locked, there are a few guards. But, in the end, this isn't a heist film. We don't need this. Tarantino is messing with art, how we create it, how we put worlds on film. And he doesn't need all that stuff, just enough to keep us caught up. The details is not what this film is praised for, it's the dance these characters perform around each other. That's why this is a magnificent movie.

Oh Sorry 'Noke.  Sorry to invoke the wrong thing there.  I meant it as the highest of compliments to Magnolia.  I'd never sat so stunned in awe watching a film in my life.    I knew where you were going with your original comment (but I'm also glad you rounded it out with these additional thoughts!! :) )

No worries. the Frogs were the first thing I thought of as a plot device used in such a blatant way, it just made sense. I really want to rewatch it now, and do a long writeup on it. Or a commentary. That would be fun.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

joker

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #397 on: December 21, 2009, 11:41:00 AM »
Here's clovis jokernick, always having logic ruin his movie-going experiences.

lol... no, I just don't like it when a film concentrates on some aspects dealing with logic, then compleltely ignores others that are glairing to the overall plot...
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28117
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #398 on: December 21, 2009, 11:44:10 AM »
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

joker

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1958
  • CINECAST! off
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #399 on: December 21, 2009, 01:40:23 PM »
So you deny that logic issues messed up the movie for you?

And I wouldn't say glaring. I never thought of the security issues. But then again I never think about things like that. I'm a really stupid moviegoer. I never figure out twists or see plot holes.

Logic issues... was one of them... the other was the strong first two chapters... they were soooo good, and I felt the rest of the movie was just a let down... I wanted to see the Basterds in action...
"This movie made me laugh so hard, I had mild headaches. So I went to the doctor to get checked out, I'm currently awaiting results"
-Gene Siskel