Fourthcoming: Inglourious Basterds

Discuss DVDs and Blu-rays released from Arrow and the films on them.

Moderator: MichaelB

Post Reply
Message
Author
Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#451 Post by Phil » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:39 pm

oldsheperd wrote:I take no issue with people on this board liking this film. From what I've read you all are no doubt intelligent folks who know your cinema and how to read a film. Unfortunately you are in the minority when it comes this view of the film. I am confident in saying that most watching this film will not understand what Tarantino is saying.
This is totally unfairly stacking the deck against Tarantino: because his is a film that will reach a mass audience, he is only allowed to make points in the most clear cut, palm-to-forehead obvious manner imaginable? You deflect what Mr. Sausage says as simply sarcasm, but he's not missing your point at all. You're pretty openly arguing that a mainstream film cannot present anything other than an obviously articulated morality message, because otherwise all of the unwashed masses will misread it and run amok scalping Nazis and cackling with revenge. Shame on Tarantino and the Weinsteins for not exclusively restricting Basterds to festival showings and a one week run at Film Forum; then they could've ensured that it would remain squarely in the conscience of select Really Bright Intellectuals and not be out poisoning the minds of millions of American idiots.

And here I was thinking that a Hollywood movie that had started a huge amount of thoughtful discussion on morality/cinema/history/etc. was a great, exciting thing. Whoops.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#452 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:46 pm

Once again, another person missing my point.
I'm saying that your average movie goer may not get any message behind the film. As a matter of fact I think it's pretty assumptive of you, PHIL, that Tarantino's film has any message at all. Whatever message you walk away with is based on your interpretation.

Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#453 Post by Phil » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:01 pm

oldsheperd wrote:Once again, another person missing my point.
I'm saying that your average movie goer may not get any message behind the film. As a matter of fact I think it's pretty assumptive of you, PHIL, that Tarantino's film has any message at all. Whatever message you walk away with is based on your interpretation.
I really don't even know where to begin with this.

Yes, the "message" one takes away from a work of art is, inevitably, the result of a personal interpretation - I think most people with a functioning intellect would agree with this assessment of the situation. So then, your point is...what exactly? That because this could conceivably be read in a manner that you find off-putting, it's irresponsible and as such an essentially flawed and damnable work of art? "Your average movie goer" could conceivably walk into any movie ever made and not walk out with any message behind the film. Or, just as easily for that matter, walk out with a potentially off-putting one: to use an example from television, I know plenty of idiot frat boys who think that Mad Men rules because Don Draper and Roger Sterling are so "bad ass"...so, does that obviously off-the-mark reading of it make Mad Men morally reprehensible?

I'm just not sure where your populist hand-wringing is supposed to be taking you.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#454 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:08 pm

I'm just vocing my opinion on this film. If you haven't realized this is a forum where a free exchange of ideas takes place. You act like I ran over your dog or something the way you're taking this all very personal. Did you have something to do with the production of IG or do you get your panties in a wad if someone doesn't see things the way you do?
I'm sorry but I've never seen Mad Men so I guess I'm not as hip as you.
In addition "populist handwringing" is far from my original intentions.
If you go to the rediculous critic/customer reviews in the dvd news section you will be able to see the review I noted from the National Review. My mention of audience interpretation was a rumination of whether or not people would walk away with the same attitude as the NR writer given the current conflicts in which this country is engaged.
While I find IG's violence to be a bit off-putting in comparison to the majority of the audience I was with who was laughing, I don't find it morally reprehensible nor do I find the film in general to be morally reprehensible.
I may have gone a bit overboard by calling Tarantino's revisionist history "irresponsible". Let me just reconsider and say that it was dumb and contrived.
BTW, welcome to the board, Newbie!

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#455 Post by Finch » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:20 pm

oldshepard: fair enough if you disliked the film - there are many others who do although I'd imagine the international critical consensus on the film is more mixed than outright negative (I haven't seen significantly more bad reviews than positive ones). What I'm interested in is why yourself and seemingly a few others take an issue with the aspect of caricature/satire in Tarantino's film? For starters, it isn't new. Lubitsch did it not only while the war was still ongoing but an Allied victory was far from certain, Mel Brooks and others followed suit in the decades after. Isn't the Nazis' whole ideology and their blatant contempt for any other human being that didn't conform to their ideas of Aryan purity, isn't all of that so utterly feeble that it not only invites but begs for ridicule? Indeed, what better way of stripping the Nazis of all the awe and fear that they inspired than to highlight all that is ludicrous about them?

This can be done and has been done without trivialising or downplaying in any way the grave matter of the Holocaust. For all that I cherish about various films, novels and history books by Alain Resnais, Claude Lanzmann, Primo Levi, Ian Kershaw and Martin Gilbert, as vital and important as these works indisputably are, there has to be room in any discussion of Nazism for satire and caricature. In its scope and the sheer cold-bloodedness with which it has been executed, the Holocaust was and remains unique in history but I think that films like To Be Or Not To Be, The Producers and Inglourious Basterds are vitally important in that they remind us that while the deeds of the Nazis were utterly repellent, we mustn't treat the fascists themselves only with a kind of deference because of the nature of their crimes. I've said it before that Tarantino's satire isn't especially good, let alone funny but that doesn't invalidate his approach as such.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#456 Post by knives » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:20 pm

First off, thanks Phil for being a good newbie.
Secondly, I did not see any personal defense from Phil's post. He's just attempting an open discussion about the responsibility of the author. Nothing with a personal strike. As for his Mad Men analogy, it's a popular show that presented a good comparison to his point. Condescension over that is not warranted. That very analogy works well to your NR comment. I haven't seen the show either, but from the comment I can infer those two characters have many negative traits that can be misinterpreted as 'cool'. I don't see anything but good reasoning from his side of things.
So when are we building an Oldshepard infighting thread?

Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#457 Post by Phil » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:23 pm

I'm actually Quentin Tarantino, hi guys!

But seriously. My panties are decidedly unwadded, and I apologize if you felt as though I were being aggressive towards you, or something.

Anyways, I'm mostly just interested in what you're trying to get across w/r/t audience interpretation, and how you see that fitting negatively into Basterds as a whole. I certainly don't disagree with you in the least that there will undoubtedly be people who take away a very off-putting message from this; among them both intelligent people with a cause to drum for and not-so-intelligent people who are only reading on the most surface level possible.

Where we differ is that I fail to see how a non-obvious moral position is an inherent flaw in the film, particularly when as the last few pages here have shown, it presents itself to readings that are somewhat surprisingly astute moralistically in a way that is very refreshing and surprising coming from someone like Tarantino.

And thanks for the kind words Knives, I've been reading the board for quite a while now, and have always enjoyed your comments.

edit - didn't notice that OldShephard had edited his post to include those last few sentences, so I guess most of what I said there is relatively moot now. Carry on.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#458 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:51 pm

I'm just of the mind that Tarantino doesn't present any morals in his films. To me he is an strange amalgam of satirist/exploitation big-budget filmmaker and I do have some very small appreciation for this film. I did praise his having "Le Corbeau" listed on the marquee and Christopher Waltz' character.
I don't see any morals in this film. I see pure nihilism. I can see some folks ideas here about this film being a comment on cinema itself.
As for To Be or Not To Be, Finch, you are right in that it was a satire as well but it was created during the war, before history was written. It's the same thing with comic books of that era. They leave a bit up to what will happen in the future concerning the Nazis.
Like I've said before, I'm not adverse to a bit of violence and gore. I think Cabin Fever and Hostel are excellent films. I saw Pulp Fiction four times in the theater and laughed every time, but at this screening I heard a lot of laughter at the gore especially the last gruesome during the film's denouement. I found it repulsive and a bit too much.
I'm all for satirizing Nazis but killing every Nazi in the film ex.:
SpoilerShow
Wilhelm, who was just an enlisted man whom I found sympathetic.
I didn't jive with.
I also believe that reducing Nazis down to caricatures is something akin to what the Nazis did with the Jews, no? So it's self-nullifying in my opinion.
Plus:
SpoilerShow
Having Landa make a sweetheart deal seemed out of character since he seemed committed to the cause. Granted the Normandy landing had taken place but an Allied victory was still uncertain. Also, if he had foiled the plot of the bombing he may have been a hero, but wait we have the plot to brun down the cinema, how convenient! I can't remember the hero soldier's name but his character changed all of a sudden from a relatively naive guy to a beast at the last second with no forewarning whatsoever.
In addition I just didn't find any of the characters that likeable, just painful.
The one good to come out of this film is that my Dad and I both agreed that this movie was awful which rarely happens with me and him.

User avatar
Finch
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#459 Post by Finch » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:12 pm

Reply much appreciated oldshepard. I guess I'd find it easier to agree with your point,
I also believe that reducing Nazis down to caricatures is something akin to what the Nazis did with the Jews, no?
if caricature was the only approach we took to the Nazis but there are countless examples to show that this isn't the case. If anything, satire is the exception. You're absolutely right though that not every Nazi/German soldier shared Hitler's ideology or was aware of the specifics of that, or was aware of what others did in Auschwitz-Birkenau etc. Stauffenberg and Schindler are only the best known examples of Germans who even actively fought or sabotaged the war effort.

Am enjoying the exchange of thoughts so far.

Oh, almost forgot! Different strokes for different folks, I guess but complaining about nilihism in Basterds and not finding fault with Hostel, especially the second film? I wouldn't call either film a good one within the torture sub genre (Audition is on another plane entirely in my opinion) and found the second one particularly tedious. That said, if another directing gig would divert Eli Roth from entertaining thoughts about an acting career, it can't come soon enough!

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#460 Post by GringoTex » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:20 pm

Grand Illusion wrote: As suspense, the film is brilliant. The construction of the scenes takes the lessons from Hitchcock's bomb under the table and ratchets that up several points.
The La Louisiane sequence has nothing to do with Hitchcock's bomb under the table. There's nothing we know that the characters don't in that scene. We are introduced to all the surprises along with them.
Grand Illusion wrote: "Bomb under the table" might as well be
SpoilerShow
"Jews under the floorboard."
Now that's a great bomb under the table scene and my favorite scene in the movie- the only one where Tarantino displays any kind of discipline.
Grand Illusion wrote:IG is not just a celebration of film, but a criticism of it and all it entails, from Goebbel's propaganda to Tarantino's postmodernity.
How does this film criticize Nazi propaganda? It celebrates it's dumbassness, which is not a critique.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#461 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:20 pm

I didn't care much at all for Hostel 2.
I think it is an overall tone in Hostel that I can't explain personally. I know I'm probably alone but I found the end of Hostel where:
SpoilerShow
The guy stalks the businessman to the bathroom and cuts off his fingers.
Very much like Hitchcock on crack.
I believe I may have miscommunicated my thoughts, Finch.
I in no way am criticizing nihilism. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is one of my favorite films and it has been criticized as being nihilistic.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#462 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:31 pm

Why is it that a lot of posters who didn't like this film can't just explain where it went wrong and then stop? There's a whole lot of vitriol towards either Tarantino's style of filmmaking or the man himself punctuating those posts that still makes me wonder if it's possible, in this day and age, to dislike a film without branding it or the filmmaker behind it as completely incompetent since you didn't happen to enjoy his/her film(s).

Maybe I'm imagining it, but this forum seems to adhere to a pattern of "the more beloved the director, the more the detractors of said director feel they have to kick and scream about how much they disliked their latest film". Aren't we all adults here?

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#463 Post by domino harvey » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:50 pm

It's hard for me to think he doesn't deserve anything someone wants to throw his way after those interview comments. He may have even made with Inglorious Basterds a great film that I'll defend one day, but I can't say I blame anyone who wants to rally pretty hard against its perceived messages. Plus, again, this board writes yearly MASH notes to Michael Mann, so I don't think the general populace has anything against popular or "beloved" directors-- assuming Tarantino can even be referred to as such.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#464 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:51 pm

I personally like Tarantino. I like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and the Kill Bill films.
As for my many posts on this film I guess I'm having a hard time explaining why I don't care for the movie.
I believe a poster mentioned earlier that if Tarantino stuck to the Shoshanna plot, the film would have come out better. Perhaps some of my attitude has to do with this idea. While the Basterds part of the film is more in the vein of Tarantino's style, the Shoshanna part doesn't gel with me. I think Tarantino may be a bit lacking in the area of dramatic storytelling. I kind of felt like the moods in both narratives clashed a bit. For example:
SpoilerShow
When the movie screen burns down the proejctor continues to show her in the smoke giving the film a 3D like effect. This effect with the whole, "It is I, the Jew!" speech was kind of silly. I don't know if that's what Tarantino wnated but that's what I thought. It seemed a bit over the top.
And to reiterate, it did have it's moments. Tarantino's references to the films and industry of the time were good and the three Basterds disguised as Italian meeting Landa was funny as hell. Overall it just didn't click with me. Sorry for the over-analysis in my rhetoric on previous posts.

Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#465 Post by Phil » Wed Aug 26, 2009 5:55 pm

Cosign big time on Domino's comment about Tarantino deserving whatever he gets, dude is gratingly idiotic on a pretty regular basis. I sort of feel the same way about the defending I've done of Basterds as I do about the defending I've done of Southland Tales, but anyways.
oldsheperd wrote:I don't see any morals in this film. I see pure nihilism.
I would tend to agree with this for every pre-Basterds QT film, which I guess is probably part of why I'm so taken by it. I think Death Proof edged in this direction (I think someone else in this thread mentioned the commentary on revenge that the bifurcated narrative there lends itself to), but this strikes me as the first film of his that could be worked down to a primary concern that it is not directly related to cinema. (Although by the same token, I think a reading which arrives at cinema as the primary concern here would be valid too.)
but at this screening I heard a lot of laughter at the gore especially the last gruesome during the film's denouement. I found it repulsive and a bit too much.
We've already discussed this I suppose, and like I said, the laughter and cheering was certainly off-putting to me. But in a way, it only helped to underscore the point that I feel was being made: namely, that a parallel was being drawn between those in the audience of Basterds and those onscreen in the audience of Nation's Pride. The moral inquiry here is, for me, primarily concerned with rationalization, the manner in which we convince ourselves that an act is just or acceptable in the context of horrible atrocities. On one level, Jewish vengeance - an act which ends the war - plays as comparably acceptable in the face of Nazi aggression; there is a level of catharsis here which is both unsettling and enjoyable - perhaps all the more enjoyable for how unsettling it is. On another, it is filmed in such a horrific manner that I personally couldn't have begun to think about cheering for it -
SpoilerShow
350 people dying a horribly violent death is still 350 people dying a horribly violent death.
After two viewings, I find the film's most crucial scene to be Landa's dealmaking, the most cutting bit of rationalization here. The language he uses throughout it made me think of the rationalizations that inevitably come into play any time there is discussion on the decision to use the atomic bomb.
SpoilerShow
What's worse: allowing one Nazi war hero to walk off into the swanky sunsets of Nantucket (at a cost of 350 Nazi lives - and here Zoller's comment at the cafe to Goebbels that the premier should only be for people who "believe in the cause" becomes of central importance) or killing over 200,000 non-combat citizens?
I think the coda, which most people seem to want to write off as just another bit of crassly gleeful bloodletting, is a continuation of the moral questioning - no-one can get out of this unmarked, clean, absolved of guilt.

To be completely honest (and believe me, if you'd told me 2 weeks ago that I'd be saying this about a film by Quentin Tarantino I'd have laughed in your face), I feel like more than any war movie in recent memory, this resonates with Richard Lester's comment circa How I Won The War that most movies claiming to be "anti-war" are only anti-the wrong side of war, rather than against the manner in which it totally debases humanity. Basterds acknowledges the human desire for just retribution, but it's only true praise is for the end of the war, not the manner in which it was achieved. To me it is ultimately a film about the unsavory rationalizations that must exist in order to find any facet of war acceptable at any level - rationalizations that can never result in any level of good, just less egregious levels of shittiness.

I think what Tarantino has accomplished here is something on par with what Haneke wanted to accomplish in his two Funny Games (substituting more abstract media-centric violence for war atrocities, obviously), the difference being that I found Tarantino's wildly fun and enjoyable, while Haneke's to me is gratingly dull, smug and didactic.
I also believe that reducing Nazis down to caricatures is something akin to what the Nazis did with the Jews, no? So it's self-nullifying in my opinion.
Just to play devil's advocate, it's worth noting that the film's most intellectually and moralistically complex character is a Nazi. For whatever that's worth.
Last edited by Phil on Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GringoTex
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:57 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#466 Post by GringoTex » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:01 pm

oldsheperd wrote:I in no way am criticizing nihilism. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia is one of my favorite films and it has been criticized as being nihilistic.
That just shows to what degree people throw around the nihilism tag erroneously. Garcia is one of the most intensely moral films ever. I don't even think you can refer to Basterds as nihilist, which is an active philosophical position. There is no coherent philosophical position in it. It's critiquing nothing.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#467 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:02 pm

Are you referring to Landa, Phil?
I can see where you're coming from with your analysis of the idea behind the film but for me, speaking personally, it gets lost in the ether. The idea of IG is tricky because it can also be(incorrectly) as an endorsement of just revenge and brutality as an answer to brutality.

Phil
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: NYC

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#468 Post by Phil » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:13 pm

oldsheperd wrote:Are you referring to Landa, Phil?
I am. I guess on the whole I just don't see the complaint about caricaturing Nazis as a reasonable one, as nearly everything here (and certainly every person/idea which relates directly to a true bit of history) is close to a cartoon; Hitler's frothy Germanness is played for yucks, but so is Churchill's dour Britishness.
I can see where you're coming from with your analysis of the idea behind the film but for me, speaking personally, it gets lost in the ether. The idea of IG is tricky because it can also be(incorrectly) as an endorsement of just revenge and brutality as an answer to brutality.
Certainly understand. After my first viewing I thought it was incredibly problematic and referred to it to a friend as potentially one of the more morally offensive movies I'd ever seen. But 5 days of steady thought coupled with a second viewing have brought on a full conversion if you will, and led me to everything I said prior.
Last edited by Phil on Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#469 Post by oldsheperd » Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:16 pm

I'd consider giving it a second look but not right away. Perhaps when it comes out on dvd I'll give it a second look.

Ulysses1922
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#470 Post by Ulysses1922 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:18 pm

Regarding the fact that some people were laughing in the theater during some of the more brutal moments of the film, I think that some people will always laugh when they are shown violence in film - it doesn't necessarily mean those individuals are terrible people, or indicitive of the population at large. Some of you may recall a news story from a few years back about a group of school children who started laughing when they watched the shower scene in "Schindler's List" - and there was a public outcry about the lack of empathy and understanding in our nation's youth, to the point where Speilberg went to the school to give a presentation, and mentioned that there were times where he had seen films, and found himself laughing at things that others may find inappropriate.
The first time I saw "Clockwork Orange," I admit thinking that the character of Alex was more of a comic character than a brute. It wasn't until further viewings that I started to think about the moral problems posed in the film. And now (fifteen years after first seeing ACO) I find myself watching the film not for the acting or the moral questions, but for the music or the commentary track.

Ulysses1922
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#471 Post by Ulysses1922 » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:32 pm

...and I just realized that one could make an argument that Tarantino is offering a commentary on people who laugh at violence on film by
SpoilerShow
having the Nazis laugh at the murder they watch on screen in the propaganda film, and then having the film laugh back at them as they are murdered.

sammy h
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:17 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#472 Post by sammy h » Thu Aug 27, 2009 3:04 am

Thanks Phil and grand illusion for posting your thoughts here. I agree the movie is a good one, with a lot of stuff to chew over. I went in expecting not to like it, since I have not liked anything of his since Jackie Brown, and left the theatre impressed, shook up, and oddly entertained-it is often very funny and exciting. In the 5 days since then, it has totally stuck in my mind, my appreciation for it growing, and often in ways I didn't expect. The performances, across the board, were fantastic, save maybe Eli Roth who wasn't horrible, but even Mike Myers I thought did a good job. Waltz's is one of the most memorable performances in a long while. Also the performance of the farmer in the first scene was incredibly heartbreaking and rich. It's a bizarre piece of work, but an exciting piece in that it tries, and often hits, so many marks, both in ideas and tone.

I think part of of the difficulty with analyzing the film is that it is a rare beast that can deliver the jokes, the tension, the action movie violence you expect from a pop war film and still be so complex in so many ways. I can't think of anything like it at all that hits on so many cylinders.

As far as Tarantino's own words about the film, he has never been anything but a showman in interviews-he projects one face to the public, but his movies show another. But that may partly have to do with the interviewers themselves, who usually ask the most insipid banal questions-on the rare occasion when somebody does ask him more probing, esoteric questions, he can, and does, go into deep theory about his work and cinema in general. But it is rare.

sammy h
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:17 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#473 Post by sammy h » Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:13 pm

The other thing I think worth mentioning is that there seems to be this tone that detractors of Tarantino's take that is almost like moral outrage that people like the work-that there is something corrupt with liking the work. Whereas disagreements over other directors who deal in the same genre tropes, like Michael Mann, are usually way more respectful. It's a strange thing because usually when someone doesn't like the work of a particular director, they don't connect with the work and stay clear of it-for me personally, I really dislike most of the Coen brothers work, but I don't get worked up thinking about the work or it's place in society, etc etc. It's more that it's not part of my life at all, since it's clearly not made for me-their aesthetic as artists and mine as viewer are at odds. But with Tarantino, people passionately hate the work and dwell on it. I used to see the same sort of negative attention given to Harmony Korine as well. The only reason I can come up with is that people are bothered by the success of artists they feel are undeserved, and that the work is not as good as other similar, less successful predecessors or peers. Maybe.

Also, gauging a piece of work based on how you think it'll be perceived by others is insane. For one thing, you are just projecting your own base motivations onto others (that, for all intents and purposes, don't exist), and it seems like a great way of not engaging with the work itself, because instead of letting in to your consciousness, you're too busy imagining what every one else is thinking. Secondly, by that standard, many filmmakers and films are to be considered bad pieces of work. A Clockwork Orange, a movie you can find in many dorm rooms next to Scarface and Dazed and Confused, is popular because people love watching Alex causing chaos and getting shit on at the end. I watched it for the first time at a sleep over when I was 12. And all the kids loved it so I guess that makes Kubrick a bad filmmaker.

Stephen Thrower in his book, NIGHTMARE USA, makes a good point about artist intent in cinema. He points out that in any other medium, mistakes are considered valid elements in a piece of art when they occur, but in cinema, if something interesting is achieved by accident or happenstance, it's disregarded because it was not planned. I think that way of thinking is strange-we are engaging with the work itself, not the makers of that work, at least not usually. If Tarantino really did set out to make a revenge fantasy, and happened to come up with something way more complex, who gives a shit if he meant to or not?

User avatar
oldsheperd
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 5:18 pm
Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#474 Post by oldsheperd » Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:56 pm

If Nightmare USA wasn't so expensive I'd get it.

sammy h
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:17 am

Re: Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009)

#475 Post by sammy h » Thu Aug 27, 2009 2:02 pm

$37.77 on Amazon. Worth every cent.

Post Reply