Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: I wish this was over, but it’s not Previous entry: What about love?

Why “Inglourious Basterds” should win Best Picture….and why it won’t

Movies

To make it clear, I haven’t seen all the movies nominated for Best Picture Oscar, so it’s entirely possible that one is better than “Inglourious Basterds”.  But I’ll admit I’m skeptical, if only because “Basterds” one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time.  So I’m going to make a list of the reasons I think “Basterds” should win, which are non coincidentally the reasons it won’t. Believe me, there are spoilers.  And why haven’t you seen it yet?

It’s arguably the best movie made by an edgy young film director while he’s still edgy and before he’s really old. The Academy Awards love edgy young filmmakers many decades after they stopped making innovative movies.  And I say this as someone who really liked “The Departed”.  But everyone knows Scorsese was winning for his first tier classics made years ago.  This is a chance for the Academy to break the vicious cycle.  Instead of recognizing Tarantino’s genius 20 years from now, when he makes a movie that has his imprint but no innovative feel to it, why not give him the award when he still has the ability to blow an audience away with his genius?  Tarantino’s no spring chicken at 47, so it’s not like Hollywood would be wandering off into the scarily youthful woods by giving him this award.  And for people who’ve seen it, you can firmly say he won it for this year, not for “Pulp Fiction”.  Because it’s probably the better picture.

“Basterds” takes a piss all over tired Hollywood conventions about WWII.  Making movies about Nazis is Oscar bait, and they end up taking themselves more seriously as movies than they do the war itself. “Basterds” lashes out at this tendency by writing an alternative history, and in doing so subverts movies like “Saving Private Ryan” or even “Schindler’s List”, that present themselves as definitive pieces on an event that was too huge and too horrible for anyone to say anything definitively about it.  By skirting the need for a WWII movie to Say Something, Tarantino reminds us that Saying Something can sometimes interrupt the humility it takes to even begin to understand something. Tarantino also asks hard questions about stereotyping Jews as passive victims in WWII movies, by making his Jewish characters run against the stereotype—-their horror at the genocide translates into murderous rage, something rarely allowed in WWII movies that are more interested in exploring Allied reactions than those of the people most oppressed by the Nazis.

“Basterds” falls into Tarantino’s ongoing project of centering female characters in his films.
  I’ve written before about how interesting it is to me that Tarantino has decided to use the power to make any movie he wants to make movies about women that assume that women are strong and capable (but still have normal human flaws), and that if you’re shocked by that, then it says more about you than women as a group.  I wouldn’t say that’s the definitive feminist statement, but it’s certainly a feminist statement, one that’s struggling more against Hollywood representations of women than trying to suggest that all women are strong by virtue of being women.  Tarantino’s female characters also run against Hollywood’s lame attempts to provide characters that are “strong women”.  Quoting Overthinking It:

I think the major problem here is that women were clamoring for “strong female characters,” and male writers misunderstood.  They thought the feminists meant [Strong Female] Characters.  The feminists meant [Strong Characters], Female.

Tarantino’s sadly radical project over his last few movies is to write female characters the way that you write male characters.  But Mélanie Laurent didn’t even get a nomination for her widely praised portrayal of the character Shoshanna, probably because she never speaks in English and because she doesn’t fit into a heart-warming Hollywood stereotype.  Instead, Sandra Bullock got a nod.

My prediction is that Christoph Waltz wins Best Supporting Actor, and the movie maybe wins a couple of technical awards, and that’s it. I suspect it only got nominated for Best Picture because they expanded the field to 10 nominations. It was just too hot for Hollywood.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:47 AM • (199) Comments

I’m still betting on The Hurt Locker, if only because it’s the only one that I think has a chance against Avatar, but I LOVED Basterds.  I saw it, and then dragged my brother to the theater and saw it again, because it was just that awesome. 

There was a great interview with Tarantino on Fresh Air (NPR) talking about his influences, and growing up, etc.  It should be available online or podcast, and I highly recommend it.

Comment #1: sam  on  02/03  at  11:11 AM

Eh, honestly I think if they give GB the academy award they’d be chickening out and that’s not just because I have an almost pathological hatred of Quentin Tarantino (I feel he makes movies that take subversive genres and make them less progressive than their origins, slaps in some I learned this in film school post-modernism techniques and everyone then calls him brilliant because we are starved for real innovation and female-inclusion in modern cinema).

But frankly there are so many barriers on the list that have been a long time coming.

First up, Precious. Genuinely black, female-centered, does not shy away from gay topics and not just in a clapping itself on the back way Hollywood likes. Done by a brilliant gay, black director. Will not win because they “gave something to the gays last year” and going that far for black cinema scares the old white voters.

Second up, District 9 or hell, I’d settle for Avatar, but District 9 is the one who deserves it. There is no genre on this planet that is more hated in the Oscars voting than science fiction or hell genre in general. Masterpieces of the genre have been passed over, often blatantly for works that were phoning it in Oscar bait. And District 9 wouldn’t be a cop out. A genuinely brilliant sci-fi movie saying something with a brilliant use of the pseudo-documentary feeling for style. It would be a sci-fi movie that would deserve an Oscar. Considering that Lord of the Rings had to release an amazing film a year for three years to finally get the award, giving it to District 9 would stop the marginalization of genre fantasy from “serious fiction” and allow the green light on more genuinely interesting sci-fi movies to be made. Hell, Avatar would be a cop out, but for ending the ghost ban on sci-fi, I’d cheer the blue furries.

Third, Up, cartoons don’t win “real Oscars” or “real awards” in general. Breaking that trend is crucial to getting a more dynamic adult animation impact in this country (we can’t all coast on Tim Burton’s occasional forays or the imports of Britain) and actually having something dynamic like Japan has produced. Lovers of smart animation would love some encouragement and everyone would benefit from the stodgy old actors of the voting panels actually recognizing something outside of the biopic or historical piece they seem inexplicably drawn to. That would be a victory for humanity and this actually has a chance because the most powerful poignance of it has to do with old people like the voters are.

But sadly, I think we’re going to see the award go to “The Blind Side” this year and we’ll all get to stare in abject horror at the injustice of it all.

Comment #2: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  11:25 AM

A great film, no question.  And one that works on many levels.  Pretty easily the best of the three Best Picture nominees that I saw (Basterds, Up, and Blue Space Kittehs…in 3D!).  Unfortunately, I agree that the only major award the film will win will be Waltz (who certainly deserves it) for Best Supporting Actor.  I also agree that Laurent deserved a Supporting Actress nomination…oh well.

Some other random Oscar thoughts:

Why doesn’t Basterds qualify for a Best Foreign Language Film nomination, too?

Why isn’t Avatar up for Best Animated Picture (not that it would deserve to win….both Up and Coraline were better)?

Biggest surprises for me among the Best Picture nominees were A Serious Man and The Blind Side, the former because it seemed to get a rather rough critical reception, the latter because I can’t imagine it’s really any good. Thoughts from those who’ve seen either film?

Why does the official Oscar® site list “Nominees to be Determined” under The Blind Side and The Hurt Locker where the producer’s name ought to go on the Best Picture nominee list? Isn’t it clear who produced these films?

Comment #3: Ben Alpers  on  02/03  at  11:25 AM

Count me as another who really liked Basterds.  Not that I’ve seen any of the other nominated movies (full time job, part time student, and two small children—time is a very precious commodity around here), but still, it was a good movie.  Unusual, surprising, and really funny, in that dark, twisted kind of way.

Also, the Fresh Air interview was a good one.

Comment #4: ks  on  02/03  at  11:25 AM

I’ve seen most of the nominees, and I think Inglorious Basterds should win, but it’s not so clear-cut that a failure to win would be a travesty.  (Unless Avatar wins, in which case, f—- tha Academy.)

Not nominating Melanie Laurent is a travesty, and Christoph Waltz not winning would be occasion to break out the torches and pitchforks.

Comment #5: cminus  on  02/03  at  11:26 AM

Crap, I should really read ahead.  I didn’t realize that District 9 was also nominated.  Definitely that should win over Basterds.  I still really liked it, and Tarantino is always entertaining, but District 9 is the better movie.

Comment #6: ks  on  02/03  at  11:30 AM

Tarantino also asks hard questions about stereotyping Jews as passive victims in WWII movies, by making his Jewish characters run against the stereotype—-their horror at the genocide translates into murderous rage, something rarely allowed in WWII movies that are more interested in exploring Allied reactions than those of the people most oppressed by the Nazis.

Exactly. And to all the shock-assed critics who had trouble stomaching the idea of Jewish avengers, I say take a look at Wajda’s early-60s WW2 flick, Samson, in which [spoiler] a ghettoized Jewish man does to Nazis with grenades what Samson did to his enemies with a couple of pillars.

Tarantino’s conflating of the American exceptionalism strain of WW2 movie-making with propaganda filmmaking in general (via use of Austro-German mountain movies and Goebbels’ machine) is one of the main reasons I so love IB. If we read the movie that way, the casting of Pitt, who represents that kind of cellluloid hero, makes 100% sense (which took me a while to realize, as a decided non-fan of that kind of ‘actor’—but he totally works for me now, in the film, in his cartoonish yahoo way).

It’s no surprise a lot of people were disappointed in IB.  They walked in expecting The Sands of Iwo Jima and they got a film that actively subverted that kind of stuff.

Comment #7: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  11:36 AM

How is District 9 the better movie?  It was a great action movie, but it didn’t really do much beyond that.  I guess it subverted stereotypes about cultural tourism, stereotypes that Avatar bought into.  But that’s not even on the level with Basterds.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  11:51 AM

With respects, District 9’s subversiveness spread way further than just cultural tourism including deconstructing the commonality of most every version of racism from the “enjoys killing them” to the “polite liberal who only meagerly speaks out on the subject in the abstract”. Plus, the banality of evil, the shallowness of 24/7 media, first-world and corporate relations and exploitations of minority groups and countries and a million other themes without waving a giant “I’m making a point now” placard like Avatar.

And the “it’s just an action movie” crap is what’s been holding science fiction back from any real acceptance from the Oscars culture and even movie geek culture.

Comment #9: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  11:59 AM

Also, Ranyit, agreed.  Basterds is the one WWII movie I’ve seen that both manages to question the American relationship to glamorizing war while not calling into question that the Nazis were fucking evil and had it coming.

Comment #10: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:06 PM

In addition to being able to create strong female characters that are “strong characters, female” Tarantino also has the ability to create female characters who are sexy, but in a non-objectifying way.  Uma Thurman’s and Pam Grier’s characters in Kill Bill and Jackie Brown are dead sexy, but not because Tarantino dresses them up in skimpy outfits and zeroes in on their asses and cleavage.  Those characters are sexy by virtue of what they do and who they are, not what they wear and where the camera is pointed.

Comment #11: Raging Red  on  02/03  at  12:10 PM

Cerberus, it touches on that stuff, but I can’t say that I felt like it really mined it.  Those themes were nice flourishes on a movie that’s main value was in being a really good action movie.  I have no problem with a really good action movie.  But District 9 was the inverse of Basterds to me.  Basterds was an artistic statement that employed good action movie flourishes to send its message.  District 9 was a good action movie that employed political statements in order to make itself more interesting and different.  Both movies were really competent at both missions undertaken, but Basterds was by far the more compelling artistic statement.  District 9 simply told a different story, but I didn’t feel it actively engaged prior stories to subvert them.  Basterds deliberately and directly took on WWII myth-making.

Comment #12: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:11 PM

Agreed, Raging Red.  Even when the camera lingers on their sexy, sexy feet (sirowski pointed out that Tarantino is a foot fetishist in the last thread on this), it’s never at the expense of the characters being subjective humans in the world whose purpose is to be themselves, and not to be an object to be gazed upon by the male viewer.

Comment #13: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:13 PM

“Why does the official Oscar® site list “Nominees to be Determined” under The Blind Side and The Hurt Locker where the producer’s name ought to go on the Best Picture nominee list? Isn’t it clear who produced these films?”

I heard a short piece on NPR the other day explaining this. Basically, there’s been such a proliferation of people being credited as producers that the academy feels it needs to do more due diligence about who actually did the work. Apparently, it’s too the extent of interviewing a lot of behind the scenes people and such. Producer has kind of the most ill-defined job description anyway, so it’s probably tough and political as all hell.

Comment #14: witless chum  on  02/03  at  12:13 PM

Mélanie Laurent deserves best actress; no question, Shoshonna was one of the great characters of the year. Of course, Waltz deserves best actor, not best supporting, but neither was up for the big prize because neither fits the mold.

As for me, I think best pic should be between Hurt Locker, IB, and Up. Which is why Avatar will win.

Comment #15: Jeff Fecke  on  02/03  at  12:14 PM

For instance, that publicity shot I used is a classic example of how Tarantino is fucking with feminine norms.  She’s wearing a veil—-a veil!—-but she’s staring right through it and her posture is a don’t-fuck-with-me pose.  There is no sexy submissiveness.  She’s an icon of determination.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:15 PM

Honestly, while I liked Bastards, I didn’t love it.  The movie wasn’t so much a continuous film as a series of really engaging vignettes.  Take any given scene by itself, and you’d be convinced this was Oscar material, but string them together and the movie feels disjointed and choppy.  Particularly towards the beginning, it feels like there are scenes that are flat missing from the film.

The acting is fantastic, the dialogue is extraordinary, the action scenes are both gripping and hilarious, and as a short film I think any scene would deserve an award.  But as a complete body of work, I’m just not feeling it.

Comment #17: Zifnab  on  02/03  at  12:22 PM

Jews = helpless, defenseless people who needed Americans to save them is a major cornerstone of aid to Israel.  It does get played both ways.

Regardless, the French Resistance and the Warsaw Ghetto put the lie to the idea that people who very well knew they were condemned would march quietly to their death like so many sheep.

Comment #18: Ms Kate  on  02/03  at  12:23 PM

For instance, that publicity shot I used is a classic example of how Tarantino is fucking with feminine norms.  She’s wearing a veil—-a veil!—-but she’s staring right through it and her posture is a don’t-fuck-with-me pose.  There is no sexy submissiveness.  She’s an icon of determination.

Plus, we know she’s packing a gun.

Like extended dialogue, the foot fetish has long been recognized as one of QT’s signature devices.  What’s great about IB is that suddenly all of these longtime devices REALLY have a purpose now: shoe gives away Kruger’s character, advancing plot; dialogues are studied cat and mouse moments that feed into the art/performance trope in the film—performance as survival, as Film Comment writer pointed out.  It’s no coincidence three of those “performers” are related to the film industry—film star, cinema owner, film critic. 

This is partly why I feel IB is his least indulgent movie and his most sophisticated (as much as I love JB).

Comment #19: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  12:24 PM

Finally saw this film and couldn’t agree more.

This post also reminds me that I never went back and read your Bamboo Review (I should have a bookmark category for “stuff with spoilers to go back and read once I’ve seen or read the material”). Which I shall now do!

Comment #20: tps12  on  02/03  at  12:28 PM

Cerberus, I’m with you.  Somehow I think Amanda is missing the subtle (!!!!) cracks against racism, speratism, et al in Dist 9.  Maybe she is just too N American-centric?
The truly best picture almost never wins.

Comment #21: helen w. h.  on  02/03  at  12:28 PM

@13 Well on that criteria, you’d be right. IB was a definite statement about art and a deliberate post-modern story about stories. Whereas D9 was a story that showed all the political stuff in a more visceral and yet more subtle style than it really has gotten credit for.

But yeah, if you wanted the one that was more of a commentary of the medium or artistic styles, IB would win hands down, but that’s because it’s postmodern and actually trying to do that whereas the other one is more decidedly modernist and trying to put the focus more on our nasty habits.

Basically one is trying to comment on action movies and hide that in an action movie and one is trying to comment on us and hide that in an action movie.

Given the radically different styles and potential bias, head to head comparisons could be difficult, but D9 has definitely gotten the short shift despite how amazingly subversive a masterpiece it really was probably because sci-fi action movies often get -5 seriousness points from any reliable movie nerd before they even begin.

Comment #22: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  12:29 PM

I don’t have much to say except Inglourious Basterds BLEW MY MIND.

Comment #23: leedevious  on  02/03  at  12:31 PM

Foreign film Oscar procedure: Each country participating submits one film, a pool of films from which nominees for Best Foreign Language film are chosen by Academy members.

Comment #24: dr.giraud  on  02/03  at  12:32 PM

I HATED Basterds. I thought it was contrived, silly, and full of every Tarantino cliche we’ve ever seen.  The characters were demonstrating real anger or real conviction, they were caricatures… two dimensional and thin except for Shoshanna.

It was all schtick, little art. I know i’m in the minority on this, and will get ripped, but that’s what I saw.

Sujal

Comment #25: sujal  on  02/03  at  12:36 PM

I have heard Inglorious Basterds slammed so hard by so many film buffs I’d started to think I was just projecting everything I liked about it into it. Glad to see, at the least, I’m not the only one who projected those things.

Comment #26: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  12:38 PM

I haven’t seen IB, but everyone I know who has just raves about it.  I hope I can see it before the awards are given out.

Avatar will probably win Best Picture.  I personally felt it was no better than Cameron’s 5th-best film, but it is so successful, the Academy may wuss out and give it to him.  It’s too bad.  Avatar is a pretty fluff film, but everything I heard about it being “ground-breaking” is the same stuff I heard 10 years ago about The Matrix.  And it ripped off 3-4 other better movies.  Maybe I’m just jaded, but I failed to see a significant difference between the effects in Avatar and Lucas’ CGI environment in Revenge of the Sith.  I’m not elevating ROTS to any high level, I’m just saying that everyone raving about how beautiful Avatar looked and how lush it was is magically forgetting that it’s been done, just as well, in the recent past.  It just wasn’t in 3-D.

Comment #27: bouj  on  02/03  at  12:38 PM

22-

Yeah, it was amazingly subtle and did one of the most thorough dissections of racism and how its fostered that I’ve ever seen, including using cat food as a simultaneous demonstration of a Wire-esque point of drug trafficking on a marginalized community and also the methodology first world nations use to strip marginalized countries and people of their real material wealth and then turn around and look down at them for being too stupid to make it for themselves.

Or just a billion things. It’s really one of the most savage and thorough dissections of racism I’ve seen in a movie yet and there have been some great movies on the subject.

Comment #28: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  12:38 PM

Ugh, I loathed Inglourious Basterds. Anything that you might read into the movie regarding American exceptionalism seems pretty null and void to me because Tarantino doesn’t care about that. He doesn’t care about history or politics or the Jews or Germans. He only cares about film. And I find his approach to film more nonsensical than subversive. He treats propaganda films with the same loving hand as martial arts or slasher or blacksploitation flicks. Jews and Nazis are just tropes to play with.

Some reviews from people who are more eloquent than I am:

From the admittedly breathtaking opening sequence, which in its meticulous staging, pacing and acting pays loving homage to the work of Sergio Leone, to the Grand Guignol of a climax set in a Paris cinema, “Inglourious Basterds” isn’t about history or war, or people and their problems, or anything of substance or meaning. It’s a movie about other movies. For all its visual bravura and occasional bursts of antic inspiration, it feels trivial, the work of a kid who can’t stop grabbing his favorite shiny plaything.

Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post

“Inglourious Basterds” is not boring, but it’s ridiculous and appallingly insensitive—a Louisville Slugger applied to the head of anyone who has ever taken the Nazis, the war, or the Resistance seriously. Not that Tarantino intends any malice toward such earnest people. The Nazis, for him, are merely available movie tropes—articulate monsters with a talent for sadism. By making the Americans cruel, too, he escapes the customary division of good and evil along national lines, but he escapes any sense of moral accountability as well. In a Tarantino war, everyone commits atrocities. Like all the director’s work after “Jackie Brown,” the movie is pure sensation. It’s disconnected from feeling, and an eerie blankness—it’s too shallow to be called nihilism—undermines even the best scenes.

David Denby, The New Yorker

Comment #29: soupcon  on  02/03  at  12:41 PM

Basterds had one glaring fault, an inane, maudlin, out-of-character plot point. Don’t feel sorry for the sniper asshole, shoot him. Again. In the head. Twice.

Waltz deserves an Oscar, no doubt. That was an astonishing and epic performance. But The Hurt Locker deserves the Best Pic win more. It’s a more solid film. Plus Kathryn Bigelow winning over her ex-husband James Cameron would be a hoot. She better get either Best Pic or Best Director if not both. She’d be the first woman to win either IIRC.

Actually, IMHO, Moon deserves the best pic nod but Sony, in their infinite wisdom, decided not to send screeners out.

Comment #30: Sarcastro  on  02/03  at  12:46 PM

Somehow I think Amanda is missing the subtle (!!!!) cracks against racism, speratism, et al in Dist 9.

I’m not.  I just think there’s a difference between a crack at something and the theme of the movie.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:53 PM

I loved District 9, but I have trouble calling it subversive. Humans dehumanize the other and exploit them ... That is present in Avatar as just a basic, assumed truth. Yes, we do that. District 9 just waved it around in your face until you had to throw up.

I think it was trying to say, to, that apartheid is still going on in South Africa (enforced through property laws and “eviction”), but really failed to pull the trigger. As loud as it is, it is a good example of political wimps hiding behind aliens to achieve mainstream success.

Basterds was directly hostile to established Hollywood norms and forms, which is why it won’t win… just like when they picked Gump over Pulp, to defend their turf.

Comment #32: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  12:53 PM

Also, the cracks weren’t subtle.  Not that I think subtlety is the end-all, be-all—-it’s actually overrated in a lot of cases—-but District 9 was not subtle.

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:54 PM

I have heard Inglorious Basterds slammed so hard by so many film buffs I’d started to think I was just projecting everything I liked about it into it.

I think Ranyit touched on why.  It sent up their assumptions about how Jewish characters should be in WWII movies, and they were pissed to be called on the carpet like that.  It’s very uncomfortable if you buy the Hollywood narratives about WWII wholesale.  If you’re like me and found “Saving Private Ryan” unbearable, though, “Basterds” spoke straight to you.  If you thought Spielberg was being profound, though, I think “Basterds” could really piss you off.

Comment #34: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:56 PM

soupcon @30 demonstrates why—-critics don’t like being told by a movie-maker that movies aren’t history.  They don’t like being told that they were being manipulated by WWII movies in the past, and they don’t like being told that watching a movie /= actually understanding the horror of war.  And so when they are told this, they lash out.

Comment #35: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  12:59 PM

Add me to the list of people who didn’t like IB. It felt soulless and flashy to me; more “look what I can do!” than “look at this story” (I didn’t see “Avatar”, but I’m hearing similar things about it). That’s my problem with most QT movies.The movie should have been about Shoshana; the Basterds themselves were, as far as I was concerned, completely superfluous author wank.  If it wins over “Hurt Locker,” (or even “District 9,” which I loved) it will be a travesty.

Comment #36: stonebiscuit  on  02/03  at  01:02 PM

Anything that you might read into the movie regarding American exceptionalism seems pretty null and void to me because Tarantino doesn’t care about that. He doesn’t care about history or politics or the Jews or Germans. He only cares about film.

Not to sound totally flip, but what’s wrong with that?  All film is about film, even when the filmmakers try to conceal that from the audience.  Frankly, realism in films is vastly overrated, because even “real” films like documentaries leave things out and shape their footage to tell a specific story, assuming they don’t stage things outright.

Not to pick on you, but I get very tired of people insisting that a more “realistic” film is a better film.  It’s like the trend in publishing where everyone has to claim that their novel is a “memoir” because more people will read something that they think is a true story.

And David Denby is a fucking moron.  If he’s presented with a story that has even the slightest moral complexity, he goes totally off the rails.

Comment #37: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  01:02 PM

Oh, also they don’t like being told that while the Allies were in the right during WWII, movies about WWII are still propaganda in favor of American/Western exceptionalism. And that includes ones that “humanize” Nazis like “The Reader”, because the theme is about how the viewer is a big person for seeing the complexities.  Blegh.  I don’t actually think the Nazis were particularly complex—-raw hatred can be taken for what it is.

Comment #38: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  01:03 PM

And speaking of giving awards that should have been given to previous films…“Up” got nominated for Best Picture and “WALL-E” didn’t? Bullshit. “Up” is a great movie, but “WALL-E” is glorious.

Comment #39: stonebiscuit  on  02/03  at  01:06 PM

Tarantino also asks hard questions about stereotyping Jews as passive victims in WWII movies, by making his Jewish characters run against the stereotype—-their horror at the genocide translates into murderous rage, something rarely allowed in WWII movies that are more interested in exploring Allied reactions than those of the people most oppressed by the Nazis.

This is the primary reason I liked it: it approaches the topic of how total war turns almost everyone—Nazi, American, Jew, woman, black, intellectual—into an over-the-top, bloodthirsty authority-worshiper in a way I’ve only seen in one or two other movies (Doctor Strangelove and The Dirty Dozen—one of this film’s influences).

It’s funny, wildly exaggerated, and yet comes close to capturing the savage zeitgeist of those times (which you don’t get to to see much outside Holocaust memoirs and unusually honest war memoirs), despite taking place in an alternate universe. Further, despite the story’s grounding in the Hollywood tropes that Tarantino loves, it’s still fresh and original.

All of which probably means that Avatar will win for Best Picture (instead of for Director, where Cameron’s real accomplishment lies).

Comment #40: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  01:08 PM

Really, I don’t think soupcon read the post, or he/she would see that I actually grapple with his/her points.  And my conclusion is QT made a very convincing argument that movies like “Saving Private Ryan” also treat Jews and Nazis like action figures, but it’s more insulting, because they do so while pretending to be profound.  “Basterds” dodges the attempts at profundity about the war, knowing the futility of that, and becomes instead a profound statement on the problems with propaganda disguised as art.

Comment #41: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  01:11 PM

Loved “Basterds”. An incredible film that deserves the Oscar. But so does “District 9” & “Hurt Locker”. Those are the three BEST PICTURES.

I saw “Blind Side” and it was a fine way to spend an evening out with my wife (I’m a sucker for the “true sports movies” & she puts up with them for me occasionaly), but it was a far cry from what I would call “Oscar worthy”.

I would like to see “Up” win a real award though. I loved that one.

Comment #42: Mark  on  02/03  at  01:13 PM

It is BS, but Up in only nominated for Best Picture because this year they expanded the category to be broader and more exclusive. It’s also nominated in the Best Animated Feature category that Wall-E won last year, and I expect Up will win there.

Comment #43: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  01:14 PM

[#44 was in response to stonebiscuit at #40]

a profound statement on the problems with propaganda disguised as art.

Or even propaganda disguised as fun, mindless entertainment. Tarantino’s playing just as much with the American WWII-era combat and spy films as he is with the more serious-toned Riefenstahl and Ufa Nazi products.

Comment #44: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  01:19 PM

Good point. This movie seems like something made by someone who plays “Call of Duty” and has decided that he can grapple with the weirdness of making WWII entertainment without hating himself.  A more interesting stance than shoving your head up “serious” films about the era and thinking that means you understand it.

Comment #45: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  01:23 PM

Well, apart from not caring what the Academy has to say about anything (I can’t remember the last time the opinions of moribund octogenarians who haven’t actually seen the movies they’re voting on mattered), both D9 and Basterds should be happy for the expanded format, because neither would have made the 5-cut: Precious, Up in the Air, Avatar, Hurt Locker, and Blind Side/An Education would have probably been the roster. I’m only speaking to probabilities based on how they’ve gone in the past; I’ve only seen one of the ten movies (District 9) and only plan to see two others (An Education, Hurt Locker).

As for demythologizing (not a word?) WWII, though, I thought Sam Fuller (Big Red One), Robert Aldrich (Dirty Dozen), and Brian Hutton (Where Eagles Dare/Kelly’s Heroes) had already done a lot of yeoman’s work that was undone by Spielberg.

Comment #46: norbizness  on  02/03  at  01:24 PM

I’d also point out that the one real precursor to “Basterds” was probably “Maus”.  In a very different way, of course, but Spiegelman was also trying to say that the war was so terrible that you can only approach it from an absurd angle.

Comment #47: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  01:25 PM

I really enjoyed Saving Private Ryan, but I am also able to recognize that movies aren’t history. It was a decent action flick. And is incredibly open for criticism.

A lot of the criticism directed at Basterds seems to be on this point that it was offensive and dishonest about history… I think Tarantino does a good job of addressing this himself. Speaking German isn’t the same as passing for German, but that conceit has long been tolerated by this genre. Just like how you so rarely hear from the French Resistance.

Tarantino is fucking with a genre that props up the idea of the French as “surrender-monkeys.” Don’t talk to me about realism.

Comment #48: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  01:25 PM

It’s funny, wildly exaggerated, and yet comes close to capturing the savage zeitgeist of those times (which you don’t get to to see much outside Holocaust memoirs and unusually honest war memoirs), despite taking place in an alternate universe.

This is really important to note, and touches on what Mnemosyne was saying; in my own film reviews, I often go on a tear about our quaint privileging of “realism” (a relatively recent thing) and the strange obsession our culture has with looking for “reality” in a work of fiction. And I say this as a devotee of neorealist film (Hou, Puiu, Jia, Rossellini etc are some of my favourite directors). However, there’s more than one way to skin a cat. I have a lot of admiration for filmmakers who “get” how myth, memory and imagination can distort a mind- or landscape—IB, Mann’s Public Enemies and Zhang’s Hero are three films that superadd that dreamlike mythic feel to their production design and even framing to impart that idea.  It may not appeal to everyone aesthetically, but it’s got purpose.

Comment #49: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  01:26 PM

I detested Inglorious Basterds.  There were great set pieces, and Walz definitely deserves an oscar for his performance. But, speaking as an interested party—a human, a jew, a woman, I found it disgusting. Like watching someone make a pornographic movie using bits of your home movies.  The “bear jew” and the scene chewing southern maniac? I didn’t enjoy the notion that this was some kind of legitimate moral or cultural response to WWII, or war generally.  Where it was disciplined and focused it was powerful, but where it was campy, self indulgent, and self referential it was just sick.

aimai

Comment #50: aimai  on  02/03  at  01:28 PM

It’s why I like “Mad Men” so much.  It’s hyper-stylized, and it throws off your expectations about how people behave in this space.

Comment #51: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  01:29 PM

Here, here, norbizness at 47.

This entire discussion about which film “deserves” Best Picture assumes the award actually means something. Avatar deserves and will get this award for the same reason Return of the King and Gladiator and Forest Gump got the award. It is meaningless, self-congratulating bullshit from an entrenched, self-interested industry.

And what he said about the arc of WWII films, through some decent work in the Vietnam era to the politically atrocious Saving Private Ryan. It is another good example of the reactionary kick that set in in the 1990s and empowered the existing, proto-fascist regime.

Comment #52: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  01:32 PM

Having read more of the comments I think I want to come back and amend my point.  QT is getting undeserved credit for making a movie that’s not exactly like some other famous movies—so what? the entire world of WWII movies isn’t defined or encapsulated by Spielberg—the fact that Saving Private Ryan, which I didn’t bother to see, was uncomplicated and stupid doesn’t mean that QT’s war movie isn’t too.  The opposite of American Exceptionalism and WWII hagiography, noble, suffering, passive Jews, women as sex objects or whatever is not, in fact “Inglorius Basterds…” Its just a mash up of its own stuff.  In its own way its just a continuation of those things: it deliberately uses women, jews, and others to make a set of rather blunt points.  They are absolutely tools in the service of a different set of propaganda moments and images.  Contrast Inglorious basterds to Three Kings?  Three Kings was nervy and counter-cultural.  Inglorius Basterds is just a film school excercise. Its not complicated at all. Sometimes QT shows us, as in the very first scene and the marvellous cream on the strudel scene that he has the patience and the discipline to force his audience to work through painful things.  Sometimes he’s just farting in our general direction.

aimai

Comment #53: aimai  on  02/03  at  01:38 PM

Amanda at #48

“I’d also point out that the one real precursor to “Basterds” was probably “Maus”.  In a very different way, of course, but Spiegelman was also trying to say that the war was so terrible that you can only approach it from an absurd angle.”

If that’s the case, then “Slaughterhouse Five” would work too, no?

Comment #54: witless chum  on  02/03  at  01:38 PM

@49

What’s really interesting about that point is that it’s relatively new phenomenon, cinematically speaking. The French Revolution were seen as heroes in most of the earlier WW2 films. They were pretty much critical for most movies in the genre as to do anything exciting your American or British uber hero pretty much required on them for any intel, stealth, or pre-mission preparation and they were often portrayed as chain-smoking bad-asses (and sometimes as a woman too, sometimes even as a woman the main good guy didn’t get to fuck).

I’m not sure when that all changed, but it was probably when the French started giving us more and more lip over trying to use them in a giant chess game against Russia and certainly by Saving Private Ryan, France had been reduced to a passive population of absentees.

But yeah, in the beginning, the French Resistance was seen as bad-asses, probably because they actually lived and did shit that was in the spy movies that were starting to become popular.

Comment #55: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  01:38 PM

Agh, French Resistance, should be French Resistance instead of French Revolution.

Comment #56: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  01:43 PM

aimai, war is obscene… is it appropriate that a war movie be obscene, too?

You have permission to look away. But with all the money and attention that sanitized war gets in movies like Saving Private Ryan, I absolutely applaud Tarantino for building a fecal catapult, loading it with dead babies, and training it squarely on Spielberg’s overrated ass. And while you’re not wrong that it is a film school exercise, it sure is a pretty one.

Comment #57: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  01:46 PM

Speaking of which, if you want to see a WW2/French Resistance movie free of tricks and meta-commentary, then the recently re-released (after 40 years of burial) Army of Shadows by Jean-Pierre Melville is indispensable.

Comment #58: norbizness  on  02/03  at  01:47 PM

This movie seems like something made by someone who plays “Call of Duty” and has decided that he can grapple with the weirdness of making WWII entertainment without hating himself.

I’m glad you mention CoD, because it is a big leap for most people who take war seriously to play that game and not feel guilty about enjoying the experience. The Point du Hoc episode of CoD2 was very reminiscent of the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan (a film I also really liked), the difference being that the latter was something you could only observe with horror (in the case of veterans, sometimes traumatic horror) while the former also allows you a small taste of the additional, visceral intensity of the stress that the Rangers felt on that day (which is, yes, part of the entertainment value of the simulation).

It requires a whole new level a media literacy for someone who’s serious about history to process and accept that kind of historical entertainment without feeling like an exploitative and disrespectful heel, and not many people over age 35 have it naturally. In an odd way, IB serves as a path into that kind of media literacy for people who didn’t grow up with as gamers.

Comment #59: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  01:49 PM

Basterds was a pile of shit.  Not for all the reasons of subverting history or doing something stupid like making Hitler die, but because Tarantino finally failed at creating a movie with quotable lines and memorable dialogue.  It’s why Resevoir Dogs, shot in a single garage for pennies, works, while this pile of crap shot on location for millions, doesn’t. 

The casting was a complete failure - Brad Pitt is horrible enough to be distracting.  The evil german dude is so silly he is no longer evil, unlike Bill or Marcellus Wallace.  The only exception is Diane Kruger - she stands out, and her scenes are enjoyable.  The only really good “dialogue” piece worthy of Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill is the setpiece in the French pub.

Another reason for failure - the absence a single memorable action sequence. 

The final reason for failure - this movie was billed as an “homage” to the 1960’s-70’s movies about WW2 - Tarantino himself said so repeatedly in interviews.  And as a repeated viewer of Kelly’s Heroes, The Great Escape, the Dirty Dozen, there were no homages to these films whatsoever.  He could have taken the hokey 70’s action movies and made them fresh and new, but if that’s what he was going for, he failed.

Comment #60: PeterZeroOne  on  02/03  at  01:50 PM

Best movie of the year:  Mars Attacks!!  No, wait.  That was years ago.  And not very good.  When Democrats Attack!! (hint, it’s every time they [drumroll, the answer is…... ]. No, wait, that’s not a movie, that’s a Fox and Obstructionist Senate projectionist propaganda strategy!

Okay, Avatar. Just for the combination of legit science fiction with illegit fantansy and the incredible job putting it together ant pulling it off.

Comment #61: Check it  on  02/03  at  02:03 PM

Three Kings was nervy and counter-cultural.  Inglorius Basterds is just a film school excercise.

But that’s kind of the point we’re making here:  Three Kings is no more “realistic” than Tarantino’s film.  It was shot in the California desert and an Irishman played the main Iraqi character.  It carries the illusion of realism, but its fictional story doesn’t say anything more profound about war than Tarantino’s fictional story.  In fact, you could argue that it’s less profound because it tries to fool you into thinking you’ve seen something “real.”

You don’t have to like Tarantino—personally, Stanley Kubrick’s films bore me to tears, so even great (or “great”) filmmakers aren’t going to please everyone—but he’s doing more with his films than just assembling random bits.  He’s been making a point about the fictionality of film for years now and this is just the latest example.

Comment #62: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  02:22 PM

Basterds was a pile of shit.  Not for all the reasons of subverting history or doing something stupid like making Hitler die, but because Tarantino finally failed at creating a movie with quotable lines and memorable dialogue.

Some of us don’t want the same exact thing from the same director every time. Creating quotable lines clearly isn’t his priority here—instead he’s doing a weird sort of mood piece.

The casting was a complete failure - Brad Pitt is horrible enough to be distracting.

Pitt was distracting because he’s a movie star, which is sort of the point (even propaganda films, even films that subvert them must have an A- or B-grade star in them by Hollywood ukase).

I’ll agree that other casting decisions were bad—Eli Roth was the wrong choice as the Bear Jew (but since they already had a movie star, I don’t think that the alternate and better choice—Adam Sandler—would have worked, either). And there were so many characters that some interesting ones (e,g, the projectionist, Pitt’s second in command played by BJ Novak) fell by the wayside. But that’s a flaw in all of Tarantino’s flicks (if leaving you wanting more is a flaw).

The evil german dude is so silly he is no longer evil, unlike Bill or Marcellus Wallace.

The “evil German dude” is supposed to be silly, in a darkly humourous way—they have him pull out that ridiculous pipe in the first sequence. So, in different styles befitting the characters, are Bill and Marcellus Wallace—and Winston Wolf (my all-time favourite Tarantino character), for that matter.

Another reason for failure - the absence a single memorable action sequence.

My need for intense thrills was more than satisfied by the sequences in the farmhouse and in Maxim’s. But I understand: you need lots of loud explosions and blood and car chases.

And as a repeated viewer of Kelly’s Heroes, The Great Escape, the Dirty Dozen, there were no homages to these films whatsoever.

I’m more a fan of Great Escape and Dirty Dozen, and there are clear call-outs to both films (Brad Pitt’s speech to his line-up of Jewish desperadoes is almost a direct take on Lee Marvin’s speech to his own group), and the suspicious SS officer who inadvertently trips up an impostor with a cultural ruse is a call-back to the suspicious Gestapo agent’s deliberate use of an English “good luck” wish to catch one of the escapees at the train station.

Comment #63: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  02:37 PM

Just be glad IB got nominated at all.  The best American film of ‘09 didn’t:  Big Fan

Comment #64: baddbob  on  02/03  at  02:40 PM

Thanks for the link to Overthinking It. That is it in a nutshell.

Comment #65: Olivia  on  02/03  at  02:42 PM

In its own way its just a continuation of those things: it deliberately uses women, jews, and others to make a set of rather blunt points.

I don’t know if there’s any other way to make the point that total war (an WWII was the last total war in history) turns everyone into Hobbesian monsters of one sort or another. Nazis? Of course. Men? Brutes! Caucasians? Greedy imperialists—everyone can swallow that. But it sometimes takes an exploitation film (and this is deliberately such) to draw an audience in and make them consider more uncomfortable truths.

Where it was disciplined and focused it was powerful, but where it was campy, self indulgent, and self referential it was just sick.

I think there’s a subjective case to be made for its being unbalanced between those two extremes. But the sequences that are sick and distasteful are deliberately so, just as Mel Brooks was in The Producers or Blazing Saddles or John Waters was in his films. That, too, is nothing new for Tarantino—he revels in bad taste.

Comment #66: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  02:47 PM

I thoroughly enjoyed IB. I was astonished that a movie designed to play in a Peoria movieplex was daring enough to have two-thirds of the running time subtitled.

I agree with all that’s said about the women in the movie. They get all the best lines. And my God, they are sexy.

But I think there’s something even more subversive going on here. Jewish suicide bombers? What is it with that? And a scene in which a Jewish sadist bludgeons an undoubtedly brave German soldier to death with a baseball bat? QT is poking about in some strange places.

And yes, we got to see a whole new Nazi archetype the like of which I’ve never seen on the screen. But certainly it was interesting to see a movie in which the American heroes—for all they they get to assassinate Hitler—are all portrayed as a bunch of vicious, incompetent thugs.

Comment #67: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  02/03  at  02:55 PM

Jewish suicide bombers, yes!  I made this same point to a friend of mine and she seemed to pooh pooh the idea.  But that’s what they were, right?

Comment #68: baddbob  on  02/03  at  03:01 PM

I strongly disagree with the characterization of QT as “using” Jewish and female characters.  I mean, insofar as any story teller is “using” his characters, sure.  But that’s an argument against the existence of representation, storytelling, etc.

QT told a story that interrogated the narrative of WWII that casts American Christians as heroic men of action, and casts French, female, and Jewish characters as passive victims who take no action.  And while the ending is fanciful, the points he raises about stereotypes of Jews in WWII are important—-the Jewish effort in the States is largely ignored in Hollywood propaganda about WWII, as is the critical role the Resistance in France played.  Both are forefronted in this movie, asking us to ask ourselves why older filmmakers marginalize the role that Jewish and Resistance war efforts played. 

The Bear Jew was originally supposed to be played by Adam Sandler.  Eli Roth just couldn’t bring it, which made the character confusing.  But it was an assault, early on in the film, on the emasculating stereotypes of Jewish men that you get in the movies.  And it was in your face, which is QT’s way of doing things.

Comment #69: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  03:06 PM

I watched it a second time on DVD recently and though it’s on screen just a fraction of a second the movie makes it clear the bombs are *still* strapped to the legs of the two Jewish lads in the cinema when they go boom.

Yes, Jewish suicide bombers.

Comment #70: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  02/03  at  03:07 PM

but because Tarantino finally failed at creating a movie with quotable lines and memorable dialogue. 

How very English-language-centric of you.

Comment #71: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  03:09 PM

I don’t think that the alternate and better choice—Adam Sandler—would have worked, either

I think it would have, actually.  It would draw home what the role was supposed to do in terms of interrogating stereotypes of Jewish men in film.

Comment #72: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  03:11 PM

<It sent up their assumptions about how Jewish characters should be in WWII movies, and they were pissed to be called on the carpet like that.  It’s very uncomfortable if you buy the Hollywood narratives about WWII wholesale.  If you’re like me and found “Saving Private Ryan” unbearable, though, “Basterds” spoke straight to you.  If you thought Spielberg was being profound, though, I think “Basterds” could really piss you off. >

It’s unfair to dismiss criticism as just complaints from stodgy Saving Private Ryan fans who want to see Jews looking meek and submissive. I’ve never seen Saving Private Ryan, but I don’t like war movies much anyway so I doubt I would like it. I loved Maus and Slaughterhouse Five and I’m definitely intrigued by Jewish Resistance movies like Defiance.

Like I said before, I think Tarantino loves WWII and propoganda but he takes them seriously in spite of or partially because of their silliness, I can never tell which. Think of scenes with the Bride and Pai Mei on the mountain in Kill Bill. They echo Christopher Waltz’s ridiculous pipe in the opening scene of IB. Both retain absurdist elements that would be in the classic films revered by Tarantino but twist the plot, draw a few fresh characters, imbue scenes with an intense dramatic tension. Was he criticizing martial arts movies in Kill Bill? No, certainly not. Is he criticizing WWII movies with IB? No, I don’t think so either.

I think Tarantino is ultimately very clumsy and careless with what his movies “say.” You can read into is as some sort of critique on the passive portrayal of Jews, on Israel’s human rights abuses in Palestine, on “unrealistic” masturbatory American WWII films but I don’t buy any of it. To me, it’s just a modern propaganda film on steroids. The scary thing is that it is effective at being a propaganda film. I’ve heard stories of audiences cheering when Hitler’s body is being turned into a bloody pulp. These people aren’t questioning the idea of an American-led Jewish Resistance. It’s all just good fun. If they can walk out of the theater and recognize it as a Jewish Revenge Fantasy, they are well ahead of the curve.

Comment #73: soupcon  on  02/03  at  03:18 PM

I think it would have, actually.  It would draw home what the role was supposed to do in terms of interrogating stereotypes of Jewish men in film.

It definitely would have worked in that way, but it would have also been one movie star too many. I suppose if they had replaced Aldo Raynes with some variation of The Bear Jew as the leader of the Basterds, Sandler would have worked in the absence of Pitt or another star. But it’s clear that Tarantino also wanted to mess with the “handsome white Christian” leading man type from those WWII movies, so he instead relied on the Basterds ensemble to hit the Jewish stereotypes. The problem there was that he gave too much attention to The Bear Jew, who was played by the wrong actor, and not enough attention to the others.

There are few directors that can handle a multitude of characters gracefully. Altman was the master of that, and Tarantino is more hit (e.g. Pulp Fiction) and miss.

Comment #74: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  03:22 PM

To me, it’s just a modern propaganda film on steroids.

A minute ago you were quoting reviews complaining that it’s a movie about movies and now you’re complaining that it’s just a steroidal exploitation movie so you should really probably decide what your opinion is before you continue going on about it.

Comment #75: Dan  on  02/03  at  03:28 PM

I thought Eli Roth did a great job… Adam Sandler would have been good, too, but I think the character came through. There wasn’t a person there anymore. His anger has completely burned out his humanity.

I spent a lot of time sorting out a possible Israel/Palestine commentary here, and I don’t think Tarantino was trying to make one. (Or made one inadvertently, either.) He’s creating monsters everywhere… American, Jewish, Nazi. I especially like the head-fake of Landa, perfectly capturing just how sneaky and charming evil can be… and then the mask slips with the rape/murder of Kruger, and you see just as much ugly underneath all his smiling.

Go rewatch Grand Illusion—it is streaming on Netflix. I felt like this trans-national sentiment was the same (if inverse—bad guys instead of good guys), and equally anti-war.

Comment #76: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  03:29 PM

I see absolutely no evidence that QT is “clumsy”.  He’s loud, and I think you mix up the two, soupcon—-and I do think there’s an argument to be made that Hollywood wants its victims to act like total victims, as if fighting back (unless you’re a Midwestern white dude) somehow makes victims less sympathetic. 

But sloppy?  Not even.  From the beginning, he doesn’t hide the intention.  The cliche American WWII film—-of which Saving Private Ryan was a straight homage to—-is of a small troop with one Jewish soldier.  This unintentionally marginalizes the importance of the American Jewish effort in WWII.  In this movie, there’s only one soldier in the hearty band that isn’t Jewish, and he’s the send-up of the Hollywood stereotypes of the brave American soldiers. 

Gracchus, agreed that he didn’t pay enough attention to the others.  It’s unbelievable, but it’s like the movie could have been a half hour longer, easy.  But he wasn’t going to push it.

Comment #77: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  03:30 PM

Also

I’ve heard stories of audiences cheering when Hitler’s body is being turned into a bloody pulp.

literally everyone who sees the movie does this, and then they leave the theater and someone says “hey remember that scene where all the Nazis were cheering at this one guy shooting Allied guys into bloody pulp” and everybody goes “ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh”.

Comment #78: Dan  on  02/03  at  03:31 PM

I’m with Cerberus and Sujal, stonebiscuit and others.  I just don’t get the allure of Basterds.  There was certainly some great acting, in places, but the overall effort was, as my mother put it, “stupid.”

I really liked The Hurt Locker, which is surprising because I usually don’t like most war movies.  Not because I object to the violence—I love action.  But because most modern war pics are chuck full of jingoism or angsty-pangsty “War is Hell, but, ain’t it also, wink, wink, glorious?” bullshit.  The Hurt Locker, directed by a woman, was a great character study in the context of war.

District 9 was great, but I’m a fan of Sci-fi and fantasy.  As was Up.

I’ve haven’t seen The Blind Side and don’t want to.  I get the impression it’s just a trite exercise in overly contrived sentimentality.

Comment #79: adobedragon  on  02/03  at  03:32 PM

@47- hell yes on Kelly’s Heroes.  Will always be one of my favorite WWII movies.  But then, I was also such a huge fan of Catch-22 (the book) that the movie was a letdown when I finally saw it, so go figure.  There’s just so much room for takedowns of pure jingoism in the genre.  Any cow that sacred makes itself a perfect target.

WRT Jewish anti-nazi violence… There’s always Defiance: Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber as partisans in 1942 Poland.  One of the more “takes itself very seriously” WWII movies, but also one of the more historically accurate too.  Fairly unvarnished look (albeit somewhat psychodrama’d up) at a part of the war not as widely covered by Hollywood, despite all the holocaust fetishism they otherwise display.

Comment #80: jamie d  on  02/03  at  03:32 PM

I spent a lot of time sorting out a possible Israel/Palestine commentary here, and I don’t think Tarantino was trying to make one.

Agreed.  His universe was WWII movies, not history itself.  He’s interrogating stereotypes and ideas that are self-serving to a very specific image Americans want to portray.  And one that was used to justify invading Iraq, I’ll add.

Comment #81: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  03:34 PM

District 9 won’t win. As amazing, and moving and complex it was, it’s still sci-fi.

Comment #82: lemur  on  02/03  at  03:39 PM

I haven’t seen it yet because I always fall alseep after I wrestle the kids into bed.  The Blu-Ray just sits there, taunting me.

Comment #83: lonespark  on  02/03  at  03:40 PM

Like I said before, I think Tarantino loves WWII and propoganda but he takes them seriously in spite of or partially because of their silliness, I can never tell which.

He takes WWII propaganda (from both sides) seriously because he seems to understand the absolute horror underpinning it. He’s not so much criticising those movies as he is recognising them for what they are, and the context in which they were made. And sometimes the only appropriate response to that horror is laughter.

The thing I find interesting about Tarantino is that he presents himself as a grating, flighty, thoughtless guy who only cares about film for film’s sake. But it’s become more and more evident that he puts a lot of serious, almost scholarly thought into his scripts and their visual realisation.

These people aren’t questioning the idea of an American-led Jewish Resistance. It’s all just good fun. If they can walk out of the theater and recognize it as a Jewish Revenge Fantasy, they are well ahead of the curve.

Of course people are gonna cheer when a Nazi gets his horrible comeuppance, and it’s especially rare to see Hitler get it in a movie because he didn’t in real life. But that’s not the full picture.

I guess people can walk out and see the Bear Jew or the Basterds as a heroes, just as people could walk out of The Dirty Dozen looking at the Telly Savalas character as a hero. It sort of misses the point, but it happens.

Comment #84: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  03:46 PM

I haven’t seen IB, so can’t comment, but I just wanted to say that anyone who calls themselves a film fan and a feminist should immediately click over to the Overthinking It piece.  Spot on.

Comment #85: Katherine  on  02/03  at  03:48 PM

The “evil German dude” is supposed to be silly, in a darkly humourous way—they have him pull out that ridiculous pipe in the first sequence.

Watch the original version of To Be or Not To Be sometime (not the Mel Brooks remake)—it’s also on Netflix streaming.  Lubitsch manages to pull a perfect balance of menace and comedy out of his actors, especially with the character of “Concentration Camp” Ehrhardt.  Given Tarantino’s deep knowledge of film, I don’t think I was wrong to see some echoes of the comedy/horror push/pull of TBoNTB in Basterds.  (Not to mention the climax taking place at a theater, though it was live theater in this case.)

Comment #86: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  03:50 PM

Kelly’s Heroes is my favorite WWII movie; but Big Red 1, Tora Tora Tora and a couple of others were better films.  Better films doesn’t mean to my taste.
My point was that Dist 9 wasn’t subtle, hence the “(!!!)”.  It is not from a US point of view.  You do not get it, Amanda; you just don’t.
Plus, metafiction as movie is just stupid, pointless outside the industry.  It is not great film for anyone outside of filmmaking or those who play with its tropes.  Setting up IB as a great film when that was what it was just rubs wrong.

Comment #87: helen w. h.  on  02/03  at  03:51 PM

Ooh, one of my favorite topics: hating on QT.

I give Tarantino major props as a stylist, but I find the whole notion of his so-called subversiveness pretty inflated. He’s clearly a talented filmmaker, but he cares far, far too much about appropriating elements from other movies and paying homage to his favorite whatevers to make anything that’s actually interesting to watch. That’s different from entertaining, by the way. Pulp Fiction was a load of laughs and Reservoir Dogs certainly has its moments, but that’s all they are: laughs and moments. Tarantino’s movies are second-rate works of art trying to pass for first-rate, and I don’t buy it. I just don’t think that mere “subversiveness” that involves standing a genre on its head is really all that interesting or meaningful when your parody basically ends up looking a lot like the original.

As far as Inglorious Basterds is concerned, I have not seen the movie. However, I will say two things about it. First of all, just because other filmmakers have made shitty movies about Jews during WWII doesn’t mean that the proper response is to make a parody of those movies. If Tarantino had really wanted to set the record straight, he could have made an honest movie about those experiences which he thinks were overlooked, but I think he simply lacks the depth to do that. Second, if so many films depict Jews as passive victims of the Holocaust, it’s because that’s actually a historically accurate picture of what happened. Outside of some very isolated pockets of resistance, European Jews were rounded up like cattle and slaughtered. There’s a reason that the Holocaust is the paradigmatic example of genocide, and it has nothing at all to do with American aid to Israel and everything to do with the reality of the situation.

Speaking strictly for myself, as a Soviet-born Jew whose grandfathers fought in (and luckily both survived) World War II, I find the notion of appropriating the historical substance of genocidal atrocity for the purpose of making something allegedly subversive to be pretty offensive. If I ever get around to watching IB, I’m going to end up doing so with a jaundiced view; I can’t help that. I think if Tarantino had really wanted to make a movie about Jews during World War II, there were plenty of unconventional avenues for him to do so, but I doubt that’s what he was interested in. From everything I’ve read about IB, it sounds to me like he just wanted to make a fantasy that tangentially involved Jews and Nazis as props. Sorry, I can’t really get behind that.

Comment #88: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  03:53 PM

District 9 won’t win. As amazing, and moving and complex it was, it’s still sci-fi.

Agreed. And more specifically, a certain kind of SF—gritty, relatively low-budget, conflicted protagonist (played by a goofy-looking dude), with an original story that is trying to convey a complex and uncomfortable message. I’m amazed it got nominated, even in the expanded category.

If you want sci-fi that has a good chance of winning, Avatar fits the average Academy voter’s idea of what good sci-fi should be: slick, big-budget, heavy with ground-breaking SFX, heroic protagonist (preferably played by a handsome stud), with a hackneyed story that is trying to convey simple and inoffensive (nature-hating wingnut pundits excluded) message.

That’s why it’ll probably win, although I’m hoping that the other real contender (The Hurt Locker) wins, while Avatar gets Director, Art Direction,  and various FX awards, all of which would be well-deserved.

Comment #89: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  03:57 PM

I haven’t seen anyone point out that Nation’s Pride, the film within the film, is itself a peerless hyperbole of war and action films… guys getting shot, one after the other, without plot or dialog. And the nazi-packed theater eats up the brainless garbage. It felt, to me, like Tarantino brought his own audience into the movie, and reducing them, too, into monsters. Anyone else get that feeling?

Anyway, the “film within the film” is apparently a bonus feature on the DVD, so Basterds would still probably be a good birthday present for soupcon.

Comment #90: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  03:57 PM

Lubitsch manages to pull a perfect balance of menace and comedy out of his actors, especially with the character of “Concentration Camp” Ehrhardt.

It’s a fantastic movie. And thanks for reminding me about the name—now I know why I found “The Jew Hunter” such a silly nickname. Who the heck would be happy to be addressed with those names except a violent psychopath?

Comment #91: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  04:00 PM

The thing I find interesting about Tarantino is that he presents himself as a grating, flighty, thoughtless guy who only cares about film for film’s sake. But it’s become more and more evident that he puts a lot of serious, almost scholarly thought into his scripts and their visual realisation.

A whole lot of people who hate on him seem to be reacting more to his public persona than his work. I wonder if that bothers him, or if he just thinks it’s a big joke.  I do like that he makes people feel stupid for thinking they’re righteous for sitting through boring ass movies that Say Something.

Comment #92: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:01 PM

These people aren’t questioning the idea of an American-led Jewish Resistance. It’s all just good fun. If they can walk out of the theater and recognize it as a Jewish Revenge Fantasy, they are well ahead of the curve.

In general, I find “what about what the morons think?!” arguments to be unconvincing.  Who gives a shit?  What the morons think is important when crafting a public service ad.  We’re having a grown-up discussion about art, though.

Comment #93: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:04 PM

so what? the entire world of WWII movies isn’t defined or encapsulated by Spielberg

You know that and I know that, but IME not many North Americans of a certain generation do, and I think QT is subtly digging at that and exposing a kind of cultural victimization. Their idea of cinema—their Gold Standard—is American studio filmmaking. It’s really incredible how “the movies” stop and start with the Oscar list for a lot of folk. That’s kind of how the nationalistic machine works—Tarantino underscores this very issue when Shoshana mentions that she’s being forced by the occupiers to screen Pabst/Fanck films at her cinema (when clearly she’s got more eclectic taste in movies, like Tarantino himself—not that I don’t absolutely love Holy Mountain).  When I say that most Americans know next to nothing about film beyond that made in the States (with maybe a handful of big-name foreign classics thrown in), I say that as a hit at the machine that gives them such narrow options, not at viewers personally; you have to make an effort to see a Wajda film if you live on these shores, and good luck if you live outside a big city.* Mainstreaming is a sort of indoctrinization. It’s hard for a film geek not to read it that way. Obviously mileage varies, but that’s one of the reasons the movie works for some of us.

*Streaming is slowly changing this, thankfully.

Comment #94: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  04:04 PM

You do not get it, Amanda; you just don’t.

I think I do.  I think it was a great action flick, with interesting political notes.  Judged from that perspective, I give it an A+.  Judged the way people expect me to, as revealing something about racism, I’m afraid it was a B-.  It wasn’t “Crash”, but it didn’t make me think very hard.  Marc and I rehash movies to death, and we’d finished up with talking about the politics of that movie in 5 minutes.  Talked more about the acting, actually.

Comment #95: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:06 PM

Jerry, your comment is an exercise in the dangers of acting knowledgeable about something you don’t know anything about.

Comment #96: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:07 PM

Ugh, ugh, ugh. I liked nothing about Basterds, starting with the silly-ass spelling of its title. World War II is an important slice of history that shouldn’t be fucked around with, especially by a nihilist like Tarantino, who seems to care about nothing but movies.

I’ve come to despise what I think of as Violence Nerds—-filmmakers like QT and writers like John Irving—-who pile on violence witlessly and gratuitously. These guys play with their characters like bored cats with mice, seeking ever more kinky ways to devour them.

Comment #97: Bitter Scribe  on  02/03  at  04:08 PM

Amanda, fair enough. I have seen all of Tarantino’s other movies except Grindhouse, so I wouldn’t say that I’m speaking without knowledge about his other stuff. As far as IB is concerned, I have acknowledged that I haven’t seen it and am basing my response on things I have read. If I’m wrong about that, I’ll be happy to admit it when I see the film.

Comment #98: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  04:10 PM

Bitter, if you think QT is a “nihilist”, I’m afraid you’re right in the category of people who are annoyed by the man and don’t even pay attention to the art.  If you weren’t going to like it, why’d you see it?  I never understand that.  If I’m unduly prejudiced against something, I try to know that about myself and just avoid engaging it or speaking on it.

Comment #99: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:11 PM

Well, Jerry, you assumed it was a straight parody, which is a profound misunderstanding of the post-modernist territory QT is mining in this movie and others.

Comment #100: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:12 PM

First of all, just because other filmmakers have made shitty movies about Jews during WWII doesn’t mean that the proper response is to make a parody of those movies.

I don’t think anyone’s saying that Tarantino is parodying Schindler’s List or even Private Ryan. Amanda’s just discussing the lazy stereotypes that Hollywood engages in when the topic of Jews during WWII comes up.

Second, if so many films depict Jews as passive victims of the Holocaust, it’s because that’s actually a historically accurate picture of what happened.

Subverting that lazy depiction of Jews is not the central theme of what is an explicitly counter-factual film (Hitler and his fellow criminals are all killed prior to 1944 in this movie). In large part it’s a commentary (but not quite a parody) on 50 years of the depiction of WWII as a whole in the movies—movies which for the most part didn’t accord those who fought, died and suffered much respect, either, mainly because they don’t acknowledge the real effects that total war can have on any human.

Speaking strictly for myself, as a Soviet-born Jew whose grandfathers fought in (and luckily both survived) World War II, I find the notion of appropriating the historical substance of genocidal atrocity for the purpose of making something allegedly subversive to be pretty offensive.

I can respect that view—it also goes to what I was discussing in #60, above. But again, this movie explicitly has little to do with real WWII history, and a lot to do with movie history.

Comment #101: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  04:13 PM

If you weren’t going to like it, why’d you see it?  I never understand that.

For the same reason I saw Avatar: The movie I wanted to see was sold out, and I didn’t feel like waiting for the next show.

Comment #102: Bitter Scribe  on  02/03  at  04:17 PM

World War II is an important slice of history that shouldn’t be fucked around with

That’s exactly what Tarantino is saying about how the movies have treated WWII.

Comment #103: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  04:17 PM

Second, if so many films depict Jews as passive victims of the Holocaust, it’s because that’s actually a historically accurate picture of what happened.

They were victims, and no one disputes that.  But the Allies won the war, and they did it with a whole lot of help from Jewish soldiers and Jews working on the homefront.  And I wouldn’t say that Jewish Europeans just rolled over and took it, either.  Here’s an example mentioned above.

It’s easy to portray victims of horrible crimes as very passive, but it’s also lazy and dehumanizing in many cases.  Done enough, it implies that people who aren’t passive are somehow less victimized. You definitely see this in fictional portrayals of rape and domestic violence—-filmmakers are scared to death to show the reality that many women fight back and hard, for fear that they’ll seem unsympathetic.  As an example that this discussion really reminds me of.

I think the appropriation thing is a criticism I can’t really say one thing about or another.  Appropriation is sometimes clear-cut, sometimes not.  In this case, I fall into the camp that says this movie is more about other movies that use this war to entertain, and what that means.

Comment #104: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:22 PM

I didn’t mean to give the impression of assuming that it was straight parody. If I did so, that’s surely the consequence of a poor phrasing on my part. But I do think that parodic sendups are Tarantino’s bread and butter; it’s what ultimately ends up framing his movies, one way or the other. I mean, let’s move away from Inglorious Basterds for a second and go back to something like Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs. What “postmodern territory” is being mined in those movies? Maybe we just have divergent interpretations of postmodernism (which would be pretty postmodern in itself, I guess), but I’m not seeing a whole lot of it in either of those movies. Or take the Kill Bill saga; ok, I get that it’s interesting to have a bad-ass female character, but you can do that without squandering Thurman’s talents on a ridiculous storyline whose only purpose seems to be to show us how much you know about ‘70s martial arts films.

In the end, Tarantino will make the movies he makes, and some people will like them and some people won’t. I think there’s plenty of room to have legitimate disagreements about the aesthetic worth of his work; to me, everything I’ve seen of his work (with the exception of Jackie Brown, which I think is his best movie) rings very hollow on a human level.

Comment #105: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  04:24 PM

I’m referencing the postmodernism that’s about exploring forms in a meta-fashion, art that’s commentary on itself and other art as much as about the supposed subject matter.  “Kill Bill” is a martial arts movie, but it’s one about martial arts movies.  “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” tackle gangster movies, by basically removing the last tendril that held gangster movies to reality, and spinning off into a fantasy, thereby implicating all other gangster movies, such as Scorsese’s, as less gritty and more fantastical than they are usually seen. 

“Basterds” is about WWII movies and some fundamental dishonesties in them that make them propagandistic—-and it addresses this concern without minimizing the Allies’ bravery or the rightness of the cause.  In fact, one thing QT lays waste to is this new trend of sympathetic Nazi movies like “The Reader”, and reminds you that these people were just fucking evil.  There’s a real problem in the way Americans make movies about WWII, which is that it’s more about establishing American exceptionalism than anything else, and therefore things like the French Resistance or the Jewish-American effort are marginalized in service of that goal.  By centering these roles, and by rewriting history, QT is asking you point blank to ask yourself how much you believe about WWII is real, and how much is Hollywood.  And why is it so hard to know the difference? Part of the reason is movies like “Saving Private Ryan” that engage the lie of realism in fiction to conceal some parts of the story they aren’t telling you.

Comment #106: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:31 PM

World War II is an important slice of history that shouldn’t be fucked around with

That’s exactly what Tarantino is saying about how the movies have treated WWII.

That’s also why I mentioned Defiance earlier.  If you want a serious, realistic, nuanced, based-on-history examination of Jewish resistance and experience during the war, look there rather than at Tarantino.  Or, as others had mentioned, any number of movies from the long career of Andrzej Wajda (Kanal, Samson, Landscape After Battle, etc).  Serious depictions of serious people in serious situations. IB is a totally different kind of movie.  It’s less about WWII itself than about our popular imagination of WWII

Comment #107: jamie d  on  02/03  at  04:31 PM

But I do think that parodic sendups are Tarantino’s bread and butter

I don’t know if “parody” is the right word to describe what he does. “Send-up” gets closer, but they’re not send-ups for the sake of cheap laughs—they seem to serve a great purpose. If I can find any common theme in his movies, it’s general exploration of (to use pretentious capitalisation) the American Audience’s interaction with Films—especially violent ones populated with psychopaths.

I will agree that his stuff isn’t to everyone’s taste, but most black comedy isn’t.

Comment #108: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  04:34 PM

They were victims, and no one disputes that.  But the Allies won the war, and they did it with a whole lot of help from Jewish soldiers and Jews working on the homefront.  And I wouldn’t say that Jewish Europeans just rolled over and took it, either.  Here’s an example mentioned above.

I know about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. And I would be the last to deny the contributions of Jewish soldiers to the war effort (although, while we’re on this topic: why limit oneself to the American front? What about Jewish soldiers who fought in the Soviet armies? That seems to me to be a far more compelling movie topic, simply because you had there an example of Jews in the service of an almost explicitly anti-Semitic government that shortly after the war come up with contingency plans to deport most of them.)

It’s easy to portray victims of horrible crimes as very passive, but it’s also lazy and dehumanizing in many cases.  Done enough, it implies that people who aren’t passive are somehow less victimized. You definitely see this in fictional portrayals of rape and domestic violence—-filmmakers are scared to death to show the reality that many women fight back and hard, for fear that they’ll seem unsympathetic.  As an example that this discussion really reminds me of.

I certainly agree with you there.

Gracchus,

Subverting that lazy depiction of Jews is not the central theme of what is an explicitly counter-factual film (Hitler and his fellow criminals are all killed prior to 1944 in this movie). In large part it’s a commentary (but not quite a parody) on 50 years of the depiction of WWII as a whole in the movies—movies which for the most part didn’t accord those who fought, died and suffered much respect, either, mainly because they don’t acknowledge the real effects that total war can have on any human.

Maybe this is the aesthetic difference I was talking about earlier. I don’t find movies about movies particularly compelling. I’m not saying that realism is the be-all and end-all of film; there are plenty of non-realist films that I’ve greatly enjoyed. But my total impression of QT’s work is that it’s big on movie erudition and short on human emotion, and that’s why to me, he’s not nearly as interesting a director as he could be.

Comment #109: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  04:35 PM

“but because Tarantino finally failed at creating a movie with quotable lines and memorable dialogue. 

How very English-language-centric of you. “

Yeah, well the portion of the audience that speaks fluent French, German, and English, and is culturally fluent enough to understand the nuances of dialogue in all three, maybe they had a great time.  Assuming Tarantino directed and wrote the French and German bits properly.  He didn’t need to do that shit.  He could have just done obnoxious fake German and French accents, if he was going for a Great Escape redux.  It would have worked and the dialogues would have been better.  I mean, what’s the point of going for authenticity when the conclusion is that the war ends in 1944? 

“QT told a story that interrogated the narrative of WWII that casts American Christians as heroic men of action, and casts French, female, and Jewish characters as passive victims who take no action.  “

The role of the French in the war was marginal, and the Resitance wasn’t as important as people think.  It has been said that “after the war, everyone was in the Resistance” - its’ importance and relevance is itself a construct.  Women were important to the war effort, toiling in the factories, not setting up terrorist operations in high heels and red dresses.

Comment #110: PeterZeroOne  on  02/03  at  04:39 PM

I think movies about movies are extremely necessary, because Americans’ view of ourselves is tied up in the movies to a degree that’s hard to get away from.  Hollywood writes the history most people know, and that’s probably a more profound and interesting topic than making another movie going over the historical turf a million movies before have gone over.  (I will say that I don’t think QT is writing off movies he sends up, just asks hard questions.)  What a gangster is, what a soldier is, what a hero is—-movies tell us more than our reality.

What was the most common thing people said about 9/11, after all? “It was like watching a movie, but it was real.”

I think that’s the issue QT’s tackling, and the references to how Hollywood gets history wrong are a small but interesting part of that.

Comment #111: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:40 PM

Missing the point, Peter.  He’s talking in cinematic language, not making direct references to reality.  Which would be stupid, since “realism” is exactly the flawed narrative he’s criticizing.

Comment #112: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:41 PM

Well I might be an oddity because I hate QT, but that’s because I dislike his art and not because I’ve gone in hating each movie. I’ve tried for every single movie to like his movies, especially as people such as my partner have loved many of them. I tell myself I’m missing something or this one will be good or something else and for IB I really tried my hardest. I heard all the great takedowns of what it was doing and psyched myself up for seeing that and tried desperately to focus on those aspects as much as I could or at least enjoy it for what it was doing for the process and yeah, still ended up hating it and barely being able to limp through it.

And I don’t know what his persona is so I’m not even fixated on him as a person. If it’s anything like his movies he’s a sincere movie lover and someone who is genuinely trying throughout or at least thinks he’s trying which is commendable I guess. Nor am I one who is allergic to postmodernism. Pretty close to my favorite writer in comics is Grant Morrison mostly for his post-modernist epic The Invincibles, and various one-off graphic novels like We3. And I fucking love Adaptation and American Splendor.

But QT rubs me the wrong way, though I recognize this as the best and most complex version of “what he’s doing” so since it is inevitable that he will be this era’s entrant in the “Great Directors” hall of fame, winning for this will at least make sense and be as you said a departure from recognizing other “Great Directors” after they’d existed the best part of their careers.

A lot of it is draining the medium’s he is devoting himself to of the quirks and charms and subversiveness by if doing anything, maybe a light cosmetic change or removing its still beating heart. Especially when he’s doing something separated by decades he should honor those that are subversive or doing something interesting per the era and update and expand upon it or at least not suck so bad skating by on giving a giant handjob to the soft spots for ultraviolence and deep cultural nihilism of the last few generations.

But then that’s me and I recognize that I’m in a minority, though not apparently as small of a minority in my age group that I was expecting, which is why I tried more than once to like one of his movies.

They’re definitely a hit with my generation though and he is definitely one of the few directors that is genuinely creating something wholly new (the only other one I can think of who’s trying to make things as radical artistically is probably Wes Anderson or maybe Charlie Kaufman, though I think Jamie Babbit is the best current youngish director). I just wish watching them wasn’t always like a root canal on the part of my soul that used to house joy.

And second on you missing the point of District 9. It happens. No big whoop.

Comment #113: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  04:43 PM

I’m told I’m missing the point, but what point am I missing?  Perhaps if I was led to water, I could drink.  I heard over and over about how it was profound, but I found the idea that someone can be different and still basically “human” to be obvious.

Comment #114: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  04:45 PM

But my total impression of QT’s work is that it’s big on movie erudition and short on human emotion, and that’s why to me, he’s not nearly as interesting a director as he could be.

This is the great mystery of subjectivity, and thanks for inserting that “to me” qualifer, which makes it a fair enough statement. 

I’ve heard both Kubrick and Tarantino accused of being “short of human emotion” or “emotionally cold” as filmmakers, but I hope those folks accept that there are legions of us who do experience visceral emotional reactions to the works of those same filmmakers, and spy a fully emotional world onscreen. In IB’s case, I was rent up inside for both the French farmer at the start, and for Shoshana throughout the film.

Comment #115: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  04:46 PM

I’m sorry if I’m being too persistent in this discussion; it’s just touched a nerve with me (and I’m also trying to avoid working).

I’m referencing the postmodernism that’s about exploring forms in a meta-fashion, art that’s commentary on itself and other art as much as about the supposed subject matter.  “Kill Bill” is a martial arts movie, but it’s one about martial arts movies.  “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” tackle gangster movies, by basically removing the last tendril that held gangster movies to reality, and spinning off into a fantasy, thereby implicating all other gangster movies, such as Scorsese’s, as less gritty and more fantastical than they are usually seen.

Ok, of course those are movies that explore their genres in a meta-fashion. My point is that I don’t think those movies do what you claim they do. Watching “Pulp Fiction,” or “Reservoir Dogs,” doesn’t affect my experience of watching “The Godfather,” because the latter is an attempt (whether successful or not is debatable, but a serious attempt) to explore the lives of gangsters as people. And “Reservoir Dogs,” is an attempt to explore movies about gangsters; it clearly succeeds on that meta-level, but where it fails, for me, is at the level of depicting anything interesting about people.

By the way, let me just reiterate that I actually enjoyed “Reservoir Dogs,” and “Pulp Fiction,” and “Kill Bill,” (but only part 1), and that I think Tarantino is a talented dude. I just don’t buy into his project.

“Basterds” is about WWII movies and some fundamental dishonesties in them that make them propagandistic—-and it addresses this concern without minimizing the Allies’ bravery or the rightness of the cause.  In fact, one thing QT lays waste to is this new trend of sympathetic Nazi movies like “The Reader”, and reminds you that these people were just fucking evil.

Well, some of them were and some of them weren’t. We were talking earlier about the danger of dehumanizing victims by depicting them as passive; what about the danger of dehumanizing the perpetrators themselves by assigning to them some kind of essentialist qualities instead of examining the circumstances that brought them to where they ended up being? Isn’t that actually a problem in our political discourse today when it comes to terrorism? The only acceptable line is that “these guys are evil,” and not “they may actually have complex motives for what they’re doing.” I actually think an interesting movie about Nazis (and I have no idea whether “The Reader” is such a movie, since I haven’t seen it) would be a movie that examined them as people and not as paper cutouts. Speaking of which, I recently watched a movie like that: it’s Bertolucci’s “The Conformist,” which I think is one of the best movies made about fascists.

There’s a real problem in the way Americans make movies about WWII, which is that it’s more about establishing American exceptionalism than anything else, and therefore things like the French Resistance or the Jewish-American effort are marginalized in service of that goal.  By centering these roles, and by rewriting history, QT is asking you point blank to ask yourself how much you believe about WWII is real, and how much is Hollywood.  And why is it so hard to know the difference? Part of the reason is movies like “Saving Private Ryan” that engage the lie of realism in fiction to conceal some parts of the story they aren’t telling you.

Maybe I’m just coming from the wrong place here; I don’t watch Hollywood movies (including “Saving Private Ryan”) about World War II. I don’t need to. So I never ask myself about how much of what I know about it comes from movies because the answer for me is zero. As I pointed out above, I think the subject of Jewish soldiers fighting for the USSR would be much more innovative, and is something that is actually ignored in virtually every portrayal of the war that I’m familiar with. That’s an interesting topic and I really wish someone would tackle it.

Comment #116: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  04:52 PM

Maybe this is the aesthetic difference I was talking about earlier. I don’t find movies about movies particularly compelling.

Then it’s understandable that you wouldn’t enjoy Tarantino. For the record, I like well-made, technically realistic films like Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, too. I don’t think they’re particularly lazy or stereotypical, but there’s not a great degree of nuance concerning the characters, either (though even a small degree is a lot more than you get in most Hollywood films).

And whether it’s Tarantino or Spielberg, what impresses me is an attempt to get at one aspect or another of the truth and nature of the conflict. Spielberg focuses on technical realism and human emotion (or the outsized, cathartic movie version thereof, which I do enjoy). Tarantino tries (and succeeds) in getting at the true nature of the conflict by undermining the bogus portrayals. Other directors of fiction films take other approaches, and documentarians still others. The more the better, in my view.

If subtle and realistic human emotions are your thing, by the way, a couple of performances are worth noting in this movie. They’re in the sequences at the farmhouse and Maxim’s that I mentioned above, with both actors playing off Walz’s relentless Nazi. I give the actors primary credit for those performances, which really are something to see, but I also give Tarantino credit as a director for letting them happen.

Comment #117: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  04:54 PM

*groan* Godfather does NOT “explore the lives of gangsters as people,” Jerry. At all.

It is a political thriller set in an entirely contrived fantasy about gangsters. That world doesn’t exist, never existed, and has more to do with a mildly racist study of mediterranean patron-client relationships than with the lives of criminals—or real people, for that matter.

You somehow manage to discredit yourself more at #117 than by starting a long winded comment with, “I didn’t see it, but I have some thoughts…” Okay, you don’t see art as a dialog between artists, and your perspective is entirely static. Here is a bit of string. Go nuts.

Comment #118: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:05 PM

Amanda, short list.

How to manufacture racism, the history of manufacturing an underclass, the commonality to every racism on the planet, paternalism from aid workers and academics, open hostility from ground forces, a seven second segment on “capos” that form in every marginalized group, how first world nations and powerful people as well as petty charaltans working from religious or psuedo-religious origins drain the real wealth of a nation and give back worthless shit, how dominant groups train people into the slum mentality, an exaggerated portrait of the slum mentality, the banality of evil and how good people can be trained in really racist systems to conduct and facilitate horrors, the slow creep over time, our inherent distaste for the other deconstructing the traditional alien story (for the postmodernist crew that gushes over QTs work, it was partially a postmodern note on the traditional alien story where ugly equals feral shoot to kill, cute means its giving you magical powers), how passive racism works and how racist systems perpetuate this, how media portrayals manipulate public opinion, how the powerful manipulate the shallowness of media in their favor, how quick people are to buy into racism in the media if it fits their preconceptions, the rise of gangs in poor urban environments, oh yeah apartheid and a bunch of african exploitation stuff, some stuff about how dehumanization of an easily hated other leads itself naturally to vile acts, and a bunch of the more obvious statements about the inherent humanness.

One of the most powerful I thought was the wholesale replacement of aliens over black urbans or various other marginalized groups to best show Wire style in quick segments what these systems do to the people on both sides, where the dominant group gets to pat itself on the back for how much better they are while profiting off their exploitation and the repressed group ends up so focused on basic survival or quick schemes to get rich or get props that they cannot foresee either a genuine revolution or simply another way of living one’s life.

Just saying it was “aliens are people too” is to miss that the real point it was showing wasn’t the “oh, they are just like us, so unforeseen twist,” but demonstrating with slide shows how a bunch of people who aren’t genocidal maniacs can get to a place where there is overwhelming support for things like the War on a class of people who happen to use Drugs or on blaming blacks for the slums they live in that were carefully created by impoverishing real wealth and blocking possibilities for advancement.

It wasn’t a film just about army general’s obvious racism, it was about the subtle racism that infected not only the main character, but everyone. It was one of the best movie dissections of the systemic nature of racism rather than making it just about “mean people who are no longer around did bad terrible things that we now never do or support”.

Comment #119: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  05:07 PM

District 9 was a kind of intellectual gore porn. It holds up something horrible about ourselves and doesn’t let you look away. That isn’t exactly complicated, but it is definitely uncomfortable, and was a lot of fun to be exposed to, given the bubblegum bullshit that has infected scifi (Avatar).

Torchwood: Children of Earth, actually does exactly what District 9 did, but did it better. There, at least, you have a non-cartoon villain make a sober, persuasive argument in favor of eugenics. You have child murder being the correct solution to an impossible problem. District 9… uh, ally with the aliens against the soldiers. Pretty straight forward.

And against the depraved, hoo-doo savages. I’ve defended District 9 a lot (I loved it), but that was indefensible.

Comment #120: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:11 PM

I don’t think those movies do what you claim they do. Watching “Pulp Fiction,” or “Reservoir Dogs,” doesn’t affect my experience of watching “The Godfather,” because the latter is an attempt (whether successful or not is debatable, but a serious attempt) to explore the lives of gangsters as people.

It changed GF for me. Not for the worse—I’m not talking value statements, necessarily—but the former had an effect in how I now view latter.  I gotta side with TS Eliot on this one, who posited that new works of art often forever change how we (a general we) perceive works of art from the past.  They can also affect our perception of future works—GF gives PF and RS added punch, for me.  And look at how This Is Spinal Tap compromised Anvil decades before Anvil was made. Anvil IMO is an ok little documentary, but it can never be a great one because of a much greater mockumentary… In short, I’m not one who can watch or read a narrative in a vacuum—lost that ability, somehow. I think many filmmakers and writers kind of bank on there being a critical mass of people like me.

We disagree on a lot about aesthetic reception theory, but we can certainly shake hands over the glory that is The Conformist, and over our mutually non-productive workdays.

Comment #121: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  05:14 PM

119-

To be slightly fair to Scorcese, it isn’t as cartoonish of a parody as it has been accepted to be. My mom never liked the Godfather trilogy, because it was too close to home. Members of her family married into them, she lived on the same street as them, she went to school occasionally with their children. And they had men walking the grounds with giant letters on the doors, “just write a nice thank you note and you’ll never have to deal with it”, and a kindergartner with two armed body guards standing next to her the entire class period in case one of the rival families tried to kidnap her to get one over on her father.

And a nice demonstration of the patriarchal tendencies both in Italian-american families and especially when swimming in the mafia culture.

While it may be rightfully accused of glamorizing these elements, these elements are not entirely racist denunciations of Scilian-American traditions.

Comment #122: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  05:15 PM

Basterds was a fun popcorn movie that also blasted WWII cliches—and I loved the strong women and taking the rollercoaster ride, although I haven’t liked anything elseTarantino, except Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction.

But a great movie? Nuh huh.  I haven’t seen all the Oscar nominees either, but Up in the Air was a better movie, without all the “wink,wink, nudge, nudge” tricks of a Tarantino.

Comment #123: judybrowni  on  02/03  at  05:16 PM

“Missing the point, Peter.  He’s talking in cinematic language, not making direct references to reality.  Which would be stupid, since “realism” is exactly the flawed narrative he’s criticizing. “

So then why the insistence on casting native-language speakers and shooting half the movie in French and German?  It’s a poor choice, since dialogue and turns of phrase are Tarantino’s major strength.  I’d honestly love to get the opinion of some Frenchmen or Germans to see if the dialogue worked from their perspective.  I have a feeling it was even worse from their end. 

Thinking about it, even that’s no excuse - the Japanese and Cantonese language segments in Kill Bill were amazing. 

Anyway, that’s my biggest problem with this movie.  Where are the great little lines?  Where’s “My ass may be dumb but I ain’t no dumbass” ?  Where’s “Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.”, “Don’t be a square daddy-o”, and that whole bit in Deathproof about doing “The Thing”.?  (-Guys like The Thing?
-They like it better than No Thing). 

There’s absolutely nothing like that in Basterds.  Not even close.

Comment #124: PeterZeroOne  on  02/03  at  05:18 PM

*groan* Godfather does NOT “explore the lives of gangsters as people,” Jerry. At all.

It is a political thriller set in an entirely contrived fantasy about gangsters. That world doesn’t exist, never existed, and has more to do with a mildly racist study of mediterranean patron-client relationships than with the lives of criminals—or real people, for that matter.

Does the world of “The Wire” exist? Or is it a contrived fantasy? Does the world of any film exist at all? Every fictional universe is ultimately premised on some larger conceit.

You somehow manage to discredit yourself more at #117 than by starting a long winded comment with, “I didn’t see it, but I have some thoughts…” Okay, you don’t see art as a dialog between artists, and your perspective is entirely static. Here is a bit of string. Go nuts.

I have no idea how you managed to conclude any of this from the limited amount of stuff I’ve written. I haven’t done anything like set out an aesthetic theory in multiple posts, so I don’t think you have any basis on which to make claims about how I see art.

Comment #125: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  05:18 PM

Also think “District 9” the better movie: and since I saw ‘em back to back at the multiplex, it was easy to compare.

Comment #126: judybrowni  on  02/03  at  05:19 PM

If we’re being fair to anyone about making “The Godfather,” we should probably be fair to Coppola!

Comment #127: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  05:22 PM

Cerberus at 123, point taken.

My point is leveled more at the “serious attempt to explore the lives” aspect of the statement. Setting the scene with the right militarized criminality is hardly the same thing. The truth is, the human elements of that story could be injected into almost any culture or time period. The Corleone fortune could have been coming from peasant serfs as easily as from gambling and extortion.

As much as Sopranos irritated me, at least it actually explored a life touched by actual criminality.

Comment #128: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:23 PM

I’d honestly love to get the opinion of some Frenchmen or Germans to see if the dialogue worked from their perspective.  I have a feeling it was even worse from their end.

I can’t speak for the German dialogue, but I’m fluently French/English bilingual, and I thought the French confab at the beginning was pretty great (with real French-speaking actors, hurray!).  Lots of ironic touches, and you really got a sense of Landa’s polyglot poetry.

Comment #129: Ranylt  on  02/03  at  05:24 PM

Up in the Air was a better movie

It was a solid movie, better than most. It also addressed interesting and uncomfortable themes, and also played against type (which is Clooney’s thing these days). But it had different aims than Basterds, and used different cinematic tools to achieve them.

This is the real silliness of the Best Picture award, that all these fine, well-crafted movies with different intents should be considered equal commodities simply because they’re features that were exhibited in theatres. As with network television, the Oscars are becoming less and less relevant to audience members who have any passion invested in movies and film-making, while the “long-tail” niche awards (specific genres, guild specialities, indie awards) are growing in importance.

Comment #130: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  05:28 PM

128-

Nah, getting the director’s name right is too difficult, I’m going to continue my subpar english failures because it adds that certain je nais se qua that really gives weight to my arguments. Hey, wasn’t it awesome when John Glenn landed on the moon?

Comment #131: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  05:29 PM

Watching “Pulp Fiction,” or “Reservoir Dogs,” doesn’t affect my experience of watching “The Godfather,” because the latter is an attempt (whether successful or not is debatable, but a serious attempt) to explore the lives of gangsters as people.

I don’t know what else to read from that, Jerry at 126, than exactly what I said.

As to your suggestion that the world of the Godfather is just as credible and reality-based as The Wire is laughable. Mario Puzo had no contact with mafias before he wrote that book, and (not to claim any direct knowledge of the mafia) it certainly feels that way. Also, see me at 129.

Comment #132: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:30 PM

The truth is, the human elements of that story could be injected into almost any culture or time period. The Corleone fortune could have been coming from peasant serfs as easily as from gambling and extortion.

No it couldn’t have! If the Corleones had made their fortune in a different way, it would have been a different movie altogether. I don’t know if it would have been better or worse, but it sure wouldn’t have been “The Godfather.” Coppola, an Italian-American was working from a fictionalization of Italian-American gangsters, written by another Italian-American, Mario Puzo. It’s hardly surprising that something that looks like “The Godfather” was the result, and not, say, “Buddenbrooks.”

Comment #133: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  05:31 PM

You finally make a good point, Jerry. Two gentrified Italian-Americans created a fictionalized account of Italian-American gangsters, and the result looks exactly like The Godfather: a glorification of Italian-American criminals. And you think it is a serious exploration of gangsters? Ha!

Comment #134: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:37 PM

I don’t know what else to read from that, Jerry at 126, than exactly what I said.

I think you extrapolate too widely from a single statement. I’m making a claim about this specific instance, not about how I perceive art in general. In my opinion, things like “Pulp Fiction,” are so unmoored from anything related to those earlier movies that they don’t really function for me even as viable or interesting commentary on their predecessors.

As to your suggestion that the world of the Godfather is just as credible and reality-based as The Wire is laughable. Mario Puzo had no contact with mafias before he wrote that book, and (not to claim any direct knowledge of the mafia) it certainly feels that way. Also, see me at 129.

I’m not suggesting that “The Godfather,” is “as reality based” as “The Wire.” If anything, I would say that it doesn’t really matter all that much; they are both inspired by certain factual events and neither are outright fantasies. Even if “The Wire,” were pure fiction, it would still be great art; not being 100% true to some abstract notion of what the mafia was, which may not be even all that clear today and which almost certainly wasn’t clear to Coppola making this movie in 1970 doesn’t diminish “The Godfather’s” artistic value.

Comment #135: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  05:37 PM

You finally make a good point, Jerry. Two gentrified Italian-Americans created a fictionalized account of Italian-American gangsters, and the result looks exactly like The Godfather: a glorification of Italian-American criminals. And you think it is a serious exploration of gangsters? Ha!

I said it was a serious attempt. I still think it is, even if every criticism you make of it is 100% correct.

Comment #136: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  05:39 PM

But sadly, I think we’re going to see the award go to “The Blind Side” this year and we’ll all get to stare in abject horror at the injustice of it all.

No way in hell.

Avatar will, as expected, have the biggest night.  I think it’s a rule or something.

And that’s not a comment on the movie, which I haven’t seen… it’s just that it would be quite a shock for the world’s first $2 Billion movie to not to win it all.  Biggest movie of all time (in absolute box office revenue) plus the movie that everyone expects to win the big prize, I don’t see how it doesn’t happen.

It isn’t seen as a sci-fi movie, even though that’s what it is… it is seen as THE movie, period.  I never expected any movie to surpass Titanic this quickly, but sure enough, it happened.

Comment #137: DTG in STL  on  02/03  at  05:40 PM

Cerebus, those are a list of elements the movie touched on, but I don’t think it said anything about them.  Invoking a theme and saying something really new about it are different things.

I liked the movie!  But I prefer to like it as a sci-fi movie, because otherwise I get that annoyance I feel when someone thinks they did something amazing by acknowledging a theme instead of really exploring it.

Comment #138: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  05:44 PM

We were talking earlier about the danger of dehumanizing victims by depicting them as passive; what about the danger of dehumanizing the perpetrators themselves by assigning to them some kind of essentialist qualities instead of examining the circumstances that brought them to where they ended up being?

It has an emotional porn element to me, and it feels dishonest in most cases.  Hate comes from a mean, stupid place in my experience.  It’s really not that deep.

Comment #139: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  05:45 PM

So I never ask myself about how much of what I know about it comes from movies because the answer for me is zero.

Well, okay, but I don’t really see why that’s an indictment of the movie so much as perhaps a limit on what your tastes will be (which is fine—-I don’t love folk music, but I can accept it speaks to people who have the framework to enjoy it).  I am personally a well-considered critic of American romantic tropes and wedding porn, but I can enjoy an intelligent meta-film about romantic comedies that explore this without having to have been a sucker for the tropes in the movies.  So I’m not sure that a personal idiosyncratic feeling about WWII movies on the part of one audience member has much to do with the large point of “Basterds”.

Comment #140: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  05:48 PM

I think Jerry really illustrates at 136 and 137 why we need movies like Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds to come along and save us from “serious attempts” like The Godfather and Saving Private Ryan.

You get pushed on the details of exactly why these things suck, and the fall back position is, “well, even if that’s true, it is still great art.” Yeah, I know. But these movies live on our culture without people realizing they are so fictionalized… and what about the politics of these films? You don’t see Aldo as an appropriate remedy for all the American Exceptionalism bullshit in Saving Private Ryan?

No, you don’t. You said that, very clearly, that Tarantino’s perspective is entirely irrelevant to your enjoyment of precisely the films he’s responding to. This is why I called you a shallow nitwit.

Comment #141: humanadverb  on  02/03  at  05:49 PM

So then why the insistence on casting native-language speakers and shooting half the movie in French and German?

Because, startlingly, not all the WWII films Tarantino’s critiquing are American. He even makes a little joke right off the bat when Landa asks the farmer to talk in English to make things easier (which request turns out to have another, more sinister purpose).

He’s trying something different here with the dialogue, letting the context of the conversation and the relationship of the interlocutors take a front seat to the turns of phrases.

And I’m sorry, but there are plenty of good Tarantino-style lines, and Brad Pitt gets some of the best:

We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty they will know who we are. And they will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us. And the German won’t not be able to help themselves but to imagine the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, and our boot heels, and the edge of our knives. And the German will be sickened by us, and the German will talk about us, and the German will fear us. And when the German closes their eyes at night and they’re tortured by their subconscious for the evil they have done, it will be with thoughts of us they are tortured with. Sound good?

That’s a good, Patton-esque complement to Samuel L. Jackson’s biblical speech in Pulp Fiction.

You probably heard we ain’t in the prisoner-takin’ business; we in the killin’ Nazi business. And cousin, Business is a-boomin’.

As curt and matter-of-fact as any of Winston Wolf’s great lines.

and my favourite:

You know, fightin’ in a basement offers a lot of difficulties. Number one being, you’re fightin’ in a basement!

That’s just Aldo Raine. What more do you want?

Comment #142: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  05:49 PM

139-

It is what it is, I suppose.

I don’t see the shallowness you see, indeed much of my list makes whole plot threads what they are. I mean, what the hell did you think the nigerians or the cat food trade or the whole section where he’s trying to buy the cheeseburger were? Set pieces? Unexciting scenery before the next big “they’re really human” or “something blows up” moment?

But I can’t make you see it and it would be stupid and counterproductive for me to try as I would start veering close to “everyone must think like me” territory (and that would be vile bullshit). You asked for someone to try to explain it to you, it’s not my job to explain how world building itself can be a type of story telling or how sci-fi movies can be just as high art as postmodern experimental fiction. Not my job.

And it would especially annoying and ironic seeing how I basically gave IB a chance following your review and tried to like it entirely by the excellent points you brought up and it still left me cold.

Comment #143: Cerberus  on  02/03  at  06:02 PM

Amanda,

It has an emotional porn element to me, and it feels dishonest in most cases.  Hate comes from a mean, stupid place in my experience.  It’s really not that deep.

Ok, I don’t believe that, or at least not entirely. I think evil evolves, just as good does, and the process of that evolution is important and interesting.

Well, okay, but I don’t really see why that’s an indictment of the movie so much as perhaps a limit on what your tastes will be (which is fine—-I don’t love folk music, but I can accept it speaks to people who have the framework to enjoy it).  I am personally a well-considered critic of American romantic tropes and wedding porn, but I can enjoy an intelligent meta-film about romantic comedies that explore this without having to have been a sucker for the tropes in the movies.  So I’m not sure that a personal idiosyncratic feeling about WWII movies on the part of one audience member has much to do with the large point of “Basterds”.

I’m not saying you or anyone else shouldn’t enjoy “Inglorious Basterds,” or any other movie by Tarantino. I’m just giving an alternative perspective on his work.

humanadverb,

I think Jerry really illustrates at 136 and 137 why we need movies like Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds to come along and save us from “serious attempts” like The Godfather and Saving Private Ryan.

You get pushed on the details of exactly why these things suck, and the fall back position is, “well, even if that’s true, it is still great art.” Yeah, I know. But these movies live on our culture without people realizing they are so fictionalized… and what about the politics of these films? You don’t see Aldo as an appropriate remedy for all the American Exceptionalism bullshit in Saving Private Ryan?

Can you please point to any place where I’ve said anything about defending “Saving Private Ryan?” I haven’t even seen the damn thing, and I’m perfectly willing to accept that it sucks as much as you say it does. I just don’t think that art can be equated with authenticity. I mean, who is more authentic than Solzhenitsyn writing about the gulags? Have you read it? It’s the least artistic thing I can imagine. That doesn’t mean it’s not important or relevant politically or whatever. It’s just a matter of divorcing one from the other.

I guess I don’t buy the fact that IB can serve as an antidote to American Exceptionalism, which I entirely agree is a harmful and corrosive view of history. To me it appears as an exchange of one fantasy for another. The real antidote is historical education and a factual exploration of what actually happened. But that’s a story for another time.

No, you don’t. You said that, very clearly, that Tarantino’s perspective is entirely irrelevant to your enjoyment of precisely the films he’s responding to. This is why I called you a shallow nitwit.

And I think I’ve explained why I feel that way. Look, I’m not obligated to share your views on art, nor you mine. I think the value of this discussion is not in winning converts to one side or the other but in the possibility that one of us might say something interesting that the other hasn’t thought of. For example, I think your points about “The Godfather,” are well-made, and they’ll probably affect my experience the next time I watch that movie. Maybe you’ll think that I’ve said something interesting too and it will change the way you see something else, I don’t know.

Comment #144: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  06:03 PM

To me it appears as an exchange of one fantasy for another. The real antidote is historical education and a factual exploration of what actually happened.

I’d agree, but to get to that point you have to cut through all the myriad and powerful media fantasies of the 75 years. And Tarantino is doing so not by exchanging one fantasy for another (or several others), but fighting fantasy with an even more outrageous fantasy. The first title card in Basterds (and, I believe, the marketing tag-line) is “Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France.” That’s not just an homage to Sergio Leone, it’s an honest statement from the beginning that this whole movie is fantasy.

Comment #145: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  06:20 PM

Motivated by this thread, I’ve made plans to see Inglorious Basterds on Friday.

Comment #146: Jerry Vinokurov  on  02/03  at  06:25 PM

This thread is too long and complex for me to master, but in any event I think I moer or less agree with Jerry Vinokurov in the last post before mine.  I think its weird the way a pathetically manipulative, propagandastic, self absorbed piece of film school cleverness is mistaken for a profound commentary on anything—war, hollywood’s version of world war II, the jews or the french resistance. I don’t think that because I think something absurd about “Great art” or “what really happened.”  I think that because it must be obvious that QT is simply mining his shtick for fun.  The movie isn’t “obscene” because “war is obscene” as someone lectured me up above. Its obscene because it takes a prurient, pornographic approach to representations of suffering and death and tries to force the audience to be complicit in them as a revenge fantasy *on behalf of* women, the french resistance, and the jews.  QT isn’t “interrogating” conventions, he’s just mashing themn up and parodying them.  YOu don’t leave the movie with a better understanding of the conventions, or hating them, or reflecting on them. You’ve just seen them over and over again with a slight squint.

Arguing about whether this is or isn’t deserving of an award isn’t my thing. I disliked the movie on its own merits as a movie.  It left me not just cold, but slightly queasy. I felt used by QT who brings to war and violence a toddler’s love of rolling in the shit.  The movie isn’t either art or not art, either true or false, historical or ahistorical. Its just a child’s version of lots of other people’s movies and experiences put into a hopper and whirled around.  IT had its good bits. But mostly its just profoundly overrated. I doubt if it will be remembered in a few years.

aimai

Comment #147: aimai  on  02/03  at  06:29 PM

Motivated by this thread, I’ve made plans to see Inglorious Basterds on Friday.

That’s all we ask: total obedience. And that you worship Tarantino, love this film and cast your Academy vote for it.

Seriously, I don’t know if it’ll be your cup of tea, but you probably won’t take as much offense as you would have seeing it cold.

Comment #148: Gracchus.  on  02/03  at  06:32 PM

Because, startlingly, not all the WWII films Tarantino’s critiquing are American. He even makes a little joke right off the bat when Landa asks the farmer to talk in English to make things easier (which request turns out to have another, more sinister purpose).

Not to mention the fact that it’s a semi-remake of a 1978 Italian movie whose American release title was the same (minus the misspelling).

Comment #149: jamie d  on  02/03  at  06:54 PM

In fact, one thing QT lays waste to is this new trend of sympathetic Nazi movies like “The Reader”, and reminds you that these people were just fucking evil.

Is that what he does?  Because the scene where the Basterds scalp the honorable German sergeant tended to, er, make me sympathetic to the Nazi.

More broadly speaking, I neither hated nor loved Inglourious Basterds.  I enjoyed it while I was in the movie theater, and I thought there were some great set-pieces - the opening scene at the farmhouse, the scene in the cellar, and most every scene with Shoshanna were terrific.  Landa was also a terrific character, and Walz will deserve the Oscar if he gets it - although the tendency of giving the best supporting actor oscar to people playing sociopaths is getting a bit old.

But the basterds themselves left me deeply cold, and the movie as a whole seemed soulless and less than the some of its parts.  I really don’t buy Amanda’s notion that the movie is some kind of brilliant deconstruction of much of anything.  I’m not impressed that Tarantino “subverted” genre conventions by having a bunch of Jewish characters commit wartime atrocities; nor am I impressed that he’s showing the artificiality of film, or whatever.  All that seems like an excuse to more or less take out anything human in the film.  IB is ultimately deeply cold and inhuman, like all of Tarantino’s movies (except, to an extent, Jackie Brown).  There’s wonderful dialogue, and brilliantly tense scenes, but it adds up to very little real.

I’ve thought for a long while now that Tarantino is in a rut, and Inglourious Basterds hasn’t really done anything to get him out of it.  He keeps doing more or less the same thing over and over again.  IB is welcome in that it’s a much better movie than Kill Bill (Vol. 1, at least; I’ve not seen Vol. 2) or Death Proof.  But what would be really nice is if he made a movie that’s not just the same genre killathon over and over again.  He has serious skills, but it’d be nice if he used them to make a different movie.  Make a movie from someone else’s script; make a movie that doesn’t end with a Chinese stand-off where all the characters die; make a movie where the characters are human beings and not cardboard purveyors of clever dialogue.  Jackie Brown was not a perfect movie, but it was at least a step in that direction.  All of his movies since then have been pure wanks.  Inglourious Basterds was by far the best of those, and is arguably his best movie overall.  Its best scenes are as good as the best scenes in Pulp Fiction.  It was a much more interesting movie than Avatar.  But it’s really just treading water.

Comment #150: jlk7e  on  02/03  at  08:11 PM

I think its weird the way a pathetically manipulative, propagandastic, self absorbed piece of film school cleverness is mistaken for a profound commentary on anything—war, hollywood’s version of world war II, the jews or the french resistance.

The funny part is, that’s exactly how I feel about 2001, a film that quite literally put me to sleep.  However, I can accept that other people think that Kubrick is a great filmmaker who moved the art of film forward even if I find his films shallow and dull.  (Gee, Stanley, people are mean to each other?  War is hell?  Sleeping with a 14-year-old is bad?  Stop the presses!)

Comment #151: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  08:21 PM

I disliked the movie on its own merits as a movie.  It left me not just cold, but slightly queasy. I felt used by QT who brings to war and violence a toddler’s love of rolling in the shit.

That’s how I felt about A Clockwork Orange, especially after the rape/murder scene, and yet other people consider it one of the greatest films of all time.  Weird.

Comment #152: Mnemosyne  on  02/03  at  08:24 PM

Let’s not call names.  I’m usually pro-name-calling on the internet, but this is actually an intelligent discussion where competing viewpoints are being respected.  In politics, there’s a lot of bullshit, but I really do think there’s interesting tensions at stake here.  I think the ideas in this movie are deliberately unnerving, and some people were just way unnerved.  That’s to be expected.

Comment #153: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  09:00 PM

No matter how it turns out with the Oscars, there can be no dispute that Precious has now surpassed Planet 51, and is gaining on Old Dogs in cumulative box office receipts!

Comment #154: ayutokamina  on  02/03  at  09:01 PM

I think evil evolves, just as good does, and the process of that evolution is important and interesting.

I think that’s probably true, but by and large, Hollywood gets an F on this element.  Lately, I’ve found movies that reengage the idea that evil just is far more interesting than movies that try to explain it.  “Basterds” is just one—-“No Country For Old Men” hit a similar note, as did “There Will Be Blood”.  And I think that’s the intellectually zeitgeist right now.  And the reason is that we’ve been grappling with a popular evil in this country in our hard right wing movement that’s got no space for moral complexity, social complexity, or any niceties like that, but only wants to kill and be bigoted and lie for the hell of it.

Comment #155: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  09:07 PM

this thread is too long for me to quote all the relevant bits, so I’ll just throw in my disjointed commentary in list form

1)I’m so glad Adam Sandler wasn’t in Inglorious Basterds. I seem to be allergic to his sort of comedy; there isn’t a single movie with him in it that I can sit through

2)I loved both District 9 and Inglorious Basterds, but for completely different reasons. Both of them are worlds better than Avatar, which is why Avatar will win.

3)My boyfriend loved IB as well, though I suspect about half of it is because he has an unacknowledged man-crush on Till Schweiger (AKA that German dude from SLC Punk!!) :-p

4)I’m really fucking glad QT made the movie in real languages, not just fake accent, gibberish and babelfish-quality translation. There have been FUCKLOADS of movies ruined for me by this, even when I’m not fluent in that language myself (and ironically, I was temporarily thrown off by the statement earlier that Shoshanna doesn’t speak a word of English in the movie. I hadn’t even noticed, and I don’t even speak much French). This fucking with foreign languages (because hey, Americans don’t speak foreign languages, and foreigners don’t count as audience) is actually something that TQ seems to make fun of in IB, too. Most notably in that blatantly, obviously horrid Italian that Pitt uses in the theater-lobby scene

Comment #156: jadehawk  on  02/03  at  09:12 PM

Is that what he does?  Because the scene where the Basterds scalp the honorable German sergeant tended to, er, make me sympathetic to the Nazi.

You know?  I probably had a strange, unintended reaction to that.  I think it was the way the Bear Jew was yelling out about baseball and specifically name-checking Jewish-American players like Sandy Koufax.  It grounded that scene in the specific culture these guys were coming from, and it was very humanizing of them and their rage.  It’s one thing to intellectually grapple with how American Jews related to the Allied war effort, and another to feel the exhilarating rage of the moment.  I couldn’t help but side with that rage.

Comment #157: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/03  at  09:14 PM

oh yeah, and

5)“memorable quotes” from QT’s movies are overrated. I find them mostly distracting when it’s obvious that they’re put in there to BE memorable quotes. otoh, lines like “If you are so desperate for a French girlfriend, I suggest you try Vichy” were awesome; plus, I prefer memorable visuals, and there were quite a few of them there.

Comment #158: jadehawk  on  02/03  at  09:24 PM

Its obscene because it takes a prurient, pornographic approach to representations of suffering and death and tries to force the audience to be complicit in them as a revenge fantasy *on behalf of* women, the french resistance, and the jews.

You’re right, that is exactly what Saving Private Ryan, The Dirty Dozen and other violence-adoring World War II movies do.

Basterds, on the other hand, points out to the audience the way movies try to make them complicit in revenge fantasies, via the inherent absurdity of the revenge fantasy which it portrays, and by inflicting that revenge fantasy on… a bunch of people who are themselves entirely swept up in just the same sort of violent cinematic fantasy.

Comment #159: Dan  on  02/03  at  09:52 PM

I mean what more is Tarantino supposed to do? Put a giant arrow on the screen pointing at Hitler and the words “SEE GUYS, THIS IS YOU”?

Comment #160: Dan  on  02/03  at  09:53 PM

Heck, I thought the movie was about the American inability to speak any language but English.  A remarkable percentage of the movie revolves around language. Why think that history, politics, or racism are central to it? 20 and 30-year old Americans know very little about WWII and its issues. As always happens, the events that touched the grandparents melt into sheer myth. The language problem, on the other hand, is a very real present day issue.

Comment #161: Jim Harrison  on  02/03  at  10:15 PM

You know?  I probably had a strange, unintended reaction to that.  I think it was the way the Bear Jew was yelling out about baseball and specifically name-checking Jewish-American players like Sandy Koufax.  It grounded that scene in the specific culture these guys were coming from, and it was very humanizing of them and their rage.  It’s one thing to intellectually grapple with how American Jews related to the Allied war effort, and another to feel the exhilarating rage of the moment.  I couldn’t help but side with that rage.

Hmm…that’s an interesting reaction.  I guess I just never felt like the Basterds were real people that I could empathize with in any real way, or even that Tarantino had any real interest in doing so.  I will say that I think the “Fuck yeah, beat that German to death with a club,” reaction was the one that most people in the theatre were having.

And I certainly think that Dan has something there with the idea that Tarantino is pointing out how our reactions like that are exactly like the Nazi reactions to the propaganda film, etc.  That being said, I think movies like this often fail because their “subversion” of our love of cinematic violence becomes close to indistinguishable from straight up pornographic violence.  This is more or less the problem I had with Fight Club.  There are those who talk about the movie as being an attack on fascism, an attack on the kind of mentality that leads to the fight clubs.  But the movie also glorifies the fight club, and the dumb frat boys who emulate Tyler Durden aren’t entirely wrong - Fincher’s depiction of Durden is appealing, and those frat boys aren’t simply missing the point.

I rather feel the same way about Tarantino.  Yeah, you can make the case that there’s a critique of revenge dramas and the like in the film.  Amanda and others in this thread have made good arguments on behalf of that idea, and it’s certainly not all in their heads.  But I feel like the movie never fully commits to such a theme, that at least half of its force is going in the direction that the Basterds are awesome for beating Nazis to death.

Again, I enjoyed the movie, and the great scenes in it really were great (as usual for Tarantino).  But, having just watched The Hurt Locker, I think it’s undoubtedly the better movie, because it’s about actual people.  It’s not a perfect movie, and it’s distinctly a movie about men, unlike Basterds (and I agree with Amanda that Shoshana is certainly one of the best parts of IB).  But it’s an attempt to depict real people in the real world and what makes them work.  It’s not showily trying to make a point, or grossing us out with cartoon violence.  And it’s actually gripping throughout.  It also isn’t didactic, like most war movies (and certainly most previous Iraq War movies).  I hope it wins (and it seems like it has a better shot than IB, at least).  If Kathryn Bigelow won first director, she’d be the first woman to do so, no?

Avatar, on the other hand, is pure nonsense.  Amazing visual effects, and certainly watching it you have to be aware that Cameron is a much better film-maker than, say, Michael Bay.  But the script is terrible, the acting even worse, and the storyline is ridiculously clichéd.  I hated everything to do with the Jack and Rose plot of Titanic, and I haven’t seen it since it came out, but my feeling is still rather that Titanic was better than Avatar in virtually every respect, except the visual effects (which really are incredible).

Of the other nominees, I very much enjoyed An Education, although it’s almost certainly not going to win.  It’s not a great movie, but it was quite good for what it was.  I hope Mulligan wins best actress.  I think I’m with Amanda on District 9 - a good action movie, but not particularly profound; I was underwhelmed by Up in the Air - Clooney was good, and certainly better than Juno, but I hope it doesn’t win.  I’ve not seen Up, The Blind Side, Precious, or A Serious Man - Up is the only one I’m particularly interested in.

So, anyway, of the ones I’ve seen, Hurt Locker was distinctly the best, Avatar probably the worst.  I’m sure Avatar will win, although Bigelow might nab best director (I can’t imagine anyone in Hollywood is that enthusiastic about giving another best director award to James Cameron).

Comment #162: jlk7e  on  02/03  at  11:32 PM

I guess I just never felt like the Basterds were real people that I could empathize with in any real way, or even that Tarantino had any real interest in doing so.  I will say that I think the “Fuck yeah, beat that German to death with a club,” reaction was the one that most people in the theatre were having.

This is a really interesting distinction.  I suppose I felt that moment was underplayed!  Underplayed in terms of asking the audience to believe that Jewish-American characters were people whose humanity didn’t need to be extrapolated at length.  But that assumes a lot, probably too much.  Not because of their ethnicity, but because of how abruptly their behavior is presented.

But let me put it this way: It worked the same way the Burger King discussion in Pulp Fiction worked, to put the characters into a world that you understood without taking a lot of time.  But it’s odd and disjointed, because the references are very culturally specific.  If you’re familiar with mid-century Jewish-American culture, then it feels similar.  The baseball references take us out of the moment and say, oh these guys are from the Bronx and the Lower East Side; you know these guys.  They’re old men now, but you know their grandchildren.

The violence isn’t supposed to be a strict refutation, which I think Fight Club was closer to.  It’s more like a way of not dumbing down the action to you.  It’s an exploration.  Violence is almost never straight on film—-neither is sex—-it is about itself, and QT owns that with his ultraviolence.  Interestingly, I found Basterds less violent than Pulp Fiction.  Everything is in the fear of violence.  We actually see a scene where hundreds of people die and it’s easy to watch. The ugliest violence is against Nazis.  And it’s easy to watch, because they’re Nazis and fuck them.  Fuck them hard.  I hope they die, fuck them.  And I realized, watching it, how much “violence” in movies is predicated on your empathy with the victim, and how *much* violence is aimed at the innocent in movies and it’s an attempt to troll those emotions.  And how this movie laid waste to that. 

My reaction is very personal, of course, but it was a revelation to realize that my reaction to violence depends strongly on the justice of the situation.

Comment #163: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  12:26 AM

Is that what he does?  Because the scene where the Basterds scalp the honorable German sergeant tended to, er, make me sympathetic to the Nazi.

Especially when you couldn’t help thinking that German soldiers were not necessarily Nazis.  Put a different uniform on people in that scene - say, the Bear Serb beating the shit out of a Croat - and you would have established the Serbs as the official Bad Guys. The German officer - not a Nazi, but a German - faced death as bravely as any other “good” character, and his “crime” was fighting for his country.

But, you know, Germany was the enemy, so all Germans are Nazis and therefore less than human. It’s not enough to kill in war, you have to hate and dehumanize as well.

Comment #164: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/04  at  12:33 AM

I was going to say pretty much exactly what Dan did, except he got there quicker, and probably more eloquently than I would have. The film’s about the way popular culture, and especially film, warps history and the world in general for its own ends and yes, in putting us in the position he does while keeping a(n almost) straight face, Tarantino does force the audience to examine its own motivations. The fact that he does this using an event in which the death and bloodthirst and tragedy were so vast as to be off the scale, and which has been the source of dozens if not hundreds of films focusing on it instead as a source of heroism and patriotism is what makes it especially relevant, It IS a film about film, but that’s definitely not a bad thing.

I’d also like to add that this is the thing most people don’t get about Paul Verhoven’s films. You need to examine them on the second level to understand them. As in Robocop was a tool of corporate fascism, as in Starship Troopers is a satire on fascism, as in Showgirls is a showbiz ‘star is born’ film where the lead character is actually a prostitute. In each case, hollywood conventions are exaggerated enough to warp the narrative so we end up siding with the bad guys. The fact a large proportion of viewers did so without realising is what makes it art.

Comment #165: Stubborn Kind of Fellow  on  02/04  at  12:43 AM

I actually think QT dispenses with the morally compromised characters in the first, devastating scene with the French farmer who sells out his neighbors.  But the Nazis are Nazis.  I’m not particularly enamored of stories that try to shoehorn humanizing tendencies in, but then again, I think authors like Gunter Grass do a far better job, because they saw straight up Nazism up close and they get it. 

A 17-year-old, 20-year-old Nazi?  I can look at it with forgiving complexity.  But there was something refreshingly true about the Americans and their choice to carve the swastika in the Jew Hunter’s head.  You did, at your age, choose.  And you chose hate.  I wish with all my heart that people his age who chose hate in our country were similarly made to wear their ugly hate for all to see.

Comment #166: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  12:43 AM

Which is to say, I think the more interesting characters to look at as morally complex are the invaded enemies, and the Germans who just tried to get by and weren’t gung-ho. But when we’re talking SS officers, when we’re talking Nazi soldiers who stood by their army?  Fuck ‘em.  Moral culpability kicks in.  Unless we believe so, we will coddle the bigots in our own culture, and we shouldn’t.  Someone like Glenn Beck is a fascist prick.  He’s not complex.  He’s a bastard.

Comment #167: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  12:46 AM

But, you know, Germany was the enemy, so all Germans are Nazis and therefore less than human.

No, all Germans who served in the Wehrmacht were fulfilling the goals of the Nazis, so therefor the servant is just as liable as the master for the master’s attempt to establish a “Master Race” that would rule the European continent.

If I shed any tears over Germans of that period, it’s the ones in the concentration camps, the children(including those pressed into service at the end of the war), women and old men, not those who took an oath to Adolf Hitler as part of their military ‘duty’.

Comment #168: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/04  at  01:51 AM

There is a reason Landa was the only guy you felt good about seeing get fucked in this movie (besides intentionally gross historical figures). He was the guy who had a choice… he is very good at his job, the kind of guy who could have stayed in work at a Munich cop, despite his suspect politics. Keep your head down, do your job. He goes another way. And you see, over and over again, that there is something about this guy who chooses who and where he is. They cement this with his rape/murder of Kruger… he really is ugly and gross, despite everything he could be…

Comment #169: humanadverb  on  02/04  at  01:54 AM

No, all Germans who served in the Wehrmacht were fulfilling the goals of the Nazis, so therefor the servant is just as liable as the master for the master’s attempt to establish a “Master Race” that would rule the European continent.

Uh-huh.  And do you entend that same principle to American soldiers based on the Bush Administration’s wars of aggression?

Comment #170: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/04  at  02:34 AM

Exactly! The notion that Germans had no choice has been laid bare in an era where half the country of America has resisted the Iraq invasion.  You can’t honestly grapple with that idea when anti-fascism faces you.  Which is a testament to the American character, the one upheld in WWII propaganda.

Comment #171: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  02:36 AM

Piator, that’s somewhat irrelevant, in that Nazi soldiers are given a choice. You might find it a false choice, but they’re told, give up your men or face our wrath. 

What’s interesting to me is that QT made this choice interesting and controversial again.

Comment #172: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  02:39 AM

The rape/murder of Kruger’s character has been referred to a couple of times now…but correct me if I am wrong, but I am recalling it as a straight murder, no rape involved.

And I would point out a parallel to the Dirty Dozen that maybe not many people noticed. In both movies the black guy sets off the bombs/fire at great personal risk. Don’t know if that means anything beyond homage to TDD, but I thought I would throw that out there.

Comment #173: Bruce from Missouri  on  02/04  at  02:56 AM

I don’t think anyone would argue that Germans had no choice.  But it’s really problematic to basically view nearly all Germans of a certain generation as moral monsters simply because they fought in the Wehrmacht.  Obviously, fighting in the Wehrmacht was a morally questionable action.  We should honor the people who refused to serve Hitler.  Those who did serve in the German army were not admirable for doing so, even if they fought bravely and didn’t commit atrocities (and many, many non-SS soldiers in the Wehrmacht did commit atrocities).

But, that being said, they weren’t all evil people.  Hell, even many of the people committing atrocities weren’t evil.  They were ordinary people put into extraordinary circumstances.  They failed the test, certainly.  But, given that pretty much none of us have ever had to face choices like that, how can we be so confident that we are morally superior?  I’d like to think, of course, that I wouldn’t serve a horrible cause and commit horrible acts in its name.  But can I be sure?  The main factor which led German soldiers to commit atrocities, if you believe Christopher Browning, at least, was peer pressure.  World War II era Germans were not some sort of alien creatures, incomprehensible to ordinary human beings like us.  They were people, just like us, and their behavior has to be comprehensible as the behavior of human beings.  We don’t have to sympathize with the choices they made, but we ought to be able to empathize with them, and view them as fellow human beings.

This applies just as much to the Basterds as to the German soldiers in the film.  Because the Basterds are committing atrocities too.  Those atrocities are against German soldiers, rather than Jews or Soviet prisoners of war, or whatever.  But does that make them morally acceptable? 

Of course, Tarantino himself doesn’t really care about any of this, because that’s not really what interests him.  Tarantino ultimately doesn’t have much empathy for any of his characters, because he never views them as much more than fictional vessels to deliver clever dialogue and stylized violence.  As others have said, the movie isn’t about people, it’s about movies, and about the audience.  And that’s why, for all his talents, and all the entertainingness of his movies, Tarantino ultimately leaves me cold.

And, as I think I said before, it’s also why Tarantino is so disappointing.  He has tremendous talent.  He can create a set-piece scene that is completely brilliant, and there were a number of those in the film.  He is quite a good director visually, he is a great director of actors, and so forth.  I just wish he put this all in service of something better.  He’s 47 years old now, isn’t it time to start maturing a bit, to make a movie that’s concerned with more than surfaces?  All the great stuff in IB, and there’s a lot of great stuff, isn’t really in service of anything larger, and that’s why the movie ultimately is less than the sum of its parts - the great scenes and great performances don’t add up to anything coherent.

Perhaps it’s too bad that there’s no cinematic equivalent to the short story, as Tarantino would be a master of that.  The opening scene of IB, for instance, would be much stronger and more interesting on its own, not tied to the larger movie.

Comment #174: jlk7e  on  02/04  at  03:32 AM

I was a bit surprised when I saw that Tarantino was up for Best Original Screenplay, but then I read about the “original” film and realized that it wasn’t the same by any means.  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inglorious_Bastards for those who wonder.)  Tarantino has been accused of stealing plotlines, or even entire plots before, so my original surprise wasn’t that… surprising.  Reservoir Dogs was quite similar to many parts of City of Fire, after all.

But if he’s going to steal stuff, Tarantino sure steals them well.  He’s a smirking nerd in a world of phonies, knowing he’s the King of the Phony.  And I’m happy he does what he does.

Still, I wish Fantastic Mr. Fox could be up for Best Picture.  Up was great (opening montage: more genuine emotion than the last ten Disney animated films combined,) but Fox was the best animated movie I saw this year.  Don’t know if he’s up for it, but Jarvis Cocker should be up for a Best Song or I’m going to hurt someone.

Still haven’t seen Avatar, but I’ll probably hold out another year or so.

Comment #175: 3letterjon  on  02/04  at  04:44 AM

But we’re not talking simple German characters.  We’re talking Nazi soldiers invested enough to act with courage.  At this point, my sympathy walks right out the door.

Comment #176: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/04  at  10:14 AM

PiaTor, my mother was in a Japanese prison camp during WWII and saw a Chinese guerrilla get buried alive by the Japanese soldiers, so perhaps I have a real reason to feel strongly on the subject, seeing as they probably never were put on trial for such things.

The ones who should be in the dock over Iraq: GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,  Rice, etc.  Unlike their Nazi counterparts, the soldiers weren’t on a mission to conquer territory, and were told they were defending their country against the possible menace of Saddam attacking America, a probability that we now know was closer to 0 than 1.

Comment #177: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/04  at  10:51 AM

It’s not enough to kill in war, you have to hate and dehumanize as well.

Pretty much the attitude of everyone in this movie toward “the enemy,” to one degree or another. Which, again, is the bloody point.

Discussion of those who were violence-crazed psychopaths before total war, while a fascinating general discussion, is beside the point in this picture.

Comment #178: Gracchus.  on  02/04  at  11:18 AM

But we’re not talking simple German characters.  We’re talking Nazi soldiers invested enough to act with courage.

How are we talking about Nazis?  Virtually every German man born between 1905 and 1925 or so, and some older and younger, served in the Wehrmacht.  That many acted with courage says nothing about their ideological commitments - Stauffenberg acted with great courage before his injury.  Yes, they are all implicated to a greater or lesser extent in Nazism and its crimes.  But that doesn’t make them ideologically committed Nazis.

Calling all German soldiers “Nazis” is something Aldo Raines does.  I don’t see why we need to follow him in that.

Comment #179: jlk7e  on  02/04  at  01:19 PM

But that doesn’t make them ideologically committed Nazis.

Except for this unpleasant fact:

Each member of the German armed forces (Wehrmacht) swore an oath of personal allegiance to Adolf Hitler—and not to the constitution. This oath went into effect on 2 August 1934, the day that Reich President Paul von Hindenberg died, and Hitler immediately consolidated the offices of president and chancellor.

As Louis L. Snyder succinctly states in his Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, “The rule of traditional law was now finished (156).” (For more information, please refer to the Works Cited at the end of this document.) The text of this oath, in German and in English, is as follows:


  Die Vereidigung der Wehrmacht auf Adolf Hitler, 2.8.1934

  “Ich schwöre bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, daß ich dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit für diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen.”

  The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934

  “I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be prepared, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.”

Link

So the German soldier everybody felt bad for when he was killed?

He took it along with everyone else in the Wehrmacht.

Comment #180: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/04  at  01:32 PM

That’s how I felt about A Clockwork Orange, especially after the rape/murder scene, and yet other people consider it one of the greatest films of all time.  Weird.

It’s one of many truly great films that I can simply not watch ever again. That’s part of its power I think.

The Bad Lieutenant, Man Bites Dog, The King Of New York, even Reservoir Dogs to a degree. Great films that I never, ever wish to view a second time.

Comment #181: Sarcastro  on  02/04  at  01:40 PM

Still, I wish Fantastic Mr. Fox could be up for Best Picture.  Up was great (opening montage: more genuine emotion than the last ten Disney animated films combined,) but Fox was the best animated movie I saw this year.

Then you must not have seen CoralineMr. Fox was fun, but it wasn’t anywhere near the level of Coraline thematically.

(I would say “or technically,” but that was a specific choice on Wes Anderson’s part and not any fault of the animators.)

Comment #182: Mnemosyne  on  02/04  at  01:41 PM

I quite enjoyed Basterds; it offered something completely different from what the trailers led me to expect. However, I missed the knock on American exceptionalism that Amanda saw in the film. IB is certainly not the first war movie to portray American characters as something other than noble, freedom-loving-and-dying-for action figurines. I saw no political statement behind Tarantino’s inversion; just another instance of his fondness for that technique. For me, however, that entire half of the movie was far less compelling or interestingly told than Shoshanna’s story. It struck me more as comic relief from the intensity of the real film.

Comment #183: jjcomet  on  02/04  at  02:01 PM

IB had its good bits. But mostly its just profoundly overrated. I doubt if it will be remembered in a few years.

Given that the film provoked in you a response that mirrors in tone and word choice (prurient, pornographic, juvenile, scatological) what some critics and reviewers said about Picasso’s Demoiselles d’Avignon, Joyce’s Ulysses, Wilde’s Picture of Dorian Gray, and pretty much everything created by De Quincey, Poe, Lovecraft, Sade, and Pasolini, I wouldn’t necessarily bank on that. Sometimes what most offends is quite lasting.

Comment #184: Ranylt  on  02/04  at  02:35 PM

But we’re not talking simple German characters.  We’re talking Nazi soldiers invested enough to act with courage.  At this point, my sympathy walks right out the door.

Mmm?  In the baseball bat scene, what made the soldiers specifically Nazis?

PiaTor, my mother was in a Japanese prison camp during WWII and saw a Chinese guerrilla get buried alive by the Japanese soldiers, so perhaps I have a real reason to feel strongly on the subject, seeing as they probably never were put on trial for such things.

My grandfather and my granduncle went off to the war, the latter serving against Rommel.  I am not defending the German war machine; they needed to be fought, and needing to be fought, they needed to be defeated without mercy.

There’s a bit from the Tao te Ching that seems to capture it:

Wherever an army camps, briars and thorns spring up.  When an army passes, famine will follow.

Now weapons, however beautiful, are instruments of evil omen—hateful, it may be said, to all creatures.  Therefore they who follow the unvarying way do not like to employ them.

As instruments of evil omen, those sharp weapons are not the instruments of the superior man—he uses them only on the compulsion of necessity.  Calm and repose are what he prizes; victory by force of arms is to him undesirable.  To consider this desirable would be to delight in the slaughter of men; and he who delights in the slaughter of men cannot get his will in the world.

On occasions of festivity to be on the left hand is the prized position; on occasions of mourning, the right hand.  The lesser army officer has his place on the left; the commander in chief has his on the right—the place of mourning.  He who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief; so the victor in battle has the place of mourning. The superior man ordinarily considers the left hand the most honorable place, but in time of war the right hand.

The ones who should be in the dock over Iraq: GW Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.  Unlike their Nazi counterparts, the soldiers weren’t on a mission to conquer territory, and were told they were defending their country against the possible menace of Saddam attacking America, a probability that we now know was closer to 0 than 1.

I draw your attention to the Gleiwitz incident.  What you are saying is that the troops of your country should be excused culpability because of propaganda, feelings of duty etc - but that troops of that country should not be able to use these as excuses.  It doesn’t wash - the culpability of troops in the crimes of their leaders isn’t an easy topic, but is one that can’t be dismissed offhand either.

It’s worthwhile noting here that many Americans have deserted rather than serving in Iraq.

Dark Avenger, there’s an interesting question I can’t answer for myself - if you had been a German male of military age during WWII, what would you be doing?  I suspect very strongly that I would be patriotically fighting in the Wehrmacht too, for my country rather than for the guy in the moustache.

Comment #185: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/04  at  02:45 PM

I can add a bit of family history to the argument about the complicity of German soldiers in WWII.

My German great aunt married an WWI U-Boat commander, who refused to serve under the Nazis in WWII.

And was thrown into prison for his refusal. After a year in that Nazi prison (and I’d prefer not to imagine what might have happened during a year in a Nazi prison), my great uncle finally agreed to again act as a Commandant on a U-boat.

Nearly half of those who served on U-boats in WWII died during that service, my great uncle included.

There was more than social pressure to join the Nazi military, to comply with Nazi policies—however, the atrocities had as their seed the dirty complicity of prejudice in German society against the Other: Jews, Poles, blacks, homosexuals, the “mongrel race” of Americans.

Comment #186: judybrowni  on  02/04  at  04:12 PM

OK, so a few somewhat disparate things:

- It seems clear that Tarantino is commenting on film’s power to propagandize and impose reality, as well as deconstructing America’s whitewashed image of itself (e.g., having Goebbels in the film, and having both him and the Gestapo officer make the most biting commentaries about the US’s relationship with it’s black citizens).

- From the Fresh Air interview (where Tarantino speaks reverently of Native American guerrilla techniques), and interviews with Eli Roth like this one, Amanda seems to have it right, and the violence wrought on all the German soldiers in the film is considered justified, perhaps even purifying.  I was looking through the quotes at IMDB, and Landa telegraphs it in the first scene:

However, the reason the Führer’s brought me off my Alps in Austria and placed me in French cow country today is because it does occur to me. Because I’m aware what tremendous feats human beings are capable of once they abandon dignity.

The rest of the movie appears to be Tarantino saying “Hans, you have no idea…”

However, that would negate the parallel Dan poins out about the movie theater (Germans cheering the death of Americans in Nation’s Pride, the movie audience doing the same thing a moment later), unless you use the argument of “they started it, so that means it’s OK for us to enjoy this”.

- Like aimai, I don’t think Tarantino understands Judaism well enough to use it in a way that reflects anything accurate about the world.  It’s telling that he includes a reference to the Bear Jew as a Golem without any recognition of the ambivalence about resorting to violence that the legend contains.

QT could have made an interesting commentary about the increasing tension between Israeli Jews and Diaspora Jews.  Diaspora Jews are looked down upon by Israeli Jews in close to the same ways that anti-semites looked down upon all Jews:  Weak and unsuitable for survival.  Diaspora Jews are becoming increasingly alarmed at how Israeli Jews look at their non-Jewish neighbors, both in and out of Israel, and see disturbing parallels to the dehumanizing effects of anti-Semitism.  But as aimai pointed out, he’s just not interested.

- Going back to the baseball bat scene for a second:  Donowitz name checks Ted Williams (“Teddy Ballgame”), not Koufax (as far as I can tell by looking around - it seems to be an unscripted piece of dialogue).  Would have been kind of jarring anyway, since Koufax was eight in 1943.

Now name checking slugger Hank Greenberg, on the other hand… grin

More importantly, the way the German soldier is filmed (slow motion, spaghetti western music, ends with a crisp salute) I think you’re supposed to recognize the parallels between the overwhelming brutality of the Nazis and the Basterds.

I think IB is a really fun film, and QT, as always, has a lot of interesting things to say about film and our engagement with it, but any commentary he has about how unyielding evil is justified in the face of unyielding evil falls flat, especially when he seems to be trying to have it both ways, unwaveringly cheering on the Basterds while pointing out the parallels with the Nazis.  The fact that he’s invoking the suffering of the Jews without understanding Jewish thought on the matter makes it fall even flatter for me.

Comment #187: NY Expat  on  02/04  at  04:25 PM

You know, it occurs to me that I think QT is doing with vengance what Amanda thinks D9 is doing with racism:  It’s an element of the movie, but doesn’t say anything about it.  At least, not if you listen to what QT himself says about the movie; I’m still going back and forth about what seem to me are the clear parallels that are presented in the bat scene and the finale.

Comment #188: NY Expat  on  02/04  at  04:52 PM

PiaTor, there is nothing in the conduct of American soldiers to compare to the Polish incident you cite.

As for myself, I’d have learned enough Swiss-German to move to Switzerland and offer my services to the Allies.

I suspect very strongly that I would be patriotically fighting in the Wehrmacht too, for my country rather than for the guy in the moustache.

Except, as I pointed out before, you’d have taken an oath to the guy when you joined up.

Do you remember what Goering said to a psychiatrist during the Nuremberg trials?

Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger

Now, I should explain that I’ve just turned 51 and have been dealing with politics for all the decades of my life, I was in an anti-war protest when I was 8, and a volunteer for the McGovern campaign when I was 13, so perhaps I have a different perspective than most Americans.

Comment #189: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/04  at  05:14 PM

PiaTor, there is nothing in the conduct of American soldiers to compare to the Polish incident you cite.

The incident was the fake “Polish attack” which gave an excuse for Germany to invade.  Think WMDs in Iraq.

Comment #190: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/04  at  07:06 PM

Think WMDs in Iraq.

Again, it wasn’t soldiers on the ground in that case faking the evidence that there were WMDs in Iraq, as it was German soldiers on the ground faking the attack who pretended to be Polish soldiers.

Comment #191: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  02/04  at  07:20 PM

I don’t think I had to dehumanize the German sergeant to appreciate the justice in seeing someone who took a brave stand for brutality, persecution, and monstrousness be beat to death with a baseball bat by someone who otherwise would have been shivering and starving in a German concentration camp. [...] The German people weren’t fooled into Nazism and the Holocaust. They weren’t fooled into persecution of Jews. They weren’t fooled into serving in the Nazi army. They were sold a vision, and most of them bought it, of their own free will.

In your opinion, are attacks against American soldiers and terrorism against the American people justified by the invasion of Iraq, by the torture at Abu Ghraib, and by the denial of human rights to innocent Muslims captured in the “war on terror” ?

Comment #192: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/04  at  08:01 PM

As bad as our conduct in the War on Terror has been, it’s ridiculous to suggest that it’s anywhere as bad or widely supported by the populace as the Holocaust was.

Chet, I’m not saying it was.  What I am saying is that you seem to be justifying lumping all Germans together based on brutality, persecution, and monstrousness without regarding how other people might view American actions

Your counter appears to be that there is a difference in degree rather than kind - and if I was a Muslim who had had a child killed in these wars (or, indeed, had just seen pictures of children killed in these wars), the cry that “we are not as bad as these other Westerners nearly a century ago” wouldn’t really cut it.

Comment #193: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/05  at  12:00 AM

But we’re not talking simple German characters.  We’re talking Nazi soldiers invested enough to act with courage.  At this point, my sympathy walks right out the door.

I’m sure it does, but I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. Yes, lots of Germans served. Yes, they swore an oath to Adolf Hitler (though not all willingly). Yes, some of them made a choice. But I’m not sure all German soldiers deserve to lose all sympathy.

I was disturbed by the baseball bat scene. For me it signalled that there was the whiff of Colonel Kurtz about these Basterds. Their methods had become unsound.

Indeed the whole movie seemed to frame them as a bunch incompetent jackasses. I think there was something very subversive going on here.

Comment #194: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood  on  02/05  at  03:12 PM

Indeed the whole movie seemed to frame them as a bunch of incompetent jackasses. I think there was something very subversive going on here.

Yep—the Basterds completely fucked up their plan and the only reason they were able to kill Hitler was because Shoshanna executed her concurrent plan that they didn’t know anything about.

It’s not a coincidence that the two people in the film who ensured Hitler’s death were a Jewish woman and a black man.

Comment #195: Mnemosyne  on  02/05  at  03:48 PM

The incompetence aspect is a great touch, but it’s not part of the Chet/PiaToR argument, which is about the justness of such methods, irrespective of their efficacy.

Comment #196: NY Expat  on  02/05  at  04:34 PM

“All Germans”? No, just the ones who took a courageous stand for a regime dedicated to the evil murder of millions of captive men, women, and children.

Or alternatively the regime was dedicated to the rightful place of the German people and the strengthening of the nation.  It would be very easy for anyone there to turn a blind eye or minimise the perhaps unfortunate side effects of that perfectly righteous zeal, such as the unexplained and probably exaggerated disappearance of the Jews and Gypsys.  Again, think for a moment about someone claiming that the American regime was dedicated to wars of aggression and the torture of Arabs.

I know it’s cute to pretend that the persecution of Jews was the agenda of a small few pushed on an unwilling populace, but that’s simply not how it was, at all. The vast majority of wartime Germans supported Hitler and the Nazis.

But not necessarily because they (Mr Moustache and his compadres) were psychopathic assholes engaging in genocide. IMHO, it is perfectly possible for Germans to have been fighting for Germany for “legitimate” reasons - patriotism, because it is in a war for survival, and due to resentment over previous wars.

They had to be stopped, they had to be defeated, they had to be crushed, but when you turn them all into subhumans - when you equate all Germans fighting with the Nazis - then you hurt your self.  War should be approached with an attitude of mourning.

If you want to understand people, you have to look at how they see the world, not just interpret their actions based on your own perspective.  The German soldier, the Muslim suicide bomber, the American Special Forces trooper - they all have what seem to them to be good and sufficient reasons for what they do, and none of them is a villian in their own minds.

The IBs were as big as wankers in their tactics as anyone, they were just fighting for the “right” side - which makes the point about the Germans cheering at the sniper blowing Allied soldiers away very appropriate.

Comment #197: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  02/05  at  06:38 PM

Ah, well, the problem is that the fates of the Palestinian-Jewish commandos in British service in Central Europe (mainly Hungary) in 1944 were bitter enough, when compared to the mythos of the Jewish Brigade in Italy in 1945, that modern Israelis think of Hannah Senesch (Szenes, and whatever alternate spellings you may like) and her ilk as just another victim consigned to The Eternal Jewish Fate.  Vengeance and assorted stuff was pretty much the ethos of people like Abba Kovner, who had an unproblematic relationship with force all his life and a much more violent and satisfactory career as a leader of Jewish partisans in Lithuania and who was responsible for much more Bear Jew-ish actions than any of the British-uniformed Palestinian-born or -refugee Jews.  And of course Tarantino is not going to have access to hair-splitting subtleties of European history.

Comment #198: Eurosabra  on  02/05  at  06:57 PM

If Hank Baskett’s team, the Indianapolis Colts, wins Sunday’s Super Bowl XLIV in Miami – there’s no keeping his wife Kendra Wilkinson off the field.“I’m told only two peopleEmpire Wedding Dresses per player are allowed on the field after the game,” Wilkinson tells PEOPLE at party she hosted Friday night at Seminole Hard Rock Casino’s Passions club near Miami. “His dad and I will run out there, and I will jump in my husband’s lap while grandma stays behind and holds little Hank!”rolex gold watchesGlowing in tight white jeans, the reality star could barely contain her excitement over her Super Bowl plan, jumping up and down as she talked of game day. Wilkinson plans to watch from a box with her son Hank Baskett IV, 2 A line Taffeta Lace Wedding Dressmonths, and her mother, Patti.In addition to his Colts jersey, she says, “Little Hank will be wearing earphones so the noise doesn’t overwhelm him.” Says Wilkinson: “I love every minute of every day I spend with him because he is constantly changing.A line Taffeta Organdie Wedding Dress He focuses on me and likes to imitate what I say and do.“For example, if Wilkinson, who is filming the weekend for her new reality show which begins in March, says “mommy,” her son moves hisA line Taffeta Satin Wedding Dress mouth to try and form the word. “Our little boy is beyond cute,” she says. “It won’t be long before he talks.“And his grandma, Patti Wilkinson, agrees. She flew to the Sunshine State from San Diego for some family time. “I have not spent anyA line Taffeta Wedding Dress time with little Hank until yesterday,” Patti says. “I am so thrilled to be able to play with him. He is already a heavy little thing. I think he will be a football player someday!”

Comment #199: wuwei  on  02/07  at  06:06 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.