Inglorious Basterds

[bobsticks]

Pathetically myopic worldviews held by some of y'all...and sadly not really surprising....I sincerely hope that ITRW none of y'all are doctors...it'd be a shame to watch the patient die while several of you fixate on the symptoms...

These are my least favorite threads that appear on this forum.

Troy, I'm sorry your thread got hijacked...it started as a well-thought, compelling review...thank you for the effort; I'm gonna go see this flick...

[Rich-n-Texas]

ITRW = In The Real World.

I'm going to go see this also. The impression I got from the trailer I saw on TV is that Brad's role in the movie is a perfect fit for a QT directed film and Troy's description of it just reinforces what I already thought.

[3LB]

At the outset I was simply objecting to the theme of bashing of dehumanized Nazis, which by now is a cheap and stale Holywood cliché.

QT isn't beyond being cliche, or cheap, as is evident by his pawnshop/Deliverence scene in Pulp Fiction.

Does Tarantino mock the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché? Or does he merely exploit it? If the former, I'll reconsider this particular movie.

I haven't seen it, but how can you mock the the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché w/o being exploitive? How would you mock the the dehumanized Nazi bashing cliché?

Its my expectation that any attempt by QT to delve into an established genre is to "turn it on its ear" so to speak. Yeah, I can see how you might want to take issue with what you've already pointed out to be cliché but do you think moviemakers are going to leave the subject alone if it makes money? Yes, I agree that Nazis as comicbook style baddies in movies has become cliché, but how else are you going to portray Nazis in a film like this? I don't think this film was ever presented as an indepth exploration of Nazism, WWII or US middle-east policy since. Being a QT film I ssupect its supposed to be funny in a twisted, uncomfortable QT kinda way.

In comedy or action movies, I think its an unspoken rule that Nazis have to be portrayed as uptight fuktards - its a parody of their own vision of themselves. Or you could put 'em in a kickline...

[bobsticks]

Yeah...y'know, I wouldn't wanna fight me either...

[nightflier]

Sticks, you lost me. What's eating you about the thread?

[RGA]

3LB - You've hit the nail on the head.

I watched the film last night and it boils down to a QT western dirty dozen revenge romp through WWII if the fantasy of winning not losing happened to come about. There is no great political message but human nature commentary you bet. Quentin Tarantino loves dialogue, loves actors, is in love with his female leads and their feet, and to be quite blunt the Nazis deserve whatever they got and whatever QT could imagine them getting - which wasn't enough.

It's not perfect - in the way I felt Pulp Fiction was perfect. More characters were better drawn in Pulp Fiction with less screen time. But Christoph Waltz deserves an academy award as a typical psychopath who relishes a war like this. Brad Pitt who I usually don't like - I liked him here. Some of the scenes toward end were hilarious.

There is nothing of current politics about it unless you deliberately read something that isn't there into it. It's a terrific film (not living up to Pulp Fiction which was my number 2 film of the 1990's behind Schindler's List) is no crime. IB is the best film I've seen this year.

I like Ebert's review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/908199995

[3LB]

These are my least favorite threads that appear on this forum.

Wha? you mean the kind that go over one page?

[bobsticks]

Wha? you mean the kind that go over one page?

Lol...not so much...but I lol'd...

[bobsticks]

Sticks, you lost me. What's eating you about the thread?

The fact that peeps are pre-judging without ever seeing and placing judgements based modern-day contextual nuances that have nothing to do with the story in question.

Suddenly the thread has become some historically-revisionist tale of the emotional delpth of the Nazi's...a justification of sorts and semi-hollow bashing of Israel without any analysis as to the origins of the many problematic issues that face that particular region of the globe.

[Feanor]

The fact that peeps are pre-judging without ever seeing and placing judgements based modern-day contextual nuances that have nothing to do with the story in question.

Suddenly the thread has become some historically-revisionist tale of the emotional delpth of the Nazi's...a justification of sorts and semi-hollow bashing of Israel without any analysis as to the origins of the many problematic issues that face that particular region of the globe.

If you accusing somebody of being a crypto-Nazi, perhaps you'd like to quit the innuendo and name him (or her).

Also with respect to the supposed "bashing ... Israel without any analysis ...", perhaps you'd like to discuss the origins of issued that aren't being analysed.

Or if not, maybe you'd like to STFU.

[bobsticks]

If you accusing somebody of being a crypto-Nazi, perhaps you'd like to quit the innuendo and name him (or her).

Also with respect to the supposed "bashing ... Israel without any analysis ...", perhaps you'd like to discuss the origins of issued that aren't being analysed.

Or if not, maybe you'd like to STFU.

Lol...I appreciate the multiple edit points....

...I'm not accusing anyone of being a "crypto nazi"...

<object width="340" height="285"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYymnxoQnf8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color 2=0x6b8ab6&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nYymnxoQnf8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x2b405b&color 2=0x6b8ab6&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="340" height="285"></embed></object>

I also appreciate your ability to recognize that both the Israelis and the Palestinians have some blood in this one...ja...the issue is that it shouldn't have happened in the first place...should we really ignore the fact that a coalition of white elitists made a deliberate decision to place a few million Jews in their "Holy Land"....amidst the economic breakdown of an entire region...

Ultimately, we can talk about the breakdown of civility within modern discourse or we can discuss your influenced rancor about me "STFU"...(which I'm giggling a bit about given that you didn't have the cajones to type it in the first place)....

The fact that your ultra-liberal background would blind you from certain truths scares me. I regard you, Feanor, as an accomplished individual not just within the arena of music but of experience, as well. When I wrote, "semi-hollow bashin" you must've recognized...

nevermind...this is obviously going to devolve into a ridiculous argument...one that I have both no stake in, and one that you're probably too prejudgemental to pay attention too..

Let's leave it at this...there are many current issues that must be contended with , as well as a significant amount of historical precedent...

For the world to be a better place, all of us must reconize that the sins of the past do not apply to us as individuals...nor are they inapplicable....move the **** on an live yer life...

[Feanor]

...
Ultimately, we can talk about the breakdown of civility within modern discourse or we can discuss your influenced rancor about me "STFU"...(which I'm giggling a bit about given that you didn't have the cajones to type it in the first place)....

The fact that your ultra-liberal background would blind you from certain truths scares me. I regard you, Feanor, as an accomplished individual not just within the arena of music but of experience, as well. When I wrote, "semi-hollow bashin" you must've recognized...

nevermind...this is obviously going to devolve into a ridiculous argument...one that I have both no stake in, and one that you're probably too prejudgemental to pay attention too..

Let's leave it at this...
...

Yes, let's the both of us STFU ... for now.

[bobsticks]

..Best for both of us..and let me reiterate I respect you as a person...just not always your political opinions...

[nightflier]

Sticks, not to muddy the waters, but we are talking about a movie that:

1. Was made 50-ish years after WW2
2. Was made by one of the most controversial mainstream directors of our time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. Is a fantasy (it never happened)

That this discussion should forgo the questions raised above is a bit puzzling. After all, the Israel-Palestinian conflict also:

1. Was made 50-ish years ago
2. Was created by some rather controversial mainstream leaders of the time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. is not a fantasy (it really happened)

So aside from #5, there are some similarities that should be considered, I think. Now as far as me not having seen the movie (yet), you are correct in pointing that out. But you have to admit that the previews alone leave little to the imagination (typical of movie previews these days).

[3LB]

there are some similarities that should be considered

possibly, but I think in this case one might defer to the originator of the thread, lest a new thread be posted on the O/T forum. Myself, I don't care if a thread goes way off topic, but it ain't my thread either.

I dunno if Tarantino is all that controversial anymore, or avant gard either. He's the John Waters of action film. I'm not saying he's untalented or a hack or whatever, I'm just saying he's what I'd call a cult director - ya kinda know what yer gonna get.

[ForeverAutumn]

Sticks, not to muddy the waters, but we are talking about a movie that:

1. Was made 50-ish years after WW2
2. Was made by one of the most controversial mainstream directors of our time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. Is a fantasy (it never happened)

That this discussion should forgo the questions raised above is a bit puzzling. After all, the Israel-Palestinian conflict also:

1. Was made 50-ish years ago
2. Was created by some rather controversial mainstream leaders of the time
3. Has as it's main theme the issue of vengeance
4. Is extremely violent
5. is not a fantasy (it really happened)

So aside from #5, there are some similarities that should be considered, I think. Now as far as me not having seen the movie (yet), you are correct in pointing that out. But you have to admit that the previews alone leave little to the imagination (typical of movie previews these days).

Where's the logic in this post?

First off, #1 is not similar, you're talking about two completely different points in time.

Second, you're comparing a hollywood director to some of the most influential (for good or bad) leaders of the 20th century. I'm sure that QT would be flattered.

Third, should we contemplate and compare everything that fits your criteria? Let's throw Hiroshima and Nagasaki into the mix then. 50ish years ago; created by controverial mainstream leader; Is an issue of vengeance; Was extremely violent; Was not a fantasy. Yep, it fits.

nightflier, sometimes I think that you argue just for the sake of arguing.

[nightflier]

I suppose my points were perhaps worded awkwardly. With #1, my point was that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is very much an issue still today, as witnessed by the controversy over this film.

Point #2 could use more detail, so I'll provide that. Who's to say that QT doesn't have as much influence as Jabotinsky, Koetsler, or to speak for the other side, al-Husayni? Films were not as widespread in the Israeli state's infancy, so I'm referring to propagandists and writers of course. But the fact remains that we are talking about influencing the minds of people and QT, flattered or not, is on a mission of sorts, and we should indeed ask ourselves what that mission is.

#3 & #4 are obvious similarities, and it would probably not be a stretch to include the atomic bombs in the discussion, but I didn't want to go there. Had QT made a movie set during the extermination of Native Americans by US troops (he is 1/4 Cherokee) or Armenians by Turkish troops, the point would still be the same: this is a movie about vengeance for an act of excessive violence during a major war. He could very well be asking the question: how much more cruelty in return is justified? Certainly a small band of Jewish soldiers cannot possibly perpetrate an act of the same magnitude as the Nazi exterminations, so QT suggests that maybe extreme cruelty, violence, and spine-tingling odium could offer some levity. Does it? I don't know, but the question should still be asked.

It is my opinion that QT very much sought to push those buttons, the very ones that call the Palestinian-Israeli conflict into question, or more universally, any excessive violent act during a time of war. Whether he's doing it for ratings, psycho-egoism, or even an artistic reason, is perhaps the most disturbing question in all this. I didn't really want to go too deep into the analysis of it, but you forced my hand. No I don't post for nothing, I post because these questions should be asked.

And not to belabor the point, but there are far more similarities that I could point out too, the least of which is that the cruelty in this movie smacks of the cruelty that we read is being perpetrated by any army that is overwhelmingly more powerful than the force it is fighting. I'm talking about the way our soldiers carried themselves in Abu Graib and the despicable conduct in the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. And the Israeli army isn't much different. Their treatment of Palestinian civilians (Gaza comes to mind) and the abysmal conditions of prisoners is well documented but it's not new either. Noam Chomsky has described in detail how Israelis condoned, encouraged, and even trained the death squads and torturers of the Latin American dictatorships. There are now several sources that cite that Jewish doctors have been harvesting prisoner organs (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...n_262787.html). Is this starting to sound eerily familiar, yet?

These are happening today in our lifetime and have far too much in common with crimes of the past to leave the questions unasked. So is QT asking these same questions with his film or is it just more senseless, unadulterated, violence-ridden entertainment? I seriously doubt QT, however we may hate or like him, is that shallow.

[bobsticks]

Wow...seriously?..you wanna quote Noam Chomsky as cedible source??

I can appreciate your suburban, judgemental, greenie, uneducated point of view...but, umm, no I can't...

I can appreciate your level of egalitarianism...

...None the less, **** them muthfukkk**s, ..

Erebody wants to ignore to historical precent that was set...you wanna move a bunch of peeeps to an unfamiar area without the benifit of any input...

Both sides have been wronged, Both have members that live in poverty...ultimately that has to do with opportunity....those countries need to foster development...

[RGA]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

[bobsticks]

Thank you

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

[ForeverAutumn]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

Well said.

[Feanor]

I'm kind of tired of people getting on Inglorious Basterds comparing it to the Israeli Palestinian conflict without ever actually watching the movie. Please! This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is. A revenge Jewish fantasy tale of "how I wish I could blow away the big Nazi brass for what they did to my parents story. Geez.

Noam Chomsky is a brilliant logical writer but let's not let him do all of the thinking for everyone. Noam has a perspective/bias that he puts forth. The past needs to be set aside and people have to deal with the situation and "complaints" of both parties in the now. Arguing about some document that was signed more than 40 years ago and who owned what piece of land is a complete waste of time. The Israeli's are not going to give up land because in their guts they know that if they give an inch the 300 million folks on their borders who all want them stuffed in gas chambers will be in a very weak position. It's never ever ever ever ever going to happen that they give up massive territory. And so Palestine and neighboring states can either figure it out and make an accommodation or be stuck in an endless war. The two sides frankly deserve one another and I'm tired of reading endless self proclaimed experts arguing over minutia as to why Israel is wrong or why Palestine is wrong and who is terrorizing who. Israelies torturing Palestinians and Palestinians strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israeli women and children. And both sides fighting to preserve the land of a fictitious God.

1. I saw Dirty Dozen and disliked it for reasons indicated.
2. Too bad the United Nations' two-state solution, the 1947 Palestine Partition agreement, didn't work; it would have saved us all lot of aggrevation in the intervening 60 years.
3. I agree with your last sentance.

[3LB]

This is the Dirty Dozen meets Pulp Fiction and it's not more than it is.

ding ding ding ding...

we have a winnah, give the man a ceegar!

[Auricauricle]

I have not seen the latest QT movie yet, and there is a pretty distinct possibility that I may wait awhile before I do. While his shows are certainly worthy of note, QT’s grotesqueries don’t have much appeal for me, who have seen and continue to experience the horrors of obscene violence first hand. No depiction of these graphic acts, even in QT’s cartoonish garb, can fail but to affect me, and finding catharsis, even in the face of wrongs righted, is just as brutal.

I expect that such a pompous statement risks being labeled a prude, but in depicting blood shed in such a façade, I reckon that Tarantino diminishes violence. For those of us old enough and mature enough to appreciate his buffoonery, this may be fine, but I worry that such depictions have an insidious, desensitizing effect. I noticed this the other day, as I watched a show describing unspeakable savagery in another part of the world. As I watched, images of mutilated bodies lay strewn across the screen. While I was capable of feeling the repugnance that accompanies such a viewing, I realized, sadly, that my revulsion was not as toxic as it once was. Have I grown up? Have I become inured?

The depiction of violence in movies and on the television has been an issue almost as long as these media have been extant. True, I have seen my share of many shows that depict the destruction of the human body, and for the most part I have been able—most of the time—to walk away from the shows able to remind myself that it was, after all, only a show I watched and that the gore was Karo syrup and latex. Some shows, on the other hand, have stuck with me a bit longer than others, and there are yet some that I have avoided altogether, knowing that in some way, watching them will take something away from me.

In Buddhism, the concept of the Eightfold Path offers adherents to the importance of doing things the right way, in order to lessen their suffering. Right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, and right knowledge and liberation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Noble_Eightfold_Path) are all part of this journey. Without going into a discourse on Buddhism, the notion that going astray can cloud the mind and our lives, I think, is a valid one. As I said, many is the time that I have seen and heard horror, and in these occasions an important part of me has faded away. In appreciating the moment, certain images, thoughts and feelings must be allowed to come and pass. Just as the leaves on a stream emerge into view and disappear, so should these moments. Violence is toxic, and sometimes its presence makes letting things go well nigh impossible.

This is the horror of post-traumatic stress. It can be real or vicarious, but the brain is capable of processing these interlopers the same way. While much work has been done to diminish the effects of violence, through special training or super-medications, I worry that in doing so will come with the sacrifice of our ability to feel anything. Our capacity to have compassion, empathy and sorrow are just as important as our faculties to experience joy. Perhaps in becoming desensitized or “used to” horror, we risk losing this capacity and so, relinquish our very humanity.

So, I will wait awhile before I catch this movie. It may be a farce, it may, in fact be quite and alarmingly funny. Call me oversensitive or a “wussy”; I just don’t want the pollution in my head just now.

[Feanor]

I have not seen the latest QT movie yet, and there is a pretty distinct possibility that I may wait awhile before I do. While his shows are certainly worthy of note, QT’s grotesqueries don’t have much appeal for me, who have seen and continue to experience the horrors of obscene violence first hand. No depiction of these graphic acts, even in QT’s cartoonish garb, can fail but to affect me, and finding catharsis, even in the face of wrongs righted, is just as brutal.

I expect that such a pompous statement risks being labeled a prude, but in depicting blood shed in such a façade, I reckon that Tarantino diminishes violence. For those of us old enough to appreciate his buffoonery, this may be fine, but I worry that such depictions have an insidious, desensitizing effect. I noticed this the other day, as I watched a show describing unspeakable savagery in another part of the world. As I watched, images of mutilated bodies lay strewn across the screen. While I was capable of feeling the repugnance that accompanies such a viewing, I realized, sadly, that my revulsion was not as toxic as it once was. Have I grown up? Have I become inured?

The depiction of violence in movies and on the television has been an issue almost as long as these media have been extant. True, I have seen my share of many shows that depict the destruction of the human body, and for the most part I have been able—most of the time—to walk away from the shows able to remind myself that it was, after all, only a show I watched and that the gore was Karo syrup and latex. Some shows, on the other hand, have stuck with me a bit longer than others, and there are yet some that I have avoided altogether, knowing that in some way, watching them will take something away from me.

....

I can confidently say based on the other Tarantino films I've seen, that he exploits violence. Why does this appeal to us? Is it vicarious experience? Is it catharsis? Or is it just desensitizing?

And my question about this latest movie: is it really better that most of the violence is visited on comic-book demon Nazi mannequins rather than real human beings, or is not?