Inglourious Basterds

[chrissyin]

I'd like to see Tarantino continue making films that he wants to make and can manage to get finance for - if he doesn't want to make anything other than his versions of grindhouse, blaxploitation and spaghetti westerns etc that's cool for me, so long as every now and then a film hits me thats as good as IB.

Should Scorsese be making anything other than gangster films? Is John Ford less of a director for making mainly westerns? Even directors that will direct films at tangents to one another (Spielberg, Fincher, PT Anderson) still infuse their films with their given style, trademark shots, editing, casting etc) that makes them recognisable as their own. Thats their talent shining through. QT would be the same no matter what he did.

Its not like Tarantino is making sub par mass produced tat like Look Who's Talking Too, or Beethoven's Seventh. Each of his films is different and clever enough to warrant a look at least.

 

[chrissyin]

Yep, I've had enough of this too... [goes off to find a thread about Air Bud 2 : Golden Receiver]....

 

[kupocake]

Mixed feelings about this one. The irony just seems a bit of a nudge-wink get out clause for the extremities of the violence, and I have to chime in with those who say that even if it's saying something clever, it's neither timely nor particularly insightful for doing so. But the acting and script were generally pleasing, often brilliant and its more bizarre qualities a bit of harmless fun.

 

[Kadayi]

Should Scorsese be making anything other than gangster films? Is John Ford less of a director for making mainly westerns? Even directors that will direct films at tangents to one another (Spielberg, Fincher, PT Anderson) still infuse their films with their given style, trademark shots, editing, casting etc) that makes them recognisable as their own. Thats their talent shining through. QT would be the same no matter what he did.

I've not seen enough John Ford films to comment on his range, but Scorsesse doesn't just make Gangster movies.

 

[leib10]

Awful, horrible film.

Strong anti-German sentiment where not a single German is portrayed as being halfway decent (except the Oberfeldwebel, who ends up being killed anyway)? Check. Gratuitous, breathtaking violence that goes beyond making a point and ends up being distasteful? Check. Jews committing the very atrocities the Nazis were accused of in the spirit of revenge and hypocrisy? Check. Accents that get irritating thirty seconds after you hear them? Double check. Murderous psychopaths being portrayed as "badass" or even heroic? Check. No doubt hordes of ignorants wanting to be just like Brad Pitt? Check.

What more could Americans want? I mean, we eat this kind of stuff up that provides an enjoyable alternate reality that we can still use to bolster our "knowledge" about facts. I realize that the film is not a history lesson or even claims to be so, but that won't stop people who haven't read a history book from believing it's partly true (this happened in one of my classes a few days ago; yes, people are that stupid). The bottom line is: this thing should've come with a disclaimer so that people wouldn't be able to dupe themselves into buying into it for anything other than a snuff film with a little history thrown in to lessen the bitter taste in one's mouth, and so I wouldn't have wasted $6 and almost 3 hours of my life watching it.

A shame too, I've loved almost all of Tarantino's other films.

However, the man who played Standartenfuhrer Hans Landa deserves an Oscar. His performance was the only enjoyable aspect of this otherwise crappy film that nevertheless is hailed as "brilliant" by viewers and critics alike.

 

[TwwIX]

Awful, horrible film.

Strong anti-German sentiment where not a single German is portrayed as being halfway decent (except the Oberfeldwebel, who ends up being killed anyway)? Check. Gratuitous, breathtaking violence that goes beyond making a point and ends up being distasteful? Check. Jews committing the very atrocities the Nazis were accused of in the spirit of revenge and hypocrisy? Check. Accents that get irritating thirty seconds after you hear them? Double check. Murderous psychopaths being portrayed as "badass" or even heroic? Check. No doubt hordes of ignorants wanting to be just like Brad Pitt? Check.

What more could Americans want? I mean, we eat this kind of stuff up that provides an enjoyable alternate reality that we can still use to bolster our "knowledge" about facts. I realize that the film is not a history lesson or even claims to be so, but that won't stop people who haven't read a history book from believing it's partly true (this happened in one of my classes a few days ago; yes, people are that stupid). The bottom line is: this thing should've come with a disclaimer so that people would dupe themselves into buying into it for anything other than a snuff film with a little history thrown in to lessen the bitter taste in one's mouth, and so I wouldn't have wasted $6 and almost 3 hours of my life watching it.

A shame too, I've loved almost all of Tarantino's other films.

No, it's not anti German at all. It's anti Nazi. Do no confuse those two. This movie has been praised by the German film community as well theater goers. If there's anybody that despises the Nazi's as much as the Jewish Community, it's the Germans of today. How are the accents irritating? Those are all genuine German and French actors. Very well known and accomplished actors. As for the plot and setting.
Evil Begets Evil. That's the main theme of the movie.
It's a fantasy. Only Nazi's inflicted this kind of violence, and then some.
This is a "what if" scenario. Don't like it, don't watch it then.

 

[leib10]

Like I said, the film is not meant to be anti-German. However, that's the way it's going to be interpreted by a large portion of filmgoers who don't know that there is a difference between a German and a Nazi.

And as for the accents, I mean Brad Pitt's. I agree with you, the rest of the actors who spoke German and French were excellent (I liked the fact that the majority of the film was in either language).

And don't be so sure about only the Nazis inflicting this kind of violence... read up about what the Russians did on the Eastern Front. Americans were known for their atrocities as well, such as the scalping (which actually took place during the Italian campaign).

 

[CR0M]

Film makers are not responsible for the beliefs of the miss-informed. If the ignorant can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, entertainment and propaganda, then it's the fault of themselves, not the film industry. Might as well say GTA4 is a shit game because it encourages idiots to steal cars.

 

[Sparta]

Sparta can you elaborate as to why you say its flawed but great? I'm curious to hear your rationale.

Also LOL

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top

No 35 in the highest rated films ever on IMDB...

Better than Yojimbo, The African Queen or All quiet on the Western front seriously?

First off, imdb.com sucks. Thanks largely to those top 250 rankings. They're a joke. The Dark Knight is an awesome film but saying it's the second best film ever made is like shitting in the mouth of the foreign and independent film community.

Secondly, the reason I say it's flawed but great is because this film is almost more about it's themes and subtext than it is what actually happens. It's certainly an odd thing but hear me out. Before this, all of Tarantino's films were fairly shallow. With the exception of Jackie Brown (which I haven't seen), just about all of his films have little to nothing going on beneath the surface. Kill Bill is a revenge fantasy that hardly says anything about the nature of revenge. Pulp Fiction is....pulp fiction (although I've heard people argue that it's about American Nihilism wankers) and Deathproof is a piece of shit.

At least in Pulp Fiction anyone and everyone who participates in violence, in turn suffers because of it. Vincent Vega is killed, Jules turns his life around after some introspection, Bruce Willis gets in a car crash and Ving Rhames gets raped. Whereas in Kill Bill, The Bride is rewarded for it after being punished for rejecting it as a lifestyle.

I love Pulp Fiction and I really enjoy Kill Bill 2 (the first one is ok) but both of these films are particularly shallow when you compare their subtext to Inglourious Basterds.

Spoilers, ahoy.

Spoiler

The opening scene (which i love) in IB has Hans Landa talking about the difference between the squirrel and the rat. He goes on about how they are both capable of carrying the same disease but most people would easily let the squirrel into their home instead of the rat. This sets the tone for the racial/prejudice subtext in the film. After the opening scene it cuts to Brad Pitt telling the newly formed basterds that they owe him 100 nazi scalps.

From there on out the film continues with just about every good guy committing some pretty terrible acts upon the nazi's, most of those acts committed simply because those people are nazi's. The first german officer is killed for refusing to point out the position of other german patrols. Up until he says "**** You" to Brad Pitt he's nothing but honourable. When Eli Roth puts a bat to his head he asks the officer if he got those medals for killing jews, he answers that he got it for bravery. Then Eli Roth bashes his head in because he's a nazi. Not to mention the scalpings and the swastika carving, these are all pretty terrible things that happen to people, simply because they are nazi's. They are deeply prejudiced. The Inglourious Basterds are the squirrel to Landa's Rat.

The next scene where Nazi's get killed is the bar scene. Just about everything that happens there, happens because shit hits the fan. But then Max (or whatever that soldiers name is) put's down his gun to let Diane Kruger and gets shot three times in the chest for it.

Probably the most obvious evidence of the subtext in the film is towards the end, moments before they burn the place down and kill Hitler. Eli Roth and Dominic Decocco (or whatever his name actually was) kill two nazi's in this kickass scene involving these punch-guns. It's pretty cool. I was laughing when I first saw it. That scene is immediately followed by the german audience cheering the deaths of the American soldiers, moments before those two start gunning them down, shooting Hitler and Goebbels and the place goes up in flames and consequently explodes. Then Brad Pitt carves the swastika into the head of Landa (although he was a prick to begin with) but not before shooting and killing the unarmed radio operator, one of the men who directly helped them win the war.

Now, I'm the first one to call people out on being full of shit about subtext in films. I recently argued with a guy who thought District 9 was a commentary on how "genre" filmmaking was more effective than "arthouse" because of that films combining of documentary and narrative filmmaking methods. When I told him he was seeing something that was unintentional (when the director stated he was simply trying to make a summer thrill ride) he argued back that everyone is so obsessed with what is intentional and what's not... thereby stating that his criticism of the film is more important than the director's statement of intention. Pompous bullshit, really.

While I can easily see how people would believe that about what I'm saying now, there is one massive wink to the audience that pretty much proves this is exactly what Tarantino meant to do. Here it is.

Michael Fassbender's character, Lt Hicox, is put on the assignment because prior to the war he was an english film critic whose speciality was deconstructing the subtextual elements of German director G.W. Pabst. He mentions it directly in the dialogue in his opening scene. That is a massive wink to the audience, that should (hopefully) already be thinking about prejudice given the opening scenes.

That's why this film isn't just a jewish exploitation film and not just another masturbatory Tarantino film. Its far smarter than his regular fare and the vast majority of films on racism like that trollop, Crash.

Edit: Oh, and as for its flaws. I think it's overly long, too much dialogue in places that simply serve the subtext or theme rather than the plot. You should be able to do both at once (like, say the show Mad Men does) rather than having three minutes of dialogue on King Kong that does nothing for the plot. Also, I felt there were some really odd cuts in the film that confused a lot of people I've seen it it with. Particularly cutting from the Operation Kino brief, to Nadine. It's jarring and confusing.

 

[Kadayi]

@Sparta

I hear what your saying, but the problem is as leib10 rightly points out a German footsoldier does not necessarily a Nazi make, and its a grave error to ignore that, and one that undermines any message QT is trying to make. As I said in a previous post labelling every German Soldier a Nazi would be akin to Labelling every US Marine a Republican that took part in the invasion or Iraq. The Nazis were a political movement, not a military one. Their military power was the resultant of their political power. Even you're make the mistake of assuming German soldier = Nazi in your writing.

 

[Stigmata]

But now you might be confusing historical accuracy with thematic intent.

 

[Solaris]

@Sparta

I hear what your saying, but the problem is as leib10 rightly points out a German footsoldier does not necessarily a Nazi make, and its a grave error to ignore that, and one that undermines any message QT is trying to make. As I said in a previous post labelling every German Soldier a Nazi would be akin to Labelling every US Marine a Republican that took part in the invasion or Iraq. The Nazis were a political movement, not a military one. Their military power was the resultant of their political power. Even you're make the mistake of assuming German soldier = Nazi in your writing.

I disagree, the average German foot soldiers were Nazis. Without them, there would have been no holocaust, so I've no problem seeing the shit get kicked out of them in the film.

 

[Kadayi]

But now you might be confusing historical accuracy with thematic intent.

Thematic intent tends to fall down when it doesn't subscribe to the facts as given in any way shape or form. For example would it be fair to assume that all White Southern soldiers were racists during the American civil war? Sure there undoubtedly were a lot of them, but if IB were about a bunch of renegade Mulattoes killing and scalping every confederate soldier they came across do you think people would readily except it?

I disagree, the average German foot soldiers were Nazis. Without them, there would have been no holocaust, so I've no problem seeing the shit get kicked out of them in the film.

It's all very well registering your disagreement, but it would be fairly useful if you could register an actual counter argument Vs the facts given. Simply saying I disagree without some solid rationale doesn't cut it in debate circles I'm afraid.

 

[Sparta]

@Sparta

I hear what your saying, but the problem is as leib10 rightly points out a German footsoldier does not necessarily a Nazi make, and its a grave error to ignore that, and one that undermines any message QT is trying to make. As I said in a previous post labelling every German Soldier a Nazi would be akin to Labelling every US Marine a Republican that took part in the invasion or Iraq. The Nazis were a political movement, not a military one. Their military power was the resultant of their political power. Even you're make the mistake of assuming German soldier = Nazi in your writing.

That's definitely a valid point, but it doesn't nullify the themes or arguments the film puts forth either though.

 

[Kadayi]

That's definitely a valid point, but it doesn't nullify the themes or arguments the film puts forth either though.

If the foundation is sand, then you can't very well build a house upon it I'm afraid. All the talk of themes and arguments slides into the river because of lazy oversight. The analogies don't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[leib10]

I disagree, the average German foot soldiers were Nazis. Without them, there would have been no holocaust, so I've no problem seeing the shit get kicked out of them in the film.

Clearly you have no understanding of the topic. The Wehrmacht was intentionally kept nonpolitical, and military service was mandatory for German males, especially later in the war. Ergo, their political leanings had no bearing on their status in the military. The Waffen-SS, on the other hand, was much more politicized, especially early in the war (although large numbers of ex-Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine men were drafted into the Waffen-SS as the war went on).

In other words, saying that all German soldiers were Nazis and members of Einsatzgruppen is an unfortunately common misconception that has often besmirched the honor of millions of men who were merely doing their job. This misconception has led to a "never forgive, never forget" mentality in which true reconciliation and progress is impossible and where a fertile ground for ignorance and hate is sown. Should we forget the Holocaust? Never. Should we try to reconcile with the people involved so that life can go on without bitterness and a constant spanking? Yes. Were there incidents where regular Wehrmacht soldiers engaged in hunting Jews and other undesirables? Yes. Did they all act with the utmost valor and have a perfect record regarding atrocities? No. But the same could be said of American soldiers, who committed plenty of atrocities that, due to the necessity of keeping morale high, were not reported on. Are all American soldiers murderers and brigands because of something like the My Lai massacre? No. I see no difference between German soldiers and the soldiers of any other country in terms of committing atrocities. The bottom line is that NO army in history has fought with a completely clean record, and it's unfair to lay the blame at the feet of men who a) 99.9% percent of the time had no idea it was happening (hence the shock and disbelief almost all of them showed when shown pictures of concentration camps) and b) had no direct part in the carrying out of the Final Solution. These men were just like others- thrown into a chaotic, deadly, and heartrending situation and trying to survive with body and sanity intact.

Please get your facts straight before making such ridiculous claims. Statements like that are representative of the ignorance that unfortunately most people display.

 

[TwwIX]

Clearly you have no understanding of the topic. The Wehrmacht was intentionally kept nonpolitical, and military service was mandatory for German males, especially later in the war. Ergo, their political leanings had no bearing on their status in the military. The Waffen-SS, on the other hand, was much more politicized, especially early in the war (although large numbers of ex-Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine men were drafted into the Waffen-SS as the war went on).

In other words, saying that all German soldiers were Nazis and members of Einsatzgruppen is an unfortunately common misconception that has often besmirched the honor of millions of men who were merely doing their job. This misconception has led to a "never forgive, never forget" mentality in which true reconciliation and progress is impossible and where a fertile ground for ignorance and hate is sown. Should we forget the Holocaust? Never. Should we try to reconcile with the people involved so that life can go on without bitterness and a constant spanking? Yes. Were there incidents where regular Wehrmacht soldiers engaged in hunting Jews and other undesirables? Yes. Did they all act with the utmost valor and have a perfect record regarding atrocities? No. But the same could be said of American soldiers, who committed plenty of atrocities that, due to the necessity of keeping morale high, were not reported on. Are all American soldiers murderers and brigands because of something like the My Lai massacre? No. I see no difference between German soldiers and the soldiers of any other country in terms of committing atrocities. The bottom line is that NO army in history has fought with a completely clean record.

Please get your facts straight before making such ridiculous claims.

What ****ing honor? There is no honor in invading and massacring other nations. They were fighting for the Nazi's cause. Those who were against them, either avoided joining the army, fled, defected and/or joined the resistance. Those who continued to fight for them rightfully deserved what they got. With all these comments and excuses, you are sounding more and more like a Nazi sympathizer to me.

 

[CR0M]

That's ridiculously narrow minded, I have to agree with leib10 on that one. Not every soldier chooses to fight for his country, but does the job that he is required to nevertheless. That is honour. If you were drafted and had to fight for a psycopath, would you stand around sulkily questioning his sanity or would you be there for your fellow countrymen?

And by the way you lot of pedantic basterds are taking this film way too cocking seriously.

 

[kupocake]

I don't think we even need to look outside of the film for this kind of context. The film kind of makes the case that a character like Landa wasn't even a Nazi. He's just an unpleasant man elected to a role he's incredibly effective in. Even if complicit, he has no Nazi loyalties or ideology. He's just a facilitator.

There's so much in this film like that, I honestly believe you can make a near watertight case for it being a brilliant piece of cinema. I just feel that it isn't. Like I said, it's a nudge-wink get out clause for the extremes of the violence.

 

[TwwIX]

That's ridiculously narrow minded, I have to agree with leib10 on that one. Not every soldier chooses to fight for his country, but does the job that he is required to nevertheless. That is honour. If you were drafted and had to fight for a psycopath, would you stand around sulkily questioning his sanity or would you be there for your fellow countrymen?

And by the way you lot of pedantic basterds are taking this film way too cocking seriously.

Please don't lecture me on wars. Ever hear of the Yugoslavian War?
Not just every soldier but every man has this stranger little thing called choice.
I could have stayed behind through out the war and fought my fellow countrymen.
Luckily, i didn't. The sheep who did chose to stay behind, either ended up mentally or physically crippled, imprisoned or dead. There is no honor in war. Pride, maybe. But that vanishes once reality kicks in. Those who chose to be affiliated with ones cause, should also expect to reap its consequences. No, i did not take this movie seriously at all. It's anything but historically accurate or realistic. It's an enjoyable, over the top art flick with great performances and good dialogue. Like the rest of Tarantino's work. Maybe you should reread my posts.

 

[Stigmata]

Thematic intent tends to fall down when it doesn't subscribe to the facts as given in any way shape or form. For example would it be fair to assume that all White Southern soldiers were racists during the American civil war? Sure there undoubtedly were a lot of them, but if IB were about a bunch of renegade Mulattoes killing and scalping every confederate soldier they came across do you think people would readily except it?

I think they would, because they know they're watching a film about fictional events that is merely exaggerating or invoking aspects of a place in time for thematic or otherwise film-able uses. "Suspension of disbelief", I think it's called. You're saying "Film makers have full liberty with their writing and filming, but they can't deviate from this aspect of history and this other aspect as well, because...."?

 

[Kadayi]

What ****ing honor? There is no honor in invading and massacring other nations. They were fighting for the Nazi's cause. Those who were against them, either avoided joining the army, fled, defected and/or joined the resistance. Those who continued to fight for them rightfully deserved what they got. With all these comments and excuses, you are sounding more and more like a Nazi sympathizer to me.

Are you for real? I mean seriously that sort of moronic thinking is what leads to carpet bombing in Palestine.

I think they would, because they know they're watching a film about fictional events that is merely exaggerating or invoking aspects of a place in time for thematic or otherwise film-able uses. "Suspension of disbelief", I think it's called. You're saying "Film makers have full liberty with their writing and filming, but they can't deviate from this aspect of history and this other aspect as well, because...."?

I think they have a responsibility to at least not willingly deceive, or perpetuate a common misconception rather than wantonly reinforce old and redundant ideas, esp given other films as a whole have moved on from such broad brush stereotyping. What advantage is there in regressing?

 

[Sulkdodds]

you are sounding more and more like a Nazi sympathizer to me.

WOW

wow

 

[Lucid]

This thread should be moved to Politics.

 

[leib10]

What ****ing honor? There is no honor in invading and massacring other nations. They were fighting for the Nazi's cause. Those who were against them, either avoided joining the army, fled, defected and/or joined the resistance. Those who continued to fight for them rightfully deserved what they got. With all these comments and excuses, you are sounding more and more like a Nazi sympathizer to me.

Far from it. What the Nazis did was despicable and inexcusable. If you've read my posts, you can see that I do not support or condone the Final Solution or the policies of the Third Reich at large. What I do support are the average men who were caught up in the maelstrom, giving their lives and their all for the man next to him and for their relatives at home, and not to further some ridiculous racial policy that they could care nothing about, and the fact that all of them are condemned for the actions of a few.

And yes, this should be moved to the Politics forum, as the discussion has now gone beyond the scope of the thread.

 

[leib10]

New thread has been opened.

 

[Sparta]

If the foundation is sand, then you can't very well build a house upon it I'm afraid. All the talk of themes and arguments slides into the river because of lazy oversight. The analogies don't hold up under scrutiny.

Then feel free to pick them apart, but I think you'll find this isn't a case of Tarantino including things for the sake of including them. Not to mention, you've seen Twiix reaction to people suggesting that not every German soldier was responsible for the holocaust and that's the exact kind of reaction the film is deconstructing, so it's definitely there.

I understand how people could be offended by this film, but the problem is the film isn't meaning to offend, it's only deconstructing the inherent prejudice already evident in war films, particularly WWII films. It's not trying to undermine the lives of those who died in WWII. If that were the case, why aren't people upset about being able to kill Hitler in Wolfenstein?

 

[CR0M]

Please don't lecture me on wars. Ever hear of the Yugoslavian War?

Take a valium, nobody is lecturing you on your clearly extensive experience of world wars. Just disagreeing with a bigoted viewpoint.

 

[Kadayi]

Then feel free to pick them apart, but I think you'll find this isn't a case of Tarantino including things for the sake of including them. Not to mention, you've seen Twiix reaction to people suggesting that not every German soldier was responsible for the holocaust and that's the exact kind of reaction the film is deconstructing, so it's definitely there.

Your giving Tarantino way too much credit tbh Sparta. Given that even you seemed blissfully unaware that not all German Soldiers were Nazis I think its a bit much to assume that the vast majority of people who have seen IB are any more clued up, or that they remotely comprehend the nature of things like sub text. This idea that QT is winking to the audience only holds up if they are on the same page, and personally I don't give the likely audience that much credit I'm afraid.

I understand how people could be offended by this film, but the problem is the film isn't meaning to offend, it's only deconstructing the inherent prejudice already evident in war films, particularly WWII films. It's not trying to undermine the lives of those who died in WWII. If that were the case, why aren't people upset about being able to kill Hitler in Wolfenstein?

People can only be offended by something if they are exposed to it. Wolfenstein is hardly playing at your local multiplex in terms of numbers, it is also given its overt content (supernatural/occult + Nazis) quite clearly not a product to be taken seriously (in the same manner that one doesn't take Hellboy or indiana jones as serious because of their fantastical contexts). However consider the controversy that surrounded the recent WW2 espionage stealther Velvet Assassin and it is all to easy to see how mixing fiction with fact even in the medium of gaming can raise concerns regarding representation.

As regards any message about war films I wrote this earlier in the thread:-

but the point still stands about where is this demonisation of other people still taking place exactly in the modern Cinema? If he's making a comment, where exactly is the present offence occurring? With war films about Iraq, no ones painting out the Iraqi people to be out and out bad guys whilst the USMC are the conquering heroes? That kind of black and white goodies/baddies style of film making died a death with war films when films like Full Metal Jacket came a long. Film narrative has moved on in the 42 years since The Dirty Dozen hit the screens. So why suddenly attempt a mocking pastiche of those old films? What great purpose does it serve when no ones remotely making that sort of genocidal (kill everyone in a uniform) cinema any more?

As a commentary it is culturally irrelevant, because it’s not a commentary about actual history, it’s a commentary about film history. Personally I don’t need to see a film about the film ‘Breakfast at Tiffanys’ to know that having a Western man acting the role of a 'Engrish speaking' Japanese man was an incredibly bad and tasteless idea, and isn’t the sort of mistake that should be made again. Yes it was shameful, but if you want to highlight it make a documentary about it.

Nothing that's been said in the few pages since then seems to have raised a substantive counter argument so far.

 

[smwScott]

Suggesting that the soldiers were responsible for the ideals of the army they fought for is not an extreme point of view, nor is it bigoted or ignorant. To blindly grant these soldiers a pass when many of them contributed directly to the atrocities and all in part allowed them to occur would be ridiculous. While I realize that the majority of those soldiers were ordinary men, and that the vast majority of people in general would behave in a similar manner when confronted with authority - that doesn't excuse their actions.

But back on topic, I found the movie to be thoroughly excellent. It was definitely one the deepest Tarantino flicks, though not necessarily the best. Overall the film seems to do a better job of stirring up uncomfortable feelings and provoking thoughtful discussion than actually send its own message, which is exactly what I think film should do.

 

[mastag]

Christopher Waltz's performance was ****ing epic.

 

[Stigmata]

Christopher Waltz's performance was ****ing epic.

This cannot be said enough. I'm going to see Basterds again just to see him.

Your giving Tarantino way too much credit tbh Sparta. Given that even you seemed blissfully unaware that not all German Soldiers were Nazis I think its a bit much to assume that the vast majority of people who have seen IB are any more clued up, or that they remotely comprehend the nature of things like sub text. This idea that QT is winking to the audience only holds up if they are on the same page, and personally I don't give the likely audience that much credit I'm afraid.

Whether the "general audience" is educated or aware enough to detect and read subtext is irrelevant. We can see and read it, and we are having the discussion on the movie and its subtext. Tarantino is a smart guy; he knows that most of the people who see his films (and indeed most people in general) are not smart or aware enough to see the subtext. They only see the violence and irreverent dialogue, and celebrate that. The winks are for the few people he knows are watching for the subtext.

 

[Kadayi]

Whether the "general audience" is educated or aware enough to detect and read subtext is irrelevant. We can see and read it, and we are having the discussion on the movie and its subtext. Tarantino is a smart guy; he knows that most of the people who see his films (and indeed most people in general) are not smart or aware enough to see the subtext. They only see the violence and irreverent dialogue, and celebrate that. The winks are for the few people he knows are watching for the subtext.

Then why does the film fail to either in the overt narrative or in the subtext make it clear that not all German Soldiers were in fact Nazis? Its one of the biggest misconceptions going, and one that Hollywood with films like the Dirty Dozen perpetuated, so why does Tarantino not actually make an effort to address it? It would have been all too easy in either the Ditch or Bar scenes to have slipped a few lines in to the dialogue of either German soldier to offer up their protestations as regards their Nazi status, but no such dialogue exists. Its seems to me to be a startling omission if the film truly is to be read as a form of diatribe against the blind prejudice of 60s war films (as Sparta implies).

@smwScott

No one said anyone gets a free pass (in fact I'm not sure were you're pulling that idea from exactly from given what's been written), but people are saying that you can only judge people by their individual actions, not on a collective basis.

The whole reason the Nazis came to power is because after WWI (a war which was instigated by The Kaiser) the victors decided that the surviving people of Germany as a whole were responsible for everything that had happened, and then proceeded to 'Tax' them through reparations to the extent that extremist political organisations such as the National Socialist party were able to build support off a groundswell of public opinion that they (The German People) were being unfairly treated. If after WWI the allies had done the sensible thing and executed the Kaiser (instead of exiling him) and called it a day, rather than opting to drive Germany into the the hands of the extremists then WW2 and the holocaust would never have happened.

 

[Stigmata]

Then why does the film fail to either in the overt narrative or in the subtext make it clear that not all German Soldiers were in fact Nazis? Its one of the biggest misconceptions going, and one that Hollywood with films like the Dirty Dozen perpetuated, so why does Tarantino not actually make an effort to address it? It would have been all too easy in either the Ditch or Bar scenes to have slipped a few lines in to the dialogue of either German soldier to offer up their protestations as regards their Nazi status, but no such dialogue exists. Its seems to me to be a startling omission if the film truly is to be read as a form of diatribe against the blind prejudice of 60s war films (as Sparta implies).

Because he didn't make Inglourious Basterds with the intent to correct the notion that all Germans are Nazis. Plus, slipping in lines about that during various scenes would have overcomplicated the subtext of the film. It would go against -

Actually, while typing that sentence I realised that I might agree with you on this point. On one hand, the film speaks about the glorification and celebration of violence and the atrocities of war, so adding some thought about what truly makes someone a Nazi might have made the film a bit deeper. But on the other hand, Tarantino might be using the lack of such a subtext as a thematic tool. "Look at how everyone in this film thinks all Germans are Nazis. Look at how nobody stops to think if their enemy is something more than a label to be demonised."

[edit] But for reiteration, Tarantino didn't make Inglourious Basterds with the intent to correct the notion that all Germans are Nazis.

 

[Kadayi]

Because he didn't make Inglourious Basterds with the intent to correct the notion that all Germans are Nazis. Plus, slipping in lines about that during various scenes would have overcomplicated the subtext of the film. It would go against -

Actually, while typing that sentence I realised that I might agree with you on this point. On one hand, the film speaks about the glorification and celebration of violence and the atrocities of war, so adding some thought about what truly makes someone a Nazi might have made the film a bit deeper. But on the other hand, Tarantino might be using the lack of such a subtext as a thematic tool. "Look at how everyone in this film thinks all Germans are Nazis. Look at how nobody stops to think if their enemy is something more than a label to be demonised."

[edit] But for reiteration, Tarantino didn't make Inglourious Basterds with the intent to correct the notion that all Germans are Nazis.

Well, we'll have to agree to differ on that, because I think its an opportunity missed, and one that he should have taken (given how much talking was in the film, a few more lines here and there wouldn't of made a difference). Personally I'd be a lot more comfortable will the movie overall if he had addressed it in some manner. For me it stands out as a hideous oversight, and one that undermines any message or commentary he might be attempting to make.

 

[Sparta]

Your giving Tarantino way too much credit tbh Sparta. Given that even you seemed blissfully unaware that not all German Soldiers were Nazis I think its a bit much to assume that the vast majority of people who have seen IB are any more clued up, or that they remotely comprehend the nature of things like sub text. This idea that QT is winking to the audience only holds up if they are on the same page, and personally I don't give the likely audience that much credit I'm afraid.

But that goes completely against the intention of the film. He didn't make the film to preach to the choir, he made it to preach to the congress. For lack of a better comparison, take Michael Moore. He didn't make films like Columbine and Sicko to appeal to anti-gun lobbyists and health-care reformers.

As for your argument about why he didn't include lines of dialogue about soldiers explaining their position against the Holocaust, that's missing the point. It's not about what they think of the Holocaust, its the fact that people are so readily able to willing to kill other human simply for being part of the wrong side. Like how half of the U.S are ok with waterboarding, as long as their "terrorists". This film isn't apoligising for German atrocities, it's simply trying to put across the message that we are all human. Even histories greatest villains have had a few good apples on their side.

People can only be offended by something if they are exposed to it. Wolfenstein is hardly playing at your local multiplex in terms of numbers, it is also given its overt content (supernatural/occult + Nazis) quite clearly not a product to be taken seriously (in the same manner that one doesn't take Hellboy or indiana jones as serious because of their fantastical contexts). However consider the controversy that surrounded the recent WW2 espionage stealther Velvet Assassin and it is all to easy to see how mixing fiction with fact even in the medium of gaming can raise concerns regarding representation.

The problem is, this never purports to be factual and its just as serious as Hellboy or Indiana Jones are, yet because people miss the point and because

Spoiler

they kill Hitler

people are offended by that. The difference between this and Velvet Assassin, is that Velvet Assassin manufactures and reinvents history for fun, whereas Inglourious Basterds does it to prove a point and promote discussion on racism/prejudice.

That's where the problem lies as I will explain in the response to this following quote

As regards any message about war films I wrote this earlier in the thread:-

but the point still stands about where is this demonisation of other people still taking place exactly in the modern Cinema? If he's making a comment, where exactly is the present offence occurring? With war films about Iraq, no ones painting out the Iraqi people to be out and out bad guys whilst the USMC are the conquering heroes? That kind of black and white goodies/baddies style of film making died a death with war films when films like Full Metal Jacket came a long. Film narrative has moved on in the 42 years since The Dirty Dozen hit the screens. So why suddenly attempt a mocking pastiche of those old films? What great purpose does it serve when no ones remotely making that sort of genocidal (kill everyone in a uniform) cinema any more?

As a commentary it is culturally irrelevant, because it’s not a commentary about actual history, it’s a commentary about film history. Personally I don’t need to see a film about the film ‘Breakfast at Tiffanys’ to know that having a Western man acting the role of a 'Engrish speaking' Japanese man was an incredibly bad and tasteless idea, and isn’t the sort of mistake that should be made again. Yes it was shameful, but if you want to highlight it make a documentary about it.

That's where your wrong, and also, here's why Tarantino didn't write lines of bad dialogue for german soldiers of how appalling their sides atrocities are. The film wasn't just saying that about WWII films, it was saying that about war/action films/shows in general. In every war or action film made by Hollywood, the bad guy is/was always the perceived "villain" of the day. The Germans became the Russians, who became the Vietnamese, who became the Russians again, who became the Chinese, who became just about anyone from the Middle East and I'm sure in the next few years it'll go back to the Chinese again.

Every time this has happened it does nothing but help promote the undercurrent of racism and distrust that already pervades society. These films, the James Bonds and 24's of the world, helped promote the idea that all bad guys are simply that. Bad guys. Pure evil, not even human. This film set out to deconstruct all that and reminds of us of the inherent racism in these films with its subtext. It wasn't just about WWII. For Tarantino to write lines for the Germans where they are explicit in denouncing their sides atrocities, then it narrows the perspective of the subtext down to simply WWII and would make the film's commentary culturally irrelevant as you say.

Also, as a sidenote, some (I for one) would argue that would be bad filmmaking. I prefer my subtext to be subtext, not "beaten-over-the-head"-text like in District 9.

Personally, I think you were so set on your opinion you formed based on reading the script, that you're ignoring all of the plain-as-day signposts that point out this films commentary on prejudice.

 

[Kadayi]

As for your argument about why he didn't include lines of dialogue about soldiers explaining their position against the Holocaust, that's missing the point.

Sparta

If you think that's my argument you must of been drunk when reading it (Hint: it has zero to do with soldiers personal positions on the holocaust). I suggest you re-examine what I wrote and then reply accordingly to my earlier response in the correct context. The rest of your post derails because you've failed to grasp the issue but instead inserted your own.

Also you need to acknowledge the distinction between the fantastical Vs the fictional, they are not the same thing.

Personally, I think you were so set on your opinion you formed based on reading the script, that you're ignoring all of the plain-as-day signposts that point out this films commentary on prejudice.

I'd hate to have to start putting a :dozey: at the end of every response to you, but if you start down that road of personal accusation Vs providing an actual substantive and on topic argument I might well have to dude.

I'm sorry I don't share you love for IB, or think its the great commentary on WW2 cinema as you seem to think, but I'm not seeing it as the diatribe you propose. More than anything QT purports to love films like TDD, IB, KH, WED, so this idea that his IB is in fact the WW2 cinematic equivalent of Funny Games, doesn't really hold up for me, either in the script or the film.

 

[Sparta]

First off, good point about the fantastical vs fictional although I think Basterds is just as fanciful as something like Lord of the Rings, I'd prefer to move on and get to this...

Sparta

If you think that's my argument you must of been drunk when reading it (Hint: it has zero to do with soldiers personal positions on the holocaust). I suggest you re-examine what I wrote and then reply accordingly to my earlier response in the correct context. The rest of your post derails because you've failed to grasp the issue but instead inserted your own.

Hang on a tick, let's revisit the argument so far...

Massive argument about subtext which I'll spoiler because, it's huge.

Spoiler

the reason I say it's flawed but great is because this film is almost more about it's themes and subtext than it is what actually happens. It's certainly an odd thing but hear me out. Before this, all of Tarantino's films were fairly shallow. With the exception of Jackie Brown (which I haven't seen), just about all of his films have little to nothing going on beneath the surface. Kill Bill is a revenge fantasy that hardly says anything about the nature of revenge. Pulp Fiction is....pulp fiction (although I've heard people argue that it's about American Nihilism wankers) and Deathproof is a piece of shit.

At least in Pulp Fiction anyone and everyone who participates in violence, in turn suffers because of it. Vincent Vega is killed, Jules turns his life around after some introspection, Bruce Willis gets in a car crash and Ving Rhames gets raped. Whereas in Kill Bill, The Bride is rewarded for it after being punished for rejecting it as a lifestyle.

I love Pulp Fiction and I really enjoy Kill Bill 2 (the first one is ok) but both of these films are particularly shallow when you compare their subtext to Inglourious Basterds.

The opening scene (which i love) in IB has Hans Landa talking about the difference between the squirrel and the rat. He goes on about how they are both capable of carrying the same disease but most people would easily let the squirrel into their home instead of the rat. This sets the tone for the racial/prejudice subtext in the film. After the opening scene it cuts to Brad Pitt telling the newly formed basterds that they owe him 100 nazi scalps.

From there on out the film continues with just about every good guy committing some pretty terrible acts upon the nazi's, most of those acts committed simply because those people are nazi's. The first german officer is killed for refusing to point out the position of other german patrols. Up until he says "**** You" to Brad Pitt he's nothing but honourable. When Eli Roth puts a bat to his head he asks the officer if he got those medals for killing jews, he answers that he got it for bravery. Then Eli Roth bashes his head in because he's a nazi. Not to mention the scalpings and the swastika carving, these are all pretty terrible things that happen to people, simply because they are nazi's. They are deeply prejudiced. The Inglourious Basterds are the squirrel to Landa's Rat.

The next scene where Nazi's get killed is the bar scene. Just about everything that happens there, happens because shit hits the fan. But then Max (or whatever that soldiers name is) put's down his gun to let Diane Kruger and gets shot three times in the chest for it.

Probably the most obvious evidence of the subtext in the film is towards the end, moments before they burn the place down and kill Hitler. Eli Roth and Dominic Decocco (or whatever his name actually was) kill two nazi's in this kickass scene involving these punch-guns. It's pretty cool. I was laughing when I first saw it. That scene is immediately followed by the german audience cheering the deaths of the American soldiers, moments before those two start gunning them down, shooting Hitler and Goebbels and the place goes up in flames and consequently explodes. Then Brad Pitt carves the swastika into the head of Landa (although he was a prick to begin with) but not before shooting and killing the unarmed radio operator, one of the men who directly helped them win the war.

Now, I'm the first one to call people out on being full of shit about subtext in films. I recently argued with a guy who thought District 9 was a commentary on how "genre" filmmaking was more effective than "arthouse" because of that films combining of documentary and narrative filmmaking methods. When I told him he was seeing something that was unintentional (when the director stated he was simply trying to make a summer thrill ride) he argued back that everyone is so obsessed with what is intentional and what's not... thereby stating that his criticism of the film is more important than the director's statement of intention. Pompous bullshit, really.

While I can easily see how people would believe that about what I'm saying now, there is one massive wink to the audience that pretty much proves this is exactly what Tarantino meant to do. Here it is.

Michael Fassbender's character, Lt Hicox, is put on the assignment because prior to the war he was an english film critic whose speciality was deconstructing the subtextual elements of German director G.W. Pabst. He mentions it directly in the dialogue in his opening scene. That is a massive wink to the audience, that should (hopefully) already be thinking about prejudice given the opening scenes.

That's why this film isn't just a jewish exploitation film and not just another masturbatory Tarantino film. Its far smarter than his regular fare and the vast majority of films on racism like that trollop, Crash.

I hear what your saying, but the problem is as leib10 rightly points out a German footsoldier does not necessarily a Nazi make, and its a grave error to ignore that, and one that undermines any message QT is trying to make. As I said in a previous post labelling every German Soldier a Nazi would be akin to Labelling every US Marine a Republican that took part in the invasion or Iraq. The Nazis were a political movement, not a military one. Their military power was the resultant of their political power. Even you're make the mistake of assuming German soldier = Nazi in your writing.

That's definitely a valid point, but it doesn't nullify the themes or arguments the film puts forth either though.

If the foundation is sand, then you can't very well build a house upon it I'm afraid. All the talk of themes and arguments slides into the river because of lazy oversight. The analogies don't hold up under scrutiny.

Then feel free to pick them apart, but I think you'll find this isn't a case of Tarantino including things for the sake of including them. Not to mention, you've seen Twiix reaction to people suggesting that not every German soldier was responsible for the holocaust and that's the exact kind of reaction the film is deconstructing, so it's definitely there.

Your giving Tarantino way too much credit tbh Sparta. Given that even you seemed blissfully unaware that not all German Soldiers were Nazis I think its a bit much to assume that the vast majority of people who have seen IB are any more clued up, or that they remotely comprehend the nature of things like sub text. This idea that QT is winking to the audience only holds up if they are on the same page, and personally I don't give the likely audience that much credit I'm afraid.

Another massive argument

Spoiler

But that goes completely against the intention of the film. He didn't make the film to preach to the choir, he made it to preach to the congress. For lack of a better comparison, take Michael Moore. He didn't make films like Columbine and Sicko to appeal to anti-gun lobbyists and health-care reformers.

The difference between this and Velvet Assassin, is that Velvet Assassin manufactures and reinvents history for fun, whereas Inglourious Basterds does it to prove a point and promote discussion on racism/prejudice.

That's where the problem lies as I will explain in the response to this following quote

As regards any message about war films I wrote this earlier in the thread:-

but the point still stands about where is this demonisation of other people still taking place exactly in the modern Cinema? If he's making a comment, where exactly is the present offence occurring? With war films about Iraq, no ones painting out the Iraqi people to be out and out bad guys whilst the USMC are the conquering heroes? That kind of black and white goodies/baddies style of film making died a death with war films when films like Full Metal Jacket came a long. Film narrative has moved on in the 42 years since The Dirty Dozen hit the screens. So why suddenly attempt a mocking pastiche of those old films? What great purpose does it serve when no ones remotely making that sort of genocidal (kill everyone in a uniform) cinema any more?

As a commentary it is culturally irrelevant, because it’s not a commentary about actual history, it’s a commentary about film history. Personally I don’t need to see a film about the film ‘Breakfast at Tiffanys’ to know that having a Western man acting the role of a 'Engrish speaking' Japanese man was an incredibly bad and tasteless idea, and isn’t the sort of mistake that should be made again. Yes it was shameful, but if you want to highlight it make a documentary about it.

That's where your wrong, and also, here's why Tarantino didn't write lines of bad dialogue for german soldiers of how appalling their sides atrocities are. The film wasn't just saying that about WWII films, it was saying that about war/action films/shows in general. In every war or action film made by Hollywood, the bad guy is/was always the perceived "villain" of the day. The Germans became the Russians, who became the Vietnamese, who became the Russians again, who became the Chinese, who became just about anyone from the Middle East and I'm sure in the next few years it'll go back to the Chinese again.

Every time this has happened it does nothing but help promote the undercurrent of racism and distrust that already pervades society. These films, the James Bonds and 24's of the world, helped promote the idea that all bad guys are simply that. Bad guys. Pure evil, not even human. This film set out to deconstruct all that and reminds of us of the inherent racism in these films with its subtext. It wasn't just about WWII. For Tarantino to write lines for the Germans where they are explicit in denouncing their sides atrocities, then it narrows the perspective of the subtext down to simply WWII and would make the film's commentary culturally irrelevant as you say.

Also, as a sidenote, some (I for one) would argue that would be bad filmmaking. I prefer my subtext to be subtext, not "beaten-over-the-head"-text like in District 9.

Personally, I think you were so set on your opinion you formed based on reading the script, that you're ignoring all of the plain-as-day signposts that point out this films commentary on prejudice.

Every point I've made so far in this thread, you've "countered" by saying "No you're wrong" and then failed to bring any form of an argument besides useless semantics (German's aren't Nazi's) and suggesting the audience are dumb therefore there is no commentary. And now you're using my "misinterpretation" of your argument as an excuse to wave away every other valid point I've made? Read my last post about action films and WWII films, than compare it to this

But on the other hand, Tarantino might be using the lack of such a subtext as a thematic tool. "Look at how everyone in this film thinks all Germans are Nazis. Look at how nobody stops to think if their enemy is something more than a label to be demonised."

The only difference is I provided an argument as to why that isn't discussed in the film and yet because I responded to this-

It would have been all too easy in either the Ditch or Bar scenes to have slipped a few lines in to the dialogue of either German soldier to offer up their protestations as regards their Nazi status, but no such dialogue exists.

-with this

As for your argument about why he didn't include lines of dialogue about soldiers explaining their position against the Holocaust, that's missing the point.

-you have the nerve to call me drunk before saying this-

I'd hate to have to start putting a :dozey: at the end of every response to you, but if you start down that road of personal accusation Vs providing an actual substantive and on topic argument I might well have to dude.

That is completely hypocritical coming from someone whose argument against why this film isn't a commentary boils down to "Because I said so, Germans aren't Nazi's and because the audience is dumb".

Everything I said in my first post, with all the examples I listed in the film, still remains intact. Even parts of the film I watched the first time and thought were useless and should be cut, like the King Kong card game, make complete sense when you consider the subtext of racism in the film. In the example of the King Kong card game, that is the only reason I can think of as to why it was left in. No tension is added or relaxed in that part of the conversation as they're already chumming it up before they start the game. You could cut that and have the Major ordering the drinks and nothing would be lost by the narrative as nothing changes. The only reason its kept in is for the subtext.

I'm sorry I don't share you love for IB, or think its the great commentary on WW2 cinema as you seem to think, but I'm not seeing it as the diatribe you propose. More than anything QT purports to love films like TDD, IB, KH, WED, so this idea that his IB is in fact the WW2 cinematic equivalent of Funny Games, doesn't really hold up for me, either in the script or the film.

That's totally cool, but you can't sit here and call me drunk, say I don't have a substantive argument when you're the one who has completely ignored all of my totally valid points because of semantics and I'm the one who has offered valid rebuttals to almost every one of your arguments.

If you're going to argue I missed the point because I said Holocaust and not Nazi Party that's useless semantics again. If you're for the Holocaust, chances you're fall in line with most of the Nazi party, so why bother even mentioning with the difference? We can sit here and argue about "But there were Nazi's who were against the Holocaust and still committed atrocities" but that's still irrelevant to my argument about the thematics and subtext of the film. You have yet to offer any form of a valid rebuttal against my arguments for the subtext.

I had no intention of making this debated heated as I've been civil the entire time up until now (although I don't believe I've called you anything besides hypocritical), but if you're going to offer no rebuttal besides "I disagree", and pull one of these :dozey: after calling me drunk, there's no point in discussing this.

Also, to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't call it an accusation when you've already admitted to judging the film on the script before even seeing it.

I'm pretty tired of this because I doubt we'll get anywhere, but if you have a good rebuttal I honestly look forward to reading it. Otherwise I think we're better off agreeing to disagree before anymore name-calling.

 

[Kadayi]

Rant

TL: DR

But seriously as you've fallen into the realms of 'This is what you mean!!!' via hysterical interpretation rather than actual comprehension (sematics has nothing to do with it either), as well as the adoption of mock horror 'You've accused me of being a drunk!!! How dare you slander me so!!!' (Did I really say that?). I'll take that as a concession of utter defeat on your behalf. Plain truth of the matter is there isn't any good reason why QT wouldn't have highlighted that false perception that all Germans Soldier = Nazis (aka bad guys), unless highlighting common misconceptions wasn't remotely his intention. Even if he was as you (generously) claim making a film that is 'more' than about WW2, its such a significant factor in all warfare that those involved in uniform might not necessarily fully support what they are fighting for, but are simply there by circumstance that to not address as a point but instead perpetuate a popular misconception seems utterly nonsensical and at odds with your proposition regarding the films message.

Enjoy your :dozey: you've earned it

 

[Stigmata]

TL: DR

But seriously as you've fallen into the realms of 'This is what you mean!!!' via hysterical interpretation rather than actual comprehension (sematics has nothing to do with it either), as well as the adoption of mock horror 'You've accused me of being a drunk!!! How dare you slander me so!!!' (Did I really say that?). I'll take that as a concession of utter defeat on your behalf. Plain truth of the matter is there isn't any good reason why QT wouldn't have highlighted that false perception that all Germans Soldier = Nazis (aka bad guys), unless highlighting common misconceptions wasn't remotely his intention. Even if he was as you (generously) claim making a film that is 'more' than about WW2, its such a significant factor in all warfare that those involved in uniform might not necessarily fully support what they are fighting for, but are simply there by circumstance that to not address as a point but instead perpetuate a popular misconception seems utterly nonsensical and at odds with your proposition regarding the films message.

Enjoy your :dozey: you've earned it

You're doing it again. Sparta provided a ton of argumentation for his position here, against you. Your counter 'evidence' (as you so enjoy putting things you don't believe in in quotes) for your position in this debate amounts to, and I quote:

• "You've fallen into [...] hysterical interpretation rather than actual comprehension" (care to elaborate? no? again?);
• "(Did I really say that?)" - (I don't know, does "If you think that's my argument you must of been drunk when reading it" sound familiar?);
• "I'll take that as a concession of utter defeat on your behalf." (hysterical interpretation, indeed);
• "Plain truth of the matter is there isn't any good reason why QT wouldn't have highlighted that false perception that all Germans Soldier = Nazis (aka bad guys), unless highlighting common misconceptions wasn't remotely his intention." (fair point);
• "Even if he was as you (generously) claim making a film that is 'more' than about WW2" (Why call into question the intellectual worth of the artist? Why? Rating one's intelligence outside of IQ tests is pure subjectivity, it serves no purpose in this debate and I know you know that);
• "its such a significant factor in all warfare that those involved in uniform might not necessarily fully support what they are fighting for, but are simply there by circumstance" (It is a significant factor in certain contexts, like the context of non-fictional history, but that doesn't mean it has to be included in a fictional film);
• "that to not address as a point but instead perpetuate a popular misconception seems utterly nonsensical and at odds with your proposition regarding the films message" (except it's not, necessarily, so care to elaborate?)

As you have made clear that this is a sufficiently in-depth response to Sparta's post, I'm going to have to assume that this is a concession of stoic determination in your position. So, it can be drawn from this post that your position in this debate, up to now, has consisted of you disagreeing with people, optionally inserting an ad-hominem attack at various levels of subtlety, making a contrary claim, and proclaiming your correctness and victory. You see it fit to show no evidence for your own position, while simultaneously claiming that any evidence someone else provides is "not" evidence, and (seemingly) because you cannot be disproven, you are proven. That's not a healthy way to approach any debate, regardless of subject or intensity. Is this not the same sort of position creationists take, that we both know is deeply logically flawed or unsound? If you're operating like that, can you really say you're right after all?