Inglourious Basterds

[Kadayi]

Sparta provided a ton of argumentation for his position here, against you

Actually he's provided jack shit and instead continued to skip around the uncomfortable truth of that 'fair point' (that even you have acknowledged) in the vague hope that somehow it, and the consequences of it (why wasn't it addressed in any way shape or form) somehow magically disappear. I don't have to disprove anything, because I've already highlighted the fly in the ointment (the evidence as fact is firmly on my side). So far nothing that's been said provides a solid or justifiable rationale as to why it wasn't addressed in the film. This as a point has nothing to do with the Holocaust, or semantics, or any other issues of interpretation. It has only to do with the issue that the film maker didn't address one of the biggest misconceptions of the war, and the omission of that fact, both in the script and the film seems to fly directly in the face of any of these arguments about the film being the grand commentary on prejudice that is being claimed. It is the elephant in the room, it's no good trying to ignore it.

Nothing else matters (not the money, not the woman, not the land) but simply addressing that point with a full and constructed counter argument. Anything else is a joke post as far as I'm concerned, so why should I bother taking the poster seriously any more? I've been more than fair in saying 'you need to respond to this issue' in quite a few posts now, but the continued lack of constructive activity on that front is extremely disappointing. Its not enough to simply go 'Fair point' and then carry on promoting the same argument, or attempt to sweep it under the carpet of denial. It needs to be addressed.

A proposition has been made by you guys, I've countered it with a pertinent issue. The course of action is you either provide a solid and rational explanation to the reason why the issue wasn't addressed, you withdraw your proposition, or you propose a new proposition that incorporates the pertinent issue. Those are the only options for further discussion on the matter.

 

[Qonfused]

I have to say, this is one of the better forum debates I've seen. Great job guys.

 

[Stigmata]

So far nothing that's been said provides a solid or justifiable rationale as to why it wasn't addressed in the film.

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 is my point.

 

[Kadayi]

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 is my point.

See that wasn't so hard was it?

However within the context of a film that is purportedly about prejudice, especially in light of the rats and the squirrels metaphor is it not somewhat odd that it wasn't brought up in any way? It is a commonly held misconception, after all (and one not helped by films like the DD etc).

Sure in its absence one can read it that the film is making you aware of the perils of prejudice by demonstrating the brutality of such prejudice, but wouldn't the message be that much stronger if the awareness of the audience was not only that this is morally repugnant, but also factually wrong? I need to understand why that punch to the head was never delivered? Because it seems like a terrible omission. After all why bother setting the film in a historical context, if not to take advantage of it fully? Why perpetuate a lie, when the opportunity is there to address it and use the truth of a situation to strengthen your main argument?

 

[Stigmata]

That's the critical flaw in everything you've said up until now. You're framing Inglourious Basterds as constantly falling short of a different Inglourious Basterds that only exists in your head, is made with different dialogue and different intent, and that you think would have been better than the actual film. Unfortunately that is a 100% subjective discussion, and making concrete claims in such a discussion is not logical. You simply cannot say "No, you're wrong, because wouldn't the movie be better if <x>?" when it cannot be objectively shown that either the other person is wrong or that you are right. If you hadn't said things like this, then this thread would be five or six pages shorter.

 

[Kadayi]

That's the critical flaw in everything you've said up until now. You're framing Inglourious Basterds as constantly falling short of a different Inglourious Basterds that only exists in your head, is made with different dialogue and different intent, and that you think would have been better than the actual film. Unfortunately that is a 100% subjective discussion, and making concrete claims in such a discussion is not logical. You simply cannot say "No, you're wrong, because wouldn't the movie be better if <x>?" when it cannot be objectively shown that either the other person is wrong or that you are right. If you hadn't said things like this, then this thread would be five or six pages shorter.

Actually I'm simply countering the argument put forward that the film is a commentary about prejudice. If it truly is that as claimed (and not simply a reworking of TDD with a Jewish revenge fantasy tacked on), then given its historical context, regardless of its fictional nature there exists an obligation to disassemble a lie rather than to continue to perpetuate it like the films it supposedly derides have. That IB never addresses that issue in either script or film does seem to undermine that original argument. Less about me, more about tackling the absence of the issue in the next post please. If he had tackled it, I could support the argument, that he didn't is the issue. That I believe he could of incorporated it into the film and thus overcome the issue is neither here nor there in terms of the issues relevance to the dismissal of the argument. There is nothing subjective about only roughly 1 in 8 German footsoldiers actually being Nazi Party members, it's a historical fact.

 

[lefty]

So yeah that movie was pretty badass huh.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

if it wouldve been a helluva alot more badass if I made the movie though let me tell you about all the things I would've done.

 

[lefty]

What would you have done Adrik_Kadayi?

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

It'd be a three hour movie of Brad Pitt and Christopher Waltz just arguing about some real stupid shit see I already have a scene written basically they're arguing you know, and I can't really tell you about what because it'd spoil the plot but it goes down like this:

Brad Pitt: Well that there is just your opinion I think you're getting all huffed up about nothing.

Christopher Waltz: No, you see the problem here is you are stupid. You fail to realize that I am right because I say so.

Brad Pitt: Now look here there aint no reason to go around callin' anyone names.

Christopher Waltz: YOU ARE STUPID. I AM RIGHT.

 

[lefty]

and then and then *guitar chords* MY PENIS

samuel l. jackson: my penis was a nazi until he started killing nazis.

 

[Stigmata]

regardless of its fictional nature there exists an obligation to disassemble a lie rather than to continue to perpetuate it like the films it supposedly derides have

That sentence fragment is as well-constructed as it is completely wrong and in opposition to art as an idea (see bold). Furthermore:

That IB never addresses that issue in either script or film does seem to undermine that original argument.

Let's say he did put that into the film. Would you be left satisfied? Or do you only think you'd be left satisfied (because your satisfaction of this imaginary alternate future IB is framed on how satisfied you were with the original), when in reality you would simply be unimpressed that Tarantino didn't dig deeper and make some sort of comment on what it "means" to be a Nazi, and the plight of those who were forced into Nazism and eventually came to agree with the cause? How deep would he have to go before you felt that he did enough justice to historical facts, no matter how convoluted or saturated the plot and subtext would become, or how much focus it would take away from everything else he tries to say? You can only say so much in two and a half hours.

There is nothing subjective about only roughly 1 in 8 German footsoldiers actually being Nazi Party members, it's a historical fact.

I never said it wasn't. I said deciding whether such a fact should or should not be addressed in a film isn't an argument that can ever be objective, and you're treating it like it is. You cannot be definitive about art. Sorry.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

and then and then *guitar chords* MY PENIS

samuel l. jackson: my penis was a nazi until he started killing nazis.

Christopher Waltz: Well what do you have to say about that!

Brad Pitt: GORLAMI

 

[Kadayi]

That sentence fragment is as well-constructed as it is completely wrong and in opposition to art as an idea (see bold)

Given later on you argue that Art cannot be defined I find that remark extremely amusing. By attempting to constrain its use, you are in fact breaking your own argument. Still the resultant is that when faced with a specific, you've sought refuge in the nebulous realms of broad generalisations and appeals to the grandiose rather than addressing the point. Whether inclusion would or would not improve the film is moot, all that interests me is that its absence undermines the argument given that the film is about exposing the viewers prejudice. The film perpetuates a lie, people go in expecting violence against 'Nazis', and the film delivers violence against 'Nazis'. That it might make the viewers question their enjoyment of the violence they are witnessing, is all well and good but ultimately they still believe leave the cinema believing that all German soldiers are 'Nazis'.

 

[Stigmata]

You are an invitingly eloquent brick wall, Kadayi.

 

[Kadayi]

You are an invitingly eloquent brick wall, Kadayi.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

 

[Sparta]

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

I beginning to notice this habit of yours...

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.

Brad Pitt: Well that there is just your opinion I think you're getting all huffed up about nothing.

Christopher Waltz: No, you see the problem here is you are stupid. You fail to realize that I am right because I say so.

Brad Pitt: Now look here there aint no reason to go around callin' anyone names.

Christopher Waltz: YOU ARE STUPID. I AM RIGHT.

...and so are others, it seems.

But at least you've finally done what I've asked you to, and actually elaborated on why you don't think its a commentary because "Germans aren't Nazi's" :

If it truly is that as claimed (and not simply a reworking of TDD with a Jewish revenge fantasy tacked on), then given its historical context, regardless of its fictional nature there exists an obligation to disassemble a lie rather than to continue to perpetuate it like the films it supposedly derides have.

There exists no obligation for the film to correct prejudicial notions because of it's subtext. The job of the subtext is to challenge people's prejudices, not appeal to your specific pre-fabricated notions of it's subtextual duty. Simply because it doesn't tackle the specifics of what makes Germans soldiers Nazi's, doesn't negate the reality that the film is still deconstructing racism and prejudice towards the enemy of a conflict. Nor does it negate any of the evidence in my original post on subtext.

What you're saying is, because the film doesn't address your incredibly specific prejudical notion then it cannot be a commentary on racism. At all. That is incredibly narrow-minded.

Besides, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This entire argument of yours is a logical fallacy.

The film perpetuates a lie, people go in expecting violence against 'Nazis', and the film delivers violence against 'Nazis'. That it might make the viewers question their enjoyment of the violence they are witnessing, is all well and good but ultimately they still believe leave the cinema believing that all German soldiers are 'Nazis'.

Whether the subtext gets through to everyone doesn't disprove its intention. Whether it succeeds or not is open to debate, largely because of its subtlety, but to say it perpetuates a lie again proves your missing the point of the film. Almost every single act of violence that takes place against Germans in this film is atrocious. The only violent act where are Germans killed that isn't a blood-laden scene, is where

Spoiler

the two guards outside Hitler's opera box are killed, and that scene is immediately followed by two blatantly obvious subtextual scenes, one showing Germans laughing at Americans being killed, the next showing those Germans being killed by the Americans as people in the audience undoubtedly laugh. Especially when Hitler is riddled with bullets.

Almost all of the film's violence directly contributes to its subtext. We never even find out what Hugo Stiglitz did to be whipped, yet we see him shoving his arm down the throats of Gestapos and stabbing them in the face and head repeatedly.

There's no point in continuing this discussion, because not only are you arguing without any evidence, you're only defense is through using a logical fallacy and ad-hominem attacks. Not only is it obvious you've lost the argument, it's clear now that you never even had one to lose.

 

[Kadayi]

What you're saying is, because the film doesn't address your incredibly specific prejudical notion then it cannot be a commentary on racism. At all. That is incredibly narrow-minded.

If having the education and understanding to appreciate the differences between the membership of a military institution Vs a political force and how the culturally regressive misrepresentation of one for the other runs contrary to the more enlightened message you personally purport the film is conveying about prejudgement, either narratively or via the creative loophole of interpretative subtext is being narrow minded, then colour me bad brother, colour me bad. Heaven forbid people went to the cinema and thought 'Why on earth is Brad Pitt calling these footsoldier Soldiers Nazis? Does the director not know the difference? Does he even know his History?' instead of just cheering with a mouthful of popcorn when the Bear Jew beats their brains out. :dozey:

There's no point in continuing this discussion, because not only are you arguing without any evidence, you're only defense is through using a logical fallacy and ad-hominem attacks. Not only is it obvious you've lost the argument, it's clear now that you never even had one to lose.

Yes of course, I mean you've singularly failed to provide any form of justification or coherent counter argument that doesn't involve, gross misinterpretation false framing, or any other number of worm wriggles, over the last few pages, but you're so clearly right (you keep telling yourself that). Go have a cookie, by the time you've finished it you'll feel much much better.

You're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. :dozey:

 

[Sulkdodds]

Heaven forbid people went to the cinema and thought 'Why on earth is Brad Pitt calling these footsoldier Soldiers Nazis? Does the director not know the difference? Does he even know his History?

Perhaps I'm missing something. It's not as if I've read the whole threat rigorously, or even actually seen the film yet. But isn't Brad Pitt's character one of the targets of the film's message? It seems as if Tarantino's aim is to create a horrifying burlesque of war heroism so exaggerated that you can't help but step back. He uses WW2 because to some extent it remains the taboo war, the war where the enemy were definitely evil and we were definitely good, and he uses it to try and demolish the myth that wars and ideological borders can ever be that clean-cut (with specific reference to the role of movies and media in the creation of this myth). If you take the logic of war far enough, it does end with saying "yeah, let's scalp the bastards. Let's do anything to them." Considering our recent terror troubles I wouldn't say that's an irrelevant problem. As far as I can see Tarantino is going straight to that logical conclusion, presenting it in all its tacky horror, and grinning at you like COME ON. Just TRY and endorse this. Think about why there's a song and dance number at the end of Slumdog Millionaire.

Of course, I haven't even seen it. Nevertheless it seems like you're constantly basing your criticisms on a completely different expectation, a completely different way of conveying that message. So again, why wouldn't Pitt say "NAYTZI NAYTZI NAYZTI" if he is a grotesque exaggeration and a target of the film's satirical ire?

 

[Sparta]

If having the education and understanding to appreciate the differences between the membership of a military institution Vs a political force and how the culturally regressive misrepresentation of one for the other runs contrary to the more enlightened message you personally purport the film is conveying about prejudgement, either narratively or via the creative loophole of interpretative subtext is being narrow minded, then colour me bad brother, colour me bad.

Yes of course, I mean you've singularly failed to provide any form of justification or coherent counter argument that doesn't involve, gross misinterpretation false framing, or any other number of worm wriggles, over the last few pages, but you're so clearly right (you keep telling yourself that). Go have a cookie, by the time you've finished it you'll feel much much better.

You're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. :dozey:

Hahaha, oh Kadayi, go have a cookie -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias#Belief_perseverance

By the time you've finished it you'll feel much much better

Edit: Sulks is spot-on.

 

[Kadayi]

Perhaps I'm missing something. It's not as if I've read the whole threat rigorously, or even actually seen the film yet.

Then stop there. I recommend that you see the film to personally evaluate it rather than draw conclusions from second hand opinions.

@Sparta

Confirmation bias, of course. Its so obvious now.

 

[Sparta]

Then stop there. I recommend that you see the film to personally evaluate it rather than draw conclusions from second hand opinions.

That, I totally agree with.

 

[Kadayi]

That, I totally agree with.

Yet, a post before your heralding him at the enlightened one because you believe his second hand opinion is the word of God, simply because he appears to question me......

 

[Sparta]

What I was agreeing with, was your implication that everyone should see this film without any preconceptions on what to expect. Something you failed to do.

Inglorious Basterds is not a film, its a media event. Tarantino could of filmed himself shitting in a bucket, whilst beating off to some foot porn and the guys at AICN would be hailing it as 'film of the year' even before the camera had stopped rolling.

Sorry to ask a silly question but has Kadayi even seen the film?

I read the script, and from what I've heard from my friends who've seen it aside from a couple of scenes being altered there isn't much difference between that and the final product

The funny thing is, there's more evidence there to support my suggestion that you have confirmation bias, than there is to support you're suggestion that there is no subtext to this film.

 

[Kadayi]

Anything that I've said about IB has occurred after reading the script and seeing the film (not without any form of informative reference point). There isn't a dramatic difference between the mediums in terms of what's said, and what happens. That the script didn't impress me, and the film didn't transcend the failings of the script, isn't confirmation bias I'm afraid. If I'd said 'DP was shit, so therefore IB will be' you'd have a point, but the fact of the matter is I drew my initial conclusions off of reading the script, nothing else. Still attack the man when all else fails yes?

You start going down that road, then effectively anyone in this thread who saw the trailer and was like 'OMFG this is going to be ace!!! I love Tarantino movies ' is equally as guilty.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Then stop there. I recommend that you see the film to personally evaluate it rather than draw conclusions from second hand opinions.

I plan to. I'm merely pointing out that by their own internal logic your arguments don't seem to make much sense.

I don't know why you PMd me with a fuller response rather than posted it here, perhaps because you did not want other people who are more invested than I am in the argument to capitalise on what was said. I hope you don't mind if I respond here; my response is short.

Presumably Tarantino felt that to break the lurid burlesque, to break the illusion at any point, would be to dilute its strength (but are there truly no breaks?). Perhaps it is a problem how many people might not even pick up on what the film is trying to do. But in that case it becomes a litmus test like the movie version of Starship Troopers: those who find themselves utterly in sympathy with its jingoism, and unaware of its irony, should probably take a close look at their own (quasi-fascist?) attitude to sci-fi/war/nazis/movies. If they don't, well, hey, Poe's Law is always lurking. After all, Hitler's favourite movie was Metropolis. Apparently he didn't notice that it was a dystopia.

 

[mastag]

I thought the use of music was pretty goo-

Oh, whats the use?

 

[Sparta]

Anything that I've said about IB has occurred after reading the script and seeing the film.That the script didn't impress me, and the film didn't transcend the failings of the script, isn't confirmation bias I'm afraid. If I'd said 'DP was shit, so therefore IB will be' you'd have a point, but the fact of the matter is I drew my initial conclusions off of reading the script, nothing else. Still attack the man when all else fails yes?

Edit: You're not lying, I apoligise for that.

But your preconceptions of the script and your friends impressions still had you watching the film with pre-conceived bias. You went in with pre-conceived expectations that the film is atrocious and that is all you saw. To say there is little difference between the script for a film and the film itself, is massively wrong but I won't enter into that debate.

This isn't a case of I say, you say. This is a case of you refusing to accept or even acknowledge the validity of any of the arguments put forth about this films subtext, purely because you thought Tarantino made another bullshit wankfest like his film "Deathproof" based entirely on your initial reading of the script. Now you're so blindly adhering to that belief that even after Stigmata and I have completely picked apart and destroyed your arguments, you won't even accept the possibility that there is more to this film than you thought and now all you have left to do is to close to your eyes, cover your ears and sing "la la la" and try to ignore us.

And you have the gall to call others in this thread stupid?

You start going down that road, then effectively anyone in this thread who saw the trailer and was like 'OMFG this is going to be ace!!! I love Tarantino movies ' is equally as guilty.

True, everyone who went into the film thinking that goes into the film with pre-conceived notions, but the difference is you're saying there is no chance of there being subtext to the film and even after all of the arguments, you're still failing to admit that there is. You went thinking this is a dumb film, you saw a dumb film, and even as we sit here and prove its actually a lot smarter than that, you're so set on your prior opinion that you can't even come to acknowledge we might have a point. That is confirmation bias.

Oh, and you have a go at me for "attacking" you when up until this post had I called you anything besides hypocritical, narrow-minded and wrong? When my reaction comes from you initially calling me drunk and then further insinuating that I'm a moron because I proved that you had no argument or valid rebuttal? Yeah, keep digging Kadayi

 

[Kadayi]

Sulks*, Sparta at length responses later as deadline to complete at present and you wicked boys are keeping me from it

* as you've not seen it, it seemed more sensible to provide a fuller response explaining the argument via PM rather than dilute the thread with explanations until you'd seen the film (capisce?).

 

[Stigmata]

If having the education and understanding to appreciate the differences between the membership of a military institution Vs a political force and how the culturally regressive misrepresentation of one for the other runs contrary to the more enlightened message you personally purport the film is conveying about prejudgement, either narratively or via the creative loophole of interpretative subtext is being narrow minded, then colour me bad brother, colour me bad. Heaven forbid people went to the cinema and thought 'Why on earth is Brad Pitt calling these footsoldier Soldiers Nazis? Does the director not know the difference? Does he even know his History?' instead of just cheering with a mouthful of popcorn when the Bear Jew beats their brains out. :dozey:

"This movie is so dumb. There's no way all those soldiers were through-and-through Nazis, lots of them were simply soldiers following their orders."
"Seriously."
"Doesn't anyone care about historical accuracy? Anyone?"

Kadayi then plays a videogame and does not comment on its many deviations from reality.

And I have to agree with Sparta here. You went in with confirmation bias, and you came out with confirmation bias. You read the script, months before the film is screened, formed many negative opinions of the film based only on the script, "confirmed" these opinions when you went in to the theatre looking for reasons that these opinions should be correct, and then you... can't see that you have confirmation bias. Don't you think it's possible that film media, with its use of and dependence on timing, duration, two-dimensional shape colour and texture, sound, music, speech and inflection, subtle modulation of facial expressions, says things differently than text? Movies and scripts are not the same thing, the way that reading the sheet music of Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 3 is absolutely not the same thing as listening to the concerto, no matter your powers of accurate imagining of music. The same way the source code of a video game is not the game itself, because without the visuals, without the levels and enemies actually being invoked, represented, and interacted with, it's just code sitting there waiting to be made into something more.

 

[Kadayi]

Presumably Tarantino felt that to break the lurid burlesque, to break the illusion at any point, would be to dilute its strength (but are there truly no breaks?). Perhaps it is a problem how many people might not even pick up on what the film is trying to do. But in that case it becomes a litmus test like the movie version of Starship Troopers: those who find themselves utterly in sympathy with its jingoism, and unaware of its irony, should probably take a close look at their own (quasi-fascist?) attitude to sci-fi/war/nazis/movies. If they don't, well, hey, Poe's Law is always lurking. After all, Hitler's favourite movie was Metropolis. Apparently he didn't notice that it was a dystopia.

To provide an opinion on that I'd have to get into plot specifics and I think that would be a mistake given you need to watch the film beforehand. There are certainly some parallels between IB & Starship Troopers, however I'd say the latter is way more legible than the former. Still when do you think you'll be able to see it?

Edit: You're not lying, I apologise for that.

Apology accepted.

But your preconceptions of the script and your friends impressions still had you watching the film with pre-conceived bias. You went in with pre-conceived expectations that the film is atrocious and that is all you saw. To say there is little difference between the script for a film and the film itself, is massively wrong but I won't enter into that debate.

The only distinction between the script and the film is that the film is shorter, the dialogue, themes and events are by and large in tandem. The main distinction between the two beyond the size, is that some of the more excessively violent and vulgar parts of the script don't appear in the film (and if you've read it, you'll know what I mean), which might have been a resultant of censorship and time keeping, (though who knows what the directors cut will contain though). They are not that distinct enough to be regarded as separate beasts.

Also I never said the film was atrocious, I just said that for me it didn't work. Its starts off brightly during the first act but nosedives afterwards into meaningless R rated pantomime afterwards.

This isn't a case of I say, you say. This is a case of you refusing to accept or even acknowledge the validity of any of the arguments put forth about this films subtext, purely because you thought Tarantino made another bullshit wankfest like his film "Deathproof" based entirely on your initial reading of the script. Now you're so blindly adhering to that belief that even after Stigmata and I have completely picked apart and destroyed your arguments, you won't even accept the possibility that there is more to this film than you thought and now all you have left to do is to close to your eyes, cover your ears and sing "la la la" and try to ignore us.

Where exactly have I said that I don't believe the film has a subtext? I might not agree with your interpretation of it (because it is all interpretation after all), but I'm pretty sure I've never said that its not there. However what I see as the subtext isn't working successfully in my view, and that the film actually sends conflicting messages, which unfortunately doesn't make for a satisfactory viewing experience as far as I'm concerned (thus why I regard it as meaningless pantomime). Does it have some good performances? Yes. Is there some good dialogue? Yes (who didn't laugh at Landas remarks to Stiglitz?) Is it a must see movie experience? Not so much imho. On the stakes of buy, rent, borrow I'd put it between the latter. I certainly don't think its a masterpiece on par with some of his earlier work.

True, everyone who went into the film thinking that goes into the film with pre-conceived notions, but the difference is you're saying there is no chance of there being subtext to the film and even after all of the arguments, you're still failing to admit that there is. You went thinking this is a dumb film, you saw a dumb film, and even as we sit here and prove its actually a lot smarter than that, you're so set on your prior opinion that you can't even come to acknowledge we might have a point. That is confirmation bias.

See above.

Oh, and you have a go at me for "attacking" you when up until this post had I called you anything besides hypocritical, narrow-minded and wrong? When my reaction comes from you initially calling me drunk and then further insinuating that I'm a moron because I proved that you had no argument or valid rebuttal? Yeah, keep digging Kadayi

Where exactly did I say you were a drunk specifically?

Long post

I'm pretty sure your understanding of confirmational bias is more that a little flawed, given by that very rationale you employ pretty much short of being in sensory deprivation before a film is even spoken of, and then only let out once the beginning of the film starts, anything you see and witness could be grounds for confirmational bias. OMG, you know it's a Western and you hate Westerns? Confirmational bias!!!

 

[Stigmata]

Where exactly did I say you were a drunk specifically?

Around here:

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).

where the inflection added by the bold text makes it come off as a serious, or at least intentionally insulting and aggravating, accusation.

 

[Kadayi]

where the inflection added by the bold text makes it come off as a serious, or at least intentionally insulting and aggravating, accusation.

So basically its your interpretation of what I've said, rather than what I've actually said yes? Could it not also perhaps have been in relation to not seeing what's there (a frighteningly common occurrence it seems). Should I have said 'are you blind?' or would that constitute grounds for accusing me of labelling him disabled?

 

[Stigmata]

So basically its your interpretation of what I've said, rather than what I've actually said yes? Could it not also perhaps have been in relation to not seeing what's there (a frighteningly common occurrence it seems). Should I have said 'are you blind?' or would that constitute grounds for accusing me of labelling him disabled?

Well, it's all up to interpretation isn't it? I can't say whether you literally accused him of being a drunk, you can't say whether Tarantino is obligated to comment on the Nazi stereotype, we're all in the same boat.

 

[Adrik_Senturu]

This is never going to end ever.


There are roughly two kinds of implausibility you can talk about when looking at fiction. One kind is the obviously fantastic conventions of the world. These are things that the author asks us to believe so he can tell the kind of story he wants to tell. These are things like: Aliens exist. Zombies have risen from their graves. The world we all perceive is a computer simulation called the matrix. It doesn't have to be that overt, but basically, it's the things we don't have trouble with suspending disbelief to enjoy a story. In the case of IB it'd be stuff like, Hitler and all the top ranking Nazis were assassinated in 1944, or that there was a secret group of Jewish commandos skulking around in France, or in Kad's case that Brad Pitt sees every German Soldier as a Nazi.

The other kind is human irrationality or unexplained breach of character. You pick up on this if someone acts in a way that doesn't make sense in the context of what we understand of his character. If Luke decided to join the Emperor at the end of Star Wars that would be an unexplained breach of character. If Chigurh decided to just give up the chase halfway through No Country For Old Men because he was bored that would probably qualify too. An example from IB would be what if the day before the premiere Shosanna decided to pull out a shotgun in the middle of Paris and start gunning down passersby, or more subtly, what if Wilhelm decided to go out fighting out of love for Germany rather than try and stay alive for his son. A real life example would be the tendency of people in horror movies to decide to split up. These are shitty examples because I'm tired but you get the idea. Basically, irrational decisions from what we understand to be a rational character (rational being from the perspective of that character).

Not once in the movie does Brad Pitt go out of his character. We learn from the start that he "wants his scalps." Hes going out there to kill Nazis ( Any German soldier they come across )
So the whole "Why on earth is Brad Pitt calling these footsoldier Soldiers Nazis? Does the director not know the difference? Does he even know his History?" really doesn't apply here.

tldr: This movie owns, this is a dumb thing to whine about

 

[Kadayi]

Well, it's all up to interpretation isn't it?

If the author tells you want the intent is, then there is no issue of interpretation.


@Adrik

I appreciate what you are saying about maintaining character, however that a character is say (for example) a bigot and the film never at any point brings into question their behaviour or throws light on it is in terms of a moral compass through a counterpoint character is the issue. Sure with certain films such as Starship troopers its entirely possible to get away with that and leave the comprehension entirely in the hands of the viewer from the perspective that some people get the joke and some people don't (no harm, no foul), however the thing to bear in mind with Starship troopers is that the antagonists are completely fictional, as is the setting. The same cannot be said for Inglourious Basterds, sure the film is a burlesque fiction (to appropriate Sulkdodds expression), but the setting in which it operates isn't. For the film not to overtly alert the viewer as to the questionable nature of what is happening is a flaw. The opportunity exists in the film to introduce that realisation quite a few times (the scene in the projection room between Shosanna and Fredrick being the most obvious example), but Tarantino repeatedly pulls away from doing so and instead just punishes the characters.

 

[Stigmata]

If the author tells you want the intent is, then there is no issue of interpretation.

And Tarantino has not overtly said what the intent of his film is, so the issue of interpretation remains, and thus you cannot claim anything objective about the film's meaning or message. QED. I'm done here.

 

[Kadayi]

And Tarantino has not overtly said what the intent of his film is, so the issue of interpretation remains, and thus you cannot claim anything objective about the film's meaning or message. QED. I'm done here.

Actually I was referring to your interpretation regarding what I said, as you had such a hang up about it. That Tarantino hasn't clarified what his intention was doesn't negate any issues raised regarding the film though, however you are correct in one respect, you are most certainly done here.

 

[Rizzo]

It was okay. Seriously. And shit.

 

[Sulkdodds]

So yeah I saw this today and more than ever I cannot understand where this idea originates that Tarantino never draws attention to the moral problems of his characters. Kad, I was expecting to see where you were coming from. My expectations were blown out of the water.

For a start, there are explicit correspondences between Aldo Raine and Hans Landa. The former talks about Nazis very much in the way that the latter talks about Jews. They talk in terms of "humanity" or lack thereof, even though right at the beginning of the film Landa interrogates anti-semitism and finds it a little wanting (his later actions will prove that he doesn't really believe in his cause at all - only in his job, or rather, in his comfort). Raine gets a very similar scene - that is, an interrogation where he forces someone into a moral choice between their own life and their adherence to a set of values. In both scenes, Raine and Landa use their sinister psuedonyms - the Apache and The Jew Hunter - to intimidate their victims, and some of their questions are identical. "Have you heard what they call me? Y-yes. "Well, what have you heard they call me?"

Others (Kupo?) claimed that the moral scruple was all very well but that really it's just an excuse to have lots of awesome action scenes. Having seen the film, I'm compelled to ask: what action scenes? Pretty much every instance of violence is one of one-sided or backhanded massacre. The soldiers drill fugitive Jews through the floorboards. The Basterds ambush and gun down their enemy, or execute prison guards. Shosanna and Zoller shoot each other by surprise. Hitler's face is turned into a ghoulish, gratutious mush. And the Basterds rain machinegun fire from an opera box into a screaming crowd of what are effectively (since they are unarmed and panicking) civilians. Of these only the latter is thrilling, partly because of its horrifying intensity and the dramatic gusto with which giant smoke-head Shosanna taunts her victims, but also because it's difficult not to get an emotional kick over the horrifying massacre of Hitler, Goebels et al. That's part of why the scene is effective: at points I did feel like cheering. It's at this moment the film is most effective because it gives you a genuine sense of the intoxication of revenge, something that is actually hard to resist. And it is at this point that Hitler dies and history deviates from its course because it's irrevocably at this point, if not earlier, that we are pitched into a delirious revenge fantasy. And we get to take the place of the Nazis who were earlier watching Americans shot even while the real yanks are invading Normandy.

Otherwise, by refusing to actually make the Basterds' activities exciting - witness the bizarre cut during Part II, where one minute Aldo's saying "I want my scalps" and the next minute the enemy is already dead and being dismembered - IB refuses to let the audience actually revel in them. We have no chance to get excited by them or involved in them; instead they mostly happen off screen, and so we only get to think about them. But actually it's not all just cruel, quick massacres. There is one genuine exciting war film action sequence. It's in Zoller's simplistic black-and-white propaganda pic, A Nation's Pride. There are thrills and spills galore, but they are seen through the distancing effect of film-within-a-film, a device which also serves to conflate our own position as viewers with that of the Nazi brass who are also sitting in a cinema. Combine this with Aldo's remark during Part II that beating Germans to death is the cloest thing the Basterds get to watching a movie, and with Bear Jew's grotesque adoption of baseball showmanship, and there's a pretty strong accusation being levelled at film and popular culture for their complicity in war crimes. After all, what's the most horrible thing about everyone we meet? That they enjoy their jobs. Hugo Stiglitz grins as he slits his officers' throats. Aldo loves his scalps. Shosanna laughs as the generals burn. And Landa takes a real pride in his vocation. Meanwhile, there is a whole lot of camera time given to the fear in the eyes of ordinary German soldiers (not to mention that we see them at play, with their girls, asking for autographs, having fun, being normal people), and even though Zoller later turns out to be kind of a twat, he does seem genuinely uncomfortable about what he as done, and especially so about it being reeneacted on a big screen and cheered at by an audience. Oh yeah: "Did you get that medal for killing jews?" "For bravery." Oh and yeah: "Are you somebody's son?" "Everyone is somebody's son."

The final act of violence is the brutal inscription of a swastika into Landa's forehead. This is not a pleasant scene. And it strikes one that putting a sign on someone to show the world what they are, so that they can never escape the shame, so that their identity is branded with a certain mark, is something that the nazis did also, with numeric tattoos and yellow triangles and the star of david. In the final moments Aldo leans back and says, Tarantino-like, "this might just be my masterpiece". Pretty striking indictment.

It's also pointed frame-breaking metafiction, like so much else in the film. And this is the last of what I guess is my defence of Inglourious Basterds. It's veritably Brechtian. It flashes up big title screens, employs incongruous modern music, bungs in charicatures of famous historical figures, indicates them with scratchy chalk labels and arrows, even at points has a narrator. It switches scenes abruptly and incongruously. Some are very artificial, like the lecture that Aldo gives his troops right at the beginning of Part II. Hell, Pitt's ludicrous performance and accent probably weren't intentional but they do contribute. And there's a lot about the process and material of film itself. In short the movie does everything it can to remind you that you are watching it, that it is not real, that it is the work of people who move in the world, and that it involves ideology. This was always Brecht's method for jerking you out of your emotional engagement and forcing you to look critically or analytically at what you are watching. Some critics have claimed IB is not exactly engaging, and perhaps they are right. But if they say that like it's a bad thing, or a mistake, they are wrong. It's no coincidence that the only moments that gripped me emotionally were those when either Jews or Germans were about to be brutalised, and of course the final and glorious revenge.

I was half right. It is ghoulish and it is grotesque and it is at parts a war movie burlesque. But it's actually less crass than that, and is quite pervasively critical of almost all its characters.

Anyway, had a few problems, but loved it.