IB actually made me feel bad for Hitler, would not wish a QT flick on anyone
You knew what was going to happen? Had you been privy to spoilers? One thing I would think altering the history of WWII would be is somewhat unexpected.
Loved the film! To save time, lets just assume that whatever Den says in this thread, I feel the exact opposite. ;)
I’ve seen it twice now, and I enjoyed it just as much the second time. Actually, come to think of it I enjoyed it a little more second time.
Well, Tarantino did rely on his “director power” (if you could put it that way) to drive up the suspense in several scenes and I think that’s what the OP is referring to (such as the opening scene and the bar scene shootout – those are “Tarantino-esque” scenes, even though they’re not really his, but are recognized as his), not necessarily the “twist” at the end of the film.
I really need to see it again, but having just seen it once, I have to say, there were some things that were very well done, but most of it was shite. A major problem I had with it was the editing. MANY scenes were just filler and couldn’t been easily removed … hell, even entire characters (!) could’ve been removed. For a film that took Tarantino 10 or so years to write, it certainly isn’t well thought out.
Films in general are too long and indulgent nowadays. This one is no exception.
“I’ve seen it twice now, and I enjoyed it just as much the second time. Actually, come to think of it I enjoyed it a little more second time.”
Ditto. Watched it on the big screen during the Oscar lead-up re-release, and basically considered immediately going into the following screening to re-watch. But only got around to it last week.
The emotional experience of tension (I think IB repeatedly masters that more than “suspense”), when well crafted, holds up upon repeated viewings.
A few words from Alfred Hitchcock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPFsuc_M_3E
I can not wait to watch IB a THIRD time and beyond. Like ARMY OF SHADOWS, it’s a masterpiece of privileged information because of the volume of conversations you must observe knowing the whole time that this or that character has either a piece of information or an entire identity they have to hide…maintaining a believable identity while being a double-agent IS the equivalent to Hitchcock’s hypothetical “bomb under the table”. Will it blow? When? Hell, you have to watch them make it all up on the spot in some scenes just flying by the seats of their pants to keep from being found out. The complexity of overlapping motivations characters have to tackle in a single conversation in IB are overwhelming, and watching each actor weather them merits repeat viewings alone.
Nor, should I add, was I just waiting around for more Tarantinesque stuff to happen. The stuff I found most Tarantinesque (basically any voice-over, especially the two by Samuel L. Jackson, or any other equally winking cinematic aside) was the worst in the movie and displayed what I have to presume was an incredible lack of self-confidence on Tarantino’s part that he could pull off a more serious, more “straight” movie. Definitely wish that blatant silly stuff were out.
(Edit: I agree films in general are too long nowadays. But this was two and a half hours that FLEW by for me)
(Post edit: I actually think the tension scenes in IB are so good, I’ve been loathe to research any more deeply whether Tarantino’s admitted or been caught “borrowing” scenes from other movies. Anyone know any dirt? Some of the great Italian music cues just work SO well, I wonder if the compositions and editing patterns that corresponded with the original Italian movies were lifted too.)
What I like about Tarantino is his ability to dissect exactly what people like about a genre and present those things in a way that’s entertaining in the spirit of the genre, but also plays off our programmed expectations from that genre in very clever ways. You always get these little awesome moments like Bea carrying the katana openly on a passenger plane, where all the little silly things we don’t even notice we suspend disbelief for are presented right in our face.
The problem with the film is Tarantino relies too much on his personal quirks for story structure.
I have watched this film 5 or 6 times already, it’s Tarantino’s masterpiece I think and I absolutely love every single frame of it, I haven’t tired of it in the slightest. How people don’t have fun with this film I have no idea but I think Kill Bill 2 is his second best film so what do I know haha ;)
I’d enjoy the film much more if it had nothing to do with the holocaust. Somebody mentioned Hitchcock, and I agree that Tarantino’s handling of tension is quite brilliant at times, but Hitchcock usually had the good sense of making his macguffins truly banal. The holocaust is not banal.
The holocaust isn’t a macguffin in this film. And anyway, it really does have nothing to do with the holocaust. Projecting that sort of concern onto the film is a false analysis, I think. This is a “World War II” film, not a film about World War II and the holocaust.
I rate “Kill Bill 2” higher than “Basterds”. I’m curious to know why some consider it a masterpiece. I’m of the opinion that everything he does in this film, he has done better in previous films. My third viewing of this film was just a few weeks ago, on dvd. I found it to be bulky and tonally-awkward. Someone I admire says that is precisely the genius of Tarantino in this film — to be able to balance the horrific and the humorous at exactly the same moments. True, but I appreciate it in the the killing of Marvin in “Pulp Fiction” and Melanie in “Jackie Brown” more than anything in “Basterds”.
I’m inclined to think all of Taratino’s films are disposable. I think people are lured in by the style and the pseudo-clever screenplays of his films. If you like his films, that’s fine with me as long as you recognize it is escapism. Taratino hasn’t made any masterpieces (in fact, the word masterpiece is thrown around way too much). Maybe a few modern classics (like Pulp Fiction perhaps), but not any masterpieces in my book.
Yeah, I guess used “macguffin” in a off-the-cuff way. “Set-up” is probably what I mean. However, if I had to choose between “World War II” and “Holocaust”, I’d choose the later as having closer connection with the film.
I think IB is a lot smarter than people give it credit for, and not simply escapism. Aside from the obvious surface elements, I think underneath there is a sly statement on violence, its role in film, and its effect on the audience. Look at how the theater audience reacts to “Nation’s Pride” at the end of the film. From what we see, it is literally nothing but people getting shot and blown up in various ways, and the audience eats it up (especially Hitler, who is laughing to the point of tears). Now look at all the sequences with the actual Inglourious Basterds led by Raine, where they brutally kill countless Nazis with blatant glee. Notice the effect those scenes have on the viewing audience (or go to IMDb or some other fanboy site and read how many teenagers thought it was totally badass or something).
It might be hypocritical of Tarantino to poke fun at his audience, considering the amount of violence he puts in his films, but I think it raises him a few steps above escapism. Would you consider Hitchcock to be escapism? (Not to compare Tarantino and Hitchcock or anything)
“It might be hypocritical of Tarantino to poke fun at his audience, considering the amount of violence he puts in his films, but I think it raises him a few steps above escapism.”
I think hypocrisy is worse than the status of not aspiring to anything above escapism.
Fair enough. I wouldn’t call him a hypocrite personally, because most of his films don’t revolve entirely around violence, but I’m sure he’s aware that a good portion of his audience is there solely to eat that shit up and IB was a light-hearted nudge at those people.
“I think IB is a lot smarter than people give it credit for, and not simply escapism. Aside from the obvious surface elements, I think underneath there is a sly statement on violence, its role in film, and its effect on the audience. Look at how the theater audience reacts to “Nation’s Pride” at the end of the film.”
This idea might have crossed my mind if Tarantino didn’t say that violence is cool in several interviews I saw with him. Tarantino’s films are interesting but not intelligent. If IB has a sly statement about violence, then so does the Rambo remake.
“Tarantino’s films are interesting but not intelligent.”
Elaborate.
As much as I hate one word responses to my posts I will give you the benefit of the doubt and reply.
Taratino’s films are better than the usual hollywood fare, and they are often fun for most people to watch. I think that the self-indulgent aspects and the constant references to other films are also something many of his fans enjoy. However, just because his films are fresher and more enticing than your typical American movie does not make them smart or profound. Tarantino does not try to make intellectual masterpieces from what I’ve seen. He just wants to make movies first and foremost that he enjoys and secondly that his audience will likely also enjoy.
Therefore, assuming his films are intelligent or are “masterpieces” is assuming a bit too much.
I love it, for me it’s something I’m going to be watching for a long time. It’s my second favorite from tarantino.
Joseph, I agree with everything you say there up to the last sentence, but I don’t see why that automatically disqualifies his work from “masterpiece” status alone. I think that’s really elitist and while Basterds may not be the movie I’d put up there as one, I think QT has as well a claim on a “masterpiece” as anyone else in American film today, and I think the fact that he makes his films that “he enjoys and secondly that his audience will likely also enjoy” isn’t such a bad thing (who are the people who make “your masterpieces” aiming their films at? God almighty? Orson Welles?) I enjoy Bresson as much as the next guy but to immediately say Tarantino, who clearly labors years on his films and fills every frame with personal detail, can never reach masterpiece status due to his goals (which aren’t even financially focused, as the worst goals would be) is ridiculous.
Yeah, Tarantino is always a touchy subject (no matter what side of the fence one is on) because he so blatantly “borrows” from other films/filmmakers that it can have a very polarizing effect.
I still maintain that Jackie Brown is the only thing Tarantino has done (so far) which approaches “masterpiece” status (IMO, I’m certainly in the minority on that) and I think that’s on account of him NOT writing the story which the film is based on. Jackie Brown kind of forced him to focus on just filmmaking and not get sidetracked with all the writing duties. Because he isn’t a great writer IMO, he’s sensationalist which a lot of people confuse for “ability,” but yeah, he has a good sensibility. He knows what people like.
EDIT: And whoever made the point that Tarantino is less concerned with making “masterpieces” is right on. Just by hearing the man describe his work in interviews, you can tell that he’s very serious about making a “good” film, but he isn’t striving for some kind of original masterwork. He might refer to Kill Bill or Inglorious as his best work, but not as part of some canon of important films.
Jake I should clarify. I am not trying to put some arbitrary boundary on QT’s films by saying that because they are escapism they inherently cannot reach “masterpiece status”. I just think that the word “masterpiece” is very overused and that none of Tarantino’s so far have been masterpieces. If you think they are, that’s your prerogative. I respectfully disagree.
However, I will say that Tarantino’s films are enjoyable (I particularly like Reservoir Dogs) and in no way do I consider them poor filmmaking.
“Jackie Brown kind of forced him to focus on just filmmaking and not get sidetracked with all the writing duties. Because he isn’t a great writer IMO, he’s sensationalist which a lot of people confuse for “ability,” but yeah, he has a good sensibility. He knows what people like.”
I definitely agree with you here.
“EDIT: And whoever made the point that Tarantino is less concerned with making “masterpieces” is right on. Just by hearing the man describe his work in interviews, you can tell that he’s very serious about making a “good” film, but he isn’t striving for some kind of original masterwork. He might refer to Kill Bill or Inglorious as his best work, but not as part of some canon of important films.”
Yeah I tried to make that point and once again I agree wholeheartedly.
There seems to be a resistance among film lovers due to his mainstream appeal. Let us not discount films or filmmakers because of mass appeal. Tarantino has likely facilitated many a fool’s exodus from Wal-Mart bargain bins to the foreign and classic sections at Blockbuster. Praise his name.
It’s not the mass appeal film lovers like me don’t like, it’s that people confuse his sensationalism for ability as Deckard stated above. Just because he can make an appealing film doesn’t mean his name should be praised. However, I’d certainly rather watch IB than Transformers.
Concerning sensationalism, I think Transformers is an apt contrast, as are the majority of big-budget action movies. Do they not try to succeed primarily by being sensationalistic? Yet, where so many of them fail, I and many others would agree that Tarintino succeeds. No, let us not mistake sensationalism for ability, but let us recognize his ability for sensationalism. I hope you recognize the difference.
I walked out of this after about 30-45 minutes. I had assumed that it will be difficult for QT to make a worse movie than Kill Bill and it appears that he had proven me wrong. Can someone tell me what exactly is attractive about this film since I am willing to consider it again?
My opinion lies somewhere between Deckard’s, Joseph’s and Bobby’s. I recognise Quentin’s talent, and i went just as crazy about Pulp Fiction in 94 as just about anyone, but now i feel i see through him. I don’t think his films stand up well over time.
Having said that, i’m not sure where to stand on how ‘seriously’ he takes his films. I mean, i don’t get why Tarantino is considered to be such an authority on cinema at all. All i ever hear him talk about is bad genre films for the most part. that’s it. ‘oh yeah, that best car chase is in this movie’, ‘the best girl fight is in this one’, ‘oh critics are snobs for not recognising exploitation’ etc. I’ve honestly never heard him say one goddamn insightful thing about cinema. Not one. And when he is questioned about the violence issue, he uses the same lame response over and over(it’s movies stupid! not real life!!).
Peter Greenaway is right. A whole generation has been raised to think this man is a genius, and that’s a shame.
HOPELESSLY ADDICTED: if you did not find the 15 minute opening sequence intriguing, I do not recommend revisiting the film any time soon with the expectation of feeling differently. It is an exemplary introduction to the film’s tone, tension, soundscape, and sense of humor…all towards the ends of showcasing the shifting power dynamics between its characters. I immediately found that combination of elements emotionally overwhelming (and found the very Tarantino-esque stuff very distracting) and likewise consistently throughout the rest of the film, but you won’t.
Pietro Impagliazzo
And I say this not in a derrogatory way.
I loved when I saw it on the movie theater… However this film seems to support itself solely on suspense and when you already know what’s going to happen… What’s the point?
Sure the jokes and wit of the film are awesome, but the suspense that something tarantinesque about to happen is what drives it.
Do you guys felt the same?