As I see it, Inglourious Basterds is more about the differences between myth and reality than a commentary on nazism. That’s why cinema is such an integral part of the story and in the end Tarantino actually changes history within the film. To me, WW2 is simply a backdrop. That’s the theme Tarantino seems to be really developing throughout the film. To me, it seems to be the main focus of the story. Same way that Reservoir Dogs was about professionalism vs. friendship, trust and faith in the uncertain, Pulp Fiction was about redemption and second chances, Jackie Brown was about midlife crisis and Kill Bill (both volumes) was about family.
“Coincidentally a few days ago I was thinking about how Quentin Tarantino is one of the most ethically minded filmmakers today. Not so much that his films set out to make a ethical point like a morality play, but that he sets his characters in a universe where their actions have consequences, except for Kill Bill which I hated to no end!”
Agreed, but I think you’re wrong about Kill Bill (but you have the right not to like the film, I’m not trying to take that away from you).
Going back to the “childish” cinema aspect of this thread, I agree with the premise that depth is not limited to films of great complexity or “mature” content. That said, I think there are certain kinds of content that are better suited to “childish” filmmakers. For instance, Spielberg’s films were enchanting and touching as long as he stayed within the sci-fi or adventure genre. The moment he began to dabble in historical or political matters, his films suffered. There’s a different (not necessarily “better”) requirement for tackling real-world subjects because any analysis or commentary can’t get away with being reductionist, one-sided or uninformed. “Schindler’s List”, “Amistad” and “Munich” all bothered me on that front. He’s entitled to his point of view obviously, but as a viewer it leaves me dissatisfied and wanting more.
I wouldn’t call IB a slight defense of Nazis, so much as a commentary on the special status of inhumanity we reserve for them and only them. Fox News pundits don’t compare Obama to Cortez, they compare him to Hitler.
Kill Bill didn’t make as incisive a commentary as Inglorious Basterds, but it did have a lot of interesting reflections on the way we watch film.
In a samurai film or other sorts of violent films, we at no point really question the violence that is happening on screen. At one point, Bea openly carries a katana on an airplane, and this is in a film that came out just a few years after 9/11. At no point does law enforcement have any real presence in the film, except in reacting impotently long after the fact to a scene of horrific violence. Law enforcement is absent in all of those films, and there are never any legal or moral consequences to the methods of the protagonists, but Kill Bill makes that absence conspicuous.
And my favorite moment is the way, directly after the samurai kill-field in Japan, Bea runs into Budd’s trailer and gets instantly hit with a shotgun, calling attention to the fact that if a single one of those men was carrying a gun the battle would have been won instantly.
It also pokes fun at some of the conceits of martial arts films. After all, if you are close enough to poke somebody in the chest and make their heart explode, wouldn’t it be easier to crack their windpipe? Yet Kill Bill builds up this mystic super-technique as if knowing it gives you an instant insurmountable combat advantage.
Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction make similar observations about gangster films.
SPOILERS
Interestingly, I viewed the end of BASTERDS as a bit of a reaction to Spielberg’s endgame in RAIDERS, with Shoshanna, already dead, still managing to speak from beyond the grave through her ghostly, recorded image that is also lethal to witness when it wreaks vengeance upon the unwitting crowd through its loaded cinematic explosion. Compare that to the face of the female ghost emerging from the Ark in RAIDERS, Spielberg’s masturbatory wish-fulfillment fantasy of some ancient law meting out justice wholesale upon the crowd of cartoon Nazis. BASTERDS reaction complicates the matter by way of Aldrich’s THE DIRTY DOZEN, making us feel at least a little conflicted about the civilians (sympathizers and financial supporters of the Nazi party as though they may be) being slaughtered by the Basterds, so mad with bloodlust that they gleefully kill themselves to take down the theater. RAIDERS on the other hand, clearly wants us to feel that the eradication of the Nazi troop is justified in a black and white manner (though watching it as a kid, before I knew about the Nazi’s atrocities in the Holocaust, I couldn’t even watch the deaths of the soldiers because Spielberg’s depiction of them so perversely relished its own extreme violence).
@Jirin
There was an interesting feminist view of Kill Bill Vol. 2 that I remember reading a while back. You’ll notice that Beatrix doesn’t kill anyone using her sword throughout the entire film. The entire flashback with Pei Mai is actually a testament to the fact that she can’t succeed with operating with ‘masculine’ tendency. Which is why she uses her hands to succeed at all her obstacles in Vol. 2 (escaping the casket, blinding Belle, and finally killing Bill) rather than the phallic weapon. I’ll try to go look for it because it’s far better elaborated than I have attempted.
I wouldn’t call IB a slight defense of Nazis, so much as a commentary on the special status of inhumanity we reserve for them and only them.
Yeah, that’s what I meant.
Augusto, that’s an interesting take on IB. I hadn’t thought of that.
Munich was definitely simplistic and one dimensional in certain ways, but it definitely had something going for it cinematically, if you know what I mean.
I love Spielberg’s and Tarantino’s films. Now hate away, lol. I’m not going to try to argue for them as there is no point in trying to get someone who doesn’t like their films to like them. Everyone is different and has their own taste in films. You either love their films, hate them, or think that their films are okay at best. We are all entitled to our own opinions. As for the childish cinema bit, I love it as well. Some people such as myself never really grow up. There’s that inner child still in us. To watch a childish film brings back the memories of being young again, believing in magic and fantasy, and dreaming about the future and what you’re going to do with it. I think it’s great that childish films are made. For a child, to sit down and watch a film such as “E.T”, they learn about life while at the same time, they are taken in by the pure magic and fun of the film. All in all, what’s wrong with feeling young and having a little fun everyonce in a while? I’m not saying more mature films dealing with life aren’t any fun, because for me, they are most definitely more fun. I guess I’m saying that you can still have fun watching rollercoaster ride films such as “Avatar” and “Starwars” while still watching films such as “Solaris” and “Raging Bull”. I don’t care if someone says that a film is a masterpiece or utter dribble. I watch the films I watch simply because I enjoy them. With that last statement, I think thats true for all of us.
@Malik
That’s a flawed reading of “Kill Bill” because parts 1 and 2 are interlocking narratives told out of chronological order, and can’t really be differentiated as two separate films. Just the House of Blue Leaves sequence alone negates any mapping that tries to show that Beatrix can’t succeed with masculine tendencies and phallic weapons.
I suppose I’ll have to wait until The Whole Bloody Affair comes out. As of now, they’re too completely distinct films from one another in tone and the rules of the universe.
As much as I love Kill Bill (it’s probably my favorite QT movie), I have to agree with Bobby here: it’s one movie. I took it upon myself to see them both back to back in one sitting last year, and they are fused together very well if seen that way. In fact, I’m a little afraid that The Whole Bloody Affair will excise some of the transitional elements that I really enjoyed.
I’d love to hear how they are distinct from each other in the rules of the universe. Tone, yes. Part 2 is much more mellow and measured.
“In fact, I’m a little afraid that The Whole Bloody Affair will excise some of the transitional elements that I really enjoyed.”
Same here. I’d hate to lose the cliffhanger ending to Vol. 1 and the black and white opening sequence to Vol. 2, and it’s been confirmed by people who have already seen The Whole Bloody Affair that those moments have been deleted from the thing.
@August I loved the way u summed up QT films in ur 1st post with there themes and I agree about the lost of certain elements such as the ending from vol.1 which every time I’ve seen it left me with goose bumps and gets u so hyped for the next vol. Especially with the music and such and bills voice
@shaun I most def whole heartiness agree with ur stance on “childish cinema” that’s y I love Big so much 4 those exact reasons I watched it well over a hundred times prob growing up(among other films in that regards)
@August I loved the way u summed up QT films in ur 1st post with there themes and I agree about the lost of certain elements such as the ending from vol.1 which every time I’ve seen it left me with goose bumps and gets u so hyped for the next vol. Especially with the music and such and bills voice
@shaun I most def whole heartenlly agree with ur stance on “childish cinema” that’s y I love Big so much 4 those exact reasons I watched it well over a hundred times prob growing up(among other films in that regards)
There’s childish and fun and childish and stupid. ET is fun. Hook is stupid. The former doesn’t condescend to children while making a film about children, while the latter assumes they’re dumb, and force feeds them rotten candy.
Tarantino? Eh. I reserve a fondness for a couple of his films but I’d honestly rather discuss just about any other director in the world.
No mention of Truffaut anywhere? What?
Oh, and you spelled Spielberg wrong in the thread title.
Truffaut is a good example actually, especially something like Day for Night. And like Tarantino, he combines naivety with intelligence and sophistication. I love directors who do both. Spielberg doesn’t incorporate enough maturity imo, and I agree with whoever said his more recent work is off-putting because he’s bad at dealing with that kind of thing (serious topics). Although his films always have good film making in them. I thought War of the Worlds had some amazing sequences for instance.
RaySquirrel
Coincidentally a few days ago I was thinking about how Quentin Tarantino is one of the most ethically minded filmmakers today. Not so much that his films set out to make a ethical point like a morality play, but that he sets his characters in a universe where their actions have consequences, except for Kill Bill which I hated to no end!