I’d say Hannah and her Sisters and Manhattan are both in a dead heat. Both also have the most painfully real breakup scenes I have ever seen in an American film.
No one deserves a fanboy beating for not liking Inglourious Basterds. The harsh reaction by fans of District 9 to persons who did not like it is appalling. I haven’t seen that one myself but, no matter my opinion, I am not going to trash critics for liking it or hating it. The same goes for Inglourious Basterds which I did see.
That said, I did not see much of a fanboy audience at the showing of Inglourious Basterds I went to. My audience skewed old — lots of people in their 50’s and 60’s — and was probably about 50/50 when it came to gender. I saw maybe one or two persons that gave me the impression of a fanboy. Yet the audience ate this film up and gave it an ovation.
David, you are again allowing your passion to overtake you. I think you can make your argument without descending into comments like this.
“Taratatino’s indifference-bordering-on-hostility to historical truth should make him a pariah. But for Fanboys (and this place is infested with them like lice) this makes him a hero.”
Tarantino is not obligated to stick to the historical record. I also doubt any young person is going to show up to History class and interrupt the teacher offering up the end of this movie as the truth. We can disagree on those two opinions. Fine. However, the notion that Tarantino should be made a pariah for not sticking to historical truth is over the top moral indignation. The comparison of fanboys to lice — and it is a comparison no matter how cloaked — is nasty and low.
David, you are continuing to push yourself into a corner on this movie with your extreme comments. You don’t like it and that is your opinion. No one is saying you have to like it. However you seem intent on insulting those who disagree with you and setting up rules on things where there are no rules — for example film having to follow the historical record. Sometimes we get so stuck on wanting people to have the same opinion we end up undermining our credibility. I’d wish you’d take a step back. After awhile even those that agree with you will get tired of the hostility you are conveying in your posts.
What are the impressions of August Diehl’s performance as Major Hellstrom from persons on here? As much as Landa was intimidating, Hellstrom creeped me out. I could not get a read on what the character was thinking and could feel why the other characters — except Hugo — were so anxious around him. I thought Diehl was masterful.
On a trivial note, I wonder if Tarantino saw the goofy Mes Copines — with both beautiful women Lea Seydoux and Anne-Sophie Franck getting short roles.
Carol Baker (Giant)
Harriett Andersson (Smiles of a Summer Night)
Barbara Loden (Splendor in the Grass)
Bruce Dern (King of Marvin Gardens)
Yaphet Kotto (Blue Collar)
David Morse (Inside Moves)
Patrick Deware (Beau Pere)
Elias Koteas (The Thin Red Line)
Sylvie Testud (Murderous Maids)
Evan Rachel Wood (The Life Before Her Eyes)
“I figured the “cum towel” reference would at least warrant a little finger wagging. Can you say just about anything on here?”
The reference was made to me. I was perplexed by that over the top comment too. However that kind of nonsense undermines David to such a degree that in a way he is only giving his critics here — who accuse him of trolling — more leverage. I wish he would apologize and we can all move on. There are many posters on here that dislike the film and many who like it and yet they are able to argue without calling people scum or indulging in such vulgar insults.
As for Funny Games, I don’t see much of a connection myself. Funny Games was too much of an exercise designed to scold. I found it sort of patronizing. Inglourious Basterds has two scenes which are of interest here. One is the beating to death of the officer with the bat. The second is the scene discussed with Hitler laughing. The first occurs in the sequence following one of a Jewish family being slaughtered for being Jewish. The officer himself yells some anti-semitic remarks before he is killed. I find the difference being called out. The Jewish family is killed out of bigotry. The officer is a soldier and a representative of that bigotry — I have never believed in that they were just fighting for country excuse. The officer is destroyed because he has chosen to partake in destroying innocence — and if the point is not clear Tarantino has a soldier in Hugo who has refused the ways of his country. He pays for his crimes against humanity. Then you have Hitler laughing at people dying on screen. We get to laugh at him dying on screen moments later. That does not reduce us to his level. This is a monster meeting his just desserts. His payback is to suffer the horrific death he fated others.
The film operates as a sort of catharsis. It is a revenge fantasy and so moralists will condemn it as lowering itself. They can argue that and that it their opinion. However, someone destroying innocence and rejecting humanity is not the same as someone destroying that monster. The person who kills their daughter’s rapist has not sunk to the rapist’s level no matter what kind of moral philosophy is spouted. So I don’t see Tarantino trying to scold the audience. I think he is more interested in creating a catharsis.
“Commiting murder – in any context, even revenge – is wrong, no? Do most people here think that it is okay to impose the death penalty (as an example of murder)? Catharsis my arse.”
I never said it was right or wrong. I pointed out the difference. If the father of that murdered woman — who had her fingers and teeth removed — had killed that Ryan Jenkins in vengeance — would it be right or wrong? We might all have a different opinion of that. When I was younger and more fixed in my right or wrong beliefs I would have gone it is wrong plain and simple. Now I probably wouldn’t. But that is besides the point because I never commented on whether it was right or wrong. I said that it does not lower one to the other’s level. By arguing it does, one is saying that — again with the hypothesis — that that model’s father killing Ryan Jenkins in an act of vengeance is the same as Jenkins killing that model because she was going to leave him due to his jealousy. I differentiate the two. If one does not see the difference between Hitler laughing at people dying and us laughing at Hitler dying, I have to admit that it perplexes me.
Anyways, my greater concern, more so than my apparent lack — according to a person — of a moral compass is the anger that some detractors seem to have. Let’s chill with the anger. If one doesn’t like it fine. That’s good old opinion. But this moralizing and insulting against those who did is just filled with way too much bitterness.
Memento Mori is a terrific – if messy – Korean flick worth catching. It’s tragic love story getting past censors as horror film. It’s not scary but it is plenty romantic. Gregory’s Girl takes place in high school. It’s been over 20 years since I’ve seen it but I recall it as being fine. Not sure if F***ing Amal is the equivalent of Junior High or High School but it may be the best of all.
He said that about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? That’s cool because when I think film art that shootout is up there. Along with many scenes, that is a scene I have no problem with when it comes to representing what film can be. I can see Tarantino pondering if he could ever make a scene that is that good. I personally think he has. I guess some would say he should offer up the donkey dying in the field at the end of Au Hasard Balthazar or the Madison in Band of Outsiders or another proper scene — whatever that means. Why? While I agree that they are wonderful scenes I don’t see why Tarantino has to conform to someone else’s opinion on what can or cannot be considered the greatest cinematic art he has seen.
“What makes some of us nervous is the way many fans celebrate neo-facist revenge fantasies, as I see it, without recognizing them as such.”
I don’t think anyone would argue it is not a revenge fantasy. I haven’t seen any posts saying it isn’t. As far as neo-fascism, it doesn’t really fit the definition. Granted fascism is quite often a poorly used word.
“Yes, but in this case it is apt. Films like IB tend to encourage thinking like this:”
Apparently it isn’t apt because you still have not explained the use of neo-fascist. Instead you stated it was apt because of someone else’s post that they enjoyed the thought of the fantasy? That doesn’t quite work as an explanation for your incorrectly used word. I would appreciate an explanation of the usage of “neo-fascist” instead of someone tossing a word out that again is commonly misused and then beating around the bush when questioned on it.
“My usage of the term refers specifically to the need to impose ones self or ideals upon others and the belief that there is a moral authority that excuses violence. I am not using fascism in it’s most literal sense but am referring instead to the underlying fascism inherent in a scene where, instead of arresting an individual for trial among peers, a noble authority figure such as The Shadow, Batman, Rambo or that guy with the machine gun at the end of Inglorious Basterds simply deals out the “justice” they and the audience feels the individual deserves. This is a microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.”
So you admit you were wrong in your labeling of it as “neofascist” but instead are bothered by the closing act of mutilation on Landa — which does occur after the war is over — because you see that as a “microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.” You should have argued that from the beginning instead of handing out a label so broadly and one, that when questioned, never had a chance of holding up.
I am not trying to start a fight in any way. However it would help in discussing the film if there weren’t such extreme comments which seem less designed to start discussion and more inclined to berate because one’s opinion is different.
Actually Mike you did not state the scene was neo-fascist. You stated that this is “This is a microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.” Microcosmic would mean that it is analogous to fascism. That would mean you are stating that it is not the same thing but has similarities. I personally would have left off the microcosmic comment because it effectively kills your own argument. Now you could go that is why I used “neo-fascism” because “neo” can be seen as an abnormal version. However abnormal is not the same as something being analogous and you know that. In other words, neo-fascism is a type of fascism. Fascism may not be neo-fascism but neo-fascism is always fascism. By saying what you did you are stating it is not fascism — and therefore not neo-fascism — but that it is a smaller system that while not the same bears some similarities. So you are expecting me to debate whether a scene is neo-fascist when you yourself say it isn’t. You stated it was clear for anyone who can read and I concur. I don’t need to debate something when you, in your posts, have already done that for me. You have proven you used the term incorrectly which was my whole point to begin with.
“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. — The Anatomy of Fascism
This could be a description of the Basterds."
Please read the definition again. I will be back later to see if you figured out the obvious reason that disallows the Basterds from fitting the description. You probably should have looked for a less detailed definition. It is always easier to attempt to fit something into a category for sake of an argument when, in describing the category, the definition is not heavily detailed.
neo-
pref.
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
3. New World: Neotropical.
However feel free to plug in “new” where I said “abnormal.” You will find that it makes no difference in what I said being right. I tried “new” myself at first but it was too easy. I also thought about different and it immediately killed off your statement. Regardless saying something is a new, different or abnormal form of Fascism is not the same as saying something is microcosmic — it is the latter you said so therefore how can I debate this. I can’t argue something is not neo-fascist with someone who has just stated that it is not neo-fascist — as you did.
“Microcosmic would mean that it is analogous to fascism.”
“neo-fascism is always fascism. "
“I can’t argue something is not neo-fascist with someone who has just stated that it is not neo-fascist — as you did.”
Analogous – Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy.
Analogy – Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
Similar – Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
And I can’t argue something with someone who makes no sense."
Mike, your original statement was that it was neofascist. You did not state it was “similar or alike to the point of drawing an analogy” with neo-fascism. You did not state it was “similar in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar” to neo-fascism. You did not state it was “related in appearance or nature while not being identical” to neo-fascism. You stated it was a “neofascist revenge fantasy” which means you are saying it is neo-fascist. That was your statement. I agree on the revenge fantasy part. I asked about the usage of neo-fascist. When I questioned it you said you meant it was microcosmic to what fascism is. That is not the same thing as saying something is neo-fascist. You’re the one who undermined their own original statement.
If one has not seen a film and yet states their dislikes of it, it means one thing. That person’s opinion cannot be trusted when they do see it because they are controlled by a pre-existing bias.
What’s comical is looking through this thread you don’t find any so-called “fanboy” mentality really. There is no over the top hyperbole or any proclamations that one has to like the film or else. There are persons that really love the film but at the most they are just asking that people chill with nonsense like that “Holocaust denial” bullshit or the need to bring Tarantino’s sexuality into it.* However for those that don’t like the film — some despite not seeing it — the hyperbole and proclamations that one must hate or else are all over the place. Frankly it’s embarrassing for a site where we are supposed to be discussing films. It looks more like a Perez Hilton message board at times than a film discussion board and that is solely on the haters in this case.
*What is also interesting here is that some of the haters think that is an insult to call Tarantino gay. Meanwhile on the other side (the calm, not blowing a gasket side) people are like if he is fine – if he isn’t fine – why is this being brought up.
“If that is true, then you have to see how it works both ways.”
The problem is it is not working both ways. If, in the case of District 9, it was mostly fanboys who became excessive, hostile, sunk into hyperbole, made outrageous claims, etc. in this case it is the opposite. The haters of Tarantino’s film are going overboard to excessive, hostile, hyperbolic waters. Like I said it is embarrassing. The forum started out fine in terms of detractors. The people who disliked it gave reasons and were ready to debate those reasons in a thoughtful way. That is long gone. I had one person actually make a vulgar sexual comment to me solely because I did not hate the film. There is no reason for it to go there. I have been waiting a few days to discuss this film and so have many others. Yet it is sidetracked by people — again some of which have not seen the film — who are lost in anger. It is unsettling.
Just remembering one of my favorite scenes from Manhattan
Isaac “Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Ya know? I read it in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, ya know, get some bricks and baseball bats, and really explain things to ’em.”
Party Guest # 1 “There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times – devastating.”
Isaac “Whoa, whoa. A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it.”
Party Guest # 2 “Oh but really biting satire is always better than physical force.”
Isaac “No. Physical force is always better with Nazis.”
“People saying that the acts of a small group of soldiers inflicting pain upon the purveyors of atrocities is somehow sinking to the level of Nazis is absurd.”
Absurd is the right word. It is the fixed morality of the 12 year old. The notion that any type of violence is, in and of itself, the same. To equate the killings of Nazi’s with the Nazi’s killing of Jews is not just absurd, it is sick and profoundly disturbing. It is literally to compare a Nazi soldier who is part of a group that has invaded countries, killed remorselessly — primarily through mass hangings and mass shootings — usually after having the victims dig their own graves, mutilating their victims — castrations and sometimes pummelling the bodies until it was nothing more than strips, with the victims of the Nazi’s. It is to state that the Nazi who is killed is just as much as victim as any one of the millions the Nazi’s executed. That is the peak of absurd. We don’t even have to include the concentration camps to get that Nazi Germany sunk to a depraved level of monstrosity that had to be stopped and if, in this case, it meant scaring soldiers by killing other soldiers — well boo hoo. Yet watching this film, some feel that maybe the US soldiers should play pattycake with the Nazi’s. I didn’t shed one ounce of sadness as that soldier was beaten to death with a bat. When Donny lifts the medal and asks if he got it for killing Jews and the guy replies bravery, I understood Donny completely. For those Jewish soldiers to hear one of the scum of the earth say “bravery” for what they have done that has to be the biggest piece of vomit they will hear in their life. The number of relatives they lost and they are listening to this punk who calls them “Jew dogs” talk about bravery for invading countries and murdering it’s occupants and sending families to die in camps…well needless to say the proud German soldier earned it.
“Forgetting IB for a minute – are people really okay with anyone torturing, killing and scalping anyone in the name of anything? The torturing and killing of millions of jews by the nazis or the torturing and killing of millions of cambodians by the khmer rouge or the torturing and killing of a few hundred nazis by vengeful jews – it’s all the same ie wrong. End of story – there was not, is not and can never be any justification for that type of behaviour, and it’s irrelevant who’s side they’re on or why they’re there.”
Such childlike moral righteousness is hilarious. Stating that vengeful Jews killing Nazi’s is the same thing as Nazi’s killing Jews is quite something. Let the absurd continue. Thanks by the way for advising for all of us when the “end of story” is.
“Rumplesink, you wrote “but because the violence was presented as fun, which I thought was distasteful.” I agree and I think you just summarized the films of QT and the warped aesthetic of his true believers.”
Heck with Tarantino. It’s action film fans that must really disgust you with a passion.
“If saying that it’s always wrong to kill a person is “childlike moral righteousness”, then call me Freddie Bartholomew.”
So what you are saying is America should have automatically surrendered to the Japanese once Pearl Harbor was bombed. I mean since killing anyone is wrong that would mean defending oneself is wrong too. It’s all wrong after all. Gee Freddie, I’m glad you weren’t in charge back in WWII. WOW!
As for all this moral handwringing, I guess the scene should go differently in the movie.
Raine: “We will not blow up that theatre.”
Donny" “But if we kill all those Nazi’s the war is over.”
Raine: “Donny, I would much rather millions die horrible deaths than hurt those poor Nazi’s in charge.”
Donny: “I never thought of it like that.”
Raine: “I’m still upset about your beating of the soldier to death.”
Donny: “But as a member of the German army, he would have been involved in the torture and murder of men, women and children just because they are Jewish or harboring Jews or Resistance or as a statement like when Hitler had 13,000 people put to death after Heydrich was assassinated.”
Raine: “Donny, someone may think of our actions and, in the future, make a completely tenuous and to be truthful embarrassing connection between this and something not similar in any regard. Say the poor treatment of prisoners of war in an invasion we did and involves prisoners which were not involved an attempt to wipe a race from the earth.”
Donny: “No one would do that. That would be a comical comparison.”
Raine: “You would think that, Donny. You would think that.”
“How childish of you Frank, don’t you know that the only good nazi is a dead nazi? Adults, like D. require that sacrificial demons be tortured and killed so they can feel good about their morale superiority.”
I think if someone does not think they are morally superior to Nazi’s they have a real big problem. Oh by the way, there really is no such thing as a Good Nazi now is there. I mean unless you want to defend Nazi’s and explain how they are good.
“Seriously, regardless of context, if you think something good has been accomplished anytime one human being tortures and kills another you need to grow up quite a bit.”
In the movie, it gets the snipers position. Hmmm…weighing it here…weighing it here. Nah. I’d rather the soldiers get the position instead of getting picker off by the sniper and the attempt to end the war be slowed down and another year of carnage continue. However, unlike you I don’t have the same good Nazi hangup.
“And remember that IB takes place in 1941, well before the MASS killings in Germany reached their apogee.”
With the exclusion of the opening scene, the film takes place in 1944.
“There is no such thing as a good nazi, rapist, child molester, etc. There is also no such thing as a good torturer, sadist, or self righteous prick, nazi or american. Either way, anyone who celebrates the death of any of these individuals is disturbed, childish or foolish.”
You inferenced there were good Nazi’s. You said it not me. By the way don’t hate on yourself. A lot of people are self-righteous.
Professor Tomasulo, what’s intriguing is I have not said it is right or wrong. I actually have an opinion that is probably closer to your thought process than you may think. It’s the simplistic “it’s the same” nonsense that annoys me. A person rapes and murders a child. The child’s Father kills the rapist. Whether the father’s action is right or wrong is indeed a morally complex question. Is it the same (the word bandied around here) as the rape/murder of the child? No. Would I care about the rapist/murderer being killed by the father? No. Am I going to cry and go boo hoo over the rapist/murderer dying? No.
“Am I wrong in thinking that the only point of torture that the film depicts is “The Jew Bear’s” destruction of the Nazi with a baseball bat? Yes they do collect scalps – off of dead people. And, they do carve shwasitica’s into living people’s foreheads, but is that it? Is that all the “torture” were talking about? Or is it just the whole “they killed Nazi’s, and didn’t take them prisoner” thing? I’m wondering this because I don’t recall a bunch of torture scenes in the movie.
Frank – You’re right to suggest that the actions of the Basterds are illegal in a war crimes/Geneva way. However, that seems completely beside the point in this context. We don’t need any hand-wringing sermon about how it’s so wrong of these American’s to treat these Nazi’s this way."
Nathan M., good point about the scalping. I think we are all aware of the laws of the Geneva convention (something in real life that the Nazi’s paid scant attention to). And you are right it is beside the point in context. Ultimately what we have is people who didn’t like the movie delivering those sermons you brought up and find it both tiring but to a point almost laughable with it’s black and white viewpoint. As far as film (and this is a film), I find it more fascinating that two of the most vicious attackers of the film, Doinel and David Ehrenstein, have not even seen it. Maybe David has seen it since but it was clear for most of this thread he had not. Their hostility towards the director informed their decision and then they rode on the waves of the “morally outraged” who seem insistent that violence never, ever be depicted in a movie.
Frank, we are all aware it is illegal. What is annoying is the word “same” being thrown around. It is clear the people that are doing that are just lost in some weird mixture of anger and hyperbole.
“How do you know what I see and what I don’t Mr. Head? Are you my boyfriend?
No — I didn’t think so.
The fact is you find it unimaginable that anyone could dislike this celluloid turd. It’s just so COOL you see."
David, you were questioned repeatedly to state one thing to prove you have seen the film. You could not. Instead you took to broad moralizing. So have you seen it by this point? It’s been days since it was figured out you had not watched the movie. Surely you had a chance by now. Doesn’t really matter since your opinion was decided before watching it.
Bobby, You have to admit Matt’s sermonizing is a hoot. Could you imagine having to be around this person all the time? What a nightmare. It is somewhat funny when people play the moralistic card because they can’s stand others liking a film. Plus all the hyperbole. What a riot.
Hey David, can you expound on why The Good, The Bad and The Ugly’s shootout is not allowed to be considered film art again. It was such a riot. Anyways, while the following article is to the attention of David Denby it certainly could be to the attention of our David.
“What gives? If we throw out the possibility that the Denby who wrote for New York magazine in 1981 is not the same critic at The New Yorker today, how could two films which muck with the same tragic moment of history compel such divergent opinions?
One word: snobbery.
Tarantino drives critics nuts because he loves movies. Not films, movies. He loves the highbrow, art house canon. He loves lowbrow, grindhouse fodder. His films liberally mix conventions from both, plus comic books, cartoons, and any and all pop detritus which washes up on the shores of his self-conscious. The man has no filter. And therein lays his brilliance.
A brilliance scoffed at by the Denbys of the world. The Denbys of the world sneer at the bright colors, the false allures of our oversaturated modern media. They’d rather artists lead a hermetic existence, develop their films from intense personal examination and devote countless hours absorbing the lessons of the old masters. Not to appropriate these masters, no. Only to celebrate them, celebrate the glory of film.
Most Accomplished and Cinematically Complete Woody Allen Film? almost 3 years ago
I’d say Hannah and her Sisters and Manhattan are both in a dead heat. Both also have the most painfully real breakup scenes I have ever seen in an American film.
Go to Comment
Godard Pick... almost 3 years ago
Partial to “Made in USA”.
Go to Comment
Top Films of 2009 - so far almost 3 years ago
My favorite so far would be The Fish Child which I thought was intoxicating and sexy.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
No one deserves a fanboy beating for not liking Inglourious Basterds. The harsh reaction by fans of District 9 to persons who did not like it is appalling. I haven’t seen that one myself but, no matter my opinion, I am not going to trash critics for liking it or hating it. The same goes for Inglourious Basterds which I did see.
That said, I did not see much of a fanboy audience at the showing of Inglourious Basterds I went to. My audience skewed old — lots of people in their 50’s and 60’s — and was probably about 50/50 when it came to gender. I saw maybe one or two persons that gave me the impression of a fanboy. Yet the audience ate this film up and gave it an ovation.
David, you are again allowing your passion to overtake you. I think you can make your argument without descending into comments like this.
“Taratatino’s indifference-bordering-on-hostility to historical truth should make him a pariah. But for Fanboys (and this place is infested with them like lice) this makes him a hero.”
Tarantino is not obligated to stick to the historical record. I also doubt any young person is going to show up to History class and interrupt the teacher offering up the end of this movie as the truth. We can disagree on those two opinions. Fine. However, the notion that Tarantino should be made a pariah for not sticking to historical truth is over the top moral indignation. The comparison of fanboys to lice — and it is a comparison no matter how cloaked — is nasty and low.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
David, you are continuing to push yourself into a corner on this movie with your extreme comments. You don’t like it and that is your opinion. No one is saying you have to like it. However you seem intent on insulting those who disagree with you and setting up rules on things where there are no rules — for example film having to follow the historical record. Sometimes we get so stuck on wanting people to have the same opinion we end up undermining our credibility. I’d wish you’d take a step back. After awhile even those that agree with you will get tired of the hostility you are conveying in your posts.Go to Comment
Moderated
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
What are the impressions of August Diehl’s performance as Major Hellstrom from persons on here? As much as Landa was intimidating, Hellstrom creeped me out. I could not get a read on what the character was thinking and could feel why the other characters — except Hugo — were so anxious around him. I thought Diehl was masterful.
On a trivial note, I wonder if Tarantino saw the goofy Mes Copines — with both beautiful women Lea Seydoux and Anne-Sophie Franck getting short roles.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
Carol Baker (Giant)
Harriett Andersson (Smiles of a Summer Night)
Barbara Loden (Splendor in the Grass)
Bruce Dern (King of Marvin Gardens)
Yaphet Kotto (Blue Collar)
David Morse (Inside Moves)
Patrick Deware (Beau Pere)
Elias Koteas (The Thin Red Line)
Sylvie Testud (Murderous Maids)
Evan Rachel Wood (The Life Before Her Eyes)
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“I figured the “cum towel” reference would at least warrant a little finger wagging. Can you say just about anything on here?”
The reference was made to me. I was perplexed by that over the top comment too. However that kind of nonsense undermines David to such a degree that in a way he is only giving his critics here — who accuse him of trolling — more leverage. I wish he would apologize and we can all move on. There are many posters on here that dislike the film and many who like it and yet they are able to argue without calling people scum or indulging in such vulgar insults.
As for Funny Games, I don’t see much of a connection myself. Funny Games was too much of an exercise designed to scold. I found it sort of patronizing. Inglourious Basterds has two scenes which are of interest here. One is the beating to death of the officer with the bat. The second is the scene discussed with Hitler laughing. The first occurs in the sequence following one of a Jewish family being slaughtered for being Jewish. The officer himself yells some anti-semitic remarks before he is killed. I find the difference being called out. The Jewish family is killed out of bigotry. The officer is a soldier and a representative of that bigotry — I have never believed in that they were just fighting for country excuse. The officer is destroyed because he has chosen to partake in destroying innocence — and if the point is not clear Tarantino has a soldier in Hugo who has refused the ways of his country. He pays for his crimes against humanity. Then you have Hitler laughing at people dying on screen. We get to laugh at him dying on screen moments later. That does not reduce us to his level. This is a monster meeting his just desserts. His payback is to suffer the horrific death he fated others.
The film operates as a sort of catharsis. It is a revenge fantasy and so moralists will condemn it as lowering itself. They can argue that and that it their opinion. However, someone destroying innocence and rejecting humanity is not the same as someone destroying that monster. The person who kills their daughter’s rapist has not sunk to the rapist’s level no matter what kind of moral philosophy is spouted. So I don’t see Tarantino trying to scold the audience. I think he is more interested in creating a catharsis.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Commiting murder – in any context, even revenge – is wrong, no? Do most people here think that it is okay to impose the death penalty (as an example of murder)? Catharsis my arse.”
I never said it was right or wrong. I pointed out the difference. If the father of that murdered woman — who had her fingers and teeth removed — had killed that Ryan Jenkins in vengeance — would it be right or wrong? We might all have a different opinion of that. When I was younger and more fixed in my right or wrong beliefs I would have gone it is wrong plain and simple. Now I probably wouldn’t. But that is besides the point because I never commented on whether it was right or wrong. I said that it does not lower one to the other’s level. By arguing it does, one is saying that — again with the hypothesis — that that model’s father killing Ryan Jenkins in an act of vengeance is the same as Jenkins killing that model because she was going to leave him due to his jealousy. I differentiate the two. If one does not see the difference between Hitler laughing at people dying and us laughing at Hitler dying, I have to admit that it perplexes me.
Anyways, my greater concern, more so than my apparent lack — according to a person — of a moral compass is the anger that some detractors seem to have. Let’s chill with the anger. If one doesn’t like it fine. That’s good old opinion. But this moralizing and insulting against those who did is just filled with way too much bitterness.
Go to Comment
International High School Films almost 3 years ago
Memento Mori is a terrific – if messy – Korean flick worth catching. It’s tragic love story getting past censors as horror film. It’s not scary but it is plenty romantic. Gregory’s Girl takes place in high school. It’s been over 20 years since I’ve seen it but I recall it as being fine. Not sure if F***ing Amal is the equivalent of Junior High or High School but it may be the best of all.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
He said that about The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? That’s cool because when I think film art that shootout is up there. Along with many scenes, that is a scene I have no problem with when it comes to representing what film can be. I can see Tarantino pondering if he could ever make a scene that is that good. I personally think he has. I guess some would say he should offer up the donkey dying in the field at the end of Au Hasard Balthazar or the Madison in Band of Outsiders or another proper scene — whatever that means. Why? While I agree that they are wonderful scenes I don’t see why Tarantino has to conform to someone else’s opinion on what can or cannot be considered the greatest cinematic art he has seen.
“What makes some of us nervous is the way many fans celebrate neo-facist revenge fantasies, as I see it, without recognizing them as such.”I don’t think anyone would argue it is not a revenge fantasy. I haven’t seen any posts saying it isn’t. As far as neo-fascism, it doesn’t really fit the definition. Granted fascism is quite often a poorly used word.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Yes, but in this case it is apt. Films like IB tend to encourage thinking like this:”
Apparently it isn’t apt because you still have not explained the use of neo-fascist. Instead you stated it was apt because of someone else’s post that they enjoyed the thought of the fantasy? That doesn’t quite work as an explanation for your incorrectly used word. I would appreciate an explanation of the usage of “neo-fascist” instead of someone tossing a word out that again is commonly misused and then beating around the bush when questioned on it.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“My usage of the term refers specifically to the need to impose ones self or ideals upon others and the belief that there is a moral authority that excuses violence. I am not using fascism in it’s most literal sense but am referring instead to the underlying fascism inherent in a scene where, instead of arresting an individual for trial among peers, a noble authority figure such as The Shadow, Batman, Rambo or that guy with the machine gun at the end of Inglorious Basterds simply deals out the “justice” they and the audience feels the individual deserves. This is a microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.”
So you admit you were wrong in your labeling of it as “neofascist” but instead are bothered by the closing act of mutilation on Landa — which does occur after the war is over — because you see that as a “microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.” You should have argued that from the beginning instead of handing out a label so broadly and one, that when questioned, never had a chance of holding up.
I am not trying to start a fight in any way. However it would help in discussing the film if there weren’t such extreme comments which seem less designed to start discussion and more inclined to berate because one’s opinion is different.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Actually Mike you did not state the scene was neo-fascist. You stated that this is “This is a microcosmic version of fascism in it’s infancy.” Microcosmic would mean that it is analogous to fascism. That would mean you are stating that it is not the same thing but has similarities. I personally would have left off the microcosmic comment because it effectively kills your own argument. Now you could go that is why I used “neo-fascism” because “neo” can be seen as an abnormal version. However abnormal is not the same as something being analogous and you know that. In other words, neo-fascism is a type of fascism. Fascism may not be neo-fascism but neo-fascism is always fascism. By saying what you did you are stating it is not fascism — and therefore not neo-fascism — but that it is a smaller system that while not the same bears some similarities. So you are expecting me to debate whether a scene is neo-fascist when you yourself say it isn’t. You stated it was clear for anyone who can read and I concur. I don’t need to debate something when you, in your posts, have already done that for me. You have proven you used the term incorrectly which was my whole point to begin with.
“A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. — The Anatomy of Fascism
This could be a description of the Basterds."
Please read the definition again. I will be back later to see if you figured out the obvious reason that disallows the Basterds from fitting the description. You probably should have looked for a less detailed definition. It is always easier to attempt to fit something into a category for sake of an argument when, in describing the category, the definition is not heavily detailed.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Neo- " means new, not abnormal."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/neo-
neo-
pref.
1. New; recent: Neolithic.
2.
a. New and different: neoimpressionism.
b. New and abnormal: neoplasm.
3. New World: Neotropical.
However feel free to plug in “new” where I said “abnormal.” You will find that it makes no difference in what I said being right. I tried “new” myself at first but it was too easy. I also thought about different and it immediately killed off your statement. Regardless saying something is a new, different or abnormal form of Fascism is not the same as saying something is microcosmic — it is the latter you said so therefore how can I debate this. I can’t argue something is not neo-fascist with someone who has just stated that it is not neo-fascist — as you did.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Microcosmic would mean that it is analogous to fascism.”
“neo-fascism is always fascism. "
“I can’t argue something is not neo-fascist with someone who has just stated that it is not neo-fascist — as you did.”
Analogous – Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy.
Analogy – Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
Similar – Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical.
And I can’t argue something with someone who makes no sense."
Mike, your original statement was that it was neofascist. You did not state it was “similar or alike to the point of drawing an analogy” with neo-fascism. You did not state it was “similar in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar” to neo-fascism. You did not state it was “related in appearance or nature while not being identical” to neo-fascism. You stated it was a “neofascist revenge fantasy” which means you are saying it is neo-fascist. That was your statement. I agree on the revenge fantasy part. I asked about the usage of neo-fascist. When I questioned it you said you meant it was microcosmic to what fascism is. That is not the same thing as saying something is neo-fascist. You’re the one who undermined their own original statement.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
If one has not seen a film and yet states their dislikes of it, it means one thing. That person’s opinion cannot be trusted when they do see it because they are controlled by a pre-existing bias.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
What’s comical is looking through this thread you don’t find any so-called “fanboy” mentality really. There is no over the top hyperbole or any proclamations that one has to like the film or else. There are persons that really love the film but at the most they are just asking that people chill with nonsense like that “Holocaust denial” bullshit or the need to bring Tarantino’s sexuality into it.* However for those that don’t like the film — some despite not seeing it — the hyperbole and proclamations that one must hate or else are all over the place. Frankly it’s embarrassing for a site where we are supposed to be discussing films. It looks more like a Perez Hilton message board at times than a film discussion board and that is solely on the haters in this case.
*What is also interesting here is that some of the haters think that is an insult to call Tarantino gay. Meanwhile on the other side (the calm, not blowing a gasket side) people are like if he is fine – if he isn’t fine – why is this being brought up.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“If that is true, then you have to see how it works both ways.”
The problem is it is not working both ways. If, in the case of District 9, it was mostly fanboys who became excessive, hostile, sunk into hyperbole, made outrageous claims, etc. in this case it is the opposite. The haters of Tarantino’s film are going overboard to excessive, hostile, hyperbolic waters. Like I said it is embarrassing. The forum started out fine in terms of detractors. The people who disliked it gave reasons and were ready to debate those reasons in a thoughtful way. That is long gone. I had one person actually make a vulgar sexual comment to me solely because I did not hate the film. There is no reason for it to go there. I have been waiting a few days to discuss this film and so have many others. Yet it is sidetracked by people — again some of which have not seen the film — who are lost in anger. It is unsettling.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Just remembering one of my favorite scenes from Manhattan
Isaac “Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Ya know? I read it in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, ya know, get some bricks and baseball bats, and really explain things to ’em.”
Party Guest # 1 “There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times – devastating.”
Isaac “Whoa, whoa. A satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point of it.”
Party Guest # 2 “Oh but really biting satire is always better than physical force.”
Isaac “No. Physical force is always better with Nazis.”
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“People saying that the acts of a small group of soldiers inflicting pain upon the purveyors of atrocities is somehow sinking to the level of Nazis is absurd.”
Absurd is the right word. It is the fixed morality of the 12 year old. The notion that any type of violence is, in and of itself, the same. To equate the killings of Nazi’s with the Nazi’s killing of Jews is not just absurd, it is sick and profoundly disturbing. It is literally to compare a Nazi soldier who is part of a group that has invaded countries, killed remorselessly — primarily through mass hangings and mass shootings — usually after having the victims dig their own graves, mutilating their victims — castrations and sometimes pummelling the bodies until it was nothing more than strips, with the victims of the Nazi’s. It is to state that the Nazi who is killed is just as much as victim as any one of the millions the Nazi’s executed. That is the peak of absurd. We don’t even have to include the concentration camps to get that Nazi Germany sunk to a depraved level of monstrosity that had to be stopped and if, in this case, it meant scaring soldiers by killing other soldiers — well boo hoo. Yet watching this film, some feel that maybe the US soldiers should play pattycake with the Nazi’s. I didn’t shed one ounce of sadness as that soldier was beaten to death with a bat. When Donny lifts the medal and asks if he got it for killing Jews and the guy replies bravery, I understood Donny completely. For those Jewish soldiers to hear one of the scum of the earth say “bravery” for what they have done that has to be the biggest piece of vomit they will hear in their life. The number of relatives they lost and they are listening to this punk who calls them “Jew dogs” talk about bravery for invading countries and murdering it’s occupants and sending families to die in camps…well needless to say the proud German soldier earned it.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Forgetting IB for a minute – are people really okay with anyone torturing, killing and scalping anyone in the name of anything? The torturing and killing of millions of jews by the nazis or the torturing and killing of millions of cambodians by the khmer rouge or the torturing and killing of a few hundred nazis by vengeful jews – it’s all the same ie wrong. End of story – there was not, is not and can never be any justification for that type of behaviour, and it’s irrelevant who’s side they’re on or why they’re there.”
Such childlike moral righteousness is hilarious. Stating that vengeful Jews killing Nazi’s is the same thing as Nazi’s killing Jews is quite something. Let the absurd continue. Thanks by the way for advising for all of us when the “end of story” is.
“Rumplesink, you wrote “but because the violence was presented as fun, which I thought was distasteful.” I agree and I think you just summarized the films of QT and the warped aesthetic of his true believers.”
Heck with Tarantino. It’s action film fans that must really disgust you with a passion.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“If saying that it’s always wrong to kill a person is “childlike moral righteousness”, then call me Freddie Bartholomew.”
So what you are saying is America should have automatically surrendered to the Japanese once Pearl Harbor was bombed. I mean since killing anyone is wrong that would mean defending oneself is wrong too. It’s all wrong after all. Gee Freddie, I’m glad you weren’t in charge back in WWII. WOW!
As for all this moral handwringing, I guess the scene should go differently in the movie.
Raine: “We will not blow up that theatre.”
Donny" “But if we kill all those Nazi’s the war is over.”
Raine: “Donny, I would much rather millions die horrible deaths than hurt those poor Nazi’s in charge.”
Donny: “I never thought of it like that.”
Raine: “I’m still upset about your beating of the soldier to death.”
Donny: “But as a member of the German army, he would have been involved in the torture and murder of men, women and children just because they are Jewish or harboring Jews or Resistance or as a statement like when Hitler had 13,000 people put to death after Heydrich was assassinated.”
Raine: “Donny, someone may think of our actions and, in the future, make a completely tenuous and to be truthful embarrassing connection between this and something not similar in any regard. Say the poor treatment of prisoners of war in an invasion we did and involves prisoners which were not involved an attempt to wipe a race from the earth.”
Donny: “No one would do that. That would be a comical comparison.”
Raine: “You would think that, Donny. You would think that.”
“How childish of you Frank, don’t you know that the only good nazi is a dead nazi? Adults, like D. require that sacrificial demons be tortured and killed so they can feel good about their morale superiority.”
I think if someone does not think they are morally superior to Nazi’s they have a real big problem. Oh by the way, there really is no such thing as a Good Nazi now is there. I mean unless you want to defend Nazi’s and explain how they are good.
“Seriously, regardless of context, if you think something good has been accomplished anytime one human being tortures and kills another you need to grow up quite a bit.”
In the movie, it gets the snipers position. Hmmm…weighing it here…weighing it here. Nah. I’d rather the soldiers get the position instead of getting picker off by the sniper and the attempt to end the war be slowed down and another year of carnage continue. However, unlike you I don’t have the same good Nazi hangup.
“And remember that IB takes place in 1941, well before the MASS killings in Germany reached their apogee.”
With the exclusion of the opening scene, the film takes place in 1944.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“There is no such thing as a good nazi, rapist, child molester, etc. There is also no such thing as a good torturer, sadist, or self righteous prick, nazi or american. Either way, anyone who celebrates the death of any of these individuals is disturbed, childish or foolish.”
You inferenced there were good Nazi’s. You said it not me. By the way don’t hate on yourself. A lot of people are self-righteous.
Professor Tomasulo, what’s intriguing is I have not said it is right or wrong. I actually have an opinion that is probably closer to your thought process than you may think. It’s the simplistic “it’s the same” nonsense that annoys me. A person rapes and murders a child. The child’s Father kills the rapist. Whether the father’s action is right or wrong is indeed a morally complex question. Is it the same (the word bandied around here) as the rape/murder of the child? No. Would I care about the rapist/murderer being killed by the father? No. Am I going to cry and go boo hoo over the rapist/murderer dying? No.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Am I wrong in thinking that the only point of torture that the film depicts is “The Jew Bear’s” destruction of the Nazi with a baseball bat? Yes they do collect scalps – off of dead people. And, they do carve shwasitica’s into living people’s foreheads, but is that it? Is that all the “torture” were talking about? Or is it just the whole “they killed Nazi’s, and didn’t take them prisoner” thing? I’m wondering this because I don’t recall a bunch of torture scenes in the movie.
Frank – You’re right to suggest that the actions of the Basterds are illegal in a war crimes/Geneva way. However, that seems completely beside the point in this context. We don’t need any hand-wringing sermon about how it’s so wrong of these American’s to treat these Nazi’s this way."
Nathan M., good point about the scalping. I think we are all aware of the laws of the Geneva convention (something in real life that the Nazi’s paid scant attention to). And you are right it is beside the point in context. Ultimately what we have is people who didn’t like the movie delivering those sermons you brought up and find it both tiring but to a point almost laughable with it’s black and white viewpoint. As far as film (and this is a film), I find it more fascinating that two of the most vicious attackers of the film, Doinel and David Ehrenstein, have not even seen it. Maybe David has seen it since but it was clear for most of this thread he had not. Their hostility towards the director informed their decision and then they rode on the waves of the “morally outraged” who seem insistent that violence never, ever be depicted in a movie.
Frank, we are all aware it is illegal. What is annoying is the word “same” being thrown around. It is clear the people that are doing that are just lost in some weird mixture of anger and hyperbole.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“How do you know what I see and what I don’t Mr. Head? Are you my boyfriend?
No — I didn’t think so.
The fact is you find it unimaginable that anyone could dislike this celluloid turd. It’s just so COOL you see."
David, you were questioned repeatedly to state one thing to prove you have seen the film. You could not. Instead you took to broad moralizing. So have you seen it by this point? It’s been days since it was figured out you had not watched the movie. Surely you had a chance by now. Doesn’t really matter since your opinion was decided before watching it.
Bobby, You have to admit Matt’s sermonizing is a hoot. Could you imagine having to be around this person all the time? What a nightmare. It is somewhat funny when people play the moralistic card because they can’s stand others liking a film. Plus all the hyperbole. What a riot.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
Hey David, can you expound on why The Good, The Bad and The Ugly’s shootout is not allowed to be considered film art again. It was such a riot. Anyways, while the following article is to the attention of David Denby it certainly could be to the attention of our David.
“What gives? If we throw out the possibility that the Denby who wrote for New York magazine in 1981 is not the same critic at The New Yorker today, how could two films which muck with the same tragic moment of history compel such divergent opinions?
One word: snobbery.
Tarantino drives critics nuts because he loves movies. Not films, movies. He loves the highbrow, art house canon. He loves lowbrow, grindhouse fodder. His films liberally mix conventions from both, plus comic books, cartoons, and any and all pop detritus which washes up on the shores of his self-conscious. The man has no filter. And therein lays his brilliance.
A brilliance scoffed at by the Denbys of the world. The Denbys of the world sneer at the bright colors, the false allures of our oversaturated modern media. They’d rather artists lead a hermetic existence, develop their films from intense personal examination and devote countless hours absorbing the lessons of the old masters. Not to appropriate these masters, no. Only to celebrate them, celebrate the glory of film.
Bunk."
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/column/110485-dear-mr.-denby-in-defense-of-inglourious-basterds/
Bunk indeed. Johnny Dubiel already touched on this but so darn true. Anyways popped to my mind as Francisco actually complained of Spaghetti WWII.
Go to Comment
Reactions to Inglourious basterds almost 3 years ago
“Maybe I was wrong- No Spaghetti western ever had Lincoln killed by an Indian…”
Worst analogy ever!
Go to Comment
Careful with that Axe Eugene; Fraud is in the works at AUTEURS? over 2 years ago
I so thought this was going to be a Zabriskie Point thread.
Go to Comment