Inglorious Basterds

**AmericanPride** · 08-30-2009

Yes. That's how the title is spelled. And yes, there are spoilers.

I did not like this film at all. I'm not a big fan of Tarantino, and I understand that his movies are notoriously violent. However, I think this film marks a radical departure, not only in its delivery but also in its reception, from his previous films. In Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the characters were criminals. In Kill Bill, assassins. However, in this film, they are soldiers (American, Wehrmacht, and SS). The film depicts American soldiers, all of them Jewish, 1) torturing, mutilating and murdering prisoners (in one scene, a captured German soldier is beat to death by a bat after refusing to reveal the position of another German patrol); 2) shooting trapped and unarmed persons, among them civilians (several hundred functionaries of the German government, including their guests, are trapped in a burning cinema while also being gunned down) 3) and even the execution of a suicide bombing (at the same cinema). The only reason given for all of these atrocities is that the enemy are 'Nazis', but the actions of the protagonists reflect Nazi behavior more than the actual Nazis in the film. The only actual wrong-doing in the film by Nazi characters is the murder of several civilians in the opening scene (and it's not depicted). The most heroic character is actually a German sniper who is praised for his actions during a battle in which he single-handedly held off an (apparently American) infantry battalion. In the end, I almost felt sympathetic for the German characters -- only to realize that some of them were Nazis; which left me confused and bitter at the credits.

I'm also disappointed but not entirely surprised with the reception of the movie.

Thoughts?

**MikeF** · 08-30-2009

Thanks for the head's up. I think I'll skip that movie, watch G.I. Joe, and relive my childhood dream of becoming Snake Eyes.

v/r

Mike

**William F. Owen** · 08-30-2009

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Yes. That's how the title is spelled. And yes, there are spoilers.

I did not like this film at all. I'm not a big fan of Tarantino, and I understand that his movies are notoriously violent.

As a novelist and some time film writing student, I consider Tarantino up there with Sergio Leone, and/or John Le Carre, plus Cormac McCarthy. I consider him immensely talented and I do like most of his work, but strangely there is very little you can learn from it, and unlike Leone, Le Carre and McCarthy, there is almost utter absence of a moral centre in his work, and this is very disturbing.
McCarthy just shows how evil endures and lives on, and despairs of it. Even with Thomas Harris, Hannibal Lechter only predates on the deserving.
The problem with Tarantino is that evil (as opposed to violence) seems "cool," and that does give me pause.

To quote Kirk Lazarus, "You never go full retard."

**Surferbeetle** · 08-30-2009

...in an imagined historical setting.

Wilf,

I too am a Quentin Tarantino fan, and have always enjoyed film/photography/art. This one was interesting, about 1/3 was in English the rest was in French and German with a bit of Italian thrown in...Christoph Waltz was amazing (his English, German, and Italian were flawless...I don't do French so I can't say definitively but he seemed to be rocking the French as well). Diane Kruger is certainly easy on the eyes and enjoyable to listen to as she traveled seamlessly from French, German, and English

For me it was an interesting juxtaposition of our hopes for civil society and the impulses of our bestial nature... as one of my literature teachers told me way back when "...it's all about man's inhumanity to man."

**William F. Owen** · 08-30-2009

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

For me it was an interesting juxtaposition of our hopes for civil society and the impulses of our bestial nature... as one of my literature teachers told me way back when "...it's all about man's inhumanity to man."

All for that, as long as inhumanity is shown as inhumanity, and not sport without consequence.
American Psycho is very interesting in that dimension. That being said, I feel more comfortable with the Military Art, than I do art!

**AmericanPride** · 08-30-2009

I appreciate Wilf's analysis of the absence of a moral center and it's very clear that it's also absent in IB. I agree with surferbeetle about the performance of Christoph Waltz, and while a sophisticated, precise, and amoral SS Colonel, I have a hard time seeing the character as a villian. I suppose practical amorality is preferable to outright depravity.

Surfer, what did you mean by this statement:

An interpretation of current events......in an imagined historical setting.

Also, for the group, why do you think the movie is receiving so much praise from both thte film establishment and the public in general?

**Zack** · 08-30-2009

I saw it as a Jewish revenge fantasy. The Nazis are our favorite bad guys, so naturally it would be enjoyable to see them maimed and killed on screen. That is why I expect it was so popular, and also why I personally liked it. His films are almost always excellent.

**Ron Humphrey** · 08-30-2009

But from the previews, write ups, and such that I've seen Figured it would be a hollywood-ish effort at bringing the American soldier down a notch or two in relation to being so much better than others.(morally that is) Could be mistaken though never been a huge fan of wanton violence without moral purpose movies.

Thus not super enthused about watching it. Think I'll check out GI Joe

**Surferbeetle** · 08-30-2009

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Surfer, what did you mean by this statement:
"An interpretation of current events......in an imagined historical setting."

IMHO morality plays such as this movie are a vehicle for our democratic society/culture to examine/discuss some of our motives (revenge, greed, peace, civil society, what have you), desires, and the value of the associated actions and resulting outcomes with which we assist with or which are taken in our name.

This movie posed the following questions to me:

Is revenge justified?
Does a pre-emptive/optional war (raid) cost less than a forced war?
What are the associated costs of targeted killings?
What are acceptable methods of violence?
How does violence change those who practice it?
Why do we practice violence?
Is violence the only answer?

I see the movie as important in that it pushes (parts) of our democratic society to try and answer these, and other questions, for ourselves. Like some I get paid by members of my society/culture/government to solve problems by either building things or taking life/setting the process of taking life into motion. I have been a few places, seen a few things, and have had the good fortune to have (more or less) launched my kids out of the nest. Despite (or perhaps as a result of) this background I still have more questions than answers about things.

In the meantime, just like everyone else on this globe, I just try and enjoy life while it’s mine to enjoy.

**MikeF** · 08-31-2009

Originally Posted by Surferbeetle

IMHO morality plays such as this movie are a vehicle for our democratic society/culture to examine/discuss some of our motives (revenge, greed, peace, civil society, what have you), desires, and the value of the associated actions and resulting outcomes with which we assist with or which are taken in our name.

This movie posed the following questions to me:

Is revenge justified?
Does a pre-emptive/optional war (raid) cost less than a forced war?
What are the associated costs of targeted killings?
What are acceptable methods of violence?
How does violence change those who practice it?
Why do we practice violence?
Is violence the only answer?

I see the movie as important in that it pushes (parts) of our democratic society to try and answer these, and other questions, for ourselves. Like some I get paid by members of my society/culture/government to solve problems by either building things or taking life/setting the process of taking life into motion. I have been a few places, seen a few things, and have had the good fortune to have (more or less) launched my kids out of the nest. Despite (or perhaps as a result of) this background I still have more questions than answers about things.

In the meantime, just like everyone else on this globe, I just try and enjoy life while it’s mine to enjoy.

I recant my previous post...I'm so going to see Inglorious Bastards AND GI Joe now

Lots to think about.

v/r

Mike

**Cavguy** · 08-30-2009

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

To quote Kirk Lazarus, "You never go full retard."

Just saw that last night. (Tropic Thunder) Hilarious.

**Valin** · 08-31-2009

AmericanPride

It's a comic book. That's what people like Tarantino, and Robert Rodriguez do. They make comic book movies. Probably won't go see it, think I'll wait for the DVD to end up in a pawnshop, rent it from an on-line vender.

**Umar Al-Mokhtār** · 08-31-2009

actually made my opinion of Tom Cruise's acting range go up a notch (it took a couple of scenes before I realized it was him).

"No, dickhead, of course I could. A nutless monkey could do your job. Now, go get drunk and take credit at all the parties."

Alpa Chino had one of the best lines: What do 'you' mean, "you people?"