Inglorious Basterds

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Smokaz]

If a person takes its moral cues from a Tarantino movie it must be a bit disturbed to begin with. There's tons of plot-wise and cinematic-related moves that Tarantino makes in his movies that help dispel any sense of realism or simulation of reallife choices. That leads me to think that if you take moral cues from a unrealistic movie, you are a bit unrealistic yourself to begin with.

That said, you are right about movies in general that portray acts of violence or torture against people on the grounds of them belonging to a particular group or organization without individual evalution as a form of "punishment" for that group. They are nursing up bad ideas.

The point remain however, that extrapolating moral guidance from violent Tarantino movies hardly constitutes the actions of a well adjusted individual.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Dude you are missing the whole irony of the movie!

 No, not even close mate. As I said before, the tragedy of this movie is that it had all the ingredients to be one of the best films of the decade. It has the setting for incredible commentary, but then abandons the subtext it could so carefully have developed and delves into glorification. Irony is something that is developed, carefully, and with walkign a fine line between satire and becoming the very thing you sought to parody.

You call it propaganda yes? Well, what was the movie about? Nazis dieing while viewing propaganda, there for as you yourself in the crowd (not you particularly but the crowd as an entity) are cheering for those nazis to die, you yourself have become the spectator (nazi) cheering on the movie (propaganda).

  It would have been a masterstroke of genius if this subtext were developed, but objectively looking at the film it sadly was left out. One of the criteria for irony, like I said before, is development. You need that interior voice that says "wait a minute, something is wrong here" or else everything portrayed becomes literal. There is no point in the movie, not one, where your second interpretation is made by a character within the film itself. Objectively, removing all temptations to delve into intentional fallacy, the film such as it is does not support your interpretation. And believe me, I wish it did. I spent the whole movie waiting for the moment where Tarantino's voice would come through and make the movie about the delicate nature of human rationalization, but it never came. And I wanted it to come so badly.

Also notice this, a vast majority of the general audience I agree, won't see the movie as anymore then a nazi shoot em up, go america! But if you sat down and explained the deeper meaning of the movie to those people, most of them wouldn't even care? No I think not, they just wanted to see a good movie.

 Exactly! You have found the entire problem with the movie. It had all the potential in the world to offer so much more than just a glorification of simple, easy, justified killing - to develop the nuances of morality, and WW2 germany. Instead, it went for the easy route and avoided the complex irony and subtext. For 99% of this movie's audience, they want that "good movie" as you called it where they can take it at face value without thinking. Our fundamental disagreements about what makes a "Good movie" aside, however, you simply cannot say that this movie can have it's cake and eat it too. Either it is trying to be the simple action flick of "nazi's dying", or it is trying to be an ironic expose. It cannot be trying to be both at the same time, because the very ideas are mutually opposed.

Also I think it would of been nice if the basterds only killed SS troops, the guys who you KNOW were only doing pure evil, but it looked like most of the soldiers they killed were just Wehrmacht soldiers doing their job. So yeah, I do see where they could of made it better, but hey, guess what? Do you think anyone in the audience would of noticed that they were killing SS troops and not WM soldiers? Uhm... no! So in that case it doesn't even matter who they were killing.

 Are you serious?! That only makes it matter more, and my dissapointment that Tarantino did not take this opportunity to set the record straight all the more justified. The argument of "the general audience wont know the difference any where, so it's OK to reinforce the ignorant stereotype" just doesn't fly, particularily as a rebuttal to my initial dissapointment at this very circumstance.

Also I have to say, the nazis that they were planning on killing in the end, those were pretty much the most evil of them, so you know if a few other WM guys have to die to end the war early, then well that's how war is, it isn't fun or just or fair.

 Mmmhmm, I know the philiosophy. Sacrifices must be made. After all, you have to break a few eggs to make an omellete right?

 Interesting, but one word of advice:

 Be very, very careful when you tread down that road.

Also how is this any sort of propaganda in the sense of, what would it accomplish? There are no Nazis to hate anymore. And neo-nazis, well I think it's just AOK to hate a group of people who dedicate their lives to hating other people for no reason.

 Literally, you are right. But make the comparisons, and look at it globally. When you can justify anything so long as you believe your enemy is evil, you develop a very dangerous set of principles. The "terrorists" in the middle east right now are as thoroughly convinced that the American people are evil as you and I are that the Nazi's were evil. Do you agree that gives them the right to commit any atrocity possible? Don't fall into the naivity of thinking that the Nazi's were "truly evil" and therefore it's not the same, because I can promise you: to those terrorists, there is no difference. Be very, very careful.

Another thing is, I don't think the movie went into enough depth to paint a black and white picture of the german people. Other then the guys in the schwimwagon and the captured soldiers scene, you didn't really see any other soldiers killed, oh and the prison scene.

 Thats the beauty of a propaganda film. It omits information, and carefully selects it to portray a very specific idea or portrait. Look up the term in the dictionary, Propaganda films use exclusive content.

Although you provide a good logical argument, I just don't think it really matters, the people who would pick up on the subtleties you pointed out are most likely the people who are smart enough to know that WWII wasn't just a "nazis are bad" story.

 Again, please read my argument. You will find my dissapointment wasn't that this was a "omg nazi's are bad" film, but rather based on much more philosophical terms: that killing, maiming, and torturing were glorious and "just" when committed against a foe the majority could conclude was "evil".

 There is a huge difference.

-Wind

[TheWindCriesMary]

If a person takes its moral cues from a Tarantino movie it must be a bit disturbed to begin with. There's tons of plot-wise and cinematic-related moves that Tarantino makes in his movies that help dispel any sense of realism or simulation of reallife choices. That leads me to think that if you take moral cues from a unrealistic movie, you are a bit unrealistic yourself to begin with.

That said, you are right about movies in general that portray acts of violence or torture against people on the grounds of them belonging to a particular group or organization without individual evalution as a form of "punishment" for that group. They are nursing up bad ideas.

The point remain however, that extrapolating moral guidance from violent Tarantino movies hardly constitutes the actions of a well adjusted individual.

 Lets get something very clear here, to disagree with the morality portrayed in a movie is by no means the same as "taking 'moral cues" from that movie. Not in this language, nor in any other language. I'm baffled by your assertation to the contrary, because it is flat out wrong and completely unrelated to what my argument is, or has been in this thread.

 Taking moral guidance from this movie would suggest I am modelling my code of ethics based off of it, when I am doing the exact opposite. I am critizing the film's moral philosophy, not taking "cues" from it. I have no idea how that misconception was made, but again it's dead wrong.

  What you need to understand immediately if you want to have a discussion about the dangers of propaganda, is that throughout history some of the most prominent examples of propaganda involve heavy use of sensationalist, and wholly unrealistic concepts and depictions. Simply saying "this film is obviously not meant to be taken seriously, just look at how unrealistic and cinematic is is" just doesn't work on any level. Watch any cclip of propaganda from ww2, from the Allied or American side, and you will see things that will almost make you laugh at loud at how silly they are. The Jew as a ravenous monster eating German children, the Nazi's as a giant evil swallowing the world and enslaving freedom etc. Some of them are so ludicris you would swear no one would ever take them seriously, but mark my words: people did, to a mortal degree. Even today we have modern forms of this same tactic even in the developed world. Fox News and MSNBC have some segments that are so blatantly outrageous it's hard to believe they are watched, let alone heeded, but nevertheless there are always some who do.

 Again, my issue with this film is that it shies away from developing the brilliant commentary it was so capable of creating. It has the parts for satire and irony, but decides to itself early on that "no, lets just kill nazis and not worry about that too much". Instead of Nazi's, put in Communists, Islamic Fanatics, American Capitalists etc. Is the movie still "OK?"

 Yeah, just no.

-Wind

[BigDick]

forgive him rikirude thinks "saving private ryan" and "band of brothers" are realistic ww2 movies

thats american education of history

would be probably not much different when allies had lost the ww2 just the way around

black-white presentations of sides are "needed" for better justification what people are doing or what they did


its like we are the good guys we make war against terrorism (by showing first the world trade center in tv and then the newest airforce bombing attacks in afghanistan or irak)

[Nevyen]

In allot of ways the setting is not as relevant as the themes of revenge and polarization of good vs evil, which are all critical themes for the classic spaghetti western motif.

The unique thing tarantino has done is place this film genre and transpose it into a more contextual environment that our generation can subjectively relate to. Its the Good the bad and the ugly for ww2 in the same vein as the dirty dozen, the guns of navarone etc.

The violence the focus on dialogue and a somewhat simplistic plot are all hallmarks of that classic Italian film genre, take it a step further and seeing as this is also a homage to the original Italian film Inglorious Bastard made in the late 70's, and well this less a commentary on the moral and subjective view of how views on the Nazi's may or may not have polarized over the decades and is more about taking that context and presenting a story.

The film itself to me does articulate the nature of barbarity of war to a truly grotesque state, and presents the extremes taken but men only associated with killing.

And though i love the film and the characterisation is brilliant as well as the acting by the principle characters, there is some merit to the issue that once again the medium would mis-inform the poorly educated and maybe further desensitize a topic that should not be allowed to drift into shadows.

That aside there are moments when the defiance of the German sergeant and he comment that he received his medal for bravery does indicate the nobility of soldiers, and its interesting that the barbarity is attributed to the Americans more so than the Germans.

Brad Pitts character though probably accurately reflect the polarization of public opinion of the German people at the time, and should be accepted as a representation of what happens to society in war.

I like the film in all.     

[Saint]

Hugo Stiglitz fucking kicked ass in this movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqRCX1uh3KU

lol a nazi officer serial killer

[Mgallun74]

forgive him rikirude thinks "saving private ryan" and "band of brothers" are realistic ww2 movies

thats american education of history

would be probably not much different when allies had lost the ww2 just the way around

black-white presentations of sides are "needed" for better justification what people are doing or what they did


its like we are the good guys we make war against terrorism (by showing first the world trade center in tv and then the newest airforce bombing attacks in afghanistan or irak)

i will give you SPR..

but not band of brothers... that was pretty legit in its portrail of the us airborne in ww2.  iam sorry it makes them look uber and so on, but to be truthful, they where lol, all i have to say is "NUTS" and that proves the point.

[Ununoctium]

I liked the 'Bear Jew'
Thats what happens when you mess with Brooklyn

The movie is interesting all around and very engaging, a kind of "revenge of the jews" that all the jewish hollywood producers don't want to make so Tarantino did it. But I think jews are happy with their portrayal in the film.

[BigDick]

but not band of brothers... that was pretty legit in its portrail of the us airborne in ww2.  iam sorry it makes them look uber and so on, but to be truthful, they where lol, all i have to say is "NUTS" and that proves the point.

actually compared to the german front soldier being at war since 1939 ...getting trained in youth organisations like jungvolk and hitlerjugend from the age of 10 and having until 1944 5 years of war experience the common us soldier (including airbornes) looked like a rookie.

[Mgallun74]

but not band of brothers... that was pretty legit in its portrail of the us airborne in ww2.  iam sorry it makes them look uber and so on, but to be truthful, they where lol, all i have to say is "NUTS" and that proves the point.

actually compared to the german front soldier being at war since 1939 ...getting trained in youth organisations like jungvolk and hitlerjugend from the age of 10 and having until 1944 5 years of war experience the common us soldier (including airbornes) looked like a rookie.

ya, they didnt do all that bad for a bunch of rookies now did they?

[BigDick]

the 5 years war experience? they were at war the common german soldier did not intended to be away from home for such a long time

in this aspect there was no difference between any soldier...all had to do something they did'nt want...thats fighting for their lives

and actually i don't think that they would had trouble with us soldiers at all when not fighting russia commonwealth and us at the same time

especially russia was the war that couldn't be won cause of huge size and logistic and supply problems

[Killer344]

More like strategical failure against russia thanks to hitler and his beloved heavy tanks you mean lol.

[Groundfire]

Geeze Dick, you make sound like the US army had no combat experience at all.

Wonder what the fuck we were doing in Africa/Italy/South Pacific since 1942 then....

Probably just having a picnic, enjoying the nice desert sand, or italian country side.

[DasNoob]

I'm off to see it!

Why can't all of your guys' threads be so well argued?? Hell even bigdick decided to put his thinking cap on in this one.  I'd have to moderate a whole lot less 


Just make sure to keep it clean. 

[Mgallun74]

the 5 years war experience? they were at war the common german soldier did not intended to be away from home for such a long time

in this aspect there was no difference between any soldier...all had to do something they did'nt want...thats fighting for their lives

and actually i don't think that they would had trouble with us soldiers at all when not fighting russia commonwealth and us at the same time

especially russia was the war that couldn't be won cause of huge size and logistic and supply problems

lol, think what you want, there were numerous battles where the germans had advantage and couldnt break the US Soldier Resolve or Defense...  i say again "NUTS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mgallun74]

More like strategical failure against russia thanks to hitler and his beloved heavy tanks you mean lol.

i wouldnt say just heavy tanks, sure he could have built plenty more panzer4s and so on, but his constant mediling in his generals plans etc...

like stalingrad, wtf? it was needed, he could have cut it off and went south the get the oil and came back around,, fail...

kursk, ya, totaly waste of time, espeically since the ruskies knew exactly when and where he was coming from.

Battle of bulge, he did a great favor to all by doing that waste of time, he could easily held out of 6 months or more with all that wasted shit.

[RikiRude]

I gotta read all these posts, but i have to say this is becoming a really great conversation about the movie!

OK first off big dick I don't think SPR or BoB are documentaries 

In fact if you pulled off your ass hat you'd remember that I said band of brothers was my favorite war movie, and I knew they had hollywood exaggerations, but it didn't bother me because of how well the action was done. Band of Brothers made you feel like you were right there with them, and that's a pretty profound experience.

I watch war documentaries if I want to be informed.


Either way, Wind you provide a very good and well thought out argument that I can't help but agree with for the most part. You're right, if he wanted he could of made a movie that moved, but from the looks of it, I guess I'm going to have to see the movie from the 70's that must of heavily inspired it. So maybe a lot of points or homages tarintino was making we can find in that movie.

Very good post wind as i can't find anything I don't agree with to some extent =)

[Baine]

Can we just agree, that all soldiers fought well.

Some of the US soldiers didn't want to fight, same for some parts of the german army, and at one point nobody wanted to fight anymore.

[Mgallun74]

true baine...

just he took a shot at us soldiers, i was in us army for 8 years, so, ya, took that personal.

but its all cool..

havent seen movie, probably wont, too sensationalized for me i think.

[Tymathee]

I take the film for what it is. It's entertainment. The thing is, there's never been a movie like this and if you cant' view this film as pure fantasy by some writer and not an accurate representation of well, anything, then you can enjoy it. If you try and take moral recriminations and lessons and well, anything other than just fun and violence then you're looking for something that isn't there. The movie is alla bout jewish americans getting revenge on nazi's, which btw, is no different than some real jews did after the war, only they did some stuff that even Tarantino wouldn't put in his movies.

I mean come on, what country would be stupid enough to put their whole high command all in one small crowded movie threatre just to see some movie about a single soldier killing 250 soldiers from a bell tower, which is bs btw. What, they didn't have grenades, or bazookas, or well a tank? lol