San Francisco, 8:17 PM
Sat Dec 19
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
My theory on the movie is that it was mis-marketed. I went into it expecting something like a psycho-Tarantino-style Dirty Dozen, which is how the film was promoted. There were nods of that (Stiglitz!), and I think that may have been the film's original form. However, Tarantino took the movie in another direction: He decided to polish his ability to create and control cinematic tension.
Broken down, the movie consists of blocks of dialog, often 20 minutes long or longer, all leading up to a sudden burst of violence, or escape from violence. The initial scene with Msr. LaPedite and Hans Landa sets the tone, and it continues from there. Tarantino establishes Landa as a monster so terrifying he could be ensconced next to Dracula and the Wolfman, and from that scene forward it is the threat of that monster and the institution he represents that makes every moment he's on screen white-knuckled. I have never been so nervous while watching a man eat strudel with pretty girl, and it was all because I knew what Landa was capable of.
This is something Tarantino's done before, but in this case he built the entire movie around it. It's actually quite audacious. Depending on whether it worked for you, it makes the film either an ego-piece or a masterwork.
Ok, lets starts with the beginning, I'm French and I live in Paris. As a consequence, my perception of it is very different from what Americans may have.
I came in the theater with a friend who happens to be Jewish. At the end of the movie, I had mixed feeling, I felt it was very bad taste by brilliantly shot. My friend was livid, I learned then that his grandmother had been hidden in Paris by non-jews during the whole war, she was one of the very few lucky ones of her whole family.
Again, if this movie was bad, it wouldn't have been an issue, but Tarantino directing is good and the most actors are well playing. The fact that this film is not realistic is announced, but still this period is just too sensitive. In France, negating the Nazis crimes is a public offense and you can go to jail for it, this is the only period of History where we have such a law.
@ghelary: I think movies such as U-571 were simply trying to tell a story, and a movie produced for an American audience is going to do better with Americans doing all the heroics. I agree, film attributes too much fantasy to American bravado instead of highlighting the combined Allied effort, and too many people use these films as their history reference. The Enigma machine has a very cool and mysterious name to it. It makes for interesting story. I don't think a film about Turing cracking it's code would have been near as interesting as a film about a bunch of sailors and Marines taking a U-boat. Sad part is, many people are going to think U-571 is truth.
@SmokeDiver: And I was one of those who thought the U-571 was a Hollywood version of a true event and was thoroughly disgusted that it was actually a joint effort with the Brits. I don't buy the excuse that its trying to tell a story and flashing American or anyone else's bravado, there's still huge value to be gained for telling a story accurately in the main. I mean U571 would still have been a success and I think even more dynamic by having a cast of both British and American leading actors... that fact that they've falsely portrayed this event as a solo effort is just so wrong...
One thing no one mentioned is how awesome and tension-filled every scene with the Jew Hunter was. The opening scene alone was worth admission. Waltz was brilliant, Tarantino made a masterful film about revenge, and Basterds was one of the best films of the year, IMO.
Can someone explain to me how this movie could be considered anti-Semetic? Other than it shows Jews being violent? The Jews were the badass heroes of the flick.
I really enjoyed this movie, and I especially enjoyed Christoph Waltz's performance. I thought he made an amazing villain. I also enjoyed the use of multiple languages, as so many WWII movies seem to think that everybody just speaks English with some sort of accent.
I was incredibly disappointed in this movie. The dialogue was total crap. And the Basterds themselves were just a sidenote, IMO. I wanted more of that Tarantino ass-kicking. I guess that's what I was expecting. I know Tarantino loves his dialogue and I usually do too. But this was just boring and drawn out. My friend actually fell asleep beside me and she usually loves his films.
@acrobatic rabbit: Agreed. I don't understand why people fawn over Tarantino when all he does is rip off exploitation movies and replace the exploitation with long scenes of boring dialog. It's frustrating, as he used to be able to write snappy conversations with tense plots. His post-Pulp Fiction output has been a long, steady slide into dullsville and self-indulgence.
Except for Kill Bill, Vol. I (and only Vol. I). That was pretty fun.
@falsage-1: It's weird, you've got a point. I was watching the extended Death Proof at a specialty theater this weekend (a film I disliked originally). After consulting a lil' Roger Ebert, it dawned on me: Tarantino makes movies about -watching- movies and the movie experience. Every movie he made: great actors, great performances, intriguing dialogue, a hooky plot-twist... ALL the things that make a great movie.
But what are his movies about? Nothing, relatively speaking. They are not deeply emotional, no serious pathos or gravitas trying to communicate the human condition (also known as "Spinach Films"-- you watch them to smarten-up/feel good about yourself: Shindler's List, The Reader, Saving Private Ryan). Tarantino's movies are homages to traditionally considered "bad" films: exploitation (Pulp Fiction, Death Proof), tawdry crime capers (Jackie Brown), bloody action flicks of a genre-stripe (Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds).
He turns shit-into-gold, and vice-versa. Watch it with a withered eye, and you could see where his head is at. He makes anti-Oscar films, and I love that now.
@falsage-1: Let me put it this way: How many times have you watched some shitty old exploitation movie and said, "Damn, in the hands of a good director, and with a decent budget, this could have been something really great!"?
Tarrantino is that director, and he gets those budgets.
@Alexis: (hearting you because I'm a sucker for positive reinforcement; that and I can't take all the credit-- I love Sensei Ebert, and "shit-into-gold" is strictly Jodorowsky)
How could anyone criticize this movie as anti-semetic? Speaking as a Jew, I don't hesitate to classify it as Jewish revenge fantasy porn. It was awesome!
@Jonny_eh: I'm also a Jew, and that's the feeling I got. I love the scene where Aldo is telling the Basterds about how they'll "owe" him 100 Nazi scalps and we pan to Eli Roth who is smiling this huge, insane smile.
@Pessimippopotamus: See that was part of the movie that I appreciated the most. And I say this as a guy who was weened on movies like the Dirty Dozen and Where Eagles Dare. We Americans think we single-handedly won the war. This is of course very far from the truth and it was nice to see a movie that acknowledged that.
@Pessimippopotamus: This was not just a film about the war, but a film about war movies. The Americans and the British plot and scheme, and it's a French Jew that gets the job done.
Pushing the American influence to the side was intentional.
@Sarastro42005: Wait. We didn't single-handedly win the war? I've been LIED to. Next you will be telling me that Princess Leia lied about the location of the rebel base.
@LittleDragon: I am soooo sorry that I have to be the one to break this to you, but... Ma and Pa Kent are not Clark's real parents. Oh, and Palpatine is actually Darth Sidious. Hard to believe, I know.
@LittleDragon: Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Oh, and by the way, if anybody ever calls claiming to be your Uncle Jar Jar... just hang up. Just. Hang. Up.
Killing Hitler in 1944 probably would have been the worst thing for the Allies in WW2 as most of Nazi Germany's strategic mistakes were caused in large part because of him.
As for the film? I guess I'm not a style over substance kind of guy.
@ManchuCandidate: I think once heturned on the russions no strategy could cahnge the end. Too many enemies on the dance flor, too many enemies. Russians scared me more than the germans anyways.
@ManchuCandidate: By 1944, strategic mistakes by the Germans just made the war a bit shorter. The Allies were already well on their way to victory. The real question is whether the Russians would stop their advance just because Hitler and elements of the High Command had been assassinated. I'm thinking no.
@Annalee Newitz: Hm, seems pretty ambiguous. You may be right! I may be right! We're both right! (Hurray!) Since it's ambiguous and I'm Jewish, I'm considering him half Jewish / half Apache.
@Loserface: I don't think he's Jewish. He put together a team of Jewish soldiers because they'd be highly motivated but he's a southern moonshiner with some Native American blood. Also the SS colonel talked to him as a fellow officer which I don't think he would do if he thought Raines was Jewish. But I may be wrong.
@Annalee Newitz: Hell YEAH. Half Jewish Half Puerto Rican, myself. It's part of the reason why I loved the movie, an Alternate History of Jews killing Nazis! What more could a boy want for Christmas?!
@Ghost_in_the_Machine: Hans Landa (the SS guy) wouldn't have cared if he was Jewish. Landa didn't really care one way or another about Jews. He cared about doing the best job he could. That's what makes him such a great character. He is both quite likable, and utterly reprehensible.
"There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do."
@daveNYC: Hans may not have been overt, but you don't get to be a colonel in the SS by being tolerant of others. I doubt he would treat a Jewish or black officer the same way he would treat a white (and non-Jewish) one.
I watched the cartoon's first season with the belief that the entire 100 episodes had been planned out into an arch. I was disappointed that season 1 did not have an arch. It did have a couple of two and three parters but no arc. Season 2 on the other hand seems to be arced. The first 5 shows have mostly impressed me. I agree that "Landing At Point Rain" was a bit harsh for Cartoon Network but it is shown during the Adult Swim time slot so I guess the network gave the writers some lea way.
I hope they keep the story line moving along and don't get mired up in the whole Aniken and Padmae love affair too much. It is an easy trap for the writers to fall into. #starwarstheclonewars
12/16/09
Broken down, the movie consists of blocks of dialog, often 20 minutes long or longer, all leading up to a sudden burst of violence, or escape from violence. The initial scene with Msr. LaPedite and Hans Landa sets the tone, and it continues from there. Tarantino establishes Landa as a monster so terrifying he could be ensconced next to Dracula and the Wolfman, and from that scene forward it is the threat of that monster and the institution he represents that makes every moment he's on screen white-knuckled. I have never been so nervous while watching a man eat strudel with pretty girl, and it was all because I knew what Landa was capable of.
This is something Tarantino's done before, but in this case he built the entire movie around it. It's actually quite audacious. Depending on whether it worked for you, it makes the film either an ego-piece or a masterwork.
12/16/09
12/16/09
I came in the theater with a friend who happens to be Jewish. At the end of the movie, I had mixed feeling, I felt it was very bad taste by brilliantly shot. My friend was livid, I learned then that his grandmother had been hidden in Paris by non-jews during the whole war, she was one of the very few lucky ones of her whole family.
The problem with the movie is that it is too well made (apart from catastrophic Mélanie Laurent/Shosanna acting), Landa in particular is really terrifying in his educated and perverse SS manners. But French and in particular French Jews know well that such persons did exist, as a consequence the dark humor pervading the movie is difficultly accepted, it's like seeing a comedy on 9/11 when you have had close member of your family victim of it. Another example is the methods used by Aldo's gang, in occupied France, killing a German soldier or a German soldier ended in the execution of several hostages. No mention of French resistance as well (as if they didn't exist). Tarantino made a joke of American ignorance, but I feel that the movie is falling as well in this very cliche by reinterpreting History is some sort of duel between German and Americans (the movie "U-571" gives credit also to Americans an achievement that they didn't do)
Again, if this movie was bad, it wouldn't have been an issue, but Tarantino directing is good and the most actors are well playing. The fact that this film is not realistic is announced, but still this period is just too sensitive. In France, negating the Nazis crimes is a public offense and you can go to jail for it, this is the only period of History where we have such a law.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
I really enjoyed this movie, and I especially enjoyed Christoph Waltz's performance. I thought he made an amazing villain. I also enjoyed the use of multiple languages, as so many WWII movies seem to think that everybody just speaks English with some sort of accent.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
In other words, they hate it 'cause its Tarantino.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Except for Kill Bill, Vol. I (and only Vol. I). That was pretty fun.
12/16/09
But what are his movies about? Nothing, relatively speaking. They are not deeply emotional, no serious pathos or gravitas trying to communicate the human condition (also known as "Spinach Films"-- you watch them to smarten-up/feel good about yourself: Shindler's List, The Reader, Saving Private Ryan). Tarantino's movies are homages to traditionally considered "bad" films: exploitation (Pulp Fiction, Death Proof), tawdry crime capers (Jackie Brown), bloody action flicks of a genre-stripe (Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds).
He turns shit-into-gold, and vice-versa. Watch it with a withered eye, and you could see where his head is at. He makes anti-Oscar films, and I love that now.
12/16/09
Tarrantino is that director, and he gets those budgets.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
We need to make this happen.
12/17/09
12/18/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
1) Violence is bad
2) The movies have Jews doing some insane violence
3) Therefore, the movie makes Jews look bad
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Pushing the American influence to the side was intentional.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Oh, and by the way, if anybody ever calls claiming to be your Uncle Jar Jar... just hang up. Just. Hang. Up.
12/16/09
As for the film? I guess I'm not a style over substance kind of guy.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Again could be wrong.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
"There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do."
-T. Pratchett
12/16/09
11/09/09
I hope they keep the story line moving along and don't get mired up in the whole Aniken and Padmae love affair too much. It is an easy trap for the writers to fall into. #starwarstheclonewars
11/08/09
Did you find the Easter Eggs? #starwarstheclonewars