![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
springtime for hitler
Sep. 6th, 2009 02:45 pmI decided to review Inglourious Basterds in question and answer form.
Q. Is it violent?
A. There's scalping, carving, and gunfire. For a war movie, it's not actually very grotesque. It's not torture porn, let's put it that way. Regardless of what Quentin Tarantino might tell you. I'm fairly squeamish when it comes to gore and I wasn't grossed out here.
Q. Is it funny?
A. A few parts centering on the Americans' inability to speak languages other than English were very funny. Other absurd/ironic parts incited dry "heh"s. But this isn't Hot Fuzz - the comedy doesn't come from the violence/death. It's not Tropic Thunder either. In fact, the violence is pretty curiously un-funny. This had a really, really weird warp effect on the movie - it's half detached and funny and half dramatic revenge fantasy.
Q. So it's about Nazis, right? Is it offensive?
A. Well, if they weren't wearing Swastikas, they'd be unrecognizable as Nazis. There's no mention of "Holocaust" or "camp" or anything. Instead of deporting Jews they machine-gun them on the spot. It's a pretty classic example of using "Nazi" as a synonym for "bad guys." The weird thing about this is that Tarantino is known for making villains that aren't exactly un-sympathetic, often because they're dryly witty and whatever they've done isn't presented as all that bad. Which has a weird effect for a Nazi movie. As for the Jews, there's revenge-girl Shoshana, who's one of the two most interesting and well-acted characters, a bunch of random, undifferentiated American Jews who never develop personalities, and Brad Pitt, who doesn't punch in a good performance here. He just kind of paperclips a performance together. As the end makes clear, this is an alternate history. Tarantino is clearly using Nazism as a backdrop, and a very unconvincing version of it at that. There were big swaths of aesthetic here that looked more like Once Upon A Time In Mexico then Nazi-controlled France. The "research" that went into this movie consisted of working in "blitzkrieg" and "papers." Oh, and the other most interesting and well-acted character? The SS villain guy, Hans Landa, who like all good Disney villains is played effeminate/gay and witty.
Q. But it doesn't matter, right? I mean, Tarantino's not concerned with historical accuracy, right?
A. Clearly he's not. Whether it matters or not is kind of up to you.
Q. In fact, wasn't he trying to make a controversial movie?
A. It's not very controversial. "Nazi" has been a synonym for "bad guys" for a long time, although again, Tarantino is making Kill Bill style villains here, not Nazis per se. Of course, I also don't consider novel portrayals of torture to be "controversial." The fact that the violence wasn't funny indicates that WWII is still pretty taboo, "one of those things we don't joke about and only portray in a certain way." I know Tarantino thinks he's presenting something different here, but he's not thinking outside the box.
Q. I don't like war movies, but I like indie movies - you know, the ones that are kind of different. I'd like this, right?
A. I don't know. It's bizarre, but not in an indie movie way.
Q. But let's get right down to it, to the only thing that matters - is it entertaining?
A. That's the only thing that matters now? Hmm. On the entertainment spectrum, it was okay. Parts of it were more disturbing than entertaining, and some of those disturbing parts - like a film of Shoshana laughing maniacally as her theater full of Nazis burns - were the most intriguing and memorable of the movie. Of course, a movie that is simply disturbing and intriguing is not the kind of movie Tarantino has ever been interested in making. He wants to make entertainment. He doesn't really succeed - not in my opinion, at least. He contradicts his own intentions too much. But I should note that the guy I saw it with thought it was hugely entertaining.
Q. Is it violent?
A. There's scalping, carving, and gunfire. For a war movie, it's not actually very grotesque. It's not torture porn, let's put it that way. Regardless of what Quentin Tarantino might tell you. I'm fairly squeamish when it comes to gore and I wasn't grossed out here.
Q. Is it funny?
A. A few parts centering on the Americans' inability to speak languages other than English were very funny. Other absurd/ironic parts incited dry "heh"s. But this isn't Hot Fuzz - the comedy doesn't come from the violence/death. It's not Tropic Thunder either. In fact, the violence is pretty curiously un-funny. This had a really, really weird warp effect on the movie - it's half detached and funny and half dramatic revenge fantasy.
Q. So it's about Nazis, right? Is it offensive?
A. Well, if they weren't wearing Swastikas, they'd be unrecognizable as Nazis. There's no mention of "Holocaust" or "camp" or anything. Instead of deporting Jews they machine-gun them on the spot. It's a pretty classic example of using "Nazi" as a synonym for "bad guys." The weird thing about this is that Tarantino is known for making villains that aren't exactly un-sympathetic, often because they're dryly witty and whatever they've done isn't presented as all that bad. Which has a weird effect for a Nazi movie. As for the Jews, there's revenge-girl Shoshana, who's one of the two most interesting and well-acted characters, a bunch of random, undifferentiated American Jews who never develop personalities, and Brad Pitt, who doesn't punch in a good performance here. He just kind of paperclips a performance together. As the end makes clear, this is an alternate history. Tarantino is clearly using Nazism as a backdrop, and a very unconvincing version of it at that. There were big swaths of aesthetic here that looked more like Once Upon A Time In Mexico then Nazi-controlled France. The "research" that went into this movie consisted of working in "blitzkrieg" and "papers." Oh, and the other most interesting and well-acted character? The SS villain guy, Hans Landa, who like all good Disney villains is played effeminate/gay and witty.
Q. But it doesn't matter, right? I mean, Tarantino's not concerned with historical accuracy, right?
A. Clearly he's not. Whether it matters or not is kind of up to you.
Q. In fact, wasn't he trying to make a controversial movie?
A. It's not very controversial. "Nazi" has been a synonym for "bad guys" for a long time, although again, Tarantino is making Kill Bill style villains here, not Nazis per se. Of course, I also don't consider novel portrayals of torture to be "controversial." The fact that the violence wasn't funny indicates that WWII is still pretty taboo, "one of those things we don't joke about and only portray in a certain way." I know Tarantino thinks he's presenting something different here, but he's not thinking outside the box.
Q. I don't like war movies, but I like indie movies - you know, the ones that are kind of different. I'd like this, right?
A. I don't know. It's bizarre, but not in an indie movie way.
Q. But let's get right down to it, to the only thing that matters - is it entertaining?
A. That's the only thing that matters now? Hmm. On the entertainment spectrum, it was okay. Parts of it were more disturbing than entertaining, and some of those disturbing parts - like a film of Shoshana laughing maniacally as her theater full of Nazis burns - were the most intriguing and memorable of the movie. Of course, a movie that is simply disturbing and intriguing is not the kind of movie Tarantino has ever been interested in making. He wants to make entertainment. He doesn't really succeed - not in my opinion, at least. He contradicts his own intentions too much. But I should note that the guy I saw it with thought it was hugely entertaining.
