Nothing Inglorious About Pro-American ‘Basterds’
by Pam MeisterRemember the children’s magazine, Highlights? Its motto is “fun with a purpose.” The motto for Quentin Tarantino’s latest flick, “Inglourious Basterds,” should be “violent with a purpose.”
It’s 1944 in Nazi-occupied France. Joseph Goebbels’ (Sylvester Groth) latest film triumph starring Germany’s latest hero, Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), is set to premiere for the top brass of the Third Reich – including the big cheese himself, Adolf Hitler – and their guests. Funnily enough, the premiere is to be held in a cinema owned by Shoshanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a Jewish refugee with her own obvious reasons for hating the Nazis. Naturally, she plans her revenge for the fateful night.
Meanwhile the Basterds, a crack group of Jewish-American soldiers under the leadership of Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), is undercover in France and “in the business of killing Nazis, and business is booming.” Those Nazis who manage to escape death are given meaningful souvenirs of their time with the Basterds. The paths of these two groups cross in a way that only Tarantino, master of gory coincidence, could imagine.
A good ol’ boy and Jews brutally mowing down Nazis. What’s not to like? It’s probably one of the few times you’ll see a redneck positively portrayed in Hollywood.
Don’t be fooled by the trailers that feature Pitt prominently. The film is an ensemble effort, with all of the key players turning in fine performances. Probably one of the best performances is by Christoph Waltz as the cold, evil, calculating Col. Hans Landa, whose unofficial nickname is the “Jew Hunter.” A true chameleon, he’s the master of charm one moment and a murderous bastard the next. No one – and I mean no one – can trust him. (I’ll never view an innocent glass of milk in the same way again.)
This is not your average World War II film. The heroes aren’t conventional “good guys,” but flawed human beings who don’t always come out on top. There are a number of “knots in the stomach” moments as you wait to see if someone will be exposed, and long conversations and monologues serve to heighten the tension. The sometimes choppy cinematography, ridiculously long close-ups, cheesy music and vigilante-style justice all contribute to the theme of a spaghetti Western set during World War II. It’s not all serious, however – there are a few laughs. There are also a few helpful voice-overs that give crucial background information, even though they are somewhat odd.
If you hate Quentin Tarantino’s films, you’ll probably hate this one. By the same token, if you love his films, this one’s for you. I remember being horrified by “Pulp Fiction,” but either I’ve become more jaded over time or the “violent with a purpose” theme works for me – or both. Think about it: Nazis getting a taste of their own vile medicine. It’s quite a satisfying scenario. And the unabashed pro-American stance is refreshing as well.
Just this week, the New York Times ran an article about the fact that A-list stars are failing to deliver big returns on their movies. But these days, Americans expect a lot for their entertainment dollar. It doesn’t matter how big the star is; if the movie’s crap, it’s going to bomb. No matter how big the name, it can’t save a rotten film. And with regard to “Basterds,” I found the premise intriguing enough to overcome my dislike of Brad Pitt and plunk down my $10.50. Oh, and keep an eye out for an almost-unrecognizable Mike Myers.
As to be expected in a Tarantino film, there is plenty of violence and gore, but not the slick kind that you’re used to seeing in the usual blockbuster. It’s raw and it’s very realistic – the woman next to me gasped out loud a number of times. If you have a weak stomach, think twice before going. And really, kids should not see this one. In fact, they were actually checking ID at the theater – which, by the way, was packed full.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
66 Comments
I thought this movie suuuuuucked.
And no, I'm not a fan of Tarantino to begin with.
HE named this movie Inglorious Basterds, and then showed very little of them.
As I've previously posted, Tarantino, who loves to hear his characters drone on and on and on…now has them drone on and on and on – in French, German and Italian.
I spent most of this movie reading subtitles, instead of watching the film.
The movie should've been called "A Jewish Girl Plots Her Revenge Against The Nazis For 2 Hours…Co-Starring The Inglorious Basterds".
I've seen Bastards twice, and can't wait for the DVD! I agree, Waltz was great in his role as Hans. Someone described this movie as "Jewish revenge pornography". I'm not sure if that was meant to be a negative review, but as a Jew, it sure worked for me!
I am excited that they're portraying a Southern Redneck in a positive light! I'm intrigued by this movie but since I have a semi-weak stomach I think I'll wait to watch this.
Exactly, Jamesb.
I remember hearing about a showing of Saving Private Ryan for WWII veterans. After the part where two GI's shot a couple of surrendering German soldiers and laughed about it afterwards, one of the audience members stood up and shouted: "How dare they put that in! That's not right, we never did stuff like that!"
Another audience member stood up and shouted back: "Oh yes we did! In fact, I shot a few of them like that myself They did it to us, so we did to them!"
War is brutal. Period. Just be grateful these rough and course individuals are willing to do the dirty work we don't even dare think about.
Typically the SS combat unit, which was in essence a seperate, parallel Army to the Werhmacht, the Waffen SS, was a particularly fanatical organization and had to be killed to be stopped. They wouldn't back down or surrender…at first the "regular army" had litlle respect for them but it didn't take long for the Werhmacht to give them respect as outstanding combat units. They hoped the Waffen SS was assigned to their flanks, they were happy to see 'em. they were well equiped and trained and totally committed. Like the old saying about breakfast, the chicken is "involved" but the pig is committed. Wehrmacht, the chicken…Waffen SS, the pig.
"Remember the children’s magazine, Highlights?"
Was that something like the Weekly Reader?
This same guy, he seemed to be a *no nonsense* type, ordered his people to stay SOBER and ready for action, and no guff. Period. It was like D-Day plus 1 or 2, action was still hot and heavy. After a while a Sgt. came up drunk and argumentitive and after a few minutes this guy pulled his side arm and shot him right in the forehead. Everyone looked and said nothing. He then assembled his guys and moved out. Never was a report or any issues, it was combat and in my mind he decided he didn't want to risk more American lives messing with this guy. Problem solved.
Now days the Obama Administration would have him hanged from the W.H. swing set with MSNBC televising it and blaming Bush.
Maybe the disconnect is that most of the people who liked IB went to see a QT film about WWII, whereas those who didn't like it went to see a WWII film directed by QT. To the latter, I'll say this – it's his seventh full-length feature! If you didn't like Reservoir Dogs or Kill Bill V2 (the QT films IB most resembles) or the rest of his work, why go? To be offended? Outraged? To point out that Hitler didn't die in a movie theater? To posit that there was no Jewish GI scalping squad? It's not been a State secret what the film is about, and digging a bit deeper, I'd say that Pitt's Aldo Raine sums up, time and again, the way a lot of Americans feel about the enemies we fight today.
Regarding the moral/ethical quandaries commenters have brought up in several threads about the film, I suspect they didn't watch it. After opening with a chilling 20-minute sequence, Raine spells out why the soldiers will use savagery to combat savagery, and sublimely does so again shortly thereafter when trying to get a read from a Nazi officer regarding where a potential ambush lays. The ethics of the film are no different from 24, a show loved by conservatives, or for that matter, Braveheart, a film also adored by conservatives (myself included). I have no more problem watching a fictional film about Jews scalping Nazis than I do about American servicemen taking trophies innocent and macabre from battle – they earned it.
The film smokes out where Americans stand on the war on terror as well as any in the last few years. Like Taken and Man on Fire, it may not be explicitly political, but intentionally or not, its point is hard to miss.
/fire away
It's unfortunate, though, that the Nazis (all safely dead, most of 'em) have become Hollywood's standard stand-in for Evil. With perhaps the exception of The Killing Fields, never, ever the Communists And today, it ought to be jihhadis- remind the Americans of the joy and righteous jubilation of packing off this filth to eternal hellfire in creatively sadistic and merciless ways.
In fact, we should be doing it for real to the filth at Gitmo. Not to extract information, but because justice (not to mention example) demands that savages who dare raise their filthy Dark Age hands against civilization have committed to worst of all possible crimes. Real, genuine get-medieval-on-their-ass torture. On pay-per-view.
Next you'll be telling me our CIA guys pretended to kill a prisoner one room over so the guy they were interrogating would talk! And THEN you'll be telling me our president is not OK with that.
“And now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all, your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault, it won’t matter, I’m gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed, I’m gonna blow your head off.” (John Wayne as Jacob McCandles, Big Jake, 1971)
It's unfortunate, though, that the Nazis (all safely dead, most of 'em) have become Hollywood's standard stand-in for Evil. What PC cowardice! With perhaps the exception of The Killing Fields, never, ever the Communists: instead the psychopathic mass-murderer Guevara reveives hagiography. And these days, it ought to be jihadis- Hollywood should remind Americans of the necessity, justice and occasional righteous jubilation of packing off these hostis humani generis to eternal hellfire in creatively sadistic and merciless ways.
In fact, we should be doing it for real to the scum at Gitmo. Not to extract information, but torture for its own sake, out of pure, undistilled vengeful cruelty; because justice and the future of humanity (not to mention example) demand that savages who dare raise their filthy Dark Age hands against civilization have committed to worst of all possible crimes. Real, genuine Spanish Inquisition get-medieval-on-their-ass torture. On pay-per-view.'s unfortunate, though, that the Nazis (all safely dead, most of 'em) have become Hollywood's standard stand-in for Evil. What PC cowardice! With perhaps the exception of The Killing Fields, never, ever the Communists: instead the psychopathic mass-murderer Guevara reveives hagiography. And these days, it ought to be jihadis- Hollywood should remind Americans of the necessity, justice and occasional righteous jubilation of packing off these hostis humani generis to eternal hellfire in creatively sadistic and merciless ways.
In fact, we should be doing it for real to the scum at Gitmo. Not to extract information, but torture for its own sake, out of pure, undistilled vengeful cruelty; because justice and the future of humanity (not to mention example) demand that savages who dare raise their filthy Dark Age hands against civilization have committed to worst of all possible crimes. Real, genuine Spanish Inquisition get-medieval-on-their-ass torture. On pay-per-view.
“Inglourious Basterds' was a great flick!
Forget any reservations you might have about Brad Pitt…..or Tarantino.
Just forget 'em.
Go see this movie.
If you like movies where the good guys come out on top, you'll love this one.
*Note to Pam Meister: The Mike Meyer cameo was good…..but did you spot Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill…..?
I enjoyed "Basterds" more than I thought I would. His more mature side shows through. What I figured would be more of an actioner turned out to be a deliberately paced spy thriller, full of tightly crafted–though overlong–conversational show-downs. I especially enjoyed the tavern scene.
Everything bad about the movie can be found in every Tarantino movie. That is, its gore, its dithering on the inconsequential, its endless references to popular culture, and its silly hipster tricks (for instance, Samuel L. Jackson's narration). He'd be a much better filmaker if he'd develop his serious side and get someone to edit his script, like a kindergarten teacher taking a finger painting away from her student.
I think that Hollywood has over spent on its credit with the American people, couple that with the information age we live in now and its a blueprint for failure. In the golden age of Hollywood a star could be gay, a womanizer, a drunk/drug addict and the media for the most part kept it hush hush. Now days we know what Seth Rogan had for breakfast thanks to twitter,facebook,myspace and countless bloggers with a cellphone. The luster has been taken off our "Hollywood Heroes" and they don't seem so special anymore and especially when you polarize half your audience with a offhand remark or political statement. So now if you want a good movie you need a good story, CGI and "Star power" just wont cut it any longer. Hollywood hopefully will figure this out, hopefully sooner rather than later.
I've said this before. It doesn't even have to do with politics.
Part of the problem is the (I hate this term) celebrity/media industrial complex – by that, I mean your tabloids, your paparazzi, your programs like Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight, ad nauseam… there have always been gossip rags but it's gotten completely out of hand in the last few years and will only get worse before it gets better.
Twitter doesn't help. I think it's safe to say Ashton Kutcher is no longer a movie star when he spends his spare time: a.) on Twitter, or b.) promoting Twitter on chat shows.
Yes, I agree. An over saturation of information on them lessens their stature at a certain point. And yes Twitter is soooo horrible, I do not care about what Kutcher is doing let alone that Joe Schmo just was able to tell me he got a Pizza and dropped a duece in 150 characters or less….ugh.
I do feel however that there are a percentage of people that will stop enjoying a group or person's work because of some statement that they said, only because in this day and age it sadly seems that Politics plays such a big part in some people's lives, it just keeps getting more and more worse in the "Us vs. Them" world that we live in right now.Granted it has always been this way, but with so much technology at our fingertips now it is much more in our collective faces.
The gore wasn't that bad – at least to me.
I swaw it last weekend and have to say (a) it is the first Brad Pitt movie I liked and (b) other than the Kill Bill movies most of QTs movies I just "don't get".
Found myself laughing where I shouldn't – but the whole theater was laughing.
And I was smitten by Bridgett von Hammerstock. Or Hammersback. Whatever.
I saw it last weekend and have to say (a) it is the first Brad Pitt movie I liked and (b) other than the Kill Bill movies most of QTs movies I just "don't get".
Found myself laughing where I shouldn't – but the whole theater was laughing.
And I was smitten by Bridgett von Hammerstock. Or Hammersback. Whatever.
A lot of us Jews have been waiting for a decent WWII movie where we are not depicted as weaklings incapable of fighting back against tyranny. And I mean the real tyranny like the Holocaust or what the Hamas terrorists do by using their brothers and sister as human shields against Israeli soldiers, not some phony ObamaCare nonsense. We came kind of close with "Defiance", but it had to star that goody two-shoes pretty boy Daniel Craig. At least Brad Pitt is good ol' fashion corn pone all American and we Jews get to kill some Nazis. That's all that matters. I kind of wished one of them had a samurai sword so they could get medieval on Hitler's @$$.
In the end, Inglourious Basterds was an entertaining movie and nothing more.
I think that if people are complaining about the theme or its "message," they are looking way too deep.
In case you didn't notice by the way the movie ended, it wasn't taking itself too seriously.
Pam! So you think it's good to depict American G.I.'s as scalping and dismembering Nazi's? Have you no shame? We were much more humane than that in WW2 and it sends a negative image of the American soldier to the gullible viewers. I don't like this movie's negative portrayal of G.I.'s as bloodthirsty savages without remorse or morality. And to say it's O.K. tells me volumes about where your head is at. Hint, that's not a good place and the sun doesn't shine there much.
I dunno…read some history. I'm not saying you're wrong totally, our image, or rather the image of our military doesn't need anymore bashing, courtesy of Hollywood, but their were some brutal incidents on both sides. Nothing rose to level of the Soviets v. Wehrmacht or the savagery of the Japanese against everybody but the U.S. sometimes did what it had to do. For a small example, the U.S. Army was being sniped in the aftermath of the Normandy landing…the G.I.'s didn't "take any sniper prisoners" if you know what I mean. That policy was unoffically-offical, all the way up to Gen. O. Bradley. Read "Band of Brothers" or the Cornelius Ryan books, it was brutal, total war. A famous incident, in "B of B" relates a Capt. who was know as a tough guy and an excellent battle field commander went up to a group of German POW's working digging a ditch and gave 'em all a cigarette. He lit up with them, finished his smoke and machine gunned em all down with his omnipresent Tommy gun. Rat-tat-tat…DONE. Gone. Dead. All of them. He walked away leaving a stunned U.S. soldier assigned to "guard" them just standing there. Look it up.
"Almost-unrecognizable" Mike Myers? I recognized him instantly.
It's to bad we just didn't drop ten's of thousands of week old bagels from B-17's and B-24's over Germany and occupied Europe instantly killing the Nazis right their though helmets and all, that would have shown those sons of the Reich. Then if that didn't work we could always use the Dreaded Hot Chicken Soup Option. Much to horrible to go into detail here and what's all this scalping about. Lets really be Hebraic about it and do like the Ancient Hebrew warriors did in the days of Saul, David and Solomon. Take the enemies foreskins. I say if your going to do it then go all the way. I've known and met many WW2 Vets and from what they've told me the Nazis weren't so easy to kill but what would they know they're only the ones who had to do the killing. These kind of Mel Brooks fantasy movies in my view denigrate the real efforts of the real men who had to do a dirty job all those years ago. It also diminishes The Obscenity known as the Nazis.I know. Hey but what the hell… it's only a movie.
You must have seen a different version of The Killing Fields than I did. At the end of the movie, Sam Waterston's character — unbelievably, and with straight-faced leftist outrage — BLAMES THE U.S. for the insanity of the Khmer Rouge.
Hmm, now that I think of it, it reminds me of a certain morally-challenged President….
Oh I dunno…"star power" got Ah-nold elected to Governor. McClintock would've been a better choice, but against the Hollywood action superstar? No chance.
And let's face it – "star power" also got Obama elected.
Not your typical World War II movie? How about the Dirty Dozen, which TV Guide calls “One of the most popular of all World War II movies.”
Duh. We just get tired of the default ant-Americanism of Hollywood, so we enjoy the occasional treat. Hence the popularity of this blog….
I thought it was "a blowtorch and a pair of pliers"?
Do you remember the scene from "Saving Private Ryan" where the Jewish soldier gets killed in a knifefight by the big Nazi? I found that scene disturbing and unnecessary, because it subliminally reinforced the myth of Jewish helplessness. If I were Tarantino, I would have found my inspiration for IB in the repudiation of that scene….
BBB
Well, I don't want to get all slobbery-Ebert film-schoolboy on this, but I loved the cinematography. QT obviously put a great deal of thought into the composition and execution of each scene. I think I will never forget the scene where Shoshanna puts on her makeup for the last time.
Oh, and stop calling it a "revenge fantasy"… I prefer to call it a "justice fantasy".
BBB
That´s all very nice, but so what? You could still argue that you don´t need to make a movie about it. Americans in 1944 certainly didn´t feel the need to trumpet such events.
What saves the movie is that the makers of "Inglorious Basterds" never set out to be in any way historically accurate. It´s so totally over the top that everybody will understand (one must hope) that it´s a cartoon, pure fantasy, not a historical movie. As a fantasy, it´s fine. Otherwise, I would have to agree with bahiabob.
Schanberg, whom Waterston plays in the movie, wrote in 1975, shortly before the Khmer Rouge took over, an article with the headline: "Indochina without Americans: for most, a better life". In 2007, President Bush quoted that to people who demanded immediate retreat from Iraq.
In fact, there were quite a few movies with communist bad guys but they are for some reason seen as "infamous" and slightly distastetful now.
As for torture, no, we don´t do it just for fun. I don´t agree with you at all. We are civilized and the "harsh" interrogation methods we used in the war on terror were civilized, too. What is uncivilized and downright decadent is the selfregarding outcry over rational, minimal measures that we used to protect the innocent. You´d think protecting itself and the innocent is one of the core functions of civilization.
I see nothing wrong with scalping the nazis. Hell, I bet a few were scalped.
Kellys Heroes…would make us look like gold thieves..great movie.
I've said this before. It doesn't even have to do with politics. (I do think there are degrees of polarization when it comes to political stuff though.)
Part of the problem is the (I hate this term) celebrity/media industrial complex – by that, I mean your tabloids, your paparazzi, your programs like Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight, ad nauseam… there have always been gossip rags but it's gotten completely out of hand in the last few years and will only get worse before it gets better.
Twitter doesn't help. I think it's safe to say Ashton Kutcher is no longer a movie star when he spends his spare time: a.) on Twitter, or b.) on chat shows… promoting Twitter.
"Nothing Inglorious About Pro-American 'Basterds'".
Wow. Its really pathetic how insecure some are about their American values that they need to seek constant affirmation that every bit of media that comes their way is certified vetted and approved as being "Pro American".
What's not to like? It's Tarentino, he can spell neither "inglorious" nor "bastards", it stars Brad Pitt…need I go on?
It a cartoon on film, get a clue. But on the other hand I think we are too guilt-ridden to be an effective threat to anyone. Example that Libyan they just release. Remember what Ronnie Reagan did when the Italians released the terrorists that killed an American on the Achilles Largo? He sent military aircraft to kidnap them.
My ancestors sewed Arabs in pig carcasses to get them to give up info, something I could do to a few Muslims today. And water-board them with wires attached to their balls. I would much rather be feared. Any pirates been stop US Ships recently?
I can't wait for the sequels—"Inglourious Basterds vs Osama" and "Inglourious Basterds vs. the Democrats in Congress". Scalp away!
But, why piss the Germans off now, have they not done enuf to correct the wrongs from WWII ?
How about these chicken-crap producers making a movie depicting the USMC going after the Islamic Terrorist Savages. Kids now days don't even know what happened in WWII, and they sure as hell ain't getting exposed to it in High School. More than likely they are learning why Lil Mary has two mothers.
This movie will bomb at the Box Office, but I guarantee you it will get an Oscar.
Best quote ever.
Me too. But as far as I know, the only scalping of Axis soldiers by U.S. soldiers or Marines during WWII was done by American Indians. The story goes that a Crow Indian speaking some years after the war in front of some German Western/Indian enthusiasts was asked (jokingly?) whether the Indians still scalped their enemies — and responded by pulling from his pocket a collection of scalps he had taken from German officers, and some not even SS men either! (I think this story is in James Axtell's THE EUROPEAN AND THE INDIAN, which has two good chapters on scalping as an aboriginal custom and the European reaction to, and adoption of, the practice). Supposedly there's a guy on the Crow rez with a scalp from Vietnam in his possession.
One of my profs at the CUNY Grad Center said that his Indian buddy during the Korean War used to take Chinese scalps — like the hero of the novel "Stay Away, Joe" allegedly brings home from Korea to give to his Blackfoot granddad.
The trouble is that the Germans, Japanese, etc. didn't wear their hair long, so that any scalps weren't very impressive. One of the "five stray Arapahoes" at the Custer fight explained that he didn't scalp a soldier he'd killed because his tribe only scalped men if they had long hair. (That and because it was against the Geneva Convention, of course!)
Many years ago, before P.C. obliged its removal from display, I saw the scalp of Yellow Hand/Hair, taken by Buffalo Bill Cody as "The First Scalp for Custer." This was a more impressive trophy — a long, braided scalp-lock, as warriors felt honor-bound to grow.
The great thing about these films is that it takes no courage, whereas video'd violence against the Hollywood glorifiers of violence, now *that* would be some courageous entertainment! Nothing wrong with Hollywood that a thousand first-class funerals wouldn't solve. Stalk'em and whack'em Tarantino style! Then come the media executives for a cool sequel!
Oddly enough, I (and a good many other folk) got the impression that the German who killed the soldier with a knife was the same soldier who was released by Capt. Tom Hanks earlier in the flick, and who later picks off Hanks with a Mauser. But it seems that it was a different actor entirely! (Both men wear the same sort of buzz-cut, which was actually not characteristic of German soldiers at the time.)
In fact, there were quite a few movies with communist bad guys but they are for some reason seen as "infamous" and slightly distastetful now. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course – what could have been more noble that hammering murdering commies?
As for torture, no, we don´t do it just for fun. I don´t agree with you at all. We are civilized and the "harsh" interrogation methods we used in the war on terror were civilized, too. What is uncivilized and downright decadent is the selfregarding outcry over rational, minimal measures that we used to protect the innocent. You´d think protecting itself and the innocent is one of the core functions of civilization.
lets not forget its a reworking/remake of "The Inglorious Bastards" clips of both here http://gearpatrol.com/blog/2009/07/27/the-origina...
"At the end of the movie, Sam Waterston's character — unbelievably, and with straight-faced leftist outrage — BLAMES THE U.S. for the insanity of the Khmer Rouge."
They tried to do that throughout the film. But I don't think it "took". Especially after Malkovich chastises Waterston for his complicity in getting Haing S. Ngor in trouble. Plus, the sequences of commie brutality speak for themselves.
"Found myself laughing where I shouldn't – but the whole theater was laughing"
I don't know the laughter wasn't exactly where it was intended to be, then. Tarantino is addicted to squeezing humor out of situations that aren't funny, most notably the torture scene in "Resevoir Dogs".I'm not sure if it's because he's a ironist hipster absurdist, or because he's childish. Probably both.
I much prefer the Coen brothers in this regard. Though at times it seems they never really mean what they put up on the screen, and could perhaps be nihilists, there is yet some mystery. With Tarantino, I figure he's just not capable of being serious for any extended period of time. Even in the gripping opening sequence, he had to give the Jew Hunter a ridiculous Sherlock Holmes pipe. I have no problem balancing terror and humor, and cutting the tension with a joke. But come on.
"We came kind of close with 'Defiance,' but it had to star that goody two-shoes pretty boy Daniel Craig."
That's not exactly how I'd choose to describe him. His eyes are enchanting, yes, but in the movie world he's "rugged," because he scowls and doesn't have perfect skin. Bear that in mind.
I was thinking of the German sergeant who refused to give them information on where his comrades were. And I am thinking that most likely this guy was not a Nazi – A lot of German soldiers were simply drafted. He's acting in the honorable way – and yet they kill him in a brutal way. .
And I am laughing, because of Brad Pitt's dialogue.
The fellow who works on my German car – his father in the last months of the war was drafted into an SS unit. Just thrown in. And the SS would tatoo your serial number on your wrist. Because this fellow was thrown in so quickly with the demands of war they didn't tatoo his serial number.
And that omission saved his life, because the Russians tended to shoot anyone with such a tatoo. Can't blame the Russians given how the Nazis treated them, but that is just one small story.
I have one, and know very well how to use it. My Rabbi, though, prefers his Colt 45 ACP.
The Commies were the bad guys in last summer's Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull… disappointing movie, but there you go.
bahiabob, two items, 1. were you there? and 2. have you been in a war zone ever? You probably do not know what man is capable of in that kind of environment. We did things that do not compare to the Nazi regime or Tojo's Japan, but we were no altar boys either.
I haven't seen Inglorious Basterds but I have seen countless Tarantino films and I've read the reviews that go into detail about what happened. With the exception of Death Proof, because only two short violent scens, for realism, no gore or violence, all of his movies are ultra-violent meaningless trash. I'm somewhat appalled att he comments in support of the scalping, head bashing (literall), etc because "Yeah man fucking Nazis". Just because they were evil regime, we do not have right to do horrible things to them. Oh yeah, for those of you saying essentially, "Fuck yeah, get 'em Jews", last time I checked 6 million other people, who weren't Jews, were systematically wipedout. Everybody focuses on Da Jews and Da Nazis. A lot of other people died and committed other horrible acts, ya know The Japanese who ya know ATE our soldiers and vivesected our airment.
Last thing I want to say is a reminder of American civility in war that you all should remember, during the Battle of Gettysburg after Pickett's charge, a few surviviros made it to the Union wall. One of these men was the flag bearer for the regiment and the union held their fire out of respect and on Union soldier reached out his hand to the Confederate soldier and said, "Come on over to this side to the Lord". I mean what a pussy right? Didn't even scalp the sombitch. *sigh*
I think you can use funny as an adverb rather than funnily.
"I see nothing wrong with scalping the nazis."
Nor do I. That wasn't my point.
"And I am thinking that most likely this guy was not a Nazi"
He wasn't necessarily hard-core. By that point in the war, Germany didn't discriminate much as regards the draft. I'm thinking that as a matter of policy the Basterds didn't discriminate too subtlely. You wear the uniform, you either die or get a forehead tatoo.
Judging by the defiance in his eyes and his willingness to die, I believe the audience was intended to think of him as a true-blue Nazi. You figure he probably wasn't. Either way, bludgeoning him with a baseball bat was uncomfortable. That's one of my big problems with the movie. Revenge fantasy is fine, but at some point it turns into the "torture porn" we usually find in trashy horror films.
I think Tarantino knows how this comes off: a mix of horror and vicarious thrill. And he intentionally counterbalances the disgust and thrill with humor, just like he did in the infamous ear-slicing scene in "Resevoir Dogs".
"And I am laughing, because of Brad Pitt's dialogue."
Yes, and I think that's entirely intentional. Brad Pitt was a cartoon. None of the Basterds were fully characterized. It was as if he knew we'd all seen "The Dirty Dozen," and we all know what those sort of guys are like, so why don't we have fun with them? Throw 'em in whenever we need a break. Whenever we need some mindless action.
"And I am thinking that most likely this guy was not a Nazi"
What with the exorbitant demand for conscription at that point in history, you may be right, statistically speaking. I don't know. But judging by the defiance in his eyes and his willingness to die, we were intended to believe he was a true-blue Nazi. Doesn't mean we aren't nonetheless sickened by the subsequent bludgeoning.
Tarantino likes to balance the horror of violence and the thrill of cruelty with humor, and it's the main reason he falls short of being a Serious Artists. The most infamous example is the ear-slicing scene in "Resevoir Dogs". The scene you mention, I believe, is yet another example.
that's funny, most Hollywood movies I see seem pretty Pro-American.
I guess you guys just see the glass slightly empty, and start foaming at the mounth.
whereas I see the glass mostly full. (And don't mind a diversity of opinion when it comes to the empty
Very trashy movie.
Not much thought went into this PC comic book with a few moments of violence meant to appeal to basest instincts (Kill Bill was more violent but perhaps its OK for women to be portrayed in a more grisly light than men now.)
Nauseatingly Politically Correct.
This is the kind of garbage they spread around.
Infuriating.
Apparently, none of the film crew gets credited in the end credits of Inglorious Basterd. Actually, nobody gets credited except for the main actors. I just viewed this movie tonight. Was there a reason for this? Did I see a different print than others? Was there a union war and the union lost? I would think the writers guild and other unions would take offense to this.
I've read all of the comments & out of all of them I'm in agreement with you.
You must be logged in to post a comment.