[cauthon]

Saw it, and loved it. Time flew by and the movie unrolled. Landa was absolutely amazing, even though from the onset you had to hate the bastard.

[cerveza_fiesta]

Finally got around to watching it last night.

best ending ever to a movie.

Totally insensitive to WWII victims and perpetrators alike...but to the point where it was satirical.

Not sure satire of WWII is entirely appropriate, even 60+ years later, but a goddamn entertaining movie nonetheless.

For the record, opinion of a Canadian born canadian with no relatives who participated in WWII at the combat level...so no first-hand accounts or ingrained sensitivity to WWII issues. I can easily disconnect the movie from the real thing and be entertained from the film on its own merit. At the same time, I can't really relate to WWII or any of the awful stuff that went on so there's no nagging voice saying "you shouldn't be entertained by this".

9/10 entertainment value.

[HoosierDaddy]

There were/are quite a few sentiments in this thread on how this movie is "insensitive" to Jews (or so I assume, because of the Holocaust references. I'm assuming you don't mean the Germans). I found it quite fitting that all the main "protagonists" were Jewish themselves, and thus they were directly taking the fight back to Hitler. Perhaps my critical eye isn't keen enough to find the insensitivity, could someone point out why they found it to be insensitive?

[Malaclypse]

Probably his best movie in terms of structure but my favourite will always be Reservoir Dogs

[cerveza_fiesta]

H.D., on 21 January 2010 - 06:16 PM, said:

There were/are quite a few sentiments in this thread on how this movie is "insensitive" to Jews (or so I assume, because of the Holocaust references. I'm assuming you don't mean the Germans). I found it quite fitting that all the main "protagonists" were Jewish themselves, and thus they were directly taking the fight back to Hitler. Perhaps my critical eye isn't keen enough to find the insensitivity, could someone point out why they found it to be insensitive?

I'm not sure the offense is because of pointed insult to jewish folks, nazis, or anyone in particular (other than hitler of course)...its more that the entire film satirises and glorifies aspects of WWII.

Its not direct insensitivity in the form of "jew jokes" or what have you. The style of the film was geared toward outlandish over-the-topedness, comedy and entertainment rather than the reverence and respect to realism seen in most WWII-themed movies.

Anybody directly affected by wartime events - especially german members who posted earlier in this thread - would naturally be offended by a film that makes light of any aspect of WWII

That's my understanding anyway, if that makes sense.

[Malaclypse]

How can you take offense from a jewish perspective when one of the main protagonists takes exquisite pride in ensuring that every nazi he comes into contact with has a a permanent swastika on their forehead?

Fucking marginals, never happy

[HoosierDaddy]

Nevermind, there were only two people who got "insensitive" about it in the entire thread, and it had to do with making "light" of German soldiers being killed. Well, American and British soldiers were killed in just as ridiculous ways in this movie.

On that note, I must expect that the UK hates Mel Gibson (for reasons other than anti-semitism and schmuckness).

[Malaclypse]

People getting offended by the 'making light' of German soldiers getting killed is another matter entirely. I misunderstood.

They have a perfect right to be offended by such. Imagine being German and being forced by the rest of the civilized world to live under the stigma of Hitler and Nazi-ism... forever. A film like this for a person like that suggests that you're never going to live it down, like passing out and being shaved in some appallingly embarrassing way, then written on with words and slogans that you would never in your waking world use, then photographed and having the resulting photographs then posted on the internet, except worse and it will never end, or so it seems. 'Will you just fuck off with this, its decades old already and while less than 10000 Brits died in the much talked about Blitzkrieg, more than 750 000 Germans died in the backlash so haven't we paid enough?' is what they quite reasonably think but you see, numbers aren't the issue...

The facility with which a select group were able to co-opt the productive (and violent)capacity of an entire nation and bend them to such tasks as genocide and world domination with nary a dissenting voice by way of a few compelling speeches remains astonishing. But this does not speak to the nature of German people. It speaks to the nature of humanity.

[Mezla PigDog]

I found the movie inappropriate on many levels. That's not to say I spent the enitre movie in a state of moral outrage, I rather enjoyed the spectacle. I can live with important political figures of the era being satirised/vilified/humiliated/whatever, that's not a problem. The discomfort arose from it being a revenge flick about the Holocaust. Where does one begin to take revenge for something as monumental as that and how does Tarantino think that he is remotely in a position to do so for entertainment purposes? Additionally, in terms of commentary on the modern world and the current political climate there is a strong case for the movie condoning the movement of muscular judaism and how it has stemmed from the Holocaust and the intimation that the Jewish people were too weak to prevent it from happening to them. Muscular judaism encompasses the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the post 9/11 politics of the Bush adminstration coming from the viewpoint that rich Jewish men are the powerbrokers in the US (and Hollywood!). All in all, pretty interesting stuff and not to be taken quite so lightly as that film did!!

Again, that's not to say that I am personally offended. I think a person can be intellectually offended while enjoying something at a basic level. If people didn't make films due to such intellectual offense, the movies would be pretty bloody boring (I for one loved Apocalypto at the same time as finding it completely outrageous). But the Holocaust? I don't think the subject matter is untouchable but it should be more subtle than that movie was!

[Malaclypse]

Mezla PigDog, on 21 January 2010 - 09:03 PM, said:

I found the movie inappropriate on many levels. That's not to say I spent the enitre movie in a state of moral outrage, I rather enjoyed the spectacle. I can live with important political figures of the era being satirised/vilified/humiliated/whatever, that's not a problem. The discomfort arose from it being a revenge flick about the Holocaust. Where does one begin to take revenge for something as monumental as that and how does Tarantino think that he is remotely in a position to do so for entertainment purposes? Additionally, in terms of commentary on the modern world and the current political climate there is a strong case for the movie condoning the movement of muscular judaism and how it has stemmed from the Holocaust and the intimation that the Jewish people were too weak to prevent it from happening to them. Muscular judaism encompasses the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the post 9/11 politics of the Bush adminstration coming from the viewpoint that rich Jewish men are the powerbrokers in the US (and Hollywood!). All in all, pretty interesting stuff and not to be taken quite so lightly as that film did!!

Again, that's not to say that I am personally offended. I think a person can be intellectually offended while enjoying something at a basic level. If people didn't make films due to such intellectual offense, the movies would be pretty bloody boring (I for one loved Apocalypto at the same time as finding it completely outrageous). But the Holocaust? I don't think the subject matter is untouchable but it should be more subtle than that movie was!

So..you're offended but not really...you're intellectually offended?

edit: regarding Apocalypto, what was so outrageous?

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 21 January 2010 - 09:09 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Both, very good points.

I guess I just watch movies to get a couple of hours of simple entertainment, as an escape, and don't think about it as much as others.

Perhaps the ridiculousness of this film threw off my analytical eye more than normal.

[Malaclypse]

H.D., on 21 January 2010 - 09:09 PM, said:

Both, very good points.

I guess I just watch movies to get a couple of hours of simple entertainment, as an escape, and don't think about it as much as others.

Perhaps the ridiculousness of this film threw off my analytical eye more than normal.

copout. We're talking srs bzns here. If you have nothing to offer besides your insipid platitudes, fuck the hell off - and I mean that in the nicest possible way

[Cougar]

In general terms, a satire of WW2 is as appropriate as anything else, why the hell wouldn't it be, it's part of the history of man's folly it stands alongside all our other monumental fuck ups and is there to be poked fun at.

The question of collective guilt for the holocaust is an interesting one and is incredibly complex of course so I don't think there is any way to do it justice here.

@Mal, what are those figures about? Do you mean the Blitz (as in bombing) rather than Blitzkrieg (Battlefield tactics of the 3rd Reich) if so the figure for dead British is a little over 60,000 and that's accurate, the German figure is less certain but for allied bombing I'd go for a nice round 500,000, with a margin of error of 100k either way as a maximum.

I'm not sure I agree with Mezla about the content of the film. All you are doing is giving the holocaust a level of moral capital and placing it above anything else as 'off limits', which is illogical. I don't feel you can stick something on a pedastal like that. Where do you draw the line, what judgement do you use to delineate what is beyond the pale or otherwise.

It is a revenge fantasy, with the emphasis on the fantasy. The fantasy element is established by the many elements which situate it in a world of pure fantasy as opposed to pseudo-history (unlike for instance my usual targets Braveheart and the Patriot) it is presented as fantasy, as the absurd.

Moreover I'm not really sure what is gained by asking the question "how does one seek revenge for..." the film in itself is not an act of revenge, it is about fantasies of revenge which do not need to be realistic or proportionate. Moreover, the murder of the figureheads of Nazism, Hitler and Goebels, is not an attempt to gain proportionate vengance, but merely symbolism. The Jews have never and will never be avanged, justice has been done in so far as our current version of civilisation allows through the Nuremberg trials and the activities of the Israeli secret service in hunting down those who escaped. To use my Braveheart example again, I find it far more intellectually offensive to be presented with lies presented as history which bismirch both the Scots and the English than to be shown something as evidently ludicrous as Inglorious Basterds.

Ignoring the point about revenge purposes, why should Tarantino particularly feel he is not in a position to make it. I don't want to assume something because I know Mezla is a very enlightened and sensible thinker, but the only conclusion I can take is that he isn't allowed because he isn't Jewish?? Regardless of this, where do you draw the line, does Schindlers list have to be 100% accurate to not be offensive on some level. Is Mel Brooks, 30 years earlier, a Jewish comedian making Nazi/holocaust gags, more or less out of line. I just don't get the logic??

The muscular Judaism thing, there appears to be some merit to the idea, it seems reasonable, although I'd be interested to know where you read that so I can have a scan, but I'm not sure what the actual objection is per se. Are you arguing Tarantino should be more responsible or are you arguing that he lends tacit support to Israeli crimes against Palestinians? The stuff about the Jewish agenda regarding the aftermth of 9/11 should be treated with the contempt it deserves, I'd compare that rationale to another period in history, but I don't want to Godwin the thread.

Finally, why can't it be treated lightly, to be deliberately naive about it, would you take intellectual offense at Carry on Don't Lose Your Head for trivialising and treating absurdly one of the darkest and most repressively violent periods in European history, of course not, yet given the logic above the question would be why.

[dktorode]

+1 Cougar
I totally agree.

This is not Lady Chatterleys lover and we do not live in the 50's... but this thread is starting to go in that direction i see.

Its a "fantastical" movie ffs....your getting offended over something that is clearly satire.
Might aswell start gaffawing over some of the stuff Pratchet writes then.

Besides...Yes its a touchy subject, but if we stop visiting these subjects all together simply because people are going to get offended then humanity is bound to repeat its mistakes.

So...Take it with a pinch of salt will ya...

[Malaclypse]

@Cougar re: numbers...I just remember from the Duxford War Museum an exhibit about 'the Blitz', which I took to be the bombing of London specifically or perhaps 'area bombing' in general. I'm reasonably certain about the German number being around 750 000 because I was quite surprised at the time. Your number for Brit casualties is no doubt correct, I remember it being on the order of ten times more casualties for the Germans

[Battalion]

Great movie! No problems watching this at all.

Brilliant dialogue, and the first two scenes in the film, and the shootout in the bar, were the best scenes I have watched in years.

[cerveza_fiesta]

closing scene is still the best closing scene I've seen in years.

But agree re basement scene. It was sweet.

[Cougar]

I just posted a really long patient explaination of the bombing casualties and it fucked up and lost it the piece of shit. 60k is all the British casulaties of the German air war including V weapons and the Baby Blitz, the Baedeker Blitz which deliberately targeted cities of no military value cos they were beautiful. What people call the Blitz can change, some use it just for London, some for a certain time period etc.

750k is way out and is likely to be based on the now discredited figures of 250k dead in Dresden which has been revised down to 25-50k now. 600k is the max but it's probably more like 500k-550k.

@DKT, I don't think people are being too moralistic, it's the 'intellectual objections' I have an issue with as I can't make sense of them, I don't see anyone overeacting.

[Mezla PigDog]

Malaclypse, on 21 January 2010 - 09:08 PM, said:

So..you're offended but not really...you're intellectually offended?

edit: regarding Apocalypto, what was so outrageous?

You need to work on your subtle levels of outrage, Mal. It's very rewarding being able to direct different degrees of self-righteous indignation at different quarters of society. Makes life worth living

Apocolypto is outrageous in a similar way that Avatar is and anything else made about "savages" by rich white Westerners. In other words: It's fucking ace!

[Gladius]

I saw it. It made me laugh a couple of times. No Where near Tarantino's best . If there is one thing from the film that will stay with me it is this phrase. "Say goodbye to your Nazi balls!"