Inglourious Basterds & Tarantino in general

[Stavrogin]

Every one of his movies as a director or writer - every one - simmers in a sour stew of irony and referential cheapness that pretty much sums up everything rotten about these mustachioed fixie jerkoffs who are overrunning the world at the moment.

A friend of mine has a Blues collection that could rival R. Crumbs. It's all he listens to. The tone of your post is not unlike his rant on white-washed rock and roll. It's all derivative, hollow, soulless, smoke and mirrors, etc. Whaddya do? I crank up The Pixies.

 

[mjp]

That's a convenient deflection to use when something has a ring of truth to it. Most rock music is derivative and soulless. But it's easy to dismiss such a blanket truth as generational bias. It's convenient. Doesn't change anything, but I understand why people do it.

There is a vast difference between entertainer and genius, and Tarantino has never crossed that gap. I wouldn't be so presumptuous to say he's incapable of doing it some day. But nothing he's done so far indicates that he has the ability to.

Genius is a term that is thrown around way too casually. Everyone is a genius these days. And everyone gets a trophy and everyone "graduates" from kindergarten. I know, only one person used "genius" - I'm just saying.

 

[Hosh]

As with literature; as with painting; as with any art that is also trafficked as product--the problem is we have no shared vocabulary, no quantifiable sets or measures or yardsticks by which to evaluate them...so OPINION is traded as legitmate criticism. If the critic is writing for the New York Times their opinions are given more weight (by some) then, say, some dude with a blog. Neither is necessarily correct...and, generally speaking, we find the arguments to support the things we already think. But this is how the world is built. If we like something--there's high-brained critique out there somewhere to tell us why; if we don't like it, well, there's also high-brained critique to support that. We find what we go looking for.

If ever we were to somehow establish a clinical, quanitifiable way to prove or disprove something's artistic merit...then maybe the comparative discussions could begin.

For me, personally, my opinion on Tarantino is that I still enjoy his first 3 big films (& will watch them again), but have felt conned walking out of everything after Jackie Brown. This is Taratino the director, I mean.

In re: Taratino as a writer: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and True Romance worked best for me, along with his adaption of Elmore Lemord's book Rum Punch for Jackie Brown...while everything else has been pretty damn disappointing.

As for paying to see his movies: I'm not going to do it--I've been burned for the last time...& I won't pay for another one until he figures it out. That might happen, and it might not.

 

[number6horse]

Stavrogin - I suppose the Jules character in "Pulp Fiction" grappled with a moral dilemma. He faced a decision to fundamentally change his way of life. That spray of bullets made him look at his lifestyle and think twice about it. OK - I get it. But Vincent ? He was grappling with whether or not to fuck his boss' wife. I don't think that compares. At least it doesn't matter here, because he didn't TAKE that action and deal with the fallout of his behavior.

In my opinion, the child's name of BB in "Kill Bill" is just another kind of snide, aint-I-clever name game he plays too much. All that inside stuff..... No thanks.

 

[Purple Stickpin]

It all rings hollow to me, false. Winking, self-referential pomo hipster bullshit.

But again, that's not to say there isn't some great entertainment there. But that's all it is. There is no genius, and nothing that film historians will be able to bite into 50 years from now, other than to comment on how such shallowness could be so influential.

I think that's a major part of his point.

To me, film is one of the "lesser" arts. I've seen any number of films (how's that for being unspecific?); not nearly as many of some of you, but I can't think of one that I would classify as "genius." Or anything close to it. As a medium, it depends too much upon what we already see day to day. Film is nothing more than entertainment even when at its best.

Tarantino's movies are entertaing and that's all he is trying to do as well as copy ....

And he does it well enough to entertain me. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[d gray]

To me, film is one of the "lesser" arts. I've seen any number of films (how's that for being unspecific?); not nearly as many of some of you, but I can't think of one that I would classify as "genius." Or anything close to it. As a medium, it depends too much upon what we already see day to day. Film is nothing more than entertainment even when at its best.

it may well be a "lesser art" - probably because it's $ucce$$ depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning - but there's no way you can say that there aren't movies that could qualify as expressions of genius, as overused as that expression is.

i agree that tarantino is a b grade movie maker and most of his films are unwatchable - i think one of the marks of a great work of art in any medium - movies, writing, painting etc is that each time you re-experience it it gets deeper.
tarantino does the opposite (for me)

i don't know, maybe you can't apply genius to film - too many hands involved - but i've seen films that get deeper every time i re-watch them.
Taxi Driver is a film that gets heavier with every viewing to name one.
Maybe Buster Keaton but it's all subjective anyways so fuck it.

good night...

 

[Purple Stickpin]

it may well be a "lesser art" - probably because it's $ucce$$ depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning - but there's no way you can say that there aren't movies that could qualify as expressions of genius, as overused as that expression is.

I don't mean to denegrate the making of films, but I certainly will state that I've seen no film that even suggests genius to me. I'm often entertained by film, but it's typically little more than that. I suppose genius, to me, has some connotation of supreme greatness to me, and since I can't really drop that moniker on any film (there are some great films to me, but they are, at the end of it all, just greatly entertaining to me), I am forced to arrive at the conclusion that the best films do not quite measure up to the best music, best paintings and best sculptures.

Music too "depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning" and that does remove much of the overall lustre of the art, but there's still this creation from nothing thing going on with at least somemusic that film just cannot claim in my opinion.

Of course, this is all my opinion, which means jack. Maybe it has something to do with my attention span, which is fairly

 

[number6horse]

I was all set to agree that film-making is a lesser art*, then reconsidered. Isn't a film simply a narrative told in a different medium ? The basic elements that make up the arc of a novel - introduction of characters and setting, exposition of background, a conflict arising, climax and resolution etc. - are also present in film. Instead of turning pages filled with words, we follow the action by watching a series of images on a screen. But it's still storytelling. And yes, the term genius is way overused nowadays.




*I'm just going to put on The Big Lifeguard Pants and warn everyone not to swim out to the What Is Art ? undertow currents. Very dangerous...

 

[pig ear press]

There are filmmakers who have created film for purposes other than just pure entertainment, and of course many of them found the lighting difficult up their own arse. However, I would point you to Tarkovsky as an example of a filmmaker, who I believe, stands up as a possible genius in his field.

Film has a power in its directness and I think some people dismiss it due to its popularity. Art, in its many forms, gives the viewer/listener many things such as enlightenment, enjoyment, emotional reaction (positive or negative) etc, and I would find it hard to differentiate the reactions I solicit from one art form over another.

Hollywood has had a negative impact on European cinema (especially in Britain) but I don't dismiss it's entire output on the basis of a large proportion of pap. Every so often it grips the sides and squeezes out a gem. There was a great book called 'Easy Riders and Raging Bulls' which charts the fall of Hollywoods golden years after the success of Jaws. Hang on a second I'm rambling incoherently now...

Now go away and watch 'The Sacrifice' by Andrei Tarkovsky and tell me that isn't genius at work.

p.s I don't think Tarantino is a genius, but I have enjoyed some of his films, including inglorious basterds.

 

[Gerard K H Love]

.......................
*I'm just going to put on The Big Lifeguard Pants and warn everyone not to swim out to the What Is Art ? undertow currents. Very dangerous...

LOL:D

Thank you. Q Tarantino is a very smart person. He does like to shock and say the unspeakable. Sometimes somethings are better left unsaid.

 

[Mark73]

I really like Tarantino for his entertainment, but there's nothing more than pure shocking entertainment to his movies. That's fine because sometimes I just want to be entertained by a very easy to follow story line and amazing pictures of violence, blood and gore. It's fun to switch off the brain and enjoy.
Even therapeutical because it works like a vacuum cleaner for the mind.

But I doubt he will be important for the future, his films are kind of short lived because he's at the nerve of our time and will be obsolete someday soon.

 

[mjp]

It all rings hollow to me, false. Winking, self-referential pomo hipster bullshit.

But again, that's not to say there isn't some great entertainment there. But that's all it is. There is no genius, and nothing that film historians will be able to bite into 50 years from now, other than to comment on how such shallowness could be so influential.

I think that's a major part of his point.

You think he was/is making a grand comment on shallowness by perfecting it? Ha. I'm quite sure he is not thoughtful enough to do that. One day he will no doubt realize that is exactly what he's done with his career and claim to have had it mind all along, but that's clearly not the case. He believes he's making important art, and he believes he is a genius. Whether we agree or not.

He is no Duchamp hanging a urinal on the wall. He's just the guy who sees the Duchamp show and later hangs a newer model urinal up in a gallery down the street, in the mistaken belief that the urinal is the art.

Film is the newest art, but hardly lesser-than. It's been around for less than 100 years and the other"arts" have been around for thousands. You can't really compare them yet. But to dismiss it? Methinks you just watch too many shitty movies. ;)

 

[Gerard K H Love]

I think I should add this about Q Tarantino. I sold a truck to a man who was a grip for the movies Kill Bill and he liked Tarantino. That would be compared to the many other directors this grip ever worked for. He liked the way Tarantino worked and interacted with everyone including the crew. Yes that doesn't validate too much but it shows that he probably doesn't go around like he some type of god.
I also think Tarantino uses the N word too much.

 

[d gray]

Music too "depends so much on the general public who aint that discerning" and that does remove much of the overall lustre of the art,

i just meant that because of the huge sums of money spent on making
most films - as opposed to making an album or writing a book etc. - the
bottom line is the first priority which is where depending on the general
public - ie HUGE numbers going to see it - comes in.

and the shite that the general public will line up to pay and sit through
and think is great is truly mindblowing to me.

just one more thing to make you lose faith in humanity.

 

[Stavrogin]

In my opinion, the child's name of BB in "Kill Bill" is just another kind of snide, aint-I-clever name game he plays too much. All that inside stuff..... No thanks.

We're just approaching it differently. You see clever cheap trickery, I see a wicked sense of humor. The devil is in the details. mjp stated that Tarantino simply added an extra layer of graphic violence to an old movie genre and that's true from an Americans viewpoint - Asian crime films had added that layer years prior to Reservoir Dogs. Americans don't typically like foreign films (subtitles? FUCK!!) unless it's a poorly dubbed kung-fu flick or Godzilla. We don't watch them even if the filmmaker is regarded as genius - Godard, Fellini, Bergman... Tarantino takes his love of foreign genre films and throws it back at us. Sure he homogenizes but to borrow from Buk, he knows how to lay down a scene - in his own unique way.

 

[mjp]

Tarantino takes his love of foreign genre films and throws it back at us.

[SARCASM]Oh, well why didn't you say so! That is clearly creative genius at work.[/SARCASM]

 

[Purple Stickpin]

I was all set to agree that film-making is a lesser art*, then reconsidered. Isn't a film simply a narrative told in a different medium ? The basic elements that make up the arc of a novel - introduction of characters and setting, exposition of background, a conflict arising, climax and resolution etc. - are also present in film. Instead of turning pages filled with words, we follow the action by watching a series of images on a screen. But it's still storytelling. And yes, the term genius is way overused nowadays.

My opinion is that it is much more challenging to create an image from words than from the operation of a camera. Considering the better aspects of both media, by and large, the written word conjures images, and film spoon-feeds them to you.

Film is the newest art, but hardly lesser-than. It's been around for less than 100 years and the other"arts" have been around for thousands. You can't really compare them yet. But to dismiss it? Methinks you just watch too many shitty movies. ;)

I thought that reciting Bukowski poetry to an electronic drum machine and a digital accordian was the newest art.

But I would agree that I watch too many shitty movies. But there I go being redundant again.

 

[justine]

I enjoyed it the way I always enjoy Tarantino. He's a really good story-teller who can move a plot along with some suspense and surprises along the way. Nothing profound, no insights or revelations about the human condition. That's fine. Pass the popcorn...

I thought Pitt's performance was totally unconvincing. Not once was I unaware that he was acting. But, hey - it's a Tarantino amusement ride. I can play along.

Christoph Waltz really nailed the vanity and ego of his character. I thought the performance was good enough for a Best Supporting Actor nomination.

i was about to post what i thought of this movie, but i realised dave had already said it better ;)

probably my favourite QT thing is the 'making of' From Dusk Till Dawn.

 

[nervas]

I hate to bring up an old topic, but after watching Inglorius Basterds for the first time(yesterday)I feel moved. I recently re-watched all QT(don't feel like looking up proper spelling) writer/director films, and by recent, I mean the last month or so. Anyway, at the end of Resorvoir Dogs, I thought, what the F was all the fuss about? And that was maybe the 3rd time I watched it? I watched both Kill Bill films and wondered, why the hell did I just waste another 5 hours(I did see both vol 1 and 2 in the theaters.) Then I watched Jackie Brown, and thought, well I've only seen this maybe 3x, years ago, it wont be so bad. Shit, it was excellent!!! At the end I thought, ok, yes everyone's right ole QT can really make a film! Even though it was only 1 good one out of the last 4 I watched, it was fricken awesome! Then I watched Death Proof for only the second time, and thought well Rosario Dawson's lil dance scene in the bar was worth the movie. So I gave ole QT another pass. At last I pulled out the master piece Pulp Fiction. I mean, how many times did I watch this in 1994 and declare to my friends, QT is a genius? At the end, I swear I said to myself, what the fuck? After Bruce Willis comes on the screen, the rest of the movie is shit! Then yesterday I watched Inglorious Basterds, and I was amazed! I thought, there was an inventive, kinda original idea. I also thought QT took a chance on casting someone like Brad Pitt. Then this morning I re-watched it, and at the end agreed with Brad Pitt. I think this is QT's masterpiece.

Anyway maybe in 10 years I'll think this is just as shitty as all QT movies, but for now, Jackie Brown, Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds(QT's masterpiece) are A-OK with me!

 

[Purple Stickpin]

Tarantino is far from a genius, but he makes a very entertaining film now and again. Inglorious Basterds was certainly one of them, but it wasn't great. Personally, I thought Bruce Willis was very well cast in Pulp Fiction. But the gem moment from that film was when Jules and Vincent are in Jimmy's bathroom washing up and Vincent has a bit of trouble washing up real proper.

"I used the same fuckin' soap you did and when I got finished, the towel didn't look like no goddamn Maxi-Pad." That's among the best lines in cinema history.

The bacon/swine dialogue is good as well.

But QT ain't no mother-fucking genius. There ain't but 10 of them and most of them are dead.

 

[nervas]

Well said Stickpin, well said.

 

[Ambreen]

I Then I watched Death Proof for only the second time, and thought well Rosario Dawson's lil dance scene in the bar was worth the movie.

It's not Rosario Dawson but Vanessa Ferlito (). This latter dies whereas Rosario Dawson belongs to the second group of girls, those who kick Kurt Russell's ass.

 

[nervas]

Wow, thanks for the correction, guess I aint much of a Rosario Dawson fan to have misunderstood that. Still, a pretty sexy lap dance all the same.

 

[Ambreen]

A lap dance with flip flops...

Machete - Status: Filming :D

The film has been made: [This video is unavailable.]
The guy with the grey beard reminds me of Dennis Hopper, probably because that was the kind of roles he had at the end of his career.

 

[nervas]

I cannot tell you how happy I was when I found out this movie was coming out, I'm sure it will have it's own thread once released, but man, Machete looks insane!

 

[Scout]

I don't think Tarantino has done anything of note since Jackie Brown, and that was just an OK film. The Kill Bill's were an expensive overwrought Kung Fu flick. He's basically lived on his laurels since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, which are two excellent films. But since then he's just become a B movie maker with an A class Hollywood budget.

 

[nervas]

I totally disagree, Inglorious Basterds was an amazing flick. Sure you can throw some of QT's movies out the window, but basterds was amazing, of course, just my opinion. And Jackie Brown, just an ok flick? WHAT? I think Jackie was by far better than Dogs, and I think it's held up over time way more than Pulp Fiction, but hey, I'm just saying...

 

[Gerard K H Love]

WOW! scooter, Reservoir Dogs was too bloody for my taste but Jackie Brown was much better than just Okay. Kill Bill was great because it was a top notch violent fight fantasy movie that was visually superior to most stuff you see these days. Who else can create the sound and visual beauty of the final fight scene in the snow with that neat little bamboo fountain tapping and clicking in the background? You must be looking for something else all together in your movies to not appreciate Quinton Tarantino.

 

[mjp]

Inglorious Basterds was an amazing flick.

It's been sitting in our TiVo for some time, unwatched, because it's more than two and a half hours long.

Tarantino is in love with himself and editing his movies must be the most painful thing he ever does. I'm sure he believes every frame is genius and none should be cut. His shit is always way too long.

 

[Gerard K H Love]

Get loaded and it will seem like the right length and it might make more sense.