INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Post-Release

[mcnooj82]

I'll buy that for a dollar! I should state that it wasn't something that made anything crumble for me. It was just something I took note of and then ignored or rationalized for the time being.

[AdrianDyka]

Originally Posted by A-Pathetic

When Stiglitz first enters the tavern he seems to do his best to hide his face when he realizes there are Nazi soldiers there. He then chooses to take a seat where his back is facing that group. He's trying to be as inconspicous as possible and only steps outside of that when he is trying to force the drunken patron from their table. Then he relies on his air of authority being enough to keep the drunks from thinking too much about it.

As for the Major, he obviously had suspicions about the group prior to the gesture mistake. Whether he could have recognized Stiglitz from old newspaper photos while sitting that close to him is debateable. My best guess is that Hitler's desire to stifle any information about the Basterds worked against him here. The Nazis all know about Stiglitz (we know this from the baseball bat scene) but there is nothing stating that they know the Basterds have freed him and that he is now a part of their group. This is the kind of "egg on your face" thing that Hitler wouldn't have allowed to come out officially. So there are probably rumors, but it's not like any new photos of him would be published. As far as we know, the German high command probably announced that Stiglitz had been executed so it's not like people would have been keeping an eye out for him.

That's a bingo!

Sorry. It's a parallel to the Shosanna/Landa scene as well, with it's do they/ don't they know aspect. Of course, one scene ends in action, the other with a lack of it, which serves to keep the audience in (that word again!) suspense.

[Keith F]

So was I the only one tremendously moved at the end of the Landa/Shoshanna scene when she broke down?

You all are making it seem like the scene had no immediate payoff, when in fact it completely humanized Shoshanna. That is, if you needed more reason to like her after seeing her escape from the clutches of Landa at the beginning, or after witnessing her awesome cold shouldering of the Nazi hero, while changing the marquee on her hardcore French cinema.

I don't know, I'm hepped up on cold medicine, but it seems like there is a running gag in this thread about not giving two shits about Shoshanna, as if she's underwritten or under performed. Bosh, blimshaugh.

[pagoda]

Stiglitz's picture isn't in the paper, just the officers.

I've been thinking about this movie today (still have only seen it once) and it just gets better and better the more I think about it. Especially when I started thinking about how in nearly every scene there are multiple audiences - us, first of all, and then whomever the characters are performing for in the scene - the Basterds for the Nazis in the tavern, Landa for LaPadite in the first scene, and then both he and LaPadite perform for Shoshanna's family when they switch back to French.

It made me look at the Hugo Stiglitz introduction scene in a whole new light. The flashback that plays for us is what would have been going through the Nazi prisoners' heads when they heard that Stiglitz was there, including, "HUGO STIGLITZ!"

I also listened to a Slate Culture Gabfest podcast about this movie, in which four critics pretty much eviscerated Tarantino for what they claimed was an immature view of WWII and a whitewashing of the Holocaust. I cannot understand this criticism. Do the critics not recognize the difference between a WWII movie and a Holocaust movie? Do they have this same problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade?

[Parker]

Originally Posted by Keith F

I don't know, I'm hepped up on cold medicine, but it seems like there is a running gag in this thread about not giving two shits about Shoshanna, as if she's underwritten or under performed. Bosh, blimshaugh.

I felt this way the first time and I feel it even more after seeing the movie again. She's perfect and whoever doesn't think so doesn't know what they're talking about.

Ty Burr wrote in the Boston Globe that this is the first Tarantino movie missing a strong female role. He calls himself a critic? What an asshole.

[pagoda]

Originally Posted by Keith F

So was I the only one tremendously moved at the end of the Landa/Shoshanna scene when she broke down?

...

I don't know, I'm hepped up on cold medicine, but it seems like there is a running gag in this thread about not giving two shits about Shoshanna, as if she's underwritten or under performed. Bosh, blimshaugh.

I thought that was a great payoff to the entire scene, though the question of, "Who knew what?" is easier/more interesting to discuss.

Shoshanna is probably the strongest character in the movie, and has an amazing, touching, final shot. The revenge in the movie is much more about her personal revenge against the Nazis', not the revenge of the Basterds. Underwritten or under performed? Not at all. Her character is understated a bit perhaps, compared to some of the other more cartoonish stereotypes.

[Jesse Custer]

Originally Posted by pagoda

I also listened to a Slate Culture Gabfest podcast about this movie, in which four critics pretty much eviscerated Tarantino for what they claimed was an immature view of WWII and a whitewashing of the Holocaust. I cannot understand this criticism. Do the critics not recognize the difference between a WWII movie and a Holocaust movie? Do they have this same problem with Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade?

Slate: where journalism goes to die an 'inglourious' death.

I'd put more stock in the opinions of randomly-selected street people.

[Trav McGee]

Originally Posted by Parker

Ty Burr wrote in the Boston Globe that this is the first Tarantino movie missing a strong female role. He calls himself a critic? What an asshole.

I must have missed Ms. Purple in Reservoir Dogs. This Burr guy sounds like a consummate professional.

[AdrianDyka]

Originally Posted by Keith F

So was I the only one tremendously moved at the end of the Landa/Shoshanna scene when she broke down?

You all are making it seem like the scene had no immediate payoff, when in fact it completely humanized Shoshanna. That is, if you needed more reason to like her after seeing her escape from the clutches of Landa at the beginning, or after witnessing her awesome cold shouldering of the Nazi hero, while changing the marquee on her hardcore French cinema.

I don't know, I'm hepped up on cold medicine, but it seems like there is a running gag in this thread about not giving two shits about Shoshanna, as if she's underwritten or under performed. Bosh, blimshaugh.

No, you weren't the only one Keith. I guess what I should have put earlier when contrasting Shosanna/ Landa with the basement is that the scenes parallel each other, end in totally contrasting ways, yet both pack a massive punch. I actually think Laurent gives the standout performance.

[Bobby Bear]

Originally Posted by AdrianDyka

No, you weren't the only one Keith. I guess what I should have put earlier when contrasting Shosanna/ Landa with the basement is that the scenes parallel each other, end in totally contrasting ways, yet both pack a massive punch. I actually think Laurent gives the standout performance.

Me, too. Not to take anything away from Waltz, but the more understated Shosanna is utterly captivating. I just saw this a second time tonight and it delivered big-time, just like before.

[Diva]

Originally Posted by pagoda

Stiglitz's picture isn't in the paper, just the officers.

I've been thinking about this movie today (still have only seen it once) and it just gets better and better the more I think about it. Especially when I started thinking about how in nearly every scene there are multiple audiences - us, first of all, and then whomever the characters are performing for in the scene - the Basterds for the Nazis in the tavern, Landa for LaPadite in the first scene, and then both he and LaPadite perform for Shoshanna's family when they switch back to French.

It made me look at the Hugo Stiglitz introduction scene in a whole new light. The flashback that plays for us is what would have been going through the Nazi prisoners' heads when they heard that Stiglitz was there, including, "HUGO STIGLITZ!"

Interesting. Thanks for that.

[Dr Syn]

This film... an utter blast. And it was a packed house on a Tuesday Night and everyone clapped and started talking about it feverishly as they left.

Say "auf Widersehen" to your Nazi balls!

[The Rain Dog]

Originally Posted by Keith F

So was I the only one tremendously moved at the end of the Landa/Shoshanna scene when she broke down?

You all are making it seem like the scene had no immediate payoff, when in fact it completely humanized Shoshanna. That is, if you needed more reason to like her after seeing her escape from the clutches of Landa at the beginning, or after witnessing her awesome cold shouldering of the Nazi hero, while changing the marquee on her hardcore French cinema.

I don't know, I'm hepped up on cold medicine, but it seems like there is a running gag in this thread about not giving two shits about Shoshanna, as if she's underwritten or under performed. Bosh, blimshaugh.

Im with you on this. In fact, on the second watch, watching Laurents performance this time (rather than being completely captivated by Waltz as I was on the first watch), I was utterly moved throughout the exchange. There's so much going on under the surface that she's obviously trying so desperately to keep a lid on in front of Landa (if film acting is all facial reaction this is one of the greatest performed scenes in the film imo), that you're just feeling ready to explode on her behalf througout. When at last she breaks down on Landas departure I felt a little sob of my own catch in my throat.

Just one utterly brilliant scene from two of the films best actors from start to finish - and truly one of the most emotionally engaging moments in Tarantinos entire filmography.

[Kriegaffe]

Liked it an awful lot, loved a number of sections, but didn't go head over heels for it like I did with Kill Bill.

Who knew Hitler was going to die before they saw the film?

I tried to avoid reviews, but I couldn't help hearing that the film "diverted from history" which pretty much gave it away. Also mentioned was the "explosive finale". Unfortunately, this information dampened the ending for me. When the giant face had it's revenge, it was a bit ho hum for me.

I think I might need to reflect on the film more before I decide how much I like it.

[Dan Benenson]

Even knowing what's going to happen I don't see how that scene could be considered ho hum. It actually hit me even harder the second time I saw it.

[mcnooj82]

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog

I was utterly moved throughout the exchange. There's so much going on under the surface that she's obviously trying so desperately to keep a lid on in front of Landa (if film acting is all facial reaction this is one of the greatest performed scenes in the film imo), that you're just feeling ready to explode on her behalf througout. When at last she breaks down on Landas departure I felt a little sob of my own catch in my throat.

I said this quite a while ago in this thread, but I was glad that Tarantino ditched the end of that scene as it was in his script; that we would see that Shoshanna had pissed herself. Just seeing her breathe in her sob the moment she knew she was alone was SO much more simple and effective.

[Kriegaffe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangefist

Even knowing what's going to happen I don't see how that scene could be considered ho hum. It actually hit me even harder the second time I saw it.

For clarity's sake, I thought the scene where Shoshanna got shot was very effective. I actually physically gasped. It was the Nazi massacre at the end that for me felt a bit meh. Perhaps because it mostly involved minor characters (Gobbles, Roth, Hitler, the projectionist). The image in the smoke was cool, and I liked the Basterds rushing the guards, but that was about it.

It felt like a preconceived notion of the war was needed for the scenes of the Nazi high command getting incinerated to really register. I react more to characters established in the film (Shoshanna or even the father at the start) than characters like Hitler which requires an understanding of who he is and why he's a bad person. Logically I know it's a cheering moment, but emotionally it doesn't work for me.

On the other hand, I only saw it a few hours ago and it feels like a film that I need to reflect on a bit.

[cognizant]

Lately people have been asking me why the film's title is misspelled. I've decided that the meaning behind the strange title ties into the fact that Tarantino didnt do a straight remake of Inglorious Bastards, and so his strange spelling is like a grafitti, or to be more current, a bastardised* mashup of the original. It enables his film to be distinct from the original aesthetically on the surface as well as in content. Simple as that.


*yes, a pun.

[Khaunshar]

Originally Posted by Kriegaffe

For clarity's sake, I thought the scene where Shoshanna got shot was very effective. I actually physically gasped. It was the Nazi massacre at the end that for me felt a bit meh. Perhaps because it mostly involved minor characters (Gobbles, Roth, Hitler, the projectionist). The image in the smoke was cool, and I liked the Basterds rushing the guards, but that was about it.

It felt like a preconceived notion of the war was needed for the scenes of the Nazi high command getting incinerated to really register. I react more to characters established in the film (Shoshanna or even the father at the start) than characters like Hitler which requires an understanding of who he is and why he's a bad person. Logically I know it's a cheering moment, but emotionally it doesn't work for me.

On the other hand, I only saw it a few hours ago and it feels like a film that I need to reflect on a bit.

I dont actually think the massacre and Hitler kill are meant to be a cheering moment by Tarantino. As others earlier in this thread mentioned, its meant as a mirror to the enthusiasm the nazi audience shows when watching, basically, a whole movie of slaughtering their enemies. When the tables are turned, we as the viewer are meant to feel a bit uneasy and not quite as cheerful, or hopefully at least realize that we are now cheering for exactly that for which we despised the Nazi audience minutes ago.

Though I ll admit as much as say killing Hitler sat very well with me Something we havent seen on screen so far (or at least I havent)

[Diva]

Originally Posted by mcnooj82

I said this quite a while ago in this thread, but I was glad that Tarantino ditched the end of that scene as it was in his script; that we would see that Shoshanna had pissed herself. Just seeing her breathe in her sob the moment she knew she was alone was SO much more simple and effective.

I keep coming back to the strudel scene not because of the ambiguity of it, but because it is so effective at creating tension. Most of my friends felt that way about the basement scene, but for me its this. Shosanna's release is permission for us to relax as well.

Originally Posted by cognizant

Lately people have been asking me why the film's title is misspelled. I've decided that the meaning behind the strange title ties into the fact that Tarantino didnt do a straight remake of Inglorious Bastards, and so his strange spelling is like a grafitti, or to be more current, a bastardised* mashup of the original. It enables his film to be distinct from the original aesthetically on the surface as well as in content. Simple as that.


*yes, a pun.

That's how I took it as well.

Originally Posted by Khaunshar

I dont actually think the massacre and Hitler kill are meant to be a cheering moment by Tarantino. As others earlier in this thread mentioned, its meant as a mirror to the enthusiasm the nazi audience shows when watching, basically, a whole movie of slaughtering their enemies. When the tables are turned, we as the viewer are meant to feel a bit uneasy and not quite as cheerful, or hopefully at least realize that we are now cheering for exactly that for which we despised the Nazi audience minutes ago.

Yup. What he said. Though I'd agree with Kriegaffe that the climax of the movie is the least interesting part of the film for me (though the least interesting in a Tarantino film is still league's better than standard fare).

[hyena]

Originally Posted by pagoda

I've been thinking about this movie today (still have only seen it once) and it just gets better and better the more I think about it. Especially when I started thinking about how in nearly every scene there are multiple audiences - us, first of all, and then whomever the characters are performing for in the scene - the Basterds for the Nazis in the tavern, Landa for LaPadite in the first scene, and then both he and LaPadite perform for Shoshanna's family when they switch back to French.

It made me look at the Hugo Stiglitz introduction scene in a whole new light. The flashback that plays for us is what would have been going through the Nazi prisoners' heads when they heard that Stiglitz was there, including, "HUGO STIGLITZ!"

That's a really interesting angle. The film's been out a while now and people are finding more and more layers to it. I really want to catch it one more time before it leaves the theaters.

[Nicholas]

Originally Posted by Khaunshar

I dont actually think the massacre and Hitler kill are meant to be a cheering moment by Tarantino.

I'm not so sure. Tarantino has said in interviews that he agrees with Eli Roth's "kosher porn" view of the ending and really meant for you to cheer. But then again the film, with the shots of Hitler and the crowed cheering at "Nation's Pride", does seem to want you to feel conflicted.

I posted this in another thread and I apologize if it's in bad form to do so again. But of all the writing done on the film, this just might be the most well-written and thoughtful I've seen so far. It touches on so much, including Tarantino's body of work as a whole.
http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot...liche-and.html

[cfMC]

Whoa, ha, I just noticed that my poster of the Umberto Lenzi classic CITY OF THE WALKING DEAD (aka NIGHTMARE CITY) has in bold letters at the bottom STARRING HUGO STIGLITZ

[Parker]

I knew that same sounded familiar...good catch. That movie is ridiculous.

[mcnooj82]

So I took a friend to the movie tonight and she loved it. The only scene she found slow was the Mike Myers scene in Operation KINO, because she felt like she was being left behind with all the references to German cinema.

And just to refer back to my deal with Nazi soldiers not recognizing Stiglitz... Hugo's photo IS in the newspaper that we're shown during Sam Jackson's narration. Just wanted to point that out. Hahah.

[Bitches Leave]

Saw this last night and I'm trying to come up with a better movie released this year, and I can't. Just unbelievable gripping and impossible to predict (had stayed away from most info beforehand). When Landa strangles you know who, I almost started crying. I can feel that this movie is growing on me as time passes and that means I'll have to revisit it while it's still in theaters.

Some incredible performances and it's really hard to seperate any that truly stands out imo. I wasn't totally into Pitt's character untill the theater scene in which he kills! Shoshanna kept reminding me of a young Nastassja Kinski

Walking out of the theater I was surprised to hear a lot of complaining. People really thought there should have been a lot more Basterds killing. I pity them!

[joeypants]

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave

I can feel that this movie is growing on me as time passes and that means I'll have to revisit it while it's still in theaters.

This is the most common reaction I've heard, almost to a person.

Seeing as how there isn't much good coming out this weekend, I may have to see it a third time before it's gone from the theaters.

[mcnooj82]

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave

Shoshanna kept reminding me of a young Nastassja Kinski

I totally thought this a while back, though I'm not sure I ever posted the thought.

I've been to the movie 3 times, with a healthy gap in between each. And it's been great every time.

[Ratty]

Originally Posted by Bitches Leave

Shoshanna kept reminding me of a young Nastassja Kinski

Which might explain QT's use of the Cat People song for Shoshanna's red dress montage.

[TzuDohNihm]

Just came out of this. Was in the middle of Chinatown when a friend called to go see it.

IB is the best film I have seen this year. Tarantino's best as well and I hope his dialogue stays this good from here on out.

Utterly fantastic. I have to drag some other friends to it.

[Feral Akodon]

Late to the party. This is a beautiful movie. I read all this discussion.
I found interesting Shosanna lies below Perrier LaPadite and later on he points far away from her right below Hans in fact.
It was a black guy who was diminished by the regimse the one who set the fire which fit perfectly with the tone.

[Bartleby_Scriven]

Alright, finally saw this in the cheap theater. After skimming through the last twenty pages I don't have much to add, but here's something I've noticed.

There's something going on in the movie concerning people, animals, and food. Around page eleven and twelve of this thread milk got discussed to death, in reference to Landa's motivation in the restaurant scene. Well allow me to approach that scene from another angle...

At the beginning Landa refers to the German people as hawks and Jews as rats. Interesting enough, and I'm paraphrasing here, when LaPadite's daughters are still in the room Landa complements both the daughters and the cows the milk came from in the same sentence. He also leers over the daughters, like he might leer over cattle. There's also the fact that Donny is "The Bear Jew". Not sure where I'm going with this, but it reminded me of how all the characters in Bladerunner had animal totems.

On to the restaurant scene, maybe the strudel and cream made some people hungry, but I felt a little queasy. The sound effects used to accompany Landa's chewing, the squishy noises, were really making me feel sick, and I couldn't help but think of the extreme close-ups of Stuntman Mike eating nachos in Death Proof. What's the significance of this? After all, both Landa and Mike are predators, devouring people as much as they devour food.

Just a few thoughts.

[mcnooj82]

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven

After all, both Landa and Mike are predators, devouring people as much as they devour food.

Both films also end with both predators being utterly defeated by the triumphant heroes in the most satisfyingly horrific way.

[Bartleby_Scriven]

Watching The Wild Bunch for the first time. There's a moment when Thornton flashes back to being whipped when he was imprisoned at Yuma that's remarkably like Stiglitz's brief fantasy in the bar scene. Homage on Tarantino's part?

[Feral Akodon]

Scriven's post made me think Hans is portrayed as a rat in that scene and later on after the theater debacle is even more obvious.

[Doc Happenin]

Scriven, that reminds me (as so many things do) of Theoden in Return of the King. He's feasting. And the sounds are ratcheted up to make this completely normal scene, people eating, to force you into uneasiness. I think in Basterds, Tarantino accomplished the same thing (with far more subtlety, even). Think of when you're out to eat, most everyone is polite and quiet, you know it's there, but you don't exactly notice it. But when someone is crunching loudly, it becomes rude, obnoxious and uneasy. It's amazing what little sound enhancements, close ups of food can do for a person's anxiety. We like food, we like to eat, but we'd rather not see exactly what happens when food meets mouth.

Or something. But yes, it was deliberate. I felt the same way. Like he was some animal.

[El Thain]

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin

Scriven, that reminds me (as so many things do) of Theoden in Return of the King. He's feasting. And the sounds are ratcheted up to make this completely normal scene, people eating, to force you into uneasiness. I think in Basterds, Tarantino accomplished the same thing (with far more subtlety, even). Think of when you're out to eat, most everyone is polite and quiet, you know it's there, but you don't exactly notice it. But when someone is crunching loudly, it becomes rude, obnoxious and uneasy. It's amazing what little sound enhancements, close ups of food can do for a person's anxiety. We like food, we like to eat, but we'd rather not see exactly what happens when food meets mouth.

Or something. But yes, it was deliberate. I felt the same way. Like he was some animal.

If am not mistaken, that was Denethor.

[Doc Happenin]

Dammit! Foiled again!