|
Quentin Tara–*charging into room* "THE N-WORD!!! THE N-WORD AND FEET! FOOT FETISH AND ALSO RACIAL SLURS!!!".
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
BasicLich posted:I dunno how I feel about his "relitigating history" films like Inglorious Basterds and the aforementioned "once upon a time..." While catharsis is obviously a big and shameless part of the appeal they do make more of a statement than people give them credit for, with each of the three exploring different things. For example, Inglourious Basterds: is a statement on the depiction of Nazis in cinema being the means through which vengeance is exacted upon them (more specifically the means through which Jews exact their vengeance or achieve victory over them). This is best illustrated in the scene where the German propaganda film is replaced with "the face of Jewish vengeance" incinerating a theatre full of Nazis. Getting to that incineration scene involved a Jewish girl fleeing persecution being offered refuge in a cinema in exchange for working in it, taking control of it, and finally using it as the means of her vengeance. Earlier it was specifically stated that Goebbels intends his films to be "an alternative to Jewish German intellectual cinema....and the Jewish controlled dogma of Hollywood". So rather than the movie being just revisionist history it is a metaphor and victory lap for something real: Hollywood movies beating nazi movies and being an avenue through which Jewish film-makers and producers have the opportunity to thoroughly and endlessly defeat the Nazis. Note that Shosanna didn't just kill the Nazis: she is depicted as taking a considerable risk in order to film and produce her own message to splice into the German propaganda and the movie presents her final struggle to switch the reels and show her message as if failing to means her plans are thwarted (even though the fire will happen even without the reel switch). Earlier scenes have her mention that her theatre only plays German classics and has none of the modern propaganda. The modern Goebbels produced propaganda being forced into her theatre is what sparks her revenge plot, and the resulting nazi bbq is achieved at the expense of burning all the pre-Nazi German classics. The movie also ends with the swastika forehead carving and the very last line being "I think this just might be my masterpiece": linking the carving to the act of making the movie, suggesting that film depictions of Nazi crimes is what actually achieves the unremovable branding. To beat you over the head with the 'this is about movies' thing each act is given a movie inspired title with the exception of 'Operation Kino' just being 'Operation Movie Theatre'. Then there is Tarantino's meta-commentary or movie opinions, with most of it being like a preview of what he would go in on in much greater depth in OUATIH–that movies and reality are confused and people often give greater weight to the movie than reality. The most superficial example being the discussion about John Wayne being a pampered actor rather than someone whose stoic masculinity/bravery they should be expected to mimic in real life. More significantly: film critic turned soldier/spy Hicox is very confident of his German, but is immediately found to have a distinct and rare accent cribbed from a Riefenstahl film, which he then also uses to provide his cover story before ultimately having his cover blown by a detail he couldn't learn from watching movies. On the very Tarantino related subject of violence in movies: Zoller is proud of his actual act of mass violence but is uncomfortable watching a fictional depiction of it on screen, so he stops watching in favour of going behind the screen and comfortably committing actual violence on a woman (becoming aggressive in response to her refusing his advances). Tarantino depicting something like that might have gained some more relevance in the years since the movie came out. Then the Nazi's 'Who am I?' game has what is most likely a bunch of convoluted meta-references and jokes in terms of the characters chosen. Apart from mostly being actors, directors and screen writers one of them is a "fake" Apache (like Pitt's character) and one is an entertainer who was eventually executed for spying/treason (like Hammersmark, who ironically has the only war-like character in a room full of soldiers, several of whom are assigned German actresses she could be considered a fictional version of). The guy who gets Marco Polo has a 'spaghetti western' style fantasy etc. One of the games involves a discussion about whether a fictional character should be defined by their depicted nationality/ethnicity or their creator's (kind of relevant to some of the discussions about Tarantino and race). The second game features the player remarking that it is too easy to ask whether his character is real or fictional, instead following a line of questioning that ultimately ends with the last two questions being "Am I the story of the negro in America?" and "Am I King Kong?" (pretty much just reinforcing that the meaning of a movie isn't necessarily what it portrays in literal terms or even what it was intended to convey). Also whatever is intended in terms of acting vs reality confusion by the actual Nazi soldiers seeing real double-takes and spit-takes by people acting as Nazi soldiers to trick them, commenting on their being acting techniques, and happily imitating and play-acting them amongst themselves rather than being suspicious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
I won't defend it with "of course its ham-fisted". I'll defend it with "its not remotely ham-fisted", with a further addition that even if they aren't to your taste none of Tarantino's films can be considered ham-fisted (except maybe Death Proof and I don't know about Hateful 8, since in answer to the OP I haven't seen it). I don't even consider myself a huge fan with any particular motivation to defend it or Tarantino in general, but I would at least need some sort of comparison to something that has similar thematic ambitions that you don't consider ham-fisted before I will pay any respect to the idea that this very well-regarded screenplay (the precursor to Django's even better received and rewarded screenplay) is clumsily executed.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Caesar Saladin posted:that scene in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is funny, those people murdered a woman and cut her unborn child from her belly and its funny to see Brad Pitt beat the poo poo out of them while tripping on mushrooms I feel like he anticipated people's reaction to it and was intentionally poking fun at people who take media/fantasy more seriously than reality, such that they are more upset by the depiction of violence than the real life murders. In his fictionalized version their rationalisation for the murders is that "Hollywood taught them to murder". They are hypocrites who consider someone depicting violence worse than their own actions in actually committing it. There is maybe some comparison with the real life people who would react in outrage to his depiction–who might not go to such violent extremes but do otherwise try to punish people for or inhibit their creative output. Dalton has the flamethrower from a movie in which he torched a bunch of Nazis. He mentions how he was terrified of burning himself so had to practice it over and over again. Then when the murderers break into his house and he sees this grotesque crazed mess lashing out blindly with gun and knife he sees some resemblance that makes him go for the flamethrower and reenact the scene. Implications being that their behaviour is somehow nazi-like, driven by fascistic impulses, and that maybe depictions of violence are actually necessary to train you in quickly recognising and responding to such evil.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2020 10:47
|
|