Title: NOTE THE LETTER U
Print Status: Available
|
|
Buy now!
Comic ID #2439
Title: NOTE THE LETTER U
Print Status: Available
Title: NOTE THE LETTER U
Print Status: Available
Discussion (26) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Comment ¬
“Basturd” was a wink for your sake Tom. 😉
For real, Adam?
Well, in that case, everything worked out perfectly, didn’t it? 🙂
Statz,
I’m not talking about the Nazi that was shot by the actress. I’m talking about a different one, but I don’t want to spoil who.
“Another Nazi negotiates the condition of his surrender and the Basterds go back on their word before bringing him to justice.”
The Basterds didn’t go back on their word- it was the actress that shot that Nazi up.
Ah if I’m not mistaken i think Tom means Lt. Raine’s “masterpiece”.
You are overthinking this way too much, Tom.
It’s not reality. It’s Tarantino. If Jeffrey Wells hadn’t figured out that Tarantino is smug, he hasn’t been paying attention for the last 15 years – and that’s the whole FUN of Tarantino!
I’m Jewish and after spending most of my college career educating people about the Holocaust, Darfur and the like, I can say that this movie was such sadistic fun! I was rooting for the Basterds mainly because the stereotype of the Jew of the 20th century is nothing but a victim. It’s empowering to see a guy like Eli Roth dish it out. But at no point was I under the delusion that it was anything more than fantasy.
I’m planning on listening to the Triple Feature tonight. I look forward to hearing your thoughts – I would even entertain calling in to discuss further.
I loved the movie, but I’m curious to see if you guys minded the constant language switch between french/english/german and brief italian? After a while, I was so screwed up in languages that I just kept reading the sub-titles no matter what language was being spoken, even when French was used… and I’m French-Canadian! Other than that, I loved the dialogues (in all languages), the tension in many scenes, the characters were great (especially ‘The Jew Hunter’), nice bits of humor (the Basterds as italians was great! “Excusi!”, “Pardoni!”) and there was a good amount of violence/blood without being excessive. I really liked it!
I also dug the flick, but I was a little put off by the tone and the style. It seemed like Tarantino was trying to both ham up the film stylistically like Kill Bill (and to and extent Death Proof), as well as tone it down (like in Jackie Brown.) To me the film begs to be done up super stylized. When we get the huge name/logo for Hugo when they talk about his character I feel like the film is playing the in the realm it was designed for. When in the theater at the end and we get a couple of German higher ups pointed out to us with arrows, the film feels like it’s int he right realm. But mush of the rest of the film doesn’t fit in this same world. The segment with the British spy/film critic, Mike Myers and the Churchill look-a-like for instance is just as plain as vanilla, over long and under styled. Personally there were a lot of scenes that seemed to run much longer than they called for. The scene with the meet-up in the tavern went on forever.
Also, I was surprised by the lackluster soundtrack. So much of the film either seemed to have a lack fitting music (something very strange for Tarantino), or it re-used music from cues from Kill Bill, which is also odd.
I think at the end of the day, for me, the movie is begging to be Kill Bill. It feels like it wants to be epic and super stylized, but it just feels like it’s over inflated and missing a lot of beats that echo others that are haphazardly strewn throughout the flick. It feels rushed. Even so I really enjoyed it which is a testament to Tarantino’s vision.
As for Wells, he also devolved into nitpicking the minutia of Basterds, complaining that Shashona doesn’t run for cover realistically enough in one scene, and that the time between section is mistakenly quoted. Though he may have a point with the violence, I think he’s straying into the territory of forum trolls that start pointing out grammar as support for arguing a point. He’s complaining to complain.
Shawn,
I agree that Wells is complaining to complain – mostly because he’s a take down artist and he’s had it in for Tarantino for a while.
But I think his criticisms about the Basterds being as morally bankrupt as the Nazis they are killing to be a salient point.
Wells puts it within the context that the movie promotes brutality for it’s own sake. I don’t have a problem with violence for violence’s sake. But Tarantino went too far humanizing the Nazis for my liking. He made them people, not monsters. If anything, the Basterds were the monsters. The Germans were afraid of them, refered to them as ghosts and gave them ominous nicknames.
For a movie like Basterds, the less one thinks about the morality of killing, the better off one will be.
Oh yeah, and I thought Tarantino had already said that the misspellings in the title are a call back to his love for the original Inglorious Bastards, the 70s Itallian war flick. While he was working at the video store he had wanted to see the movie but couldn’t find it because the handwritten label on either the video or the catalog database was misspelled so it remained lost in the store’s collection until he stumbled upon it later on. Because of that misspelling he carried it onto his film’s title as a sort of personal homage/reference. Pretty sure I read that in a magazine interview this past year…
I think you’re missing something from the back-end of the movie: (Spoiler ensue) when Hitler and Goebbles are watching Stoltz De Nation, Hitler is laughing hysterically at the same wanton violence Tarantino has made the audience laugh at. It’s even more directly paralyzed when an American Army soldier falls out of a building during the film-inside-a-film, and minutes later when a Nazi falls out of the engulfed movie theatre minutes later. I don’t think Tarantino is letting you off the hook with the violence: he’s simply nudging the audience into realizing that there’s something extra Schadenfreude-ish about seeing your enemy killed. If this were reality, most people would turn their head in fear over the depravity of the violence onscreen. But cinema, as Inglourious Basterds seems to be arguing through the movie, is a means of catharsis. Shoshanna was able to defeat the Nazi’s through movies, with Tarantino parallels the way Jewish filmmakers have been using movies to release their anger over the Holocaust for the last 60 years. Seeing an enemy killed in a ruthless manor, makes humans feel good. Not that’s a good thing, but Tarantino argues it’s simply part of human nature.
Tarantino did a great job of exploring the idea that those fighting for “good” can behave brutally, or that those who are the side of “evil” can be very human. The fact that the characters were not painted into black and white cliché characters was what made it so interesting.
The idea that those who fight wars behave always behave honourably is something that is does not tend to play out as true. I think the complex characters, to include those of the bastards, was what made this movie so good. I truely enjoyed it, and it was most interesting to be watching the movie in Germany (where I am currently stationed), which tends to made you think of it from a couple of different perspectives.
I really enjoyed the film, and I wasn’t too surprised by all the violence. It’s probably a cliche at this point to just call it a Tarantino film, but it is. The characters are larger than life (which is actually the problem I had with Jackie Brown; they were *too* real), the violence is fast and brutal (when it actually happens, at least), and there aren’t any good guys. To be concerned at all about the violence is worrying too much. Also, I’m not sure what Shawn is talking about, I thought all the music was great.
I do think it’s interesting that throughout the film, the only ‘bad, evil’ Nazis are basically Hitler, Goebbels, and a very gleeful Landa. The rest are just regular soldiers, only really bad because of the uniform they’re wearing (which, for the sake of argument, a lot of them were. That discomfort one gets from seeing one too humanized is something that’s been drilled into our head for decades. Namely, that every single soldier in Nazi Germany was a terrible inhuman person, when that simply wasn’t true). If one just goes by the film, they’re hardly the bad guys at all compared to the Basterds. So I’m not so sure Tarantino was pushing any kind of “good times killing Nazis” business, just a general brutal onslaught against them with no real moral compass. They’re fighting for revenge (straight up for Shosanna, more abstract for the Basterds) and enjoying it as they do.
Here’s a little interview with Tarantino where he explains a bit: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/tarantino-nazis
I personally loved the film. When the movie finished, the entire theater was clapping.
In regards to the portrayl of the Basterds, I assumed that his point was to dehumanize them. The entire movie itself is a piece of revisionist history. In most every portrayal of Nazi Germany during WWII, we see them as these hunters that are near unstoppable. With Basterds, though, those roles are reversed, which I thought was fitting for the story. We need to see how scared the Nazis are. We need to hear the ghost stories they tell about them. These all build to show a complete role reversal.
In regards to humanizing the Nazis too much, I thought that that served a purpose too. When we see a good majority of the Nazis getting slaughtered, the humanization comes out. It’s fear induced, just like the soldier saying he was going to burn his uniform after the war. His realization does not seem organic, but more like telling the Basterds what he thinks they want to hear. It’s easy to show a change of heart when your side has lost.
I will agree with you about the father of the child. That was one of the only soldiers who I really felt bad for.
As for Reservoir Dogs, I just watched it for the first time yesterday, and was blown away. If it’s been a while since you’ve seen it, give it another watch.
I read the last comic before we went to the movie, I felt a little strange when people were cheering for the blood-bath in last act.
I felt when I saw the movie that I would have loved the movie if they had cut every Basterds scene except the set-up and the climactic theater scenes. They all felt ironicall,y because of the title, tacked on. If this had been just the story of Shoshanna vs. Landa I would have been completely 100% behind it.
I do agree with you that not all Germans back then were terrible horrible people, but we have already had their exoneration films in Good, The Reader, Valkyrie and I am sure a few others that I am missing. It is time for Nazis to be evil again like as in Raiders of the Lost Ark and Last Crusade fashion. Christoph Waltz has definitely brought that back into style with his delightfully evil Col. Landa.
I must admit I thought Tarantino was making a point about what overwhelming hatred will drive people to do. The Basterds perform atrocities because of their overwhelming hatred of the Nazi’s (less so for Raine who just seems to regard it as fun).
This seemed particularly true in the cinema when two of the Basterds don’t run from a burning building because they are so blinded by hatred they’d rather gun down Nazi’s than save themselves.
In this Raine and Landa are not good Vs bad, they are the same. They both inflict horror and violence not for any reason but because they enjoy it
anyone else think that Christoph Waltz should be up for an oscar? or will he just get snubbed cuz he had a film released in the summer?
Best Supporting Actor nominations are usually a little more permissive than the Best Actor nods.
If Waltz doesn’t at least get nominated, I think it would be criminal.
Then again, it’s only August. There’s a lot of time left in the year for another performance to steal attention away.
Are you serious? You cant say this movie title around children? Yeah, lest they fall into a downward spiral of vulgarity and self-destruction. Its just a word, and hardly a hard curse word.
Ya know, I’ve read this comic for years, and never bothered commenting when you would constantly apologize or over-explain a joke just because you thought it might, possibly, maybe, offend a couple folks. But after seeing it again, and again and now this? Come on bud, grow a set and lighten up. People like you. They really do. I promise.
And bastard isn’t a swear word. Neither is basterd.
Well, Jon… not everyone has the same relaxed attitude about swear (or almost swear, or barely swear) words as you do.
For example, I don’t think Henry’s grandparents would be all that amused if their adorable, angel-faced 2 year-old grandson started calling everyone a bastard. Y’see., 2 year-olds like to repeat what they hear. A LOT. Since I don’t feel like putting up with sideways glances from old women in the grocery store, I edit my language around my highly verbal 2 year-old son.
Beyond that, I don’t see what I’m apologizing for in this comic, blog or review. I’m aware I have a propensity to apologize or over-explain. But in this instance, I think you’re WAY off base. And when it comes to telling me how to raise my son… well, frankly, you can shove it up your ass.
How’s that for growing a set?
You did alot better there.
Unless a child has some sort of disorder, I don’t believe hearing a word mentioned once, or twice, and not even spoken too him, is going to cause him to go around calling everyone by that word. How would the child even know it was a adjective to describe a person? Is he going to dissect your statement for context clues?
I have a 3 year old and saw a couple kids raised in my life. I’m fully aware of how and when they repeat things. And, you might not believe it, but I’ve only ever had to correct him from saying something really inappropiate once. I never told you how to raise your kid, so you can let down that over zealous dad guard you got up. Infact, I didnt even mention your son directly, frankly because I don’t find it very tactful. I can tell you’re a very proud pop, and thats a good thing my man.
Also, you hit on a really good point there. If I was telling you how to raise your son, I should shove it up my ass. Anyone who does, especially in an online forum, should. But, in that same way, you dont need anyone elses approval, online or off, on how to raise your son so no need to explain yourself so much.
I never attacked your parenting, just your view on language around children in general and what kind of “harm” it could do. But bringing him up often, even in the spirit of community, a community where the general population is well mannered and means well, is inviting all sorts of armchair parenting. Just hope it doesnt distract you too much, cause the comic is still f’n great.
and hey, one more thing..
I am totally geeked that we are having this minor conversation cause I been reading the comic since day one and you totally rock.
no sarcasm there either, I swear. 🙂
Truth be told, I was reacting more to you telling me to sac up than your parenting philosophy.
But addressing your point about the use of the word “bastard” around a 2 year-old… I think context is irrelevant to them. They hear a new word, they use it without knowing what it means. As a parent, it leaves you holding the ball. Other people immediately look to you as if to say “Where is he learning this stuff?”
Henry’s a sharp kid and he has a crazy memory. Case in point, my mother-in-law gave him a toy from a Happy Meal (she eats Happy Meals for the smaller portions – don’t ask) and said “Here, Henry. I got this from a Happy Meal.”
I’m not kidding you. 4 months later – out of nowhere – he starts asking for his Happy Meal toy. We had no idea what he was talking about until he stumbled onto it himself. He never played with or mentioned that toy once in the 4 months prior to it being given to him by my mother-in-law and all of a sudden he has this crazy recall moment. “Yeah, my Happy Meal toy,” he says. “From Grandma.” Wha?
As for my apologizing / over-explainations / need for a approval… I totally cop to that. It’s what makes the internet great and debilitating at the same time. You get instant feedback. I think a lot of artists crave that kind of input because we’re communicators at heart. It’s all about getting the idea out of *my* head and putting it inside *your* head. If I’m a little insecure about the art or the writing, I tend to apologize or over-explain – only because I don’t want to misrepresent myself.
Anyway… sorry if I came off the chain a little bit. I can see you’re coming from a good place.
Heh, that reminds me of a kid I heard about who’s probably around 4 or 5. He has crazy spelling skills, so if you even spelt out a word, he’s going to make it out and repeat it, asking what it meant.
Kids are smart to an almost scary degree sometimes. XD
I think the main reason the film’s title is spelled the way it is has to do with rights issues.
The fact that Tarantino clearly states he was inspired by THE INGLORIOUS BASTARDS (1978, Enzo Castellari; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inglorious_Bastards) suggests that he originally considered a remake, or at least using it as a springboard for the film he ended up with. It was probably because of failed negotiations between both camps, however, that he had to change the name just enough to tie in his film with this one to avoid potential litigation.
That’s the theory, at least.
I haven’t seen IB and don’t intend to, but incidentally, my main problem with Jackie Brown was that there was a nice little 90 minute sting movie buried under at least another hour of boring time fillers, e.g. I recall that there was a bit where the titular heroine was driving to meet the bad guy who had the not-boyfriend prisoner, and the movie switched several times between her driving and them waiting for her … and NOTHING HAPPENED!