Seeing how the the visual gag that served as the punch line to Friday’s comic was so far out of left field, I didn’t there would be a reason or an opportunity to use “Mr. Poo Poo Head” a second time in the comic.
I was inspired to bring him back, however, after my friend Adam posted to Twitter that he and I were seeing the movie together and spelled it “Basturds.” For the record, I want to stress that I am not some kind of fecalfeliac.
Of course, who can fault my friend for the misspelling when Tarantino himself refuses to spell either “inglorious” or “bastard” correctly? The director claims the misspelling is an intentional artistic flourish that he will never explain, lest it ruin the motivation behind it.
As I have been forced to write the two words incorrectly over the last few days, I slowly feel like I am unlearning how to spell them correctly. I fear this might ruin ME for ever using these words correctly again. I’m not a strong speller to begin with.
Fundamentally, we’re all taking one step closer to the English language deteriorating into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts just like they described in Idiocracy.
I’m still kind of amazed a film titled Inglourious Basterds is the number one movie in the country right now. I tried talking about the movie with Cami this weekend and had to refer to is as “That Tarantino Movie” when Henry was around.
There’s a quote for your one-sheet! “Inglourious Basterds – The movie with the title you CAN’T say around children!”
Enough bliblity-blather. What did I think of the movie? Well, I liked it! I must confess that it wasn’t the genre wank-off that I thought it would be. Truthfully, I spent most of the weekend thinking about the film in one way or another.
BE FOREWARNED – If you haven’t seen the movie, mild spoilers ahead!
Before I saw the movie, I read Jeffery Wells’s review over at Hollywood Elsewhere and he pointed something out that changed how I approached the film.
In his review, Wells says Basterds “reeks of arrogance and sadism and indifference to the value of human life. It’s a movie in which brutal death happens every which way, and by this I mean stupidly, callously, carelessly, plentifully. I began to hate it early on for the way it takes almost every character down (including ones Tarantino appears to favor) with utter indifference.”
Specifically, Wells cites the scene where Eli Roth (as Sgt. Donny Donowitz) caves in the head of Richard Sammel (as Sgt. Werner Rachtman) with a baseball bat after refusing to give up the position of another group of Germans that the Basterds are trying to flush out of an apple orchard.
“Isn’t this is what men of honor and bravery do in wartime — i.e., refuse to help the enemy kill their fellow soldiers, even if it means their own death,” asks Wells. “Compare this anti-Semitic but nonetheless noble fellow with the smug and vile Pitt, who does everything but twirl this moustache as he contemplates the delicious prospect of seeing blood and brain matter emerge from Rachtman’s head.”
When met with Ractman’s refusal, Pitt (as Lt. Aldo Raine) “We’re all tickled to hear you say that. Quite frankly, watching Donny beat Nazi’s to death is the closest we ever get to going to the movies.” The rest of the Basterds hoot and holler, tease and torment the remaining soldiers as Sgt. Donowitz’s brutality unfolds in front of them.
Reading Wells’s review, I took it with a grain of salt. He’s a contrarian by nature and likes to stir up these kind of debates that have less to do with the story being told on screen and more to do with his personal sensitivities.
However, listening to the audience I was with hoot and holler along with the Basters during this scene, I think Wells was onto something with his criticism. Tarantino takes it for granted that by virtue of simply wearing a uniform, every individual who serves the Third Reich is inherently evil. But he also goes to some length to humanize the Nazi’s in a way that doesn’t seem to warrant the extreme level of punishment and humiliation doled out by the bastards.
After interrogating a German officer for information, they ask him what he plans to do with his uniform when the war is over. He says he’ll burn it, acknowledging the wrong-doing he’s caught up in. That’s not good enough for the Basterds, so they carve a swastika into his forehead to serve as a warning to others.
Later in the film, a young German solider and some of his compatriots are celebrating in a basement bar. The soldier’s wife gave birth to a baby boy 5 hours prior. How he meets his end seems particularly protracted and cruel.
Another Nazi negotiates the condition of his surrender and the Basterds go back on their word before bringing him to justice.
As Lt. Aldo Raine, Pitt sermonizes that “Nazis ain’t got no humanity!” But neither do the Basterds. Their cruelty is justified as righteous by the fact that the entire squad is Jewish and that Nazis are the international shorthand for evil.
I don’t want to give the impression that I am defending the Nazi regime. Certainly Inglourious Basterds takes a stand against the defense of “only following orders” that many German soldiers used to justify their involvement in the war.
I mean, clearly Hitler was a bad guy that needed to be stopped. But more than the “good times Nazi killin'” that I think Tarantino was trying to push over, I felt like I was left with a profound commentary on “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
On the one end of the spectrum, you have Hitler TOTALLY abusing his power and doing unspeakable evil. To counteract that, you have the Basterds who are also WAY over the top in their delivery of justice.
Most likely I wouldn’t have had a problem with the violence Tarantino is promoting against the Nazis, but I think he did too good of a job humanizing them and not enough time developing the Basterds. Truthfully, the Basterds themselves are barely in the movie. Only a couple of them have any speaking lines.
The crux of the film’s conflict is between Christoph Waltz (as the “Jew Hunter” Col. Hans Landa) and Mélanie Laurent (the French-Jewish Shosanna Dreyfus who escapes from Col. Landa in the film’s first chapter). The Basterds are almost incidental in this showdown, drawn into the conflict by a movie premiere being held at Shosanna’s movie theater where Col. Landa has been put in charge of security.
Waltz as Col. Landa completely steals the film. Not only does he perform linguistic gymnastics – delivering his dialogue in German, English, French and Italian – but his acting is enthusiastic and knowing. Col. Landa is written as the smartest character in the film. He is usually three to four moves ahead of everyone else. The conflict between his intelligence and the Basterds’ brutality is brilliant and very satisfying.
Much the same can be said about Tarantino’s script. It’s very sharp, but also very ugly in parts. Tarantino is famous for his dialogue and here he uses it to glorious effect.
The movie is broken into five chapters and the way each chapter is set up, you know things are going to go completely FUBAR by the end. Tarantino uses his dialogue to stretch things out and ratchet up the tension. By the time the hammer is about to fall, you can barely stand it. When violence does occur, it’s made even more effective. A bold punctuation to each chapter.
It might surprise you that Inglourious Basterds really isn’t as violent as you might think it is. Compared to most World War II movies, which can be a flurry of bullets, explosions and images of young men being torn to pieces, Basterds is somewhat light on the gore. The gore you do see is so cartoonishly over the top, it’s hard to take seriously if you looked at it objectively.
But as I said before, the violence feels more impactful by way of Tarantino’s structure and his restrictive rationing of the action.
I’ve had a couple of people tell me that they thing Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s best movie since Pulp Fiction. It’s a good film, but I wouldn’t go that far. To me, Jackie Brown takes the number two spot because it features characters that act like real people. Basterds is limited somewhat by the fact that it is very arch, takes extreme liberties with history and really doesn’t give you someone to root for.
Not that every movie needs to toe the line between obvious heroes and villains. All I’m saying is that I think I would have enjoyed – and I can’t believe I’m saying this – if the Nazis were a greater caricature of evil than what Tarantino puts on screen. The Basterds could be as brutal as they like and I would have been along for the ride if the Nazis were a little more one-dimensional.
I’m sure we’ll have a lot more to say about Inglourious Basterds tonight on The Triple Feature. In fact, I believe we’re dedicating the whole show to Tarantino and dusting off some of his older films to talk about. I’m on the fence between watching Reservoir Dogs and True Romance this afternoon so I’ll have something more to discuss tonight.
Yes, I know True Romance was directed by Tony Scott. But the script was Tarantino’s and in some respects I consider it to be the most Tarantino-esque film that exists.
I encourage you to tune in live at 9:00 PM as Gordon, Joe and myself hash things out. It should be a great show and I’m looking forward to it.
What were your impressions of Inglourious Basterds? Leave your comments below!
Is that better?
NO!
You spelling "Inglorious" wrong, you idiot!
“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!