Inglourious Basterds

[DrBroel]

i cant say i find the trailer boring. i keeping watching repeatedly. its so bad i find it mesmerizing, like Seven Pounds.

[Binker]

It just irks me when people complain when the utility of violence is demonstrated in an action movie. That seems to be the point of action movies. Resolving conflict with violence (action) and frequently homicide. (I'm refraining from using the word "murder" because of its legal connotations). The audience, myself included, enjoys the spectacle of violence and goes home satisfied. The reason why decent, peaceful people enjoy watching violence may cause concern, but thats another issue. I don't agree with the argument that if you enjoy violence glorified as a means to an end on screen it means you are buying into a film's supposedly fascist politics.

Of course everyone doesn't have to enjoy action films. By all means don't watch. But complaining about "right wing" violence in a Tarantino, Bruckheimer, McTiernan, etc. film is like complaining about songs being in a musical.

It reminds me of the Dark Knight thread where people were getting upset that Batman beat people up as a means to an end (torture!!). Ummm... he's Batman. If I ever see a Batman movie where he doesn't beat people up I'm asking for my money back.

Good thing no one's made that argument.

The entire post is one big strawman. Most action movies are not worth considering on a political, moral, or philosophical level. No one complains of fascism in movies like Bad Boys, Con Air, Die Hard, etc, because those movies do not present an overt political message or contain blatant moralizing on violence and torture as legitimate political tools. The fact that you would even group the Dark Knight in with those kinds of films makes me think you haven't seen it.

But please continue. I want to know more about which films I'm allowed to take seriously.

[Barmy]

Ok, I DID sleep through about half the trailer. I'll try to watch it again. 8-[

[Binker]

is like complaining about songs being in a musical.

"Fascist agenda!" for action films is the left-wing equivalent of "Homosexual agenda!" for musicals.

Make up your mind. Either the film's politics are worth discussing and defending or they aren't.

[Mr Sausage]

It's an odd phenomenon when someone dismisses a film for its right-wing politics, but would at the same time cry foul if the right-wing were to dismiss some other film for its left-wing politics.

[knives]

Have to agree with Sausage, and this is coming from a guy just left of Orwell.

[DrBroel]

It's an odd phenomenon when someone dismisses a film for its right-wing politics, but would at the same time cry foul if the right-wing were to dismiss some other film for its left-wing politics.

maybe..

personally if the trailer is offending me politically its offending my humanistic sensibilities, which causes me to feel the torture human beings shouldn't be sensationalized or glorified even if those human beings have committed heinous violent acts themselves.

if someone lacks those humanistic sensibilities i dont think it would be hypocritical of me to dismiss their opinion. or if their was a humanistic film, like Kiarostami's Taste of Cherry, i think it's okay for me to say it shouldn't be dismissed for "anti-humanistic" political beliefs, (if such things even exist). which seems to be what you are saying.

[JonathanM]

It's an odd phenomenon when someone dismisses a film for its right-wing politics, but would at the same time cry foul if the right-wing were to dismiss some other film for its left-wing politics.

Who here has done any of those things?

I'm not even sure what 'dismissing a film' would involve except perhaps shouting 'take it away! take it away!' in quite a camp manner if it were presented to one on a silver salver by some kind of butler.

Personally, I find sitting through a lot of right-wing action films to be quite unpleasant as those types of films tend to conform to the "...and he went on to become a hero" structure of a lot of Hollywood cinema and so you are expected to sympathise with the protagonists' viewpoints and root for them. Sitting through a film like that when you find the politics to be abhorrent is quite an unpleasant experience. In particular I remember having to review a TV movie that began with this guy dying his hair green and listening to punk and his family reacting by sending him out into the wilderness to fend for himself wherein he kills a couple of bad guys and is deemed worthy to re-integrate society.

If there was a leftist equivalent to that I could completely sympathise with right-wingers who felt uncomfortable at having to sit through it.

This is particularly the case when the ideas being explored are old hat. the idea that the Nazis are bastards and deserve anything that's coming to them is hardly a challenging moral viewpoint. In fact, it's the viewpoint of the kind of war comics that used to appear in Battle magazine or Valiant or Eagle.

I don't mind having my world-view challenged by thoughtful film-making, but I dislike sitting through films that attempt to pander to reactionary urges that I do not possess.

[DrBroel]

trying to define this as right wing is silly and probably giving the movie too much credit for having a coherent political message. it would have to be co-opped by right wingers to be viewed that way. By the same logic Eli Roth's Hostel could be viewed as right wing. But anyone who has seen the inane interviews Roth has given about those movies knows that it is somehow supposed to be a reaction to America's war on terror and Bush's policies. which just shows that Roth is both an idiot and a bad filmmaker. it appear that QT is taking a step in that direction.

[JonathanM]

I agree with you that I am reading rather a lot into a trailer and will have to see what the final film is like.

But, having said that, I actually think that Hostel is an exemplar of films which, while not necessarily setting out to make a political point, nonetheless makes one simply because of the ubiquitous unpleasantness of the lazy opinions it has about the way the world works. The opinions about Women, Eastern Europeans and Gays are frankly horrific, doubly so because they're exactly the kind of small-minded opinions you'd expect to hear in bar rooms across the particularly stupid areas of America.

I think I'd probably have more respect for Eli Roth if he was some kind of demented right-wing ideologue, but instead he's just an idiot who doesn't ask himself too many difficult questions. War on Terror my arse.

[Binker]

It's an odd phenomenon when someone dismisses a film for its right-wing politics, but would at the same time cry foul if the right-wing were to dismiss some other film for its left-wing politics.

This is only hypocritical if the person claims to have a principled objection to dismissing any film based on its politics. I respect the right of everyone to love, hate, or be lukewarm about any particular film for any particular reason they want. As DrBroel was getting at, I didn't come by my political beliefs by flipping a coin, right if heads, left if tails... they are deeply intertwined with my conceptions of justice, ethics, morality, etc, and I appreciate that for conservatives its the very same way. So, that said, a conservative can dismiss any film he wants on political grounds, and I might choose to defend that films politics, but that doesn't mean I'm "crying foul." Fair ball, I say!

[DrBroel]

I think I'd probably have more respect for Eli Roth if he was some kind of demented right-wing ideologue

hehe, thats a funny point. I like it.

[HerrSchreck]

It's an odd phenomenon when someone dismisses a film for its right-wing politics, but would at the same time cry foul if the right-wing were to dismiss some other film for its left-wing politics.

This is only hypocritical if the person claims to have a principled objection to dismissing any film based on its politics. I respect the right of everyone to love, hate, or be lukewarm about any particular film for any particular reason they want. As DrBroel was getting at, I didn't come by my political beliefs by flipping a coin, right if heads, left if tails... they are deeply intertwined with my conceptions of justice, ethics, morality, etc, and I appreciate that for conservatives its the very same way. So, that said, a conservative can dismiss any film he wants on political grounds, and I might choose to defend that films politics, but that doesn't mean I'm "crying foul." Fair ball, I say!

Indeed-- it's perfectly natural, as one flows from another. If one announces that he finds right wing politics reprehensible, then it should follow that he would find left wing politics worth publicly defending when attacked by that which he finds bankrupt.

This assumes that what sausage is talking about above is the act of the left winger calling into question the politics themselves, and rather NOT the right of the rightwinger to express his views on left wing politics that may or may not be resident in this or that flick. Everyone has the right to their opinion and to express it. This includes the right of a filmmaker to editorialize a film with his views (though I personally find this a detriment in all but the rarest cases of extreme talent and originality).

[DrBroel]

Everyone has the right to their opinion and to express it. This includes the right of a filmmaker to editorialize a film with his views (though I personally find this a detriment in all but the rarest cases of extreme talent and originality).

Maybe im confused about what you are saying because if find it close to impossible to think of a filmmaker that doesnt do this.

[HerrSchreck]

I hope you're not saying that you're NOT familiar with the concept of whether or not an artist expresses an opinion for the goings- on within his narrative? The idea of Editorialization?

EDIT: Now look what we did-- the googlebots have sniffed out the words "right wing" in this thread and seen fit to make available by banner ad an offer free trials of Newt Gingrich's newsletter.

EDIT of EDIT: after submittng the above edit, it landed with ads for FREE ANN COULTER updates or newsletters or painted rags or whatever.

[DrBroel]

I hope you're not saying that you're NOT familiar with the concept of whether or not an artist expresses an opinion for the goings- on within his narrative? The idea of Editorialization?

Do you really hope im not saying that?

To me it seems like nearly all filmmakers "editorialize" in their work. But you said that you "find this a detriment in all but the rarest cases of extreme talent and originality". i might be mistaken by what you mean by "editorialize" but this seems to mean that you are insulting nearly all filmmakers.

Which is confusing considering you frequent a forum dedicated to loving films and filmmakers.

If I'm mistaken, please don't pose another passive aggressive rhetorical question like in your previous post and just explain what I am missing so a civil discourse can occur.

[HerrSchreck]

Okay let me make sure that I have got this straight-- you 1) detour off the main thrust of my first reply above (re critique of filmic politics viz Left vs Right) to tweeze out a single line and seem to say essentially that you've never encountered this concept of a Lack of Editorialization. I 2) say 2) "I hope you're not saying that you're NOT familiar with the.. idea of Editorialization?" (This concept is particularly relevant to-- though not exclusive to by any means-- the zone of our conversation: films which dance along the lines of "faction", i e presenting historical figures or events. For example JFK by Oliver Stone was lambasted by, among others, Single Gunman Theorists as slickly and sneakily presenting opinion as historical fact. Fox News is condemned for editorializing what is alleged to be Straight News. Editorializing is relevant to straight documentary, as well as straight fiction... in the latter case whether or not the author allows the events that he's assembled to speak for themselves.. or, while or after presenting the series of events in factual straight language, sentimentalizes, presents authorial comment seperate from the narrative, etc).

It was a genuine question since it'd nearly be the same as you stopping a discussion and saying "What's this 'narrative structure' that you keep mentioning... I know I've never seen it."

You 1) return with an utterly pointless sardonic statement ("Do you really hope im not saying that?"), 2) transform my personal taste (which I have a right to you know) in Uneditorialized Narrative Voice-- I simply said "I personally find it a detriment" in the majority of cases where it is employed-- into an a statement "insulting (to) nearly all filmmakers," (I didn't sat filmmakers who editorialize their content make utterly worthless films and have mothers who party and bounce with livestock) 3) state that my taste in narrative style confuses you "considering (I) frequent a forum dedicated to loving films and filmmakers,"

And I'm the one who is posting "passive aggressive rhetoric"??

As to this:

just explain what i am missing so a civil discourse can occur

the responsibility is yours to comprehend a topic prior to trying to call someone on it... especially on a board where you're a total newb. You'll get your ass hazed off or find yourself in a fast running for the next Richard Cranium Award. If you want to survive this board you'd do well to learn to survive relatively inocuous challenges to those challenges you yourself initiate.

[DrBroel]

you seem to think i was attacking you or "calling you out on an opinion", when im just trying to understand what you are saying.

did i isolate something out of your original statement and "detour off the main thrust of (your) first reply above"? yes. only because i found it interesting and thought understanding and discussing what you were saying would be worth-whiled.

I think you are reading too much into what i am saying/asking? Im sorry if you think im attacking you, which you must to lob so many insults my way in the previous post. maybe we can just drop who started what and discuss the subject civilly from this point on.

to be clear i wasnt sure if you were saying non-editorial filmmakers were common, or if they were extremely rare and happened to be the only ones that weren't a detriment to their own films. Which is what i found confusing. you now seem to imply that you dont think they are as uncommon as i guess i have been assuming.

You have given examples of bad editorializing, JFK which i agree with. But i was say that nearly all filmmakers editorialize. so what you need to give me is example of filmmakers who you think dont editorialize at all.

[knives]

Two Richard Craniums in two months, man we're on a roll.

As for what Shreck means, and correct me if I'm wrong, he finds films that are very upfront and dependent on their editorialization such as JFK or that recent Spike Lee war movie detrimental in most cases, while in other films such as The Maltese Falcon or the Apartment where any editorialization present if there is any can easily be ignored and considered a smaller part of the film. Can the conversation move on now?

[HerrSchreck]

Is this guy a riot or what? He still places the responsibility for this on me! I ask him whether or not he's heard of something (after he says essentially he's never heard of it), express a preference in narrative style viz my taste in cinema, and he accuses me of being aggressive, insulting nearly every filmmaker on earth, and being out of place on a board I've been posting on for years, that he's just joined less than 24 hrs ago.

to be clear i wasnt sure if you were saying non-editorial filmmakers were common, or if they were extremely rare and happened to be the only ones that weren't a detriment to their own films. Which is what i found confusing. you now seem to imply that you dont think they are as uncommon as i guess i have been assuming.

Who was talking about quantification of noneditorialized filmmaking? I simply expressed a preference in my own personal library, and talked about a concept as old as the hills.
If you're genuinely interested in nonmanipulative films that present a lack of editorialization & sentiment, that don't tell you what to feel by telling you what it feels, there are plenty of them.. but you're generally not going to find them in the standard big budget studio film, especially not in melodrama (though there are exceptions). Simply by means of the conventional employment of music (melo-drama... drama + melody) the filmmaker tells you what to feel.

There are different kinds of editorialization: a film can be editorialized in one area but quite straightforward in another (though their streams can cross). A perfect idea of a revolution in specific, uneditorialized intent would be Salvatore Giuliano: Rosi's point is that politics and government and law enforcement are a combination of a thousand points of view, multiple players coming from their own standpoints, with an overriding factual narrative that can be kept out of view of the public by vested quarters. SG is a great example because not only is it politically unopinionated (you have no idea what Rosi's personal opinion on Giuliano--bandit? criminal? Robin Hood? military fredom fighter and hero?-- is), but it is emotionally unmanipulative as well, as it goes about the handling and presentation fo its contents.

Uneditorialized fiction-- seek out the works of Bresson and Dreyer. Mizoguchi's Akasen Chitai is an uneditorialized masterpiece via the sparest of means. These are filmmakers who achieve their means without the presence of a direct authorial voice that prognosticates openly in the piece and speaks to us and it's own universe like the Voice of God... uneditorialized films seek to simply put you in a place, to experience something.. something potentially variable that is entirely unique from viewer to viewer. Like the intimate effect of life upon each man who lives it.

These are the works I love most-- which plunk you down someplace, present a narrative, and allow the narrative to speak for itself: essentially saying "How do you feel about this?"... not "Feel this way about this!" Many great films have their meanings and the politics of their creator debated endlessly, because he never reveals his hand.

so what you need to give me is example of filmmakers who you think

lol I "need to give you"?

[DrBroel]

Two Richard Craniums in two months, man we're on a roll.

havent i been civil? havent i not thrown insults out? all asked for was civility in return and i get called a richard cranium.

i dont really get why this kind of thing has to happen.

[Grand Illusion]

Two Richard Craniums in two months, man we're on a roll.

As for what Shreck means, and correct me if I'm wrong, he finds films that are very upfront and dependent on their editorialization such as JFK or that recent Spike Lee war movie detrimental in most cases, while in other films such as The Maltese Falcon or the Apartment where any editorialization present if there is any can easily be ignored and considered a smaller part of the film. Can the conversation move on now?

Isn't your example for editorializing implicit in the subject matter? I kinda understand where DrBroel is coming from. There is no such thing as a lack of Editorialization. Sure, you can pick a relatively nonpolitical narrative such as searching for a MacGuffin in The Maltese Falcon. Any Editorialization really doesn't matter there insofar as the filmmakers' politics.

But when you take the subject matter of Miracle of St. Anna, any decision by the filmmakers is meaningful. Even if the work appears to allow events to "speak for themselves," it never does, ever. Certain tropes are used, such as unbroken takes or handheld, to achieve different effects, but the argument is that there is no such thing as "nonmanipulative films that present a lack of editorialization & sentiment."

If Bresson or Dreyer move you, they are being cut and performed for that effect. It's not as blatant as throwing a John Williams score on top and calling it a day, but, rest assured, the filmmakers have a reason they are holding certain frames and not others.

At least, I think that's what the argument is, and it's something I can get behind.

is like complaining about songs being in a musical.

"Fascist agenda!" for action films is the left-wing equivalent of "Homosexual agenda!" for musicals.

Make up your mind. Either the film's politics are worth discussing and defending or they aren't.

Crying fascism at every film is hyperbolic and counterproductive, and it happens A LOT given the political leanings of most film critics. That's really what I'm getting at. We can discuss war crimes and use the film as a backdrop, but I wrote in my initial post that any actual political effect of the film would probably just be one of simple narrative catharsis for the underdog.

[DrBroel]

so what you need to give me is example of filmmakers who you think

lol I "need to give you"?

"need to give" = what i need to help me understand you viewpoint. But that would require you actual having a desire to help me someone understand your point. i was just trying to have a discussion. i didnt not expect you to be so against such a thing. I was wrong. I will drop it now.

[DrBroel]

If Bresson or Dreyer move you, they are being cut and performed for that effect. It's not as blatant as throwing a John Williams score on top and calling it a day, but, rest assured, the filmmakers have a reason they are holding certain frames and not others.

At least, I think that's what the argument is, and it's something I can get behind.

that is a point i would have made if i was even sure exactly what he was including under the term editorializing. thats why i was just trying to get him to clarify but...

[knives]

Two Richard Craniums in two months, man we're on a roll.

As for what Shreck means, and correct me if I'm wrong, he finds films that are very upfront and dependent on their editorialization such as JFK or that recent Spike Lee war movie detrimental in most cases, while in other films such as The Maltese Falcon or the Apartment where any editorialization present if there is any can easily be ignored and considered a smaller part of the film. Can the conversation move on now?

Isn't your example for editorializing implicit in the subject matter? I kinda understand where DrBroel is coming from. There is no such thing as a lack of Editorialization. Sure, you can pick a relatively nonpolitical narrative such as searching for a MacGuffin in The Maltese Falcon. Any Editorialization really doesn't matter there insofar as the filmmakers' politics.

But when you take the subject matter of Miracle of St. Anna, any decision by the filmmakers is meaningful. Even if the work appears to allow events to "speak for themselves," it never does, ever. Certain tropes are used, such as unbroken takes or handheld, to achieve different effects, but the argument is that there is no such thing as "nonmanipulative films that present a lack of editorialization & sentiment."

If Bresson or Dreyer move you, they are being cut and performed for that effect. It's not as blatant as throwing a John Williams score on top and calling it a day, but, rest assured, the filmmakers have a reason they are holding certain frames and not others.

At least, I think that's what the argument is, and it's something I can get behind.

Sorry GI, I was referring to overtness, particularly for message films. (A reason I didn't mention Haneke despite him better fitting Schrek's examples) Maybe Taste of Cherry or Gerry would have been better examples.