I never understood this aspect of Inglorious Bastereds. There’s an obvious parallel being presented between the Nazis in the audience, and the IRL audience, but what exactly is the takeaway supposed to be? Hateful 8 and Once Upon a time in Hollywood rubbed me the wrong way for the same reasons - there seems to be obvious high school level allegories and themes, but without an overall point being made.
I’m not sure QT is going for a coherent deep message with any of his movies. At least, not ones he doesn’t basically always contradict in the same movie. I always saw him as a fetishizer of (among other things) movies when they were churned out as product more than art. It’s why pulp fiction is called that and starts with the definition of pulp fiction basically being cheap, mindless, targeted-to-release-dopamine efficiently, bulk content. He’s making that kind of film from the 70s that somehow gets all the pieces together to exist even though the script is at least 50% corny/bad. But he gets unlimited budget (from Harvey Weinstein) and full-on movie stars and just goes all-out on them.
But then in most of the movies there is at least some navel-gazing/meta cinema tributes. And basically every plot line in IG is about movies or Hollywood or German Hollywood. And (outside the opening scene) the only ones who are not, the Basterds themselves, describe Donny bashing Nazis as “the closest thing we have to going to the movies.” So it’s not just the fantasy story where America beat the Germans, it also this fantasy story about Hollywood winning the war.
I’m with you when it comes to seeing the good parts of QT films like killing Nazis and racists whites, but calling a spade a spade shouldn’t be frowned on. The dude isn’t a communist by any means. Like what was the point of “once upon a time in Hollywood”? I read an interview where QT basically ranted about hippies ruining Hollywood and the death of Sharon Tate was the final nail in the coffin for golden age Hollywood. Pretty much indistinguishable from a chud screed.
yeah i would agree that there are underlying wistful and elegiac feelings or themes in OUaTiH (looking to the past, loss, feeling washed up, the subversion of history as wish fulfillment), and i think it’s fair to view these as being conservative-coded or having conservative-valences. i’m of the feeling that it’s his most textured and mature work (I think the violence with in it is much more complicated, esp of course with the dialogue with the Manson kids before the climax), so i guess i’d disagree that it’s indistinguishable from a chud screed because i don’t think the film is really that cut and dry, as being primarily didactic or being a vessel for a “message” (and because of course QT is a formal and technical master or w/e).
more broadly, my dismissive post above is simply an expression of skepticism, from, like, that famous Susan Sontag essay, at the contention that art is or supposed to be reducible to a series of statements, which are to be unearthed by interpretation. i’m not sure that’s how we should engage with art, and by doing so it cuts off a lot of what’s valuable.
and, more so, to your comment, and this is more a personal disposition, but i’m not of the feeling that a work needs to align so completely with my political convictions. i think in OUaTiH, there’s room to have a bit of empathy for this loss of a cultural moment, for the loss of these old cultural gods (pre-New Hollywood heroes), without also disclaiming that this loss still wasn’t necessary or a good thing or whatever. (having said that, i think Django is a good example of a film which has a very intentional and pointed view of the world that is very different from my own (that Django is good and correct to only lookout for himself), to the point that i think much less of the film because of it. whether or not i can insist you be open to OUaTiH while discarding Django for myself, I’m not prepared to argue here.)
No I’m not saying everything we watch should only reinforce our political views or anything, it’s that out of all his movies I think it’s pretty easy to pick out the symbols and meaning, but with OuaTiH it was easily the hardest to understand for me (which makes sense I went in expecting a movie about the Manson family, when in reality it was a movie made for people who love movies, which I’m not really). My point being i think for QT, but more broadly libs can’t really do deep cultural analysis well and when they do it’s surface level at best or pretty much a lib screed at worst.
I never understood this aspect of Inglorious Bastereds. There’s an obvious parallel being presented between the Nazis in the audience, and the IRL audience, but what exactly is the takeaway supposed to be? Hateful 8 and Once Upon a time in Hollywood rubbed me the wrong way for the same reasons - there seems to be obvious high school level allegories and themes, but without an overall point being made.
It’s a common aspect of a lot modern movies and shows, and really reveals the hollowness of the themes and a lack of understanding by the writers about what their own show is about.
The message is very clear to us erudite, enlightened viewers. Behold! A tiny peek inside the mind palace of Quentin Tarantino!
Also:
“I’m gonna say the N-word and wank off to some feet. Nobody can stop me.”
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I’m not sure QT is going for a coherent deep message with any of his movies. At least, not ones he doesn’t basically always contradict in the same movie. I always saw him as a fetishizer of (among other things) movies when they were churned out as product more than art. It’s why pulp fiction is called that and starts with the definition of pulp fiction basically being cheap, mindless, targeted-to-release-dopamine efficiently, bulk content. He’s making that kind of film from the 70s that somehow gets all the pieces together to exist even though the script is at least 50% corny/bad. But he gets unlimited budget (from Harvey Weinstein) and full-on movie stars and just goes all-out on them.
But then in most of the movies there is at least some navel-gazing/meta cinema tributes. And basically every plot line in IG is about movies or Hollywood or German Hollywood. And (outside the opening scene) the only ones who are not, the Basterds themselves, describe Donny bashing Nazis as “the closest thing we have to going to the movies.” So it’s not just the fantasy story where America beat the Germans, it also this fantasy story about Hollywood winning the war.
this sounds like a problem with the interpreter, and not the work, tbqh
I’m with you when it comes to seeing the good parts of QT films like killing Nazis and racists whites, but calling a spade a spade shouldn’t be frowned on. The dude isn’t a communist by any means. Like what was the point of “once upon a time in Hollywood”? I read an interview where QT basically ranted about hippies ruining Hollywood and the death of Sharon Tate was the final nail in the coffin for golden age Hollywood. Pretty much indistinguishable from a chud screed.
yeah i would agree that there are underlying wistful and elegiac feelings or themes in OUaTiH (looking to the past, loss, feeling washed up, the subversion of history as wish fulfillment), and i think it’s fair to view these as being conservative-coded or having conservative-valences. i’m of the feeling that it’s his most textured and mature work (I think the violence with in it is much more complicated, esp of course with the dialogue with the Manson kids before the climax), so i guess i’d disagree that it’s indistinguishable from a chud screed because i don’t think the film is really that cut and dry, as being primarily didactic or being a vessel for a “message” (and because of course QT is a formal and technical master or w/e).
more broadly, my dismissive post above is simply an expression of skepticism, from, like, that famous Susan Sontag essay, at the contention that art is or supposed to be reducible to a series of statements, which are to be unearthed by interpretation. i’m not sure that’s how we should engage with art, and by doing so it cuts off a lot of what’s valuable.
and, more so, to your comment, and this is more a personal disposition, but i’m not of the feeling that a work needs to align so completely with my political convictions. i think in OUaTiH, there’s room to have a bit of empathy for this loss of a cultural moment, for the loss of these old cultural gods (pre-New Hollywood heroes), without also disclaiming that this loss still wasn’t necessary or a good thing or whatever. (having said that, i think Django is a good example of a film which has a very intentional and pointed view of the world that is very different from my own (that Django is good and correct to only lookout for himself), to the point that i think much less of the film because of it. whether or not i can insist you be open to OUaTiH while discarding Django for myself, I’m not prepared to argue here.)
No I’m not saying everything we watch should only reinforce our political views or anything, it’s that out of all his movies I think it’s pretty easy to pick out the symbols and meaning, but with OuaTiH it was easily the hardest to understand for me (which makes sense I went in expecting a movie about the Manson family, when in reality it was a movie made for people who love movies, which I’m not really). My point being i think for QT, but more broadly libs can’t really do deep cultural analysis well and when they do it’s surface level at best or pretty much a lib screed at worst.