Inglourious Basterds – Yap, Alaine

Just from the title itself, the film Inglourious Basterds can either be pointed out as one of two definitions: a dumb film or an English one. A dumb film meaning that the characters might be portrayed as illiterate not being able to spell properly, or an English film because from pronouncing the words they seem to come out like how the English people would say it.

The film was parted into 5 chapters, sort of like in a book but the way they are told seems to be different stories and different perspectives of characters whose lives are somehow intertwined.

Technicalities of the film supported its humorous genre. The silly music, crazy back stories, odd characters, random texts, informal transitions per chapter are just some of the technical elements that showed how this movie may not be a reliable source of German Nazi-Jew facts, but can be a source of a good laugh and a lighter take on the holocaust. The reason why Tarantino chose to transform such a tragic event in history into such a laugh can never be fully known by others, but one thing’s for sure, it is different.

Tarantino moved away from the usual plot of holocaust movies where it shows how Jews were so oppressed by Nazis and women were powerless. He made the movie interesting by doing this. Turning the tables around and giving the oppressed side the upper hand in his movie.      Shosanna, the French Jew, is an example of the table turner in this film. She had a huge role in the elimination of the top Nazi men and at the same time raises the flag of women. Tarantino shows her as the dainty, very feminine woman who looks like she can’t hurt a fly, but her character is strengthened when she starts to discuss her plans of killing the Nazis without any hint of doubt – not typical for women then.

Consistent with its goal of being different, the film was successful in this even when showing gory and gut twisting scenes. Tarantino was able to make the audience laugh with such scenes, opposite to the usual feeling of disgust when watching other World War II films. Another difference it makes is how lax it seems. There is no feeling of extreme eagerness to find out what will happen next, just pure leisure and amusement while watching the film. You won’t even notice that it lasts for more than 2 hours.

Aside from the obvious change in the story line of history, you won’t fail to take note of the comical characters. Even the most devilish of them, SS Colonel Hans Landa, despite being cruel can still be viewed with a light heart due to his charm and seemingly twisted way of thinking especially evident at the end of the film when he turned his loyalty to the other side and betrayed the Germans.

The movie may seem to appear as a joke in terms of history, attention to detail was certainly not overlooked by Tarantino. There is obvious care given to the production of the film which were shown by the use of props, clothing, and language especially. So you can’t really say that this movie is trash or a waste of time, there must be a deeper reason as to why Tarantino made such a film. Or else they wouldn’t even waste time trying to get their languages right.

Having read up on some articles regarding Tarantino and his previous films and how maybe he wants to achieve a ‘revolutionary art’ or an anti-fascist film, then I think he is successful in doing this given all the negative reaction he received. It can certainly cause a stir in a lot of fascists. He really was able to turn the table around in this film, sort of ‘showing’ the fascists how it feels. But personally, I am not a fan of gory movies and did not enjoy the head carving, scalping, and nut-shooting scenes. Fascists or anti-fascists, violence is violence. No matter who the giver and receiver of pain is, violence is still not a solution for me.

Inglourious Basterds – DE LEON, Pristine

Inglourious Basterds, a film directed by Quentin Tarantino, is one that I found brilliantly horrifying. As to what accounted for the horror or shock of the viewers, the obvious answer would be all the blood that spilled from every violent slashing, beating or shooting. Or perhaps it is more than that.

One noteworthy attribute of the film is its intent to put forward an alternative to what is generally known. It presents an already-familiar story or theme, then takes it and manipulates it until the alternative produces a more gruesome conclusion.

The more obvious example is their version of how the World War II was ended and how Germans were defeated. The Basterds’ brutality toward the Germans and Shoshanna’s burning of the cinema house echo actual happenings in the WWII wherein the reverse had occurred—it was the Germans who brutally annihilated the Jews and also killed them in gas chambers. The WWII, of course, did not conclude with the occurrences suggested by the movie. But to choose to end it in such a way raises the pride of the Jews as they are seen as the chief perpetrators of the murder of their oppressors. Revenge is emphasized as it is ultimately achieved when the Jews, who were the victims, assassinated the Germans, their oppressors, in an equally brutal and unmerciful manner.

Although, on the surface, the manner in which the film depicted the physical brutality of vengeance—as intensified by scenes of uncensored blood and gore—was enough to make some viewers squirm in fright and disgust, that embellished vengeance of the Jews was not the most horrifying aspect of the film. To call it simply a revenge film is simply to reduce it.

A rather more subtle and quite a bit more haunting technique employed by the film is the soft scattering of fairytale elements that darkens horrifyingly at their conclusion.

In the beginning of the film, the audience is greeted with the introduction, “Chapter One. Once upon a time in a Nazi occupied France.” The opening of “Once Upon a Time” is a familiar phrase commonly seen in children’s books, fairytale stories and the like. Until the ending, portions of the film are labeled with “Chapter 1,” “Chapter 2” and so on. Here, the film assumes a somewhat storybook structure, to bring to the viewer recollections of the innocent, fantastical world they had once visited in their childhood. Although this certain “structure” persists in the movie, the story or content cannot be farther from a fairytale.

The beginning story features a family in a dairy farm. The setting, with its green grass, humble cottage and milk, exudes a familiar sense of family, warmth and comfort. From the viewer, the family setting may evoke a feeling of safety and trust, as is normally associated with the concept of a home or a family. The entry of the Nazis provided a disruption to the scene and intrusion is amplified by Colonel Hans Landa’s entrance into the family’s home. Tension culminates into an explosive scene with shooting and spilling of blood, a violent occurrence fueled by the revelation, by a kind of betrayal by Monsieur LaPadite. The sensations of warmth, trust and safety associated with the imagery of a home is then poignantly disturbed and replaced by a sense of violence and betrayal.

Another subplot of the movie, involving Bridget von Hammersmark is linked to the familiar tale of Cinderella. Hans Landa, as he obtained the high-heeled shoe from the place where the shooting has occurred, was resolved to finding the woman. Again, this brings to memory, the classic sequence of “girl loses shoe, guy finds shoe, guy finds girl, and they live happily ever after.” Only that, the happy ending is replaced with brutal homicide. The fairy tale illusion, previously presented, is once again shattered.

Yet another subplot of interest is one that involves Shoshanna and Fredrick Zoller. In the reintroduction of Shoshanna, now Emmanuelle, it is immediately indicated that she is the girl from the Jewish family of the Dreyfus. One would ask, why not reveal her identity at the very end of the film, to enhance the surprise of the audience and reemphasize the theme of revenge? That is not the main point of the movie. The viewers are made aware, reminded that she is the Jew, to give clarity to her association with Fredrick, who is a Nazi. They belong to the two opposing parties of Jews and Nazis. Their subplot operates in some framework of romance that resembles Romeo and Juliet. The characters of Shakespeare died by suicide, made romantic, as they killed themselves, having chosen not live if they cannot be together. It is the reverse for the characters of Tarantino. The “lovers” resolved to murder each other. Then, the film showed a wide shot of the lovers lying lifeless near each other. This echoes the scene of Romeo and Juliet dying side by side. The story of Shoshanna and Fredrick is indeed a brutal and criminal perversion of Romeo and Juliet.

Inglourious Basterds brilliantly and horrifyingly presents the perversion of what is already known and familiar. First, it rewrites history and recasts the triumph against the Germans as a victory that is brutally and fundamentally vengeful.

It presents elements that warm the human heart only to shatter their illusion. Throughout history, these elements of family, fairytale, and romance provide an ideal of human nature and human interaction. This ideal is woven into the seams of culture and further on, into the mind of an individual. One thing that makes the film so brilliantly appalling is its intrusion on layers and layers of generally known culture and its disruption or perversion of the culture’s established ideal.

If a culture, which has permitted the rise and spread of fairytales and romance, illustrates human nature as good and beautiful—what the film does is create the alternative, the reverse; depicting human interaction as a repetitive series of killings and betrayal and human nature as vile and repugnant. The sense of reality of the viewer is powerfully shaken.

 

Inglourious Basterds — CANLAS, Punky

It was my first time to watch the film Inglourious Basterds, although I have heard of it a number of times in the past. A brief introduction was given prior to the film being shown to us in class; the setting, the circumstances during those times, as well as the maker of the film. “A movie by Quentin Tarantino,” and things became clear to me; I already knew what to expect – violence. I’ve seen two of his movies before; Pulp Fiction, and Kill Bill – both of which, just like Inglourious Basterds, clearly display so much graphic images. Also, if you ask me, — and let’s pretend that my opinion greatly counts — his movies even seem to suggest such violence and gore.

I don’t think there is a need to linger on the violence presented in the film, since it is already evident/obvious. So instead, I would like to delve more into parts which I find different/odd, as well as what I would like to believe as “hidden symbols” throughout the film.

To start it off, I think it is important that I bring up the flow of the film – how the story was told. Unlike the usual storyline or plot format (problem-climax-resolution, and the others in between), Inglourious Basterds was told through “chapter form.” However, each chapter told a different story, but all these chapters or “individual stories” lead to one end. For example; the first chapter showed how Shosanna Dreyfus, a jew in hiding, escaped from execution (for those who didn’t know, she and her family were taken in by a French dairy farm owner, Perrier LaPadite, and were hiding under the farmer’s floors; sadly, Shosanna was the only one from her family of four to survive). In that same chapter, col. Hans Landa was introduced as well, one of the main characters/antagonists. He was the “Jew Hunter” who had his soldiers shoot the Jewish family to death from above the floor boards of LaPadite’s home. On the other hand, the second chapter revolved around the introduction of the Basterds, an American-Jewish army whose main goal was to kill and threaten Nazi soldiers, lead by lt. Aldo Raine. Oh and before I forget – whenever the Basterds kill, they descalp their victims. Gross, right?

So that’s basically how the chapters from Inglourious Basterds went. Different stories, and often different characters introduced. It was like watching two main stories unfold; that of the Basterds, and the other of Shosanna’s quest for revenge. I hope I made sense.

Moving on to symbolisms; I’ll go straight to the point – this is a war film, thus it becomes obvious that this movie be very patriarchal and male-oriented. I brought this up because I saw a number of phallic symbols all-throughout the film. Didn’t notice? Here are some photos to remind you:

Yes! The knives, guns, bat, and even pipes are phallic symbols – proof of how manly the characters are, of how males are completely dominant throughout the film. This, I believe, is self-explanatory.

Despite all the blood I’ve witnessed in the film, I still honestly enjoyed it because of all the humor injected within the plot and characters – especially lt. Aldo Raine and the rest of the Basterds! I do recommend that you guys check Inglourious Basterds out, and maybe even write about it yourselves!

‘Til the next movie,

Punky 🙂

Inglourious Basterds – AFRICA, Miko

I have seen Inglourious Basterds about two or three times before having seen it in class. And I must say, given the intro given to the course and what I should look out for, I found some “unusual” or rather new things that I didn’t see before; a couple of stuff regarding the actors, some parts or the whole story line, and some bits and pieces of scenes.

One particular thing that I noticed was at the beginning of Chapter 2, where Lt. Aldo Raine was giving his speech/introduction to his new recruits into his group; Inglourious Basterds. That particular scene reminded me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club, in which he also played, where they were in the basement of a bar and him giving the rules of Fight Club. There are a lot of similarities from both characters that were played by the same actor. Maybe because both characters have the same peg or they are alike as persons. And I think Brad Pitt used the same strategy he used for Tyler when he played Lt. Raine. Tyler was a leader, he persuaded people with his smooth and very convincing, very straightforward personality. Likewise, Lt. Raine has the same aura, personality and characteristic as a person. I think the only difference is Brad Pitt’s role as Lt. Raine is more aged, more mature and much more calm and collected than of Tyler Durden. Plus Lt. Raine is a ranked officer during the World War compared to Tyler where he is just a streetwise, silver-tongued guy.

Another odd experience for me was when I saw the movie in class, I was shocked to see Mike Myers name in the start of the film. I couldn’t remember before that he was in the movie. Then when I saw him, he did not look like as I expected him to look like. Actually I didn’t notice him until I looked really closely. When I saw him, what I saw was a hairy-faced Austin Powers. It was kind of stuck to me that he will forever be Austin Powers. In the movie, I kind of saw this signature Austin Power smile he always does, but in a less obvious way. I don’t know if it became second nature to him to smile like that but I think that’s what gave him away for me. It’s what I saw that made me confirm to myself that it is Mike Myers. On a completely different not, Christoph Waltz was superb in his role in the movie. Though this is the first movie of him that I have seen.

On a different note, in terms of storyline/plot it was as if I was actually watching two different films within a film. I had this feeling that I was watching a Nazi hunter group kill off their prey and on the other hand a “chick flick” with a twist mixed with WWII action. It literally was like watching two different movies meeting plotlines halfway. It was two movies heading to the middle and merging to go to one ending. Speaking of the ending, the “massacre” in the cinema, one particular scene that caught my attention was when Dominic Deccoco and Antonio Margheritti busted in the balcony seats and started rifling everyone in the room, in which reminded me of Al Pacino’s famous “say hello to my little friend” scene in Scarface. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpE)

To sum things up, overall I think the plot, the actors and the overall production was superb and worth watching. 

Inglourious Basterds – SEWELL, Jonathan

The film Inglourious Basterds is one that I thoroughly enjoyed. Quentin Tarantino definitely captured me as an audience member; he is without a doubt a very clever director. Having taken a film class prior to Elements of Screen Art, I was able to appreciate the film in a way wouldn’t think I would be able to. The camera angles, the properties used in each scene such as the iconic symbols/artifacts/items used in the film added to the overall impact.

I would like to put a sizeable amount of emphasis on the iconic symbols used.

First, the pipes. The pipes in the scene where Hans Landa was conversing with Perrier LaPadite, although quite humorous, was without a doubt a phallic symbol. It carried the notion of “mine-is-bigger-so-Im-better”. At this point we see LaPadite withdraw his pipe in shame.

The other iconic symbol I found most interesting was the baseball bat. The way I see things, there is only one more thing that is more American than a Ford Mustang, and that is baseball. Baseball is America’s past time. There is nothing else that can refer to baseball other than the bat. Sure we can think of the baseball glove or a ball, but those can’t be used to kill a Nazi soldier. This brings me to my next point. Seeing a Nazi being beat over the head with something so American in that post-ambush scene signifies and emphasizes the Basterds’ power in that situation.

The next symbol of interest was Adolf Hitler’s cape in his introductory scene. Why is this interesting? One, we associate capes with superheroes; more often than not, it’s Superman. Two, Hitler considered himself and Übermensch, when translated into English means Superhuman. Nietzsche who believed that there are humans that are superior to others coined the term Übermensch. For Tarantino to wrap Hitler in that cape was clever of him. It is very nice to know that a director who tackles films involving historical events and personalities knows his material very well.

The last symbol I want to talk about is the number 3, particularly the sign of the number 3 made with the fingers. This was a game changer! I was able to watch an interview with Tarantino regarding this scene. Tarantino mentioned in an interview with MTV that he had a German woman working on set who read the script who then went to her American husband and asked him to make the symbol of 3 with his hand to prove if this was true. She was shocked to find out that it was true. Here is the link if anyone would like to see the video: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619361/inglourious-basterds-five-things-should-know.jhtml

Overall, I thought the film was very well planned, written and thought through. It made a fan boy out of me. Just to add, Christoph Waltz’ (Hans Landa) performance was absolutely amazing! Tarantino has been a great director and this film is definitely a must watch for any of his fans. I know that I don’t get sick watching this film and I hope no one else does as well.