Printable View
Inglorious Basterds - Inglorious Basterds
[Not entirely unexpected]
What exactly is this film?
Is it a holocaust film? We've seen better. In fact, i would say we've seen enough for now! Actually, its a shame that this film touches on the holocaust!
Is it a WWII film? We've seen better.
Is it a Tarrantino ride? We've seen better
The Italian group scene was :rotfl3: and i swear Pitt looked 80% like Brando in the Godfather
Chennai la mattum illa idhellam remba over! irritating :banghead: :banghead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglourious_Basterds
mm...... ennamo po...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarrantino
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarrantino
Liked the soundtrack, which is the case with all his movies :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz4K-Rxx2Bk
Did anyone post it here? QT's Top 20 movies since '92.
Recently, an article in The Hindu said that none of QT's fims got released in India because of its violence !!!Enna koduma. Then what about P.Veeran, SPuram etc... sutha hypocrasy.
Years back, there was an EDITED !!! version of PF which got released in Woodlands theatre and that too strictly for 5 days, which I managed to see (aana pala murai video tape-la pathachu - later in CD). Kill Bill was also released in Chennai. Andha writer vivaram puriyama ezhuditarunnu ninaikkiren.
A tad late..
Inglorious basterds
- Massacre of history, triumph of cinema. :clap:
Like any QT film, it's a motley of genres with imaginative subversions. :thumbsup:
Finally releasing in chennai this friday :yes: :mrgreen:
:D
Only noon show sathyam has planned :( . They could have gone in for 10 PM showQuote:
Originally Posted by Sid_316
3.45 pm @ Satyam & 10 p.m. at Inox.Quote:
Originally Posted by great
9 am spl. show on Sat & Sun @ Inox.
Saw the movie y'day eve @ Chennai Devi Theatre. Obviously there were many cuts – thanks to the term, “ suitable for Indian viewing “ !!
Well, much has been said & discussed here and you guys know much better than me. But, whatever I’m going to register here, it will be more Visceral than Cerebral (Thanks P_R).
Firstly, it’s definitely a different film from QT. I say this because in his earlier films, it would be mostly like, “ Modhalla Veechu, appuramathan Pechu “ kind of scenes. Fine example is in RD – unable to bear Michael Madsen torturing the innocent cop, Tim Roth shoots him. Now, when the chief’s son (is he Sean Penn’s bro ??) comes in to the warehouse and enquires, Tim says, that guy cut the cop’s ears, shattered his face and tried to burn him alive. Immediately this guy turns towards the cop and says, “ Who, this cop ? “ and then goes Bang! Bang!! Bang !!! But here it is mostly long and interesting conversations followed by action, which I really enjoyed. I wouldn’t say it is unusual, because dialogues were an integral part of his films and they were famous too. I just felt that it is different. And, as it is usual for a QT film, the music was too good.
Be it any department in the making of this film, it looked to me that QT was in complete control. Right from the soldiers uniforms, their arms & artilleries, Hitler’s spacious and well furnished room, the tavern, the cinema hall, the French peasant’s little house – everything was amazing. Of course, it’s a team work, but I would say that the entire credit should be given to QT for bringing out all those nuances and minutest of the details perfectly on screen. :thumbsup:
IMO, this much of hard work is not required to make films like RD, PF etc where it is enough if the director concentrates more on stylish non-linear narration, excellent casting, great music and thrilling action sequences. But to make a film of this standard, the director has to be a well-read person, a man who has thorough knowledge about world history, World War, Geography, complete knowledge of world cinema particularly old b&w war films (the one that is premiered in Shosanna’s cinema is beautifully shot ), various languages – its accents etc., and our man undoubtedly possess all the above qualities, I believe. Who else could think of a story in world war backdrop told in spaghetti western style !! Brilliant !!!
A German war hero who loves films, his affinity for Shosanna and the subsequent tragedy are all beautiful line of thoughts. In fact, before the climax, when he enters the projector room hoping to have a good time with Shosanna , he is rejected by her, and finally both of them fall down dead killing each other, are all wonderful turn of events.
In the very beginning scene, Hans Landa very casually interrogates the French peasant, who is smoking a small pipe. Later, after getting the country man’s permission, Hans also takes out his pipe, which is really a BIG one, and starts smoking. Now, after looking at the size of the BIG pipe, the countryman slowly hides his small pipe under the table. Some of you must have noticed that there is a similar scene in KB’s “ Avargal “. When Sujatha is sick, Kamal visits her house. He brings with him some oranges which are the size of lemons and keeps it on a table. Later, Rajini comes there and he too brings some oranges which are really Big & fresh and keeps it on the same table. Now, Kamal slowly takes away his small oranges and throws in a basket. Is this what they call, “ Great men think alike ?? “ :)
Before that, in the same scene, after throwing a series of questions to the country man, Hans prepares himself to take down notes in order to make a record of it. The objects that he carries with himself – a neat leather bag, an ink bottle, pen & sheets of white paper – everything looked spic & span ! It was nice to see them.
Jayalalitha often use to criticize Karunanidhi’s propaganda’s as “ Goebbele’s pracharam “. Now here is the man, in this film !!! :)
The climax itself was brilliantly shot. The big b&w close-up of Shosanna scornfully looking at the Nazis and scolding them, the nitrate films burning, total chaos inside the hall, Eli Roth blindly shooting the Nazis, including Hitler himself and finally the powerful grenades going off !! And all this with a Spaghetti Western background music. Only with QT, such a scene is possible !!! :clap:
Now for the performances. My God !! Each and every character, right from the French country man, his young daughters, the Nazi who gets his head smashed with a baseball bat by one of the Basterds, the other Nazi in the tavern, who points out his pistol underneath the table, towards his opponent’s testicles, the bunch of people who are present there and having a blast – Maximillian’s father, particularly, Hitler, Goebbels, his lady translator (we saw her in Kill Bill, whose hand is cut off by the Bride), the soldier who loves movies, Shosanna, Hammersmack – every one of them is just superb. And, this is where, I think the director comes out really really successful.
Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine is just great with his accent and maintains his cool very well.
And, Christopher Waltz !!! What a brilliant performance !!!. This man makes it a pleasure, watching the film. Be it making reasons with his rat & squirrel story, meeting the grown up Shosanna at Goebbel’s office and drinking a glass of milk in one gulp, finding Hammersmack’s single shoe & hand-kerchief, later killing her ferociously, meeting Pitt & his friend, who are supposed to be “ Italians” , in the Cinema and suddenly switching over to Italian accent thereby surprising them, finally, making a deal with Pitt across the table – I simply enjoyed his performance throughout the film. :2thumbsup:
A fantastic & neat film with a B I G QT’s signature over it.
Like any QT film, it's a motley of genres with imaginative subversions. He breaks the canons, and could render morbidity (WWII, and Holocaust, no less) in a whole new style.
Everyone talks about Colonel Landa, and Shosanna (no coincidence they are both appropriately cast with Europeans) and rightly so. But even Pitt's role is not bad writing or a casting mistake (he comes off well with half-arsed texan accent and an insensitive Nazi-to-Nazis. Landa taking a piss on Pitt's phony Italian makeover is Hilarious! Also, Basterds are no focal point. It's sort of like, the good (Shosanna), the bad (Colonel Landa) and the Ugly (Basterds) of a 'spaghetti WWII'. Colonel Landa like Angel Eyes(Lee Cleef) is a crafty bastard, and utterly dangerous that it takes no sweat to double-cross the employer & work out on his own! Leone's masterpiece broke traditional good-bad Western Dramatology into three-fold shades of Grey. QT subverts a different genre, and a scenario sacrilegious to certain sections. It's a challenging task. History is at peril, but art bestows liberty. QT makes no bones about breaking the rules.
Interesting post Thilak :thumbsup: my unflinching opinion on the film notwithstandingQuote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
B(K),
You are right in saying it's no better than any WWII films of past, or any QT films of past. The combination made it a unique experience for me.
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/artic...41/story.jhtml
Nov 30 2009 7:02 AM EST
Quentin Tarantino Says Third 'Kill Bill' Film Will Have Different Title
'It would be Volume 3 of the story of the Bride,' writer/director tells us of the franchise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--68X30ubA
Hans Landa getting a golden globe. He has some good words for QT. He spoke very humbly.
Very good speech. Makes perfect sense. Qt as the creative center of universe and how the rest are globes pulled by gravitation, revolving around him. I bet no American actor/actress would bother about poetic verses. I liked DDL's speech for TWBB, "sprung out of mad beautiful head of Paul Thomas Anderson". :lol:
Christoph Waltz and Tarantino :clap:
Quote:
Originally Posted by From wiki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarantino
Agree with him. But that said, I'd say he deserves it over both their recent films. But is it really in academy's purview. :cry:
There are very less (No chance actually) chances of him getting the Best Director/Film Award this year. His best chance went away way back in 1994 for Pulp Fiction.
He won best writing with Roger Avary (who shouldn't be underestimated, the boxer and gold watch storyline really tied together the film structure), which was a surprise, considering the violence, swearing, irreverence, and pop culture references. I think he has good chances of getting in future. He was looked as this wild, eccentric movie freak, L'enfant terrible. But slowly, the geriatrics at the academy realize the technique and are welcoming, even embracing him. He is no longer seen as this "outsider". :)
I understand for Qt to win best director needs a bunch of cinephiles who know a bit of film history, nuances and lineage of Tarantino filmmaking. QT's mise-en-scene incl. the number of farm cows, the calabash, 35 mm nitrate films, to rope-burn are scripted already. But requires equally great direction to produce the image that would evoke senses, and produce a magical effect. A fruition of this witchcraft is dependent on recepient's mind and sense, ultimately a memory, that Martin Scorsese captures perfectly in closing comments of a documentary,Yet I don't think the academy seem to have "got it", and controlled consciousness, in absolute sense. There is an aspect of academy's purview incapable of picking on the nuances and witchery of direction. Their criteria is really short-sighted and very instinctive. Sometimes a detailed discussion and brainstorming is needed *Quote:
It's as if movies answer an ancient quest for the common unconscious. They fulfill a spiritual need that people have to share a common memory.
In some respects, Qt is no different from Martin Scorsese. who also shares his encyclopedic knowledge and has a sense of auteurism. And for a New york non-Jew ( :P ), Scorsese wasn't going to get many favors among the majority of voters. He was ignored to extent of nonchalant preference, of inferior works and mediocre direction. For example, in year-of-whores (as it were memorably nicked by its host, whoopie Goldberg), Academy ignored Scorsese (Casino) for Babe(Noonan). Direction is a diff ballpark, well outside their purview.
But one thing that Tarantino has got over Scorsese, along with other modern auteurs like Coens and PT Anderson, is to write their own scripts. Of course, Scorsese picks his favorite scripts and rewrites it, according to his vision. But there's a big difference.
(* like with a handpicked jury and have them discuss, before casting the vote, so in many ways Cannes and Palm d'or is the ultimate award to hope for, and also the universal concept of it)
Good point on Tarantino over Scorsese. He writes his own scripts. Something which is to be given a good weightage while choosing great direction/ors.
Rocky over Taxi is a blasphemy.
But there are also a distinctive difference which the Academy needs to differentiate, is my point. Often times, there's a deviation to the script, rewrites (memorably the whole Chinatown climax), ad lib and improv (not necessarily lines, but angles, style, behavior, reactions, etc) on-set, which are all part of the collaboration, and others times, that Scorsese himself puts it, every director will experience accidents can be the source of extraordinary poetry and beauty. (which will definitely trouble P_R a bit)
:yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
A memorable improv by Scorsese in "Goodfellas", "I'm here to f-in amuse you", "Funny how? what's funny about it", different cameras capturing Joe Pesci and Ray Liotta (but in real-time, almost like an act of theater) to catch the full moment, getting by the balls ( the seriousness), and ends being taking-the-piss (I almost had him! :lol: )!
Similarly, Tarantino not opting to use calabash after the first chapter, actually he brings it up in second and third acts (not chapters) of the final draft. But in process of collaboration, they don't bring it on screen. This helps us concede Landa had used it as interrogative technique to catch the french farmer off-guard. (that first chapter is like a one-act play as Waltz says in an interview, it was so much of a Leone-style filmmaking, it was shot in 3-4 days, and the work really shows)
At other times, a genius writer with a real sense of poetry and sense of rhythm, like Woody Allen, presents a difficulty of improv or ad-lib. Most of the actors who have admitted this, "how could one change those lines!" ). But sometimes, they do tend to help him out in portraying philistines and cretins (I'm led to think :lol: ). For example, Mira Sorvino playing a hooker, helped improvise the scene in her apartment with Woody in "Might Aphrodite", turning it sensual, believable, and all the more funny. She reveals this in an interview.
That is a fantastic scene. :cool2: One could feel the tension in the scene. Pesci did it well. Ray Liotta manages it well till the dialog "Get outta here".
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Christoph Waltz acted so well in this scene. However the credits should be equall divided between Tarantino the writer and waltz the actor. I though the best written chapter is the meeting of the British officer with Diane Kruger in the Tavern.
I have seen only one film of Woody Allen. Don't know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
The director too ! Because it was collaborated on set.Quote:
However the credits should be equall divided between Tarantino the writer and waltz the actor.
Totally.Quote:
I though the best written chapter is the meeting of the British officer with Diane Kruger in the Tavern.
I read the leaked script before watching the film, I thought the whole ride up until the under-table Gun-sie (:lol:) is driven by extremely well-wriien dialogue, and preplanned camera movements, that it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the writer and director. But what sets it apart is that the scene on the page requires so much from sculpting, and aesthetic point of view. There is a dialectical marriage between the writer and director. You see what I mean.
I'm not troubled by the existence of such but by the joy that the creator seems to have in acknowledging it as part of "his" process. And only more surprised that Scorsese fans* are not troubled by this acknowledgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
I will restate/elaborate a thannilai viLakkam through an example:
Even Master of Control Kurosawa - has some pleasant surprises. In throne of blood, when the warlord is coming to Mifune's house, he is out in the courtyard watching his men. One of them is trying to tame a horse in the background and the horse knocks him down, breaks a small barricade and prances. This happens in the background - almost imperceptible. A passing moment. It was thoroughly incidental. Kurosawa didn't pull a Rama.Narayanan. The animal just acted up and the way the actor in the background falls is proof of that. It was a lovely moment.
If you are eager for interpretation - like me - then one can draw parallel between that and Mifune's state of mind. A powerful man completely within his boundaries, is going to break bariers now.
These are pleasurable fancies. They will never be the important reasons why I will like the film or Kurosawa.
* of which I don't count myself as one. With the possible exception of King of Comedy I didn't find the other 2-3 I watched very impressive. As Brusiloff said of Wodehouse: not good, but not bad.
PS: I assume the rest of the discussion is about the film, which I haven't watched, so I didn't read.
It was tongue-in-cheek too, because I do see why it is discomforting and where you're coming from :P
Neither do I, actually. :) Scorsese wasn't referring to himself, but every director there ever has been in history of cinema.Quote:
These are pleasurable fancies. They will never be the important reasons why I will like the film or Kurosawa.
Some of the great technical inventions in filmmaking (As in science) have been from accidents and unconsciously tried-out techniques. There is a continual experimentation over last century of filmmaking, we constantly discover and rediscover (very much a just-born) art form. Most of what we take for granted have been made both conscious and unconscious discoveries. Scorsese says that in context of say a scratch on film, or overexposed film, or missing frames in the reels (the actual invention of jump cuts :lol: ), accidental distortion of the image, to a positive effect. In fact, stylized editing techniques are most times accidents. That very progression on different levels help revolutionize & shape the art-form.
And could very much be poetical and aesthetically beautiful.
This is definitely part of the process. But not one of the most "important", however.
Once I have established it is not the most important, next point in my agenda is to establish they are the least important. :P
madhdhiyaanamA varEn
But it is important in evolution of the art form. That's undeniable.
You might try making a case for least importance, in context of director's process, and credit-sharing.
Basically, my point being that nuances, of director's craft and process, is a different ballpark to writer's, and that's something the academy struggle to differentiate and deliberate.
Jokes apart, no doubt that through accidents we stumble upon processes. And they may catch our fancy. But the conscious use of them after that is what we usually appreciate, right ?
So accidental aesthetics need to be given a nod for its charm, but not much beyond that IMO.
Fair enough.
Oh okay. But the difference still is not large enough to warrant that being a principal ought-not-to-be-missed point in the academy's deliberations.Quote:
Originally Posted by kid-glove
Oh, It is large enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by P_R
We may have to tread the age-old debate of new criticism against Auteur theory. And nature of the art form itself.
This is a much different medium, and in this debate, the proponents miss the point.
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/201...8/bangindx.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudhish Comet
As I replied to him in twitter, knowing how the academy operates, I don't think QT's got a chance in best film or direction this year. But he will win one eventually.
Ah! finally, Hans Landa managed to bag all the top honours. Kudos.
Hans Landa: "Ooooo! That's a BINGO!!....Is that how you say it?"
Aldo: .......u just say bingo......
Hans Landa: BINGO!!!
:lol: :lol:
Hans Landa and Monsieur LaPaditte in the beggining:
Hans Landa: If a rat (the rat is a symbol for jews in nazi propaganda. So in this story, the jews are being represented as the rat) ran in here now...what would u do? Would you greet it with some of your delicious milk? (Points at the glass of milk LaPaditte offered him a few mins before.) But you would if it was a squirrel wouldn't you? Rats and Squirrels are similar, they look alike if not for the tails. but you wouldn't kill a squirille if it came into your house...why? You don't know...you don't like the rats, u don't know why you don't like them...you just don't like them.
LaPaditte: ......but rats bite, they spread diseases...
Hans Landa: I'm willing to bet with you that 99% of the bacteria a rat carries can also be carried by a squirrel.
Lapaditte: ...That's an Interesting Thought....
:shock: That was one of the best scenes in the movie. Very good acting as well needless to say.