MovieChat Forums > Inglourious Basterds (2009) Discussion > Most of Tarantinos fans don't understand...

Most of Tarantinos fans don't understand this. And its frustrating

posted 5 years ago by Tophercross (4)
12 replies | jump to latest

At its basic level its nazi torture porn. But at a deeper level it's about how easy it Is to fall into a hive and start wishing death on everyone (like the Nazis)

Of course everyone mentions the theater scene as a beautiful meta moment (Nazis watching the film - us watching the film) but few people seem to notice Hitler says the exact same words as Aldo (this Is your best work yet) because the reality is there actually pretty similar. There both barbaric and cruel. Only working toward extermination. There the same guy.

Of course I could mention the soldier who died because he didn't want to give up German soldiers or the father who begged not to be killed before being gunned down.
This article covers most of what I think Tarantino was doing
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/270952/amp

Its completely obvious to me what the attention of it all was. Thats why it's sooo frustrating trying to watch this with other people. They don't get the actual message of the movie is the same as that old Twilight Zone episode. People are alike all over

[–] LTUM (999) 5 years ago

what father begged? you mean in the pub scene?

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7524) 5 years ago

I think he's talking about Willhelm, who was celebrating the birth of his son in the bar the Basterds met in towards the end, who was killed by Bridget Von Hammersmark because he called her a traiterous bitch.

[–] ebhaynz (3621) 5 years ago

Tarantino doesn't send deep, meaningful messages to his audiences. He's not that type of guy.

[–] Ace_Spade (9459) 5 years ago

I disagree. Kill Bill starts out as a black-and-white revenge saga until Tarantino throws in the corkscrew of BB and makes the movie about the effects of our actions, the consequences of violence, the cycles of revenge (it's foreshadowed with Vernita and Nikki).

Now, I'm not sure how much of this is Tarantino's intent; I could just be reading into it, or maybe some sneaky little script goblin added subtext and theme at night while Quentin was sleeping, but his movies often are packed with truths about characters and people and the world.

I know what you mean: he's very stylish and I do get the impression that he'd rather be slick than send a message or deliver something meaningful, but some of his films certainly have things to say. Inglourious Basterds is one of them.

[–] ebhaynz (3621) 5 years ago

I'm sure he might be putting messages into at least some of his movies but it's definitely not his specialty. I'm a fan of Quentin although I haven't seen all his movies I agree he changed Hollywood forever and he's got a large fan base. I recently compared him to Oliver Stone and yes, they're both great directors but I believe Stone was a much better director and that Quentin quickly became a hit and miss director after Pulp Fiction. As to who is the better person it's Quentin over Stone hands down lol! Stone literally went off the deep left end!

[–] Ace_Spade (9459) 5 years ago

I think it's always secondary for him. His primary goal always seems to be pure entertainment and thrills, but if he can whip a little message in there, so much the better, but he's always focused on just making it a movie that rocks.

So, we get some little, hidden profundities in Kill Bill about revenge, and he explores Beatrix's psychology of being a mother and what that means verses who she "is" (mother or assassin?) Or, Inglourious Basterds talks a lot about the lust for violence and whether or not it's entertaining (almost meta and a downright risky move for a guy who trades in entertaining violence).

Django Unchained, I think, has something to say. Granted, that something is "racism and slavery are awful", but he says it in such an unflinching way that I think Django is still kind of an important film. In interviews, Tarantino would talk about how almost nothing is said in America about the horrors of slavery. People kinda acknowledge it was awful, but nobody explains the horror of it. He showed a lot of that horror (while also offering up a slice of catharsis). To a country still largely mired in prejudice where racial tension still runs high, I think Django Unchained had a lot to say of importance.

Other films of Tarantino's, though...eh...less to really "get across". The least one of his films attempts depth is, in my opinion, The Hateful Eight, which basically is just reality TV akin to Jersey Shore or Here Comes Honey Boo Boo where the point is to watch a bunch of people you can feel superior to while reveling in the carnage they bring to one another. It felt like a kind of sick film to be honest; it was nihilistic and pointless. Consequently, it's the only film he's made which I don't like.

Others which have little point I love for their pure entertainment. Reservoir Dogs is just a heist, but such a great thriller with such great characters and crackling dialogue that it's hard to write it off.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Wow, and I thought I was the only one who picked up on some of the subtext in Kill Bill. You're absolutely right. Tarantino is arguably the most misunderstood mainstream filmmaker working today. His movies are always layered with themes embedded in between what is coming out of the characters' mouths and the actions they take. The man is a genius in how he placates to his audience's expectations on the surface narrative level, all while sneakily inserting more complex themes through subtext and innuendo.

A good example of how misunderstood he is, even by other filmmakers, can be found in Tony Scott's version of True Romance. Despite the film retaining most of the general plot and dialogue Tarantino penned in his script, none of the subtext and poetry that was embedded ever seemed to come across through Tony Scott's direction. The man just adapts the script on a very surface level, without ever taking a moment to ponder what is really being said and what is really being performed by its lead characters. Resulting in a film that, while entertaining, completely misses the mark as to what Tarantino was trying to really say.

Any thoughts on the O-Ren Ishii backstory sequence in the first Kill Bill? That scene (and the film in general) has a much deeper meaning attached that has yet to be unveiled by anyone I know. If you can spot it, you're good. : )

[–] Ace_Spade (9459) 5 years ago

O-Ren's backstory...I'm going to guess that I won't have picked up on whatever you're alluding to, but here's my take:

With the film being about cycles of violence, there is the obvious level that O-Ren was living a happy life until her parents were murdered. She exacts revenge and traps herself in the cycles. Was there a time she could have escaped? Maybe. But she doesn't. This cycle is made more tragic, poignant, and horrifying when O-Ren takes over the Yakuza. She becomes Matsumoto.

The backstory provides another obvious level: sympathy for O-Ren. We see her tragic past and she's no longer a cartoon cutout for the Bride to mow down. We feel for her, so that, though we know she'll die (which we literally know since Chapter One of Kill Bill is titled "2" - Vernita was killed after O-Ren) the scene retains tension because we kinda don't want her to.

Who trapped O-Ren? Bill did. Bill is, so Tarantino says, the thug with Matsumoto who spin-kicks the cigar and lights the room on fire. So that's interesting...

There's also a clear parallel here to the Bride herself. O-Ren sought vengeance, just as Beatrix Kiddo does now.

Going on the themes of motherhood and the Feminine that Kill Bill works on, we also see the most vulnerable side of women: O-Ren's mother is being assaulted, and O-Ren uses sexual exploitation by men to manipulate Matsumoto into letting his guard down - precipitating his death. She then assumes control of the Yakuza, which is cold-blooded, but makes her an unusual lady boss in a man's world.

Kill Bill Vol.1 is a samurai movie, focusing almost entirely on vengeance and featuring a HUGE swordfight. Vol.2 is a western with a bit of kung fu flick thrown in. It has the frontier justice, the slow burn, the reluctant antihero - all of that. The saga as a whole can be seen as a melding of East-West, cultures, and genres. O-Ren is a half-Japanese, half-Chinese American army brat. She's kinda like the movie, no?

If you've got anything else, I'm missing it

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Actually, you got most of the subtext I was referring to correct. Indeed, the whole point of showing O-Ren's backstory in flashback was to show the tragedy of a character consumed by violence and revenge, a path the Bride herself may possibly go down.

I especially like how you pointed out O-Ren had to use sexual temptation to get an opportunity to kill Matsumoto. Most viewers probably haven't even thought of this, but it makes sense as there's no signs that O-Ren was ever kidnapped or taken by force. Judging by the fact that she was lying on top of him, chances are, she probably had to actively seduce the man to get where she was at. Good observation!

The part about O-Ren Ishii's nationality representing the two halves of Kill Bill is something that has never crossed my mind before, but it's an interesting thought. Not sure if this was intentional on Tarantino's part or not, though.

There is one more aspect to the O-Ren Ishii flashback sequence that I haven't heard anyone point out, which is a theme that parallels the Bride's journey and the overarching morality of the film. In fact, it's sort of a recurring motif throughout Tarantino's entire body of work. I won't give it away here, but I'll give it you a hint: it's related to the way O-Ren kills her victims vs. the way the Bride kills her victims. Happy findings!

[–] Ace_Spade (9459) 5 years ago

I'll see if I can figure out the motif...

I don't know how much of this symbolic or thematic web Tarantino wove deliberately. This could really just be me strip-mining for gold that isn't there.

Intentional or not, though, the man is a whizz at spinning yarns.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7524) 5 years ago

I think the TC is somewhat right but because of how evil the Nazis were and how many millions of innocent people were killed by them, it's hard to really feel sorry for them. Then there's the fact the Nazi you mention who refused to cause death to his fellow Nazis called Aldo's men Jew dogs which makes me lose sympathy with him. I do feel a bit sorry for the guy they carve a swastika into a bit. He really didn't enjoy being a Nazi and was willing to give it up it seemed. But at the same time the Nazis did a lot of horrible things. I know it's probably not right to treat violence with violence but at the same time It's rather hard to feel that bad about all the Nazis they killed cause truth be told these same Nazis would want to kill you or me because they don't agree with anything that is moral.

They targeted the Jews specifically because they were jealous of their success. They didn't think it was fair the Jews were rich and they were poor. Except they rejected the very stuff that had made the Jews successful to begin with. Hitler himself when he was younger and his parents were still alive refused to get an education at the good schools his father wanted to send him to. Because even when he was young, Hitler adhered to Pro German Nazi values and rejected what was good. His father was abusive. In some ways his father unknowingly turned him into a monster. His own mother died when he was only 20 years old. Without any relatives to reach him and turn him away from these bad things he and others thought he was destined to become the monster he became. And that's sad. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Hitler and every Nazi rejected what was right.

[–] Knish (1721) 5 years ago

Absolute nonsense, Tarantino is just entertaining himself and people like him.

If he does have a message, it's that violence in film is entertaining.