Inglourious Basterds

[Mattemeo]

No you're right.  If only Hitchcock had realised that suggestion of violence in the shower scene by showing the raised knife and the blood circling in the water was so much less effective than simply showing the cutting of the jugular in unflinching slow-motion and...  Wait, what?  I cannot find anything of critical merit in your explanation.  It is certainly made up of words and they seem to be arranged in sentences, but the most I can get is that you think that demonstrating that someone is doing something is only possible by showing it in unflinching detail.  God himself only knows how mainstream cinema directors ever approached this problem in the eighty-odd years when displaying such a scene wouldn't even have been allowed.  I cannot understand why Tarantino didn't make it quite clear that, while behind enemy lines, the (ahem) "troup" also sometimes had to go to the toilet, perhaps zooming in on the faecal matter as it emerges from Pitt's behind in a three-minute-long scene of grunting and heaving, just so that the matter is left in no doubt to "the captured men, to us, the audience".

Also, i suspect that "churlish" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think churlish means exactly what I think it means. Your well thought out diatribe at my expense has clearly shown me that I have zero understanding of cinematic history, style and technique, nor of Tarantino's wilful love of exploitation tropes and facetious regard of said established censorship. I gave you a perfectly reasonable, entirely valid explaination as to why the gore was shown, you seem to be preoccupied with Pitt's toilet ablutions. There's fecal matter alright, but it's all in the above quote. Pointing out my appaling typo of troupe was a spectacular plus. Or perhaps you think I don't know what that means, either?

 

[stray]

I'm with Matemeo here.

[Endie]

No you're right.  If only Hitchcock had realised that suggestion of violence in the shower scene by showing the raised knife and the blood circling in the water was so much less effective than simply showing the cutting of the jugular in unflinching slow-motion and...  Wait, what?  I cannot find anything of critical merit in your explanation.  It is certainly made up of words and they seem to be arranged in sentences, but the most I can get is that you think that demonstrating that someone is doing something is only possible by showing it in unflinching detail.  God himself only knows how mainstream cinema directors ever approached this problem in the eighty-odd years when displaying such a scene wouldn't even have been allowed.  I cannot understand why Tarantino didn't make it quite clear that, while behind enemy lines, the (ahem) "troup" also sometimes had to go to the toilet, perhaps zooming in on the faecal matter as it emerges from Pitt's behind in a three-minute-long scene of grunting and heaving, just so that the matter is left in no doubt to "the captured men, to us, the audience".

Also, i suspect that "churlish" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think churlish means exactly what I think it means. Your well thought out diatribe at my expense has clearly shown me that I have zero understanding of cinematic history, style and technique, nor of Tarantino's wilful love of exploitation tropes and facetious regard of said established censorship. I gave you a perfectly reasonable, entirely valid explaination as to why the gore was shown, you seem to be preoccupied with Pitt's toilet ablutions. There's fecal matter alright, but it's all in the above quote. Pointing out my appaling typo of troupe was a spectacular plus. Or perhaps you think I don't know what that means, either?

 

Look, you're obviously not the smartest bullet in the MP-40, so I'll try and leave out the sarcasm that went soaring over your pretty little head.  You think I'm ignorant of cinematic history, and there is no way, on the internet, that I can prove otherwise.

But I can sit here, content in the knowledge that someone who doesn't know how to use "churlish" correctly is probably not going to be up to a discussion on whether Tarantino is deliberately referencing the notorious "Jud Suss" in the transitions between scenes in the mise-en-abîme within Inglourious Basterds.  I say this with confidence because I'm pretty sure nobody has discussed that yet except me here now, so wikipedia ain't going to come to your aid.  Just as you didn't "get" the reference to Charlie Brooker in the toiletary reference in my previous post (I don't believe that any long-term f13 poster would accuse me of faecalphilia, despite my other crimes).

Now why don't you stop hiding behind mock affront and go back and discuss the substantive point I made?  I take it you did understand it, yes?

[Aez]

[dusematic]

lol, perfect pic.  some of you bastards are fucking idiot-savants with this shit.

[Mattemeo]

Look, you're obviously not the smartest bullet in the MP-40, so I'll try and leave out the sarcasm that went soaring over your pretty little head.  You think I'm ignorant of cinematic history, and there is no way, on the internet, that I can prove otherwise.

But I can sit here, content in the knowledge that someone who doesn't know how to use "churlish" correctly is probably not going to be up to a discussion on whether Tarantino is deliberately referencing the notorious "Jud Suss" in the transitions between scenes in the mise-en-abîme within Inglourious Basterds.  I say this with confidence because I'm pretty sure nobody has discussed that yet except me here now, so wikipedia ain't going to come to your aid.  Just as you didn't "get" the reference to Charlie Brooker in the toiletary reference in my previous post (I don't believe that any long-term f13 poster would accuse me of faecalphilia, despite my other crimes).

Now why don't you stop hiding behind mock affront and go back and discuss the substantive point I made?  I take it you did understand it, yes?

You know, it's really not my fault you're unable to grasp the meaning of a word in context. Perhaps it might even have helped if you'd looked the word up, but no, you just have to go on using it as a method of attack. Since we're clearly not communicating properly, I'll spell it out for you. I use churlish in the sense that it would be discourteous and unfair of Tarantino to deny us the spectacle of Nazi soldiers getting their come-uppance. The Inglourious Basterd section(s) of the movie are about no quibbles, visceral fear mongering. We get to feel the terror of the germans, up close and personal - to cut away or use off-camera implied violence would deny us the catharsis that the Inglorious Basterds stand for - whether we asked for it or not.

Now - you may not appreciate such violence, and that's a good thing - it's abhorrent, after all. But your mistake is trying to intellectualise your dislike of Tarantino's use of it, and you have become so affronted (and by no means mock) that someone could present you a valid reason for its use that you have effectively shut your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and used baseless personal attacks and sarcasm to drown out logic, and even better, attempted to use your vast knowledge of cinematic critique keywords to belittle or intimidate. That I missed a Charlie Brooker toiletary reference is indeed remiss of me, but perhaps I merely expected you to come up with an analogy of your own instead of "quoting" a critic who's opinion is a: witty and b: actually paid for in money and not dead braincells.

[dusematic]

Look, you're obviously not the smartest bullet in the MP-40, so I'll try and leave out the sarcasm that went soaring over your pretty little head.  You think I'm ignorant of cinematic history, and there is no way, on the internet, that I can prove otherwise.

But I can sit here, content in the knowledge that someone who doesn't know how to use "churlish" correctly is probably not going to be up to a discussion on whether Tarantino is deliberately referencing the notorious "Jud Suss" in the transitions between scenes in the mise-en-abîme within Inglourious Basterds.  I say this with confidence because I'm pretty sure nobody has discussed that yet except me here now, so wikipedia ain't going to come to your aid.  Just as you didn't "get" the reference to Charlie Brooker in the toiletary reference in my previous post (I don't believe that any long-term f13 poster would accuse me of faecalphilia, despite my other crimes).

Now why don't you stop hiding behind mock affront and go back and discuss the substantive point I made?  I take it you did understand it, yes?

You know, it's really not my fault you're unable to grasp the meaning of a word in context. Perhaps it might even have helped if you'd looked the word up, but no, you just have to go on using it as a method of attack. Since we're clearly not communicating properly, I'll spell it out for you. I use churlish in the sense that it would be discourteous and unfair of Tarantino to deny us the spectacle of Nazi soldiers getting their come-uppance. The Inglourious Basterd section(s) of the movie are about no quibbles, visceral fear mongering. We get to feel the terror of the germans, up close and personal - to cut away or use off-camera implied violence would deny us the catharsis that the Inglorious Basterds stand for - whether we asked for it or not.

Now - you may not appreciate such violence, and that's a good thing - it's abhorrent, after all. But your mistake is trying to intellectualise your dislike of Tarantino's use of it, and you have become so affronted (and by no means mock) that someone could present you a valid reason for its use that you have effectively shut your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and used baseless personal attacks and sarcasm to drown out logic, and even better, attempted to use your vast knowledge of cinematic critique keywords to belittle or intimidate. That I missed a Charlie Brooker toiletary reference is indeed remiss of me, but perhaps I merely expected you to come up with an analogy of your own instead of "quoting" a critic who's opinion is a: witty and b: actually paid for in money and not dead braincells.

One of the best flames I've seen in awhile.  Reminds me a bit of WUA's early work.  

[WindupAtheist]

Fuck you, I'm still in my prime! 

[Phildo]

Came to watch another Tarentino movie about people dying, saw another Tarentino movie about people dying.  Whatcha all bitching about?

[Margalis]

Was it Django?

Hmm...perhaps. I did just watch a documentary on Italian Westerns where it was featured. Can't say for sure though.

[Endie]

Look, you're obviously not the smartest bullet in the MP-40, so I'll try and leave out the sarcasm that went soaring over your pretty little head.  You think I'm ignorant of cinematic history, and there is no way, on the internet, that I can prove otherwise.

But I can sit here, content in the knowledge that someone who doesn't know how to use "churlish" correctly is probably not going to be up to a discussion on whether Tarantino is deliberately referencing the notorious "Jud Suss" in the transitions between scenes in the mise-en-abîme within Inglourious Basterds.  I say this with confidence because I'm pretty sure nobody has discussed that yet except me here now, so wikipedia ain't going to come to your aid.  Just as you didn't "get" the reference to Charlie Brooker in the toiletary reference in my previous post (I don't believe that any long-term f13 poster would accuse me of faecalphilia, despite my other crimes).

Now why don't you stop hiding behind mock affront and go back and discuss the substantive point I made?  I take it you did understand it, yes?

You know, it's really not my fault you're unable to grasp the meaning of a word in context. Perhaps it might even have helped if you'd looked the word up, but no, you just have to go on using it as a method of attack. Since we're clearly not communicating properly, I'll spell it out for you. I use churlish in the sense that it would be discourteous and unfair of Tarantino to deny us the spectacle of Nazi soldiers getting their come-uppance. The Inglourious Basterd section(s) of the movie are about no quibbles, visceral fear mongering. We get to feel the terror of the germans, up close and personal - to cut away or use off-camera implied violence would deny us the catharsis that the Inglorious Basterds stand for - whether we asked for it or not.

Now - you may not appreciate such violence, and that's a good thing - it's abhorrent, after all. But your mistake is trying to intellectualise your dislike of Tarantino's use of it, and you have become so affronted (and by no means mock) that someone could present you a valid reason for its use that you have effectively shut your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and used baseless personal attacks and sarcasm to drown out logic, and even better, attempted to use your vast knowledge of cinematic critique keywords to belittle or intimidate. That I missed a Charlie Brooker toiletary reference is indeed remiss of me, but perhaps I merely expected you to come up with an analogy of your own instead of "quoting" a critic who's opinion is a: witty and b: actually paid for in money and not dead braincells.

That's an awful lot of words to say "um, yeah, I used 'churlish' wrong and I'm a bity embarassed."  Tell you what, though: I'll help you out.  If you had, indeed, intended to use it thus, then the correct usage would have been to say "Implied violence is a trick that works magnificently well on many a cinematic occasion, but for Tarantino to have used it would be simply have been churlish in this instance."  This is because implied violence itself, as an immaterial concept, is incapable of churlishness.  It still ignores what I keep saying, which is that better directors don't have to resort to visceral close-ups.

Tell you what, I'll help you out here by telling you what you would say if you had more than a masturbatory interest in some yahudis who've drunk the old knifey moloko*.  If you had the intelligence to mount a reasoned piece of critique that was grounded in any knowledge whatsoever of cinematic history (and don't go attacking me for displaying such - "oooh he used big words to belittle me I'm a victim here" - when you were the one who made the ad hominem attack that I had none in the first place), then you would have said:

"Actually the clarity of exposition in the forehead-branding sequence can be justified by the scene with the playing cards in the bar scene.  Tarantino is making a clear statement about internal and presented identity in both cases, whether it be the soldiers in the bar, who lack knowledge of who they are meant to be while the rest of the world can see it written down, or the Basterds' victims, who may deny their nature to themselves yet nonetheless have it declared to the world, literally imprinted upon their foreheads."

The scalpings: sorry, can't help you there.  It's just Tarantino indulging himself it in his older years.  But that's what you should have said.  I'd have been forced to engage with you as an equal, instead of as someone who grounds his first post in personal judgements on those who disagree and makes assumptions about the critical faculties of both.

One of the best flames I've seen in awhile.  Reminds me a bit of WUA's early work. 

Since it was me who trolled him into it with little more than grammar nazism and a poop joke, I think I'm going to take the credit for its spittle-flecked glory.  I am da puppetmasta.

[gryeyes]

Being verbally thrashed was all according to plan, snore.

[Endie]

Being verbally thrashed was all according to plan, snore.

Weak attempt 2/10.  See you desperately clambering onto the next thread I post in to post your billets-doux soon, I am sure!

[stray]

It seems like these directors you have in mind who could present this story in a way you'd like would actually just have to shoot a completely different script. Or in other words, you're just saying you want to watch another movie. Fair enough! But you're making it complicated by not saying that.

It's not like it's over the top simply because of Tarantino's directorial choices -- even on the writing choices, it's ridiculous. Right from the start, Pitt's character tells his troops that he wants 100 Nazi scalps from each of them. That alone would never be said by a character in some classier movie. Because people like him don't actually exist! He's a cartoon. There's no "tasteful" way to present him.

[Mattemeo]

That's an awful lot of words to say "um, yeah, I used 'churlish' wrong and I'm a bity embarassed."  Tell you what, though: I'll help you out.  If you had, indeed, intended to use it thus, then the correct usage would have been to say "Implied violence is a trick that works magnificently well on many a cinematic occasion, but for Tarantino to have used it would be simply have been churlish in this instance."  This is because implied violence itself, as an immaterial concept, is incapable of churlishness.  It still ignores what I keep saying, which is that better directors don't have to resort to visceral close-ups.

Now I think you must be some kind of escaped mental patient. To keep pushing this matter despite eveything, everything going against you, is beyond the act of the average troll. But well done for finally working out the sentence the same way everyone else has.
(Are there f13 awards for comprehension? I think there ought to be, Endie's a shoe-in!)

Tell you what, I'll help you out here by telling you what you would say if you had more than a masturbatory interest in some yahudis who've drunk the old knifey moloko*.  If you had the intelligence to mount a reasoned piece of critique that was grounded in any knowledge whatsoever of cinematic history (and don't go attacking me for displaying such - "oooh he used big words to belittle me I'm a victim here" - when you were the one who made the ad hominem attack that I had none in the first place), then you would have said:

I made the ad hominen attack? I'd love you to point out where! Also, there may have been a point to your Clockwork Orange reference but you seem to have lost the footnote. I would suggest trying to locate it by following the Charlie Brooker analogy you're so fond of.

"Actually the clarity of exposition in the forehead-branding sequence can be justified by the scene with the playing cards in the bar scene.  Tarantino is making a clear statement about internal and presented identity in both cases, whether it be the soldiers in the bar, who lack knowledge of who they are meant to be while the rest of the world can see it written down, or the Basterds' victims, who may deny their nature to themselves yet nonetheless have it declared to the world, literally imprinted upon their foreheads."

Indeed, I could well have come saying to something like that, only more eloquent and witty.

The scalpings: sorry, can't help you there.  It's just Tarantino indulging himself it in his older years.  But that's what you should have said.  I'd have been forced to engage with you as an equal, instead of as someone who grounds his first post in personal judgements on those who disagree and makes assumptions about the critical faculties of both.

I'm deeply sorry that you took 'you've missed the point' so strongly to heart. Is this the 'ad hominen' attack you're so flustered about? Jesus, this is an emergency Preparation H case if ever I saw one! Also, I'm kind of guessing you missed the bit where I said "Tarantino's wilful love of exploitation tropes and facetious regard of said established censorship" in your fit of pique.

One of the best flames I've seen in awhile.  Reminds me a bit of WUA's early work.  

Since it was me who trolled him into it with little more than grammar nazism and a poop joke, I think I'm going to take the credit for its spittle-flecked glory.  I am da puppetmasta.

You're da delusionist, sunshine. But thanks for the troll admission, you've really backed up your argument!

[Lakov_Sanite]

This borders on the surreal.

[Endie]

Mattemeow if you're going to woodcock this thread then I'm not going to bother reading it.

[Mattemeo]

This borders on the surreal.

I know, I know. If I have to break down idiocy into bite-sized chunks it was never worth swallowing in the first place. I'm done here!

[fuser]

This borders on the surreal.

I find this more entertaining then the movie 

[Aez]

Not me.

[Samwise]

Intersperse some graphic on-screen Nazi deaths between each post and I think it could be.

[Teleku]

WTF happened in here?

Oh yeah, Tarantino thread.

[dusematic]

THIS IS WHY THE INTERNET NEVER GETS OLD!

[stray]

Nah, it's pretty old. 

I think both Endie and Mattemeo are both cool. But I'm not sure wtf is going on/how it started.

[Samwise]

Something about a bad coupon.

[Endie]

Nah, it's pretty old. 

I think both Endie and Mattemeo are both cool. But I'm not sure wtf is going on/how it started.

I don't think either of us is going to kick it off again by going over that.

[stray]

Totally random, but I gotta say this is a cool pic (circa 94... he even walks around carrying a VHS!)

[Trippy]

Ah Quinton and his muse, how cute

[Aez]

Her hand freaks me out.

[Trippy]

Yea she has giant man hands.

[Lakov_Sanite]

He's more interested in her feet.

[HaemishM]

I think Tarantino is the inventor of the Doucheface.

[stray]

He's not a pretty guy, I'll give you that.

I think everything about it makes it a good pic though. The tape, cigar, Uma, the tux, and even the douchface.

[Lakov_Sanite]

I think Tarantino is the inventor of the Doucheface.

His collar should be popped.

[Chimpy]

So I saw this with some guys from work tonight, having only seen the trailer earlier today and knowing nothing else about it.

I enjoyed it. For some reason Mike Myers had all of us laughing with everything he did in that short scene.