Just listened to the show tonight, and I must say, bravo. You've put together a great show once again. I won't belabor the many points already articulated here but I would like to offer a couple of thoughts on the film. It has always struck me how gifted Tarantino has been at opening a dialogue with his audience. Most directors make movies about characters that interact with each other, stuff happens, and then it's over. Tarantino, on the other hand, utilizes almost every frame to communicate something specific to his audience thereby making us active participants. I noticed this quality in IB more so than in any of his previous efforts.

******Spoilers Ahoy!*******

Whether it's a scene that begins as a wide shot of a conversation that slowly pans 180 degrees until an actor is looking directly at us during a key moment in the dialogue, or it's Brad Pitt uttering the final words of the movie, "I think this might just be my masterpiece" speaking directly into the camera, Tarantino not only has a deep affinity for cinema, he has a genuine love for his audience.

I think you're exactly right Eric - interestingly while there are a ton of movies out there with 'video game consciousness', (the Crank pictures, District 9 etc.), Inglourious Basterds seems like the one that's a real interactive experience!'

Superb insight on Tarantino's new film, thanks guys!

that's why were here cole! ;) glad ya liked the show.

Nice catch with the scar around Lt. Raines' neck.

You could also further deduce that he was a member of the Klan (the scar meant to be a reminder when Raines took off his "uniform").

I anticipated an enjoyable argument in this episode, but the final product was far more interesting. Did I actually hear the good Professor Doctor second-guess his entrenched dismissal of Tarantino’s earlier work? That alone is a startling testament to the film's power. It has, dare I say, sparked a "Nietzschean reevaluation of all values." (Except for that whole God thing, of course.) Remarkable.

‘Basterds’ is a fascinating and prodigious achievement. I was stunned by the end of it, and immediately ready to watch it again. A monument to the history, culture, and magic of film.

Yes, that's how good the film is - it may possibly have changed the good Dr.'s opinion on Tarantino!!

OK I've seen it. I'm kicking myself I didn't see The Hurt Locker instead. *That's* what I was going to go see today.
Anyway, I thought it [IB] was brilliant in parts -dialogue and setups were excellent. I liked the absence of plot formula for a change.
I also thought it was absolutely DIRE for the most part. QT can't edit (or shouldn't be allowed to). I can appreciate he is making the film as he wishes it -and that is brilliant to be able to do, but I'd prefer if someone else had a little say and moved the plot on a little bit quicker. Or at least had a little influence on him at times.
It's like Planet1940s is populated by nerds, each getting to do and speak in their own little nerd ways before exercising their little nerd urges to wreak havoc and show the world their real big nerd muscles. It's the dream Millhouse wets himself to every night.
It's puny and depressing that this is the pinnacle of film-making today (depressing because, in many ways -it is!)
I feel almost as dirty as when I saw There Will Be Blood. :(

[Editted to say, reading that back reminds me that _that's_ what WWII was in a way all about -at least where nazis were concerned... little inconsequential 'nerds' getting some power and taking it to the limit. Maybe this movie is QT's cry for help? Like Jack the Ripper writing to newspapers?]

Sorry you hear you didn't care for it - i think it's a multi-leveled masterwork - there's a huge amount of stuff packed into this picture - i'd suggest checking out these series of conversations about the film by Jason Bellamy and Ed Howard for a taste of the riches the film offers: The Conversations - Quentin Tarantino Part 2

One thing I was thinking of (it is a film that stays with you -another point in its favour I concede) is the scene with Mike Myers. In that link you posted they ask the question "Mike Myers -Why?"
I know why. Or at least partly why...
It's because he's more or less the most famous Canadian in the world.
I've always thought of Rod Taylor as Irish, but imdb tells me he's Australian (chalk up 2 recent surprises for me from Mr. Taylor in the recent past). Michael Fassbender is Irish (although again imdb corrects me by saying he's German-born), whose most recent famous role is as an Irish 'freedom fighter' (no connotations meant -just the best I could come up with) in Hunger.

So we have these three examples of post-colonial 'successes' playing the part of various levels of the British hierarchy -and over-playing it, with gusto.
Also, Taylor's Churchill is about as authentic as Pitt's Italian later on... but it doesn't matter. The whole scene is a big "F*-you" to colonial Britain -in the lightest possible way of course. It's like an American camping up a stereotypical Chinaman -nowadays it would be unnacceptable, but even 'back then' it stuck out for its silliness... "why not just get a Chinaman or a black or hispanic or an Irishman to play that relevant part instead of relying on the 'name Brit' or 'name Yank'? It would be more authentic, but also possibly less 'filmy'.

Mike Myers and the other two playing those parts (and I would argue semi-badly) is yet another QT nod to "how things used to be around here in filmland", but with the colonised underdogs now substituting for the overlords instead of the other way around.

Indeed, when Fassbender blows his cover it's because he isn't fully embodying the role-within-a-role he was meant to be playing, which gives it another something to think about.

At least that's what works for me. :)

...I do enjoy this type of discussion on movies like IB -and at least IB gives more to the viewer than almost all others, but still it's the whole damn _enforced_ blood-lust even more than the enforced geekery that kills the movie for me.

I'm not convinced the "Operation Kino" scene is really commenting on British colonialism. I think it's simply mocking an old genre cliché.

Every WWII mission movie ('The Guns of Navarone', 'Bridge on the River Kwai', whatever) has this ubiquitous "mission briefing" scene. A British commander summons a young officer (a David Niven type) to his nice office, offers some brandy (or in this case, scotch), exchanges some affected camaraderie ("Bloody good show, what?"), and then points to a big map and describes the mission. Often, the young British officer is chosen for the mission because he has some arcane skill that makes him uniquely qualified for the mission. (In this case, knowledge of German film.)

We've all seen a dozen versions of this scene, and QT knows it, so he plays it for laughs. (And I was laughing throughout that scene.)

Many critics were grumpy about Mike Myers, but I think he did fine. He's a caricature of a character type, and his performance is no more exaggerated than Brad Pitt's. (And Michael Fassbender does a good David Niven.)

Yes, this film is a multi-layered masterpiece ... but let’s not forget that the first layer is still genre parody.

Did the scene remind anyone else of "Lawrence of Arabia"?

I believe you changed the topic then proved my point there Jeff... I was talking about the left-field casting of Mike Myers rather than the reason for the scene itself.
It is a very British scene, which makes it all the more bizarre that there is no 'Brit' in it. It _can't_ have escaped anyone's attention on the set that it's populated by a Canadian, an Australian and an Irishman (even _if_ it wasn't deliberate). How far did QT go to find three non-British actors to play those very British (too very British) roles?

But it's OK if you don't see it that way, or if I choose to see it like that. As Gareth said, we don't need to be right or wrong, just express the opinion. Not that there is a definitive right or wrong in most cases.

Actually, that is a fair point. Considering how he cast VERY authentic actors for the German and French roles, it is notable - and probably purposeful - that he did not cast authentic British actors for the British roles. You have me there.

And I certainly agree with the good Professor Doctor that we should consider differing opinions with a sense of curiosity rather than competition. I think your criticisms of 'Basterds' are too harsh, but at least they're thoughtful. And after such a dismal summer, I'm delighted to have a film that warrants some thoughtful debate.

(For what it's worth, I hope you get more satisfaction out of 'The Hurt Locker'.)

Thanks Jeff. I feel kinda almost bad now I didn't love it as much as I should.
As I said though, I did think it was quite brilliant apart from being disappointing in other ways. If it was any other director I'd probably be less harsh, in truth, but QT enjoys a level of independence (and budget) few others have and it makes me somewhat saddened that this is the level others will now strive for. Phil remarks below on similarities in that scene to Lawrence of Arabia, but for example when you compare this to any one of David Lean's later movies... there really is no comparison. QT can nod to it, but Inglorious Basterds has nothing like the scope Lean could deliver on. Not that IB has the intention of anything like that scope -which is part of my disappointment. It revels in being a B-movie where the rules are all followed, invented and broken by QT as he sees fit.
As a film-class film it'll live forever, but as much as I would like to (and do) agree with much of the praise it has received here and everywhere else, it's still all too schoolboyish when compared to what autuers of the past came out with. ...which is not really a problem if it was anyone other than QT, but since it is QT it will be more readily accepted as the future of cinema. ...which is also a big part of my reason for disliking Slumdog Millionaire.
To make a long-winded post only slightly longer, part of my 'disappointment' with it is less with the film itself than with what it will inspire. Near-plotless mannequin in brash multi-coloured overcoat is great as long as everyone doesn't suddenly believe everything should be done that way.

..For a film I "didn't like" it sure has given me a lot to talk about hasn't it? I'd better stop now and allow the festivities continue!

I am enjoying all the points being made here. Excellent discussion.

And I didn't mean to compare the scene as "being as good as" (that probably wasn't your point, either), but since we were remarking that that scene may have been QT taking some stabs at Brits, and Brit war movies, that scene evoked "Arabia" for me and was perhaps meant as another layer to the cake, so to speak.

Also, the first discussion of the "Nation's Pride" movie made me instantly think of "Birth of A Nation" for some reason. Very little comparison other than they both have the word "Nation" in their title - so, I don't know why other than the themes of the movie being discussed seems to fit why I might have thought of that while watching the film.

I believe Myers' father may be English. (for what it's worth)

Yes but his sister's thoroughbred cockerspaniel is from the Falkland Islands so if that's not proof positive of this theory then nothing is!
;)

...All this, fun though it may be, just distracts from the fact that the plot is wafer thin and exploitative and leads to a simple 1-room playoff involving lots of guns. Wake me when Tarantino hangs his baubles around a story that is actually any good -or at least less derivative than a B-movie revenge plot (full of winks or not).
Now Jackie Brown -That is by far his masterpiece IMHO. He seems to have learnt not to try to repeat it though, alas. :(

well we'll have to disagree :) re: plot, etc. - i was mesmerised throughout the pic and talk of 'plot' would seem to be for conventional pics - it really is an art film and would play just as well in a gallery as it would in a cinema

I like that idea - all British played by Colonials: Australian, Canadian, Irish. see, the films got a lot going for it! you should give it another go.

OK. I've read most of it. It's a bit too gushing and redundant for the most part, but they get across the reasons for their enjoyment of the movie. As do you of course. That's fair enough.

My main problem with the movie is (as with QT's last three-or-so movies) its over-indulgence.
Quentin Tarantino might be interested in a geeky conversation (albeit one-sided) about German mountain movies, for instance, but that doesn't have to be swamped all over the film like butter on an over-thick slice of post-war bread.
Quentin Tarantino might enjoy his allusions and nods and swipes and riffs -and a lot of it is nice. But too much of it is deadening.

Quentin Tarantino might enjoy B-movie shock tactics, but I don't.
Neither do I like the blood-lust vengeful over-the-top admit-it-you're-enjoying-this 'confession' that it is forcing from the viewer.
Even if someone is suppressing an enjoyment of violence I don't see that as a bad thing. This movie seems to want to scoop that out of the viewer as if slowly spooning the viewers' eyeballs (with extra slurp noises added for effect... the same slurp noises taken from 1933's Back to Bazra starring Cliff Dukompf and Moira Monroe, who incidentally lost a leg while filming, which is another reason for the Cinderalla scene in the third act[*])

I don't like the soliloquies that would be cut short by five-or-ten minutes 99% of the time if there was anyone with a sensible scissors-hand in the editing room. (and I'm not talking about the purposeful tension-mounting scenes that are so skilfully done by QT).

Most everything else about the film was brilliant.



[* Not really of course]

OK I've seen it. I'm kicking myself I didn't see The Hurt Locker instead. *That's* what I was going to go see today.
Anyway, I thought it [IB] was brilliant in parts -dialogue and setups were excellent. I liked the absence of plot formula for a change.
I also thought it was absolutely DIRE for the most part. QT can't edit (or shouldn't be allowed to). I can appreciate he is making the film as he wishes it -and that is brilliant to be able to do, but I'd prefer if someone else had a little say and moved the plot on a little bit quicker. Or at least had a little influence on him at times.
It's like Planet1940s is populated by nerds, each getting to do and speak in their own little nerd ways before exercising their little nerd urges to wreak havoc and show the world their real big nerd muscles. It's the dream Millhouse wets himself to every night.
It's puny and depressing that this is the pinnacle of film-making today (depressing because, in many ways -it is!)
I feel almost as dirty as when I saw There Will Be Blood. :(

I haven't seen IB yet and to be honest I'm in two minds about doing so. I don't blog (no really), but I kind of ranted recently on my non-blog about movies with agendas and the whole "you hate violence, but here's more of it to prove you do" doesn't really appeal to me. I thought Kill Bill 2 was one of the worst movies I've ever seen -moreso for the endless taaaalking than anything else. I think Jackie Brown is the only re-watchable QT movie to date (apart from IB of course, which I can't comment on). His first two were good first time around.

It's not enough to recognise influences and connections and rip-offs from other areas of pop-culture. That might let us in on the 'joke', but it doesn't in itself mean we have to like it or find it worthwhile. Family Guy is proof of that.

From the sound of it, I will probably have to go see IB, but let me tell you now I will hold you two personally responsible[*] if I find myself suffering through something I don't like!



(* Not really)

I hear what you're saying Stanley re: Family Guy - but there's no comparison - FG riffs for easy 'comedy of recognition' that sparks neurons in the brain that create sense of community in the viewer, (one of the purposes of laughter = social cohesion), while the influences in IB are collaged in such a manner that they transcend the source material. It really is a consummate work of art.

Saw IB on Friday (and liked it) so am looking forward to listening to the podcast when I get home form the Greenbelt Festival. Gareth - I went to the Greenbelt Films of the year talk yesterday and Vic Theisen gave your apologies (and said you hoped to be there next year).

Did I miss seeing the link for the "Taking Woodstock" giveaway? Here's my answer to your question about Gareth & Ang Lee. (maybe I shouldn't put it here?? So maybe you or a fan will tell me where to send my answer). BTW I really enjoyed the comments about "Inglourious Basterds," and YES, I've seen it twice! -- Elizabeth

Hey there telket - have added the contest link to the post above - just click on it to enter the contest! :)

Great show. I just saw Inglorious Basterds Saturday after managing to avoid all reviews. (I read them afterward.) I squirmed the whole time and felt guilty for smiling through so much gore and cruelty, but that's just what QT does. I guess I like to be uncomfortable, when it comes down to it, even though I avoid violence. I was on guard until the Shoshanna-at-the-theater chapter came along, and then I was completely hooked. When she spoke the last lines of that chapter, "We're going to make our own movie," I got chills. And yes, I was also saying to myself, QT is a master. He knows what he's doing and it's a thrill to get dragged along. I was also thinking, We need him to make these movies; we even need this horrible violence.

I didn't make the neck scar connection until I heard your show. What a fantastic little detail and a whole new layer.

When the theater went up in flames and the man from Maynardville was victorious, I wanted to shout "Go Vols!" I said that to my friends, but they didn't laugh.

A masterpiece, for sure.

I kind of feel bad for you (Jett) messing with Gareth about Gamer, there at the end. But, a great, great episode. I was commenting on Twitter about how I would have loved for this to be an unedited episode - and while I don't know if this is or not, it was pretty great.

I definitely need to see Inglourious Basterds again. I wrote on my own blog how this movie felt like it was Tarantino taking his love of movies, and instead of creating homages (or is it a rip-off?), he's created his own film that still shows he loves movies; but also that he does indeed know how to make them.

Great show, I love it. (And am curious how many other people will notice that certain change I caught in the show.) :)