Inglorious Basterds (2009) Observation

[Flick James]

I watched Inglorious Basterds from start to finish the other day. So far I had been just catching bits here and there. Now, I like Tarantino films, but I understand that members here have very mixed opinions of his work, which I respect. This film, however, really stands out and it wouldn't surprise me if people who didn't generally like QT would like this one.

Anyway, here's the observation.

There's a good deal of foreign language contained in this film: German, French, even some Italian. There are entire scenes where English is barely spoken or not at all. There's a good deal of humor and nuance based on language and cultural differences, such as the English agent impersonating a German officer under suspicion because of what is perceived as a bizarre accent, finally giving himself away because he uses a hand gesture for the number 3 that is different than what Germans use. I thought all of this was incredible attention to detail and quite ingenious. In particular with that scene, I thought it was clever because in many WWII films there is an agent who impersonates a German officer and for some reason they get away with it even though German is a secondary language. This seems at the very least an extremely difficult thing to pull off.

What I wonder is what Europeans think of the film. For instance, do Germans watch the scene in question and does it makes sense, that is, the bizarre accent he is accused of or the issue with the hand gesture? Or do they look at a scene like that and think it's ridiculous? Does the humor involving language and cultural differences play out the same, is it less funny or more funny to them? In particular I though the scene in the movie theatre with the members of The Basterds trying to pretend they are Italian and being called out by Christoph Waltz's character was hilarious. How does that scene play out for a European viewer?

Anyway, that was an observation that stood out when I viewed the film recently. Does anybody else have any insight?

[Mofo Rising]

That's something I've always been curious about. I watch a lot of foreign films, and I wonder how much I'm missing from the actor's performances because I don't understand the language. Especially since acting is so nuance intensive.

I remember reading a review of the movie Traffic, where the reviewer praised Benicio del Toro for speaking Spanish in an actual Mexican accent. Apparently many movies use Spanish actors to perform Mexican roles. The only time I can tell the difference is when Spaniards speak with a Castillan accent. (They replace all the "s" sounds with a "th.")

I can notice it when non-Americans speak in an American accent, if they're not so good at it. Still a bit difficult. The HBO series "The Wire" used a lot of actors from Great Britain, and if I didn't hear them talk in their regular voices, I never would have noticed they weren't native American speakers. (I'm still surprised when I hear Christian Bale talk in his regular voice.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UgpfSp2t6k
	Small | Large

[The Burgomaster]

When I saw this movie in the theater, I barely noticed how much of it was subtitled.  Later, when I watched the DVD with my parents I couldn't believe how little dialogue was in English.

[Neville]

Personally, I consider this film the worst Tarantino has ever directed and his only serious misfire. I had great expectations about it, but when I finally watched I found it quite boring and too dialogue based. Now, I know, when you watch a Tarantino film you know it's going to be dialogue based. But IB being a war film I expected it to have some serious action going on as well, and it certainly doesn't. And the dialogue it's good, alright, but there's just too much of it. Like when they're fixing Diane Kruger's leg after the shootout in the tavern, the characters keep just talking and talking, and it's just too much for me to stomach. And even the Spaghetti western touches didn't work for me. The opening scene, for instance, goes on for way too long and the camera setups Tarantino took from Sergio Leone look too unnatural.

Not that all is bad, thoufh. I'll be the first to admit that for all the dialogue Tarantino's films have, they never feel too static. And the final scenes in the movie theatre, where all the usual rules are broken and Tarantino even achieves a remarkable methaphoric level, are just amazing, easily the best Tarantino has ever shot. But it's too litle and too late.

Now, if he had directed this film as he did with "Death Proof"... there he allowed room for all his usual obsessions, but at the same time he managed to pull off a satisfying genre film.

[Flick James]

Personally, I consider this film the wrost Tarantino has ever directed and its only serious misfire. I had great expectations about it, but when I finally watched it found it quite boring and too dialogue based. Now, I know, when you watch a Tarantino film you know it's going to be dialogue based. But IB being a war film I expect it to have some serious action going on, and it certeinly doesn't. And the dialogue it's good, alright, but there's just too much of it. Like when they're fixing Diane Kruger's leg after the shootout in the tavern, the characters keep just talking and talking, and it's just too much for me to stomach. And even the Spaghetti western touches didn't work for me. The opening scene, for instance, goes on for way too long and the camera setups Tarantino took from Sergio Leone look too artificial.

Not that all is bad, thoufg. I'll be the first to admit that for all the dialogue Tarantino's films have, they never feel too static. And the final scenes in the movie theatre, where all the usual rules are broken and Tarantino even achieves a remarkable methaphoric level, are just amazing, easily the best Tarantino has ever shot. But it's too litle and too late.

Now, if he had directed this film as he did with "Death Proof"... there he allowed room for all his usual obessissions, but at the same time he managed to pull off a satisfying genre film.

Well, we will disagree on Inglorious Basterds, clearly, but that's cool. It's not my personal favorite. My favorite is actually Jackie Brown believe it or not. I did like Basterds quite a bit, though. It wasn't really a war film, and I never got the impression from the marketing that it was, so that's the only area where I would disagree with you conceptually, but other than that it's just subjective opinion. You made it quite clear that many of the elements that you typically like in a QT film just didn't work for you this time around. That's quite fair.

When I saw the marketing I actually didn't expect to like the film. Something about it just didn't seem right to me. It was the use of language and the things done with it that actually made me enjoy the film more than I thought I would.

Actually, the main thing I was wondering by posting the thread was my wondering how the movie tracks for European viewers in terms of the items I brought up in my original post. Speaking of which, I found this article that suggests that Germans, as odd as it may seem, love the film. It doesn't however, address the language nuance aspects I was hoping for.

http://bigthink.com/ideas/16023

[Neville]

Well, I for one I'm a Spaniard. We use to dub everything here, but I can't remember how much of the film was subtitled and what they had dubbed. I distinctly remember some people in the theatre expresing their disgust in the opening scene, which, IIRC was subtitled in order to reflect better when the actors switch languages from French to English.

[Flick James]

Well, I for one I'm a Spaniard. We use to dub everything here, but I can't remember how much of the film was subtitled and what they had dubbed. I distinctly remember some people in the theatre expresing their disgust in the opening scene, which, IIRC was subtitled in order to reflect better when the actors switch languages from French to English.

That's interesting. It's wierd how avatars affect perception on this board for me. Every time I see your avatar of Terence Stamp from The Limey and the name Neville, I keep picturing that you are British.

[Neville]

It's a disguise 

One of the reasons I started posting here was to avoid my English from getting rusty.

[Flick James]

It's a disguise 

One of the reasons I started posting here was to avoid my English from getting rusty.

That's outstanding. Incidentally, your written English is quite good. The very amateur linguist that I am, I would never have guessed it was not your primary language.

[Neville]

Really? I made quite a lot of typos back there, and some serious concordance mistakes. I corrected my original message, but you can see them in the text you quoted from me. I also keep confusing words with similar spelling, such as "though" and "thought", or using double consonants where I shouldn't.

But I like it here. I've learned lots of coloquial English expressions since I'm posting here. It's been years, though.

[Flick James]

Really? I made quite a lot of typos back there, and some serious concordance mistakes. I corrected my original message, but you can see them in the text you quoted from me. I also keep confusing words with similar spelling, such as "though" and "thought", or using double consonants where I shouldn't.

But I like it here. I've learned lots of coloquial English expressions since I'm posting here. It's been years, though.

Well, I never worry about typos, I make them too. Typos are usually pretty obvious and not really an indicator of language skill. I do the same thing with "though" and "thought" as well.

[Trevor]

It's a disguise 

One of the reasons I started posting here was to avoid my English from getting rusty.

 

Before I realized that your avatar was Terence Stamp, I thought that was you, Neville and I also thought "Don't get on this guy's wrong side." 

[Allhallowsday]

Here's what I had to say last year:
"INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Pointless poop - a real waste of money, resources, talent, even a few very good ideas... I feel a dumb film review coming on... since when did QUENTIN TARANTINO start blatantly ripping himself off, rewriting history stupidly, and missing opportunity after opportunity to create something genuine?  A HUGE disappointment."   

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,128938.msg320908.html#msg320908 


I also own this DVD and perhaps I need to look at it again.  I was offended by INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' mix of cheap thrills, dopey dialogue and race murder... though I suppose there's things there to recommend it.  I do like QUENTIN TARANTINO movies, but this one seemed even more contrived than usual.  I didn't take it that TARANTINO was so much breaking rules as indulging himself (y'know, like ROB ZOMBIE). 

[Flick James]

Here's what I had to say last year:
"INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Pointless poop - a real waste of money, resources, talent, even a few very good ideas... I feel a dumb film review coming on... since when did QUENTIN TARANTINO start blatantly ripping himself off, rewriting history stupidly, and missing opportunity after opportunity to create something genuine?  A HUGE disappointment."   

http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,128938.msg320908.html#msg320908 


I also own this DVD and perhaps I need to look at it again.  I was offended by INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' mix of cheap thrills, dopey dialogue and race murder... though I suppose there's things there to recommend it.  I do like QUENTIN TARANTINO movies, but this one seemed even more contrived than usual.  I didn't take it that TARANTINO was so much breaking rules as indulging himself (y'know, like ROB ZOMBIE). 

Interesting. There's no disguising I liked it. What I'm finding interesting is that QT fans are seeming less likely to appreciate Inglorious Basterds, while it garnered more mainstream appreciation by people that probably aren't big QT fans. It seems that way thus far, anyway. I thought the dopey dialogue came mainly from the character Aldo Raines. Aside from him, I thought much of the rest of the dialogue was quite good.

[Allhallowsday]

Here's what I had to say last year:
"INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Pointless poop - a real waste of money, resources, talent, even a few very good ideas... I feel a dumb film review coming on... since when did QUENTIN TARANTINO start blatantly ripping himself off, rewriting history stupidly, and missing opportunity after opportunity to create something genuine?  A HUGE disappointment."   
http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,128938.msg320908.html#msg320908 
I also own this DVD and perhaps I need to look at it again.  I was offended by INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' mix of cheap thrills, dopey dialogue and race murder... though I suppose there's things there to recommend it.  I do like QUENTIN TARANTINO movies, but this one seemed even more contrived than usual.  I didn't take it that TARANTINO was so much breaking rules as indulging himself (y'know, like ROB ZOMBIE). 

Interesting. There's no disguising I liked it. What I'm finding interesting is that QT fans are seeming less likely to appreciate Inglorious Basterds, while it garnered more mainstream appreciation by people that probably aren't big QT fans. It seems that way thus far, anyway. I thought the dopey dialogue came mainly from the character Aldo Raines. Aside from him, I thought much of the rest of the dialogue was quite good.

TARANTINO dialogue is baloney; always has been always will be.  Unrelated, I had a few issues with this movie: "the Bear Jew," the powerfully unsettling opening sequence and then the good ol' boy savagery of beating "Naa-ahzees" (actually German soldiers who were hardly all Nazis) to death with baseball bats. 
Who doesn't love the idea of HITLER being machine gunned in the face?    "That's entertainment..."  Yeh it's a fantasy, a stupid fantasy.  But it ain't history.  How...did she get there?  Where...did she get a theatre?  Wha...was the point of that and not running away forever?  Well, there'd not've been this movie.   
Forget it.