Inglorious Cræp

The word on the street was that i’d enjoy Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Basterds’. That was the word, and the word was bollocks.

I made the effort, and struggled through it.

Let’s be honest, Mel Brookes has been here before and it was unmitigated shite. There is nothing new here. Nothing. It has all been done before, and it wasn’t in the least bit amusing then. The Nazi Era really doesn’t need to be portrayed in high camp style for effect… by jewish film makers, or anyone else.

If the meaning of what happened from 1933 to 1945 is lost on you, watching this film will not cure your retardation, merely compound it.

17 thoughts on “Inglorious Cræp

  1. I disagree. Ranked in terms of historical accuracy, I reckon this cinematic masterpiece lies a close second place to “1945”.

    Did I say “masterpeice”? Sorry. I meant “circlejerk”.

    • i was getting really antsy there…

      no doubt someone will be along later to educate us on our cinematic ignorance.

  2. The first four parts are pretty accurate. Only the fifth part is wildly unauthentic — on purpose, of course.

    And sorry, I’m not enough of a movie buff to educate you. You’ll have to wait.

    • Authentic in terms of ‘Allo ‘Allo… i realise this is a low blow, but seriously that’s about the same level as far as i’m concerned.

  3. But, but, but what about when Shoshanna got ready for the Nazi inferno while David Bowie’s “Cat People” song played? Was that not deeply menacing and wholly (holy) cinematic?

    P.S. I am not sober as I write this.

  4. I suppose the most interesting part about this whole spiel is that your opinion of the quality of the film aside, it has elicited such a strong reaction, and I daresay that Tarantino might applaud your uncharacteristically short yet highly splenic review.

    “If the meaning of what happened from 1933 to 1945 is lost on you, watching this film will not cure your retardation, merely compound it.”

    Re, the above quote, I don’t really think people, even mildly retarded ones, are looking for elucidation when they by a ticket to see this film. They are looking for the ultimate film bad guy (the nazi…any nazi) get his head baseball batted around…c’mon you can see that there is no meaning beyond that and anyone who tries to say there is, well, is not just reaching, but really doesn’t have a firm grasp on reality. If these are the kinds of people from which you are receiving your film viewing recommendations, stop listening to them and, start listening to me.

    • “people, even mildly retarded ones”

      Where do the film going public fall in this definition?

      My issue, such that i have one, is that this film comes across as teenage, damp-palmed, revenge fantasy, where european civilisation is saved by the power of cinema. The portrayal of the nazi characters is infantile; what does it mean to reduce the likes of Hitler and Geobbels down to giggling caricatures? Did all those people die because of these stupid little men? In some sense they did, but not the men as they are portrayed here.

      So, yes, it’s art. It can do whatever the fuck it wants, but that doesn’t mean that i have to like it, let alone respect it in the morning!

      • Hilter, Göbbels etc. were stupid little men, some even physically. They don’t came from outer space as overlords to rule teh planet, they were just paranoid fucks with a talent for propaganda.

        The thing is that the high command got what they deserved in the end, they all died, most by their own hand. But the nazi era high society just carried on. I think it was 1965 when the first non-nazi general took up his job. administrators, doctors, judges, all just carried on. In a sense they are the target of the movie. I doubt they would have all fit into that small theatre, but seeing them get their share too, was just sweet, no matter how bad revenge turns out in reality — but this is art.

        I’m not saying you have to like this movie — I did, and I mistakenly thought you might, too. I’m just getting teh impression that you’re hating it for teh wrong reasons. Reasons having more to do with anti-hollywoodism and anti-americanism than with the movie itself. I really don’t see the movie as a comedy, I see no connection to Mel Brookes efforts in this area.

        • Don’t think i disagree with anything that you say here. As noted previously, the revenge aspect doesn’t seem particularly… ‘helpful’ in a modern context.

          I’m obviously failing to get across the idea that portraying the likes of Hitlet and Göbbels as comedy figures does very little for the memory of the many who fought against everything for which they stood. From an artistic point of view i suppose it’s fair game, but to me it just isn’t funny / meaningful / insightful.

          You are probably right that i see movies through a veil of anti-hollywood sentiment. Some films manage to lift the veil for me… this one didn’t.

          • First of all, there is no actual revenge. No one got harmed while making this movie. The final moment of revenge Tarantino talked about wanting to give teh people is just happening in our fantasy, in between teh frames. There is a difference, although that may be hard to fathom for some people.

            I think the way Hitler and Göbbels are portrayed is rather authentic. Göbbels really wanted to be an artist that revolutionizes german cinema and purges it from the intellectual and jewish influences. Hitler actually was a manic psychopath with a thing for overly theatrical outbursts.

            • Lets leave it there – i enjoyed the discussion much more than the film. Thanks!

Wise words...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s