Inglorious Bastards and Doctor Who

[shadowkat]

The coolest thing about lj is that I can interact with people from other countries, states, and cultures constantly. It's addictive. Of course, I was always a fan of foreign correspondence.
In school - had two pen pals in France, and one in Turkey. Imagine my disappointment when I discovered I truly had no aptitude for languages. No one in my family does - although we've tried.
Momster took two years of German, Dadster took three of Russian, KidBro - two of Spainish, and I took six of French (I stayed with it the longest, out of pure determination - so as a result I have a rudimentary understanding of the language - in that I can read it fairly well or at least well enough. But - I can't write, speak or understand spoken French. Europeans tend to speak faster than Americans do, noticed this while watching Doctor Who and having to rewind to make head or tails out of what he was saying.)

Anyhow...enuf about me. Saw the new Doctor Who finally. Love the new writer, but am on the fence about the new actor playing the role - the man has the funniest looking face - no eyebrows really. It is going to take me a while to warm to him. But not that long - he has everything down pat - the cadence, the mannerisms, the kinetic energy, and the arrogance, as well as the niave charm. Also Stephen Moffat is in some respects a much better writer than Davies - he scares me more and I find his plotting, world-building, and characterizations more intriguing and less silly. It's personal preference, I know. But I'm a huge fan of Moffat and not so much of RTD. This could change, we shall see. Also, I rather liked the set-up for the companion - which in some respects works better than Rose Tyler or Martha Jones - which were a bit too romantic in nature and abrupt. Ameila Pond meets the Doctor as a 12 year old child. He's brand new and lonely. She's a bit scared, bored and lonely. He solves her problem and offers adventure - the perfect friend, only to disappear and not return. He swears he'll be back in five minutes - but five minutes for the Doctor turns into 12 years for Ameila, just as I'll be right back, turns into two additional years. Aptly demonstrating what time travel means, and what it would be like to be in a relationship with a time traveler. Doctor Who equally demonstrates how disappointingly limiting American takes on time travel truly are. Possibly one of the reasons I can understand what is happening on LOST is that I watch Doctor Who. I like Doctor Who better, by the way.

The writer deftly shows us why Ameila leaves with the Doctor on the night before her wedding, with very little dialogue. We see that she's thought and dreamed about him since she was child.
The he had become her imaginary friend. Her best friend. She'd made dolls, games, and stories surrounding their make-believe adventures. Her family and friends upon meeting him - state, "wait, you are real? You can't be real - you're the cartoon Ameila drew." or as her boyfriend states: "I played you in our games. She dressed me up as you. You're actually here? You are actually real?" And Ameila herself states - "I thought I made you up. You are late. 12 years and 4 shrinks late." It's a quick way of getting across the romanticism of the Doctor, as well as the danger of being involved with him.

It also ....hits upon something else...that I'm struggling to put into words and do not believe that you can or want to understand unless you are female. The female fantasy of the exciting, dangerous, powerful guy showing up on your doorstep, in his suite, dashing, swooping you off to adventures. The perfect mate - you save him as much as he saves you. He's brilliant. Charming. Solves puzzles. And he chooses you. Wants you. And can take you anywhere, anytime in the blink of an eye. And show up at any time - to save you or assist. With his sonic screwdriver. Every boy wants to be him, and every girl wants to be with him. And there it is! In a nutshell.
EVERY BOY WANTS TO PLAY HIM, BUT EVERY GIRL WANTS TO ASSIST. Doctor Who more than any other tv series gets across what it is to be a white male. I saw it mentioned as a throw-away line on Justified this week - where Rachel, a black female marshall, informs Ryallins, a handsome, six-foot tall, white male marshall - that he can push throw doors she can't and do things she can't. When he snorts at her comment. She says simply - look in the mirror, do you really think I could get away with wearing that stetson to work? It's so predominant in our culture - if you are a white man, you can go anywhere and anywhen. The girls dream of being your companion to the stars. But they can't be you. When they come close - they risk going insane like Donna Noble, or end up stuck in The Library like River Song. Or like Ameila, have a choice between being the bride, as Donna did, or going off on adventures with a man who can drop them like a sack of potatoes at any time - much as he did with Martha Jones and Donna Noble and Sara Jane.

How far we've come, and yet...those with the power still refuse to let go. I still hold out hope that the 12th Doctor will be female with a male companion. But in my stories, unlike Ameila's, I was the Doctor, and my male companion or friend was flying off me on my adventures. And there was no bridal gown sitting in my closet waiting to be worn.

So yes, I enjoyed it, but with the usual quibbles and caveats. Stephen Moffat's Doctor while at times more interesting, is really no different than any of the Doctor's that came before or will arrive after. And Ameila is really no different than Donna Noble (an older version) or Rose Tyler or Martha Jones or Sara Jane. It's the same show, just new actors playing the parts, and new names.


Also saw the Quentin Tarantino Revenge Fantasy Inglorious Bastards which in some respects reminded me a great deal of the old Charles Bronsan film "Once Upon A Time in The Old West" as well as The Dirty Dozen. It's sort of the Dirty Dozen meets Once Upon A Time in The Old West meets Cinema Paradiso. What I love about Tarantino - is it is obvious this guy is a film buff and has watched and critiqued a wide range of movies in his lifetime. He used to work in video store back in the 1970s, I think. And at times, watching his films, I can really see that video store geek behind the camera. Being a film geek myself - I admittedly enjoy this aspect of Tarantino's film-making. It's in the geeky details that only a film geek or buff would know - such as the reference to Nazi cinema and the fact that film was made of nitrate back then and highly flammable. Also his films reference other movies.

What I'm less crazy about is the cartoon violence that permeates his films to such an extent that I'm starting to think Reservoir Dogs was fairly tame. That was amongst his first films, controversially violent for it's time. Now? It's rather tame. And this one is admittedly tamer than Kill Bill. Yet like Kill Bill - it is a revenge fantasy.

The protagonist in the film is not who you'd think. This surprised me. It's not Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine - who we know little about and is on screen not very long. Rather, it's two people Shosanna, a French Jew, who barely escapes from a brutal assault on her family by Hans Landes,
and Hans Landes - the role that won the actor who portrayed him - a best supporting actor Oscar. Well deserved. This guy makes the movie. Whenever he is onscreen, you are riveted. You hate him but you love it. He is on screen by far the most, and is the most developed. A well
rounded villain. Shoshanna is equally well-rounded. The best bits of the piece are the ones regarding Shoshanna and Hans. Her plan to burn down her own cinema with herself and her lover inside - in order to kill over a hundred Nazi's is a revenge plan that beats any that the Bride came up with in the Kill Bill films. It's detailed and unknown to anyone but herself and her lover. Tarantino - also develops the Nazis as people. They are not black and white villians. Irredeemably evil. Instead he provides them with families and a history. There's the man with the child on the way. The national war hero - who comes across at first as arrogant, yet in reality can barely stomach what he did to get this status - he basically killed over 100 people.
And as the film details each person being shot - we watch him wince in the audience, until he can bear it no longer and leaves to be with Shoshanna - the projectionist that he knows as Emmaneul. Finally, there's Hans himself - a detective and a killer, possibly even sadist, but no more so than Brad Pitt's Aldo Raine and his crew. Tarantino in all of his revenge flicks - B movie camp - gets across the fact that neither side is necessarily the good guy here - what we have is a battle between anti-heroes. Both are bloodthirsty and both have demonized the other.
Justifying it. Hans describes the justification in the opening sequence - how the Germans view themselves as Hawks and the Jews as rats. Then he backs up a step, and asks a legitimate question - what's wrong with the rat? What has he done to you? The dairy farmer - says nothing, but they carry disease, they bite. Do they, asks Hans. Since the Middle Ages and the Bubonic Plague? We have demonized them, made them vermin, much as we are doing to the Jews. What happens when a human being becomes so desperate to survive, is so hunted, that he will do absolutely anything.

And that is the point. Violence - Tarantino states here as in all his films - is a thrill ride, but once it is over - we are all splattered in blood, and you can't tell the difference. Everyone is a monster. There's no going back. It reminds me a little of Sam Peckinpah - who stated much the same thing in his anti-Westerns. Just as Tarantino does in his films. Both
almost make fun of the genres they play homage to. Make fun of the violence in them.
And the romanticization of violence in our culture. Demonstrating how final it is. How ugly.
I cringed during Inglorious Bastards. And laughed as I cringed.

My favorite scene may well be the montage with Shoshanna, the old David Bowie track Putting Out Fires with Gasoline or Eyes of Red...playing in the background or foreground as the case may be.
Shoshanna struts amongst them, all in red, made up in war paint...blush streaked against her cheeks - as Native American might do. Native Americans are referenced quite a bit in the film, Aldo Raine is half Apache and orders his men to take scalps as the Apaches did, to attack as the Native Americans once did. And Shoshanna - streaks her blush across her cheeks like war paint, and burns the cinema down, much as the Native Americans might burn down a Colonial fort.
Tarantino references the films of Peckinpah, of Ford, of Hawkes, of Sergio Leone...perhaps most of all - the king of the Western as Bloody Revenge Drama. Demonstrating how violence is the great equalizer. Within the bloodbath of bullets and fire, everyone looks and smells the same.

Not the best film ever, and certainly not for those with weak stomachs. But a deft and often satirical critique of our violence driven culture and cinema.

Comments

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Inglourious Basterds has about four or five scenes that are the equal of almost any other, and for as much as we talk of violence in his films, is masterful at maintaining tension in the non-violent scenes. (Think of Shoshana and Hans in the restaurant) Certainly, scenes of the audience hooting at the violence in the movie-within-the-movie is a commentary of the audience reaction evoked when the theater burns down and the Nazi leadership is executed.

I think it's also a movie about fear - and it seems that fundamental to the revenge plot - isn't merely to kill the Nazis, but also to make them experience the fear they've up to now presented to others. In this respect, it's a little bit different than previous Tarantino revenge plots.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

I mentioned this when I saw the film, but I think that the movie-within-the-movie has an element of "this is what people who've never seen my movies think I do". Especially interesting given the rumours that Eli Roth directed all of the movie-within-the-movie.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yes, I thought that too about the movie-within-a-movie. Eli Roth's playing the Bear Jew, symbol of pointless destruction (as opposed to Shosanna's very calculated revenge), struck me as similar.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

More or less agree. On the fence as to whether he could have achieved the same effect with less gore and more suggestion, but I'm guessing not.
Part of the point - was to target the cartoonish or pulp nature of violence, satirize it, glory in it, and at the same time emphasize that the reality is far worse - the black and white film is oddly far more violent than what we see in color, just as the opening scene is far more violent.

And yes, the fear part definitely comes through. I particularly liked the juxtaposition of the Nazi's trapped like "rats" in Shoshanna's cinema, as they are mowed down from above with machetes with the Nazis firing bullets into the floorboards of the French farmhouse - killing Shoshanna's Jewish family - as she barely escapes. In both - the lead character escapes. Shoshana escapes the farmhouse. Landes escapes the cinema. But neither are able to escape completely.

The other bit of juxtaposition is between The Jew Hunter - Landes, and The Bear Jew or Golem. The Jews fear Landes and his SS, But the Nazis' fear the Golem and the Bastards. Both are equally ruthless. Both are monsterous in their slaying. But Tarantino doesn't stop there - he alludes through the use of the scalpings and the "Apache" - to the American Old West - in which similar behavior was demonstrated.
And similar tactics. (Albeit without the modern methods).

Shoshanna and Aldo Raine - both want to make the Nazi's feel fear.
It is the point behind Shoshanna's film, she doesn't want to just kill them, she wants them to die screaming out in fear. She wants to scare them.

[rahirah]

I am fairly certain that Amelia's arc will be all about growing up and realizing that a mature, responsible woman does not go kiting around the galaxy having adventures, she puts on her wedding dress and settles down to have babies. Which, ick.

I miss Ace.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Who is Ace?

Agree that Amelia's arc will most likely go in that direction. And yep, ick. It is my problem with the series. Apparently this is an industry and culture wide problem. Just read a snippet from Entertainment Weekly regarding the new film Salt, where Angelina Jolie takes what was supposed to a male role. When the role became female, they decided to change the bit where Edwin Salt saves his wife, because they felt if Edwina Salt saved her husband - it would castrate his character in an unnecessary manner. Sigh. Because, you know, we wouldn't want a man to be a damsel. At least Doctor Who and Buffy permitted that. I'll give them that much credit.

[rahirah]

Ace was a companion of the seventh Doctor. She was quite possibly the greatest companion ever (in my not so humble opinion). She carried explosives. She once took out a Dalek with a baseball bat. She was the companion when the original show was canceled, and the last episode had her and the Doctor heading out together for more adventures. In the quasi-canonical tie-in novels which were published for quite awhile after the original show went off the air, it's very strongly hinted that Ace eventually graduated into being a sort of honorary Time Lord herself, and went off on her own adventures.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Really? Cool. The only Doctor Who that I watched prior to 9, was in the 1970s, very briefly, and Sara Jane Parker was the companion, I think.
Can't remember. Hey, I was a kid (about 8 or 9) and at that point? I found it too scarey to watch. (I clearly grew out of that phase.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed - they do have excellent chemistry. Better chemistry actually than Ten and Rose did - in my opinion. I was rather bored by Billie Piper's Rose Tyler - I'm aware that I'm in the minority on that score. ;-)

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

The new Who: Have you seen only the first episode or all three that aired so far? I'll stick to the first one to be sure not to spoil you.

I like the new actors, though I could really do with the doctor finally changing sex. Moffat was my favorite writer of the show, his eps always stuck out as special, but somehow the second ep of the season, which was same as the first written by him, did not really work for me. For issues I usually had with RTD. We'll see, I hope it picks up again.

On inglorious basterds: I loved all the languages. It was so awesome because every bit of accent fits. Even that brit who pretends to be german. He opens his mouth and thinks he has no accent but every native hears it instantly.

And the scene, where they speak italian, bwahahahaha.

Christoph Waltz, the guy who played Hans Landa was amazing. Landa was a most intriguing figure and he was also so very austrian. Usually movie nazis are german and they are very straightforward evil. But Landa was no Nazi of conviction, he's an opportunist galore. He's a sadist too and will look only after his own interests. Nothing fits a backstabber better than a viennese accent. It fits the history of the nation that always tries to enforce it's status as the first victim of the nazis, which is bending the truth very strongly.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Agreed on the languages! And it's there throughout the movie. I love how in the opening sequence, Landa suggests switching to English, and I thought it was a cheeky commentary on the way English-speaking movies immediately switch languages to English for the sake of the audience whenever possible, regardless of how much sense it makes. And then finally later in the scene Landa reveals his true reason, and what had seemed a contrivance (or commentary on contrivances if you will) became a major plot point.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm behind every one else, or rather BBC America is airing episodes at least three weeks behind the BBC. The first episode aired Sat. I won't get to the Dalek's episode - which everyone on my flist disliked until two or three weeks from now. I'm looking forward to the River Song episode. River Song is my favorite Doctor Who female character to date. I'm a Song/Who shipper. ;-)

One of the best sequences in Inglorious Bastards is in the basement of that bar - where the British Film Critic and Linguist thinks he is in complete control. But gives everything away, because his knowledge is based on film not actuality. When Aldo Raine asks the German actress and double-agent - what gave them away? She says that it was the English man, when he ordered the drinks. He slipped. And gave a hand gesture that looked odd to the Germans. Not what most German's would do. A simple thing.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I'm looking forward to the next episode too. It looks very nifty and I loved River Song as well. Hopefully with this ep it'll return to the awesomeness that the first one promised.

Yeah, the scene in the basement, where he orders the whiskey. Though I have to say, had it been me, I would not have recongnized the gesture (maybe I don't order drinks often enough), but I would have heard the off accent. It was too slight to place it in britain for certainly but it sounded nothing like the swiss.

I think my favorite scene is Landa and Shosanna eating Apfelstrudel with milk. The scene is so loaded with tension, it's amazing.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

I don't watch Dr. Who but I do like Steve Moffat's other work on Coupling, which is pure (mostly, not entirely) shallow farce.

This is personal preference, but the violence in Tarantino's movies doesn't bother me. I understand the arguments against some of the more extreme violence he puts in his movies, and I'm not sure of he has sufficient social responsibility to justify them. But for me, the violence works in the context of the film, whereas the violence in, say, Eli Roth movies does bother me. I think the difference is that for all the statements about Tarantino doing everything just for shock, his films really are very complex, and play with numerous tones and genres very well. Pulp Fiction is supposed to be a meaningless pop culture smudge important only because it's entertaining, but in fact it's very intelligent and (ack) moving regarding redemption.

There's a lot of stuff here. One of the compelling themes in the movie is the Power of Cinema. This comes back to Tarantino's own love affair with movies and the numerous references you cite (and I definitely thought of Once Upon a Time in the West in the opening sequence, before Landa's arrival). Shosanna, a filmmaker, ends up using film (to burn) literally to change history. Movies are more powerful than real-life history to QT, or maybe he thinks they should be...?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, I watched Coupling - the Brit version of Friends, although in my opinion funnier. Both are incredibly shallow, but hey so are most sitcoms.

I'm not really bothered by the violence in Tarantino's films - I've seen far worse. Just find them a bit gory at times. He does like his blood and guts. Comes from watching one too many B horror films, I suspect.

At any rate, you are correct the violence works within the context of the film - which is often a homage and satirical take on the very pulp films that he loves, which are known for their graphic violence. I wouldn't say that Tarantino was into shocking the audience, so much as satirizing the films that do.

Overall, I found the film fascinating...but it did feel at times to be distancing, as if I were removed from the characters. It's not a film that I cared who died or who lived. One that I like more on an intellectual level than an emotional one.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yes, I thought of Friends watching Coupling also. But Coupling is so much more fun, plus it plays with the form often. (Admittedly, I almost never watch "Friends," so I might be wrong about that show.)

The one critique of QT that I've seen that gives me pause is the amount of sexual violence in his films; an example is the scene with Marcellus Wallace and Butch in the cellar in Pulp Fiction, or the Bride's being raped while in a coma in Kill Bill, vol. 1. The criticism is that his films don't really take this matter seriously enough and sensationalize it, whereas most of the rest of the violence is so clearly not what most people will experience in any form that it doesn't seem as big a problem. I'm not personally offended by the sexual violence in his movies, but I wonder if maybe I should be. Oh well.

I agree on Inglourious Basterds and also found it distancing. There is a great review by Chris Stangl at http://explodingkinetoscope.blogspot.com/2009/09/for-bravery-das-unheimliche-and.html, where he talks about the film and reveals his emotional attachment to it. But it's not something I personally felt.

(Someone once pointed out the Sleeping Beauty parallel with the Bride in KB1, though, and the way the original fairy tale involved something more than a kiss.)

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

The one critique of QT that I've seen that gives me pause is the amount of sexual violence in his films; an example is the scene with Marcellus Wallace and Butch in the cellar in Pulp Fiction, or the Bride's being raped while in a coma in Kill Bill, vol. 1. The criticism is that his films don't really take this matter seriously enough and sensationalize it, whereas most of the rest of the violence is so clearly not what most people will experience in any form that it doesn't seem as big a problem. I'm not personally offended by the sexual violence in his movies, but I wonder if maybe I should be.

I admittedly am not triggered by sexual violence or overtly bothered by it. But, I have to say, I don't see an overt amount of it in Tarantino's work - at least not any more than one normally sees in noirish pulp films of this sort. If anything he has less sexual violence in his films than most. And I give him credit for creating fairly strong women, not necessarily just physically strong. Shoshanna reminds me a great deal of the Bride in Kill Bill - but she's not "fighter" so much as a thinker.

TV actually has more of these references and it is very prevalent in the horror, sci-fantasy genre for some reason.
Also highly prevalent in dramas created by or written by men for women (Whedon's dramas, most daytime soap operas, some night-time ones), which is interesting. I'm not sure if it has something to do with the genre or the individual writing it.
But mainstream dramas tend to veer sharply away from it, unless of course they are about cops or FBI agents.


(Someone once pointed out the Sleeping Beauty parallel with the Bride in KB1, though, and the way the original fairy tale involved something more than a kiss.)

Yep. In the original Sleeping Beauty was awoken with intercourse not a kiss. Or so they say. My annotated version of the Brother's Grimm tale is unclear. Anne Rice wrote a series of erotica books under that assumption and using a pseudonyme.
Often female writers will subvert the sexual violence in weird and interesting ways.