I hope you enjoyed my third video. Just started this channel, subscribe pls! (So you can say you were here from the start) I have many videos prepared for the upcoming days :) follow me: twitter.com/LancellotiFilms/with_replies
@@damjanbabic6768 i hate clickbait titles, but this guy aint that. He *is* prepared to go deep and way back in his analysis of the subjects he chooses. I go heavy deep & real on *my* informed passions, so that's fine w me. When someone like that is looking at Tarantino - who is also a heavy & deep film fan - that means Lancelloti is gonna see more than i do. When he's discussed things i *do* know well, it's been good - so altho i dont know Tarantino that well, Im happy to listen to someone who does.
I'm not sure how this video ended up in my recommended section, but I'm genuinely impressed. It was a very good watch, and I hadn't even realized how new this channel is. Great content
Great analysis. For me the biggest role reversal in "Inglorious Basterds" is the basement scene. Nazi Major is actually portrayed as admirable and extremely brave. After Fasbender's character points 3 fingers wrong, Major realizes that there is something cheesy, but does not choose the safe approach - calling the backup and confronts the basterds to the end. Even takes the inevitable death with dignity.
Thanks, bro! you are my first comment ever haha. I love that scene because essentially it's Tarantino playing with our expectation of what we should see in a character like that.
True, though one could argue wheter it was brave or foolish though. :) However I DO like the fact that Terentino did try to portray the 'bad guys' as more than just two dimensional cardboard cutouts. I myself was a bit stunned how some of my american friends seemed to lack any self-reflection and failed to see how the Basterds arent really 'the good guys', considering that by their very actions they are war criminals in every sense of the word and by the Geneva Convention(s). And the fact that killing prisoners of war is always bad even if it can be 'justified' (and all sides historically DID engage in that to some extent or another, afterall 'take no prisoners' is technically an order for a Warcrime, but sometimes you simply CAN'T take any prisoners [either due to being behind enemy lines, having no manpower to spare or having no facilities to house said prisoners] and it DID historically happen. War makes Beasts of Men, no matter what flag they are fighting for. However it's even worse if the supposed Soldiers do it for 'sports', like with our Jew Bear. Beating an unarmed prisoner to death with a baseball bat (while his armed buddies around make sure he cant fight back or flee) is pretty barbaric no matter who does it against whom.
Your analysis of the Bear Jew scene where he beats the Nazi officers head in was superb. You pretty much give me a new perspective on the title of the movie, because you show how very inglorious the Bear Jew is, especially how unheroic his whole angry baseball rant. And your analysis of the cinematic language is spot on. Keep the videos coming, i am glad to subscribe :)
Thanks bro! Im glad yoy enjoyed my analysis and got something out of it. Your comment means a lot, especially during these early stages of building this channel. Greetings to you, and I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy my content!
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis *fear* them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
some great points and analysis here. Even though the title Inglorious Basterds is cribbed from another movie from the seventies one of the things I love about Quentin Tarantino's movies is that they are about exactly what it says on the tin. A reservoir Dog is someone who rats on the police, pulp fiction gives you the definition of the word and structures the story around this, Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill etc. reminds me of going to see The Hateful Eight with my then girlfriend and she was almost nauseous with the inertia of all their bad actions saying: "Did every single character have to be so vicious and evil?" I thought, well yeah. The title spells out for us from the start 😅
I mean you can argue that the soon to be Sheriff is technically not evil and rephrensible by himself, though he was brought up a southern boy and lives in the early post-civil War period. So naturally... well you know? XD
@@MajorCoolD weird that you give the justification to the literal racist but the black colonel getting revenge against the people who put him and his people in chains doesn't get a pass
"Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill" You've really uncovered some very deep truths there... No wonder Tarantino's bullshit impresses you...
English is not my native language but I think Kill Bill is actually a double meaning. On the one hand, its about Killing Bill. But Kill Bill is also a coloquial term for a hit list. As in, Kiddo works through a list of people she wants to kill.
Tarantino is my favorite director but even I suspect that much of what he does is simply because it looks cool or is an homage to something that came before, not everything is a sophisticated meta commentary
I think you downplay just how genius these people are at their craft. It takes a VERY learned person to craft these movies in the way that they do. Tarantino lives and breathes cinema, maybe even more than any director ever has.(as proven by his insistence in not only making films, but making his films ABOUT films) If anyone would have a meta commentary on Hollywood and cinema, it would be him.
@@lockekappa500 he's not downplaying. And you arent' neccessarily wrong, but I would have to agree that this video did not do a good job at explaining it. Video got close, but overall was making confusing points. And yes, some were reaching... Its not hard to see the metaphor of an audience watching movie within the movie. Clever yes..Genius? not really..in fact i would say its more preditable than clever given Tarantino's history. Satire , yes....sophisticated? not really.
@@ryuk5673 I dunno, I think there's as much genius in Tarantino's work as the best directors out there. I don't think anyone else can make the same movies he does.
@@lockekappa500oh sorry, there absolutely 100% is genius in his movies. That i agree! I just meant not in the way the uploader was saying though. Tarantino's genius imo is his seemingly unique ability to transform a relatively normal looking scene of 2 people eating breakfast into some of the most amazing dialogue you've ever heard.
You're definitely reading into this too much. Agreed that these movies subvert your expectations but I don't think Tarantino 'mocks' these films the way you're suggesting. It's merely showing them a mirror. You said Tarantino does this so as to avoid the glorification of war but I'd argue his stylistic violence does exactly that in Inglorious Basterds. The forced comparison with a movie like 1917 which came out years after IB does feel like reaching a bit.
I agree. Inglorious Bastards is all about the joy and vindication of killing people as evil as the Nazis. The Bastards are not portrayed as small and uminpressive to make them less heroic, but rather to make their achievements seem even greater. These aren't some super professional spies, these are just some all-american boys ready to fight evil.
Mocking might have been the incorrect term, but I do think that QT is holding a mirror up to the audience at times regarding their interest in war films as propaganda (while still making a "propaganda" esque war film of his own). The film's Bear Jew introduction as well as the ridiculous situation the Basterds find themselves in by the of the film are great examples of this. It's almost like if you remove the soundtrack from a Rocky movie--it's just a bunch of grunting and sweating.
Tarantino doesn't need to know the exact scene that 1917 will have. He knows that movie will come out already, and already has come out. It's not a stretch if it's within our predictable nature to make movies like this.
One of the things I like the most about Inglorious Basterds is that it also constitutes a huge F-you to the American reticence to watch movies with subtitles.
It should've won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay too but those said subtitles seem to turn voters off and it's BS. It's as if they thought QT did it simply to be "clever."
Your interpretation of the movie is VERY TWISTED, dude. The movie is about historical revenge, pure and simple. The Bear Jew's raw violence is far from pathetic. And the relationship between Shoshana and the Nazi hero has nothing in common with *Romeo and Juliet*. There is no love between them, no self-sacrifice for love, just vengeance again. 😅 I feel like you are stretching the concepts WAY too much to fit your point of view.
Practically every Tarantino movie from Kill Bill is built around a pretty simple formula: establish a villain who is so evil, the audience is willing to revel in them receiving the most sadistic torture (a rapist who sold rides on a female coma victim, a guy who goes around hunting women in a deathproof car, Nazis, slaveowners, the Manson family). But because Tarantino's films are so rewatchable, you inevitably realize that the real message is that both the hero and the audience are capable of becoming as evil as the villain; the real evil is in dehumanizing your enemy.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 You guys seriously have the dunning kruger effect. What's displayed here is "the art of making known simple things seem deep and newly discovered" This video is just like mobile news pop ups or shitty gaming journalism, where the same article gets recycled 15 times
Honestly, this video is way too short. I don't know that I've seen anything from this channel before, but you could've easily tacked on another 5-7 minutes and I would've stayed hooked. Basically what I'm saying is: well done, but do more!
So I don't like star wars, just like Freddy Mercury said in the bicycle/ Fat Bottom Girls song. I do love the ending of star wars. The hacker's dream of the kill switch. Inglorious Basterds is the Quentin Tarantino version of Star wars
Inglorious bastards is just a bad remake of dirty dozen that's not even half as good. And as for his hole take on history he can go back to school he not a student of history he's and abuser of it
Dirty dozen has lower user and critic rating, so I guess not? Still, it doesn't matter what you are talking about IS YOUR TASTE. I don't get why people can't understand that their taste might be different from someone else's? And yes, I mean not understanding it, because it is what it is.
@@iamerror1699 personal preference only goes so far you have to have a compass to be able to navigate yourself. And historical fiction is a beast you don't take on lightly. For truth is stranger than fiction
Damn dude! Came across you in recommended (probably because we seem to share a love for analyzing Tarantino) and I cannot believe that this was only your third video. Your diction is great, pacing keeps you interested. Overall really well put together videos. Keep up the good work!
I love the fact that there's a lot of people mocking that you mispronounce some words thinking that you are just a lil dumb, it's a sign that your English is basically perfect, cause nobody thinks that you're not a native speaker, amazing.
Tarantino also bears his soul in his films, as evidenced in the scene you showed from One Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood, where he puts Margot Robbie's dirty bare feet front & center of the frame. I love him so much.
This first hero scene ... when the "hero" comes out of the tunnel into the light .... ahem ... who is sitting right next to him, eating once again? 😂 At least he stops when the madness starts. I really enjoyed your video, I think this meta-thing is an important subject. How many people think their TV talks to them when they first experience the metaverse of movies? It can be overwhelming, frightening even. It takes some practice and getting used to to watch several layers at once. They don't teach us that at school. Multitasking 2.0. 😂 Tarantino, like Fincher, uses so many layers, so many references, they know all the tricks. It's impossible to get them all in one go. I have no idea how they do it. It must be magic. A movie is made by a large team of people, they all have to work together to create master-puzzle-pieces like that. I love them, I could spend hours to piece it all together. I loved puzzles as a child, too. The satisfaction when the image finally emerges. I never wanted to see the picture before and I hated that they all show you the picture from the start. I wanted the surprise, the suspense. With these films you get exactly that. Did you get the reference with the scalping? This is Tristan, the bear who is a native, diguising as a cowboy, who loses it when he fails to protect his little brother. He goes full native warrior and brings home the scalps of the enemies and the heart of his brother. And he loses control over his inner beast, the bear who is his brother in blood. They marked each other. I'm not that fond of this concept, because it's actually not what the bear stands for in native culture. He is a teacher, a healer who knows all the plants and people learned from him to hole up in warm and cozy caves during winter, to gather food during summer and fall and to preserve energy. Medicine men often have the bear as their spirit animal. But he is also fierce if somebody challenges him or disturbes his sleep. Maybe Tristan should have put his knife out of reach. Much easier than what he did . Men ... why take it easy if you can complicate things endlessly. 😂 But that's a very small part of bear nature. I'm not really surprised that this culture is so fixated on this part. I remember reading something about the jewish bear in your video. Another hint, but I have no idea what this is about. Mother Russia is the bear. Nobody ever survived a confrontation with mother bear, not Napoleon and not that pathetic gnome with the hilarious thing under his nose everybody seems to be wearing at that time - and his rabid mutts of war. They still live under the bridges. Nowadays we call them trolls. Sometimes they feel brave and roam the streets in numbers. But I'm hopeful that more and more people see them as what they are. Pathetic cowards who hide if their numbers are not at least three to one and they're armed to the teeth. They only pick the weekest ones for a fight, that's all they can do. When they are alone one strong move silences them. Their dream is over, no matter what they believe. They don't even understand the signs they use. Two suns don't mean double power. Two suns will just make barbeque. Way too hot to survive. It will end in a desert, in scorched earth. I'm german, by the way. 🤣
He said a bunch of obvious, page one film analysys and simple things in an unnecessarily complicated and wannabe intelectual way tbh. These videos are the epidomy of the phrase "It ain't that deep fam"
Quentin Tarantino and the way he makes films is 1 and a million, truly a genius in cinematography and film making I have been on a recent binge of all the movies he's made. I watched Inglorious Bastards (DVD), Kill Bill Vol. 1/2 (DVD), Django Unchained (Streaming), Reservoir Dogs (Streaming), Pulp Fiction (Streaming), H8teful Eight (Streaming), and just a bit ago as of typing this out Jackie Brown (also Streaming). I'm having a lotta fun just watching these movies. Not really the "Looking deep into the film" type of guy but when I watch analysis vids of any movie of his I get the feeling that's just extra fun content to watch after the fact.
Yes, Tarantino makes meta revenge movies. He likes to subvert audience expectations and genre conventions. But to what end? There's a key device at the center of Brian De Palma's "Hi Mom!" -- a black-and-white "National Intellectual Television" documentary about a radical underground NY theater troupe production called "Be Black Baby," in which the audience is physically and psychologically abused in order to convey to white upper class "intellectuals" what it's REALLY "like" to be "Black in America!" It's a harrowing experience, but the payoff comes at the end when traumatized members of the audience try to rationalize what they've just been through, straining to express how much they've been enlightened... by the play. Everything Tarantino knows about how to play an audience is in that scene -- but he sometimes loses the context, the perspective that would give the "meta" games some actual meaning and resonance. He sure knows how to put together a sequence, though!
I think Tarantino's films all make fun of things he views as injustices or wrongdoings, or empower the victims. One thread that Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained, Hateful 8, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and so on share is that they all alter historical fact to bring justice to the villains of the setting. And his other films that aren't based on any given historical event such as Deathproof, Kill Bill and so on is that they're all about a person or persons who have suffered a great injustice and of some sort and is about them empowering themselves and taking back control. Then you have movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir dogs that show that just because people do bad things, it doesn't always mean they are bad people.
Complete imagination all of this. He did not mock Saving Private Ryan and he certainly didn't foresee a scene from 1917 years later. The shot from 1917 isn't even reminiscent of the Bear Jew intro shot lol - the only thing they have in common is they're tracking shots moving backwards - what are you smoking?
Dude, too much of your blabbering and what you think and don't think, and too few of showing anything we didn't know beforehand (actually, none of it). Sorry!
i think tarantino is more just having fun, then trying to spend a lot of time underscoring his own moral points. It ends up looking like he's making a mockery, which he is, but i feel it's less intentional.
is it more likely that Tarantino made fun of things that haven't happened yet? Or the director of 1917 took inspiration from Tarantino and applied it as he wanted? Good video, not so intelligent concept...
I don't think "mocking" is the word, but he does mention in so many interviews that subversion is in fact one of his main goals. Which I don't think shows any disrespect towards the source material, but rather wants to trick his audience. And while this may sound cliche, I don't think I've seen a lot of directors actually flipping the tropes 180 with such efficiency. He is a joker. Every movie of his I watch I know I like because I can't stop laughing. I'm not laughing because the dialogue has jokes. I'm laughing because what is happening as I watch the movie I am fully aware is extremely funny. And by the way there's layers to this subversion too, because when you're used to his style turning everything into a joke, this all is an elaborate anti-joke of which the anti-punchline is the ending to OUATIH... which is an incredibly sad ending... And the reason I think he does that is like you say sincere. If you deal in arts you want to move people. But in order to move people they need to have their guard down. So in order to let their guard down, he does away with all the cliches they're conditioned to by subverting them. This way once all of that is removed, at the end what's left is the meat of it all.
The irony is that cliches end up undermining your own material. Has the danger of stripping them of all their nuance. And I think that's why it's so powerful to break them down and rise above them.
I don't really care for Tarantino films but they are better than most of the crap today. Also, Adam Sandler was supposed to be the Bear jew, so he intended to mock us, too.
good analysis. but I dont think Tarantino thought all of these. if he thought that much he couldnt shoot that many good movies. Shooting movies like riding bicycle for him.
Tarantino has been criticized for the violence in his films from day one. The Nazis watching and enjoying the violence on the movie scene was 100% meant to show us how are like them
That's actually a great way at looking at it. He makes movies that he wants to make, not to tell a hard message or warn the audiance of the modern fears of the world, but rather he makes films that are simply fun
Mocking other directors? When I saw Inglourious Basterds in the movie theater in Sweden, I imagined what the American audiences must have been like. Probably cheering and laughing and clapping when they see Hitler go down and get comically shot in the face by some Jews. I instinctively immediately knew, and mind you I was just 19 at the time so I wasn't very bright or mature, but I knew then that it was a moment of holding up a mirror to the audience. The Nazis watch their action movie and all the allies get shot up and they cheer and laugh and applaud it. Then the Nazis get shut up and the American type of audiences do the same, ignorant of what fools Tarantino made them out to be.
idk man. This is where you lose me. Tarantino is basically known for his over the top blood baths. It's expected and predictable. If he's making fun of the Audience for laughing at a bloodbath then he's just making fun of himself too. That's literally what most of his movies are focused around.
you can scam a person once. what you want to do is build a loyal viewer base who aren't put off by you straight away but will keep coming back once you've established your own brand (that's your own, not someone else's)
Sweet video. I dig your analysis. Curious about the strange pronunciations? Are you toying with us? Haha …or maybe you’re recording narration after too many hours of editing. Comraids instead of comrads Doos instead of does Inqueers instead of inquires Reeetribution instead of retribution.
B.s. Tarantino knows an Ace when he sees it - His Ace is primarily Violence & he glorifes it like no one else....then all of the apologists come up with lengthy suckup praises like he's a GAWD. He ain't, he just knows what people want to pay for.
The irony that the type of person who is offended by the violence in his movies is one of the few who can't look past it. Your aversion to it is causing an obsession. Typical.
Solid video. I think Funny Games by Haneke is another one that challenges the audience and other filmmakers. I've only seen the original, not his own remake, but that movie definitely had me squirming and questioning myself.
how can u call shoshana and friedricks storyline a romeo and juliette like plot when is unconsented for her and she's the victim of an abuser playing with his power and crybaby manhood???????
@@sevanimal8675 Huh? I mean I think he probably wishes he could edit the video and describe it a different way. It was one of his first video essays back when he had sub 1k subs.
Q-man would never make fun of Sam Raimi, though. One of his main inspirado-mongers from whom he derived inspirado with great relish. Even if there were no feet for him to ogle. Ever notice how Q-man's movies, especially his more recent ones, have a pattern to them? If one of them has a German villain, the next one will have a German hero. If one has a Southern villain, the next one will have a Southern hero. And if not a "hero," per se, then at least a sympathetic character. Or even the mentor to the main hero (which is still a kind of heroic Sage archetype).
I hope you enjoyed my third video. Just started this channel, subscribe pls! (So you can say you were here from the start) I have many videos prepared for the upcoming days :)
follow me: twitter.com/LancellotiFilms/with_replies
Operation Kino
You a jewel .
What's there to enjoy about a clickbait, misleading video? Genuine question
@@damjanbabic6768 i hate clickbait titles, but this guy aint that.
He *is* prepared to go deep and way back in his analysis of the subjects he chooses. I go heavy deep & real on *my* informed passions, so that's fine w me.
When someone like that is looking at Tarantino - who is also a heavy & deep film fan - that means Lancelloti is gonna see more than i do.
When he's discussed things i *do* know well, it's been good - so altho i dont know Tarantino that well, Im happy to listen to someone who does.
Thankyou very much
I'm not sure how this video ended up in my recommended section, but I'm genuinely impressed. It was a very good watch, and I hadn't even realized how new this channel is. Great content
Thanks! You have no idea how crucial it is for us new channels to get feedback like this. I'm stoked you enjoyed my video :)
I subbed too !
Subbed as well
Great analysis. For me the biggest role reversal in "Inglorious Basterds" is the basement scene. Nazi Major is actually portrayed as admirable and extremely brave. After Fasbender's character points 3 fingers wrong, Major realizes that there is something cheesy, but does not choose the safe approach - calling the backup and confronts the basterds to the end. Even takes the inevitable death with dignity.
Thanks, bro! you are my first comment ever haha. I love that scene because essentially it's Tarantino playing with our expectation of what we should see in a character like that.
@@lancelloti.first comment you had wow this will be history
@@lancelloti. congrats, bro, just now realized that your channel kinda blew up 😀great work and keep more incoming!
True, though one could argue wheter it was brave or foolish though. :)
However I DO like the fact that Terentino did try to portray the 'bad guys' as more than just two dimensional cardboard cutouts.
I myself was a bit stunned how some of my american friends seemed to lack any self-reflection and failed to see how the Basterds arent really 'the good guys', considering that by their very actions they are war criminals in every sense of the word and by the Geneva Convention(s).
And the fact that killing prisoners of war is always bad even if it can be 'justified' (and all sides historically DID engage in that to some extent or another, afterall 'take no prisoners' is technically an order for a Warcrime, but sometimes you simply CAN'T take any prisoners [either due to being behind enemy lines, having no manpower to spare or having no facilities to house said prisoners] and it DID historically happen. War makes Beasts of Men, no matter what flag they are fighting for. However it's even worse if the supposed Soldiers do it for 'sports', like with our Jew Bear. Beating an unarmed prisoner to death with a baseball bat (while his armed buddies around make sure he cant fight back or flee) is pretty barbaric no matter who does it against whom.
@@MajorCoolD Sometimes "good guy" is relative
Clickbait, all you're doing is yapping about meta cinema - not how he "mocks" other directors.
Yeah. Fine analysis on meta cinema. Not getting the roasting angle.
Thanks for the warning.
thaank you for your service 🫡
agreed, what exactly does cinema gaining "deeper self-awareness" mean anyway?
Thanks for the heads up. Saved me from wasting any time on this video or this creator.
Your analysis of the Bear Jew scene where he beats the Nazi officers head in was superb. You pretty much give me a new perspective on the title of the movie, because you show how very inglorious the Bear Jew is, especially how unheroic his whole angry baseball rant. And your analysis of the cinematic language is spot on. Keep the videos coming, i am glad to subscribe :)
Thanks bro! Im glad yoy enjoyed my analysis and got something out of it. Your comment means a lot, especially during these early stages of building this channel. Greetings to you, and I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy my content!
Especially his voice cracks when he’s screaming😭🤣it just adds to how phony his grandeur is
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis *fear* them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
some great points and analysis here. Even though the title Inglorious Basterds is cribbed from another movie from the seventies one of the things I love about Quentin Tarantino's movies is that they are about exactly what it says on the tin. A reservoir Dog is someone who rats on the police, pulp fiction gives you the definition of the word and structures the story around this, Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill etc.
reminds me of going to see The Hateful Eight with my then girlfriend and she was almost nauseous with the inertia of all their bad actions saying: "Did every single character have to be so vicious and evil?"
I thought, well yeah. The title spells out for us from the start 😅
I mean you can argue that the soon to be Sheriff is technically not evil and rephrensible by himself, though he was brought up a southern boy and lives in the early post-civil War period. So naturally... well you know? XD
@@MajorCoolD weird that you give the justification to the literal racist but the black colonel getting revenge against the people who put him and his people in chains doesn't get a pass
@@98loud well, his revenge was very extreme and he still murders people for his own selfish interests either way
"Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill" You've really uncovered some very deep truths there... No wonder Tarantino's bullshit impresses you...
English is not my native language but I think Kill Bill is actually a double meaning. On the one hand, its about Killing Bill. But Kill Bill is also a coloquial term for a hit list. As in, Kiddo works through a list of people she wants to kill.
Tarantino is my favorite director but even I suspect that much of what he does is simply because it looks cool or is an homage to something that came before, not everything is a sophisticated meta commentary
I think you downplay just how genius these people are at their craft. It takes a VERY learned person to craft these movies in the way that they do. Tarantino lives and breathes cinema, maybe even more than any director ever has.(as proven by his insistence in not only making films, but making his films ABOUT films) If anyone would have a meta commentary on Hollywood and cinema, it would be him.
This is where I'm at...way perceptive analysis, thoughtful and provocative, but ultimately I think its reaching.
@@lockekappa500 he's not downplaying. And you arent' neccessarily wrong, but I would have to agree that this video did not do a good job at explaining it. Video got close, but overall was making confusing points. And yes, some were reaching...
Its not hard to see the metaphor of an audience watching movie within the movie. Clever yes..Genius? not really..in fact i would say its more preditable than clever given Tarantino's history. Satire , yes....sophisticated? not really.
@@ryuk5673 I dunno, I think there's as much genius in Tarantino's work as the best directors out there. I don't think anyone else can make the same movies he does.
@@lockekappa500oh sorry, there absolutely 100% is genius in his movies. That i agree!
I just meant not in the way the uploader was saying though. Tarantino's genius imo is his seemingly unique ability to transform a relatively normal looking scene of 2 people eating breakfast into some of the most amazing dialogue you've ever heard.
You're definitely reading into this too much. Agreed that these movies subvert your expectations but I don't think Tarantino 'mocks' these films the way you're suggesting. It's merely showing them a mirror. You said Tarantino does this so as to avoid the glorification of war but I'd argue his stylistic violence does exactly that in Inglorious Basterds. The forced comparison with a movie like 1917 which came out years after IB does feel like reaching a bit.
I agree. Inglorious Bastards is all about the joy and vindication of killing people as evil as the Nazis. The Bastards are not portrayed as small and uminpressive to make them less heroic, but rather to make their achievements seem even greater. These aren't some super professional spies, these are just some all-american boys ready to fight evil.
Mocking might have been the incorrect term, but I do think that QT is holding a mirror up to the audience at times regarding their interest in war films as propaganda (while still making a "propaganda" esque war film of his own). The film's Bear Jew introduction as well as the ridiculous situation the Basterds find themselves in by the of the film are great examples of this.
It's almost like if you remove the soundtrack from a Rocky movie--it's just a bunch of grunting and sweating.
Are you seriously expecting common sense and logic from a Tarantino fanboy/stan?
@@ab4845 What fanboy are you talking about? The creator of the video? If that is who you meant, then you don't understand what 'fanboy' means.
Tarantino doesn't need to know the exact scene that 1917 will have. He knows that movie will come out already, and already has come out. It's not a stretch if it's within our predictable nature to make movies like this.
One of the things I like the most about Inglorious Basterds is that it also constitutes a huge F-you to the American reticence to watch movies with subtitles.
It should've won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay too but those said subtitles seem to turn voters off and it's BS. It's as if they thought QT did it simply to be "clever."
"Watch movies with subtitles"
Or in english, as not in american english.
please make more of these, video essays are my jam
more are coming soon!
Classic overanalyzing
Your interpretation of the movie is VERY TWISTED, dude. The movie is about historical revenge, pure and simple.
The Bear Jew's raw violence is far from pathetic. And the relationship between Shoshana and the Nazi hero has nothing in common with *Romeo and Juliet*. There is no love between them, no self-sacrifice for love, just vengeance again. 😅 I feel like you are stretching the concepts WAY too much to fit your point of view.
love the subtle transistion at 1:00
Christ, your opening argument was stupid. Those images were nothing alike. Jesus...
Practically every Tarantino movie from Kill Bill is built around a pretty simple formula: establish a villain who is so evil, the audience is willing to revel in them receiving the most sadistic torture (a rapist who sold rides on a female coma victim, a guy who goes around hunting women in a deathproof car, Nazis, slaveowners, the Manson family). But because Tarantino's films are so rewatchable, you inevitably realize that the real message is that both the hero and the audience are capable of becoming as evil as the villain; the real evil is in dehumanizing your enemy.
this is a well written video, i hope you continue to upload. you have potential:)
The title of this video is 100% just clickbait
thank you for saving my time
He's mocking the choices of other directors tho ..
Don't show your lack of int... erm "understanding".
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 You guys seriously have the dunning kruger effect. What's displayed here is "the art of making known simple things seem deep and newly discovered"
This video is just like mobile news pop ups or shitty gaming journalism, where the same article gets recycled 15 times
That poor dude, just riding his bike in front of the cinema when it explodes
Honestly, this video is way too short. I don't know that I've seen anything from this channel before, but you could've easily tacked on another 5-7 minutes and I would've stayed hooked.
Basically what I'm saying is: well done, but do more!
This is really good bro, like seriously impressive I beg you to keep going, you'll one hundred percent find a big audience
Thanks bro
great video essay.
I hope you keep making these.
great editing.
thank you! more videos are coming soon
Ahh, a video of someone talking complete bollocks after overthinking everything. TH-cam, you spoil me.
So I don't like star wars, just like Freddy Mercury said in the bicycle/ Fat Bottom Girls song. I do love the ending of star wars. The hacker's dream of the kill switch. Inglorious Basterds is the Quentin Tarantino version of Star wars
amazing video, Great editing, not overly long, good pacing, and good argument. You got yourself a new subscriber.
thank you so much, bro! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and I hope you continue to enjoy my content :)
Inglorious bastards is just a bad remake of dirty dozen that's not even half as good. And as for his hole take on history he can go back to school he not a student of history he's and abuser of it
Dirty dozen has lower user and critic rating, so I guess not?
Still, it doesn't matter what you are talking about IS YOUR TASTE. I don't get why people can't understand that their taste might be different from someone else's? And yes, I mean not understanding it, because it is what it is.
@@iamerror1699 personal preference only goes so far you have to have a compass to be able to navigate yourself. And historical fiction is a beast you don't take on lightly. For truth is stranger than fiction
Damn dude! Came across you in recommended (probably because we seem to share a love for analyzing Tarantino) and I cannot believe that this was only your third video. Your diction is great, pacing keeps you interested. Overall really well put together videos. Keep up the good work!
I love the fact that there's a lot of people mocking that you mispronounce some words thinking that you are just a lil dumb, it's a sign that your English is basically perfect, cause nobody thinks that you're not a native speaker, amazing.
Yuh
Tarantino also bears his soul in his films, as evidenced in the scene you showed from One Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood, where he puts Margot Robbie's dirty bare feet front & center of the frame. I love him so much.
The talk about the foot massage in Pulp Fiction or his own scene with Satanico Pandemonium in From Dusk till Dawn. Let's leave it like that.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 Yup. I just wanted to mention the one where you see feet & they also happen to be filthy lol
This first hero scene ... when the "hero" comes out of the tunnel into the light .... ahem ... who is sitting right next to him, eating once again? 😂 At least he stops when the madness starts.
I really enjoyed your video, I think this meta-thing is an important subject. How many people think their TV talks to them when they first experience the metaverse of movies? It can be overwhelming, frightening even. It takes some practice and getting used to to watch several layers at once. They don't teach us that at school. Multitasking 2.0. 😂
Tarantino, like Fincher, uses so many layers, so many references, they know all the tricks. It's impossible to get them all in one go. I have no idea how they do it. It must be magic. A movie is made by a large team of people, they all have to work together to create master-puzzle-pieces like that. I love them, I could spend hours to piece it all together.
I loved puzzles as a child, too. The satisfaction when the image finally emerges. I never wanted to see the picture before and I hated that they all show you the picture from the start. I wanted the surprise, the suspense. With these films you get exactly that.
Did you get the reference with the scalping? This is Tristan, the bear who is a native, diguising as a cowboy, who loses it when he fails to protect his little brother. He goes full native warrior and brings home the scalps of the enemies and the heart of his brother. And he loses control over his inner beast, the bear who is his brother in blood. They marked each other.
I'm not that fond of this concept, because it's actually not what the bear stands for in native culture. He is a teacher, a healer who knows all the plants and people learned from him to hole up in warm and cozy caves during winter, to gather food during summer and fall and to preserve energy. Medicine men often have the bear as their spirit animal.
But he is also fierce if somebody challenges him or disturbes his sleep. Maybe Tristan should have put his knife out of reach. Much easier than what he did . Men ... why take it easy if you can complicate things endlessly. 😂
But that's a very small part of bear nature. I'm not really surprised that this culture is so fixated on this part.
I remember reading something about the jewish bear in your video. Another hint, but I have no idea what this is about. Mother Russia is the bear. Nobody ever survived a confrontation with mother bear, not Napoleon and not that pathetic gnome with the hilarious thing under his nose everybody seems to be wearing at that time - and his rabid mutts of war. They still live under the bridges. Nowadays we call them trolls. Sometimes they feel brave and roam the streets in numbers. But I'm hopeful that more and more people see them as what they are. Pathetic cowards who hide if their numbers are not at least three to one and they're armed to the teeth. They only pick the weekest ones for a fight, that's all they can do. When they are alone one strong move silences them. Their dream is over, no matter what they believe. They don't even understand the signs they use. Two suns don't mean double power. Two suns will just make barbeque. Way too hot to survive. It will end in a desert, in scorched earth.
I'm german, by the way. 🤣
Did Eli Roth "bear jew" do a tribute to "Hostel" in the tunnel scene in the Bastards? Hmm
Unbelievably excessive overanalyzing.
You'd be great at learning the Talmud.
I have no idea what this dude just said
He said a bunch of obvious, page one film analysys and simple things in an unnecessarily complicated and wannabe intelectual way tbh.
These videos are the epidomy of the phrase "It ain't that deep fam"
Please analyse American Psycho. then Fight Club. Then The Shining.
Quentin Tarantino and the way he makes films is 1 and a million, truly a genius in cinematography and film making I have been on a recent binge of all the movies he's made. I watched Inglorious Bastards (DVD), Kill Bill Vol. 1/2 (DVD), Django Unchained (Streaming), Reservoir Dogs (Streaming), Pulp Fiction (Streaming), H8teful Eight (Streaming), and just a bit ago as of typing this out Jackie Brown (also Streaming). I'm having a lotta fun just watching these movies. Not really the "Looking deep into the film" type of guy but when I watch analysis vids of any movie of his I get the feeling that's just extra fun content to watch after the fact.
Quentin > everyone else INCLUDING KUBRICK 🤷🏿♂️
Yes, Tarantino makes meta revenge movies. He likes to subvert audience expectations and genre conventions. But to what end? There's a key device at the center of Brian De Palma's "Hi Mom!" -- a black-and-white "National Intellectual Television" documentary about a radical underground NY theater troupe production called "Be Black Baby," in which the audience is physically and psychologically abused in order to convey to white upper class "intellectuals" what it's REALLY "like" to be "Black in America!" It's a harrowing experience, but the payoff comes at the end when traumatized members of the audience try to rationalize what they've just been through, straining to express how much they've been enlightened... by the play. Everything Tarantino knows about how to play an audience is in that scene -- but he sometimes loses the context, the perspective that would give the "meta" games some actual meaning and resonance. He sure knows how to put together a sequence, though!
I think Tarantino's films all make fun of things he views as injustices or wrongdoings, or empower the victims. One thread that Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained, Hateful 8, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and so on share is that they all alter historical fact to bring justice to the villains of the setting. And his other films that aren't based on any given historical event such as Deathproof, Kill Bill and so on is that they're all about a person or persons who have suffered a great injustice and of some sort and is about them empowering themselves and taking back control. Then you have movies like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir dogs that show that just because people do bad things, it doesn't always mean they are bad people.
Good analysis, but it feels a bit like ChatGPT played a large role in creating the essay from the wordings used... :)
You should probably cite/reference the movies you show in the video or in the description.
Complete imagination all of this. He did not mock Saving Private Ryan and he certainly didn't foresee a scene from 1917 years later.
The shot from 1917 isn't even reminiscent of the Bear Jew intro shot lol - the only thing they have in common is they're tracking shots moving backwards - what are you smoking?
one more fact that I find funny: both Fredrick Zoller and Landa Apache carve out Swasticas in their "movies"
the difference is only in the canvas
Imma be real, i think the bear jew reveal was just supposed to be funny. It's just... eli roth
Dude, too much of your blabbering and what you think and don't think, and too few of showing anything we didn't know beforehand (actually, none of it). Sorry!
i think tarantino is more just having fun, then trying to spend a lot of time underscoring his own moral points. It ends up looking like he's making a mockery, which he is, but i feel it's less intentional.
is it more likely that Tarantino made fun of things that haven't happened yet? Or the director of 1917 took inspiration from Tarantino and applied it as he wanted? Good video, not so intelligent concept...
Did you know Tarrintino wanted Adam Sandler to play the part of the Bear Jew.
If only…
When you realize this is Cinema 101. Oh jeeze, just looked up Canet. Why is he trying to reinvent the wheel here? Meta-Cinema? What a lame take.
I don't think "mocking" is the word, but he does mention in so many interviews that subversion is in fact one of his main goals. Which I don't think shows any disrespect towards the source material, but rather wants to trick his audience. And while this may sound cliche, I don't think I've seen a lot of directors actually flipping the tropes 180 with such efficiency.
He is a joker. Every movie of his I watch I know I like because I can't stop laughing. I'm not laughing because the dialogue has jokes. I'm laughing because what is happening as I watch the movie I am fully aware is extremely funny. And by the way there's layers to this subversion too, because when you're used to his style turning everything into a joke, this all is an elaborate anti-joke of which the anti-punchline is the ending to OUATIH... which is an incredibly sad ending...
And the reason I think he does that is like you say sincere. If you deal in arts you want to move people. But in order to move people they need to have their guard down. So in order to let their guard down, he does away with all the cliches they're conditioned to by subverting them. This way once all of that is removed, at the end what's left is the meat of it all.
The irony is that cliches end up undermining your own material. Has the danger of stripping them of all their nuance. And I think that's why it's so powerful to break them down and rise above them.
The Saving Private Ryan scene where you say they spare a mans life only for him to kill his saviour isn't true. They're different characters.
I don't really care for Tarantino films but they are better than most of the crap today. Also, Adam Sandler was supposed to be the Bear jew, so he intended to mock us, too.
good analysis. but I dont think Tarantino thought all of these. if he thought that much he couldnt shoot that many good movies. Shooting movies like riding bicycle for him.
Tarantino has been criticized for the violence in his films from day one. The Nazis watching and enjoying the violence on the movie scene was 100% meant to show us how are like them
word-salad video about popular movie is also popular
the first 20 seconds of this were incredibly stupid
What a bunch of bs
overanalyze EVERYTHING!!!
Landau=Reinhard Gehlen. History buffs know.
Excuse may, the 1917 is a masterpiece.
Man I was not prepared to see the actual scalping scene in a video on TH-cam. At least we know now he does not do this for money.
"Inquire" rhymes with "wire", not "here", just fyi
Ooohhh, like the masterpiece that is the HBO show.
Mock other directors? More like QT steals from other directors.
Tarantino only makes fan films.
That's actually a great way at looking at it. He makes movies that he wants to make, not to tell a hard message or warn the audiance of the modern fears of the world, but rather he makes films that are simply fun
@@sorcerous8401I think that’s why he’s a very respectable writer/director.
are you the carbon? Because you looks so similar and the edition is similar, anyway amazing job
elCarbón? Is this you in English?
Good one! I'd enjoy some longer form content, too. I've been here from the start! 😅
God I hate metacinema. Tarantino is so...pretentious?
Mocking other directors? When I saw Inglourious Basterds in the movie theater in Sweden, I imagined what the American audiences must have been like. Probably cheering and laughing and clapping when they see Hitler go down and get comically shot in the face by some Jews. I instinctively immediately knew, and mind you I was just 19 at the time so I wasn't very bright or mature, but I knew then that it was a moment of holding up a mirror to the audience. The Nazis watch their action movie and all the allies get shot up and they cheer and laugh and applaud it. Then the Nazis get shut up and the American type of audiences do the same, ignorant of what fools Tarantino made them out to be.
idk man. This is where you lose me. Tarantino is basically known for his over the top blood baths. It's expected and predictable. If he's making fun of the Audience for laughing at a bloodbath then he's just making fun of himself too. That's literally what most of his movies are focused around.
you can scam a person once. what you want to do is build a loyal viewer base who aren't put off by you straight away but will keep coming back once you've established your own brand (that's your own, not someone else's)
????
Sweet video. I dig your analysis. Curious about the strange pronunciations? Are you toying with us? Haha …or maybe you’re recording narration after too many hours of editing.
Comraids instead of comrads
Doos instead of does
Inqueers instead of inquires
Reeetribution instead of retribution.
I did catch all of these. Can't tell if he's subverting our expectations. Maybe he's foreign?
B.s. Tarantino knows an Ace when he sees it - His Ace is primarily Violence & he glorifes it like no one else....then all of the apologists come up with lengthy suckup praises like he's a GAWD. He ain't, he just knows what people want to pay for.
The irony that the type of person who is offended by the violence in his movies is one of the few who can't look past it. Your aversion to it is causing an obsession. Typical.
Guess you had to see it.
dude.., get smart when you lost your dog.. or be you
little confusing in some parts but nice video
quentin: oh really? i don't know that. that's interesting
How long are your arms to make such a reach
Bot
i am ok with you try to make the whole world gay.really?!
Well, when you put it like that.
Solid video. I think Funny Games by Haneke is another one that challenges the audience and other filmmakers. I've only seen the original, not his own remake, but that movie definitely had me squirming and questioning myself.
It wasn’t just any regular degular audience in that theater but the most wealthy and powerful elites of the military and ruling class.
Bro did you just say the Jewish Bear lmaoooo
Good analysis. Clickbait title.
Wtf arre you yapping bout? This is next level glazing
Could you elaborate?
Great video man, also handsome 🥵 i love good video essays and you deliver it well. $ubscribed dawg
And yet.. it doesn't amount to much..
Tarantino sucks . . . his breakout movie, Reservoir Dogs was a rip off of a Honk Kong gangster film. It was all downhil from there.
What movie? I wanna watch it
@@dorialine1 City on Fire
It's homage not mockery.
why he do's. I can't unhear that at the end.
How are first two scenes similar?
This is such pretentious crap
how can u call shoshana and friedricks storyline a romeo and juliette like plot when is unconsented for her and she's the victim of an abuser playing with his power and crybaby manhood???????
Yeah that was a strange way to describe it. I'd imagine maybe if he could go back he'd describe it a different way.
@@lockekappa500 it was 2 months ago,, it's not like it was written 10 years before men realized women had feelings
@@sevanimal8675 Huh? I mean I think he probably wishes he could edit the video and describe it a different way. It was one of his first video essays back when he had sub 1k subs.
Delve!!!!
You give him too much credit
His name is the Bear Jew.
great analysis. This was his one movie I just didn't get. this gives me the fresh perspective I was looking for.
Almost watched them all 😎 Gonna recommend your channel to friends of mine 🤙
Keep your great work up man and continue your journey to success 👑💜
Q-man would never make fun of Sam Raimi, though. One of his main inspirado-mongers from whom he derived inspirado with great relish. Even if there were no feet for him to ogle.
Ever notice how Q-man's movies, especially his more recent ones, have a pattern to them? If one of them has a German villain, the next one will have a German hero. If one has a Southern villain, the next one will have a Southern hero. And if not a "hero," per se, then at least a sympathetic character. Or even the mentor to the main hero (which is still a kind of heroic Sage archetype).
This is just perfect.
did you mean majic??
It is his masterpiece.