Butch - as he said: “They keep underestimating you!” A would-be victim Marcellas thought he could coerce into doing what he wanted. Used that perception to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Resists the urge to physically lash out at Fabienne when she lets him down (though, it surely wouldn’t have killed him to have packed the watch himself) and does the right thing by Marcellas at the end of his segment (going back to rescue him from the rapists). Don’t feel sorry for Vincent either. In the subsequent section, you see that he has the opportunity to walk away from “the life” with Jules - which would’ve saved him. His response was “…freak occurrence…”
Maggot. The single most obviously bad and disgusting character in movie history. Savalas was brilliant. The scene where he makes the German woman scream and then guts her was cold as ice.
Ultimatly WHY Taratino 'currupts' the audiance is the point. He consistently denegrates evil institutions (Slavery, Nazi's, Mafia) as the ultimate villians. I think he is ultimatly trying to communicate that we should not expect sainthood from thouse who fight evil institutions and particularly not from thouse who have been victims of said institutions and are seeking rightious vengence.
@@MásCebollasPorFavor Stare long enough into the Abyss, and the Abyss will stare back at you. The question then is whether or not at that point you blink?
Or it could be he cares the most about making cool and interesting characters. And I’m guessing to him either bad guys or morally gray characters are the most interesting.
You skipped Butch's motivation for throwing the fight, it was how Vincent talked to him at the bar, so Butch keyed his Malibu. Butch was ready to throw the fight until a junkie that worked for Wallace denigrated him.
Interesting! I've always considered Butch's decision to throw the fight to have been the plan from the beginning. When he's on the payphone to Scotty, it seems like this all took quite a lot of planning, which he wouldn't have been able to cook up in the time between taking the money from Marsellus and the fight. I think Vince's behaviour in the bar was just something that pissed Butch off and created some animosity between the two. Still, you may be right. More importantly, Butch's keying of Vince's Malibu is a little-known fact indeed. Barely anyone seems to have noticed this - bravo! Thanks for watching and commenting. I really hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
imagine being Butch and sharing your plan with your french gf they have to leave town, risking their lives because a dude in a bar called you "punchy". I believe it's 2 different revenge acts from Butch, one careful planned and the other out of his anger issues.
@@luke.hoffman Marsellus' speech about "pride fucking with you" is key to that interaction. Butch was willing to let go of his pride as a professional fighter, but Vincent made it personal and that was too much for him to bear.
If a junkie has this much power over you, then that is pathetic. Imagine keying a junkies car and going back on the deal you made because a junkie made you feel insecure…. Lmao
It is that. But it’s like a love letter to a lot of stuff. The door thing, while not exactly the same, seems to be a reference to The Thing from Another World.
Indeed. I love how he recycled the leftover Morricone music and made it almost like a 'bottle episode' in his filmography. I think every time I rewatch it I like it more and more. It's probably his most underrated film in my eyes. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's a big fan of it. I'm still hoping that he turns it into a theatre production at some point! Thanks for watching! I really hope you enjoyed it. - Luke
Scorsese does the same in Goodfellas. You get seduced into liking these characters but then you're reminded, in characters like the Pesci character, that these people, these gangsters, are sociopathic.
Eh, I'd disagree. Tarantino's characters' likability gets carried by their moral codes. Scorsese doesn't do that as much, going for more emotionally unstable characters. It's pretty difficult to see most Scorsese characters as anything but subhuman on a moral level.
It's really not as crafty or clever as the comment section and this video is making it out to be. Any half decently written protagonist regardless of morals the audience will automatically align themselves with and root for.
yeah, but a great many of tatantino's killings are done witht the victim helpless. Just watch the inglorious basterds scene... also, torture and killing of innocent bystanders...
I think it all depends on the ethical stance you take. Some would argue that murder is never morally permissible. Others would say it is in certain situations. I opted for a very black-and-white view when writing this video, but I appreciate that this is a more nuanced topic. Thanks for getting involved in the discussion and watching. I appreciate the interaction a lot! - Luke
His best character is Hans Landa. I love that guy. The whole movie is in another gear when he is on the screen. And You don't have to pull for him, you just know that he does not need that. With the exception of the last minute of the movie he is always in control and on the winning side. Aldo's action in the last minute is the only thing which make the balance right. He is just like Heath Ledger's Joker. Makes you craving to have him on the screen again. And he is so much above anybody in intellect, charisma, vision, one cannot help but love the guy.
Completely agree. I think Hans Landa is possibly my favourite Tarantino character, too. One of the things I like the most about Hans is his ability to use language, both verbal and non-verbal, as a weapon. He's a master of communication and I love the way Tarantino (and Waltz) showcase this in his interactions. No one is able to hide from him and, as you say, he's always in control and never has to fire a gun to do it - very unusual for a Tarantino character. I think he's one of the most well-written characters of all time. Thanks for watching and taking the time to share this comment. I appreciate it a lot! - Luke
That last shot from him in the opening? The one were he doesn't take the shot and instead wishes her a fond farewell? Years later and that still is probably one of the strongest scenes.
I've seen all the movies you've discussed but I didn't pick up on how once a character is an under dog, the audience will tolerate a great degree of moral ambiguity or them being "bad." I also like how Tarantino humanizes his villains. Great stuff for any writer to know. Thanks for making this video!
The reason we like antiheros is simple: 1) we cannot act like this in real life, and it is not fun to play by the rules, so living vicariously through those that do not is appealing 2) A story about a perfect character with a perfect life is not very interesting to watch 3) There are thousands of characters, some morally good others morally bad. So, cherry picking only the antiheros and saying 'why do we like this trope' is not really getting at anything. The antihero is not why we like the movie, a well written story is why we like the movie. The morality of the character has little to no bearing in this argument.
Well one, I think the overall point was more about why we like these morally dubious characters than why we like the movies with these morally dubious characters. Two, morality and good writing go hand in hand. Every single layered, well written character you can think of either has an established moral code, or their morality is a plot point. Your personal morals lining up with a character's also greatly heightens the chances that you'll like that character. V in V For Vendetta is an anarchist icon and beloved by most anarchists because he shares a lot of the same morals. Someone like Homelander was praised by certain people because of how their morals matched up with his. I don't think you can say that morality has nothing to do with how much we like a story, or a character.
I think his most heroic character that he’s ever written/ good guy might have been Dr. Shultz. A dentist turned Bounty Hunter. I don’t remember the reason of they even said. He did pay for Django, and kill the slavers horse, he still could’ve just used Django for what he used him for then left him to his own devices. Instead he helped him find Broomhilda and hated the person who was Calvin Candy for how he treated everyone on his land
Ironically, even though the "Hateful Eight" is the title, there was one other important character that existed for the majority of the story who was the only real good person. That was O.B., the jehu who ran the stagecoach that brought half of the Hateful Eight to Minnie's Haberdashery. O.B. was the one guy who did not use racist terminology around Major Warren or Bob and was one of the innocent victims of the Jody Domingre Gang.
Totally agree. I think by the end he makes a bit of a shift, for sure. But early on, he's not quite there yet. And even at the end, he still lets Ringo and Yolanda leave with all the diner customers' wallets when he could have forced them to return them. I think there's still some moral greyness in Jules yet! 😆 Thanks for watching and commenting. Hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Butch is not so much a bad guy as he is a survivor. There is a significant difference. He doesn't really do anything immoral, just violent, but for survival sake. And he does rescue Marcelis. That's a big deal. He pitied his enemy. Very angelic.
I somehow never noticed until watching this video how ludicrously Jules misses that poor kid on the couch. Leaving aside there's not even a blank- no muzzle flash, no recoil, no impact squibs, no hit on the target, an extremely badly faked gunshot, he's also literally not pointing the barrel at the man when the shot goes off. So basically that kid canonically felt the bullet hit the couch beside him, saw that Jules wasn't even looking, and played dead for the rest of the scene.
I feel like anything done to Nazis is outside of the normal moral spectrum. It's like a Jedi killing a Sith - no one sees that as morally dubious because you're killing an objective evil that is actively trying to harm you (or the Jedi in this instance), and the world as a whole. Within the context of the Holocaust, you could almost say it's self defense, even. And I'm sorry, it's hard for me to see marking a Nazi for what he is, no matter what he's wearing, as morally dubious. It's a bit barbaric, sure, but ultimately it's so an evil person cannot hide amogst regular people. And the "if you take them out of this world" argument doesn't make much sense either, considering the entire reason for their rampage is because of the "Jew hating mass murdering son of a bitch". If you take them out of the setting, the Bastards don't even exist. They're tied to the setting itself and couldn't exist without it
The problem is they aren’t all Landa, they are a lot of the time just conscripted soldiers. We have mythologized the Nazis into demons, that we can do no wrong to. To prove this imagine putting the bastards into Vietnam or Korea where they are fighting, pla, Viet cong, or Soviet Guards forces, people fighting for an ideology that has killed so many people as well. Hell you can’t do this even to the Japanese who are on the level of crime against humanity the Nazis did, let alone putting them in Italy against the Italians.
In the immortal words of Rustin Cohle from True Detective replying to Martin's question about bad men, "World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
That, literally doesn’t make any sense. Are you unhinged? The world needs bad men, to keep bad men away. So the world creates a problem to solve… a problem it created? It’s like saying, the world needed nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to keep nuclear weapons in check.
Major Warren is the first Tarantino character that I finally "got" as a truly evil character who I was "supposed to" like. I saw behind the veil for the first time. When he was describing what he did to the old man's son, I realized that I was _supposed_ to be reveling in the suffering of a racist Confederate soldier...but I wasn't. I was feeling physically sick on his behalf. I was feeling disgusted at not only the insane cruelty of the act itself, but the joy he found in revealing every detail to the man's father. For the first time, I recognized that the director was hoping for me to applaud, rather than to feel disgusted by this anti-hero. This was a major surprise to me, because I've been a MASSIVE Tarantino fan since I was a young teen (I'm 36 now), and genuinely love dark humor most of all. I'm basically almost roaring with satisfaction, not empathy, whenever an anti-hero gets his revenge. But, not in this case. 'Hateful Eight' is one movie that I genuinely don't want to watch again-- another shocking and downright confusing for someone like me. It's the level of cruelty. The characters go far beyond getting revenge: they find creative ways to make their subjects suffer...then they savor them.
I always took Aldo as a comment on the hypocrisy of America during WW2, how they condemn the Nazi's crimes but then also have segregation and systemic racism in their own country, all of this manifested in Aldo's rlly heavy southern accent and the fact that he brings up Stonewall Jackson as an example of a smart military commander in the basement
I somewhat disagree. Tarantino's main purpose is homage first and foremost, and I feel anything gleaned from his movies needs to be filtered through that lens first. Aldo is an homage to the Cowboy Archetype. He's everything modern masculinity idolizes, despite him being all Hollywood, and he's also a prime example of our tendency to whitewash history......even the history where WE were the genocidal invaders. He's inherently contradictory b/c while he's the perfect Hero, he's also the perfect Power Fantasy, and our power fantasies are not heroic at all. Aldo is that Cowboy dialed up to an 11. He's somehow a non-aristocrat Melungeon Hillbilly from a rebel state (PF) who actually fought against Southern racism (H) and got a cool scar and his own squad (PF) for his heroism, and who enlists a bunch of angry Jewish soldiers (H) to help them get their revenge while he gets to scalp people or carve them up (PF). That's so laughably improbable that his being so articulate, attractive, more Aryan than the Nazis he fights, and somehow able to survive a lynching is really no big deal to suspend disbelief on either. Tarantino isn't trying to comment on Southern hypocrisy during WWII. He is revealing how American hypocrisy ALWAYS goes. He's commenting on OUR hypocrisy for naively believing that we'll be the heroes when we suck up to the 1% and attack the people below us for not trying hard enough. Heck, if you really want to read it as something more, take it as commentary on the South NOW.
@@Scarfgirl Maybe I'm just reading way too little into this or don't know Tarantino well enough, but isn't the gist of the violence done by the the protagonists in stuff like Django and Basterds just that its being done to historically awful groups of people. Like Django's murder spree & destruction of a plantation is fun to root for and justified cause its being done to unapolagetic slave owners, or the Basterd's being gruesome is fun to root for because its victims are literal Nazi's and SS soldiers/officers.
1.) I like your take away from that film and 2.) A fun fact about German policy making at that time is that large parts of it were inspired by Manifest Destiny and aspects old American colonial doctrine from back in the day!
I watched Inglorious Bastards with my dad. When the bat scene happened, he said “well that’s excessive.” Then I told him these are Jewish men and he was like “Oh, well that makes sense then.”
😆 I suppose it does make sense on many levels. Particularly for those who subscribe to the policy of 'an eye for an eye'. Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate it and hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
The simple ingredient for making a morally ambiguous character seem better is to reduce the 'good light' shown in the movie. So, in removing any people that have no connections to 'the drama', it leaves us with only people that have some incentive for the end to come about in a specific way. The 'good people' in these productions are extras, with no names, seen shopping, or playing games with their children, or just depositing their check at the bank. Facts.
The gimp was hanging by his neck. He also could've suffered brain damage from Butches punch. He killed his opponent in his last fight, so he's got some powerful fists. Just some food for thought.
So, according to an interview with Tarantino, the Gimp did die (I was very careful to fact check that before including it in the video 😅). But I see you've also read this now. Still, thank you for challenging my view in the video. Even though the video is mainly about Tarantino's writing techniques, my intention was to be quite provocative/black-and-white in my ethical evaluation of these characters to stimulate discussions like this. I already mentioned it in a reply to another comment, but I took an approach that is arguably characterised best by Kantian Ethics, which judges the morality of an act in itself as opposed to the character or consequences of an action (i.e. murder = bad, irrespective of the context/consequences). It's quite rigid and not really how I would make moral judgments in real life, but it's a nice way to stimulate discussion in cases like this. I like your perspective, but I would challenge it with the following: - Vince was unarmed. Butch could have probably incapacitated him without killing him (e.g. knock him out, tie him up - we all know Butch would probably take Vince in a fist fight 🤣). There was clearly some animosity between the two, as we see from their meeting in the bar. So, I think Butch killing him that way was quite cold-blooded and not entirely self-defence. - I would argue the similarly for the case of Marcellus. Firstly, he could have reversed his car rather than accelerated. And in the pawn shop, he could have left him knocked out on the floor and still escaped. Maybe Marcellus would have hunted him down, I think that's more than plausible. But still, the way Butch was about to execute him was hilariously brutal, and Marcellus was already incapacitated at that point. So, again, I would argue not self-defence. - Zed is presumably killed by Marcellus and his "hard, pipe-hitting n-words", so that one isn't on Butch 😆 - And Maynard could have been knocked out with the baseball bat, but (in one of the coolest scenes, I'll admit) Butch chooses the katana and then attacks Maynard while his back is turned. Morally justified? I would argue, yes. Self-defence? I would say, no. What are your thoughts? Also, thank you for the comment and for watching. I really appreciate the support and hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
@luke.hoffman I'd say the only reason Vince was unarmed was because he forgot his machine gun on the kitchen counter when he went to the bathroom. There is no doubt he and Marcellus were going to kill/torture Butch if they caught him, and since Marcellus was prepared to "scour the earth for that mf", Butch would be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Given the oppurtunity to deal with his enemies permanently, he took it. I would say shooting Vince (and running over Marcellus) was justified in the sense that the stakes were already clear that it was life or death. Sparing the life of the person who is trying to kill you (and will continue to try to kill you, unless you save them from being raped and tortured by rednecks, one of the only unlikely scenarios where a truce could be negotiated) its a matter of survival. That being said, I'm certainly not making a case for Butch bring a good guy, but rather his actions regarding killing who he did was more akin to the do or die situation of combat than a reflection on his morality. I wouldn't consider it immoral to kill an unarmed soldier (not a civilian) during a declared war, since it's understood they would do the same to you if given the chance, and in that way I'd argue Butch was justified. Should do one on King Shultz (who I think was a bad person under your terms) and Django (who slaughtered the matriarch of Candyland towards the end of film). Anyway, interesting video, thanks for the reply
Good analysis. One of my fav QT scenes: Butch is ecstatic that he has escaped the gimp dungeon and is about to flee the place--then suddenly, he stops, falters, hesitates--cleary experiencing compunction about leaving Marcelus in tornent below. He chooses his weapon feom the wall, returns below, and rescues Marcelus. And it turns out well for him. Such a great scene skillfully acted by Willis.
Butch takes a major risk to rescue Marcellus - compelled by a sense of honor, like Jules. Vincent also has a sense of honor, but is closed to the spiritual encounter that has impacted Jules so much. How'd they end up? I would argue that Tarantino's writing became angry and corrupted after Django.
Indeed. I think the honour (or "twisted sense of morality", as I put it in the video) that he instills into many of these characters definitely adds to that moral greyness and makes it harder to argue that they are entirely bad. Vince is an interesting one indeed. He'll dispassionately kill people for Marsellus, but (presumably) only if he's asked to do it nicely 😆 what a fascinating guy! Interesting take on Tarantino's writing. I don't view Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood as a particularly angry narrative. I'm very keen to see what he does for his final film, though. Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate the insight and support. - Luke
This actually happened already at early 70's when The Godafher came to be the big hit. The crime boss Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and his son Michael (Al Pacino) who in the end of the movie took his place and became to be the most ruthless and violent don in New York, were both more admired than anything else by the audience. The charismatic actors, clever direction by Francis F. Coppola and beautyful music by Nino Rota made people falling in love with this story over generations.
I think one of the reasons why vito was loved cause he wasn't a stereotypical mob boss he wasn't ruthless to everyone, he helped his community, wouldn't take someone insulting him seriously, and raised tom hagen an orphan, and most of his targets were as bad as him not saying vito was a good guy by any means he was a bad person but that's why he's loved by alot of pepole
I appreciate your take on IB and the discussion on how “good guys” can be literally the most foul creatures imaginable just because its socially acceptable. Its an inconvenient truth that if Aldo was an apache scalping settlers the story would be perceived differently
As they say: It takes a thief to catch a thief. That's why Godzzilla vs. Kong works, while Godzilla vs. Laura Ingalls-Wilder wouldn't. In From Dusk til Dawn we see, what happens to those, who don't belong to the "bad mofo club": As the son hesitates just for a second to kill the vampire that once was his father, he's just prey. Also: Tarantino uses stages of bad people. From underdogs, who just toughened up due to bad experiences to outright evil. And Tarantino took a lot of inspiration from italo western movies, which themselves were based on premises, found in italian realism: When life's hard, it's not easy to remain a good person. And then it starts to matter less, what lines you cross, but more, which ones you wouldn't, in order to keep living with yourself and seeing yourself still as some kind of decent person.
Reminds me of the line from Demolition Man: "Send a maniac to catch a maniac." Lovely perspective and references, sir. I agree entirely on his use of stages of bad people and how he juxtaposes them against one another throughout his stories. I think Jules and Vincent are two great examples of this, particularly in terms of how they react to the 'miracle' they are each a part of. And in all fairness, even though I'm giving quite a black-and-white view in the video (sometimes being intentionally provocative is an interesting tactic to spark discussion 😆), I agree that it's not so clear cut in real life, particularly when you bring different moral/ethical theories into the mix. For the sake of the video, I've come at the topic from a Kantian Ethical perspective, which is a highly problematic theory in itself; often overly rigid in how it determines what is and isn't a moral act. Hence, it's ruffled some feathers. In reality, I would agree that most of these characters are indeed sitting somewhere in the middle, more morally grey than bad, so it's nice to see people like you challenging the perspective I've given in the video. My aim here was to push people to consider things a bit more deeply, and, fortunately, it seems to have worked! 😅 Thank you for taking the time to watch and provide such an interesting comment. I hope to see you in some of the comment sections of my future videos! - Luke
@@luke.hoffman Thanks. It indeed worked and got your channel my subsciption. Another great example for the stages are the characters in Kill Bill. What is fascinating here, is that we get different kinds of explanations, from a backstory (O-Ren) over a portrayal of a broken character (Budd) to a mix of flashbacks and random facts in conversations to a forced self anylysis (Beatrix Kiddo). And imo the protagonist isn't the least bad of the bad people, just like the antagonist isn't the most evil. She's just kicked into the underdog position, while he's just the top of the food chain. And it works perfectly, because Tarantino takes time for his characters. And wouldn't it be amazzing, if there'd be a 3rd volume? "Kill Kiddo"? With the former perspective switched? Copperhead's daughter, trained and equipped by Bill's other brother (because I'd love to see Keith Carradine in it) is coming for her mother's murderer? Applying the categorical imperative on Tarantino characters is definitely a courageous and thought provoking route. I remember an interview, in which he mentioned, how a scene from "Roots", in which a former slave dismisses the oppotunity to whip some of his own medicine into a slaver, being the better human being, had inspired him for Django unchained. He is clearly more of a "What goes atound, comes around." kind of guy. 😏 And that's probably, why Kant may have become a giant in philosophy, but his career in entertainment didn't even manage to take off in Königsberg. 😛
@@karstenvoigt7280 This was an awesome read. Thank you for taking the time to write it out (and thank you for subscribing!) I'll be honest, even though Kill Bill isn't my favourite of Tarantino's movies (still think it's great), your sequel pitch sounds pretty interesting 😆with that said, I'm hoping he does something entirely original and leaves us with some new fascinating characters before he checks out of filmmaking. Agreed on Beatrix, though. I said something similar in reply to another comment; she very nearly made it into the video. She's an underdog, a lesser evil and also has a highly ambiguous past, which all make her an incredibly fascinating character. I also like the level self-awareness and acceptance she demonstrates in her interaction with Copperhead's daughter. She knows exactly who she is and owns it, and the possible consequences that may befall her later down the line as a result of it. It's a big part of what makes her such a badass, in my opinion. Glad you appreciated the Kantian approach to this analysis, too! Thanks again for the support and awesome commentary. - Luke
There’s a difference between Protagonist and Good Guy. Anyone who can’t distinguish that these categories are separate but overlapping categories needs help.
Expertly crafted video essay, this is a perspective I haven't heard before and I think it's because Tarantino's films are so taboo for intellectuals in my experience. I would love it if you tackled 4 Rooms and explained your understanding of Theodor as a protagonist. I think it starts with him being good and the trials he faces corrupt him by the end but I'd like to know what you see.
You bring up that snippet from his book where he’s talking about Dirty Harry, (someone recently made a video about that bit of the book) but Tarantino has also specifically talked about the thing you’re talking about here in relation to his own movies too in interviews. He talked about this with Django Unchained, and brought it up in relation to Sergio Corbucci westerners like Django, but more specifically The Great Silence. He talked about how the characters are the kinds of characters that in any other movie would be the villains, but juxtaposed against the villains of the movie they’re the heroes. Like Dr. King Schultz in Django Unchained may seem like a good guy in Django Unchained, but he does kill people for money, and he does have Django kill a guy in front of his own son. He’s talked about this in reaction to Butch as well... maybe in the Pulp Fiction related Charlie Rose interview he did, I don’t quite remember where he talked about it specifically anymore. But it was probably that interview since that interview is on the DVD. The Hateful Eight was all about this. It’s built around a particularly type of episode Western tv of the ‘50s and ‘60s would do from time to time where a bunch of guest stars (these were usually guys you’d see showing up in Spaghetti Western later, or they were Roger Corman’s crew) playing villains would show up and hold some characters up (maybe even the main characters) and the leads of the show would have to take care of them. These episodes in particular are always pretty cool, and almost function a little movies. Sometimes the main characters of the show are barely in these episodes. It’s a style of episode TV (be it actually TV or streaming) doesn’t really do anymore. Hateful Eight is that but without the hero characters. Originally it did have a hero character though, since Tarantino started writing it with the idea of it being a Django paperback.
Yes! This was an awesome comment to read. Thanks for sharing it. His book, 'Cinema Speculation', is a really fascinating insight into his filmmaking philosophy and influences. As I read through it, I was able to see exactly where many of his characters, stories and set pieces etc. came from. It's a really cool read and I'd highly recommend it. Your point RE Sergio Corbucci is bang on. I think you're referring to the documentary 'Django & Django', right? I remember when he talks about Sonny & Jed and how he regards Sonny & Jed as the antagonists, despite the title suggesting otherwise. He views the sheriff played by Telly Savalas (who is originally intended as the villain) as the good guy/hero. I think he's always challenging us to view his characters through different lenses, and try to view things from their different perspectives before we decide who is good and who is bad etc. Also, Dalton's role in Lancer in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood definitely seems to be a nod to the Western TV show guest star trope you mentioned. Thanks again for the comment and for watching. Glad you enjoyed it and had so much to say! - Luke
Each of Tarantino’s movies is the utter definition of “Fighting fire with fire” you can’t defeat someone evil without thinking like them, unfortunately in the real world, you gotta get dirty so others stay clean
I don't know. I'd say the protagonists of inglorious bastards are mostly morally gray, not necessarily bad in context of their world. Unless most people would tell you it's it's basically pointless to interpret morals in a vacuum in any meaningful way
Thanks for the comment, Ryan. I think I agree for the most part. Have a look at some of my replies to comments that came before yours and you'll see that, in reality, I would view most of the characters as 'morally grey'. For the sake of the video and sparking discussion, I took a more deontological/Kantian approach when writing the script. Definitely more black-and-white (and, therefore, provocative 😆). I studied Philosophy at university, though, so I can't help it! Thanks for watching and interacting with the video. I really appreciate it! - Luke
The girl yes, the soldiers mostly no. They were very cruel. Its quite strange since usually i dont deal with absolutes but i dont see how sadistic people might be anything but bad. It looks like they found the perfect job and the perfect excuse.
@@MrEvans1yes because the nazis were such a horrific event it broke the main characters. Look up what happened after the holocaust the surviving Jewish community was pissed. There was plans to poison a water supply.
The thing with his movies, is that it doesn't matter who kills over, because they are all bad so you never feel too bad when it happens. One monster will win, the other will lose, we all lose with them but sometimes we lose less... And we feel good about liking something that's definitely not good.
What a character. What a series (S1, that is). And what a quote! I couldn't agree more. Thank you for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
The Basterds are definitely akin to the Glanton Gang. In a group like that the moral code is pitch coloured but even still there are little greys and small honours as the true evil emerges. Even Bathcat had a limit. And as for the gang from Blood Meridian, it’s fascinating that the most evil among them has such an exacting hold on what being good might mean, and how limited it is in the face of evil
I'm so pleased to see that the Glanton Gang reference resonated with someone! Such a fascinating group (and story). Ever since reading the book I'm convinced that this is where Tarantino got his inspiration for Aldo and his group, but I've never seen him speak on it. If I'm ever lucky enough to speak to him (😅) I'll make sure to ask him. Thanks for watching and commenting. Really hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
@@luke.hoffman ftr the glanton gang is far worse, far more depraved and unambiguously their own worst cancer. But I can see the spectrum between the basterds and them
AMAAAAAAZING analysis. This makes so many Tarantino scenes and choices make sense… even as far back as his writing in True Romance. In his universe THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS.
😆I don't know how much sarcasm there is meant to be in this comment, but, in all seriousness, this is a compelling perspective. It definitely makes for an interesting time when you watch the film with this view in mind. I think the key thing to remember is that the word 'protagonist' doesn't actually mean 'hero' or 'good person'. It simply means "the leading/central character." With that in mind, it's definitely plausible that Hans Landa fits that title. Thanks for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Don't know if you're an anime fan, but... this video explains the difference between how villains are portrayed in One Piece specifically Kaido vs Doflamingo. Thanks for putting it into words, the idea was burning a whole in my mind.
Amazing video you put together!! Great Job!! I didn't know there was a novelisation of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!! Thank you for shedding light on that!!
One time Tarantino did not get me was Brad Pitt's character in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I kept remembering he killed his wife throughout the movie and refused to root for him. Just wanted his character to get killed off LMAO extremely unlikable throughout.
Thanks for the comment! I don't think you're the only one who holds this opinion. Personally, I found him to be likeable despite his ambiguous past. When I first watched the film, I chose to believe his wife dying was an accident. It wasn't until my later rewatches and, more recently, reading the book, that I realised his true nature. All in all, he's a fascinating character. Thanks for watching! - Luke
@@wambokodavid7109 No you were definitely supposed to like him as an anti-hero. When he beats up the Manson family member over his tire being flattened you are supposed to think he is cool. I don't even want to get started because personally I think this movie is absolutely awful. It's up there with Death Proof as Tarantino's worst movies ever.
Enjoyed it, really well put together although a little long for a video trying to make such a simplistic point in my option - but, thank you. I’m glad I found you.
Great video. Shame we didn't get a section about the Bride. I've always loved her character. She's not necessarily a good woman, being an assassin and all. We never learn who she kills but we can assume they weren't all bad people. But she gets screwed over by her former team and that's what makes her the protagonist not really the 'hero'. Great writing.
A great point indeed. You hit the nail on the head with her being the 'protagonist' as opposed to the 'hero'. I think that's true of almost all of Tarantino's protagonists. I actually very nearly used The Bride as an example, but simply ran out of time (17 minutes was already long enough 😅). She's also a great example of all three tropes I discussed in the video, though: she's an underdog, a lesser evil (compared to her former colleagues), and also has a highly ambiguous past that we're never really given a clear view of. She's a fantastic character. Thanks for watching and commenting. Really appreciate the interaction and am glad you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Lmao imagine explaining all this like it’s hidden knowledge. The people being mocked are too stupid to realize or accept it. And all the people interested already know. It’s obvious to them.
I have a traumatic childhood. It was very bad. I got free of it at 16 and recovered a bit but decided to join the army at 21. I decided on artillery. Figured I wouldn't be in any real danger and still be combat arms because it sounded cool. Trained for a whole year doing artillery and kicking in doors. My platoon didn't think much of me and never put me in line. Always a gunner in a hummer. I play a lot of video games. It's my main hobby besides hiking and my son's T ball practice and games. They hated me for that. When it came time to deploy and test our reaction time and mental awareness, I exceeded everyone. They gave me an M9 to test with, and I shot expert, mostly one handed in full kit. So, they made me the front man to charge in first. I survived a few missions and explosions that weren't timed correctly. I just brushed all this off. Like it was nothing. Because of my already warped brain, I compartmentalized it all to deal with later. Scared my platoon as they thought I was psychopath in the making. I'm not. I was pushed to my limit and adjusted accordingly on the fly. My brain doesn't work the way a normal person's does because of my traumatic childhood. I think this was Tarantino putting himself in the characters. He even made up a bible quote that had people believing it was actually from the bible. Just some food for thought.
I'm sorry to hear about the traumatic childhood, but thank you for the insights regarding Tarantino's writing. I think every writer will put some of themselves in their characters, so I mostly agree. The bible quote is also an interesting one. I always view it as Tarantino's way of saying we shouldn't take these sorts of things too seriously. Thanks for watching! - Luke
@luke.hoffman No worries. I'm a happy man today. I was just thinking Quinten may have had a rough childhood and views killing as easy as breathing. It is when you have the tools and know how, but I felt every single one. Quinten wants that to be viewed as a sign of strength. A symbol of badassery that, in his mind, makes the ultimate badass. I don't like his movies for that reason and many more. His films are not deep or intellectual at all. They just pretend to be. They're just vehicles so he can show off as much violence and human debauchery as much as possible. Right from his first movie of Resivor Dogs. Just my thoughts.
@@gamervet4760 I have often had similar feelings about his movies, especially his use of ethnic slurs in Reservoir Dogs, and Django Unchained (which I couldn't watch for that reason). The male rape scene in Pulp Fiction was quite triggering and contrived.
8:50 “If you were to take Aldo and his crew out of this story and put them into a world without baddies as morally abhorrent as the Nazis, it’s very possible that they would cease to be seen as good…” If you were to take them out of this story, there would be no justification for their existence. The only reason they exist as a team is in direct reaction to the atrocities of the Nazis. Outside of Tarrantino’s fantasies, in the real world war is hell and good men do bad things out of necessity. Then they go home, if they survive, and lead good lives. Without the context, there are not the necessities. Aldo’s men were not a pre-existing group of outlaw vigilantes roaming Europe and pillaging randomly until they were fortuitously tasked with hunting Nazis. They were American soldiers who were recruited specifically to this squad specifically for this purpose within this specific context.
This also happens to be EXACTLY what the mainstream media does. Manipulate. Using those tactics. Tarantino is a reflection of this kind of manipulation, but on the big screen. It is easier to see it in his films, but few really grasp or wish to admit how MSM has engaged in this for decades.
A valid point. As I say in the video, he's not the only one to use these writing/storytelling techniques 😅 Thank you for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
Whenever someone rants about "the mainstream media" like this, there's a 99% chance that he's either: 1: A radical leftist 2: A radical right-winger 3: An anti-vax nutjob
I don’t think that morally corrupt characters are more engaging than conventional hero archetypes. It’s more about the fact that telling a good story about a morally pure character is way more difficult. Also we live in a time and age where audiences literally have been pushed towards the morally ambiguous. Cultivating these tendencies is the key. Recognising ourselves in these characters is more straightforward as long as communicating goes. Showing people a “hero”, inspiring them to be better, and making a good story out of it is a real challenge only few can pull off. All this to be said I LOVE Tarantino. He’s a genius and love his films.
Lovely perspective here. Thank you for sharing it. For the most part, I agree; I think moral characters can be just as fascinating as immoral ones. The thing that creates engaging characters seems to mainly be conflict, and there are many ways to create this, even with heroes. I think Fargo (both film and TV series) is an amazing example of this. The 'moral' character in each of these stories is often entirely unambiguous. They're good people through and through, but they're still fascinating to watch and engage with. And that's usually because of their conflict with the world and the evil/chaos that they come up against. Their struggle doesn't involve them having to bend their morals to get by, it's instead about them trying to make sense of something completely alien and antagonistic. The conflict of realising the true nature of the world they live in and being presented with the question of whether their good/moral approach is enough to contend with it. What are your thoughts? Thanks again for commenting and watching. I hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Let me just start with the fact that I hadn't watched "the hateful eight" when I started this video. So, I paused when it came up and watched the movie. And now here I am making this comment. Love the content!
One thing to add about the Inglorious Bastards is that it's not just SS officers they are brutalising. They are brutalising conscripted German soldiers that had two choices, join up or be hung. Most of whom would have had no idea of the extent of the genocide taking place and were just normal people, with the reality being that most of us would be doing the same thing in their situation.
Yup. The movie is a morality test of the audience, and 80% fail. The movie even gives many hints that's what's going on as you watch it. You're not supposed to cheer for the Basterds, but most audience members DO, and make up all sorts of excuses worse than "I was only following orders" because the audience receives no orders--the audience has a choice.
the "clean whermacht" myth youre describing has been debunked several times (see military history visualized). we have the diaries of common whermacht soldiers showing that not only were they aware of the ethnic cleansing being taken place, they gleefully look forward to enacting lebensraum.
@na8291 Yeah, no. The allies literally had to hold educational seminars post war and force Germans to watch footage of the death camps to make them believe it. Of course SOME knew and of course some people supported it. But most people in Germany, including the military, who were conscripted, were just normal people. They weren't movie villains. If you were a man in Germany at the time, you would have been conscripted into the military
@@anonperson3972 most soldiers didn't know about the camps, but they definitely knew about what they did--going village to village and lining people up against the wall for firing squads, burning down homes, killing civilians, etc. So a yeah, no, but actually yeah.
Oh trust me, there were quite a few examples I wanted to include (my original script was probably twice the length of this one!). Maybe I'll have to do another part to this video in the future 😆 Thank you for watching and commenting. I really appreciate the feedback and am glad you enjoyed the video. - Luke
The characters exist within the Tarantino universe, not ours. So of course, if you compare them with the real world, they would be terrible. The Bride in Kill Bill is a cold blooded assassin, yet she’s a hero, but that’s within the context of an absurd world and absurd set of circumstance where top level assassin’s have a lover’s quarrel.
This is a cool way of looking at it. I'm guessing that means you like his work? Thanks for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Good and Bad are one entity. Everything and everyone has a constant flux of the two. It’s up to an individual to determine their comfort with that idea.
People, stop seeing the world as black and white, movies should utilize morally gray characters rather than cartoonish villians against morally superior heroes, because it's extremely unrealistic and breaks the immersion many times.
They're called anti-heroes and they aren't exclusive to Tarantino movies. The reason I root for them is because I can relate more to imperfect characters more than I can morally perfect characters.
I thought Inglorious bastards where a bunch of horrible war criminals and I never routed for them through the film, but I studied history...there are no good guys in humanity
U.S soldiers rarely committed war crimes or collected trophies from German soldiers this can’t not be said for the pacific theater where collecting skulls and looting bodies was very common largely due to U.S propaganda dehumanizing Japanese people.
Computers are programmed by input. Put in trash, get out trash. I was bothered by rooting for bad guys for years. Godfather, Scarface, pulp fiction, breaking bad, sons of anarchy, Vikings. I refuse to be entertained by such obviously evil characters and plots. Your brain is only composed of what you put in it. You can claim it doesn’t affect you because you think your morality is above it… add salt to a glass of ice tea in very small amounts… it eventually becomes undrinkable no matter how sweet the tea began.
Stop being such a pussy. It's called entertainment, and you watched this because deep down you enjoy it to, but you're clearly uncomfortable with others knowing that you enjoyed it so you blessed us with your bullshit.
So that guitar riff you have in the background; the one that goes 'duh, duh, duuuuh." I've heard it played before in the movie ID4. The bar scene with Randy Quade. Does it have a name or a performer tied to it? I've been looking for it casually on and off for years.
Hugo Stiglits is my favourite morally corrupt character PS im here at 16.1k subscribers this channel is gonna blow up soon your in depth analysis of the books you referenced as well as the modern flawless editing makes you stand out from the rest
"Corrupts audience" Yeah if you are 8😂 Jokes aside tho, i really enjoy that he doesnt do the typical "good guy/bad guy" and instead goes with "everybody's an asshole, watch their story"
Question. If I am basically not a bad guy but, over the course of time, do a couple of bad things probably due to life circumstances that pop up, does that automatically negate any inate goodness I might possess and make me just a total bad guy through and through?
🤣 that's hilarious! You're more than welcome (even though I love his films! 😆). Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. It's appreciated. - Luke
That just means you get caught up in genre and style, it clashes with your taste. If you love cinema and writing itself, you enjoy QT at least to some degree.
It's not that the people are "bad", it's that they are realistic. I am going to appear to be good to most people but I identify very strongly with some of Tarantino's characters(Lance comes to mind as a character I have lived as) that may seem "bad" to many people. Aldo Raine is no more "bad" than the protagonists in The Hills Hills Have Eyes, sometimes you have to become a savage to fight savages. Most people aren't "good" like Superman, they just do what it takes to survive and it depends on their situation as to how that plays out.
I'm not sure how far Bruce Willis's condition has progressed at this point but if it was in any way possible the last Tarantino film I would want to see is Butch's final chapter..... it's left so open ended. I don't really want another kill Bill movie anyway
I final film seeing an older Butch encountering a wandering older Jules and a reformed older Marsellus could be an interesting way to end the career 🤣 Thanks for watching and commenting. Hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
Marcellus Wallace is an interesting one, because at the same time as being a violent crime boss who's more than ready to kill anyone who crosses him, or even just innocent bystanders... He's also a pretty good to his own people, another example of Tarantino humanising a bad guy. When Jules and Vincent end up with a body in their back seat, Wallace sends one of his best to help them out. When Jules wants out of the business, he lets him go. He pays Butch upfront to rig the fight. Obviously, he also squares things with Butch after he saves him. But the biggest one, is that he joins Vincent in staking out Butch's home after he crosses them. When they meet at the crossing, Wallace is carrying a box and two cups. So he'd gone and got takeout and was on his way back when Butch tried to run him over... I mean, when else do we see a crime boss nipping out to grab takeout for himself and an underling? It's a much closer relationship than we'd expect from a villainous crime boss. It also explains why Vincent didn't react to Butch entering his old home, even if he did hear the door, he'd just assume it was Marcellus coming back.
That's awesome! It has been quite a big pivot indeed, but I'm glad to see my content is still reaching you (and that you're enjoying it). Thank for the support!
Thank you! I really appreciate that feedback. I put a lot of time into my editing so any praise (or criticism) is most welcome. Hope you enjoyed the video! - Luke
There’s a lot of things I loved when I was in my late teens early 20s that I don’t care for anymore now in my late 30s… Tarantino movies are NOT one of those things
Glad to hear it. As you can probably tell, I am also a big fan of his work. Thanks for commenting and watching. Really pleased to see it resonated with you! - Luke
I don't like this new 'phase' of his career, the 90's tarantino was much cooler imo, in his last movies feels like he's too much in love with his dialogue writing skills and he keeps on dragging them just for the sake of breaking the pace and show audiences 'look how good of a writer i am'. His last movie i truly enjoyed was Basterds.
The idea that violence is inherently justified if someone belongs to a specified group that is designated as morally wrong or reprehensible is about as slippery as a slope can be. The problem is that morality is not a set condition. It evolves and can change.
I know right! While it's very in-keeping with Tarantino's style and the film's narrative, it definitely becomes more than self-defence (particularly Cliff's actions). I spoke about it in my other video analysing Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (th-cam.com/video/ai78jah00G8/w-d-xo.html); I think it's Tarantino's way of taking fictional/metaphysical revenge on the Manson family for what they did to spoil such a sacred Hollywood (similar to how Inglourious Basterds was a way of taking a similar revenge on the Nazis). Still, I agree that there is a profound sense of brutality to how they are dealt with. Thank you for watching and joining in on the ethical discussion! I hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
I recommend you to watch Ross MacFarlane video essay on Once upon a time in Hollywood. He suggest that Pitt's caracter is the opposite personification of Harvey Weinstein. The video is called Once upon a time in Hollywood overanalysed
Thanks for the recommendation, Alexandre. I have actually watched that video, albeit a long time ago (I think shortly after it released a year ago). I'll revisit it with my revised perspective and see if it sparks some new thoughts. Thanks for watching. I hope you enjoyed the video. - Luke
Brad Pitt's uncharacteristic ethical standards when it comes to not committing statutory rape with any underage girl I took to be Quentin's using that character for expression of his moral interpretation of Roman Polanski's seeming recklessness in being able to throw away a terrific reputation as a director for an impulsive decision based on momentary lapsing of his moral standards.
One interesting scene I like to analyze is the Vet scene from Inglorious Bastards. Remember, when Aldo said Nazi need to be killed because they got no humanity, then I wonder how they personally feel about having to put the vet, who’s obviously just an innocent bystander, in the middle of all that drama and insanity? But you can clearly see a difference between Aldo and his men with Hans and his men if you compare this scene with the 20 minute opening scene. But one thing that I’m curious about is what they did about the vet? The movie didn’t address that.
Agreed. Normally our moral values automatically supercede any aesthetic judgements. What Tarantino does is use his filmmaking talents to create aesthetic judgements that supercede our moral values. Sure, it's only a movie, but in real life if we see an opportunity to do something expedient that is justifiably cool? It's easier to just go ahead and do it.
I mean, if anything, it keeps us guessing about ourselves. Quentin puts us in the shoes of the worst possible people he can think of, and we're left forcing ourselves to question and even test our morals. Because in the end, whether good or bad... EVERYONE thinks themself the hero. Even you. Even me. So the questions are posed...
I look at these films more as character studies. You're definitely on point about these things and influence that movies have Is real! A person who can hit another person in the head with a baseball bat is not a human being I would ever want to be around ever. This is the flaw with a lot of revenge films! If you kill someone you change your reality you are no longer innocent really. Most films really are about egocentric people in how they serve their own egos. I am a man in my 40s now and a lot of the violence I used to enjoy in films honestly bothers me a great deal now. It's like violence and film has to be more and more shocking to be original! Look at television shows I used to like a lot like The shield or The sopranos... There really is no protagonist... It's just watching the unpredictable paths that people's lives take based on their actions that are self-serving. The world is so cynical now people don't want a hero. People want to look at others to make themselves feel more justified. Shout out to justified for being one of the few shows that had a hero who was actually a good guy... Everything is a reflection of our society! These are just my opinions, thoughts, and feelings.
I know what you mean! I don't think I'd invite any of Tarantino's characters to a dinner party 😆 Tarantino himself maybe, but his characters may prove to be questionable company! I really like your perspective, though, Sean. I think you're bang on about many stories these days being (or attempting to be) reflections of society, but in a more negative light. I think Civil War is a very good and recent example of this (but I still think it was very good). There's a film called 'Perfect Days' by Wim Wenders, that came out recently that is a real breath of fresh air with respect to some of this cynicism and negativity many of today's other films are promoting. I'd highly recommend checking it out! Thanks for watching and providing such an insightful comment. I really hope you enjoyed the video, and I also hope to see you in the comment sections of some of my future videos! - Luke
Which of Tarantino's morally corrupt protagonists is your favourite? (That's quite a tough question to answer...)
Mr. White, and Mr. Pink. Brilliantly acted and written. My first introduction to his films.
This is hard to answer because the acting elevates these characters above the script. But sure, Mr. Pink is a great choice.
Cliff
Butch - as he said: “They keep underestimating you!”
A would-be victim Marcellas thought he could coerce into doing what he wanted. Used that perception to manipulate the situation to his advantage. Resists the urge to physically lash out at Fabienne when she lets him down (though, it surely wouldn’t have killed him to have packed the watch himself) and does the right thing by Marcellas at the end of his segment (going back to rescue him from the rapists).
Don’t feel sorry for Vincent either. In the subsequent section, you see that he has the opportunity to walk away from “the life” with Jules - which would’ve saved him. His response was “…freak occurrence…”
Mr. Pink and The Bride.
He never corrupted me with these guys. I knew they were scumbags, but then so was The Dirty Dozen.
Maggot. The single most obviously bad and disgusting character in movie history. Savalas was brilliant. The scene where he makes the German woman scream and then guts her was cold as ice.
Not corrupted you as an individual, but got you to root for a villain
Same.
Telly savalas* played a learning disabled soldier trying to live his best life.
If you liked The Dirty Dozen, watch The Fat Electrician tell the story of Jake “McNasty” McNiece, who was the basis for the movie.
Ultimatly WHY Taratino 'currupts' the audiance is the point. He consistently denegrates evil institutions (Slavery, Nazi's, Mafia) as the ultimate villians. I think he is ultimatly trying to communicate that we should not expect sainthood from thouse who fight evil institutions and particularly not from thouse who have been victims of said institutions and are seeking rightious vengence.
Ah, but then I seem to remember something about staring into the abyss...
@ContactsNfilters That old quote is horseshit anyways.
@@MásCebollasPorFavor Stare long enough into the Abyss, and the Abyss will stare back at you. The question then is whether or not at that point you blink?
@@MásCebollasPorFavorahh look Nazis sympathizers who don't understand Nietzsche. Name a more iconic duo.
Or it could be he cares the most about making cool and interesting characters. And I’m guessing to him either bad guys or morally gray characters are the most interesting.
You skipped Butch's motivation for throwing the fight, it was how Vincent talked to him at the bar, so Butch keyed his Malibu.
Butch was ready to throw the fight until a junkie that worked for Wallace denigrated him.
AS MANY TIMES AS I HAVE SEEN PULP FICTION I NEVER PIECED THAT TOGETHER
Interesting! I've always considered Butch's decision to throw the fight to have been the plan from the beginning. When he's on the payphone to Scotty, it seems like this all took quite a lot of planning, which he wouldn't have been able to cook up in the time between taking the money from Marsellus and the fight. I think Vince's behaviour in the bar was just something that pissed Butch off and created some animosity between the two. Still, you may be right.
More importantly, Butch's keying of Vince's Malibu is a little-known fact indeed. Barely anyone seems to have noticed this - bravo!
Thanks for watching and commenting. I really hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
imagine being Butch and sharing your plan with your french gf they have to leave town, risking their lives because a dude in a bar called you "punchy". I believe it's 2 different revenge acts from Butch, one careful planned and the other out of his anger issues.
@@luke.hoffman Marsellus' speech about "pride fucking with you" is key to that interaction. Butch was willing to let go of his pride as a professional fighter, but Vincent made it personal and that was too much for him to bear.
If a junkie has this much power over you, then that is pathetic.
Imagine keying a junkies car and going back on the deal you made because a junkie made you feel insecure…. Lmao
Theres no reason for violence, til there is.
An interesting perspective. Thanks for watching! Hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
Violence isn't the answer...
It's the question and the answer is:
_"sometimes."_ 🤷🏿♂️
when they go low, we go lower
@@pbfloyd13 and the answer is: Yes
Which can be applied to real life given recent events
Hateful 8 is tarantinos love letter to "The Thing"
It is that. But it’s like a love letter to a lot of stuff. The door thing, while not exactly the same, seems to be a reference to The Thing from Another World.
Indeed. I love how he recycled the leftover Morricone music and made it almost like a 'bottle episode' in his filmography.
I think every time I rewatch it I like it more and more. It's probably his most underrated film in my eyes. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's a big fan of it. I'm still hoping that he turns it into a theatre production at some point!
Thanks for watching! I really hope you enjoyed it.
- Luke
It's legit my favorite movie and upon reading this just did I side by side montage in my head. My mind is blown😂😂😂
More like him unzipping and pissing on it
It's his love letter to the n-word.
Scorsese does the same in Goodfellas. You get seduced into liking these characters but then you're reminded, in characters like the Pesci character, that these people, these gangsters, are sociopathic.
Anyone who couldn't tell that about Pesci's character from the start probably is one.
Eh, I'd disagree. Tarantino's characters' likability gets carried by their moral codes. Scorsese doesn't do that as much, going for more emotionally unstable characters. It's pretty difficult to see most Scorsese characters as anything but subhuman on a moral level.
It's really not as crafty or clever as the comment section and this video is making it out to be. Any half decently written protagonist regardless of morals the audience will automatically align themselves with and root for.
I always believe Butch was going to take the dive but when Vincent said what he said to him at the bar Butch changed his mind
Someone else shared this view, too. It's definitely a plausible one!
Thanks for watching and commenting. Hope you enjoyed it!
- Luke
agreed
When its kill or be killed, morality takes a back seat
yeah, but a great many of tatantino's killings are done witht the victim helpless. Just watch the inglorious basterds scene... also, torture and killing of innocent bystanders...
I think it all depends on the ethical stance you take. Some would argue that murder is never morally permissible. Others would say it is in certain situations.
I opted for a very black-and-white view when writing this video, but I appreciate that this is a more nuanced topic. Thanks for getting involved in the discussion and watching. I appreciate the interaction a lot!
- Luke
Agreed. It only seems bad when you’re so far removed from the wild nature of reality.
Amen
the back seat is a dangerous place in a tarantino movie.
His best character is Hans Landa. I love that guy. The whole movie is in another gear when he is on the screen. And You don't have to pull for him, you just know that he does not need that. With the exception of the last minute of the movie he is always in control and on the winning side. Aldo's action in the last minute is the only thing which make the balance right.
He is just like Heath Ledger's Joker. Makes you craving to have him on the screen again. And he is so much above anybody in intellect, charisma, vision, one cannot help but love the guy.
Completely agree. I think Hans Landa is possibly my favourite Tarantino character, too. One of the things I like the most about Hans is his ability to use language, both verbal and non-verbal, as a weapon. He's a master of communication and I love the way Tarantino (and Waltz) showcase this in his interactions. No one is able to hide from him and, as you say, he's always in control and never has to fire a gun to do it - very unusual for a Tarantino character. I think he's one of the most well-written characters of all time.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to share this comment. I appreciate it a lot!
- Luke
I truly didnt care for Hans lands never saw what was so special about him
That last shot from him in the opening? The one were he doesn't take the shot and instead wishes her a fond farewell? Years later and that still is probably one of the strongest scenes.
Look at him again than@@jeffsmith3747
Love the guy? You know he is litterally the scum of the earth right.
I've seen all the movies you've discussed but I didn't pick up on how once a character is an under dog, the audience will tolerate a great degree of moral ambiguity or them being "bad." I also like how Tarantino humanizes his villains. Great stuff for any writer to know. Thanks for making this video!
When someone becomes endeared to us we are willing to overlook things in them that we wouldnt in strangers
it's not just writing, but in life. The underdog is a sacred position in Western society, particularly.
Tarantino never writes good or bad guys ....he just writes people who find themselves in situations and do what they gotta do
Exactly, morality doesn't exist. Good and Evil animals and people don't exist, it's just a game of 'Point of Views'
Bad guys
They don't gotta do things, they choose to do bad things
@@coffeeknight1916 he writes human beings.ill leave it at that.good or bad is irrelevant.theres only the situation and the choices
Choices to do bad things
The reason we like antiheros is simple:
1) we cannot act like this in real life, and it is not fun to play by the rules, so living vicariously through those that do not is appealing
2) A story about a perfect character with a perfect life is not very interesting to watch
3) There are thousands of characters, some morally good others morally bad. So, cherry picking only the antiheros and saying 'why do we like this trope' is not really getting at anything. The antihero is not why we like the movie, a well written story is why we like the movie. The morality of the character has little to no bearing in this argument.
Well one, I think the overall point was more about why we like these morally dubious characters than why we like the movies with these morally dubious characters.
Two, morality and good writing go hand in hand. Every single layered, well written character you can think of either has an established moral code, or their morality is a plot point. Your personal morals lining up with a character's also greatly heightens the chances that you'll like that character. V in V For Vendetta is an anarchist icon and beloved by most anarchists because he shares a lot of the same morals. Someone like Homelander was praised by certain people because of how their morals matched up with his. I don't think you can say that morality has nothing to do with how much we like a story, or a character.
I think his most heroic character that he’s ever written/ good guy might have been Dr. Shultz. A dentist turned Bounty Hunter. I don’t remember the reason of they even said. He did pay for Django, and kill the slavers horse, he still could’ve just used Django for what he used him for then left him to his own devices. Instead he helped him find Broomhilda and hated the person who was Calvin Candy for how he treated everyone on his land
Ehhh it's O.B, Shultz loses out to him soley because O.B's never harmed a soul on screen.
@@zashgekido5616 Also consider Herman the Radio Operator.
Ironically, even though the "Hateful Eight" is the title, there was one other important character that existed for the majority of the story who was the only real good person. That was O.B., the jehu who ran the stagecoach that brought half of the Hateful Eight to Minnie's Haberdashery. O.B. was the one guy who did not use racist terminology around Major Warren or Bob and was one of the innocent victims of the Jody Domingre Gang.
Sam jackson is the only "good" character in pulp fiction.
By the end he realized he didnt want to be that anymore.
He wanted to wander the land like Cain from Kungfu, he wants to be like Jesus.
@@jessejames8900 goddamn.
Wouldn't that be a good movie.
Totally agree. I think by the end he makes a bit of a shift, for sure. But early on, he's not quite there yet. And even at the end, he still lets Ringo and Yolanda leave with all the diner customers' wallets when he could have forced them to return them. I think there's still some moral greyness in Jules yet! 😆
Thanks for watching and commenting. Hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
Cue up the scene where Jules murders a man because Brad's talking is boring him...
@braedenh6858 chronology I guess...
Butch is not so much a bad guy as he is a survivor. There is a significant difference. He doesn't really do anything immoral, just violent, but for survival sake. And he does rescue Marcelis. That's a big deal. He pitied his enemy. Very angelic.
The immoral part was agreeing to take a dive and then double crossing Marcellus. That was the catalyst that started the whole scenario.
@joelmbaumgartner but even then, he's hustling the hustlers in my minds eye it's not essentially immoral. Crooked, but still. That's just me
True
@@joelmbaumgartnerthat's not immoral. agreeing to give a mugger your money and then sucker punching him may be ill advised, but it's not wrong.
If you have a basket of only rotten fruit and you have to take one, you will obviously choose the least rotten one.
Nice way of putting it. Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. Hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
I somehow never noticed until watching this video how ludicrously Jules misses that poor kid on the couch. Leaving aside there's not even a blank- no muzzle flash, no recoil, no impact squibs, no hit on the target, an extremely badly faked gunshot, he's also literally not pointing the barrel at the man when the shot goes off.
So basically that kid canonically felt the bullet hit the couch beside him, saw that Jules wasn't even looking, and played dead for the rest of the scene.
I feel like anything done to Nazis is outside of the normal moral spectrum. It's like a Jedi killing a Sith - no one sees that as morally dubious because you're killing an objective evil that is actively trying to harm you (or the Jedi in this instance), and the world as a whole. Within the context of the Holocaust, you could almost say it's self defense, even.
And I'm sorry, it's hard for me to see marking a Nazi for what he is, no matter what he's wearing, as morally dubious. It's a bit barbaric, sure, but ultimately it's so an evil person cannot hide amogst regular people.
And the "if you take them out of this world" argument doesn't make much sense either, considering the entire reason for their rampage is because of the "Jew hating mass murdering son of a bitch". If you take them out of the setting, the Bastards don't even exist. They're tied to the setting itself and couldn't exist without it
The problem is they aren’t all Landa, they are a lot of the time just conscripted soldiers. We have mythologized the Nazis into demons, that we can do no wrong to. To prove this imagine putting the bastards into Vietnam or Korea where they are fighting, pla, Viet cong, or Soviet Guards forces, people fighting for an ideology that has killed so many people as well. Hell you can’t do this even to the Japanese who are on the level of crime against humanity the Nazis did, let alone putting them in Italy against the Italians.
In the immortal words of Rustin Cohle from True Detective replying to Martin's question about bad men, "World needs bad men. We keep the other bad men from the door."
That, literally doesn’t make any sense. Are you unhinged? The world needs bad men, to keep bad men away. So the world creates a problem to solve… a problem it created?
It’s like saying, the world needed nuclear weapons. It’s the only way to keep nuclear weapons in check.
Major Warren is the first Tarantino character that I finally "got" as a truly evil character who I was "supposed to" like. I saw behind the veil for the first time. When he was describing what he did to the old man's son, I realized that I was _supposed_ to be reveling in the suffering of a racist Confederate soldier...but I wasn't. I was feeling physically sick on his behalf. I was feeling disgusted at not only the insane cruelty of the act itself, but the joy he found in revealing every detail to the man's father. For the first time, I recognized that the director was hoping for me to applaud, rather than to feel disgusted by this anti-hero. This was a major surprise to me, because I've been a MASSIVE Tarantino fan since I was a young teen (I'm 36 now), and genuinely love dark humor most of all. I'm basically almost roaring with satisfaction, not empathy, whenever an anti-hero gets his revenge. But, not in this case. 'Hateful Eight' is one movie that I genuinely don't want to watch again-- another shocking and downright confusing for someone like me. It's the level of cruelty. The characters go far beyond getting revenge: they find creative ways to make their subjects suffer...then they savor them.
Same dude
I always took Aldo as a comment on the hypocrisy of America during WW2, how they condemn the Nazi's crimes but then also have segregation and systemic racism in their own country, all of this manifested in Aldo's rlly heavy southern accent and the fact that he brings up Stonewall Jackson as an example of a smart military commander in the basement
you literally couldnt have worded it better exactly what i thought when i first watched inglorious basterds
I somewhat disagree. Tarantino's main purpose is homage first and foremost, and I feel anything gleaned from his movies needs to be filtered through that lens first. Aldo is an homage to the Cowboy Archetype. He's everything modern masculinity idolizes, despite him being all Hollywood, and he's also a prime example of our tendency to whitewash history......even the history where WE were the genocidal invaders. He's inherently contradictory b/c while he's the perfect Hero, he's also the perfect Power Fantasy, and our power fantasies are not heroic at all. Aldo is that Cowboy dialed up to an 11.
He's somehow a non-aristocrat Melungeon Hillbilly from a rebel state (PF) who actually fought against Southern racism (H) and got a cool scar and his own squad (PF) for his heroism, and who enlists a bunch of angry Jewish soldiers (H) to help them get their revenge while he gets to scalp people or carve them up (PF). That's so laughably improbable that his being so articulate, attractive, more Aryan than the Nazis he fights, and somehow able to survive a lynching is really no big deal to suspend disbelief on either.
Tarantino isn't trying to comment on Southern hypocrisy during WWII. He is revealing how American hypocrisy ALWAYS goes. He's commenting on OUR hypocrisy for naively believing that we'll be the heroes when we suck up to the 1% and attack the people below us for not trying hard enough. Heck, if you really want to read it as something more, take it as commentary on the South NOW.
@@Scarfgirl Maybe I'm just reading way too little into this or don't know Tarantino well enough, but isn't the gist of the violence done by the the protagonists in stuff like Django and Basterds just that its being done to historically awful groups of people. Like Django's murder spree & destruction of a plantation is fun to root for and justified cause its being done to unapolagetic slave owners, or the Basterd's being gruesome is fun to root for because its victims are literal Nazi's and SS soldiers/officers.
1.) I like your take away from that film and 2.) A fun fact about German policy making at that time is that large parts of it were inspired by Manifest Destiny and aspects old American colonial doctrine from back in the day!
...are you really comparing segregation...and literal mass genocide?
I watched Inglorious Bastards with my dad. When the bat scene happened, he said “well that’s excessive.” Then I told him these are Jewish men and he was like “Oh, well that makes sense then.”
😆 I suppose it does make sense on many levels. Particularly for those who subscribe to the policy of 'an eye for an eye'.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate it and hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
Wait are you saying your dad hates Jews or that it’s normal for Jews to be violent
Nah this Jewish revenge porn is nonsense
They were clearly the villains.
@@kaosisback8376
Funny that you can use those words but I can't.
The simple ingredient for making a morally ambiguous character seem better is to reduce the 'good light' shown in the movie. So, in removing any people that have no connections to 'the drama', it leaves us with only people that have some incentive for the end to come about in a specific way.
The 'good people' in these productions are extras, with no names, seen shopping, or playing games with their children, or just depositing their check at the bank.
Facts.
Butch killing Vince/Marcellus/Zed/Maynard could be considered self defense. He didn't kill the Gimp.
The gimp was hanging by his neck. He also could've suffered brain damage from Butches punch. He killed his opponent in his last fight, so he's got some powerful fists. Just some food for thought.
@gamervet4760 after some cursory investigation, it appears you are correct. the gimp choked to death after getting knocked out.
So, according to an interview with Tarantino, the Gimp did die (I was very careful to fact check that before including it in the video 😅). But I see you've also read this now.
Still, thank you for challenging my view in the video. Even though the video is mainly about Tarantino's writing techniques, my intention was to be quite provocative/black-and-white in my ethical evaluation of these characters to stimulate discussions like this. I already mentioned it in a reply to another comment, but I took an approach that is arguably characterised best by Kantian Ethics, which judges the morality of an act in itself as opposed to the character or consequences of an action (i.e. murder = bad, irrespective of the context/consequences). It's quite rigid and not really how I would make moral judgments in real life, but it's a nice way to stimulate discussion in cases like this.
I like your perspective, but I would challenge it with the following:
- Vince was unarmed. Butch could have probably incapacitated him without killing him (e.g. knock him out, tie him up - we all know Butch would probably take Vince in a fist fight 🤣). There was clearly some animosity between the two, as we see from their meeting in the bar. So, I think Butch killing him that way was quite cold-blooded and not entirely self-defence.
- I would argue the similarly for the case of Marcellus. Firstly, he could have reversed his car rather than accelerated. And in the pawn shop, he could have left him knocked out on the floor and still escaped. Maybe Marcellus would have hunted him down, I think that's more than plausible. But still, the way Butch was about to execute him was hilariously brutal, and Marcellus was already incapacitated at that point. So, again, I would argue not self-defence.
- Zed is presumably killed by Marcellus and his "hard, pipe-hitting n-words", so that one isn't on Butch 😆
- And Maynard could have been knocked out with the baseball bat, but (in one of the coolest scenes, I'll admit) Butch chooses the katana and then attacks Maynard while his back is turned. Morally justified? I would argue, yes. Self-defence? I would say, no.
What are your thoughts?
Also, thank you for the comment and for watching. I really appreciate the support and hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
@luke.hoffman I'd say the only reason Vince was unarmed was because he forgot his machine gun on the kitchen counter when he went to the bathroom. There is no doubt he and Marcellus were going to kill/torture Butch if they caught him, and since Marcellus was prepared to "scour the earth for that mf", Butch would be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Given the oppurtunity to deal with his enemies permanently, he took it. I would say shooting Vince (and running over Marcellus) was justified in the sense that the stakes were already clear that it was life or death. Sparing the life of the person who is trying to kill you (and will continue to try to kill you, unless you save them from being raped and tortured by rednecks, one of the only unlikely scenarios where a truce could be negotiated) its a matter of survival. That being said, I'm certainly not making a case for Butch bring a good guy, but rather his actions regarding killing who he did was more akin to the do or die situation of combat than a reflection on his morality. I wouldn't consider it immoral to kill an unarmed soldier (not a civilian) during a declared war, since it's understood they would do the same to you if given the chance, and in that way I'd argue Butch was justified. Should do one on King Shultz (who I think was a bad person under your terms) and Django (who slaughtered the matriarch of Candyland towards the end of film). Anyway, interesting video, thanks for the reply
💯% correct.. Vincent wasn't waiting in his apartment to have a thoughtful conversation of morally ambiguous characters in film..
Good analysis. One of my fav QT scenes: Butch is ecstatic that he has escaped the gimp dungeon and is about to flee the place--then suddenly, he stops, falters, hesitates--cleary experiencing compunction about leaving Marcelus in tornent below. He chooses his weapon feom the wall, returns below, and rescues Marcelus. And it turns out well for him. Such a great scene skillfully acted by Willis.
Butch takes a major risk to rescue Marcellus - compelled by a sense of honor, like Jules. Vincent also has a sense of honor, but is closed to the spiritual encounter that has impacted Jules so much. How'd they end up? I would argue that Tarantino's writing became angry and corrupted after Django.
Indeed. I think the honour (or "twisted sense of morality", as I put it in the video) that he instills into many of these characters definitely adds to that moral greyness and makes it harder to argue that they are entirely bad. Vince is an interesting one indeed. He'll dispassionately kill people for Marsellus, but (presumably) only if he's asked to do it nicely 😆 what a fascinating guy!
Interesting take on Tarantino's writing. I don't view Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood as a particularly angry narrative. I'm very keen to see what he does for his final film, though.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I appreciate the insight and support.
- Luke
the opening alone made me like it. the way you described our love of the morally corrupt character. i am excited to finish this video.
This actually happened already at early 70's when The Godafher came to be the big hit. The crime boss Don Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando) and his son Michael (Al Pacino) who in the end of the movie took his place and became to be the most ruthless and violent don in New York, were both more admired than anything else by the audience. The charismatic actors, clever direction by Francis F. Coppola and beautyful music by Nino Rota made people falling in love with this story over generations.
I think one of the reasons why vito was loved cause he wasn't a stereotypical mob boss he wasn't ruthless to everyone, he helped his community, wouldn't take someone insulting him seriously, and raised tom hagen an orphan, and most of his targets were as bad as him
not saying vito was a good guy by any means he was a bad person but that's why he's loved by alot of pepole
I appreciate your take on IB and the discussion on how “good guys” can be literally the most foul creatures imaginable just because its socially acceptable. Its an inconvenient truth that if Aldo was an apache scalping settlers the story would be perceived differently
As they say: It takes a thief to catch a thief. That's why Godzzilla vs. Kong works, while Godzilla vs. Laura Ingalls-Wilder wouldn't. In From Dusk til Dawn we see, what happens to those, who don't belong to the "bad mofo club": As the son hesitates just for a second to kill the vampire that once was his father, he's just prey. Also: Tarantino uses stages of bad people. From underdogs, who just toughened up due to bad experiences to outright evil. And Tarantino took a lot of inspiration from italo western movies, which themselves were based on premises, found in italian realism: When life's hard, it's not easy to remain a good person. And then it starts to matter less, what lines you cross, but more, which ones you wouldn't, in order to keep living with yourself and seeing yourself still as some kind of decent person.
"You want to catch a wolf you have to become a wolf!"
Reminds me of the line from Demolition Man: "Send a maniac to catch a maniac."
Lovely perspective and references, sir. I agree entirely on his use of stages of bad people and how he juxtaposes them against one another throughout his stories. I think Jules and Vincent are two great examples of this, particularly in terms of how they react to the 'miracle' they are each a part of.
And in all fairness, even though I'm giving quite a black-and-white view in the video (sometimes being intentionally provocative is an interesting tactic to spark discussion 😆), I agree that it's not so clear cut in real life, particularly when you bring different moral/ethical theories into the mix.
For the sake of the video, I've come at the topic from a Kantian Ethical perspective, which is a highly problematic theory in itself; often overly rigid in how it determines what is and isn't a moral act. Hence, it's ruffled some feathers. In reality, I would agree that most of these characters are indeed sitting somewhere in the middle, more morally grey than bad, so it's nice to see people like you challenging the perspective I've given in the video. My aim here was to push people to consider things a bit more deeply, and, fortunately, it seems to have worked! 😅
Thank you for taking the time to watch and provide such an interesting comment. I hope to see you in some of the comment sections of my future videos!
- Luke
@@luke.hoffman Thanks. It indeed worked and got your channel my subsciption. Another great example for the stages are the characters in Kill Bill. What is fascinating here, is that we get different kinds of explanations, from a backstory (O-Ren) over a portrayal of a broken character (Budd) to a mix of flashbacks and random facts in conversations to a forced self anylysis (Beatrix Kiddo). And imo the protagonist isn't the least bad of the bad people, just like the antagonist isn't the most evil. She's just kicked into the underdog position, while he's just the top of the food chain. And it works perfectly, because Tarantino takes time for his characters. And wouldn't it be amazzing, if there'd be a 3rd volume? "Kill Kiddo"? With the former perspective switched? Copperhead's daughter, trained and equipped by Bill's other brother (because I'd love to see Keith Carradine in it) is coming for her mother's murderer?
Applying the categorical imperative on Tarantino characters is definitely a courageous and thought provoking route. I remember an interview, in which he mentioned, how a scene from "Roots", in which a former slave dismisses the oppotunity to whip some of his own medicine into a slaver, being the better human being, had inspired him for Django unchained. He is clearly more of a "What goes atound, comes around." kind of guy. 😏 And that's probably, why Kant may have become a giant in philosophy, but his career in entertainment didn't even manage to take off in Königsberg. 😛
@@karstenvoigt7280 This was an awesome read. Thank you for taking the time to write it out (and thank you for subscribing!)
I'll be honest, even though Kill Bill isn't my favourite of Tarantino's movies (still think it's great), your sequel pitch sounds pretty interesting 😆with that said, I'm hoping he does something entirely original and leaves us with some new fascinating characters before he checks out of filmmaking.
Agreed on Beatrix, though. I said something similar in reply to another comment; she very nearly made it into the video. She's an underdog, a lesser evil and also has a highly ambiguous past, which all make her an incredibly fascinating character. I also like the level self-awareness and acceptance she demonstrates in her interaction with Copperhead's daughter. She knows exactly who she is and owns it, and the possible consequences that may befall her later down the line as a result of it. It's a big part of what makes her such a badass, in my opinion.
Glad you appreciated the Kantian approach to this analysis, too!
Thanks again for the support and awesome commentary.
- Luke
Very eloquently put.
You got a sub, mate
There’s a difference between Protagonist and Good Guy. Anyone who can’t distinguish that these categories are separate but overlapping categories needs help.
That drives me nuts. And when people don't know the difference between a hero and an antihero.
Expertly crafted video essay, this is a perspective I haven't heard before and I think it's because Tarantino's films are so taboo for intellectuals in my experience. I would love it if you tackled 4 Rooms and explained your understanding of Theodor as a protagonist. I think it starts with him being good and the trials he faces corrupt him by the end but I'd like to know what you see.
You bring up that snippet from his book where he’s talking about Dirty Harry, (someone recently made a video about that bit of the book) but Tarantino has also specifically talked about the thing you’re talking about here in relation to his own movies too in interviews. He talked about this with Django Unchained, and brought it up in relation to Sergio Corbucci westerners like Django, but more specifically The Great Silence. He talked about how the characters are the kinds of characters that in any other movie would be the villains, but juxtaposed against the villains of the movie they’re the heroes. Like Dr. King Schultz in Django Unchained may seem like a good guy in Django Unchained, but he does kill people for money, and he does have Django kill a guy in front of his own son. He’s talked about this in reaction to Butch as well... maybe in the Pulp Fiction related Charlie Rose interview he did, I don’t quite remember where he talked about it specifically anymore. But it was probably that interview since that interview is on the DVD.
The Hateful Eight was all about this. It’s built around a particularly type of episode Western tv of the ‘50s and ‘60s would do from time to time where a bunch of guest stars (these were usually guys you’d see showing up in Spaghetti Western later, or they were Roger Corman’s crew) playing villains would show up and hold some characters up (maybe even the main characters) and the leads of the show would have to take care of them. These episodes in particular are always pretty cool, and almost function a little movies. Sometimes the main characters of the show are barely in these episodes. It’s a style of episode TV (be it actually TV or streaming) doesn’t really do anymore. Hateful Eight is that but without the hero characters. Originally it did have a hero character though, since Tarantino started writing it with the idea of it being a Django paperback.
Yes! This was an awesome comment to read. Thanks for sharing it.
His book, 'Cinema Speculation', is a really fascinating insight into his filmmaking philosophy and influences. As I read through it, I was able to see exactly where many of his characters, stories and set pieces etc. came from. It's a really cool read and I'd highly recommend it.
Your point RE Sergio Corbucci is bang on. I think you're referring to the documentary 'Django & Django', right? I remember when he talks about Sonny & Jed and how he regards Sonny & Jed as the antagonists, despite the title suggesting otherwise. He views the sheriff played by Telly Savalas (who is originally intended as the villain) as the good guy/hero. I think he's always challenging us to view his characters through different lenses, and try to view things from their different perspectives before we decide who is good and who is bad etc.
Also, Dalton's role in Lancer in Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood definitely seems to be a nod to the Western TV show guest star trope you mentioned.
Thanks again for the comment and for watching. Glad you enjoyed it and had so much to say!
- Luke
Each of Tarantino’s movies is the utter definition of “Fighting fire with fire” you can’t defeat someone evil without thinking like them, unfortunately in the real world, you gotta get dirty so others stay clean
I don't know. I'd say the protagonists of inglorious bastards are mostly morally gray, not necessarily bad in context of their world. Unless most people would tell you it's it's basically pointless to interpret morals in a vacuum in any meaningful way
Thanks for the comment, Ryan. I think I agree for the most part. Have a look at some of my replies to comments that came before yours and you'll see that, in reality, I would view most of the characters as 'morally grey'. For the sake of the video and sparking discussion, I took a more deontological/Kantian approach when writing the script. Definitely more black-and-white (and, therefore, provocative 😆). I studied Philosophy at university, though, so I can't help it!
Thanks for watching and interacting with the video. I really appreciate it!
- Luke
The girl yes, the soldiers mostly no.
They were very cruel. Its quite strange since usually i dont deal with absolutes but i dont see how sadistic people might be anything but bad.
It looks like they found the perfect job and the perfect excuse.
@@MrEvans1 I dunno i got the impression outside the most apocalyptic war ever they would be douchebags not killing machines... except aldo.
@@ryanfitzgerald9833and the bear jew
@@MrEvans1yes because the nazis were such a horrific event it broke the main characters. Look up what happened after the holocaust the surviving Jewish community was pissed. There was plans to poison a water supply.
6:20 “I never said you were a bad guy I said you’re a criminal”
Dayum
The thing with his movies, is that it doesn't matter who kills over, because they are all bad so you never feel too bad when it happens.
One monster will win, the other will lose, we all lose with them but sometimes we lose less... And we feel good about liking something that's definitely not good.
What's that line from Rusty Cohle in True Detective Season 1? "The world needs bad men. Keeps the other bad men from the door."
What a character.
What a series (S1, that is).
And what a quote!
I couldn't agree more. Thank you for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
Cringe
The Basterds are definitely akin to the Glanton Gang. In a group like that the moral code is pitch coloured but even still there are little greys and small honours as the true evil emerges. Even Bathcat had a limit. And as for the gang from Blood Meridian, it’s fascinating that the most evil among them has such an exacting hold on what being good might mean, and how limited it is in the face of evil
I'm so pleased to see that the Glanton Gang reference resonated with someone! Such a fascinating group (and story). Ever since reading the book I'm convinced that this is where Tarantino got his inspiration for Aldo and his group, but I've never seen him speak on it. If I'm ever lucky enough to speak to him (😅) I'll make sure to ask him.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Really hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
@@luke.hoffman ftr the glanton gang is far worse, far more depraved and unambiguously their own worst cancer. But I can see the spectrum between the basterds and them
"The real evil", sounds like a way to trivialize them.
What makes them not the "real evil" is the fact that they are protagonists.
AMAAAAAAZING analysis.
This makes so many Tarantino scenes and choices make sense… even as far back as his writing in True Romance. In his universe THERE ARE NO GOOD GUYS.
You've got it all wrong: the protagonist of Inglourious Basterds is Hans Landa.
😆I don't know how much sarcasm there is meant to be in this comment, but, in all seriousness, this is a compelling perspective. It definitely makes for an interesting time when you watch the film with this view in mind. I think the key thing to remember is that the word 'protagonist' doesn't actually mean 'hero' or 'good person'. It simply means "the leading/central character." With that in mind, it's definitely plausible that Hans Landa fits that title.
Thanks for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
He does have the most screen time
Don't know if you're an anime fan, but... this video explains the difference between how villains are portrayed in One Piece specifically Kaido vs Doflamingo. Thanks for putting it into words, the idea was burning a whole in my mind.
Ah I'm so glad you enjoyed the video. Thank you for the kind words.
I haven't actually checked out One Piece but I'll keep an eye out for it.
- Luke
0:33 Kurt Angle's long lost brother?
lol I see what you mean! But I knew Kurt’s brother…He had hair so it’s really hard to guess they’d be brothers😂
Because all white guys that shave their heads and faces look the same. Racist!!!
JK 😅
😂😂😂
Amazing video you put together!! Great Job!! I didn't know there was a novelisation of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!! Thank you for shedding light on that!!
Thanks, Andy! Glad you enjoyed it. I hope you’ve had a chance to read the book since this comment!
- Luke
One time Tarantino did not get me was Brad Pitt's character in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I kept remembering he killed his wife throughout the movie and refused to root for him. Just wanted his character to get killed off LMAO extremely unlikable throughout.
Thanks for the comment! I don't think you're the only one who holds this opinion. Personally, I found him to be likeable despite his ambiguous past. When I first watched the film, I chose to believe his wife dying was an accident. It wasn't until my later rewatches and, more recently, reading the book, that I realised his true nature. All in all, he's a fascinating character.
Thanks for watching!
- Luke
Wrong he was cool and his wife was a bitch
That was the point tho.... nobody was meant to like him.hell in the movie u even see di caprio is the one that tries to get people to like him.
@@wambokodavid7109 No you were definitely supposed to like him as an anti-hero. When he beats up the Manson family member over his tire being flattened you are supposed to think he is cool. I don't even want to get started because personally I think this movie is absolutely awful. It's up there with Death Proof as Tarantino's worst movies ever.
@@KJT4888 you've made up your mind so I won't waste my time going over this with you.good day
Enjoyed it, really well put together although a little long for a video trying to make such a simplistic point in my option - but, thank you. I’m glad I found you.
Great video. Shame we didn't get a section about the Bride. I've always loved her character. She's not necessarily a good woman, being an assassin and all. We never learn who she kills but we can assume they weren't all bad people. But she gets screwed over by her former team and that's what makes her the protagonist not really the 'hero'. Great writing.
A great point indeed. You hit the nail on the head with her being the 'protagonist' as opposed to the 'hero'. I think that's true of almost all of Tarantino's protagonists. I actually very nearly used The Bride as an example, but simply ran out of time (17 minutes was already long enough 😅). She's also a great example of all three tropes I discussed in the video, though: she's an underdog, a lesser evil (compared to her former colleagues), and also has a highly ambiguous past that we're never really given a clear view of. She's a fantastic character.
Thanks for watching and commenting. Really appreciate the interaction and am glad you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
I think sometimes the worst thing about the most horrible people is that they are undeniably, painfully human
Lmao imagine explaining all this like it’s hidden knowledge. The people being mocked are too stupid to realize or accept it. And all the people interested already know. It’s obvious to them.
I remember him talking about this with the Joker movie but lets be honest, todays audience is already corrupt.
😆That's one way of putting it!
Thanks for watching and commenting!
- Luke
I have a traumatic childhood. It was very bad. I got free of it at 16 and recovered a bit but decided to join the army at 21. I decided on artillery. Figured I wouldn't be in any real danger and still be combat arms because it sounded cool. Trained for a whole year doing artillery and kicking in doors. My platoon didn't think much of me and never put me in line. Always a gunner in a hummer. I play a lot of video games. It's my main hobby besides hiking and my son's T ball practice and games. They hated me for that. When it came time to deploy and test our reaction time and mental awareness, I exceeded everyone. They gave me an M9 to test with, and I shot expert, mostly one handed in full kit. So, they made me the front man to charge in first. I survived a few missions and explosions that weren't timed correctly. I just brushed all this off. Like it was nothing. Because of my already warped brain, I compartmentalized it all to deal with later. Scared my platoon as they thought I was psychopath in the making. I'm not. I was pushed to my limit and adjusted accordingly on the fly. My brain doesn't work the way a normal person's does because of my traumatic childhood. I think this was Tarantino putting himself in the characters. He even made up a bible quote that had people believing it was actually from the bible. Just some food for thought.
@@Dagenspear Get a life!
@gamervet4760 they can't. If they got a life, they wouldn't have time to tell others how to live their's.
I'm sorry to hear about the traumatic childhood, but thank you for the insights regarding Tarantino's writing. I think every writer will put some of themselves in their characters, so I mostly agree. The bible quote is also an interesting one. I always view it as Tarantino's way of saying we shouldn't take these sorts of things too seriously.
Thanks for watching!
- Luke
@luke.hoffman No worries. I'm a happy man today. I was just thinking Quinten may have had a rough childhood and views killing as easy as breathing. It is when you have the tools and know how, but I felt every single one. Quinten wants that to be viewed as a sign of strength. A symbol of badassery that, in his mind, makes the ultimate badass. I don't like his movies for that reason and many more. His films are not deep or intellectual at all. They just pretend to be. They're just vehicles so he can show off as much violence and human debauchery as much as possible. Right from his first movie of Resivor Dogs. Just my thoughts.
@@gamervet4760 I have often had similar feelings about his movies, especially his use of ethnic slurs in Reservoir Dogs, and Django Unchained (which I couldn't watch for that reason). The male rape scene in Pulp Fiction was quite triggering and contrived.
Tarantino never got me with _Inglorious Basterds._ I was never able to root for anyone in that movie... but I _was_ fascinated by Hans Landa!
8:50 “If you were to take Aldo and his crew out of this story and put them into a world without baddies as morally abhorrent as the Nazis, it’s very possible that they would cease to be seen as good…”
If you were to take them out of this story, there would be no justification for their existence. The only reason they exist as a team is in direct reaction to the atrocities of the Nazis. Outside of Tarrantino’s fantasies, in the real world war is hell and good men do bad things out of necessity. Then they go home, if they survive, and lead good lives. Without the context, there are not the necessities.
Aldo’s men were not a pre-existing group of outlaw vigilantes roaming Europe and pillaging randomly until they were fortuitously tasked with hunting Nazis. They were American soldiers who were recruited specifically to this squad specifically for this purpose within this specific context.
This also happens to be EXACTLY what the mainstream media does. Manipulate. Using those tactics. Tarantino is a reflection of this kind of manipulation, but on the big screen. It is easier to see it in his films, but few really grasp or wish to admit how MSM has engaged in this for decades.
A valid point. As I say in the video, he's not the only one to use these writing/storytelling techniques 😅
Thank you for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
It’s called enjoying a story.
Letting it engage with you.
At least filmmakers don’t feign to present non-fiction. (Well most filmmakers).
Whenever someone rants about "the mainstream media" like this, there's a 99% chance that he's either:
1: A radical leftist
2: A radical right-winger
3: An anti-vax nutjob
I don’t think that morally corrupt characters are more engaging than conventional hero archetypes. It’s more about the fact that telling a good story about a morally pure character is way more difficult. Also we live in a time and age where audiences literally have been pushed towards the morally ambiguous. Cultivating these tendencies is the key. Recognising ourselves in these characters is more straightforward as long as communicating goes. Showing people a “hero”, inspiring them to be better, and making a good story out of it is a real challenge only few can pull off. All this to be said I LOVE Tarantino. He’s a genius and love his films.
Lovely perspective here. Thank you for sharing it. For the most part, I agree; I think moral characters can be just as fascinating as immoral ones. The thing that creates engaging characters seems to mainly be conflict, and there are many ways to create this, even with heroes.
I think Fargo (both film and TV series) is an amazing example of this. The 'moral' character in each of these stories is often entirely unambiguous. They're good people through and through, but they're still fascinating to watch and engage with. And that's usually because of their conflict with the world and the evil/chaos that they come up against. Their struggle doesn't involve them having to bend their morals to get by, it's instead about them trying to make sense of something completely alien and antagonistic. The conflict of realising the true nature of the world they live in and being presented with the question of whether their good/moral approach is enough to contend with it.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks again for commenting and watching. I hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
@@luke.hoffman couldn’t agree more. Keep up the phenomenal work!
Let me just start with the fact that I hadn't watched "the hateful eight" when I started this video. So, I paused when it came up and watched the movie. And now here I am making this comment. Love the content!
The cellar is Butch's Hanoi Pit of Hell. He redeems himself and banishes those ghosts of the past
One thing to add about the Inglorious Bastards is that it's not just SS officers they are brutalising. They are brutalising conscripted German soldiers that had two choices, join up or be hung. Most of whom would have had no idea of the extent of the genocide taking place and were just normal people, with the reality being that most of us would be doing the same thing in their situation.
Yup!
Yup. The movie is a morality test of the audience, and 80% fail. The movie even gives many hints that's what's going on as you watch it. You're not supposed to cheer for the Basterds, but most audience members DO, and make up all sorts of excuses worse than "I was only following orders" because the audience receives no orders--the audience has a choice.
the "clean whermacht" myth youre describing has been debunked several times (see military history visualized). we have the diaries of common whermacht soldiers showing that not only were they aware of the ethnic cleansing being taken place, they gleefully look forward to enacting lebensraum.
@na8291 Yeah, no. The allies literally had to hold educational seminars post war and force Germans to watch footage of the death camps to make them believe it. Of course SOME knew and of course some people supported it. But most people in Germany, including the military, who were conscripted, were just normal people. They weren't movie villains. If you were a man in Germany at the time, you would have been conscripted into the military
@@anonperson3972 most soldiers didn't know about the camps, but they definitely knew about what they did--going village to village and lining people up against the wall for firing squads, burning down homes, killing civilians, etc. So a yeah, no, but actually yeah.
You could've also included "Natural Born Killers" "Four Rooms" and "True Romance" to further your point.
Well made sir.
Oh trust me, there were quite a few examples I wanted to include (my original script was probably twice the length of this one!). Maybe I'll have to do another part to this video in the future 😆
Thank you for watching and commenting. I really appreciate the feedback and am glad you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
I Don't Know About The Other Two BUT "NaturaL•Born•KiLLers" WAS-NOT Directed By °Quentin•Tarentino ••••••• I BeLieve It Was °Martin•Scorcesse !
@@w.neuman He wrote it though. It was directed by Oliver Stone
@@illuminahde : Oh, O.K.
@@illuminahde : Oh, O.K.
The characters exist within the Tarantino universe, not ours. So of course, if you compare them with the real world, they would be terrible. The Bride in Kill Bill is a cold blooded assassin, yet she’s a hero, but that’s within the context of an absurd world and absurd set of circumstance where top level assassin’s have a lover’s quarrel.
Tarantino's movies are like a baroque painting by Caravaggio : the idea of the Sacred and the Profane in perfect harmony
This is a cool way of looking at it. I'm guessing that means you like his work?
Thanks for watching and commenting. I hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
Honestly not even close to the quality, majesty, and raw emotion of Caravaggio but I see where you’re coming from
Good and Bad are one entity. Everything and everyone has a constant flux of the two. It’s up to an individual to determine their comfort with that idea.
People, stop seeing the world as black and white, movies should utilize morally gray characters rather than cartoonish villians against morally superior heroes, because it's extremely unrealistic and breaks the immersion many times.
It's called being an adult
Any soldier would be considered "bad" in a different situation. But that's ridiculous. You can only judge someone on a certain situation.
They're called anti-heroes and they aren't exclusive to Tarantino movies. The reason I root for them is because I can relate more to imperfect characters more than I can morally perfect characters.
Labeling Butch as a bad guy is a stretch. Not a good guy? Sure. But bad? Nah, there are more than enough extenuating circumstances.
I thought Inglorious bastards where a bunch of horrible war criminals and I never routed for them through the film, but I studied history...there are no good guys in humanity
U.S soldiers rarely committed war crimes or collected trophies from German soldiers this can’t not be said for the pacific theater where collecting skulls and looting bodies was very common largely due to U.S propaganda dehumanizing Japanese people.
So killing Nazis makes one a horrible war criminal now?
I always find it interesting how the more you the audience can associate with and get to know a character the more you like them even if they are evil
So being from Canada and knowing our contribution to the Geneva Convention Laws, The Bastards, are pretty Vanilla😂
I thought they were The Geneva Checklist or the Geneva Suggestions
Good people and Bad people are both very gray inside. Well, most.
Aldo Raine and Cliff Booth both mention fighting in Sicily during the War.
Computers are programmed by input. Put in trash, get out trash. I was bothered by rooting for bad guys for years. Godfather, Scarface, pulp fiction, breaking bad, sons of anarchy, Vikings. I refuse to be entertained by such obviously evil characters and plots. Your brain is only composed of what you put in it. You can claim it doesn’t affect you because you think your morality is above it… add salt to a glass of ice tea in very small amounts… it eventually becomes undrinkable no matter how sweet the tea began.
Stop being such a pussy. It's called entertainment, and you watched this because deep down you enjoy it to, but you're clearly uncomfortable with others knowing that you enjoyed it so you blessed us with your bullshit.
So that guitar riff you have in the background; the one that goes 'duh, duh, duuuuh." I've heard it played before in the movie ID4. The bar scene with Randy Quade. Does it have a name or a performer tied to it? I've been looking for it casually on and off for years.
Great video and the editing was amazing. Well done and keep them coming 👏🏽🔥
Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it (and thank you for the editing appreciation!)
Also Raine is basically who we wished we had against the Nazi in ww2. I don’t know if Patton would have appreciated this guy or hated him
Calling every character in the hateful 8 racist but calling Sam Jackson’s character “prejudice” is pure cringe.
This guy is from the UK. The white guilt is strong with them.
Hugo Stiglits is my favourite morally corrupt character PS im here at 16.1k subscribers this channel is gonna blow up soon your in depth analysis of the books you referenced as well as the modern flawless editing makes you stand out from the rest
"Corrupts audience" Yeah if you are 8😂 Jokes aside tho, i really enjoy that he doesnt do the typical "good guy/bad guy" and instead goes with "everybody's an asshole, watch their story"
Question. If I am basically not a bad guy but, over the course of time, do a couple of bad things probably due to life circumstances that pop up, does that automatically negate any inate goodness I might possess and make me just a total bad guy through and through?
Thank you I've never understood why I don't like any of his movies but now I do.
🤣 that's hilarious! You're more than welcome (even though I love his films! 😆).
Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. It's appreciated.
- Luke
That just means you get caught up in genre and style, it clashes with your taste. If you love cinema and writing itself, you enjoy QT at least to some degree.
@@tritone11 shhh let them show off their moral superiority 😂.
@@MrEvans1 what's wrong with being morally superior to filth and scum?
Just stick to The Chosen.. be you.
It's not that the people are "bad", it's that they are realistic.
I am going to appear to be good to most people but I identify very strongly with some of Tarantino's characters(Lance comes to mind as a character I have lived as) that may seem "bad" to many people.
Aldo Raine is no more "bad" than the protagonists in The Hills Hills Have Eyes, sometimes you have to become a savage to fight savages.
Most people aren't "good" like Superman, they just do what it takes to survive and it depends on their situation as to how that plays out.
I'm not sure how far Bruce Willis's condition has progressed at this point but if it was in any way possible the last Tarantino film I would want to see is Butch's final chapter..... it's left so open ended. I don't really want another kill Bill movie anyway
I final film seeing an older Butch encountering a wandering older Jules and a reformed older Marsellus could be an interesting way to end the career 🤣
Thanks for watching and commenting. Hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
@@luke.hoffman I did man, really good stuff
Marcellus Wallace is an interesting one, because at the same time as being a violent crime boss who's more than ready to kill anyone who crosses him, or even just innocent bystanders... He's also a pretty good to his own people, another example of Tarantino humanising a bad guy. When Jules and Vincent end up with a body in their back seat, Wallace sends one of his best to help them out. When Jules wants out of the business, he lets him go. He pays Butch upfront to rig the fight. Obviously, he also squares things with Butch after he saves him.
But the biggest one, is that he joins Vincent in staking out Butch's home after he crosses them. When they meet at the crossing, Wallace is carrying a box and two cups. So he'd gone and got takeout and was on his way back when Butch tried to run him over... I mean, when else do we see a crime boss nipping out to grab takeout for himself and an underling? It's a much closer relationship than we'd expect from a villainous crime boss.
It also explains why Vincent didn't react to Butch entering his old home, even if he did hear the door, he'd just assume it was Marcellus coming back.
This is so weird. I think I'm being recommended your videos because you were in some gym video i watched ages ago. Pretty cool pivot.
That's awesome! It has been quite a big pivot indeed, but I'm glad to see my content is still reaching you (and that you're enjoying it). Thank for the support!
If you think lt aldo is a bad person do you also think that of Oppenheimer?
He never lies to you or corrupts you. He just takes terrible people and puts them against worse people.
14:38 this edited video scene you put in is great
Thank you! I really appreciate that feedback. I put a lot of time into my editing so any praise (or criticism) is most welcome.
Hope you enjoyed the video!
- Luke
There’s a lot of things I loved when I was in my late teens early 20s that I don’t care for anymore now in my late 30s… Tarantino movies are NOT one of those things
Glad to hear it. As you can probably tell, I am also a big fan of his work.
Thanks for commenting and watching. Really pleased to see it resonated with you!
- Luke
I don't like this new 'phase' of his career, the 90's tarantino was much cooler imo, in his last movies feels like he's too much in love with his dialogue writing skills and he keeps on dragging them just for the sake of breaking the pace and show audiences 'look how good of a writer i am'. His last movie i truly enjoyed was Basterds.
The idea that violence is inherently justified if someone belongs to a specified group that is designated as morally wrong or reprehensible is about as slippery as a slope can be. The problem is that morality is not a set condition. It evolves and can change.
I was watching once upon a time in Hollywood and think something similar. How brutally they kill the hippies and just shrug it off
The Manson family weren't hippies. In fact, some real hippies of the time looked almost straight-laced.
I know right! While it's very in-keeping with Tarantino's style and the film's narrative, it definitely becomes more than self-defence (particularly Cliff's actions).
I spoke about it in my other video analysing Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood (th-cam.com/video/ai78jah00G8/w-d-xo.html); I think it's Tarantino's way of taking fictional/metaphysical revenge on the Manson family for what they did to spoil such a sacred Hollywood (similar to how Inglourious Basterds was a way of taking a similar revenge on the Nazis). Still, I agree that there is a profound sense of brutality to how they are dealt with. Thank you for watching and joining in on the ethical discussion!
I hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
@@EricFarwell-gh9pwits crazy to me how everyone forgets they were literal neo nazis
Well, if you see the world the way it is nowadays you can’t help but remember that Patton quote: “we fought the wrong enemy…”
I recommend you to watch Ross MacFarlane video essay on Once upon a time in Hollywood.
He suggest that Pitt's caracter is the opposite personification of Harvey Weinstein.
The video is called Once upon a time in Hollywood overanalysed
Thanks for the recommendation, Alexandre. I have actually watched that video, albeit a long time ago (I think shortly after it released a year ago). I'll revisit it with my revised perspective and see if it sparks some new thoughts.
Thanks for watching. I hope you enjoyed the video.
- Luke
Brad Pitt's uncharacteristic ethical standards when it comes to not committing statutory rape with any underage girl I took to be Quentin's using that character for expression of his moral interpretation of Roman Polanski's seeming recklessness in being able to throw away a terrific reputation as a director for an impulsive decision based on momentary lapsing of his moral standards.
One interesting scene I like to analyze is the Vet scene from Inglorious Bastards. Remember, when Aldo said Nazi need to be killed because they got no humanity, then I wonder how they personally feel about having to put the vet, who’s obviously just an innocent bystander, in the middle of all that drama and insanity? But you can clearly see a difference between Aldo and his men with Hans and his men if you compare this scene with the 20 minute opening scene. But one thing that I’m curious about is what they did about the vet? The movie didn’t address that.
Agreed. Normally our moral values automatically supercede any aesthetic judgements. What Tarantino does is use his filmmaking talents to create aesthetic judgements that supercede our moral values. Sure, it's only a movie, but in real life if we see an opportunity to do something expedient that is justifiably cool? It's easier to just go ahead and do it.
Great video and analysis.
Thank you for the support, as always.
I mean, if anything, it keeps us guessing about ourselves. Quentin puts us in the shoes of the worst possible people he can think of, and we're left forcing ourselves to question and even test our morals. Because in the end, whether good or bad... EVERYONE thinks themself the hero. Even you. Even me. So the questions are posed...
I look at these films more as character studies. You're definitely on point about these things and influence that movies have Is real! A person who can hit another person in the head with a baseball bat is not a human being I would ever want to be around ever. This is the flaw with a lot of revenge films! If you kill someone you change your reality you are no longer innocent really. Most films really are about egocentric people in how they serve their own egos. I am a man in my 40s now and a lot of the violence I used to enjoy in films honestly bothers me a great deal now. It's like violence and film has to be more and more shocking to be original! Look at television shows I used to like a lot like The shield or The sopranos... There really is no protagonist... It's just watching the unpredictable paths that people's lives take based on their actions that are self-serving. The world is so cynical now people don't want a hero. People want to look at others to make themselves feel more justified. Shout out to justified for being one of the few shows that had a hero who was actually a good guy... Everything is a reflection of our society! These are just my opinions, thoughts, and feelings.
I know what you mean! I don't think I'd invite any of Tarantino's characters to a dinner party 😆 Tarantino himself maybe, but his characters may prove to be questionable company!
I really like your perspective, though, Sean. I think you're bang on about many stories these days being (or attempting to be) reflections of society, but in a more negative light. I think Civil War is a very good and recent example of this (but I still think it was very good). There's a film called 'Perfect Days' by Wim Wenders, that came out recently that is a real breath of fresh air with respect to some of this cynicism and negativity many of today's other films are promoting. I'd highly recommend checking it out!
Thanks for watching and providing such an insightful comment. I really hope you enjoyed the video, and I also hope to see you in the comment sections of some of my future videos!
- Luke