Inglourious Basterds: Making Fun of You


This is Jeff Negan and you’re watching now you see it Let’s talk about how the film inglourious basterds is actually making fun of you Quentin [Tarantino] is one of the most popular and consistently violent mainstream directors his films focus on people committing violence criminals who killed contract killers a black-market gun Runner who kills a former assassin killing for revenge [a] special [world] [War] [2] unit whose [1] Goal is “killing Nazis”. More contract killers and finally his newest film the hateful eight coming out fall 2015 will star Samuel Jackson as you Guessed it as contract killer There’s no doubt that Tarantino’s films, especially [his] higher budget ones display a sort of hyper violence with numerous and exaggerated deaths Vanity Fair made a nice chart tallying each death in a Tarantino film and how that person died? showing just how violent his films can be tarantino’s eighth film inglourious basterds is no exception the film leads 57 kills not including the 342 Deaths from the Fire and the Fear at the end of the film This averages to one gruesome death about every two [and] a half minutes now. That’s vile Even with all this violence inglourious basterds was a huge financial and critical success earning over 300 million dollars in Eight Academy award nominations the majority of Tarantino’s films did well in the box office in fact of the nine films Tarantino has directed eight have earned triple their original budget So what does this say about us the viewers who pay to see and enjoy Tarantino’s films? Do we like violence is it wrong for us to enjoy movies where people [die] left and right? Tarantino realizes this juxtaposition and even goes so far as to criticize us the viewers for finding hyper violence in his film so entertaining Let’s take a look at inglorious bastards and see how he critiques an audience that glamorizes violence Inglorious basterds is about a World War II special unit named the basterds whose mission is to blow up a cinema worth dozens of High-ranking Nazi Soldiers in the Lead Watch a Propaganda film Including Hitler himself the film shown at the cinema is about Friedrich [solar] a Nazi soldier who single-handedly kills? 215 Russians from a guard Tower the film titled Nation’s pride is extremely violent From what we see the film consists of little more than shots of [Friedrich] [solar] shooting and killing dozens of Russian Soldiers The crowd of Nazis loves it they cheer and laugh at each death praising Hitler even tells the director of the film this is your best film yet We can’t help but look at the audience watching a she’s cried and find them a bit humorous and ridiculous They view this repetitive tasteless and unnecessary killing entertaining and well made to us it appears to be nothing but a cheap spectacle movie But think about it doesn’t it sound familiar the Nazi viewers our audience members watching a film, but so are we watching employers bastards It’s a film within a film don’t we react with similar phrase to Quentin Tarantino’s [hyper-violent] films when were the audience members I want to suggest to the Tarantino is trying to say us viewing inglourious basterds is similar to the Nazis view a nation’s pride We cheer at death even when it’s tasteless and glorifies unnecessary violence we see just as much excessive violence in inglourious basterds [as] the nazis do a nation’s product while the bastards are in the middle of their plan to blow up the building [the] owners of the cinema in a separate attack light the whole cinema on fire and lock the Exit doors, so the Nazi crowd is trapped and burned alive Even though the bathrooms mission to kill everyone in the cinema is fulfilled they still shoot into the crowd [of] Nazis more unnecessary violence and blow up the cinema even more unnecessary violence There’s ridiculous violence throughout the film people call off scalps get beat to death with baseball bats and get shot in the testicles both nations pride an inglorious basterds contain excessive violence similarities don’t stop [they’re] both Protagonists carved Nazi symbols with a knife and are overly faithful to their country even the shots in Nation’s pride and inglorious basterds are similar Look at the shot of a person flying out of the exploding cinema notice the similarities between this shot and these shots of soldiers falling out of buildings during nations pride Tarantino is showing that his movie is not far off from Nations pride Even the film titles are comparable Where inglorious basterds is the exact opposite meaning of nations pride these films are similar and so are their respective audiences us viewing [inglourious] [basterds] And the Nazis viewing nations [prime], we both praised the violence in the film. We both cheer on death We both get desensitized to the brutality of killing by comparing us to the Nazi viewers Tarantino is criticizing our love for excessive violence We’re a bunch of easy to please Dim-witted audience members who find entertainment and senseless gruesome killing in the same way that the Nazi viewers are portrayed as simple-Minded audience members find Entertainment in the over to top violence in Nations [pride]. He’s poking fun at us He’s saying or as ridiculous as the nazi viewers are look other instances of observed violence And this is by no means limited to include his bastards either Tarantino does this in all of his other films as well He sometimes even uses death for Comedy I Said Til Miss [Lora] [good]. [bye] Bye, Miss Lora you gotta have an opinion. I mean do you think that God came down from Heaven and Stopped oh? Man, I shot Marvin in the face fuck to do that. I didn’t mean to do it was an accident It takes [skill] to pawn audience into a world where killing can make up a punchline [but] there’s more to it than that [the] screen desensitizes us We can remove ourselves from the realities of death when we watch a film and Tarantino knows the extent We can see a death is a joke though is worth making fun of and Nation’s pride provides a good allegory for how ridiculous We can be is it hypocritical? That we can praise violence in a film yet denounce it in reality one final anecdote [about] the two films and their audiences while Nation’s Pride is playing shows on Ax kills the real Friedrich soler but nobody in the audience notices because they’re so engrossed in the violence of the film they think the gunshot noise is just another sound effect is Tarantino making a Commentary about how we don’t address or notice deaths in reality and only pay [attention] to the ones in the movies we adore [Glory] [spouses] is not the only film to Critique its viewers with any film that features an audience consider if the directors making a commentary About the audience actually watching the film willful wall street is about the rise and fall [of] a corrupt businessman named Jordan Belfort He’s unfaithful to his wife steals money from thousands of people has known who truly loves him and spends years in Jail Logically, we should look at Jordan Belfort as a dishonest despicable man But look at the audience in the final shot of the film do they look like they despise him They adore him they want to be just like him rich and famous no matter how much dishonesty and stealing it takes just like inglorious basterds the director is showing the flaws of us as an audience is Jordan Belfort really the type of person we should strive to be [like] a clever director can use audiences or even crowds of people as a way of generalizing a society as a whole It’s most interesting however when the commentary is centered on the viewers of the film who are far from [perfect] So the next time you see any movie that features an audience ask yourself are they making fun of me? *trumpets playing* *applause*

About the author

Comments

  1. eh, false equivalency. that's what happens when you try to analyze violence (or anything) in a moral and political vacuum. it's the context of the violence that matters.

  2. "Russian" Soldiers? HTAF is it possible for you to miss the innumerable references to their origin? And the weapons? Uniforms? Field of battle? The ostentatiously American-accented argument about destroying the tower?

    Pull your head in.

  3. the amount of critique this video is getting in comparison to your other ones really shows how bad people are at feeling like they’re being made fun of

  4. Tarantino is glorifying violence against antagonists not normal people in Basterds compared to soldiers in the Nazi films

  5. Actually, I find most Tarantino-movies incredibly tiresome. It's shoot shoot bang bang here, shoot shoot bang bang there, it gets old fast. I liked Django Unchained, though, there are many great scenes in there. Except for the mass shootings, but, you know, it's Tarantino, he can't help it.

  6. You look hard enough for something that isn't there, eventually you'll find it. For example, your channel is called Now You See It. Now I see a similarity between it and a movie that was a huge pile of shit, Now You See Me. I know what you're thinking – that's similar but there's no actual link, you're just spewing random shit and trying to force a non-existent link. That's exactly right. Now you know how we feel after watching your video.

  7. In my opinion the theatre scene isn't about violence itself, but rather how positively/negatively we view it depending on who is doing it, and who is the victim.

    The scene is made so that the audience will hate the Nazis in the theatre, because they are nazis, and they're watching a movie about a bad guy (nazi) killing good guys (Americans).

    I think this scene does make fun of us, in the way that we are no different from the people in the theatre, we accept the violence because it is commited against people we despise, the same way the nazis accept the violence in the propaganda movie because it is directed at their ennemy.

    If the people in the theatre were americans killed by nazis, we would feel bad about it.
    I think we are just as hypocritical as the nazis enjoying their propaganda movie but crying when a german soldier gets killed, I think that was the main message of this scene

    It's not something about how we accept violence when it is fictionnal, because the violence in the propaganda movie is not fictionnal, it's actual war footage, it's real, therefore the comparison only holds when we see that in both instances, the violence is accepted because it is directed at the ennemy. I think that's the true message

    Tarantino has made it clear that he thinks fictionnal violence is nothing more than fictionnal, he said it times and times again, and even gets angry when people try to compare real violence to movie violence, I think your point isn't valid to be honest.

  8. This is wrong, Tarantino would never criticize his audience for loving violence since that would be extremely hypocritical of him

  9. Well, when I watched the Inglorious Basterds, it felt as if the Basterds in the movie are no different than Nazis portrayed in the movie. Most of the people would say it's a violence aimed at eliminating Nazi Regime, but the explicit violence of basterds shown in the film made me feel toward this movie as an "Bunch of People fighting for their own Agenda with the usage of same Violence." Although this movie shows an structure of typical "Justice-Carried out" scenario, I thought violent depictions of Basterds could mean much more than simply satisying retalliation.

  10. I know this is an older video, but I think that films showing violence (ever hyper-violence) can only exist in an environment that does NOT accept that in reality. If we lived in violence, we wouldn't put hypothetical violence on screen…it would remind us too much of reality. Films are escapist.

  11. If you watch any of tarantino's interviews u will realize that he would never judge anybody for enjoying violence

  12. The violence in Tarantino's movie is just an icing on the cake. His movies are excellent because of superb and well written storyline, dialogue, and characterization.

  13. You really missed the point.Tarantino sees violence and cinema as a tool. Cinema killed The Nazi’s literally and figuratively. Under the hands of Goebbels it’s propaganda that fuels their war machine, but through Tarantino and John Sturges its a liberator that help destroy villainy.

  14. wow such a stupid idea. i like how you try to analyze this idea of yours and the philosophical style behind all this, just dont fit. what a garbage video i just saw….

  15. If you forget about one of the most provacative emotions in storytelling and prop it up as blind senseless violence, you might be correct on this point. But REVENGE exists. And its the driving force for pretty much every character in the entire narrative in Inglorious Bastards. Not to mention that in order to be truthful about the setting and the time, violence is required, since that time in history was violent. Nobody would believe a WW2 story without violence, because that would be a fairy tale.

  16. tarantino himself said in interviews that he doesn't think that deeply about the violence in his movies it's just entertainment.

  17. I don't understand how people with any more than a basic understanding of elementary directing can respect Tarantino as a director. Though, I do understand why they like his dialogue. The Looney Toons style animation from this movie where they open a little cartoon circle and show dynamite on someone's ankle, pretty much sums up Tarantino. It's a style intended for children and people who are interested in empty joy-ride movies… which is fine, it's okay to have fun sometimes. But it's nothing more than fun to me. Tarantino is the king of cliche shadows, cliche top down camera angles to show someone in a moment of weakness, cliche, low-effort, quick-cut shots of violence. Somehow he's considered to have a cult following, while simultanously, having the same basic movie goer fan base as Marvel, or cheap Netflix trash. I respect him as a person who knows how to make money, and he is a clever guy, but his movies are shallow, mindless, joy-ride Hollywood trash.

  18. I don't think he's criticizing the audience for their love of violence. I think he's saying that people like his movies for the violence not for the plot. Even Tarantino loves cinema violence but Hitler is the audience and the director in the movie is Tarantino. Yes the audience love violence bit it's over the love for the story. Story is first violence is an accessory

  19. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Simple. But don't try to censor art, nor censor freedom of speech, which your are trying to do.

  20. Ive genuinely never heard so much drivel come out of someones mouth. 5:20 are you insane? like genuinely have you got mental issues? this is exactly the sort of interpretation that a boomer would take away from this film. Why would a director that loves cinema with all his heart low key make fun of the audience that allows him to create his visions? that would be completely counter intuitive to his cause violence in media is completely different to real life because of one big glaring reason ITS NOT REAL.

  21. He's actually discussed his use of violence in his films a lot. And it's not making fun of us. Even take IB, the most tense scenes are the 3 centred around dome kinda of consumption. Simply put, Milk, strudel, tavern. These are the most tense scenes without a doubt. His only criticism of violence is not that Nazis love it and we love it so thus we are stupid like the Nazi bug wigs, a basic understanding of German-Russian history would tell you that it's the same as us watching Nazis get killed, and although it's silly we love it. We all love seeing those we see as evil get killed in amusing ways on screen. QT enjoys it. That's why it's in the film. He his critism of violence in the media is that its so blandly used. If you've seen once upon a time in Hollywood you know that when the violence comes its a funny, over the top, mad as hell mess that had everyone pissing themselves. It's this play on comedy that is so good and the way sudden violence is the release to the tension. But it is a food related setting where the tension is built. Burger scene, diner scene, dinner table scene and white cake scene. Every QT fan knows these scenes and how they build tension in the best ways. Violence is the release. Its creative and unorthodox uses of violence. He loves it, we love it. Its over the top and brilliant.

  22. The Cliff Note Hollywood version, "That's like your opinion man." -The Dude

    You would some how find away to say the sky isn't blue, earth isn't round, and water isn't wet. I have no way of knowing your life experiences such as your sheltered childhood, your indoctrination from K- 12th grade and subsequently obvious communist degree graduate work that formed your cynical antisemetic and unpatriotic views.

    However, komrad, you better be grateful we had that "Greatest Generation" crush socialism (NAHzi), we had patriotic and violent Americans fighting off communism throughout the cold war, and we won't let you and your new green deal death cult post modern neo socialist death cult lefties ever come to power in America. So enjoy your opinion and I'll keep enjoying movies.

  23. When a Butterfly Flaps his wings, a Storm could Happen Across the world. When The Storm comes its way, It could die or could keep flapping its wings. Well If he keeps flapping his wings, Then a Fire could grow with the air it fraps its way, You fagits can breath easy.

  24. You could never be forgiven for your own sins if you keep trying to say that its someone else. 50% less Goat cheese. You went along with it at least.

  25. Ah yes I do want At least Some control of my life. Even though I wont have total control because I exist with other people.

  26. This video is absolutely stupid. Sorry, I love your channel, but Tarantino never uses pointless violence and no one watches Tarantino movies "for the mindless violence". It's just all wrong. The movie is making fun of nazis.

  27. I think that the deaths in nations pride was praised by the nazis because of the nazi nationalism. The violence in inglorious basterds is justified by story telling.

  28. Tarantino's films aren't enjoyed because of violence and I'm sure you didn't mean to reduce his work to meaningless violence, but you did.

  29. Dude, the movie Nation's Pride was a Nazi propaganda film within the universe. Hitler and all the Nazi attendees were laughing and enjoying the movie because it was a depiction of their nation's triumph over their enemies. The 'mindless violence' of Nation's Pride is more mindless patriotism than it is mindless violence. You could try to argue we as the audience for Inglorious Basterds are enjoying the same catharsis as the Nazis watching Nation's Pride do (enjoying watching our respective 'sides' being victorious), but Nazi Germany is the one instance in history where two warring sides were clearly split by good and evil motives. World War II was the only war with a clear morally just cause fought by one side; to defeat a force that is driven by faschism and hatred, viciously genociding a group of people for nothing more than a dellusional sense of superiority. The Nazis, in short, were and remain, an evil regime in history. Watching Hitler get torn to pieces may be 'mindless violence', but to whom it's being done to in that case, is far more than deserved. This video is completely misinformed and poorly constructed, standing as a pretty shallow attempt at forming a critical analysis of this amazing movie.

  30. Why are people so insecure, he is making a similarly or a theory that may exist and i thought this was interesting.
    Tarantino himself made similarly in slavery and king kong saying that he didn't care if the makers intended it or not.

  31. Don't think you've actually seen the film, have ya?… Nor do you have an understanding of WWII history. Even my history illiterate (She's not stupid, just not interested) girlfriend could tell you it wouldn't make sense for Russians to be in Italy, knowing that they had their own issues in their own country, which then they made Germany's issue in Germany's country.

  32. No, the audience in reality watching and enjoying violence is nothing like the nazis in the movie watching and enjoying violence. We get excited and feel a sense of justice when we see violence against nazis, because we know nazis deserve nothing but violence and death. The audience in the film, on the other hand, are enjoying watching scenes of a nazi kill Soviet soldiers, the same Soviet soldiers who liberated Europe from a fascist dictatorship by defeating the nazis. The audience in the film were wrong to cheer on this violence, while the audience watching Inglorious Basterds is correct to cheer on this violence. These subjectivist arguments are lazy and completely neglect the fact that violence can serve many different purposes depending on who is wielding it against whom. Of course, the violence in many of Tarantino's other films tends to be much more gratuitous and I can see this being a more relevant argument in some of those, but Inglorious Basterds is pretty straight forward.

  33. Nope. Just nope. The violence in a Tarantino movie isn't what makes it great, or praise worthy.
    Sometimes the violence is for comedic effect, as you correctly pointed out. But Monty Python did that already in the 70s.
    If you spent the violent sequences in Inglourious excitedly shouting and yelling at the screen, maybe you could think on the possibility that it's just you…

  34. The reason you are wrong is that the violence against the nazis is EARNED (the first scene of the movie sets up just how ruthless and evil they are) while the violence against Americans is senseless and based only on an in-group vs out-group mentality (Nation's Pride)

  35. I’ve always given myself a hard time as a cinephile that doesn’t actually like Tarantino 🤫 I often felt like I was supposed to, but this helped me find peace of mind. It’s okay that I abhor gore and unnecessary violence.

    Yay me!

  36. американских солдат , а не российских….
    Долбоеб иноязычный

  37. That is a contemporary liberalism in a nutshell. No violence, except abortion clinics. All and any drugs on demand. Free safe spaces, coloring books and comfort animals. And forget sex with a woman, you goddamn rapist. Can’t criticize anyone, except conservatives, they deserve it. Now. My response will be short and sweet. GO FUCK YOURSELVES

  38. Tarintino has always said his movies are violent because it’s fun and just fantasy. Not to mention he’s never been focused on subtext over the actual content of the story.

  39. "is it wrong to like a film where people die left and right?"

    No, no it's not. Especially when said people are oh, idk, Nazis, white supremacists, or other actually evil people. I expected better from you Now You See It. Unsubscribed, you fucking collaborator.

  40. byut the kills and deaths in inglourious basterds themselves arent funny to me they seem pretty serious if anything

  41. the guy hitler talks to in the cinema is goebbles, not "the director of the movie", he was minister of propaganda in the 3rd reich and so responsible for most of the socalled culture that was published in this dark period of history.

  42. Youtuber: explains a very nuanced meta-interpretation of a great film. May be wrong, may be right, but it's an interesting take nonetheless.
    Comments: Buuuuh you're like my English teacher who forced me to think. Who likes to think, to see beyond the obvious? I just want to see gunshots!

  43. I like this movie, but I always hated this part.cuz the guy was just a soldier doing his job..not a blood thirsty baby killing NAZI. Most German soldiers just wanted serve there country, this scene would have been better if it happend at a death camp & the bear Jew did this to the commandant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *