Inglourious Basterds

[twissie]

I never posted about the fact that Michael Fassbender was in Oslo a while back (might still be?) filming The Snowman. Our news outlets were awkwardly stalking the production, see, we don't really get celebrity visits (not to mention big film productions) all that often. We're starved on this kind of stuff. The news were happily publishing people's

Comments

[kehlen]

Well, yes, I guess it does, but then again what war film doesn't?
War films do not need almost any blood to be good. Many Soviet WWII ones are that way, - the ones made by people who were actually there and those who lived it through behind the line as civilians/children, and they are fantastic.

[kehlen]

I don't mean that the bloody ones are bad, certainly. - And I cannot judge this one because I have not seen it nor have any intention to right now because the genre is a great put off.

[twissie]

I hope you'll change your mind and give it a go sometime. I always think of you as someone with an interest in languages, and it would be interesting to hear what you have to say about the use of language in this :)

[twissie]

Haha, I agree! It depends on the focus, though most war films can be described as bleak and disturbing. Even without showing blood or violent actions, war films can still be incredibly disturbing and violent.

Inglourious Basterds isn't that kind of war film. In retrospect, I guess calling it first and foremost a war film is wrong. While it's set during WWII, it doesn't follow any actual events, it's an alternate history. But Tarantino is a genre filmmaker, so he's using the war film genre and making it his own. The language thing in particular keeps it from being over the top or disrespectful, it's a finely balanced thing - I really do believe that he's the only filmmaker who would be able to pull off an alternate history piece like this.