I hope you enjoyed my third video. Just started this channel, subscribe pls! (So you can say you were here from the start) I have many videos prepared for the upcoming days :) follow me: twitter.com/LancellotiFilms/with_replies
@@damjanbabic6768 i hate clickbait titles, but this guy aint that. He *is* prepared to go deep and way back in his analysis of the subjects he chooses. I go heavy deep & real on *my* informed passions, so that's fine w me. When someone like that is looking at Tarantino - who is also a heavy & deep film fan - that means Lancelloti is gonna see more than i do. When he's discussed things i *do* know well, it's been good - so altho i dont know Tarantino that well, Im happy to listen to someone who does.
I'm not sure how this video ended up in my recommended section, but I'm genuinely impressed. It was a very good watch, and I hadn't even realized how new this channel is. Great content
Great analysis. For me the biggest role reversal in "Inglorious Basterds" is the basement scene. Nazi Major is actually portrayed as admirable and extremely brave. After Fasbender's character points 3 fingers wrong, Major realizes that there is something cheesy, but does not choose the safe approach - calling the backup and confronts the basterds to the end. Even takes the inevitable death with dignity.
Thanks, bro! you are my first comment ever haha. I love that scene because essentially it's Tarantino playing with our expectation of what we should see in a character like that.
True, though one could argue wheter it was brave or foolish though. :) However I DO like the fact that Terentino did try to portray the 'bad guys' as more than just two dimensional cardboard cutouts. I myself was a bit stunned how some of my american friends seemed to lack any self-reflection and failed to see how the Basterds arent really 'the good guys', considering that by their very actions they are war criminals in every sense of the word and by the Geneva Convention(s). And the fact that killing prisoners of war is always bad even if it can be 'justified' (and all sides historically DID engage in that to some extent or another, afterall 'take no prisoners' is technically an order for a Warcrime, but sometimes you simply CAN'T take any prisoners [either due to being behind enemy lines, having no manpower to spare or having no facilities to house said prisoners] and it DID historically happen. War makes Beasts of Men, no matter what flag they are fighting for. However it's even worse if the supposed Soldiers do it for 'sports', like with our Jew Bear. Beating an unarmed prisoner to death with a baseball bat (while his armed buddies around make sure he cant fight back or flee) is pretty barbaric no matter who does it against whom.
Practically every Tarantino movie from Kill Bill is built around a pretty simple formula: establish a villain who is so evil, the audience is willing to revel in them receiving the most sadistic torture (a rapist who sold rides on a female coma victim, a guy who goes around hunting women in a deathproof car, Nazis, slaveowners, the Manson family). But because Tarantino's films are so rewatchable, you inevitably realize that the real message is that both the hero and the audience are capable of becoming as evil as the villain; the real evil is in dehumanizing your enemy.
Your analysis of the Bear Jew scene where he beats the Nazi officers head in was superb. You pretty much give me a new perspective on the title of the movie, because you show how very inglorious the Bear Jew is, especially how unheroic his whole angry baseball rant. And your analysis of the cinematic language is spot on. Keep the videos coming, i am glad to subscribe :)
Thanks bro! Im glad yoy enjoyed my analysis and got something out of it. Your comment means a lot, especially during these early stages of building this channel. Greetings to you, and I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy my content!
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis *fear* them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them. The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
some great points and analysis here. Even though the title Inglorious Basterds is cribbed from another movie from the seventies one of the things I love about Quentin Tarantino's movies is that they are about exactly what it says on the tin. A reservoir Dog is someone who rats on the police, pulp fiction gives you the definition of the word and structures the story around this, Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill etc. reminds me of going to see The Hateful Eight with my then girlfriend and she was almost nauseous with the inertia of all their bad actions saying: "Did every single character have to be so vicious and evil?" I thought, well yeah. The title spells out for us from the start 😅
I mean you can argue that the soon to be Sheriff is technically not evil and rephrensible by himself, though he was brought up a southern boy and lives in the early post-civil War period. So naturally... well you know? XD
@@MajorCoolD weird that you give the justification to the literal racist but the black colonel getting revenge against the people who put him and his people in chains doesn't get a pass
"Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill" You've really uncovered some very deep truths there... No wonder Tarantino's bullshit impresses you...
English is not my native language but I think Kill Bill is actually a double meaning. On the one hand, its about Killing Bill. But Kill Bill is also a coloquial term for a hit list. As in, Kiddo works through a list of people she wants to kill.
Tarantino is my favorite director but even I suspect that much of what he does is simply because it looks cool or is an homage to something that came before, not everything is a sophisticated meta commentary
I think you downplay just how genius these people are at their craft. It takes a VERY learned person to craft these movies in the way that they do. Tarantino lives and breathes cinema, maybe even more than any director ever has.(as proven by his insistence in not only making films, but making his films ABOUT films) If anyone would have a meta commentary on Hollywood and cinema, it would be him.
@@lockekappa500 he's not downplaying. And you arent' neccessarily wrong, but I would have to agree that this video did not do a good job at explaining it. Video got close, but overall was making confusing points. And yes, some were reaching... Its not hard to see the metaphor of an audience watching movie within the movie. Clever yes..Genius? not really..in fact i would say its more preditable than clever given Tarantino's history. Satire , yes....sophisticated? not really.
@@ryuk5673 I dunno, I think there's as much genius in Tarantino's work as the best directors out there. I don't think anyone else can make the same movies he does.
@@lockekappa500oh sorry, there absolutely 100% is genius in his movies. That i agree! I just meant not in the way the uploader was saying though. Tarantino's genius imo is his seemingly unique ability to transform a relatively normal looking scene of 2 people eating breakfast into some of the most amazing dialogue you've ever heard.
One of the things I like the most about Inglorious Basterds is that it also constitutes a huge F-you to the American reticence to watch movies with subtitles.
It should've won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay too but those said subtitles seem to turn voters off and it's BS. It's as if they thought QT did it simply to be "clever."
I love the fact that there's a lot of people mocking that you mispronounce some words thinking that you are just a lil dumb, it's a sign that your English is basically perfect, cause nobody thinks that you're not a native speaker, amazing.
Damn dude! Came across you in recommended (probably because we seem to share a love for analyzing Tarantino) and I cannot believe that this was only your third video. Your diction is great, pacing keeps you interested. Overall really well put together videos. Keep up the good work!
5 minutes and a movie I can still watch over again like Jaws, watched it countless times since it was released on DVD, and after this video some how a damn near perfect movie just bumped up a few more spaces I didn’t know were available above it! Love this insight that clues me into my subconscious thoughts or reflections about less noticed aspects in a movie scene with SO much happening in a small window of time of a movie where boredom is nonexistent
This first hero scene ... when the "hero" comes out of the tunnel into the light .... ahem ... who is sitting right next to him, eating once again? 😂 At least he stops when the madness starts. I really enjoyed your video, I think this meta-thing is an important subject. How many people think their TV talks to them when they first experience the metaverse of movies? It can be overwhelming, frightening even. It takes some practice and getting used to to watch several layers at once. They don't teach us that at school. Multitasking 2.0. 😂 Tarantino, like Fincher, uses so many layers, so many references, they know all the tricks. It's impossible to get them all in one go. I have no idea how they do it. It must be magic. A movie is made by a large team of people, they all have to work together to create master-puzzle-pieces like that. I love them, I could spend hours to piece it all together. I loved puzzles as a child, too. The satisfaction when the image finally emerges. I never wanted to see the picture before and I hated that they all show you the picture from the start. I wanted the surprise, the suspense. With these films you get exactly that. Did you get the reference with the scalping? This is Tristan, the bear who is a native, diguising as a cowboy, who loses it when he fails to protect his little brother. He goes full native warrior and brings home the scalps of the enemies and the heart of his brother. And he loses control over his inner beast, the bear who is his brother in blood. They marked each other. I'm not that fond of this concept, because it's actually not what the bear stands for in native culture. He is a teacher, a healer who knows all the plants and people learned from him to hole up in warm and cozy caves during winter, to gather food during summer and fall and to preserve energy. Medicine men often have the bear as their spirit animal. But he is also fierce if somebody challenges him or disturbes his sleep. Maybe Tristan should have put his knife out of reach. Much easier than what he did . Men ... why take it easy if you can complicate things endlessly. 😂 But that's a very small part of bear nature. I'm not really surprised that this culture is so fixated on this part. I remember reading something about the jewish bear in your video. Another hint, but I have no idea what this is about. Mother Russia is the bear. Nobody ever survived a confrontation with mother bear, not Napoleon and not that pathetic gnome with the hilarious thing under his nose everybody seems to be wearing at that time - and his rabid mutts of war. They still live under the bridges. Nowadays we call them trolls. Sometimes they feel brave and roam the streets in numbers. But I'm hopeful that more and more people see them as what they are. Pathetic cowards who hide if their numbers are not at least three to one and they're armed to the teeth. They only pick the weekest ones for a fight, that's all they can do. When they are alone one strong move silences them. Their dream is over, no matter what they believe. They don't even understand the signs they use. Two suns don't mean double power. Two suns will just make barbeque. Way too hot to survive. It will end in a desert, in scorched earth. I'm german, by the way. 🤣
Quentin Tarantino and the way he makes films is 1 and a million, truly a genius in cinematography and film making I have been on a recent binge of all the movies he's made. I watched Inglorious Bastards (DVD), Kill Bill Vol. 1/2 (DVD), Django Unchained (Streaming), Reservoir Dogs (Streaming), Pulp Fiction (Streaming), H8teful Eight (Streaming), and just a bit ago as of typing this out Jackie Brown (also Streaming). I'm having a lotta fun just watching these movies. Not really the "Looking deep into the film" type of guy but when I watch analysis vids of any movie of his I get the feeling that's just extra fun content to watch after the fact.
Wow, this is fantastic! As I get older and watch more movies, I have come to appreciate Tarantino even more than I used to, and I've always loved him. I'll be watching some obscure old Italian film, or some little exploitation flick, and I will hear a piece of music he used, or a bit of dialogue he took. Virtually every time I discover some great new gem, I learn that Tarantino was there before me. I have a great respect and admiration for that, and for his craft.
Honestly, this video is way too short. I don't know that I've seen anything from this channel before, but you could've easily tacked on another 5-7 minutes and I would've stayed hooked. Basically what I'm saying is: well done, but do more!
Just here to let everyone know that I was here before you blew up, because with your video quality you most certainly will in the future. I was really surprised when I saw that you didn't have more than 500k subs
It is true, the soldier who shoots Miller later recognizes Upham from when they talked while he was captured. Steamboat Willie is the characters name. However, the Saving Private Ryan clip showed here is of a random paratrooper being shot, not Miller. Which is odd.
I still like the theory that the film within the film is the commentary, because Inglourious Basterds _didn't_ subvert expectations. It actually captures the 2000s zeitgeist well. See also Downfall (2004) or Valkyrie (2008).
You're definitely reading into this too much. Agreed that these movies subvert your expectations but I don't think Tarantino 'mocks' these films the way you're suggesting. It's merely showing them a mirror. You said Tarantino does this so as to avoid the glorification of war but I'd argue his stylistic violence does exactly that in Inglorious Basterds. The forced comparison with a movie like 1917 which came out years after IB does feel like reaching a bit.
I agree. Inglorious Bastards is all about the joy and vindication of killing people as evil as the Nazis. The Bastards are not portrayed as small and uminpressive to make them less heroic, but rather to make their achievements seem even greater. These aren't some super professional spies, these are just some all-american boys ready to fight evil.
Mocking might have been the incorrect term, but I do think that QT is holding a mirror up to the audience at times regarding their interest in war films as propaganda (while still making a "propaganda" esque war film of his own). The film's Bear Jew introduction as well as the ridiculous situation the Basterds find themselves in by the of the film are great examples of this. It's almost like if you remove the soundtrack from a Rocky movie--it's just a bunch of grunting and sweating.
Tarantino doesn't need to know the exact scene that 1917 will have. He knows that movie will come out already, and already has come out. It's not a stretch if it's within our predictable nature to make movies like this.
Solid video. I think Funny Games by Haneke is another one that challenges the audience and other filmmakers. I've only seen the original, not his own remake, but that movie definitely had me squirming and questioning myself.
You helped me piece together something I forgot about since the first time I saw this movie in theatres. The bear Jew scene, when he started with the bat my perspective changed and I was disgusted. He was frightening in that scene, but then it switched again, as he started yapping he seemed like an unhinged child.
Tarantino has been criticized for the violence in his films from day one. The Nazis watching and enjoying the violence on the movie scene was 100% meant to show us how are like them
I just watched all of your videos not noticing you had 1,29k suscribers! Your content is amazing and i can ensure that you'll get TONS of suscribers one day to another soon. Keep up the great content!
Your content is amazing i think you should make more "clickbaity" thumbnails in order to get more people to watch it. It might be even worth hiring someone expert on thumbnails to update the ones in your current videos. Note. Your current thumbnails and video editing is amazing. My suggestion is to increase views
One extra comment. If you had say you are just 3 weeks into this channel and a suscription would help you out i think many people would do it! This is high quality content and deserves more recognition!
Hmm, yeah, I don't see the parallel between the Nazi's enthralled by the war violence on screen and that of a docile civilian audience, at least not to a degree where I think it's relevant in this depiction. There's so much interplay of irony occuring, the Nazi's entertained from a perspective of those who've dealt out violent power against the weak, all the while being set up for a helpless demise, the tables being turned; really they were laughing at themselves. The problem for me was that it was all too on the nose, I did feel like I was being served self-righteous violence porn against the easiest of targets: Nazi's. Is there really any more evil group of humanity in our contemporary zeitgeist than Nazi's? So I have to wonder if there was something else going on in Tarantino's head... but this is pretty much his M.O. as a director, setting up the heroes that an audience relates to and wants to be, fighting clearly despicable bad guys; racists, sexists, rapists, gangsters. Witty dialogue to give everyone a degree of cool, flashy clothes, cars and weapons, special effects. I had fun with Pulp Fiction, but by this point it just seems far too patronizing, an insult to my intelligence really. Can you tell I'm not a huge Tarantino fan? Maybe Tarantino really just loves this stuff and wants to share his refinement of these motifs, but I can't help but feel manipulated.
Great analysis! I know this may seem pretty random at first glance, but I'd like to take this opportunity to bring up which is probably my ultimate pet peeve, the ending of Game of Thrones and how unfairly (!) I think it is being treated (yes, you've read that right! 😁I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion...) (I mean, I'm aware that some people "only" complain about how it's executed, which I also disagree with to a certain extend, but not completely; many DON'T seem able to distinguish between what happens and how it happens, though, not to mention the latter is connected to apparently not really getting the point...). You see, I keep saying that Game of Thrones has been doing something very similar to Tarantino, including what you describe here, pretty much from the beginning and not just because both are obviously very violent (the infamous "killing off beloved characters", for example didn't shock me nearly as much, because Tarantino had already "desensitized" me to it through what he did to poor Shosanna 😄) and that understanding that is the key to being able to appreciate its "oh so terrible" ending (which many still deny could possibly be the author's own, so again, it's NOT "just" about how it's executed). So, long story short, I guess my question is, what do you think about that (and would you be interesting in watching the (not very professional, mind you; also, please don't hold being German against me, I didn't become one on purpose 😄) video(s) I made on the subject? In which I don't actually mention Tarantino, but still...) (A hint for understanding what I mean by that, might be, among other things, what Quentin said about the "Joker" movie... But I can (!) also elaborate in a different comment, of course...)
The reason the end of Game of Thrones was so universally hated was because of the complete 180 that Dany did. Her entire existence is about being a decent human being. She was basically sold as a sex slave. Once she became the mother of dragons, she could have done anything she wanted. But she chose to help the innocent. She chose to free the slaves. She refused to burn cities because they had innocent people in them. This is the core of who she was. Then at the end she decides to kill her advisors and burn the city to the ground, innocents be damned. It wasn't a gradual change, it was almost instant. Her character wouldn't act this way based on all her previous actions. It makes no sense from a writing standpoint nor from a human standpoint. That's why people were upset. It's not unfairly treated, it's literally the worst ending of a TV show that I can remember ever watching.
@@jesta1215 No, that's exactly my point that he (GRRM), like Tarantino, constantly makes us root for characters we (arguably) shouldn't be rooting for, or, if we do, at least be aware that just because we're rooting for them, that doesn't mean they're "good" (there's no such thing as "good" in his story, in fact, nor is there "evil" in this kind of abstract sense that some characters just "are" one of those two things or the other; like in real life, there's a constant "flow" in that respect and the best people are the ones who are aware of that, while the worst are the ones who are convinced they just "are" good, while others just "are" evil). That's the difference between GoT and LotR and GRRM couldn't even rub our noses in that fact any more: Let's put it this way, there's also a character in LotR who comes from the East with a huge army intending to conquer everything, who was that again? Except on the surface (!) she's as different from him as anyone could possibly be, that's (!) the provocation the people who DID choose to root for her refuse to accept, of course. With all that in mind it does NOT AT ALL "come out of nowhere" (or, if it does, at least it doesn't any more than Tyrion suddenly do something he would never have done before and kill Tywin or Jaime trying to kill Bran AFTER he'd already saved the city by killing the Mad King (should be considered COMPLETELY out of character the way some people argue!...); except she has way more destructive power so if she decides to give in to her "dark side" (which she would have done earlier had she earlier been in the situation of that being her only option, I mean, that becomes pretty clear, actually) that will obviously be way worse for way more people (I mean, imagine some real-life person going around killing criminals; would the fact that they're criminals make that person any less terrifying or would it only be a matter of time till said person decides to view someone as an enemy who might not deserve it QUITE as much, at least in your view?) (and that isn't even taking into consideration how much of her earlier actions were already rather questionable; but my point is EVEN IF she really did nothing but "good" up to that point, it could still not at all be ruled out that someone like that would end up acting that way)
@@janhommer The difference is that tarantino's writing is amazing. His dialogue is basically second to none. Maybe Alan Sorkin comes close. If you think that the ending of GoT made sense, then you are definitely in the extreme minority. It's universally hated specifically because it doesn't make sense. The best comparison I can come up with is the beginning of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. When Rey finds Luke and holds out his lightsaber for him and he throws it into the water. This movie is universally hated by star wars fans because Luke acts completely out of character. The core of his character from the original trilogy is "never give up hope". He never gives up on his father and ends up bringing him back from the dark side, despite all odds. But in the new movies, he's completely different. It was just to "subvert expectations" but it was also trash. That's not who he is, and audiences know that. So to have such a drastic change is not only jarring, but unrealistic and disrespectful to the viewer. The same exact thing is true about Dany in GoT. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that's really how it is.
About GoT, I saw it coming. There were plenty of signs from her expressions, her clothes, so many clues. I never saw her as a saint or good. From the beginning she was shown as merciless, willing to do what it takes to reach her goals. In my opinion freeing the slaves was not out of compassion or a sense of justice (she had an army of eunuch slaves ffs). In any case I did not like the ending. It was forced, intelligent people acting stupid, forgetting all they know, many acting out of character. And I better don't start with the battle at winterfell. I could spend hours pointing how stupid everything was. I think GRRM would have end in the same place but with very good writing that may have made everything make sense. Now I have to check your video, this is not fair 😂
Fascinating! I'm very interested to learn if you see the same metacriticism in his older films, mainly b/c Inglourious (psst, you misspelled your hashtag) Basterds was the first QT film I wasn't completely sold on. With your explanation, I can see why this and OUATIH are heralded as brilliant, but I wonder if it's a factor in why I don't find them as entertaining as Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and everything preceding IB.
i think tarantino is more just having fun, then trying to spend a lot of time underscoring his own moral points. It ends up looking like he's making a mockery, which he is, but i feel it's less intentional.
Tarantino also bears his soul in his films, as evidenced in the scene you showed from One Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood, where he puts Margot Robbie's dirty bare feet front & center of the frame. I love him so much.
wdym? the source is the movie. He's analyzing it. (also) it was an "good" analysis. Some of his points are just confusing though and not fully developed.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 You guys seriously have the dunning kruger effect. What's displayed here is "the art of making known simple things seem deep and newly discovered" This video is just like mobile news pop ups or shitty gaming journalism, where the same article gets recycled 15 times
Actually the bullets and aiming at the audience was an homage to Sam Fuller, director of the Big Red One, that used that device in his film. He said the only way you could make a truthful war film was if you had someone behind the screen shooting at the audience. I didn't realize this until you pointed out.
I don't think "mocking" is the word, but he does mention in so many interviews that subversion is in fact one of his main goals. Which I don't think shows any disrespect towards the source material, but rather wants to trick his audience. And while this may sound cliche, I don't think I've seen a lot of directors actually flipping the tropes 180 with such efficiency. He is a joker. Every movie of his I watch I know I like because I can't stop laughing. I'm not laughing because the dialogue has jokes. I'm laughing because what is happening as I watch the movie I am fully aware is extremely funny. And by the way there's layers to this subversion too, because when you're used to his style turning everything into a joke, this all is an elaborate anti-joke of which the anti-punchline is the ending to OUATIH... which is an incredibly sad ending... And the reason I think he does that is like you say sincere. If you deal in arts you want to move people. But in order to move people they need to have their guard down. So in order to let their guard down, he does away with all the cliches they're conditioned to by subverting them. This way once all of that is removed, at the end what's left is the meat of it all.
The irony is that cliches end up undermining your own material. Has the danger of stripping them of all their nuance. And I think that's why it's so powerful to break them down and rise above them.
that was cool! Would have never guesses any of that. Although once you point it out it’s like ohhhhhh yes that does make sense!😅 So i was also thinking, I wish there would be… maybe there already is… a “Tarantino”, if you will, of youtube videos. I mean like, someone who semi half parodies all the different video production styles of youtube videos while simultaneously covering a subject sincerely and or geniunely, while leaving all sorts of easter eggs around for one to sleuth out or find out. ohhhh what fun it would be!
What I really love about Tarantino is that he has two levels of violence. The most obvious display is Django. You have the "violence" that Django causes, like to the slavers which is incredibly "entertaining". And then you have the violence of "slavery" which is extremely disturbing. And yet, on the surface it's all violence. But it does not have the same effect on the audience.
He isn't roasting it's what all filmmakers do but Tarantino being the cinephile that he was before he directed (and still is) it's just apart of the art form. PTA is constantly accused of 'stealing' from Scorsese and PTA owns it when asked directly. He says yes I did we all do and Scorsese stole from Kubrick... Shot framing and editing techniques as well as character and set design many aspects come from other films or directors. I wouldn't call it roasting necessarily.. As Tarantino also loves critiquing films so even when he has character's talking about a film it's to give the audience a perspective on how this particular character feels about a film.
Complete imagination all of this. He did not mock Saving Private Ryan and he certainly didn't foresee a scene from 1917 years later. The shot from 1917 isn't even reminiscent of the Bear Jew intro shot lol - the only thing they have in common is they're tracking shots moving backwards - what are you smoking?
Q-man would never make fun of Sam Raimi, though. One of his main inspirado-mongers from whom he derived inspirado with great relish. Even if there were no feet for him to ogle. Ever notice how Q-man's movies, especially his more recent ones, have a pattern to them? If one of them has a German villain, the next one will have a German hero. If one has a Southern villain, the next one will have a Southern hero. And if not a "hero," per se, then at least a sympathetic character. Or even the mentor to the main hero (which is still a kind of heroic Sage archetype).
Fun fact, Tarantino wrote the role of the Jew Bear for Adam Sandler. However, because Adam was busy filming another movie, Tarantino had to cast somebody else.
It's a shame that Tarantino did not keep the scene where Donny (Bear Jew) went around his Boston neighbourhood and got Jewish neighbours to sign his bat with the name of a family member in Europe they're worred about, or something along those lines. I remember reading the script and thinking it's very powerful. A fun fact: you can still see the writing on his bat.
Art and its audience, are not hermetically sealed compartments, as Tarantino would have us believe. If art didn't influence us in some way, we would not be attracted to it. The love of on-screen cruelty, for its own sake, is Tarantino's creed, and he will have to hold onto that private doctrine for dear life. Unfortunately, we do have a little empirical evidence, to demonstrate that movies have inspired real-life murders (or attempted murders), such as Hitchcock’s ‘Frenzy’, Natural Born Killers, American Psycho, Robocop 2, Black Christmas, Magnum Force, The Taxi Driver, Deliverance, Hunting Humans, Basic Instinct, Clockwork Orange, Basketball Diaries, Exorcist III, The Dark Knight, Friday the 13th , Halloween 2, Rob Zombie’s Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Child’s Play, Child’s Play 3, Scream, Saw, Saw VI, The Dark Knight, The Purge, et al. The most disturbing case for me, was the 'Scream'-inspired murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart, where we have audio footage of her assailants boasting “This is gonna be just like ‘Scream!’” Look out, Wes. Gene Siskel is enlightening on this topic: “My objection to ‘The Last House on the Left’…is the fact that this movie celebrates violent acts, particularly adult male abuse of young women. Given the similarity of recent crimes in the Chicago area, to this movie, I am surprised that any theater owner would want to make a living by playing it. Theater owners who do not control themselves, invite others to do so.”(Chicago Tribune 31st October 1972) Note that Siskel incriminates the theater owners only, but what of the filmmakers? Caveat vendor!
I hope you enjoyed my third video. Just started this channel, subscribe pls! (So you can say you were here from the start) I have many videos prepared for the upcoming days :)
follow me: twitter.com/LancellotiFilms/with_replies
Operation Kino
You a jewel .
What's there to enjoy about a clickbait, misleading video? Genuine question
@@damjanbabic6768 i hate clickbait titles, but this guy aint that.
He *is* prepared to go deep and way back in his analysis of the subjects he chooses. I go heavy deep & real on *my* informed passions, so that's fine w me.
When someone like that is looking at Tarantino - who is also a heavy & deep film fan - that means Lancelloti is gonna see more than i do.
When he's discussed things i *do* know well, it's been good - so altho i dont know Tarantino that well, Im happy to listen to someone who does.
Thankyou very much
I'm not sure how this video ended up in my recommended section, but I'm genuinely impressed. It was a very good watch, and I hadn't even realized how new this channel is. Great content
Thanks! You have no idea how crucial it is for us new channels to get feedback like this. I'm stoked you enjoyed my video :)
I subbed too !
Subbed as well
Clickbait, all you're doing is yapping about meta cinema - not how he "mocks" other directors.
Yeah. Fine analysis on meta cinema. Not getting the roasting angle.
Thanks for the warning.
thaank you for your service 🫡
agreed, what exactly does cinema gaining "deeper self-awareness" mean anyway?
Thanks for the heads up. Saved me from wasting any time on this video or this creator.
Great analysis. For me the biggest role reversal in "Inglorious Basterds" is the basement scene. Nazi Major is actually portrayed as admirable and extremely brave. After Fasbender's character points 3 fingers wrong, Major realizes that there is something cheesy, but does not choose the safe approach - calling the backup and confronts the basterds to the end. Even takes the inevitable death with dignity.
Thanks, bro! you are my first comment ever haha. I love that scene because essentially it's Tarantino playing with our expectation of what we should see in a character like that.
@@lancelloti.first comment you had wow this will be history
@@lancelloti. congrats, bro, just now realized that your channel kinda blew up 😀great work and keep more incoming!
True, though one could argue wheter it was brave or foolish though. :)
However I DO like the fact that Terentino did try to portray the 'bad guys' as more than just two dimensional cardboard cutouts.
I myself was a bit stunned how some of my american friends seemed to lack any self-reflection and failed to see how the Basterds arent really 'the good guys', considering that by their very actions they are war criminals in every sense of the word and by the Geneva Convention(s).
And the fact that killing prisoners of war is always bad even if it can be 'justified' (and all sides historically DID engage in that to some extent or another, afterall 'take no prisoners' is technically an order for a Warcrime, but sometimes you simply CAN'T take any prisoners [either due to being behind enemy lines, having no manpower to spare or having no facilities to house said prisoners] and it DID historically happen. War makes Beasts of Men, no matter what flag they are fighting for. However it's even worse if the supposed Soldiers do it for 'sports', like with our Jew Bear. Beating an unarmed prisoner to death with a baseball bat (while his armed buddies around make sure he cant fight back or flee) is pretty barbaric no matter who does it against whom.
@@MajorCoolD Sometimes "good guy" is relative
Practically every Tarantino movie from Kill Bill is built around a pretty simple formula: establish a villain who is so evil, the audience is willing to revel in them receiving the most sadistic torture (a rapist who sold rides on a female coma victim, a guy who goes around hunting women in a deathproof car, Nazis, slaveowners, the Manson family). But because Tarantino's films are so rewatchable, you inevitably realize that the real message is that both the hero and the audience are capable of becoming as evil as the villain; the real evil is in dehumanizing your enemy.
Your analysis of the Bear Jew scene where he beats the Nazi officers head in was superb. You pretty much give me a new perspective on the title of the movie, because you show how very inglorious the Bear Jew is, especially how unheroic his whole angry baseball rant. And your analysis of the cinematic language is spot on. Keep the videos coming, i am glad to subscribe :)
Thanks bro! Im glad yoy enjoyed my analysis and got something out of it. Your comment means a lot, especially during these early stages of building this channel. Greetings to you, and I sincerely hope you continue to enjoy my content!
Especially his voice cracks when he’s screaming😭🤣it just adds to how phony his grandeur is
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis *fear* them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
I think there may be a bit of over-analysing there. The Basterds are not in it for justice or morality, or even to end the war. They are there for revenge. Aldo says so with his introduction, he's specifically looking for Jews to carry out this mission, and his goal is to kill Nazis, not on the open field in large numbers to turn the tide of the war, but in brutal, guerrilla tactics style to make the Nazis fear them. That's the whole point, to come across as so sadistic that the Nazi soldiers will have nightmares about being caught by them.
The Bear Jew's assault is pure catharsis - for him, for the rest of the Basterds, and largely for the audience who sometimes get a little tired of nuanced villains with strong motives that make us question whether they really are bad people or just making the best they can out of a bad situation, and often get away without truly answering for their crimes - Tarantino gives us the simple satisfaction of seeing a bad guy get brutally beaten to death with a baseball bat.
some great points and analysis here. Even though the title Inglorious Basterds is cribbed from another movie from the seventies one of the things I love about Quentin Tarantino's movies is that they are about exactly what it says on the tin. A reservoir Dog is someone who rats on the police, pulp fiction gives you the definition of the word and structures the story around this, Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill etc.
reminds me of going to see The Hateful Eight with my then girlfriend and she was almost nauseous with the inertia of all their bad actions saying: "Did every single character have to be so vicious and evil?"
I thought, well yeah. The title spells out for us from the start 😅
I mean you can argue that the soon to be Sheriff is technically not evil and rephrensible by himself, though he was brought up a southern boy and lives in the early post-civil War period. So naturally... well you know? XD
@@MajorCoolD weird that you give the justification to the literal racist but the black colonel getting revenge against the people who put him and his people in chains doesn't get a pass
@@98loud well, his revenge was very extreme and he still murders people for his own selfish interests either way
"Jackie Brown is about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill is about trying to kill Bill" You've really uncovered some very deep truths there... No wonder Tarantino's bullshit impresses you...
English is not my native language but I think Kill Bill is actually a double meaning. On the one hand, its about Killing Bill. But Kill Bill is also a coloquial term for a hit list. As in, Kiddo works through a list of people she wants to kill.
please make more of these, video essays are my jam
more are coming soon!
Tarantino is my favorite director but even I suspect that much of what he does is simply because it looks cool or is an homage to something that came before, not everything is a sophisticated meta commentary
I think you downplay just how genius these people are at their craft. It takes a VERY learned person to craft these movies in the way that they do. Tarantino lives and breathes cinema, maybe even more than any director ever has.(as proven by his insistence in not only making films, but making his films ABOUT films) If anyone would have a meta commentary on Hollywood and cinema, it would be him.
This is where I'm at...way perceptive analysis, thoughtful and provocative, but ultimately I think its reaching.
@@lockekappa500 he's not downplaying. And you arent' neccessarily wrong, but I would have to agree that this video did not do a good job at explaining it. Video got close, but overall was making confusing points. And yes, some were reaching...
Its not hard to see the metaphor of an audience watching movie within the movie. Clever yes..Genius? not really..in fact i would say its more preditable than clever given Tarantino's history. Satire , yes....sophisticated? not really.
@@ryuk5673 I dunno, I think there's as much genius in Tarantino's work as the best directors out there. I don't think anyone else can make the same movies he does.
@@lockekappa500oh sorry, there absolutely 100% is genius in his movies. That i agree!
I just meant not in the way the uploader was saying though. Tarantino's genius imo is his seemingly unique ability to transform a relatively normal looking scene of 2 people eating breakfast into some of the most amazing dialogue you've ever heard.
One of the things I like the most about Inglorious Basterds is that it also constitutes a huge F-you to the American reticence to watch movies with subtitles.
It should've won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay too but those said subtitles seem to turn voters off and it's BS. It's as if they thought QT did it simply to be "clever."
"Watch movies with subtitles"
Or in english, as not in american english.
love the subtle transistion at 1:00
Good analysis, but it feels a bit like ChatGPT played a large role in creating the essay from the wordings used... :)
this is a well written video, i hope you continue to upload. you have potential:)
great video essay.
I hope you keep making these.
great editing.
thank you! more videos are coming soon
amazing video, Great editing, not overly long, good pacing, and good argument. You got yourself a new subscriber.
thank you so much, bro! I'm glad you enjoyed the video, and I hope you continue to enjoy my content :)
This is really good bro, like seriously impressive I beg you to keep going, you'll one hundred percent find a big audience
Thanks bro
I love the fact that there's a lot of people mocking that you mispronounce some words thinking that you are just a lil dumb, it's a sign that your English is basically perfect, cause nobody thinks that you're not a native speaker, amazing.
Damn dude! Came across you in recommended (probably because we seem to share a love for analyzing Tarantino) and I cannot believe that this was only your third video. Your diction is great, pacing keeps you interested. Overall really well put together videos. Keep up the good work!
Contrary to some others on here I've been enjoying your videos. Your longer scene studies in particular
Just want you to know that I am one of the 32 subscribers. A masterpiece of a video, *chef kiss*.
thank you so much! welcome aboard :)
Good one! I'd enjoy some longer form content, too. I've been here from the start! 😅
5 minutes and a movie I can still watch over again like Jaws, watched it countless times since it was released on DVD, and after this video some how a damn near perfect movie just bumped up a few more spaces I didn’t know were available above it! Love this insight that clues me into my subconscious thoughts or reflections about less noticed aspects in a movie scene with SO much happening in a small window of time of a movie where boredom is nonexistent
This first hero scene ... when the "hero" comes out of the tunnel into the light .... ahem ... who is sitting right next to him, eating once again? 😂 At least he stops when the madness starts.
I really enjoyed your video, I think this meta-thing is an important subject. How many people think their TV talks to them when they first experience the metaverse of movies? It can be overwhelming, frightening even. It takes some practice and getting used to to watch several layers at once. They don't teach us that at school. Multitasking 2.0. 😂
Tarantino, like Fincher, uses so many layers, so many references, they know all the tricks. It's impossible to get them all in one go. I have no idea how they do it. It must be magic. A movie is made by a large team of people, they all have to work together to create master-puzzle-pieces like that. I love them, I could spend hours to piece it all together.
I loved puzzles as a child, too. The satisfaction when the image finally emerges. I never wanted to see the picture before and I hated that they all show you the picture from the start. I wanted the surprise, the suspense. With these films you get exactly that.
Did you get the reference with the scalping? This is Tristan, the bear who is a native, diguising as a cowboy, who loses it when he fails to protect his little brother. He goes full native warrior and brings home the scalps of the enemies and the heart of his brother. And he loses control over his inner beast, the bear who is his brother in blood. They marked each other.
I'm not that fond of this concept, because it's actually not what the bear stands for in native culture. He is a teacher, a healer who knows all the plants and people learned from him to hole up in warm and cozy caves during winter, to gather food during summer and fall and to preserve energy. Medicine men often have the bear as their spirit animal.
But he is also fierce if somebody challenges him or disturbes his sleep. Maybe Tristan should have put his knife out of reach. Much easier than what he did . Men ... why take it easy if you can complicate things endlessly. 😂
But that's a very small part of bear nature. I'm not really surprised that this culture is so fixated on this part.
I remember reading something about the jewish bear in your video. Another hint, but I have no idea what this is about. Mother Russia is the bear. Nobody ever survived a confrontation with mother bear, not Napoleon and not that pathetic gnome with the hilarious thing under his nose everybody seems to be wearing at that time - and his rabid mutts of war. They still live under the bridges. Nowadays we call them trolls. Sometimes they feel brave and roam the streets in numbers. But I'm hopeful that more and more people see them as what they are. Pathetic cowards who hide if their numbers are not at least three to one and they're armed to the teeth. They only pick the weekest ones for a fight, that's all they can do. When they are alone one strong move silences them. Their dream is over, no matter what they believe. They don't even understand the signs they use. Two suns don't mean double power. Two suns will just make barbeque. Way too hot to survive. It will end in a desert, in scorched earth.
I'm german, by the way. 🤣
That poor dude, just riding his bike in front of the cinema when it explodes
great analysis. This was his one movie I just didn't get. this gives me the fresh perspective I was looking for.
I really like your videos
Wow really well editted, man! Very good script too
thanks bro
Quentin Tarantino and the way he makes films is 1 and a million, truly a genius in cinematography and film making I have been on a recent binge of all the movies he's made. I watched Inglorious Bastards (DVD), Kill Bill Vol. 1/2 (DVD), Django Unchained (Streaming), Reservoir Dogs (Streaming), Pulp Fiction (Streaming), H8teful Eight (Streaming), and just a bit ago as of typing this out Jackie Brown (also Streaming). I'm having a lotta fun just watching these movies. Not really the "Looking deep into the film" type of guy but when I watch analysis vids of any movie of his I get the feeling that's just extra fun content to watch after the fact.
The production and quality of the video is quite a surprise. Good luck with your channel's future endeavors.
Thank you very much!
Wow, this is fantastic! As I get older and watch more movies, I have come to appreciate Tarantino even more than I used to, and I've always loved him. I'll be watching some obscure old Italian film, or some little exploitation flick, and I will hear a piece of music he used, or a bit of dialogue he took. Virtually every time I discover some great new gem, I learn that Tarantino was there before me. I have a great respect and admiration for that, and for his craft.
Honestly, this video is way too short. I don't know that I've seen anything from this channel before, but you could've easily tacked on another 5-7 minutes and I would've stayed hooked.
Basically what I'm saying is: well done, but do more!
Just here to let everyone know that I was here before you blew up, because with your video quality you most certainly will in the future. I was really surprised when I saw that you didn't have more than 500k subs
thank you so much
The Saving Private Ryan scene where you say they spare a mans life only for him to kill his saviour isn't true. They're different characters.
It is true, the soldier who shoots Miller later recognizes Upham from when they talked while he was captured. Steamboat Willie is the characters name. However, the Saving Private Ryan clip showed here is of a random paratrooper being shot, not Miller. Which is odd.
I still like the theory that the film within the film is the commentary, because Inglourious Basterds _didn't_ subvert expectations. It actually captures the 2000s zeitgeist well. See also Downfall (2004) or Valkyrie (2008).
Interesting thinking here. Instant subscription. Thank you for your effort, will look forward to more from you. All the best!
thank you! i appreciate those kind words
You're definitely reading into this too much. Agreed that these movies subvert your expectations but I don't think Tarantino 'mocks' these films the way you're suggesting. It's merely showing them a mirror. You said Tarantino does this so as to avoid the glorification of war but I'd argue his stylistic violence does exactly that in Inglorious Basterds. The forced comparison with a movie like 1917 which came out years after IB does feel like reaching a bit.
I agree. Inglorious Bastards is all about the joy and vindication of killing people as evil as the Nazis. The Bastards are not portrayed as small and uminpressive to make them less heroic, but rather to make their achievements seem even greater. These aren't some super professional spies, these are just some all-american boys ready to fight evil.
Mocking might have been the incorrect term, but I do think that QT is holding a mirror up to the audience at times regarding their interest in war films as propaganda (while still making a "propaganda" esque war film of his own). The film's Bear Jew introduction as well as the ridiculous situation the Basterds find themselves in by the of the film are great examples of this.
It's almost like if you remove the soundtrack from a Rocky movie--it's just a bunch of grunting and sweating.
Are you seriously expecting common sense and logic from a Tarantino fanboy/stan?
@@ab4845 What fanboy are you talking about? The creator of the video? If that is who you meant, then you don't understand what 'fanboy' means.
Tarantino doesn't need to know the exact scene that 1917 will have. He knows that movie will come out already, and already has come out. It's not a stretch if it's within our predictable nature to make movies like this.
Officially here from the start! Let’s goo!
Welcome aboard! Hope not to disappoint :)
Solid video. I think Funny Games by Haneke is another one that challenges the audience and other filmmakers. I've only seen the original, not his own remake, but that movie definitely had me squirming and questioning myself.
Almost watched them all 😎 Gonna recommend your channel to friends of mine 🤙
Keep your great work up man and continue your journey to success 👑💜
I fucking love this channel. Only found it today.
You helped me piece together something I forgot about since the first time I saw this movie in theatres. The bear Jew scene, when he started with the bat my perspective changed and I was disgusted. He was frightening in that scene, but then it switched again, as he started yapping he seemed like an unhinged child.
quentin: oh really? i don't know that. that's interesting
Great video. Definitely keep at it!
thank you bro! more videos are coming soon
WHOA - 7 minutes left me wanting a LOT more!!❤❤❤
Great analysis! Subbed 💪
Amazing analisis!
Tarantino has been criticized for the violence in his films from day one. The Nazis watching and enjoying the violence on the movie scene was 100% meant to show us how are like them
I just watched all of your videos not noticing you had 1,29k suscribers! Your content is amazing and i can ensure that you'll get TONS of suscribers one day to another soon. Keep up the great content!
Your content is amazing i think you should make more "clickbaity" thumbnails in order to get more people to watch it. It might be even worth hiring someone expert on thumbnails to update the ones in your current videos.
Note. Your current thumbnails and video editing is amazing. My suggestion is to increase views
One extra comment. If you had say you are just 3 weeks into this channel and a suscription would help you out i think many people would do it! This is high quality content and deserves more recognition!
Hi bro, thank you very much for all those comments! i really appreciate those words
I have to agree. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was amazing, but Inglorious Bastards was his masterpiece of film.
Hmm, yeah, I don't see the parallel between the Nazi's enthralled by the war violence on screen and that of a docile civilian audience, at least not to a degree where I think it's relevant in this depiction. There's so much interplay of irony occuring, the Nazi's entertained from a perspective of those who've dealt out violent power against the weak, all the while being set up for a helpless demise, the tables being turned; really they were laughing at themselves. The problem for me was that it was all too on the nose, I did feel like I was being served self-righteous violence porn against the easiest of targets: Nazi's. Is there really any more evil group of humanity in our contemporary zeitgeist than Nazi's? So I have to wonder if there was something else going on in Tarantino's head... but this is pretty much his M.O. as a director, setting up the heroes that an audience relates to and wants to be, fighting clearly despicable bad guys; racists, sexists, rapists, gangsters. Witty dialogue to give everyone a degree of cool, flashy clothes, cars and weapons, special effects. I had fun with Pulp Fiction, but by this point it just seems far too patronizing, an insult to my intelligence really. Can you tell I'm not a huge Tarantino fan? Maybe Tarantino really just loves this stuff and wants to share his refinement of these motifs, but I can't help but feel manipulated.
Very good video! I'm coming from the Andy Serkis one and now i'm decided to watch them all :)
Great analysis! I know this may seem pretty random at first glance, but I'd like to take this opportunity to bring up which is probably my ultimate pet peeve, the ending of Game of Thrones and how unfairly (!) I think it is being treated (yes, you've read that right! 😁I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion...) (I mean, I'm aware that some people "only" complain about how it's executed, which I also disagree with to a certain extend, but not completely; many DON'T seem able to distinguish between what happens and how it happens, though, not to mention the latter is connected to apparently not really getting the point...). You see, I keep saying that Game of Thrones has been doing something very similar to Tarantino, including what you describe here, pretty much from the beginning and not just because both are obviously very violent (the infamous "killing off beloved characters", for example didn't shock me nearly as much, because Tarantino had already "desensitized" me to it through what he did to poor Shosanna 😄) and that understanding that is the key to being able to appreciate its "oh so terrible" ending (which many still deny could possibly be the author's own, so again, it's NOT "just" about how it's executed). So, long story short, I guess my question is, what do you think about that (and would you be interesting in watching the (not very professional, mind you; also, please don't hold being German against me, I didn't become one on purpose 😄) video(s) I made on the subject? In which I don't actually mention Tarantino, but still...) (A hint for understanding what I mean by that, might be, among other things, what Quentin said about the "Joker" movie... But I can (!) also elaborate in a different comment, of course...)
The reason the end of Game of Thrones was so universally hated was because of the complete 180 that Dany did. Her entire existence is about being a decent human being. She was basically sold as a sex slave. Once she became the mother of dragons, she could have done anything she wanted.
But she chose to help the innocent. She chose to free the slaves. She refused to burn cities because they had innocent people in them. This is the core of who she was.
Then at the end she decides to kill her advisors and burn the city to the ground, innocents be damned. It wasn't a gradual change, it was almost instant. Her character wouldn't act this way based on all her previous actions. It makes no sense from a writing standpoint nor from a human standpoint.
That's why people were upset. It's not unfairly treated, it's literally the worst ending of a TV show that I can remember ever watching.
@@jesta1215 No, that's exactly my point that he (GRRM), like Tarantino, constantly makes us root for characters we (arguably) shouldn't be rooting for, or, if we do, at least be aware that just because we're rooting for them, that doesn't mean they're "good" (there's no such thing as "good" in his story, in fact, nor is there "evil" in this kind of abstract sense that some characters just "are" one of those two things or the other; like in real life, there's a constant "flow" in that respect and the best people are the ones who are aware of that, while the worst are the ones who are convinced they just "are" good, while others just "are" evil). That's the difference between GoT and LotR and GRRM couldn't even rub our noses in that fact any more: Let's put it this way, there's also a character in LotR who comes from the East with a huge army intending to conquer everything, who was that again? Except on the surface (!) she's as different from him as anyone could possibly be, that's (!) the provocation the people who DID choose to root for her refuse to accept, of course. With all that in mind it does NOT AT ALL "come out of nowhere" (or, if it does, at least it doesn't any more than Tyrion suddenly do something he would never have done before and kill Tywin or Jaime trying to kill Bran AFTER he'd already saved the city by killing the Mad King (should be considered COMPLETELY out of character the way some people argue!...); except she has way more destructive power so if she decides to give in to her "dark side" (which she would have done earlier had she earlier been in the situation of that being her only option, I mean, that becomes pretty clear, actually) that will obviously be way worse for way more people (I mean, imagine some real-life person going around killing criminals; would the fact that they're criminals make that person any less terrifying or would it only be a matter of time till said person decides to view someone as an enemy who might not deserve it QUITE as much, at least in your view?) (and that isn't even taking into consideration how much of her earlier actions were already rather questionable; but my point is EVEN IF she really did nothing but "good" up to that point, it could still not at all be ruled out that someone like that would end up acting that way)
@@janhommer The difference is that tarantino's writing is amazing. His dialogue is basically second to none. Maybe Alan Sorkin comes close.
If you think that the ending of GoT made sense, then you are definitely in the extreme minority. It's universally hated specifically because it doesn't make sense.
The best comparison I can come up with is the beginning of Star Wars: The Last Jedi. When Rey finds Luke and holds out his lightsaber for him and he throws it into the water.
This movie is universally hated by star wars fans because Luke acts completely out of character. The core of his character from the original trilogy is "never give up hope". He never gives up on his father and ends up bringing him back from the dark side, despite all odds.
But in the new movies, he's completely different. It was just to "subvert expectations" but it was also trash. That's not who he is, and audiences know that. So to have such a drastic change is not only jarring, but unrealistic and disrespectful to the viewer.
The same exact thing is true about Dany in GoT. I'm sorry if you don't agree, but that's really how it is.
About GoT, I saw it coming. There were plenty of signs from her expressions, her clothes, so many clues. I never saw her as a saint or good. From the beginning she was shown as merciless, willing to do what it takes to reach her goals. In my opinion freeing the slaves was not out of compassion or a sense of justice (she had an army of eunuch slaves ffs).
In any case I did not like the ending. It was forced, intelligent people acting stupid, forgetting all they know, many acting out of character. And I better don't start with the battle at winterfell. I could spend hours pointing how stupid everything was.
I think GRRM would have end in the same place but with very good writing that may have made everything make sense.
Now I have to check your video, this is not fair 😂
Excellent analysis. I already loved this movie but now I love it even more. Very insightful.
thank you! just uploaded a new video today :)
Brilliant analysis!
"Inquire" rhymes with "wire", not "here", just fyi
Ooohhh, like the masterpiece that is the HBO show.
Fascinating! I'm very interested to learn if you see the same metacriticism in his older films, mainly b/c Inglourious (psst, you misspelled your hashtag) Basterds was the first QT film I wasn't completely sold on. With your explanation, I can see why this and OUATIH are heralded as brilliant, but I wonder if it's a factor in why I don't find them as entertaining as Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and everything preceding IB.
Very great video, new subscriber now. Also this is my personal favorite movie ever, and now I just like it more
Amazing video!!
i think tarantino is more just having fun, then trying to spend a lot of time underscoring his own moral points. It ends up looking like he's making a mockery, which he is, but i feel it's less intentional.
great video & immediately subscribed, keep it up! greetings from indonesia
Thanks bro!
Tarantino also bears his soul in his films, as evidenced in the scene you showed from One Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood, where he puts Margot Robbie's dirty bare feet front & center of the frame. I love him so much.
The talk about the foot massage in Pulp Fiction or his own scene with Satanico Pandemonium in From Dusk till Dawn. Let's leave it like that.
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 Yup. I just wanted to mention the one where you see feet & they also happen to be filthy lol
Excellent observations
One of the things Tarantino likes to make fun of is people overanalyzing his movies. He would love this Video.
Wow what an awesome analysis! Can I ask you where do you get your sources for this? I wish to understand if your vision is the same as Tarantino's.
wdym? the source is the movie. He's analyzing it.
(also) it was an "good" analysis. Some of his points are just confusing though and not fully developed.
are you the carbon? Because you looks so similar and the edition is similar, anyway amazing job
Here before you blow up.
Great stuff.
The title of this video is 100% just clickbait
thank you for saving my time
He's mocking the choices of other directors tho ..
Don't show your lack of int... erm "understanding".
@@azazelreficulmefistofelicu7158 You guys seriously have the dunning kruger effect. What's displayed here is "the art of making known simple things seem deep and newly discovered"
This video is just like mobile news pop ups or shitty gaming journalism, where the same article gets recycled 15 times
very well done man
Actually the bullets and aiming at the audience was an homage to Sam Fuller, director of the Big Red One, that used that device in his film. He said the only way you could make a truthful war film was if you had someone behind the screen shooting at the audience. I didn't realize this until you pointed out.
Great video man, also handsome 🥵 i love good video essays and you deliver it well. $ubscribed dawg
I don't think "mocking" is the word, but he does mention in so many interviews that subversion is in fact one of his main goals. Which I don't think shows any disrespect towards the source material, but rather wants to trick his audience. And while this may sound cliche, I don't think I've seen a lot of directors actually flipping the tropes 180 with such efficiency.
He is a joker. Every movie of his I watch I know I like because I can't stop laughing. I'm not laughing because the dialogue has jokes. I'm laughing because what is happening as I watch the movie I am fully aware is extremely funny. And by the way there's layers to this subversion too, because when you're used to his style turning everything into a joke, this all is an elaborate anti-joke of which the anti-punchline is the ending to OUATIH... which is an incredibly sad ending...
And the reason I think he does that is like you say sincere. If you deal in arts you want to move people. But in order to move people they need to have their guard down. So in order to let their guard down, he does away with all the cliches they're conditioned to by subverting them. This way once all of that is removed, at the end what's left is the meat of it all.
The irony is that cliches end up undermining your own material. Has the danger of stripping them of all their nuance. And I think that's why it's so powerful to break them down and rise above them.
"Activar Windows" at the bottom of the screen is how i know you're a real one
Very nice. I subbed you.
Nice analysis
that was cool! Would have never guesses any of that. Although once you point it out it’s like ohhhhhh yes that does make sense!😅 So i was also thinking, I wish there would be… maybe there already is… a “Tarantino”, if you will, of youtube videos. I mean like, someone who semi half parodies all the different video production styles of youtube videos while simultaneously covering a subject sincerely and or geniunely, while leaving all sorts of easter eggs around for one to sleuth out or find out. ohhhh what fun it would be!
What I really love about Tarantino is that he has two levels of violence. The most obvious display is Django. You have the "violence" that Django causes, like to the slavers which is incredibly "entertaining".
And then you have the violence of "slavery" which is extremely disturbing.
And yet, on the surface it's all violence. But it does not have the same effect on the audience.
I was here before you blew up
In Once upon a time in Hollywood: When the Invader says; "I am the Devil" & Stuntman replies, I feel like Quentins making fun of Rob Zombie..🤔
How are first two scenes similar?
This is just perfect.
When you realize that ElCarbon ahora tiene un canal en inglés
How long are your arms to make such a reach
Bot
He isn't roasting it's what all filmmakers do but Tarantino being the cinephile that he was before he directed (and still is) it's just apart of the art form. PTA is constantly accused of 'stealing' from Scorsese and PTA owns it when asked directly. He says yes I did we all do and Scorsese stole from Kubrick... Shot framing and editing techniques as well as character and set design many aspects come from other films or directors. I wouldn't call it roasting necessarily.. As Tarantino also loves critiquing films so even when he has character's talking about a film it's to give the audience a perspective on how this particular character feels about a film.
Did you know Tarrintino wanted Adam Sandler to play the part of the Bear Jew.
If only…
You should probably cite/reference the movies you show in the video or in the description.
little confusing in some parts but nice video
Been saying this is my favorite Tarantino film and you gave me a greater understanding of why
For that I thank you sir 🫡
Haven't watched the video yet but the excessive narration at the end of once upon a time in Hollywood is spot on to so many Wes Anderson films
Complete imagination all of this. He did not mock Saving Private Ryan and he certainly didn't foresee a scene from 1917 years later.
The shot from 1917 isn't even reminiscent of the Bear Jew intro shot lol - the only thing they have in common is they're tracking shots moving backwards - what are you smoking?
The "Jewish Bear' as it was phrased was at one point intended to be played by Adam Sandler
Q-man would never make fun of Sam Raimi, though. One of his main inspirado-mongers from whom he derived inspirado with great relish. Even if there were no feet for him to ogle.
Ever notice how Q-man's movies, especially his more recent ones, have a pattern to them? If one of them has a German villain, the next one will have a German hero. If one has a Southern villain, the next one will have a Southern hero. And if not a "hero," per se, then at least a sympathetic character. Or even the mentor to the main hero (which is still a kind of heroic Sage archetype).
This video found me and this channel 💯
It’s like rap beef in subtle film form.
Man I was not prepared to see the actual scalping scene in a video on UA-cam. At least we know now he does not do this for money.
one more fact that I find funny: both Fredrick Zoller and Landa Apache carve out Swasticas in their "movies"
the difference is only in the canvas
When he finally quits movie making for good, we're going to look back at him as a genius we didn't fully appreciate or fully understand.....
The Bear Jew was intended to be Adam Sandler, but he was unavailable. Certainly would have put an extra twist for the veiwing audience.
Fun fact, Tarantino wrote the role of the Jew Bear for Adam Sandler. However, because Adam was busy filming another movie, Tarantino had to cast somebody else.
It's a shame that Tarantino did not keep the scene where Donny (Bear Jew) went around his Boston neighbourhood and got Jewish neighbours to sign his bat with the name of a family member in Europe they're worred about, or something along those lines. I remember reading the script and thinking it's very powerful. A fun fact: you can still see the writing on his bat.
Art and its audience, are not hermetically sealed compartments, as Tarantino would have us believe. If art didn't influence us in some way, we would not be attracted to it. The love of on-screen cruelty, for its own sake, is Tarantino's creed, and he will have to hold onto that private doctrine for dear life. Unfortunately, we do have a little empirical evidence, to demonstrate that movies have inspired real-life murders (or attempted murders), such as Hitchcock’s ‘Frenzy’, Natural Born Killers, American Psycho, Robocop 2, Black Christmas, Magnum Force, The Taxi Driver, Deliverance, Hunting Humans, Basic Instinct, Clockwork Orange, Basketball Diaries, Exorcist III, The Dark Knight, Friday the 13th , Halloween 2, Rob Zombie’s Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Child’s Play, Child’s Play 3, Scream, Saw, Saw VI, The Dark Knight, The Purge, et al. The most disturbing case for me, was the 'Scream'-inspired murder of Cassie Jo Stoddart, where we have audio footage of her assailants boasting “This is gonna be just like ‘Scream!’” Look out, Wes. Gene Siskel is enlightening on this topic: “My objection to ‘The Last House on the Left’…is the fact that this movie celebrates violent acts, particularly adult male abuse of young women. Given the similarity of recent crimes in the Chicago area, to this movie, I am surprised that any theater owner would want to make a living by playing it. Theater owners who do not control themselves, invite others to do so.”(Chicago Tribune 31st October 1972) Note that Siskel incriminates the theater owners only, but what of the filmmakers? Caveat vendor!