I can’t reply to every comment in this thread or every thread that mentions this film, but I’ll just say here: it’s just wild, frankly, the amount of john brown apologists, romanov family exterminator defenders, there’s-a-difference-between-good-things-and-bad-things-acknowledgers, who nonetheless seem squeamish at QT films. Like, nah, miss me with the Zoomer policing, it’s absolutely sick that the Nazis get domed in IG, it’s dope that lady protagonists in Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof all fuck up abusive men, it’s dope that Django exterminates an entire plantation (it’s not dope that his redemption is solely for himself and I’m depicted as the well-meaning but naive Christoph Walz character, but I don’t need to agree with him on everything).
Like come on, the problem with the world isn’t that we’re too open to violence. That is an ur-liberal take. The problem is that violence is unjustly distributed and allows some people’s flourishing at the expense of so many others.
Like come on, the problem with the world isn’t that we’re too open to violence. That is an ur-liberal take. The problem is that violence is unjustly distributed and allows some people’s flourishing at the expense of so many others.
actually yes, the problem is that the working class is in fact not open enough to doing the necessary violence to undue this state of affairs. So we are in fact not open enough to violence.
Like, I absolutely would agree that unnecessary gratuitous violence isn’t really justified, but like John Brown specifically really was not gratuitous. Bro like shot adult slaveowners, that like barely even registers as violent in the scale of human history. I can buy the idea that killing the Romanov children was wrong but even then it was done for a practical reason regardless of if you disagree with it (removing any or all counter-revolutionary figureheads). They weren’t just shooting kids because they were so pissed at them and thought their ideology justified treating them as inhuman. Now they were probably still wrong because people like the emperor the PRC rehabilitated have existed and proven that it isn’t necessary, but I don’t know the full circumstances of the time so I can’t really say how people felt then.
john brown apologists
mods delete this user (well actually probably just warn FungiDebord, banning seems like a lot for something that small but still)
why are you calling for my banning? i too consider myself a john brown apologist. did you read my post?
the point that was I was responding to, or, at least, what I took the point to be, perhaps erroneously, was: “Inglourious Basterds would be good, if the message of the film was: the audience who is watching the film, who is enjoying the violence, is just like the German audience, within the film, watching the propaganda film, who is enjoying that same violence – therefore, the audience who is watching IG, qua their enjoyment of violence, is just like the nazis.”
wild that you thought my comment was relevant to reply to with this
my dig at tarantino here is the fact that he’s a likely sex pest and loves the edginess of having white actors say the gamer word on camera. I’ve got no problem with a bit of the ol’ ultraviolence, and in general don’t feel strongly about his movies one way or the other.
this specific comment is about how he’d be the greatest to ever do it if inglorious bastards was a critique of the citizens of the fourth reich sitting in the theater watching his movie, but we all know it ain’t that deep
look, i think the film holds out the opportunity for self-reflection, about the audience’s own relationship with violence, that you might appreciate. but, just because the film has, i think in the most felicitious reading, a different message than what you would want (a film about the power of film vs a film about how the audience is wretched) doesn’t mean that the film “ain’t deep.” it’s just has different aim than what you want from it.
there’s room of course for films that rub an audience’s face in their own wretchedness, about their own complicity. Haneke’s Cache, Haneke’s Funny Games, The Sopranos come to mind. they’re great, also thematically rich, but obviously to different ends.
I can’t reply to every comment in this thread or every thread that mentions this film, but I’ll just say here: it’s just wild, frankly, the amount of john brown apologists, romanov family exterminator defenders, there’s-a-difference-between-good-things-and-bad-things-acknowledgers, who nonetheless seem squeamish at QT films. Like, nah, miss me with the Zoomer policing, it’s absolutely sick that the Nazis get domed in IG, it’s dope that lady protagonists in Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof all fuck up abusive men, it’s dope that Django exterminates an entire plantation (it’s not dope that his redemption is solely for himself and I’m depicted as the well-meaning but naive Christoph Walz character, but I don’t need to agree with him on everything).
Like come on, the problem with the world isn’t that we’re too open to violence. That is an ur-liberal take. The problem is that violence is unjustly distributed and allows some people’s flourishing at the expense of so many others.
actually yes, the problem is that the working class is in fact not open enough to doing the necessary violence to undue this state of affairs. So we are in fact not open enough to violence.
Like, I absolutely would agree that unnecessary gratuitous violence isn’t really justified, but like John Brown specifically really was not gratuitous. Bro like shot adult slaveowners, that like barely even registers as violent in the scale of human history. I can buy the idea that killing the Romanov children was wrong but even then it was done for a practical reason regardless of if you disagree with it (removing any or all counter-revolutionary figureheads). They weren’t just shooting kids because they were so pissed at them and thought their ideology justified treating them as inhuman. Now they were probably still wrong because people like the emperor the PRC rehabilitated have existed and proven that it isn’t necessary, but I don’t know the full circumstances of the time so I can’t really say how people felt then.
mods delete this user (well actually probably just warn FungiDebord, banning seems like a lot for something that small but still)
why are you calling for my banning? i too consider myself a john brown apologist. did you read my post?
the point that was I was responding to, or, at least, what I took the point to be, perhaps erroneously, was: “Inglourious Basterds would be good, if the message of the film was: the audience who is watching the film, who is enjoying the violence, is just like the German audience, within the film, watching the propaganda film, who is enjoying that same violence – therefore, the audience who is watching IG, qua their enjoyment of violence, is just like the nazis.”
i disagree with this, as gestured at above.
wild that you thought my comment was relevant to reply to with this
my dig at tarantino here is the fact that he’s a likely sex pest and loves the edginess of having white actors say the gamer word on camera. I’ve got no problem with a bit of the ol’ ultraviolence, and in general don’t feel strongly about his movies one way or the other.
this specific comment is about how he’d be the greatest to ever do it if inglorious bastards was a critique of the citizens of the fourth reich sitting in the theater watching his movie, but we all know it ain’t that deep
look, i think the film holds out the opportunity for self-reflection, about the audience’s own relationship with violence, that you might appreciate. but, just because the film has, i think in the most felicitious reading, a different message than what you would want (a film about the power of film vs a film about how the audience is wretched) doesn’t mean that the film “ain’t deep.” it’s just has different aim than what you want from it.
there’s room of course for films that rub an audience’s face in their own wretchedness, about their own complicity. Haneke’s Cache, Haneke’s Funny Games, The Sopranos come to mind. they’re great, also thematically rich, but obviously to different ends.