Comments on: Watching Inglourious Basterds in a Room Full of Jews

By: Anais

Anais — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:56:51 +0000

Whoops! I meant max @ 12.

By: Anais

Anais — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:55:54 +0000

In response to max @ No. 10: Thank you very much for the link to Rabbi Cohen’s interesting column. I plan to buy the book of which he writes the next time I’m in a bookstore. How much more masterful a work Tarantino would have made had he filmed a movie version of THAT book, rather than indulged his juvenile bloodlust revenge fantasies with “Inglourious.” True, his filmmaking is impressive, but when you think about the message at its core, you are left wanting something much more substantial than violent revenge, an all-too-human impulse which is not noble.

By: max

max — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:42:44 +0000

The #1 ranked rabbi in conservative Judiasm. Dr. Rabbi Martin Samuel Cohen offers all the insight one needs to accurately judge the movie, its context and its overlieing meaning to the new generation of Jews.

http://theruminativerabbi.blogspot.com/search?q=inglourious+basterds

By: Len

Len — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:16:15 +0000

yes. alot better.

By: Tash Moseley

Tash Moseley — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:49:21 +0000

i can’t believe the forum didn’t address what was a disturbing part of this film — a portrayal of jewish blood-lust for killing nazi’s.

seeking vengeance in trademark QT style doesn’t really lend itself to thoughtful reflection on revenge because the characters are caricatures (all due respect to QT caricatures, e.g. Kill Bill). several times during the movie I thought QT might be pandering.

the problem with a bloodlust vengeance, no matter how righteous the cause, is that it doesn’t address the root evil. plus the overall plot of Basters pivots on an actual historic event which deserves our true understanding in order to never repeat it.

that said, i recognize that QT is a filmmaker of commercial success and getting to the root of things doesn’t always sell. I guess I’d like to know what it means for us as people that so many took pleasure is this film.

By: Arnet

Arnet — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:17:37 +0000

Jewish revenge porn, put simply.

Tarantino has gone from being an auteur, an original film-maker who earned his chops, to a film-maker known for his “tributes” to many styles. He has stated that he doesn’t want to keep making films because old film-makers are garbage and I would suggest that he take himself out with the trash. No longer a clever homage, this was as shallow and one dimensional as any propaganda film.

There is no redemption. Only revenge, and like all porn, it leaves one feeling empty and yearning for contact and intimacy. There was no humanity in any of the characters, no depth, no real feeling. So where’s the appeal? Junk food has its appeal too, but one with discerning tastes generally chooses to pass on the lack of nourishment.

When I picked up the video at Blockbusters the young guy who checked my movies out raved about how amazing “Basterds” was and I couldn’t help but think about a young Tarantino working in the video store, watching the movies that he would later rip off. I guess his latest is aimed directly at his younger self. Grow up, man.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:06:04 +0000

I loved the movie and with all of the tripe that came out this year, Transformers anyone? It was good to see someone with some artistic vision put something on the screen. It was also the most fun I had at the movies this year. I eagerly await seeing Tarantino finally get an Oscar.

By: tufar

tufar — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:20:59 +0000

ah yes… dang, i knew i shouldn’t have posted…

as with any subject with the word “jew” in it, no matter what the actual subject, it shall soon devolve into an “israel-palestinian” extravaganza of accusations (“holocaust industry” optional).

and then arrives the Let Us Take Fiction Literally and Weep Thereupon. otherwise known as Violence is Just. So. Damn. Dirty… soap brigade and then

no more discussion possible and utter boredom ensues.

tarantino makes movies to entertain, entertaining fantasies, yes, and no matter how (oh gawd, i ain’t gonna use p p p ol… aargh, stop! incorrr rrr… STOP!

okay now.

human beings *need* to be able to occasionally escape all too dire realities so wondrously abounding allovertheplace and

yes. iamanamericanar… oh shit, someone already said that… no matter… here it goes, anyways:

i feel no guilt.

By: The JuRK

The JuRK — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 01:45:59 +0000

Tarantino is all style, no substance. His films vehemently defend a monstrous immaturity that demeans and dilutes everything else about the work.

Does the sight of Jewish American soldiers brutalizing and scalping Germans make anyone feel better about themselves? The Nazis were stopped, persecuted and executed by the Allies–do we have to indulge in their ugly behavior to feel good about ourselves?

And with American soldiers in two wars now, do we really need this characterization of our troops playing all around the world?

Tarantino is an overrated teenager with a fan club. He will never develop as artist until he pushes himself to grow up and think.

By: Concerned

Concerned — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:36:18 +0000

Moral beings should have shunned this film for its dehumanizing glorification of violence and murder. I could care less about the directing, cinematography or any other aspect of Hollywood ingenuity. This film was disgraceful. Movies like Saving Private Ryan have real world violence and bloodshed without condoning it. This film falls short of anything I would care to share with anyone let along scholars of any faith.