Face-Off Suggestion: The "Basterds" vs. "Hollywood" Climactic Face-Off

  • 1
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago
***MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD***

(in other words, don't even think of reading the intro, let alone answering the poll, if you haven't seen any of Inglourious Basterds (2009) or Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019))



Violence isn't the answer. But we might make a few exceptions with Quentin Tarantino.

In the two aforementioned films, QT proved that he could toy with history as much as his story, proposing two totally unexpected revisionist takes on real life which, no matter how bloodily violent they were, had an exhilarating feel. So which of the two violent and revisionist films' climaxes was the most satisfying?

https://www.imdb.com/list/ls090967820/
Photo of ElMo

ElMo

  • 3714 Posts
  • 4047 Reply Likes

Posted 1 month ago

  • 1
Photo of Hoekkie

Hoekkie

  • 879 Posts
  • 474 Reply Likes
Neither, I don’t like it very much, that he changed history in his film. I rather see a film with a whole fictional story. Maybe you can add this as a third option?

And FYC, maybe a picture of Sharon Tate instead of Manson...?
(Edited)
Photo of cinephile

cinephile

  • 983 Posts
  • 1536 Reply Likes
I agree with you. Plus, I don't make an exception for Quentin Tarantino. I hate excessive violence in his movies.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2981 Posts
  • 3877 Reply Likes
cinephile, I must admit I am not as much of a fan of Quentin Tarantino as I was years ago but compared to some other directors, even in mainstream circles and especially in European mainstream circles, he's rather tame. 

Then again, what disturbs you, likely, is not violence, but a context in which it was used. I'd say that Tarantino and Nolan are very much on the same level here it's just in Nolan's movies violence is usually used in a much different context. I do believe, however, that stripping directors of ability to see and depict violence through different contexts is a must in a free world. Otherwise freedom of artistic expression and some of the most meaningful moments would be lost, which is hardly a viable option. 
Photo of albstein

albstein

  • 759 Posts
  • 1484 Reply Likes
I felt that the proximity of depiction and event are too strong for "Hollywood". The Hitler massacre is so remote from reality that we can enjoy it as metaphorical justice, but you are constantly reminded that the place and time the Manson guys are killed are very close to the murders they actually committed. It's hard to get that out of your head.

Seeing Hitler getting shot and burned may be cathartic but to use a more drastic equivalent, would we feel the same if Brad Pitt freed a concentration camp the same way and we saw a Jewish girl get out happily?
Photo of Stephen Atwood

Stephen Atwood

  • 1272 Posts
  • 1046 Reply Likes
50 years ago is too soon?
Photo of albstein

albstein

  • 759 Posts
  • 1484 Reply Likes
Brad Pitt saves the day right next to the house and right at the moment that the real murders happened, that's what I meant. Hitler in "Basterds" dies at the premiere of a fictitious movie, in a fictitious movie theater, so that's a more artificial context.
(Edited)
Photo of Stephen Atwood

Stephen Atwood

  • 1272 Posts
  • 1046 Reply Likes
I seen the movie already. Don't need to remind me. I'll take your word for it. The distinction of your point is lost on me since Brad Pitts and Leo's character are 100% fictitious and the house they lived in also is as well. #shrugs
Photo of albstein

albstein

  • 759 Posts
  • 1484 Reply Likes
I wanted to explain to you why what I wrote above has nothing to with whether the events happened 50 years ago. How that would be possible without touching upon the relevant plot points, I don't know.

Leo and Brad's characters are fictitious but the Manson characters are not, they were right next door that night and killed the same Sharon Tate and her friends that were depicted in the film. I found that too close to the real events to get them out of my mind.
Photo of Stephen Atwood

Stephen Atwood

  • 1272 Posts
  • 1046 Reply Likes
Hollywood had a very cathartic ending. It swung the movie from a 9/10 to a 10/10 for me.
Photo of James The Movie Guy

James The Movie Guy

  • 288 Posts
  • 503 Reply Likes
Inglorious Basterds is overrated in my opinion, I know lots of people love it and I have to admit it's entertaining at times but really I don't think it's as great as people make it out... I just found it to be a Nazi killing exploitation movie with your usual witty Tarantino writing and a bit of Eli Roth's sadism. It really isn't as masterful and groundbreaking as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. 

Once Upon A Time in Hollywood I actually think is the closest thing to the original Tarantino filmmaking that I loved with his first few films, not trying to homage other types of movie genres/subgenres although it's very nostalgic for golden era Hollywood. I do like some of Tarantino's other movies such as Kill Bill and Death Proof which I can enjoy as a turn your brain off movies and I liked Django and Hateful Eight. This movie though is one that really connected with me as someone passionate about cinema and I just loved the world he recreated, it was like you were transported to a different time and place it was incredible! 
(Edited)
Photo of ElMo

ElMo

  • 3714 Posts
  • 4047 Reply Likes
Well, thanks everyone for expressing your views on what seems to be a thought-stirring subject (does that word exist?), I'd be glad to share my thoughts too.

For me, there's no doubt that "Hollywood" beats "Basterds" on that point, by the way, don't count me among the "Basterds" fans, I loved Waltz' performance but I found the film vastly overrated.

This is why I believe "Hollywood"'s ending is far more cathartic:

The Nazis were defeated in real life, and in real life Tate and her baby died.

While "Hollywood" prevents a tragedy, the "Basterds" alternate scenario only accelerates a historical process, not necessarily making it more enjoyable.

I don't know but maybe the idea that Hitler died like a cornered rabid dog, witnessing the collapse of his devilish project is far more satisfying than being sprayed by bullets. Hell, even the innocent German ladies in "The Dirty Dozen" burned alive and they weren't exactly as guilty as the Nazi military staff, so Hitler might be the most hated person in history, but his death was more surprising than emotionally rewarding, it was the little twist that made the film but in "Hollywood", when the hippies are killed, we know what it means... Tate survives and the idea that we won't have to endure the brutal murder of a pregnant woman provides emotional comfort, combined with the excitement of watching her would-be killed being massacred.

The equivalent wouldn't have been Pitt freeing a Jewish girl from a concentration camp but maybe preventing Anne Frank's family to be found by the Nazis, because that's a tragedy we can all relate to and because that's something that haunted our memories, following a whole family for two years and then watching them being caught after the Allies landed in Europe. We can also imagine a fictional universe where Guido Orefice doesn't try to approach his wife the night before the Camp's liberation and can reunite with his son and wife the day after. A tragedy is always in a microcosmic level, "Schindler's List" was more affecting when we witnessed one death than mass executions, and you know what? That's a personal theory because, as tragic as mass executions are, there's a feeling that they couldn't have been avoided.

When one person dies, we're like "if only this or that!" if only Diana Reiter shut her mouth, if only that young kid didn't use the soap to clean the bathtub, if only that kid didn't try to run away from the Nazis so maybe he wouldn't have been killed along with his father etc. etc.

Of course, the death of Hitler implies that the war will end sooner, that the Allies won (again, not different from the real-life scenario) and maybe less people will die in the Holocaust, but within the framework of the film, it's all abstraction, we don't see what was avoided because this has nothing to do with the film. And  "Basterds" is closer to "The Dirty Dozen" than "Schindler's List" anyway, it's not worried about making a statement about the Nazis, it's about missions to be accomplished, that's all. 

So the reason why "Hollywood" twist works better is because we don't expect it, we didn't expect it in "Basterds" either but there's a difference, we were anticipating the tragedy in "Hollywood", something gruesome and horrific that kept us on the edge all throughout the film. It's easy to make a twist in a film when anything can happen, from the day "Hollywood" became known, everyone anticipated a horrific climax, QT did caught us off guard because we forgot that anything can truly happen with him.

Anyway, to put it more simply, in one, we're happy to see Hitler die, in the other, we're happy to see the killers die AND Tate survive.