Comments on: Gloury Days

By: Ray Mangum

Ray Mangum — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:08:11 +0000

If there was one scene that disturbed me, it was the Basterds indiscriminately gunning down everybody in the theater as it burned down.

I don’t know why they couldn’t have just capped Hitler and crew in their seats, John Wilkes Booth-style.

By: Ray Mangum

Ray Mangum — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 19:00:42 +0000

I actually think that Inglourious Basterds is a pretty libertarian film. One of the most common things said against people with non-aggression libertarian and anarchist views, and anti-interventionist foreign policy views generally, is “Oh yeah? What would you do about the Nazis?”

Well, we’d deal with Nazis in a way quite similar to the way Lysander Spooner proposed dealing with slaveowners. That is, we’d arm pissed-off Jews and attack Nazis directly, up to and including Hitler. What wouldn’t be done is to conscript the unwilling into shooting other unwilling conscripts and bombing entire cities full of innocent civilians.

Most of the “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” type of criticisms assume that the Allied approach to ending the war was more just than that of the bloodthirsty Basterds. I disagree.

Also note Raine’s libertarian views when it comes to moonshine, and how he won’t let Landa be considered a “good guy” just because the State will give him a medal.

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:18:14 +0000

Glad to see I’m not the only critic who brought up the lyrics to the Bowie song.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:26:53 +0000

Here's an interesting and thoughtful review.

By: Ndugu

Ndugu — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:46:57 +0000

I would agree that the film does not necessarily glorify the actions of the Basterds. In fact, a collective mentality is probably present in the minds of those who think that the film glorifies them. Since the film does not overtly glorify them, any claim that it glorifies them is based off of the assumption that actions carried out by Americans against Nazis are inherently good. Those who realize that such is not the case can see that the film merely shows them as they are, a la Shakespeare as Roderick pointed out.

As a side note, I think Colonel Landa was a fantastic character, and incredibly well performed by Christoph Waltz.

By: Victor Milán

Victor Milán — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 07:00:18 +0000

Ah, yeah. You’re right; I was confused. For some reason it was set in my mind that Tuco was “the Bad,” notwithstanding he’s pretty ugly. I certainly had in mind Angel Eyes as the truly evil one, whom I thought to be “the Ugly” in a moral sense.

Clearly I need to see the movie again. Which is never a bad thing.

By: Jesse Walker

Jesse Walker — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:00:00 +0000

It’s the idea that a German soldier in the ’40s would be familiar with an obscure American slang term that seems unlikely to me. I assume Tarantino is engaged in a self-referential joke in that scene, since he was infamous early on for including Mexican standoffs in his films.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:24:16 +0000

I guess they need a circle-slash with the right percentage crossing out a circle-slash with the wrong percentage.

But now what we really need is some international bureaucratic authority to determine the correct dimensions of the circle-A anarchy symbol.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:06:28 +0000

I laughed my ass off reading that wiki article – “the slash must be 80% the width of the circle”? Give me a break. I hope this pedantry is not the norm for wiki editors.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:24:25 +0000

The wiki page for "Mexican standoff" says that the term was in use in the 19th century -- but apparently with a different meaning. No account of when it got its current meaning.