Posted on 08/28/2009 10:31:03 AM PDT by AJKauf
Nearly eight million euros. Or more than eleven million dollars at the current exchange rate.
That is the total amount of subsidies that Quentin Tarantino received from German public sources for his Inglourious Basterds. The exact breakdown is as follows: €6.8 million from the German Film Fund, plus €600,000 and €300,000 respectively from the Media-Board of Berlin-Brandenburg and the so-called Middle German Film Fund. The German Film Fund (DFFF) is directly attached to the German government’s Ministry of Culture (or, more fully, Ministry of Culture and Media). Tarantino’s haul is even greater than the €4.8 million in subsidies that the German government contributed to the making of the historical revisionist thriller Valkyrie starring Tom Cruise.
Moreover, the German contribution to Inglourious Basterds appears to have been far more than just financial. Of course, there are the numerous German actors in the cast and the many technical contributions of Babelsberg Studio, where much of the film was shot. But there is even more than that. Although Tarantino himself, as befits a celebrated “auteur,” is the sole writer credited for the script, Tarantino’s German collaborators appear to have also made a very considerable contribution to the story and dialogue. A large part of the dialogue, after all, is in German. Some is also in French. The French dialogue, however, is invariably trite and almost entirely lacking in local cultural references. It could readily be the product of simple translation and appears to be just that.
The same cannot be said for the German dialogue. The German dialogue displays the linguistic robustness of the real German spoken by real German speakers. Moreover, the scenes in German abound with cultural references that only a native German or an expert in German studies would even get....
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Valkyrie was a good movie. I’ll bet this one is too.
“Inglorious Basterds” was panned by The New Zealand Listener. I doubt I’ll watch it — The Listener is usually right.
The only film reviewer with which I agree with the majority of the time is James Bowman:
” It’s all fake and contrived, a comic book that glories in its untruth to life. That the premiere in Nashville of this phony movie should have been hosted by Al Gore, the world’s biggest phony, is no more than... appropriate. Only a child could find such stuff exciting — and, these days you would think, not many children either. “
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/24/tarantinos-band-of-bastards/print
I saw it. It was somewhat amusing, but overall I was just lukewarm. It looked like it couldn’t really find itself, was it trying to be humorous or serious? Realistically gory or just baroque? Truly sinister or parody? I couldn’t really tell. It lacked the emotional sincerity of “Kill Bill”. It was an interesting try, and an original one, but I just feel it fell short.
Seems to be getting either panned or standing ovations. Must evoke some pretty strong emotions.
I'll wait and rent it for $1 from a redbox to watch from the comfort of my home which is how I view all movies these days.
Saw this one and enjoyed it. My dad took me to the Dirty Dozen when I was a kid and it owes something to that film, of course. It is a dark fantasy of vengeance wholly without connection to anything even remotely factual. The audience cheered at the Saturday 10:30 AM matinee screening I went to. The acting carried the movie. I would reccomend this one.
I’m always amazed by advertising campaigns that say almost nothing about the product. Based on what I’ve seen on TV, I think this is a funny movie about WWII. More than that I cannot say. I don’t especially want to know more, and I have no intention of seeing it.
This one is kind of the opposite of Valkyrie. It’s a whacky celebration of the joy of killing serious bad guys that are obviously bad guys. Plus all the usual Tarantino dialog, not much profanity though. Quite fun.
If a talented 19 year-old kid with a $40 million dollar budget and a cast with commensurate talent (some of them are really quite good, except Pitt - who's attempted at a southern accent is pathetic), were to make a film about WWII, this is the film he'd make.
Tarantino is a man who's approaching the age of 50, I hope his next film shows some maturity, complexity and depth that should be seen in the work product of a man who's lived half a century.
“Valkyrie was a good movie. I’ll bet this one is too.”
I guess that depends on your point of view. Having just read Rosenthal’s review, I won’t be watching it. The movie’s slant sounds more like it was written by the Nazis themselves. There are a lot of sick film makers out there.
Tarantino strikes me as morally empty. His work strikes me in the same way.
Interesting angle by the reviewer. I have a feeling he has a point.
That's the way war movies should be made. That's what made the scenes in "The Longest Day" with the Germans the best parts of the movies. Nazis are more menacing when they speak German, rather than with a British accent.
I thought this was a wonderful film. Anyone who sees it hoping it’s Pulp Fiction II or Kill Bill III will be disappointed. It’s a movie of long scenes, great acting, and larger than expected doses of sadness. QT is a great filmmaker. See it, and avoid comparing it to his other films.
Precisely. And a particularly atavistic and adolescent fantasy at that. Sergeant Rock and Easy Company was Hamlet by comparison.
Here’s what The Listener says:
“This film is over two-and-a-half hours long, and most of it is stomach-turning, mind-numbingly dull or — a minor achievement in itself — both at once.”
Campy, disjointed plot. I wasn’t very impressed but had to go with the wife because Brad Pitt is in it. :)
From what I heard from an interview with Tarantino, it was meant to be a fusion of WWII movies and spagetti westerns. And a tribute to a lot of past action movies.
Of course, with Tarantino involved, it will also be a lot of hyper-violent crap embedded in it as well - gore for gore's sake.
Here’s what The Listener says:
“This film is over two-and-a-half hours long, and most of it is stomach-turning, mind-numbingly dull or — a minor achievement in itself — both at once.”
I read some online reviews AFTER I saw the film. Ebert loved it, but I don’t think too much of him, so I moved on. The NYT panned the film, but I don’t think too much of the Times, so I moved on. I was looking for a review that might help me figure out what I just saw, and I couldn’t find one. The reviews are just all over the place. So, I just trusted myslef on this one, and I decided that the film was totally worthwhile, although I would like to see it one more time...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.