Fun Stuff > ENJOY

Inglourious Basterds

<< < (13/21) > >>

Jimor:

--- Quote from: KvP on 01 Sep 2009, 08:40 ---*SPOILERES*

Really? There wasn't a great amount of tension for me because I knew there was only one way the situations could pan out. In the first scene, for instance, did anyone really believe that the farmer would be successful in hiding the jews from Waltz? I didn't. Did anyone believe that the SS captain in the bar wouldn't get wise to the charade? I didn't. Did anyone believe they'd let the new father live after his discovery of the double agent crucial to the success of the mission? Of course not.

The only uncertainty was at the end, and still I wasn't entirely satisfied with the way it played out.

--- End quote ---

An unexpected result isn't necessary for tension to exist. One of the metaphors I use in explaining the process of writing is that the author is carefully managing the expectations of the audience. It's not possible for every possible fork in the road to contain a surprise, and in fact if you go for the "twist" every time, you risk losing the trust of the viewer. Set up some trust by having a few scenes go the usual way, then throw in a twist. If you're working up to a BIG TWIST at the end, you have to pace the buildup to it by setting up a series of these mini structures in advance.

A creator like Tarantino has both an advantage and a burden that comes with his reputation. As a lot of other people in this thread have said, part of the tension comes from the fact they know that at any moment, things can go apeshit crazy. I haven't seen the movie yet, so what I can't speak to is whether he's solely relying on his own body of work for this, or whether he's established these expectations internally within the movie (at least with the earlier scenes).

There are certain overall story expectations that even somebody like Tarantino has to be careful about messing with. A "happy" outcome of the first scene, while perhaps possible within the internal structure of that scene, would by necessity be setting up a completely different movie. What eventually happens sets up future expectations, and how it happens further refines those expectations.

This is why a lot of thriller/suspense movies fail. They do the "unexpected" with a particular scene to throw off the audience, but never reconcile what that means to the other elements of the plot. While you're watching, it may be exciting because you never see any of these twists coming, but afterwards, none of it makes sense.

I don't know if this makes sense, but I find that it's a very useful tool in writing.

KvP:
Nah, I get you. To SPOILER UP CHILDREN OF MEN, I remember watching the film and feeling the whole nature of the movie changing with that first twist where Julianne Moore abruptly and violently gets killed. Before that point I was expecting a rather run-of-the-mill sci-fi thriller, in which peripheral characters die off at key points in the film, but a top-billed character with a fleshed-out backstory that the viewer is supposed to like gets randomly axed completely out of nowhere. From that point forward there was real uncertainty and it probably was the most tense experience I've ever had in a theater. They were characters in the real world where bad shit happens and they weren't dealing with Imperial stormtroopers. And the reason that film worked the way it did is because it subverted expectations and took the film into territory not often trod. After Psycho it's been pretty much impossible to milk that kind of tension out of straight-up horror films - that sort of cast shake-up has become part of the language of the genre. It's more clever than suspenseful, when it works at all.

And I do think it's a problem that Tarantino wouldn't run into without his legacy. I think a lot of people had that same experience I had with Children of Men the first time they saw Reservoir Dogs, where not half an hour into the movie the stakes change and in the span of a scene the film becomes something else entirely. Since then a propensity for staccato violence and a cavalier attitude towards the mortality of characters have been hallmarks of Tarantino the auteur. It's just not a Tarantino film without that barely controlled chaos lurking under every scene.

Specifically my annoyance with Inglorious Basterds, particularly the bar scene, was that he effectively telegraphs the outcome (I don't want to totally spoil it but it should be obvious by now how that scene plays out) at the outset. There are characters going "it sucks that this thing can totally happen" and then lo and behold, that thing happens. I suppose it comes down to a matter of taste. Some people, probably most people, delight in that slow slide towards the inevitable outcome. I consider it wheel-spinning.

Chesire Cat:
Well I dont entirely agree with your point, but I dont disagree either. But it was remarkably well constructed so Ill think on it some more.

the_pied_piper:
Ok, so this is a bit of a necro but worth it.

Saw this for the first time today and I am so glad I saw it on a big screen (student union cinema). The whole film was damn near flawless and the 2 1/2 hours absolutely flew by; I couldn't believe it when the film finished and it had been that long. Christoph Waltz put in the best performance that I have seen from anybody in a fair amount of time and fully deserves his Best Supporting OSCAR nomination. However, it will be close as to who gets the nod with Peter Capaldi (In The Loop) and Robert Duvall (The Road) as his competition but personally, I would give it to Waltz.

Mélanie Laurent also deserves the OSCAR nomination she got and certainly has a chance there too, probably more so than Waltz even. The film as a whole got 2 nominations but is unlikely to get more than one; probably will miss out on Best Picture as there is not as much competition is the Best Original Screenplay category so they won't be missing anyone out (except Up but it was unlikely to win as much as it may deserve something).

The graphic scalpings and markings of the nazis were, of course, trademark Tarantino and in my opinion this could well be his best yet after the disappointing Kill Bill (mostly part 2, I did quite enjoy part 1).

Scandanavian War Machine:
when you put Oscar in all caps, it becomes NASCAR in my head, for some reason, which is really confusing.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page