this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
233 points (99.6% liked)
history
23025 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
wild that you thought my comment was relevant to reply to with this
my dig at tarantino here is the fact that he's a likely sex pest and loves the edginess of having white actors say the gamer word on camera. I've got no problem with a bit of the ol' ultraviolence, and in general don't feel strongly about his movies one way or the other.
this specific comment is about how he'd be the greatest to ever do it if inglorious bastards was a critique of the citizens of the fourth reich sitting in the theater watching his movie, but we all know it ain't that deep
look, i think the film holds out the opportunity for self-reflection, about the audience's own relationship with violence, that you might appreciate. but, just because the film has, i think in the most felicitious reading, a different message than what you would want (a film about the power of film vs a film about how the audience is wretched) doesn't mean that the film "ain't deep." it's just has different aim than what you want from it.
there's room of course for films that rub an audience's face in their own wretchedness, about their own complicity. Haneke's Cache, Haneke's Funny Games, The Sopranos come to mind. they're great, also thematically rich, but obviously to different ends.