How is Inglourious Basterds postmodern?

Without needing to watch any part of the film you can already tell that Inglourious Basterds is post modern from the miss spelling of the title to the films creator Quentin Taratino who borrowed the name from Enso Castellari's 1978 Italian war film. This is a typical trait of Taratino and in a lot of his films he borrows camera shots and ideas from other directors in who he admire's to put into his own films, which is very post modern and is known as Pastiche.

Within the actual film there are many elements that particuarly stand out to make it post modern. For example he uses Parody, Irony, Bricolage and Hyperreality. At the start of the film he has some text saying 'Once Upon A Time..' which is a classic line from a fairy tale and to have a World War 2 film set up with this ironic seeing as the war didn't have much of a fairy tale ending to it, although in this film it does as we see the whole higher ranks of the Nazi party killed in the burning down of the cinema, but also Hitler shot to death by two of the 'basterds', and even though what they did was imhumain and shocking they are presented as the 'heros' of the film. Throughout the whole narrative the good guys are the basterds and Suzanne the Jewish owner of the cinema, and the bad guys are the Nazi's and so when they do all end up getting killed, it is sort of like a fairy tale ending because they bad guys are dead and the good guys have got their revenge and justice which is what the film is basically about - revenge on the Nazi's on a macro level but its mainly Suzanne's revenge which triggers the micro level after Hans Landa kills her entire family.

But as we well know this isn't how it really happened in history, which is where hyperreality is set into it. World War 2 is slowly but surely becoming the words of just written history and not just from stories of actual first encounters, so it may seem to be more acceptable to 'change' the history in what happened in films, to give a more hyperreal and all together satisfaction at the end of the film, that the 2nd World War was ended in such a heroic way by a group of American Jewish men set out on their revenge on the Nazi's. It represents American's to be strong heroic men, full of courage and bravery going around Germany, killing Nazi's and scalping their heads, but also leaving Nazi's symbols on high ranked Nazi officials including Hans Landa.

Which we know is completely unrealistic, as 12 odd Amercan's didn't bring down the whole Nazi high official party. Its quite riduculous story line, also humorous which is another trait of postmodernism and has been used by Taratino is this film to a great extent.

For example, when Hans Landa kills Suzannes family at the beginning of the film, he asks the man who is hiding the family if he can smoke, the man is already smoking and Hans Landa brings out a ridiculously large pipe, but at the time as tension is created you don't know whether to laugh as its such a serious subject. This is also seen in a lot of post modern films, the use of parody and taking the micky out of the characters or situations, as in Inglourious Basterds they take the micky out of the Nazi's, particuarly Hitler who is seen to be a completely ridiculous character.

Also Brad Pitts character, is a comical representation because when he has to pretend to be Italian at the premiere he sounds very stupid, with his hill billy accent, and it does make you laugh. But in other films Brad Pitt has played quite comical characters also such as in Burn After Reading by the Coen Brothers, where he plays a gym instructor who is also very funny, and quite unrealistic in the way this character is portrayed. But this idea of Brad Pitt being an American icon, is played with in the film as he is an American symbol, a hero and this adds to the revenge on America and how Americans are very proud - 'God Bless America' - Pitt's character represents America and what they stand for, it sets up the image of America.

In the film Taratine also go against the narrative of the film and take away the linear, to create out of context mini stories to describe parts of the main narrative. For example Taratino shows a short documentary on how flamable nitrate film is, and he even shows old footage from other films, which is very post modern and this little part of footage in the film sets up what is going to happen at the premiere.

How do moral panics help form or fragment cultural identity. Compare or contrast 3 case studies.

A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue which appears to be a threat to the social order. Moral panics can be addressed to many different issues such as paedopillia, war, disease, drug use and murder but these are just a few examples. The first time the term moral panic was presented was when a man called Jock Young used it as a reference to drug users in Notting Hill, and then by his colleague Stanley Cohan in the 1970s.

Moral panics can have a significant effect on the audience who hear about them, for example with a large usuage of drug use in Notting Hill, the area is being represented as an area where illegal mis-use of drugs is being taken place, giving it a bad name. Another example is the recent out break of swine flu, which was yet another moral panic, where a lot of people were being effected by the flu and made people 'panic'.

To an extent I do think that moral panics can help form or fragment cultural identity, as they do have a great deal of effect on a situation. For example if there was a sudden a high outbreak of teenage stabbings in a London, then the moral panic will bring out the conclusion that teenagers are uncontrolled and unruly thugs, which gives them this cultural identity.

Child abuse, Paedophillia and Raves are 3 types of moral panic, which the media will pick up on and trigger a 'panic' for the public which could ultimately end up with them looking at a certain culture differently. Paedophillia could be descirbed as a unique subject of moral panic, as it doesn't follow suit of the models of moral panics in that the process of moral panics goes along the lines of the problem emerges, is stereotyped and moralized about, experts are citied, new laws passed and the problem fades away, but paedophillia is unlikely to follow this as it is at a constant level compared to raves which does follow the model.

Paedophillia was first covered by the media in the 1980s and the term first came about, before the abusers would be known as beasts or monsters, but then during this time investigations realised that these people were to blaim for the organized abductions and murders of children. At this time the media stayed well away from the family and the child abducted or abused and very rarely had any coverage of them only the 'monster' who was being convicted, so at this point a moral panic wasn't as strong as it is today although this could be argued because we hear so much about these cases that its not really a moral panic in an extreame sense that children are locked in their homes or intense measures are made, unless we hear about an absolute extreame example. In 1988 child pornography became an official offence and the police created a child pornogrpahy squad, so the realisation of how much of a panic and threat paedophillia was had been established. The time in which paedophillia became an absolute moral panic and had a lot of media coverage was in 2000, the year Sarah Payne was sexually abused and murdered at just 8 years old. This crime triggered the coverage of paedophillia into more debt as it was an extreame example and certainly shocked the public most of the coverage was done by the News of the World who published a lot more on paedophillia and not just Sarah Paynes case, including a claim that parents have the right to know whether a sex offender lives in their area and the the act was named 'Sarah's law'. Eventually we have learnt to understand that paedophillia is a moral panic and should be taken extreamly serisouly, it changed a lot of ways today's society is look at and that its not a safe a place that it used to be, or atleast we know more about it.

Child abuse is similar to paedophillia in that it is related to the same kind of crimes in some cases (when its due to sexual abuse). Child abuse was appearing as the issue of the 'battered baby' syndrome in which pediatricians took notice, but it was not the doctors but the NSPCC that was needed to create a public awareness. Even then interest was only made between specialists until 1973, where a particular case was in extreame and so caught more attention. It was of a little girl called Maria Colwell and at just aged 7 her step-father beat her to death and was sentenced 8 years for it. A Sir Keith Joseph (minister for social security) kept the trial from recieveing a lot of coverage due to his favouring in a theory that inadequate parents produced inadequate children, which is called the 'Cycle of Deprivation theory' and later came to the conclusion that something had to be done about child abuse. Once the moral panic erupted the blame was put onto poor families and social workers, - the families because of the cycle of deprivation theory, and the social workers because the public thought that they were unable to guarentee children's physical safety. The media tore apart social workers claiming that they should not have let these adults be parents at all. The moral panic layed particuarly at the social workers, and people were afraid to trust them thinking they weren't doing their job properly and no child was truly safe. Even though childcare practice was reformed and had far more detailed proceedures child abuse in constantly being brought up again and again (just like paedophillia) and the very recent cases of Baby P are just one example.

My last case study is raves which were founded in New York, Chicago and Detroit but were also imported into Britain in 1988 they were always located in remote places and organised very discretly from the police to stop from being caught. At the end of the 80s it was seen as one of the biggest youth subculture Britain had ever seen and they generated vast amounts of money. The moral panic behind these raves, were the amount of drugs that these young adults were consuming, including Ecstasy, Amphetamine and LSD, what made it turn into a moral panic was the papers picking up on the amount of drugs used and stated such statements like 'a facade for dealing in drugs' and 'a cynical attempt to trap young people into drug dependency under the guise of friendly popular events'. What the papers failed to recognise was that these raves were innocent in their own right, and it was just the drugs that the kind of people attending brought with them, that made it an out-rage and therefore turning it into a moral panic. Then to fuel the panic even further the death of an 18 year old called Leah Betts, was blaimed on the kind of goings on at these raves. Betts died of water intoxication whicch is primarily in this case down to the use of drugs, and of course the public were shocked by the death. Betts parents wrote an open letter to teens on the dangers of drugs and let out pictures of the state of their daughter. So at this point the course of a moral panic, is well under way and the next step was for experts to contribute to the model, in 1994 after huge media pressure the public order act (1994) enabled polive to arrest anyone who, held an event, was waiting for an event, or refused police instructions to leave a rave site. During most of the rave era the government didn't take much notice and didn't 'care' about what was happening at these raves and for a long period they were completely uncontrable, which changed the cultural identity as in officials were letting teenagers and young adults go and take drugs freely, they were also giving these people reputations of drug users, and anti-social people.

So now we have looked at all 3 case studies, and the difference and similarities between them all are vast. Child abuse and Raves tend to follow the models of moral panics, and seem to be sustainable but when it comes to paedophillia it doesn't. These moral panics have changed the cultural identity of certain individuals and groups of people, with paedophillia the culture in which we live in today is a different one to when it was 40 years ago, where children were free to roam the streets with out the worry of being kidnapped or molested by paedophiles where as now, we are much more concerned about our children's saftey as we know more about it due to press coverage down to the moral panic. Child abuse, it now a lot more acknowledged and has made a lot of differences for child minders, teachers, parents and in particular social workers, where the blame was put on for the excuses as to why these defenseless children hadn't been cared for before it go to the stage where in some extreame cases children were being killed due to abuse. Paedophillia and child abuse are in the same, as in that they are still continuing on now, and that they are very unfortunately constant compared to raves which either have stopped completely or aren't seen as a moral panic anymore.

Compare the versions of Britishness as represented in 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'.

Compare the versions of Britishness as represented in 'Sense and Sensibility' and 'Four Weddings and a Funeral'.

These two films, Sense and Sensibility and Four Weddings and a Funeral are very much a typical pair of classic british media, they both star Hugh Grant who at the time of Four Weddings, was well and truly at the epic of his success. Sense and Sensibility isn't only as British as it comes, but the screen play was written by Emma Thompson who also stars in the film along with Kate Winslet who are both actresses who again and again creep up in the British films.

Although both films, are typically british they both portray this in complete different aspect but both concentrate on the same genre and subjects such as gender, romantism, and marriage. One and probably most obvious reason for this is because Sense and Sensibility is set in the 1800s where Four Weddings was set in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

With most period drama texts the main plot line is about marriage and love, and usually resolves around a typical young lady who is looking for her 'prince charming' and with most of these kind of films the way marriage is portraid for these women is in a way that they have no other choice and that they are very much expected from others and for themselves that finding a man and settling down is the way of life. These women are also a bunch of goldiggers in a way, as the vast majority of women would marry into a fortune, as it was made legal in that time that the heritage left by the parents etc.. was only past down to the male generation. So in this time marriage was like the safety net.

This is in complete contrast with Four Weddings and a Funeral where the idea of marriage is a seen to be something that isn't so important and women don't rely on marriage as much. In Sense and Sensibility it is expected of you to be married, where as in Four Weddings it really isn't, women have careers and jobs they can be independent and live without the help of a man and infact marriage in this film is a sign of desperation. Another very key point is that in Four Weddings there is infact a gay marriage which would not happen at all in Sense and Sensibility, another factor is that a couple have a baby without actually getting married which is something that wouldn't happen at all in Sense and Sensibility.

These factors both show how the idea of Britishness has changed in just a hundred years, and how much culture and how we percieve it has changed. In the 1800s marriage was the key success to any women, you marry into a rich family and you are set for life, and no one disapproves of it they are congratulated for their success in marrying a good suitor for themselves. Where as in the 1990s marriage is seen to be a trap, something that couples who have run there course in their relationship and need to go to the next step so marriage must be the only option and a quote which goes along the lines of 'couples only get married because they have run out of things to say' is a key judgement of this film.

CASE STUDY: Comparison of Slumdog Millionaire and Somerstown.

Slumdog Millionaire -

Directors: Danny Boyle Loveleen Tandan

Writers: Simon Beaufoy (screenplay)

Vikas Swarup (novel)

Release Date: 9 January 2009 (UK)

Genre: Crime Drama Romance

Somerstown -

Director: Shane Meadows

Writer: Paul Fraser

Release Date: 22 August 2008

Genre: Comedy Drama

Slumdog Millionaire was one of the most substantual films of 2009 and was a great success for director Danny Boyle who also directed Trainspotting, Danny Boyle is an english director and Trainspotting is undeniably British, this leads me to believe that Slumdog Millionaire is a British film even thought it had multi-national actors and was filmed in India. It was funded by the British film industry and was directed by a British director.

This is vastly compared to Somerstown which is British British British through out, with its grittyness and Britsh setting and actors, including Thomas Turgoose.

British Film Presentation..

As part of our summer homework we were asked to make a presentation about a British film made after 2006.. in my group we decided to look at Atonement with Keria Knightley and James McAvoy.
I will put screen caps of the presentation up.

Hays Code..

What is it?
The Hays code was used between 1930 and 1966, to create rules and guidelines for film producers. It was also named the Motion Picture Production Code.

The principles of the code stated that moral standards should not be lower than those who view it, and the audience shouldn't be pushed into the same side as the crime or wrong doing in the film.

C.A.G.E analysis of Bend It Like Beckham.

In a lesson before we broke up for the summer holidays, we watched a very typical British Film called Bend It Like Beckham. The film is about a female football player who goes on to play for a local football in the middle of London against the will of her family, at the end of the film she goes onto get a scholarship with a top class womens american football team (soccor), along with her newly made mate Jools. Its stars Keira Knightley (before the days of 'Pirates of the Carribean' and 'Pride and Prejudice') and Parminder Nagra.

CLASS- Families in the film are of similar classes as we can see from the size of the houses and the mis-en-scene within the homes.

AGE- The youth have very different values to their parents, for example both parents don't believe in girls playing football they still believe it is a mens sport. Also parents wear traditional clothes which their jobs and religion require whereas the youth wear what they want to e.g. football kits. The youth have more diverse values.

GENDER- There are gender issues between the girls and boys as football is seen as a male dominated sport however in this film it is the girls that pursue it as theirs.

ETHNICITY- The ethnicity is up to date and shows a white culture with an asian family. The youth get on fine however there is an atmosphere between the parents towards the other culture. Jules' mother is very uneasy when talking to Jessminda and Jessmindas parents are very disgusted that Jess had apparently been seen with a 'White boy'.