From The Hateful Eight:
I know. And I don’t expect you to provide cites for that, because it’s probably difficult to assess. Conscientious objectors in the UK were vilified - of course, maybe Nazi-era Germany was better, who knows,
But you could say if most German soldiers during WWII, 1939-1945 or 1941-1945, depending on your country of origin, were actually volunteers.
Nothing I’ve ever read would back that up. They wouldn’t have needed conscription if there were tons of volunteers.
It’s a lot of interesting discussion about Inglorious Basterds, but overlooking the fact that the film does not have a bad protagonist. Shosanna is the protaganist, her primary action is committing an act of war against the foreign invaders occupying her country who massacred her family.
I think you’re mistaken about that.
Wehrkraftzersetzung consolidated and redefined paragraphs already in the military penal code to punish “seditious” acts
such as conscientious objection, defeatist statements, self-mutilation, and questioning the Endsieg. Convictions werepunishable by the death penalty, heavy sentences in military prisons, concentration camps, or Strafbataillons.
§5 of the KSSVO reads:
Whoever openly challenges or incites others to refuse to fulfill their duty to serve in the German armed forces or their allies, or otherwise openly tries to self-assertively put up a fight to cripple or subvert the will of the German people or their allies … will be sentenced to death for undermining the military.
At least 15,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion alone, and up to 50,000 were killed for often minor acts of insubordination. [cite]
I keep saying that I don’t think this thread is the right place to discuss all of these issues. I’m also frankly not comfortable discussing the real world issues scenes like this dredge up for me on this board, in any forum. I’m just going to say, once again, that in my opinion, the Basterds are Bad Protagonists. Period.
She’s one of the protagonists. The Basterds are also protagonists, and they are bad.
True, but my read of the OP was looking for movies completely lacking in “good” protagonists. I’d also argue that Shosanna is the primary protagonist to the Basterds secondary role, although with Tarantino’s segmented story-telling style it may come down to which storyline resonates more with you.
I’d say A Clockwork Orange fits the bill perfectly.
“He’d kill us if he could”
Well, DeNiro’s character in Taxi Driver was no angel.
Excellent choice.
I agree about Double Indemnity. About Detour: you’re certainly right that the woman is the main villain, but I’d argue that we lose some sympathy for the male protagonist when he’s so foolish as to offer a hitchhiker a ride. (Other noirs with the plot dependent on the main protagonist offering a ride to a hitchhiker: 1953’s The Hitch-Hiker and the lesser-known 1955 The Night Holds Terror.)
Audiences of the day may had the attitude that picking up hitchhikers was a noble act of pure kindness, but surely even they thought–however briefly–that the protagonists had been imprudent. (Today, of course, ‘picking up a hitchhiker’ would be seen as an act of recklessness, rather than as admirable charity or benevolence.)
I haven’t yet seen Kansas City Confidential (though apparently it’s in the public domain), but from the beginning of the wikipedia article, it looks as though you’re entirely correct about that one. Reading that opening of the plot summary I was reminded of The Thomas Crown Affair–the 1968 one, at least (I haven’t seen the remake). That’s another example of the thread-conditions: a good movie with morally-compromised (if not “bad”) protagonists.
Primal Fear: moviegoers showed up to watch Richard Gere play the kind of gun-for-hire lawyer who doesn’t care whether his clients are innocent or guilty — you know, the type who does care about the money and publicity he gets when he gets someone off the hook, and, well, that’s pretty much it — but it was young unknown Edward Norton, as the stammering altar boy on trial for his life, who then wowed audiences to earn the Oscar nomination.
The animated movie Suicide Squad-Hell To Pay not only fits in this category, but it has the added bonus of being ten times as good as the live action movie.
Mention upthread of Charlize Theron and Monster reminded me of another film she was in. She played a thoroughly detestable character and as I recall, no redemption. Not sure how many people saw this as I don’t see it mentioned often. Maybe not a great movie, hard to watch in that the viewer (this one anyway) is in a near constant state of cringe at the protagonist’s appalling behavior but I thought Theron was very good in it.
It’s pretty easy to root for the charming crooks in The Sting, as they’re up against a bad guy: in best can’t-con-an-honest-man style, the big swindle only works if he thinks that he’s got an unfair edge — you know, per the earlier quip after Paul Newman outcheats him to win at the poker table? And, okay, Newman also tasked someone with pickpocketing the guy; but said guy had already tasked someone with murder, so, y’know, we can nod approvingly.
Newman and Redford were maybe just as charming as Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, but — well, they’re robbing folks who just seem to be decent people, aren’t they? Just stealing by pointing guns at ‘em, is all — and maybe someone gets banged up during this or that train robbery, but, hey, whadayagonnado? And all of it leads to an ending where our heroes decide to go out, guns blazing, against the authorities — only I don’t recall any hint that this is a ‘corrupt cops’ scenario; it seems more like a ‘see, this is a legitimate reason to put faces on ‘Wanted’ posters’ scenario.
Those are both good examples. One of the things I love about Butch Cassidy… is how it starts off as a comedy but by the time they kill the Bolivian bandits and Etta goes back, it’s a drama. Only, the protagonists don’t know it’s a drama. They think they can still slip away with a few wisecracks. “For a moment there I thought we were in trouble.”
Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Henry’s only redeeming feature was that he was less icky than Ottis, even though he had a much higher body count. This had the most confusing distribution of any movie I know of: It was first released on video, then puled and released in art house theaters.
They weren’t, actually. They were performing their mission, which was to disrupt the Germany Army through a campaign of fear by guerilla warfare. Also, they were not in a position to take prisoners. Every German soldier they left alive would return to a German unit that would be trying to kill them, Allied Soldiers, Jews and other victims of the Nazis.
Remember Saving private Ryan? When they opted not kill the German machine-gunner? He joined up with another unit and ended up killing Mellish and shooting Miller.
German soldiers that were spared had to give information, then wear the scar. Or, they could follow Hugo Stiglitz’s lead.
“We had to kill him, otherwise he’d still be a danger to us,” stops working as an excuse when you’re only killing some prisoners, and letting others go. If they can’t afford to let the guy they beat to death go, then they can’t afford to let the guy they mutilated go. If they can afford to let the mutilated guy go, they can afford to let the guy they beat to death go.