Inglourious Basterds - director credit for Eli Roth?

  • 2
  • Problem
  • Updated 4 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
Hi.

I noticed that Eli Roth is credited (well, ”uncredited”) as a director alongside QT in ”Inglourious Basterds”. The credit refers to a 6-minute segment "Nation's Pride", which is like a film-within-a-film and which Roth (mostly) directed.

More: http://mentalfloss.com/article/59911/...

Question: I haven’t got any huge desire to move Roth from the ”main” director section (to ”assistant/2nd unit directors” section) or take away anything from his work on this movie, but what are the IMDb rules when some person is directing a 6-minute ”film-within-a-film” segment (uncredited, for that matter) for a 153-minute film that isn’t an ”anthology” film with different stories/segments and different directors? It just feels that in this case Roth was mainly a 2nd unit director.

Thanks.

EDIT: The film also seems to have its own page on IMDb, which makes the issue a bit confusing: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3563338/
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes

Posted 4 months ago

  • 2
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2885 Posts
  • 3743 Reply Likes
Eboy,

I've always been interested in cases of uncredited directors on large productions and small independent films alike. Over the years I've assembled quite the collection of such cases, some of them found eligible on IMDb over the years, some not. 

I'd say that the final say will be by IMDb staff, but several aspects should be noted: 
  • Unlike many film-within-the-film situations "Stolz der Nation" has a significant prominence and presence throughout the movie. 
  • For his few days as a director Eli Roth was the main director. Tarantino was not on set during filming and Roth's production was autonomous enough for him to be fully in charge. 
  • Listing has been there for 10 years already (!) and Quentin Tarantino's publicists decided not to remove it. Nor did the studio, which has a certain degree of control over the title page via Title Scorecard. I'd say that in case-to-case scenarios of what to consider a main segment director the opinion of a credited main director should count. 
  • I have a feeling that uncredited... Might not be the case. I don't remember for sure, but in the film-within-film Eli Roth is credited as "Alois von Eichberg". If that is seen anywhere in the movie, his listing might as well be fixed from "(uncredited)" to "(as Alois von Eichberg)".
I'd say that is way less puzzling case then what to do with Heath Ledger. He directed two video messages from Joker in The Dark Knight (2008) himself which so far merited no listing at all, although in this case I believe it should be listed as Second Unit Director-type. Then there are cases of what I call "covert direction" when directors technically fired from production continued to direct certain actors independently. Among examples are George Cukor in Gone with the Wind (1939) (little to no footage of his direction remains in the movie, however he continued to secretly direct performances of Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Havilland) and Richard Stanley in The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) (fired after four days in production Stanley worked as an extra in a heavy special makeup also observing some aspects of production; rumors that he did that to sabotage the picture hurt his subsequent career in Hollywood). In both cases directors are listed as main, because their contribution to the film was confirmed numerous times. 
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes
I don’t want Roth’s name removed altogether (there’s no basis for that), but the way I see it, his credit probably belongs to ”Assistant Dir/2nd Unit Dir” department. He basically did what the second unit directors often do (yes, they’re on the set without the main director and can also direct actors). But of course it depends on the project what the 2nd unit director actually does, probably varies a lot.


( Also, Roth can’t have two different credits for the same work, so IMDb should decide whether to keep this credit, or the credits in the ”short film” - I at least assume it’s the same film? )


But it has been a while since I saw ”Inglourious Basterds”, so I can’t say I’m an expert on the issue. If your ”(as Alois von Eichberg)" credit is true, it might resolve the ”uncredited” issue at least.


I guess this question is generally speaking: when a person should get a ”Director” credit - and not e.g. ”Assistant/2nd Unit Director”, or perhaps something else? Especially when..

A) It’s ”uncredited” work (or is it..)

B) The film in question is not an anthology film with several directors/actors/etc. How to credit people who direct a ”film-within-a-film” segments?
(Edited)
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3799 Posts
  • 4767 Reply Likes
I've removed the secondary title page as this isn't eligible if the footage was all shown in Inglorious Basterds.

Each case needs to be judged on its own merits, though in this case it seems fair to list Eli Roth as an (uncredited) director, as it is very likely that he had complete autonomy over the film, which is slightly different to the role of a second unit director, who will still be working under instruction from the main director.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Will
 
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2885 Posts
  • 3743 Reply Likes
Will, as far as I understand, "Stolz der Nation" also had a separate release, as a bonus feature on the blu-ray. Shouldn't that count? 

Also, great thanks for clarifying the situation! 
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3799 Posts
  • 4767 Reply Likes
I can't remember the film well enough, but was the entirety of the short viewed in the main Inglorious Basterds film? If so then it shouldn't be valid as a title in its own right.
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes
I really have to see this again, but I believe only a segments of ”Stolz der Nation/Nation’s Bride” was shown in the actual ”Inglourious Basterds”. The complete short film was then included as an extra in the DVD/Blu-ray.


If this is true, I guess the ”complete” short film was released for the first time on DVD/Blu-ray (in the ”extra features”, that is).
(Edited)
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12714 Posts
  • 9619 Reply Likes
Hi All -

Just clarifying here, if the full film ("Stolz der Nation/Nation’s Pride") was shown in "Inglourious Basterds", then this title is not eligible to be listed as a separate title.

However, if only excerpts of the film were shown and the full film was only viewable as a DVD extra, then this would qualify to be listed as a separate title on the site in the DVD Extras formatting:

Inglorious Basterds: "Stolz der Nation"

If anyone has access to the film and can confirm how the short film was shown in "Inglourious Basterds", please let us know and we can then determine if the separate short title should be reinstated.
(Edited)
Photo of gromit82

gromit82, Champion

  • 7189 Posts
  • 8820 Reply Likes
Matterjones: If your request relates to a different topic, please start a new thread here.
Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2885 Posts
  • 3743 Reply Likes
Michelle approximately 60-80% of the short is seen and/or heard in Inglourious Basterds (2009) (if we include all instances, including out-of-focus screen shots), however the short was indeed first released in its full version on DVD and Blu-Ray. 
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes
One thing to add at this point: I guess it’s basically a short film that is just included in the extra features of the DVD/Blu-ray. There are many short films that have included in the DVD/Blu-ray releases (many in the ”extra features”). Labeling it simply as an ”DVD extra” can be a bit misleading.

Then again, it was first (fully) released on the DVD/Blu-ray, I guess.
Photo of Michelle

Michelle, Official Rep

  • 12714 Posts
  • 9619 Reply Likes
Hi All -

Thanks for the additional feedback, since the full film was not shown in its entirety within "Inglourious Basterds", I have now reinstated the standalone title listing for the short: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3563338/


Cheers!
(Edited)
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes
Just out of curiosity: Now Roth basically has two credits for the same work, since he has credits for both "Inglourious Basterds" ("film-within-a-film" segments) and "Stolz der Nation/Nation’s Pride" (the complete short film)?

Just trying to clarify what's accepted and what's not.

Photo of Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin)

Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), Champion

  • 2885 Posts
  • 3743 Reply Likes
Eboy it's not that rare of an occurrence with directors. Some examples: 

Grindhouse (2007) is basically Death Proof (2007) and Planet Terror (2007) in one plus some fake trailers, however amount of differences in the individual releases merited them their own pages easily. 

Clive Barker's Salomé & The Forbidden (1998) is a video release of Salome (1973) and Forbidden (1978), however it features a staggering amount of restoration and re-editing so it also merits the own title. 

As for segments expanded, Machete (2010) and Dumplings (2010) were both expanded (from Grindhouse (2007) and Sam gaang yi (2004), respectively). 
Photo of Eboy

Eboy

  • 1568 Posts
  • 1982 Reply Likes
I have to say that it generally takes "a staggering amount of restoration and re-editing" to edit a new version of the film, or to restore the film from the negatives in the first place, just ask people who restored films like "Blade Runner" and "Alien" (the list is pretty much endless today - a new version of "Apocalypse Now" is coming soon). That's why IMDb have "alternate version" section, and that's why most "TV versions" (also many mini-series that are "expanded" from the film version) do not have their own (separate) title page on IMDb.

It can be inconsistent on IMDb and you know it. It's pretty much complete bullcrap (sorry for the word, but it's used in a lighthearted way) that we (that's myself included) fans and enthusiast somehow can decide in our great wisdom what film has a "a staggering amount of restoration and re-editing" (separate version on IMDb) and what only has a moderate re-editing (alternate version). It can be the "high horse" the movie buffs often sit upon.

But yes, I'm fully aware of there are what we could call "exceptions" or "case-by-case cases", like Das Boot and some other titles. I have learned to accept that, but generally it feels odd that there are many different versions of the same film - or a TV series (added as separate versions). And yes, it creates duplicate credits for the same work.

Just my 2 cents, nothing more - nothing less.