If it's crap... We'll tell you
Inglourious Basterds - a "glourious" achievement
Inglourious Basterds won't please everyone. It's not a full-blown crowd-pleaser like other (dumber) blockbusters from this past summer. It's a war film, but in the same way that Pulp Fiction was a crime film. Some will be thrown off by things that people tend to take for granted with Quentin Tarantino films: it's "talky", with pages and pages of dialog performed sometimes like a stage play, and the violence, when it happens at a moments notice, is graphic and harsh and not with much hope for the character killed or injured or, in this case, scalped. It might not even be a film some will claim is the greatest film ever of a generation like with PF. But, for me, it is about as pure a piece of cinematic bliss I could ask for this year. And, dare I suggest, it's as audacious and genre re-defining as anything Tarantino's done, or may do again.
Tarantino makes up his own rules to break them down and see what makes them tick. Godard was like that, but in this case we don't see a filmmaker lose control of his own rules as Godard ultimately did in his career. Instead its a sprawling epic that throws a few really big damn monkey wrenches into Americans vs. Germans vs. French in world war two. It tells concurrent stories that come together in the BIG climactic chapter (and make no mistake, these are BIG, long chapters unlike Kill Bill) about a Jewish girl, Shoshanna (Mélanie Laurent) who runs away just in time before the Nazis kill her family who are in hiding on a French farm, and years later becomes an owner of a movie theater in Paris and is picked out by a popular 'star' Nazi soldier (Daniel Bruhl) to screen a film starring himself in a recreation of his slaughtering 300 people from a roof-top.
The other is, naturally, the Basterds. It's actually with these story lines that Tarantino makes up his first rule to break: why not have a movie called Inglourious Basterds and *not* have them in every frame of the movie? Indeed, by my estimation, the Basterds are in about 55 to 60% of the full running time of the movie. But their scenes are the larger-than-life sort where we see Brad Pitt in an outstanding-cartoonish portrayal of a mass murderer/scalper who, in the real world, is a true-blue war criminal. Him and his men, which include "the Bear" (Eli Roth in a surprisingly good turn) and Hugo Stigliz, tear-ass around Europe taking down any Nazis in site (the "killin' Nazi business" as Ray says very clearly), and its hear we see an exaggeration of the take-no-prisoners philosophy of men in combat. Prisoners? Too much to bring along. Better to sic the Bear on em.
And all the while Tarantino provides us with an absolutely menacing presence with Hans Landa, a German colonel who appears in the opening scenes in a manner akin to Angel Eyes in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (this is surely intentional, of course), only his evil is the smiling, chilling kind that reminds one of a William S. Buroughs line: the face of evil is the face of total need. Landa needs information, constantly, and asks so questioningly and with such cunning that we feel a sense of uncommon dread when he appears on screen, even when its just to eat a pastry with the (incognito) Shosanna. And leading in this role, almost threatening to tower over all of the other great or at least just revelatory performances, is that of Christoph Waltz. Take your eyes off this guy, I dare you. He's about as hypnotic and alluring and subtle as they come, and can floor you like Samuel L. Jackson reciting a Bible quote.
But oh, yeah, this film is "talky", make that clear again I should. Some scenes go on with a kind of cruel precision that one finds often in Tarantino's work, where you wonder if it might be going *too* long but, in reality, you'll probably be too caught up in the acting, or the suspense that builds (i.e. the basement-bar scene is a classic example) to such a thick point you'll get goosebumps. But at the same time that Tarantino makes a muchly European movie, with small nods to German and French cinema and a surprisingly mature control of the characters and mis-en-scene, he also makes a gaudy spectacle with his Hitler (at first) coming up like Moe Howard of the Three Stooges in You Natzi Spy, or even just Pitt's voice and mannerisms. It's something special to see a filmmaker embrace conventions and then set them with a box of grenades in another. If you see the climax you'll see what that means even more (and that, perhaps, reaches a pornographic exploitation of Nazi carnage).
Inglourious Basterds left me intrigued, startled, laughing, cringing, jaw-agape and eyes-widened, and left me hungry for more. Some will leave disappointed and some will complain. There not without their rights in this case. It's also one of a handful of examples in 2009 cinema of true fuck-the-world "art" you'll come across. I, for one, can't wait to go into it again, even with that final line screaming (delightfully) of its director's hubris.
RATING: BETTER THAN SEX
Tarantino makes up his own rules to break them down and see what makes them tick. Godard was like that, but in this case we don't see a filmmaker lose control of his own rules as Godard ultimately did in his career. Instead its a sprawling epic that throws a few really big damn monkey wrenches into Americans vs. Germans vs. French in world war two. It tells concurrent stories that come together in the BIG climactic chapter (and make no mistake, these are BIG, long chapters unlike Kill Bill) about a Jewish girl, Shoshanna (Mélanie Laurent) who runs away just in time before the Nazis kill her family who are in hiding on a French farm, and years later becomes an owner of a movie theater in Paris and is picked out by a popular 'star' Nazi soldier (Daniel Bruhl) to screen a film starring himself in a recreation of his slaughtering 300 people from a roof-top.
The other is, naturally, the Basterds. It's actually with these story lines that Tarantino makes up his first rule to break: why not have a movie called Inglourious Basterds and *not* have them in every frame of the movie? Indeed, by my estimation, the Basterds are in about 55 to 60% of the full running time of the movie. But their scenes are the larger-than-life sort where we see Brad Pitt in an outstanding-cartoonish portrayal of a mass murderer/scalper who, in the real world, is a true-blue war criminal. Him and his men, which include "the Bear" (Eli Roth in a surprisingly good turn) and Hugo Stigliz, tear-ass around Europe taking down any Nazis in site (the "killin' Nazi business" as Ray says very clearly), and its hear we see an exaggeration of the take-no-prisoners philosophy of men in combat. Prisoners? Too much to bring along. Better to sic the Bear on em.
And all the while Tarantino provides us with an absolutely menacing presence with Hans Landa, a German colonel who appears in the opening scenes in a manner akin to Angel Eyes in the Good, the Bad and the Ugly (this is surely intentional, of course), only his evil is the smiling, chilling kind that reminds one of a William S. Buroughs line: the face of evil is the face of total need. Landa needs information, constantly, and asks so questioningly and with such cunning that we feel a sense of uncommon dread when he appears on screen, even when its just to eat a pastry with the (incognito) Shosanna. And leading in this role, almost threatening to tower over all of the other great or at least just revelatory performances, is that of Christoph Waltz. Take your eyes off this guy, I dare you. He's about as hypnotic and alluring and subtle as they come, and can floor you like Samuel L. Jackson reciting a Bible quote.
But oh, yeah, this film is "talky", make that clear again I should. Some scenes go on with a kind of cruel precision that one finds often in Tarantino's work, where you wonder if it might be going *too* long but, in reality, you'll probably be too caught up in the acting, or the suspense that builds (i.e. the basement-bar scene is a classic example) to such a thick point you'll get goosebumps. But at the same time that Tarantino makes a muchly European movie, with small nods to German and French cinema and a surprisingly mature control of the characters and mis-en-scene, he also makes a gaudy spectacle with his Hitler (at first) coming up like Moe Howard of the Three Stooges in You Natzi Spy, or even just Pitt's voice and mannerisms. It's something special to see a filmmaker embrace conventions and then set them with a box of grenades in another. If you see the climax you'll see what that means even more (and that, perhaps, reaches a pornographic exploitation of Nazi carnage).
Inglourious Basterds left me intrigued, startled, laughing, cringing, jaw-agape and eyes-widened, and left me hungry for more. Some will leave disappointed and some will complain. There not without their rights in this case. It's also one of a handful of examples in 2009 cinema of true fuck-the-world "art" you'll come across. I, for one, can't wait to go into it again, even with that final line screaming (delightfully) of its director's hubris.
RATING: BETTER THAN SEX
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Porter on -
Great review, While the ending for historic reasons rubbed me the wrong way I still enjoyed this film..
-
Permalink Reply by Moon Knight on -
This films boring parts ruined it. Alot of scenes just dragged too long to make it enjoyable. Not to mention the rediculous accent that Brad Pitts tries to pull off. And if youre not going to make a serious movie, why use subtitles for 3/4 of the film?! Also, the sudden David Bowie (I think it was him) music ,that was playing in one scene, just caused it to fall flat.
Dont get me wrong, I didnt hate everything about the movie. The few times the Basterds were actually in it, were entertaining, dispite the accent previously mentioned. The only talking scene that didnt lose the tension, was the one in the basement-bar. The editing alone kept you wondering what was going to happen and when. This may just be because of the Hugo Stigliz character.
Im not trying to shit on your opinion, Wallie, so hope you dont take it that way, nor am I a QT hater. I love most of his movies and was excited for this one, but it just didnt deliver.
I give it a RENTAL.
-
Permalink Reply by The Eyeball Kid on
-
And if youre not going to make a serious movie, why use subtitles for 3/4 of the film?!
I feel the same way about Charlie Chaplin films.
-
Permalink Reply by Doctor Lightning on -
Why do I get the sense you have the same bloodlust as the Basterds and can't stand to see scenes with just characters interacting and building on suspense? And you seem to be overlooking Hans Landa's scenes when talking about "boring parts". If you found him boring, I don't know what to do for you.
-
Permalink Reply by Raskell on -
I agree Wallie. This is easily the best film of the summer. First time in a long time I've heard the theater break out in applause at the end credits.
-
Permalink Reply by Moon Knight on
-
Why do I get the sense you have to insult people with a different opinion than your own, or are you reffering to the Moon Knight character? LOL I liked the Landa chacter, and thought the actor was great in the role, but his scenes didnt build suspense as well as it should have.
-
Permalink Reply by SkaOreo on -
"And if youre not going to make a serious movie, why use subtitles for 3/4 of the film?!"
This doesn't even make any sense. What do you watch foreign comedies and complain that the film is being too goofy since it has subtitles?
-
Permalink Reply by Moon Knight on
-
Yes, it does make sense, and if you honestly need it broken down pre-school style for you, then you have a shot at becoming president.
-
-
In that case, I'd like to announce my candidacy. Please, do elaborate.
-
-
I'm not as enthusiastic about it as you are, but it's still one of the year's best. Aside from The Hurt Locker (and Transformers 2), I think this film gave me the most to think about (although District 9 might've given me the most to talk about).
What I loved the most were its meta qualities. We're watching a film about how a bunch of Germans are slaughtered while watching a film about a bunch of Americans being slaughtered. It's just like those animated shorts Disney put out during the War (i.e. "Der Fuehrer's Face," "Education For Death"). They're propaganda films about the evils of propaganda.
I also had a lot fun sitting in the middle of a packed AMC theater, listening to them talk about Pabst and Riefenstahl, feeling pretty confident that I alone had actually seen films from either of them. Then, of course, there's the historical context of how the Nazis nearly destroyed the legacy of German cinema (providing Hollywood with an influx of expatriated talent who would establish early conventions of the film noir and horror genres). It was refreshing to see a film address what so few know about from that era. (Why is there no Billy Wilder biopic!?)
I'd love to see Christoph Waltz get an Oscar nomination for his performance, but Tarantino deserves a lot of praise for his subtle development offscreen. There are two exchanges (one in the first chapter, another in the last) which make it apparent that he went through a significant change during the interrim four years to influence his decisions approachng the climax.
On the downside, I did find the pacing less than stellar, especially given expectations based on the trailers. I also am infinitely more impressed with Tarantino's direction than his dialog, although I did love the screenplay overall. I often found myself ignoring the actual words to focus on the characters' rhythms and the fluidity of the direction. I'd say it has the best cinematography of the year if I thought that meant anything; all they had to do was use a frakking tripod!
To cap it off, I loved overhearing people as they walked out: "I expected dragons to reign down from the sky! It was pure fantasy! Stupidest thing I've ever seen in my life!"
I can't help but wonder if that guy saw Transformers.
-
Permalink Reply by Doctor Lightning on
-
All good points.
I was in a Tarantino mood last night so I rewatched most of Reservoir Dogs and watched some special features on the DVD. While I still love the movie, it made me realize something - before I wrote that Tarantino's screenwriting has matured, but his direction has definitely matured too (little gimmicks like the "Ctony watch your head" scrawled on the wall when the camera pans away from the ear slice, or the orange balloon in the background in one shot are just lame and immature, though there is still a claustrophobic sensibility of being in that warehouse). Also, the critic Amy Taubin made a very good point about RD that made me think about Basterds espeically and about Tarantino's work in general: Tarantino sets up a sado-masochistic relationship between his film and the audience, and we get completely drawn in due to the quality of the filmmaking, but at the same time it's also with actors in a self-conscious state, like actors playing actors on screen, so to speak, and we don't know at all what will happen next (the basement bar scene illustrates this twisting-the-knife in the viewer aspect and the viewer loving it, more or less, very well). The more I thought about that, the more I realized that, in his own way, Pitt's performance is just as brilliant as Waltz's, if not really at the kind of Oscar-caliber sense of the latter.
-
Permalink Reply by Crackerdamus on -
i saw it yesterday. it's now one of my favorite films :D
Follow Spill on Twitter!
Latest Activity
I personally would love to see good numbers which will happen, but I dont think it wont surpass Dark Knight or Revenge of The Fallen ...but still itll be a fan boy movie woop woop!
A tie? Is that really what your Dad wants? Think of all the interminably long soccer games or swim meets the man sat through to support you before you chucked it all for playing “Modern Warfare” online? And your Mom, all those times she DIDN’T call…
Photos
Music
© 2009 Created by The Spill Crew
