Given its writer/director, this might come as no surprise, but Inglourious Basterds is a strange beast of a movie. It is almost certainly not what many will be expecting, especially considering the movie’s ad campaign and the man behind it. It IS violent (at times shockingly so), but never really as violent as you probably think it will be (this never comes CLOSE to Kill Bill). It IS over-the-top, but rarely ridiculously so. And it DOES star Brad Pitt, but he is far from the main character. In fact, the titular Basterds aren’t even really the focus of the film – they pop in and out, here and there. You could remove them entirely, and the MAIN revenge tale of the movie would stay pretty much intact.
That all being said, this is very much a Quentin Tarantino film. No other modern filmmaker could have (or would have wanted to) make this movie. How you feel about it will depend greatly on how you currently feel about Tarantino. And I say “currently” because that perception has changed for many in the last few years. And I think it’s impossible to talk about Inglourious Basterds (or at least irrelevant) without addressing this.
There is no doubt that Tarantino is no longer the bullet-proof critic’s darling he once was. I suspect this is largely of his own design. Following the amazing one-two debut punch of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, many hailed Tarantino as some sort of second-coming of Scorsese – the leader of the new generation of modern crime drama. But as quickly as that legend was built up, it was almost as quickly abandoned after the somewhat lackluster reception to Jackie Brown. This was essentially the end of the first Tarantino era. He took a long break before coming back with Kill Bill, and by that point it wasn’t hard to wonder if that movie (or two movies, as the case ended up being) would be a full-fledged comeback or just proof that the early potential shown in his first two films was some sort of fluke.
As it turned out, the answer was somewhere in the middle. It WAS a comeback – but it wasn’t exactly the same Tarantino that came back. Instead, Kill Bill introduced us to what I see as the second Tarantino era, as the writer/director emerged as a new king of exploitation movies. This was certainly baffling to some, but it made perfect sense. Tarantino had finally dove head on into the treasure trove of trash films he was always publicly expressing love for and decided that that’s where he wants to play.
This is probably a bummer for those who wanted Tarantino to keep cranking out films similar to his first two. But really, wouldn’t that have gotten boring awfully fast? And besides, numerous Tarantino-imitators came in to fill that gap following Pulp Fiction. For folks like me, who love the same sort of kitschy ‘70s cult movies that Tarantino grew up on, the new direction he took starting with Kill Bill was an exhilarating change, and I gladly admit to hoping he stays true to his claim that he would be perfectly happy making nothing but “Grindhouse” flicks for the rest of his career.
Inglourious Basterds certainly belongs in this second Tarantino era, as it is ostensibly a tribute to the spaghetti westerns and war movies of the ‘70s. Of course, this being a Tarantino movie, it is also far more than that. Another recent Tarantino trademark has been his refusal to adhere to one particular genre or style even within individual films. This turns off some, as well, and I have already seen some criticism that Inglourious Basterds, like Kill Bill and Death Proof before it, is disjointed. In all honesty, this is not a criticism I can disagree with, even if it is not something that bothers me…except in one case. That’s right, before I get back to defending and applauding the film, I will admit that even I felt the film’s various styles got off track in at least one element.
I am speaking of the two moments in Inglorious Basterds where we are suddenly treated to voice-over narration. One of these is the origin tale of Hugo Stiglitz, and I’ll get back to that moment, because I have much more to say about it. The other is a strange and completely unnecessary moment in which the narrator informs us of how nitrate film burns much faster. For the life, I can’t really figure this moment out. The information could have just as easily been delivered in a couple lines of dialogue from the characters. I probably wouldn’t have cared if there had been MORE moments like it, but that’s just it – because there are only these two brief Voice Over sequences in a two hour and forty-five minute movie, they feel incredibly awkward.
But that is not enough to ruin the experience, nor are the rest of the film’s stylistic changes. In fact, the movie’s tonal shifts are a big part of what make it, and its writer/director, so fascinating. In my 411 review of Transformers 2, I said the problem with the movie was that Bay was too free to indulge in his various film fetishes. I stand by that, but don’t think that means I am saying directors should NOT be allowed to do so. The problem with Bay is that his particular film fetishes are unfortunately unbearable if not kept in check. With Tarantino, on the other hand, we have a director that we WANT to see indulge in his fetishes – and they’re all on display here. The long monologues, the memorable side characters, the excellent usage of music, the novel-like chapter breaks…even the trademark shots of women’s bare feet. They are all what make Tarantino Tarantino, and the new joy of his recent output is seeing how he will fit them into genres as various as kung-fu revenge tales, slasher films, and now WWII epics.
So, like I said, if you have already grown tired of these tropes, then this is hardly the movie for you. This is not necessarily a war movie for lovers of war movies. It is a war movie for lovers of Tarantino movies. It is definitely not his masterpiece, as I have seen at least couple critics claim. But that doesn’t matter. I don’t care if he ever makes another movie as excellent as Pulp Fiction. And, quite frankly, I don’t think Tarantino cares either. He’s in it for the fun now, and that’s what this movie delivers. Inglourious Basterds allows him to re-invent WWII, unencumbered by such little things as moral complexity or historical accuracy. This may seem silly (or just plain stupid) to some, and a part of me feels bad for those people. For the rest of us, we can sit back and enjoy as a master filmmaker puts his own unique spin on a seemingly worn-out genre and makes it something wholly original in the process. I give Inglorious Basterds a solid “B,” and eagerly await Tarantino’s next movie, whatever genre (or genres) it may be.
Before I go, though, let me just address a few other random thoughts about the movie:
-
I promised I would get back to the Hugo Stiglitz origin scene. Now even though I said above that this is one of two Voice Over scenes that feel strangely out-of-place in the movie, that doesn’t mean I didn’t like this part. Far from it – this is one of the most entertaining scenes in the movie…which only makes its randomness that much more frustrating. Why didn’t the rest of the Basterds get similar moments? It would have helped flesh out the others, like Samm Levine and B.J. Novak’s characters, who aren’t really given much to do. But OK, I can live with only Stiglitz getting an origin sequence…if only it ended up meaning something. I guess that is what bothers me about this scene. It’s something of an unfair tease. It instantly builds up this awesome mythos around Stiglitz, and in turn makes him one of the movie’s more intriguing characters. So you keep waiting for this intrigue to pay off, but it never does. In my opinion, it’s a rare creative stumble by Tarantino – he almost always delivers on what he sets up. But here he seems to promise big things from this character, and then we are never given them. I have given up on expecting Tarantino to ever actually make spin-off movies (like the rumored but never materialized Vega Brothers movie and Kill Bill anime), but perhaps he could get his buddy Robert Rodriguez to make a Hugo Stiglitz movie, and actually give the character the showcase his origin sequence suggests he deserves.
-
It’s interesting to me that no one seems to be making a big deal about the fact that this is the first Tarantino movie that (somewhat) focuses on making movies. Oh, sure, characters watch and talk about movies in all of his work, but this is the first time that the actual business of making and showing movies is actually a crucial plot point – even if it is the German WWII propaganda films we’re talking about.
-
I’ve heard that some feel the Nazi’s in Inglourious Basterds are one-dimensional villains. I don’t think complaint could be any further from the truth. In fact, I was expecting them to be much more stereotypical, given the sort of WWII exploitation movies that Tarantino is paying homage to with this movie (most of which DID relegate the Nazi characters to little more than cartoony bad guys). I don’t see how anyone could say that Hans Landa is a one-dimensional character. Same with Fredrick Zoller. And what about the young Nazi in the tavern, who simply wants to get back to his newborn baby? Not exactly “stereotypical evil” behavior there, huh?
-
And let’s finish off by talking about Hans Landa. There are a number of great performances in this movie (Brad Pitt is clearly having a hoot and it shows, and I was also very impressed with the work of Melanie Laurent as Shosanna), but there is no question that Christoph Waltz absolutely steals this movie. Landa is easily one of the best screen villains of the past decade, and I think it’s gonna be tough to compete with him for the Best Supporting Actor trophy come Oscar time. Who knew that being so pleasant and polite could be so creepy? "Wait for the cream!"
