When I saw the preview for Tarantino’s latest film “Inglourious Basterds”, I turned to the person sitting next to me and whispered sarcastically “How shocking that Tarantino has finally realized that he can exploit World War 2 for maximum violence and gore.” I’m realizing now that had I not known that Tarantino’s name was attached to the project I would not have been so sceptical. Regardless, I did ultimately follow up the comment with “I am definitely going to see this.”
I have put much blood, sweat and tears into explaining my ambivalence regarding Quentin Tarantino to people. Tarantino appears to be the sweetheart of the maladjusted youth of my generation. Trying to explain to people that I like Tarantino’s films but I don’t really like him is like pulling teeth. Through these discussions I have more or less sorted out the finer points of my issues with him. I enjoy the man’s films. They get the old ticker pumping. They are witty. They include many filmic references that movie nerds can hoard greedily and pretentiously. And they are generally pretty badass and ballsy. But Tarantino himself leaves me with sour feelings. I don’t mind that he references films of the past but I wonder if he relies on them too much. His portrayal of women is borderline empowering while at the same time seeming downright insulting. (While writing this I just got into an argument with Chris about my conflicting views on Tarantino). I could spend all day struggling with my inner turmoil over the films of Tarantino but I think I should just get on with it.
This movie was not the violent free for all that I was expecting. When I left for the movie I was worried about whether I could handle a whole two and half hours of bloody, bone crushing, eviscerating violence. I was awed to find the film opening to a pastoral French countryside. It was shockingly beautiful. The scene was followed by an intimate interrogation between the “jewhunter” and a French farmer. What I loved about this movie is how Tarantino drew out those scenes where everything is on the verge of being discovered. The eagle is continually scanning for the nearby rat in this film. For me it was like watching figure skating and cringing while I wait for what seems to be inevitable; the sparkly people to fall on their asses. I spent the majority of the two and a half hours nervously chewing on the end of my pen thinking “oh no...oh god... phew...oh jeez...here we go...”etc.
This movie was drenched in references to film. Not only did Tarantino make the interesting choice of once again referencing 1970’s films with the titling of the characters, the soundtrack and the side notes and occasional voice over by Samuel Jackson (not gonna lie, when I hear that voice all I think is “Afro”) Tarantino also explored the booming film production during WW2 within the Third Reich Film Industry. He illustrates how film has been used throughout history to influence and control people. I thought it was both awesome and fitting that film becomes quite literally a weapon in this movie.
The cast of this movie was killer (no pun...ugh..) There is no denying Brad Pitt is a funny guy. When I tried to figure out what it is about him that makes him so funny I decided that many of his characters have a sort of childish and immature humour, it’s as though he is never taking himself too seriously, and I enjoy that. Pitt managed to create a character unlike other any other character he has played. I think the beauty is in the details such as the stiffness of his character; his Eastwood squint and hard set jaw. All the entertainment magazines make a big deal of Diane Kruger, she was very charming in the film and spoke lots of German (her native tongue) but I much preferred the French actress Mélanie Laurent. She was excellent as the quiet yet fiery Shosanna. Her transformation into the femme fatal set to Bowie’s “Cat People (Putting Out the Fire)” while she puts on her makeup like war paint (one of the many references to the apache?) was a really awesome scene. When Eli Roth is introduced as the “Bear Jew” I had to squint for a second as I thought to myself “Zachary Quinto?!” but Quinto’s Sylar is a whimpering little puppy compared to Roth’s sad-watery-eyed scull bashing beast. The guy created “Hostel”, he must have had to tame himself for this part. Til Schweiger plays a Nazi who turns on his own and joins the Basterds, if anyone has seen “SLC Punk!” they remember what a psychotic spazz this guy can play. The best in this film and one of the best of any of the Tarantino films is Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz. This guy has a sunny disposition the whole time he is hunting and killing Jews. There is nothing scarier than the unscary bad guy; you never know what they are going to do, always charming people’s guards down. He’s not even that evil, he’s just an opportunist; I’m not sure which is worse.
So to conclude the longest ramble of my life, I want to discuss the issue I had with this movie. The Jews pretty much become the Nazi’s in this movie. They commit heinous crimes against the Nazi’s that are uncomfortably similar to the treatment of the Jews during WW2. At one point Aldo says to his Basterds that “Nazi’s have no humanity” and we all know the complications that arise when one group of people decides to strip another group of their humanity. I couldn’t have seen this movie at a better time because I just finished Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Everything is Illuminated” which also deals with the treatment of Jews during the holocaust; therefore, I have another perspective fresh in my mind. I guess what I wonder is if Tarantino was trying to make a statement with this. The roll reversal is quiet obviously pre-meditated but what is he driving at? Is he trying to illustrate how everyone was a barbarian during these times? Is he trying to show how easily the shoe could be on the other foot? I get the impression that Tarantino is a sort of hap hazard director, where some directors such as Hitchcock and Gilliam were meticulous and stubborn in their film making, it sort of seems like Tarantino doesn’t spend a lot of time asking himself “Why?” For example: Is there a reason he has Samuel Jackson voice over the occasional scene in the film? How long exactly did he spend thinking about whether or not to do this? I know the film has got me thinking, but is that what he wanted? The only statements I can find from him say that he wanted to make a spaghetti western set in WW2. Ok Quentin, mission accomplished.
It seems that whether he means to or not, Tarantino is always challenging our perceptions and hang ups about violence. Regardless of the political intentions of the director, this film was still tremendous. I was never bored at any point throughout the two and a half hours and I spent the majority of it filled with the tension and excitement of the film. Tarantino has outdone himself again and I think his fans will consume this movie with the same enthusiasm that they have all his other films. Anyone who is looking for a thrill with a side of ass kicking should definitely go see this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment