Quentin Tarantino, living genius or falling dinosaur? Tarantino’s spaghetti western world war two movie has definitely planted itself as a resident of the marmite constituency. John Patterson, The Guardian referring to Tarantino’s new movie as “incoherent and embarrassingly ill-wrought”, whilst others, and singling out one long time admirer of Tarantino’s work, Roger Ebert sums up the movie and the opinion that many will hold much more eloquently than Mr. Patterson, “a big, bold, audacious war movie that will annoy some, startle others and demonstrate once again that he’s the real thing”. Tarantino has been on record stating that “this ain’t your daddy’s war movie” – so why are so many finding the concept of what Tarantino has created so difficult is beyond me. Tarantino from the off-put has stated that he was not looking to create a historical lesson, but was intending to tell a story of a group of individuals fighting for freedom, turning fear upon the fear mongers and inspiring others to do what they have.
Inglourious Basterds is set in Nazi occupied France, and follows four stories which all intertwine (nothing new to Tarantino movies – Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown) through their common goal – killing the enemy. Chapter one introduces us to Col. Landa, nicknamed ‘The Jew Hunter’. Christopher Waltz’s depiction of The Jew Hunter is sinister, calculated, ironic, funny and mannered, deserving of an Oscar nomination, after this stand out performance; in a movie where every – but one, performance is stand out. The only performance I hold distaste with is ‘The Bear Jew’ played by Eli Roth, somewhat of a strained performance in which Roth never seems convincing; the only redeeming factor for the role is the actual strength of the character. The Bear Jew is a member of ‘The Basterds’ (Nicknamed by the German soldiers) who we’re introduced to in the second chapter. The Basterds make their way through Nazi occupied France destroying segments of the German army, The Basterds are hell bent on causing physical pain for the Nazis – and why not? The Basterds are led by Aldo Raine, a tribute to 1970’s B-War Movie actor Aldo Ray. The ultimate plan, Operation Kino, leads all the major roles together to a French cinema, where the death of leading Nazis is dreamt of to stop the war.
This ending has brought many criticisms to the movie, claims that Tarantino has “taken liberties” with history, something Waltz and Tarantino firmly deny, Waltz claiming it is all part of being an “Artist”, something I happen to agree with him on. [Spoiler] During the first showings of Inglourious Basterds in Berlin there were many cheers and ‘whoops’ when the Fuhrer was murdered by The Bear Jew. Tarantino’s movie brings up interesting points of how cinema can change the world, maybe not in the sense Tarantino shows in the movie, but he probably knows that, but in a sense of creating resistance. However, David Cox argues that “Operation Kino’s flames consume not just the Third Reich, but reality itself” but I believe he firmly misses the point of the entire film with this comment. I expect nobody to enter the cinema thinking to see a war movie in the same light as Downfall, Black Books, Days of Glory etc., but to see a war movie which throws away conventional history for two and a half hours, allows you to escape your life and all your constraints, and lets you think “what if?”, thus empowering people to know they have the power to change history. This is what the movie says to me more than just your standard revenge story, and it seems many critics have watched this movie from a view point of conservatism, and have failed to see the element that movies allow you to deconstruct history and re-write for the value of entertainment, which this film offers in abundance.
{Spoiler} One of my favourite aspects of the movie, which you rarely see in other war movies, is that Tarantino never allows the audience to get comfortable and cosy with his Basterds. This looks to have come out of a distaste, which I share, in many movies that you know from the start who is going to live and who is going to die, something which ruins a lot of movie experiences for me, but something you never have in Tarantino’s movies. For example, John Travolta’s Vega character dies quickly and surprisingly in Pulp Fiction, none of the main characters successfully get away with the robbery heist in Reservoir Dogs. This is continued in Inglourious Basterds, with Basterds hiding for much of the film to arrive towards the end as a hero. Another effect of Tarantino’s I appreciate, although not being exclusive to Tarantino’s movies, is that when a character does not understand what is being said in a foreign language, neither do you. This works extremely well. Also, before going into this movie I never really thought that Tarantino’s soundtracks were as good as people claim they are, apart from Harry Nilsson’s Coconut, of course, but this movie has one of the greatest soundtracks I’ve ever heard, along with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, and surprisingly they’re both done by the same man, Ennio Morricone, albeit Tarantino borrows his from another movies.
The movie has been criticised for not only being too long, but too boring. Peter Bradshaw was “struck afresh by how exasperatingly awful and transcendentally disappointing…colossal, complacent, and long-winded” movie Tarantino had created. However, not once through this movie did I look at my watch, want for the scene to move on or think “why hasn’t that been cut?” The film was enjoyable throughout and hooks you in from the start and never leaves you feeling isolated from the characters in the movie, but due to the soundtrack and the acting makes you feel like you’re actually there watching them, something I’ve rarely felt before. A major criticism of the film is the infamously long card scene’ was certainly not too long, if anything it was the perfect build up of tension and suspense by Tarantino, something that Tarantino appears to be able to pull off in every movie he creates, even the ending of Kill Bill; Volume 2 has some aspects of tension despite being overly drawn out. The scene also showcases the talents of German born actor Michael Fassbender, who, at the age of 18 re-enacted Reservoir Dogs at a local nightclub, and originally studied for the role of Colonel Landa. Fassbender plays an upper-class British film critic, who embodies some sort of want to be an actor during his scenes of arguing with the mayor. Fassbender is yet just one of the many displays of acting brilliance throughout this movie.
So the movie that was thought to never be created, a thought shared by Lawrence Bender (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction producer), has certainly silenced me after I’d begun to question the previous work of Tarantino as a little self-indulgent. Tarantino was once sort to be an equal of Scorsese, and then said to be a let down to never living to his promise, but I can never envisage Little Marty ever doing anything as magnificently outrageous as this movie. Tarantino has shown that in movies changing history can be a good thing (something Spielberg didn’t)and represented that cinema can be a catalyst to building resistance, something many already knew, but a thought that has been lost in contemporary Hollywood cinema and instead replaced by tripe like all out American movies like Transformers. As a genius once said “put conventional logic to one side, and enjoy, well, I say enjoy”.
