Filed under: Drama
Inglourious Basterds is without a doubt, one of the most beautifully composed films ever made. The camera swoops unpredictably around sets, subtlety emphasizing the tone of every confrontation. Every set is convincingly historically accurate, but complete control over color is maintained in every shot. Tarantino demonstrates a masterful command of every aspect of filmmaking; every sight and sound presented on his screen is calculated to make the viewer feel absolute exhilaration, absolute drama, and most impressively, absolute empathy with his characters.
In essence, Inglourious Basterds is a film about persecution and revenge; each subplot follows this arc. The first scene is a confrontation between Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) and a dairy farmer, Perrier LaPadite (Denis Menochet). A perfect scene in every sense, the audience gets to witness both the civility and degeneracy of Waltz’s expertly crafted “Jew Hunter.” Next we are introduced to Lieutenant Aldo Raine’s guerilla band of Jewish Nazi hunters. Together, the Basterds represent an entire race’s rage, and viewers quickly identify with the ruthless avengers. Lastly, we meet Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a French theater owner seeking her own revenge on the ruling party. The rest of the plot is simple: everyone tries to kill the Nazis before the Nazis kill them.
Seemingly in tribute to the diversity apparent within the Basterds, Tarantino has assembled a huge variety of actors coming from a whole slew of international filmmaking backgrounds. Each and every one of them is perfectly effective within their roles. Every character is so believable, that even the tiniest throw away lines seem to steal the scene, and go on to compose some of the movies most memorable moments. A particularly mundane moment that stuck with me occurred as the Basterds are disguised as Nazi officers in a French bar; a local Nazi officer sits down with them and proposes a game of twenty questions. Quickly realizing that he only has one pen, he asks the bartender for more pens, who then proceeds to hand him several pens. This small touch of realism amid a moment of the utmost dramatic tension serves the realism of each scene. Even in the most unrelatable of circumstances, we still see characters acting completely human. Fueling this incredible sense of vitality is Tarantino’s completely familiar, yet wholly unique sense of dialogue. Gone are the days when his best developed characters were the quick talking, street smart thirty-somethings of his early works. Each member of the incredible diverse ensemble consumes the audience. Even Sosanna Dreyfus’ seldom seen love interest, Marcel (Jacky Ido) succeeds in carving out a residence within the viewer’s gut. Each shot of him simply existing fuels a need to know more about his character. Considering each of the dozens of characters was able to accomplish just as much, this movie could have been hours longer, and each minute would have still been a joy to experience.
To my knowledge, the action sequences in Inglourious Basterds are simply the best action sequences ever to grace the screen. It’s not hard to understand why this might be, though; great directors seldom touch true “action” scenes, with few exceptions (i.e. Scorsese). When a story they wish to tell requires moments of action in order to move along the plot, it is typically done with a concentration on the perspective of one or two characters, so their feelings and motivations can be observed throughout. By forcing the audience to concentrate on what characters are feeling, instead of the specifics of the situation, a director can emphasize the dramatic implications of any excitement, rather than the spectacle. This approach is partly the reason why every exciting moment in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction was so engrossing. In Death Proof, Tarantino attempted to ignore this convention, focusing on the spectacle over all else. In Inglourious Basterds however, Tarantino has managed to find an optimized medium between focusing on the characters versus the spectacle of an event. The oft forgotten key is contained entirely within the minutes preceding said action. There’s a great scene where Sergeant Werner Rachtman (Richard Sammel) has been captured by the Basterds and is awaiting his execution at the hands of Sergeant Donny Donowitz, a.k.a. “the Bear Jew” (Eli Roth). For what feels like an eternity, we experience Rachtman’s perturbation as Donowitz clanks his baseball bat against a wall off-screen, then proceeds to slowly stroll towards his victim. In this way, when action is planned or anticipated, the audience experiences the contemplation and anxiety with the characters beforehand. In this case, the audience connects so much with Rachtman they can begin to forget that his punishment is deserved. Once this point is reached, whether or not the action actually follows this is inconsequential. Conversely, when an action is a surprise to those involved, it must surprise the audience as it does the characters involved. Only by catching both off guard, can true empathy be established and maintained. Keeping in line with this, if those involved are confused by their surroundings, then the audience must also be confused. The scene in the French bar contains a shootout that couldn’t last more than ten seconds, but it all happens in such real time, that no sense can be made of it until after the fact. No gimmicks are needed at this point. A dead body should speak for itself. After the smoke has cleared, then there can be breath: a chance for all involved to process everything that has just happened.
Viscerally, the movie is completely engrossing. There were long expanses of time in which it was truly impossible to blink, and eventually all I could do was shake. By the time the credits rolled, I felt an orgiastic release as I thanked God for this piece of beauty that doth exist in the world. To all this, only one reasonable conclusion could I reach: Quentin Tarantino has undoubtedly created a masterpiece that will seal his place as one of the greatest auters of all time.
-Paul Brinnel
11 Comments so far
Leave a comment
You gotta love how the last line is Aldo Raine saying ” I think this may be my masterpiece.” An example of Tarantino’s masturbatory nature that everyone has to love.
Comment by Ryan Marlow
08.23.09 @ 3:18 am
08.28.09 @ Paul…it’s so nice to see you guys actually like…nay, LOVE…a movie every once in awhile. Nice review…over-the-top…just like the film. Very well done. I agree…this is the best-looking film Tarantino has every crafted if nothing else. (Oh, and I pretty much loved it, too…though perhaps not THIS MUCH).
Comment by DHS
08.28.09 @ 12:49 am
I love this movie. I have a little trouble understanding why some film critics disliked it so much. I would think that as a critic, you see a lot of not only bad, but boring or bland movies.
Say what you will about Tarantino, his movies (especially this one) are visually appealing and different than anything being made. Could he please made a sequel or prequel to this (I hear he has a lot of footage that was cut to shorten it and had a huge script he couldn’t completely use).
Comment by Brad Templeman
09.02.09 @ 1:47 pm
lets not forget 7 million jews died tarantino should have worked into the film the fact that if hitler did not kill all the jews the america would be flooded with an over abundance of drs. lawyers and accountants
Comment by ldb
09.03.09 @ 9:36 pm
Idb-
Yes, because if anything could have made this movie any better, it would certainly have been such bold antisemitic run-on sentences.
In fact, wouldn’t it have been nice if someone as witty as yourself had just penned the script entirely?
Comment by Paul
09.03.09 @ 9:56 pm
I saw this movie last night, and I have to say either I’m too dumb to get it (not likely, I’m rather bright!) or this movie borders on a parody of Tarantno’s good stuff.
Self consciously wannabe clever dialogue? Yes.
Scenes that wander needlessly? You betcha.
Overly comical characters that lack the sense of menace Tarantino usually balances superbly with with, and comedic realism? Yes Yes Yes.
Brad Pitt is too famous for this movie. Every scene with Aldo I was like, “oh hey it’s brad pitt doing a funny accent.”
I wanted to like this movie. I really did. But it left me flat.
For the sake of argument, I like to pretend that Death Proof was intentionally over the top and goony, and I give QT a pass, it was a self indulgence. Not a great movie, but it was what it was and if QT had fun making it, good for him, he earned it.
With IB though I have to draw the line. This seemed like a movie with lots of interesting ideas that never really made it to daylight. Perhaps my beloved filmmaker bit off more than he could chew, perhaps he needed more focus. In any event, I was real disappointed by this movie and I hope it’s only a temporary loss of his fastball, and not a sign of things to come.
Comment by Steve
09.09.09 @ 1:31 pm
I have to be honest and tell you that I haven’t got around to watching this movie bu I have heard great things about it! In fact, I totally forgot about it til I ran across your post, guess I know what I’ll be doing this Friday night!
Comment by payday advance
10.29.09 @ 3:50 pm
Great site. Well done guys.
I just got around to seeing the movie. Great stuff, but I’ve been bothered by Shosanna’s character; specifically I can’t seem to make sense of her purpose in the movie (besides the practicality) or her relationship with war-hero Zoller. Her character is truly tragic; from the first scene, to her restaurant encounter with Landa, to her death and inability to realize her well-deserved revenge. I understand how I’m suppose to feel about her but where does she fit in the big picture of this movie? Shed some light and help me make some sense of her character.
Comment by Jake
12.29.09 @ 2:11 pm
Hey Jake!
I didn’t like the film nearly as much as Paul. I think the five chapters can stand alone as five brilliant short films, but they don’t add up to much, primarily because of Tarantino’s overly simplistic story arch. Shosanna represents Tarantino’s dream girl: pulp fiction reading, film loving, director respecting, Nazi killing, blond, French intellectual. She’s the martyr of the story. She sacrifices herself to kill the Nazis and saves the Jewish people. Replace her with Jesus and the Nazis with the Romans and you have Tarantino’s revisionist version of the New Testament. The problem with her character is that we don’t really know who she is as a person outside of her plot motivations. I’m rather shocked that the man who made Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown has made this film where not a single character is a three-dimensional person, only a plot contrivance to push ahead to the final scene (hence my appreciation of the film on a individual chapter basis instead of the sum of its parts).
I suppose in the themes of the film, Shosanna represents the victim’s revenge as a counterpoint to the Basterds’ comparatively motiveless assault on the Nazis. Of course her act of vengeance would not work without the Basterds, whereas the Basterds’ explosives would work just fine without the theater burning down. In fact, it’s Hans Landa who has Aldo’s bomb placed in Hitler’s balcony, so without Landa, Shosanna would not have been able to kill Hitler. Of course she dies completely unaware of this. And That’s why you have hit the exact weakness of the film. The film as a whole is a beautiful shell, with interesting characters doing and saying interesting things, completely holding and absorbing our attention, but the questions of ‘why’ are not good ones to ask because the film will not allow for answers. The film, totally plot based, does not allow for deeper explorations of themes and motivations beneath the surface except for those that connect the dots from the beginning to the end.
Comment by Jason
12.29.09 @ 3:02 pm
Yeah what you’re saying makes sense to me. I feel like instead of being possibly the most compelling character of the movie her role was merely reduced to a plot vehicle. Tarantino really does a good job building up sympathy for her, with the first chapter and additionally with her encounter with Landa. Yet, it seems to go to waste because we cannot ask why and what significance her death has because we are not told enough about her throughout the movie. I feel like he could have done something great, but he may have bitten off more than he could chew.
Another question; I noticed, as you probably did, that Tarantino was recycling music from Kill Bill in scenes of Inglorious. From my standpoint, and aside from the fact that I actually love the music, I was confused, mostly because the music conjured images and feelings from Kill Bill and took away from what he was trying to do on screen. My question is why would he choose to reuse here and is this commonplace in his movies (and I haven’t realized yet) and does is have something to do with the speghetti-western elements he has going in both of these movies?
Comment by Jake 12.30.09 @ 1:58 pm
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>