My final movie review of 2009 ends up being one of the most unique movie experiences I've had in a while; watching Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. I believe this was my first time actually seeing a Tarantino film (I know, I know, don't shoot me) so I didn't know quite what to expect when I saw this.
What I saw was a bloody, intense, sometimes humorous film that was anything but factual. Many probably already know this, but if you're unaware, please do not think that this is meant to be in any way historically accurate. While many of the 'main players' from World War II are used here, their fates are completely altered. That doesn't really detract from the film, but I felt it needed to said as a public service so no one confuses this for actual history.
That's not to say that Tarantino is not a history buff; it's just that his love of history falls in a particular area; film. Throughout this movie, you can see his love for the history of film. While it's most obvious in the fact that he centers his plot around people trying to assassinate Hitler while he's attending a Nazi propaganda film, there are other smaller moments that only true film buffs can appreciate. Some of them are direct nods to past films, others references are more in the stylistic choices he makes as a director. All of these references enhance the film without becoming overly meta.
Not only does Tarantino's style pay homage to films of a previous era, it also provides the film with a sustained level of intensity. There are several scenes in this film where you are completely on edge realizing that there are so many combustible elements that something graphic or extreme could happen at any second. Tarantino does a wonderful job of building up these scenes to their boiling point as the audience watches with dread (but a good kind of dread, if that makes sense), unsure of what will happen. This is where not adhering to history works for the film, because you have no real sense of who will end up dead or alive.
One man who singlehandedly creates suspense everytime he was on camera was Christoph Waltz, who plays Nazi officer Hans Landa. Nicknamed 'The Jew Hunter', he's the only Nazi portrayed with any sort of intelligence in the film. Every time he is on screen, you get a knot in your stomach, unsure of what sort of pain and agony he's going to unleash on those around him. He has been generating Oscar buzz for his performance and deservedly so. He will go down in film history as one of those great villains that you love to hate and hate to love.
There are two basic plotlines in the film that end up intersecting as the film progresses. One involves a Jewish girl named Shoshana, who has managed to avoid capture and now lives in France as a theater owner. Her theater has been chosen to host the Nazi propaganda film and she sees it as her opportunity to assassinate Hitler. Meanwhile, there is also the titular Basterds, a group of American, mostly Jewish soldiers, led by Brad Pitt, who are out to collect as many Nazi scalps as possible. Soon, they too see Hitler's appearance at the theater as the prime opportunity to take him out. In telling this story, Tarantino opted for a five chapter structure. Using this method, he basically creates five extended scenes. It may seem a bit basic, but Tarantino utilizes this method to the fullest.
After watching this film, however, I was troubled by one major question; what was the point of this? I usually enjoy deconstructing films in order to identify their themes or messages. With this movie, I was having difficulty doing that. Yes, you could interpret the film in a variety of ways - it's an attempt to destroy the Nazi mystique, or it's an attempt to illuminate that Americans are no different than Germans in our savage violence. But none of these themes seem strong enough or at least they don't seem to be the ideas Tarantino wants us to take away from this film. The most likely option may be the most troubling one of all, in that he has no central thesis with this film. He simply created a cowboy Western film only had it set during World War II. For me, it somewhat cheapens the experience and for others only gives them another example of 'new violence' that is so over the top it loses all of its meaning and significance.
Even if Tarantino had no intended message with this film, I encourage those that do see it to hold a dialogue about it afterwards so that these captivating moments that he provides can be unpacked in a way that's useful to us all. Given that this film now seems to be a lock for a Best Picture nomination at this year's Oscars, I'm hopeful that more people will go out and see it so that it can be explored further. I think this is an expertly made film, but one that will leave you feeling dirty unless you take the steps to (figuratively) wash the blood off your hands. If we don't explore films like this further, than we become the bastards. Grade: B+
No comments:
Post a Comment