Inglourious Basterds
2009, U.S.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Screenplay/Story: Tarantino
QT loves to challenge the established boundaries of film-making, so it should come as no surprise that IB is, well, surprising. It’s surprising on multiple levels; on the bludgeoningly obvious, typically Tarantino-esque level, such as when he points out Nazi party luminaries with scrawled annotations, or interrupts the story proper for a documentary-style aside on the flammability of nitrate film; but surprising also on underlying storytelling levels, such as the inversion of the damsel-in-distress archetype or the abandonment of the hero-as-event-motivator cliché. What’s left is a bit of a mess, but a completely winning, expertly put-together mess that does nothing to dim Tarantino’s star as one of the great living directors.
I walked into Inglourious Basterds fully expecting a Western set in Nazi-occupied France, and perhaps for a day or two Tarantino had the same goal in mind. Certainly the film opens with a strong Western feel, from the Ennio Morricone strains to the opening confrontation that smacks of Sergio Leone. Inglourious Basterds, I knew, was about a troupe of eight soldiers – let’s call them gunslingers – that parachute behind enemy lines to terrorize, pillage, and generally give the Nazis something to think about.
But the opening Western feel is rather quickly shelved, and to my amazement Inglorious Basterds becomes less and less about the Inglourious Basterds and more about their adversaries and the film’s ostensible MacGuffin, the French cinematiste Emmanuelle Mimieux. The Basterds are each given a fairly equal share of screentime, and so are relatively dilluted characters compared to the larger-than-life villain (Colonel Hans Landa) and the doted-upon Mimieux, the latter being a damsel-in-distress that is not only capable but also much more interesting and relevant than the role typically demands. In contrast the supposed heroes feel more incidental to the events and rather large cast. Even Brad Pitt’s Lieutenant Aldo finds himself in few scenes of consequence and none of drama. His Marlon Brando-channeling performance is played up more for comedic effect than anything else, and one is tempted to say his chief purpose in the film is to let us see Brad Pitt play a southerner.
But make no mistake, there are scenes of genuine drama, which Tarantino assembles in a way that few have achieved. The excellent opening scene is merely a warm-up for what might be the film’s centerpiece, an intense, extended joust between three of the Basterds, a Nazi collaborator, and an SS major. This scene is completely absorbing from start to finish. Tarantino trusts his dialogue enough to let it completely drive the tension, and the result is nothing short of phenomenal. A scene involving the heroine, villain, and additional foils is equally tense.
The ending brings more surprises, which I cannot fully discuss without a big, fat SPOILER warning. Firstly, Tarantino decides to liberally rewrite history, which bothers me slightly from some kind of purist perspective…it’s a bit of a cheat, but ultimately can be lived with. More interestingly, Tarantino resolves his rather complex plot threads in part by making the villain a cheerful defector. I must question this decision somewhat. It sidesteps the traditional climax of pitting good versus evil in a way that recalls 2007’s No Country For Old Men. To my mind it’s a less-effective catharsis that also undermines prior events: the villain isn’t as unambiguously detestable and the uncertainty of the heroes’ success is marginalized. The novelty of such a decision, I believe, comes at too great a sacrifice of the overall dramatic impact.
*** end spoiler ***
Style: 8
I found the stylistic decisions to be less effective than those in, say, Kill Bill, but I think there is little doubt that Tarantino is still at his peak. His oftentimes sledgehammer approach works to both ends, with some adding to the tension and others more disarming the audience for the sake of disarming the audience. I do not doubt that I missed some subtleties with my first and only viewing.
Substance: 9
Relentlessly absorbing, cruelly nihilistic, simultaneously bewilderingly surreal and intensely real – Inglourious Basterds is definitely a ride. The dialogue is great, and a few of the characters are very memorable. Tarantino struggled with the ending and I think it shows, but it’s of small concern next to the towering heights of drama and presence that he achieves.
Overall: 9
Add it all up and it’s a film that’s uneven at points but brilliantly so. The tone of surreal nihilism, the muddled ineffectuality of human affairs, is consistent with Tarantino’s previous works; a potential deeper meaning, if you’d like, is a subtle critique of U.S. American culture, as the film portrays the Americans as irrelevant, uncultured, and inflexible. I suspect that I will find more to this film over time, and that there are layers to be exposed, but its immediate impact is undeniable.
August 26, 2009 at 11:19 am
I don’t sling five star ratings like a short order cook slings hash at Norm’s. It takes far more than a single element of quality film-making to achieve such a score. Yet Quentin Tarantino once again delivers and proves, rather indisputably, that he is an oasis in the ever expanding desert of Hollywood cinema (looking at you, Roland Emmerich!)
Tarantino’s ability to blend a compelling story, masterful dialog, memorable characters, and superb direction is a rare gift, indeed. Perhaps not since Orson Welles has the world seen such a cinematic polymath.
From the outset, the audience must understand that Inglourious Basterds is historical fiction. The titular characters are a Jewish covert ops team working behind enemy lines to seek and destroy Nazi patrols. To that end, Tarantino has chosen to (liberally) play up the angle of Jewish empowerment over their oppressors. Although the film has drawn some criticism for this, when I saw it, the audience seemed rather delighted by it — and yes, the theater was packed.
Brad Pitt is the leader of the Basterds, sporting a mustache and a southern accent that almost seems like a parody of itself. It should be noted that Pitt’s character (Lt. Aldo Raine) is not intended to be the romantic hero of this story. At times he seems like a rather incapable leader compared to his much more serious and adept subordinates. It’s all in good fun, though, as Pitt is the designated comic relief (and there are more than a few laugh out loud moments).
The film has three separate plot lines that meet at various points, before converging at the film’s climax. The exploits of the Inglourious Basterds are the first thread. The second follows the sadistic but brilliant Nazi detective, Colonel Hans Landa dubbed “the Jew Hunter” for his uncommon ability to conduct successful raids on safe houses and to sense when he is being lied to. Christoph Waltz turns in one of the year’s best performances and has already received considerable acclaim including the award for Best Actor at Cannes Film Festival. Waltz steals every scene he is in, and will have audiences squirming in their seats as the suspense builds.
The final story arc is that of Shosanna Dreyfus, lone survivor of her family’s massacre at the hands of the Nazis. Shosanna (later going under the alias Emmanuelle Mimieux) is singularly hell bent on exacting vengeance upon those responsible for the untimely demise of her family. It would be difficult to say more without spoiling the film.
Tarantino’s signature style is on-again, off-again throughout the movie, a choice that renders the final product all the more outstanding. There are scenes, such as the centerpiece of the film which takes place over the course of at least 20 minutes entirely within the confines of a drab one-room tavern, where Tarantino withdraws almost entirely, trusting the dialog and the actors to carry what is perhaps the most crucial turn in the film. Does it pay off? Like hitting a progressive jackpot on a penny slot.
There are other scenes where the mood is considerably lighter, and the director deliberately interrupts the natural flow of the movie for purposes of humor or overt exposition (featuring some great off-camera appearances by a celebrity guest star! See if you can guess who).
Not absent from this two and a half hour opus (though it doesn’t seem that long) are several moments with QT’s trademark graphic violence, so be warned: this film is not for the squeamish.
Most audiences will revel in the well told story that is Inglourious Basterds. Films like this do not come along often, so seize the opportunity when they do. Highest recommendation.
August 29, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Cary and I saw this film last night, and I didn’t like it nearly as much as you both did. I would say the movie was okay to good. There are amusing moments, but the narrative is messy and the ending improbable. I don’t care about the re-writing of history as much as Landa’s motivation to turn traitor. Landa is clearly a brillant (and sadistic) gamesman; why would he ever think that Aldo would let him and his man go unscathed? Christ, the Basterds are known for their brutality towards Nazis. Plus, Landa kills Hammersmark just for betrayal, and hours later he’s doing the same thing? It doesn’t make much sense.
IB was stylish and very watchable (the burning theater scene was pretty spectacular), but the narrative was poor. Really, the narrative was a flimsy scaffolding for QT to hang his trademark overlong dialogues which are often overindulgent.
August 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I agree, Will, that Landa turning traitor was the outstanding weakest point in the film. It was a cop-out resolution to the story, simply put. And yes, I do think the narrative in general was not half as tight as a Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill. I guess the question is whether those drawbacks are made up for by the good parts. I felt like a few scenes (particularly in the cafe and in the pub) were truly spellbinding and almost single-handedly elevated it to a high score. I also think the characters are pretty memorable, particularly the Nazis, and I didn’t find the dialogue overindulgent (except for the part where Landa says “we have a bingo,” which seemed massively out-of-place).
How it all hangs together is tough to say. I toyed with an 8 score because of the narrative weaknesses, but ultimately I left the film feeling highly entertained. It also felt fresh and nuanced. I think the 9 rating is a good reflection of my first view gut feel for the movie.
August 31, 2009 at 9:31 am
I disagree that Landa’s betrayal was a weak point in the film. Unlike most movies where everything is spelled out for you, you can’t just shut your brain off for this one. The film takes place in June 1944, less than a year before the actual end of the war (Hitler died April 30, 1945).
Thus, a cognizant viewer can surmise that the Nazis are already on the losing end of the war effort. The United States has officially joined the Allies, and it will all be over soon.
Why then, shouldn’t Landa become a turncoat? I actually saw the movie again yesterday, and noticed something that I missed the first time around. Landa explains to Brad Pitt that he doesn’t necessarily care about the Nazi cause. Hitler simply recognized Landa’s talent as a detective and took advantage it. And as a Colonel in the SS, it was equally advantageous opportunity for Landa.
Is it any more absurd that Captain Renault, head of the police force in Vichy, has absolutely no stake when it comes to politics in “Casablanca”. “I blow with the wind,” he tells Major Strausser, “and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.”
Landa is a similar character. You could even argue that he’s based on Claude Raines’ character from the 1942 classic. Sure, he strangled Von Hammersmark for betraying her country, but in the end, his allegiance was to himself more than it was to Germany.
Although it is not specifically said, it’s certainly believable that Landa realized this was as a good an opportunity to cut his losses and secure his freedom as he was likely to get. After all, how many Nazis were tried at Nuremberg? Landa even says, “I have to no wish to go down on the losing side of the war only to find myself standing before a Jewish tribunal.”
That seems like good motivation to me. Especially given what Landa was promised by General Harvey Keitel: guanrateed citizenship, the congressional medal of honor, and land on Nantucket Island?
Further — and again, you have to pay attention to catch this stuff — one of Landa’s demands was that all of the operatives in Operation Kino were to receive the Medal of Honor. That means Lt. Raine (Pitt) and his Sergeant would have received the highest honor the United States government can bestow on an individual. Landa didn’t have to demand that, but he did, perhaps thinking that this would put him in the good graces of the surviving Basterds.
Throughout the film, no one was able to get anything by Landa (except for Shosanna). So Landa thought he had worked the Basterds into a corner and that his freedom was secure. He is shocked and outraged when Brad Pitt guns down Herman in cold blood, and tells him that Herman going free was part of the deal, and believes Pitt will be executed for going against orders. Seeing as how he believes Pitt will be shot for his actions, it’s not really hard to see why he was willing to turn himself over to him in the first place. He knew that Brad Pitt was only a Lieutenant, after all, and that he had no real authority.
And finally, the groundwork was previously laid for Landa’s betrayal when he placed the bomb that he confiscated off of Raine in Hitler and Goebbels’ private box at the theater.
September 1, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I saw the film the other night and dug it quite a bit. It’s every bit a Tarantino film, from the fractured narrative to the foot fetishism to the snappy dialogue. It also appears to be Tarantino’s celebration of not just German film, and it is that certainly, but of all film. Consider: several of the characters in the film are associated with the film industry to varying degrees: Lt. Hickox, British liason to the Basterds, is a film critic and part of Operation Kino; Bridget von Hammersmark, a famous German actress is an integral part of said plot; Shoshanna is the owner of the theater, which is not only the site of the mission, but also provides the means, by way of the combustible nitrate film to help destroy the Nazis contained therein.
Regarding Christoph Waltz’ performance as Col Landa, what can be said – he’s a great villain, one for the ages. He is by turns sadistic, playful, silly, calculating and heartless. Probably the most well-rounded Nazi character ever put on film, if such a thing exists. His opening interview/interrogation of the dairy farmer ranks right up there with Tarantino’s best scenes.
As for Brad Pitt as Lt Aldo Raine, the nominal star of the movie, his is a broad, charismatic performance full of wonderfully hammy moments, as he chews the dialogue with an over-the-top good ole boy accent that never grates, but adds to the overall enjoyment of the film. His opening speech to his men could, in another movie, be considered horrifying – they are, after all, talking about murder, execution, mutilation, etc., but in that goofy twang, even the butchering of Nazis sounds like a fun adventure, not the war crimes they would realistically be considered. But this is far from a “realistic” movie by any means; the ending alone is proof of that. Rather this is a B-picture with artistic flourishes and cinematic moments as only Tarantino can muster.
Tarantino sets up several scenarios that ratchet the tension up to an almost unbearable length. The tavern sequence (Will they get caught?), leading to one of the few, but intense moments of brutal violence in IB, is but one example. As is Shoshanna’s sit down with Goebbels, Landa et al. Who doesn’t gasp when Landa orders her a glass of milk? Truly great stuff.
Lest things get too dark, Tarantino layers in quite a bit of funny moments. Pitt’s hilarious mangling of the Italian language alone is worth a repeat viewing. Also notably funny is the back story (complete with theme music and title) of Hugo Stiglitz, and pretty much everything Stiglitz does in the tavern scene, from glaring at the Nazi Major during the game, to his choice for the character to give to the Major, is chuckle-worthy.
Needless to say I really enjoyed the movie, especially the more I look back on it. I was surprised to see Freaks and Geeks’ own Samm Levine as one of Pitt’s Basterds. If there are any nitpicks to be had, it may be with the choice of Eli Roth to play Donny Donowitz. While certainly a menacing figure as Pitt’s stoic, grinning right hand man, Roth nevertheless blows every line he speaks with a horribly overdone Southie accent. I know he’s good pals with Quentin, but it makes me wonder what Adam Sandler could have done with that role, as it was written for him, if scheduling permiited him to play The Bear Jew instead of a non-acting friend of the director. As for Mike Myers as Gen Fenech, well at least he’s getting work after the debacle that was The Love Guru.
Brian, glad you caught Harvey Keitel as the voice of the commanding officer over the radio. And I’m sure any keen-eared listener recognized Samuel L. Jackson as the narrator. Overall a very good film, on par I’d say with Jackie Brown or Kill Bill Volume 2 for Tarantino. I’d love to check it out a second time, as looking back on it, I have only come to enjoy it more. Let’s hope Tarantino’s next comes hot on the heels of IB, much as it came out a scant couple years after Grindhouse.