Advertisement
Quentin Tarantino has been a lot of things in his nearly 20-year career (yes, Reservoir Dogs premiered at Sundance 17.5 years ago, and yes, that makes you old), from enfant terrible to Oscar winner to untouchable fanboy icon, but he’s never seemed to strain so hard to just make a Quentin Tarantino Film as he does as writer/director of Inglourious Basterds. An 160 minute farce of historical revision, Basterds unfold in five chapters, all but one featuring a major act of violence padded with lots of footage of people sitting at tables, talking, in four different languages (five if you count Tarantino Speak, that American English dialect clogged with arcane, movie-sourced and invented slang spoken by Bible-quoting hit men and yellow jumpsuited hit women alike). So far so good, right? But the talking is notably lacking in the spark and rhythm that we’ve come to expect from Tarantino, and with a fair four-fifths of the film given over to character exposition and dull chatter, the violent setpieces feel rushed along, devoid of both the poetics of Kill Bill’s fight sequences and the rock n’ roll efficiency of the rest of his filmography.
The titular elite squad of Jewish-American soldiers assigned to hunt and scalp Nazis, led by Brad Pitt’s Jewish hillbilly (cough), is only on screen for about half the film; Pitt himself is glimpsed a scant-seeming three times in its first 90 minutes. We spend much more time in the company of Colonel Hans Landa, otherwise known as The Jew Hunter, played as a cartoon of logical evil by Christoph Waltz, and Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent), a beautiful young French Jew whose family’s murder at Landa’s hands caps off the first iteration of Tarantino’s talk talk, bang bang structure. Later, Shoshana emerges in Paris as the owner of a small cinema. There she becomes the object of infatuation of a German war hero-turned-star of his own Goebbels-produced biopic, and the next thing she knows, she’s agreed to host a gala, no-Nazi-detractors-allowed premiere for the film at her theater. Knowing that the top Nazi commanders will be in the audience, Shoshana and her projectionist boyfriend plot to lock the theater during the film and set it on fire. Meanwhile, the Basterds, in cahoots with a German film star and British film critic-turned-military officer, separately plot to do essentially the exact same thing.
Skip this next paragraph if you don’t want to know anything about the biggest hole in the plot:
Perhaps the most glaring problem with Basterds is that, possibly for the first time (I’m not certain — admittedly, I haven’t watched Reservoir Dogs recently), Tarantino’s storytelling is, barring brief flashbacks and other explanatory cutaways, more or less linear, but his narrative logic is muddled. I’ve read reviews that indicate that Shoshana teams up with the movie star and the Basterds to burn down the theater, but as the film was going on I was sure there were two separate plots, and that the whole point was that you woldn’t know which groups would pull theirs off first, whether or not either was a suicide mission, and if both weren’t, whether either group of ostensible heroes would make it out alive. The Cannes guide synopsis would seem to concur with my version, but the fact that there’s a widespread difference in interpretation of such a basic plot element bespeaks a marked drift away from Tarantino’s usual Swiss watch plot design.
Ultimately, Basterds is just tedious to watch, not necessarily because it’s so talky, but because the talkiness is supremely vacant. The pleasure you get from the talkiness in Pulp Fiction comes from feeling as though you’re spending time in the company of fantastic storytellers. In Basterds, much of the conversation, if you can call it that, is given over to the discussion of language, with the story itself rendered across huge swaths of talk on and around the subject of English as a guise and/or weapon and/or liability on the Third Reich’s battlefield for European identity. The rest is expository to an insane degree, with entire sequences devoted to verbal explanation/confirmation of each character’s reputation and relation to the Nazis or the Basterds. We’re told a lot, and shown very little.
What’s most frustrating is that Tarantino squanders the potential of a fantastic premise. For all the talk that this is the bloodiest Cannes in recent memory I feel like I’ve spent the past few days in films that celebrate the power of movies themselves as weapons with the power to liberate the passionate consumers of Western media (who prove that they are innately good by choosing to consume the cultural products of Capitalism) from the grips of fascism. The idea that English-language cinema could liberate the Jews and end World War II is not pure fiction — from Frank Capra to John Ford, American filmmakers were an active part of the war effort, and certainly, post-War, the American character as disseminated through products of Hollywood prevailed internationally. On paper, it would seem like Quentin Tarantino is the perfect person to make a film in which cinema is more directly, surrealy implicated in the change the world. But lost in Inglourious Basterds is a feel for the poetics of schlock that made his earlier genre pastiches so effective. When Shoshanna’s face appears on her cineam’s screen, interrupting the Nazi film with the vow (spoken in English) to show the German war criminals “the face of Jewish vengeance” in their last moments alive, for a moment Basterds seems to click into place, Tarantino’s passion for and tribute to film as the weapon and currency of the disposessed finally shining through. By the time the flames fully engulf the face, the moment is lost.
Basterds plays almost like an assembly edit, defiantly presented as-is, if for no other reason than because Quentin Can. The buzz around here contends that the Weinstein Company has enough riding on the success of this film that if it doesn’t rake it in at the box office — and all signs would point to it being a very tough sell — Quentin won’t be able to for much longer.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
I hope Tarantino has the good sense to at least edit down the film before its released in august.
I really like the thought you have in your fifth paragraph about English-Language (namely US/Hwd Cinema) as a self-aggrandizing liberatory force. I don’t watch nearly as many movies as you do these days but I would love to read a longer piece about this thought where you discuss this trend.
Thanks for the thoughts and the reports!
So much for Quentin Tarantino’s triumphant comeback.
Hmmm… I read the screenplay for it, and I do remember it being “talky” but not tediously so. I suppose a lot could have changed in the translation from script to screen.
Also, it is a different experience reading it than watching it.
I’m still looking forward to it…
Sounds like you didn’t get your ogling fill of Brad Pitt.
[...] provide the most curious choices. Tarantino’s lukewarmly received Inglourious Basterds (review by Spout’s Karina Longworth) saw Christoph Waltz take home the Best Actor Prize while Charlotte Gainsbourg won Best Actress for [...]
In my opinion, critics have become so accustomed to the style and sheer brilliance of Tarantino’s works, that they harshly judge each of his next films as they compare to some of his finest works, such as pulp fiction. You cannot take each film with reference to a previous one; Quentin’s most recent film, Death Proof, was a work of literary brilliance that only a Tarantino enthusiast can appreciate. I expect Inglorious Basterds to be the same. Quentin Tarantino does not cater to critics; he makes his films according to how he wants to tell them. So if you’re truly a fan of him, his movies will always satisfy. I’m so sick of critics being incredibly harsh against him, just because they have the expectations that each of his films will be another masterpiece. If this was a new director, I’m positive that the review would be drastically different.
Jeez, aren’t you people offended by how lightly people take the holocaust? Granted, at 45, I am probably older than a lot of you, but it was way before my time and I still feel the horror of it. Fictionalizing the holocaust might be ok in some circumstances, but the extent of this movie’s fictionalization is ridiculous. It reminds me of 12 year olds saying “Yeah, I’d blow up the Nazis.” Great. Thanks for the sentiment. Meanwhile, my children will be informed about the real holocaust. It will be an unpleasant, sad thing to think about. Hopefully, when they see mob rule they will be the ones to defy it and take up for the weak or victimized.
What level of shock will Quentin Tarantino find next? Isn’t there any way to be a hipster without being repulsive??
Karina,
I saw this film last week and I agree with your review 100%! I’m a fan of Tarantino but this is the most bored I’ve ever been watching one of his movies. The movie is called “Inglorius Basterds” and we barely get to see them! And I’m so tired of his fans getting angry over negative reviews because they blindly like whatever he does. And the other critics who are falling over themselves for this film are a perfect example of the Emperor’s New Clothes …..nobody wants to tell the truth here so thank you for that great review
I’m surprised by your remarks about “the biggest hole in the plot”, considering there is no actual hole in the plot. And I’ve read 8 different reviews of the movie so far this evening, and none of them misinterpret the plot. When I saw the movie, I was in no doubt as to what transpired. So perhaps the fault lies with bad reviewers, or perhaps reviews based on a reading of an early leaked script (?) rather than the movie.
If you watch the movie and you understand the plot, it is churlish to indict it for having a big plot hole when it doesn’t, and when you know that some other reviewers just plain got it wrong.
I thought that Brad Pitt’s performance was poor by the way - especially in his opening speech to the troops. It seemed too self-consciously mannered. But Christoph Waltz and Melanie Laurent both gave very convincing performances - their scene in the cafe really stood out.
Richard, that was very foolish of you to use the word ‘truth’ in the way you have in your comment. Laurie A.M., I know you’re 45, but don’t count yourself out just yet. There is no reason to be offended unless you’re unfairly judgemental. Aidan, there is gaping hole in the plot, though neither cited it here. I’ll let you figure it out for yourself. As for the film itself, it’s well done and rewarding. Great dialogue, great performances. It’s smart, snappy and fun. The only real ‘reason’ I read here to not like this show, is because someone said you should.
You’re an idiot. There is nothing that makes me more annoyed than a critic who doesn’t realize that this film isn’t for them. QT makes films for those who understand him. It’s not that us QT fans are that ravenous to protect him (though we are), it is more about “we get it, you obviously do not). It makes me wonder: did Fellini get told Roma wasn’t good because it was not the same film as La Dolce Vita or 8 and one half? This film is amazing, there is no other film this year that comes even close…
@Ezakia
Exactly any QT fan boy will love it,I won’t say is the best movie this year cause is not,Plus Enter The Void IMO was better than Inglourious Basterds.Gaspar NOE comes with influence’s and a unique vision,But of course ,This is a review for you to NOT take serious or get offended by,This is an opinion of what she saw,liked,and didn’t by her analysis sharing with readers her experience with the film,There’s no need to call people idiots ,That just showed me that you are deff a QT fanboy ,good I respect that,films are films you watch them because you want to, doesn’t really matter if he’s your favorite director of all time,IS more about the film being good or not.that’s it.
Mr.Tarantino sir what you have done here is made one of the most fantastic films of all time, i place this movie along side the greats which include, saving private ryan forrest gump sling blade casablanca titanic. and so much more i bow too your greatness sir.
I was skeptic at first. I’m awful at names and movies. Even though I have seen a lot of his movies and enjoyed them, I am the kind of person that does not pay attention to actor names nor the director.
Anway.. I was mainly skeptic because did I REALLY want to see a movie about WWII that took it the violence so lightly…even worse forced to sit with an audience that finds it all so damn funny? God, I want to go mad. It was like the time my friend and I were discussing ‘Saving Private Ryan’. He told me he thought the movie was hilarious. I was taken back and asked him to explain. He basically said he laughed so hard when he saw a soldier search for his arm and pick it up. I despise this kind of thinking. However, I feel I may be giving QT more credit, but I feel like he addressed this issue under the table from the eyes of the viewer and the plot(s). Yes, I admit there are parts I laughed when I knew I shouldn’t, but it is hard to resist when someone is throwing such satirical blows. In my eyes, the most profound connection I made, was watching members of the audience laugh when ‘The Bear Jew’ was mutilating the German officer. I feel the power in movies is even more profound. Prior to this scene I just mentioned there were witty, and smart jokes, so when the violence came.. everyone was still laughing there heads off. This power was not only actualized in the audience I was seated with.. but also the German Army as they watched their HERO gun down the enemy. I feel QT stressed the highly ranked officials laughter as the gun shots rang through the theater. When he was laughing.. no one in the MY theater was… AMAZING.. So what is the point? People are so caught up with.. the “us vs. them” syndrome or whatever you want to label it… that they don’t realize that it is NOT funny all together… violence isn’t a fucking joke, although QT is SO DAMN PERSUASIVE.
Anyway.. I end with the personal belief that the title was meant for those who are tricked into such disgraceful action.
WE ARE THE INGLORIOUS BASTERDS.
I just read through the comments and was shocked to see so many people echoing your sentiments. While I do agree that the typical Tarantino beat-poet dialog was missing, I do think the film as a whole holds up rather well. So what if the dialog wasn’t typical? I also didn’t like the fact that the previews make you believe the movie is all about the crew, when the reality is that it has little to do with them. However, the character of Maj. Hans Landa is a classic one that I feel will eventually make ‘top villain’ lists. My biggest peeve was the Mike Myers bit part, which I couldn’t decide if it was good or not because hell, it’s Austin Powers. I think you’re not giving this film enough credit. It’s no Pulp Fiction, but it is still better than 75% of the other trash that’s out there.
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.
Check out the rest of my review at:
http://cfilmc.com/inglourious-basterds/
This movie was a day dream. It is as if Tarantino scooped up the sadistic fantasies which we are all entitled to and plopped them on the screen for us to take a second look at. So the movie wasn’t a typical war movie, it was a fairy-tale fantasy depicting how we would have wanted the war to end if we could have sent people back to end it. But unlike Goebells in the movie, Tarantino recognizes that his protagonists are not heros or the “Nation’s Pride”, instead killing killers makes the team “Inglourious Basterds.” If you enjoyed the movie you did not get its message, which was Tarantino’s ultimate joke. This was a seriously clever movie. Throughout the movie I heard cheering and laughter from the audience as the basterds mutilated the faces of guilty Nazis. When the climax of the movie came, and I watched as Hitler’s laughing face was torn apart with bullets (an image I have fantasized about as a child), I started to look around the theatre to check that my fellow audience members and I were not being judged quite as harshly as the audience in the movie for enjoying the suffering of others.
Three words, “Not for everyone!” I thought this movie to be a very pop American fantasy of how we wished WWII could have ended but nonetheless, very entertaining. Nothing beats Nazi-beating and Nazi-killin’ especially in this over the top version of WWII cinema. I loved it despite the overzealous voilence and pure fantasy aspect of it, suspend belief and you’ll be fine. It’s a hell of a ride.
Greatest movie all summer…and one of Tarantino’s best
still processing the basterds, but I feel that it is safe to say that this is Tarantino reaching Kubrick level. I have never seen a film that captures the human savagery within us to this extent. It is one of his most coherent films to date. I agree that the Jews showing savagery comparable to the Nazis, is not as noble as a Martin Luther King, Jr. or a Mohandas Gandhi approach, but it exemplifies that this savagery exists in all men- we have different thresholds. I mean, what would you want to do, or be capable of, as an Iraqi farmer whose 3yo daughter was blown up by an American bomb? You would probably want to cut off the face of the man responsible. What would you then do, if actually given the chance? A very powerful statement, and shown incredibly well.
Jeez, you self righteous american basterds. You don’t know anything about history, or about movies. Comparing this boring and poorly acted trash with masterpieces like 8 and a half or not-so much masterpieces like Titanic (yeah, and Forrest Gump….) says it all. Take notice guys, you may keep on bashing the germans for a JUST war they fought (minus the Holocaust, granted), but rest assured that nowadays the whole world hates YOU, precisely for your arrogance and downright stupid selfrighteousness. Too bad America, that you will never know, since all you seem to be able to see, is your own sorry self. Wise up, please!
This movie really missed the mark - a psuedo Jewish retribution film of wishful thinking, inane chats about nothing and characters and interspersed with uber violence that only shows the depravity of men and women on all sides of war. The worst Tarrantino movie ever. Make-up was crappy , especially the Mike Meyers bit. Two thumbs down with a lot of bullets.
It is incredible to me that someone privy to the Cannes Festival can miss the point so massively with this film. The wit of previous Tarantino films is most certainly present in Basterds. However, it possesses a great deal more character development than many of his previous films.
The drawn out conversation between Shoshanna, Goebells and ultimately Landa was one of the crowning pieces of this movie. The tension created through the subtle hints that Landa may recognise her
The Tavern scene was just as brilliant, especially when looking at the nuances which leave the possibility of a double-cross open to audience interpretation, and your insinuation that using this topic to celebrate cinema was self-indulgent shows a great deal of ignorance of WW2 history - particularly re-Goebells and in a year in which we see yet another rise of GI Joe in popular culture. This interpretation is staggering.
The dialogue worked brilliantly to create sympathy for each and every character, with the possible exception of Goebells.
There was indeed one plot hole in the end, out of respect for those still yet to see it I will say no more than the omission of Himmler is problematic.
Mike Myers presence was baffling and detracted greatly from the film but understandable as Tarantino apparently saw the upper class British generals presented in post WW2 films amusings. Thankfully his role was minor.
The only problem this film presented for Tarantino was the light it shone on movies such as Kill Bill, which now, unfortunately, do not seem to reflect the talent of the man.
Quite frankly, this film was brilliant and one of, if not the best, I have ever seen.
I completely disagree.
I read the first sentance you wrote and already I see that your a ignorant, “Quentin Tarantino has been a lot of things in his nearly 20-year career “
Sorry if Im reposting but there are a few remarks I must make.
For all offended by the lack of historical accuracy, check out the first frame of the movie. It says once upon a time. As in a fairytale. That happens to be set in nazi occupied france.
That out of the way, here’s the more important bit. QT turns his audience into basterds. We laugh and jeer at the voilence bestowed on the nazis yet we are apalled at their laughter when Americans are killed by the 100s in Nations Pride. But we are no different because we laughed and jeered and do so again when the fire erupts, the basterds shoot into the crowd and the bombs go off. And he’s showing is that, with the shot of Zoller cutting out at swastika in wood with a knife in the Nations Pride movie, a mirror of Aldo Raine cutting the same symbol into nazi foreheads.
So thats easily the best feat of the movie. But there’s tons more. Consider the face of an already read new, shoshanna, projected on the smoke and laughing at the revenge. In ww II jew bodies were burnt in huge ovens, biling out the smoke of dead burning bodies.
Consider that foreheads are used to show identity: in the practice of raine, scarring and in parrallel in the guessing game of who am I. And then the antagonist changes identity, and becomes not only an American, but one of us. And then raine scars him. What does that say about us?
And thats just the tip of the iceberg. So maybe it’s not fanboy prone, but it is pretty impressive and highly original. And yet at the same time the highest grossing QT film to date. To pull both that off is worthy of nothing but praise.
After reading comments prior to mine I’m not sure I am qualified to comment on this website. I’m just a movie goer that seldom misses a chance to see a Quentin Tarantino flim. “Hostel” was too disturbing to me…………but as far as “Inglourious Basterds” awesome movie………….
……………….Bravo Mr Tarantino Bravo!!………………I left the theater feeling entertained……..Every minute of the movie was thrilling and I was on the edge of my seat. Brad Pitt did not dissapoint either…..wow…..he played that role well……..As always Tarantino put together the perfect actors for his film……..wonderful characters and perfect cast……….Brad Pitt playing the leading role in a Tarantino movie “it don’t get no better than that folks”. Thank for the ride. There is just something so exciting about “Killing Nazis”.
The more I read this websites commentts the more I realize it is not about the movie at all. It a bunch of b s and people trying to one up the other. Like who is the bigger brainiac. “Oh my Gosh” were you entertained or weren’t you? It’s just about entertainment. It was like a roller coaster ride. Thrilling, funny, one unexpected event after another. I want to see it over and over just like I did “Pulp Fiction”, and “Resivor Dogs” and the reason a person wants to see it over and over is to find all the different quirky things that you can’t focus on during the first viewing cause thee is so much going on. I thought the appearance of Mike Myers was great and all that crap about laughing about people dying. Hell yes we laugh at Nazis dying that’s the whole point. The guy that discribe it as a fairy tale was right on.
It’s to bad we can’t go back and murder the Nazis. Savagery? OMG! Let the Jewish people tell you about savagery. The guy that said all that crap about Americans blah blah. Get off the fucking computer you commie basterd……….LOL!!!! I’ve never participated in this kind of thing before but it was fun. Y’all need to lighten up………
dedede
Seems strange to still feel a compulsion to watch a Tarrantino film, I suppose it’s loyalty after watching pulp fiction at the cinema all those years ago, and really believing that someone can make better movies than Spielberg.
This film is certainly a protracted affair, with glimpses of the old dog, and maybe more sense of humour than others before it. But to be honest the film is boring. Yep some bodies get scalped, yep there is some tension, but the film advertises itself as a roller coaster ride of retribution, when actually the editors have made sure it doesn’t parody the persecution of the jews too much.
Mike Myers playing some kind of English officer is fucking disgraceful (yes we were at war with the Nazis 2 years before the yanks, and yes the yanks knew about the ethnic cleansing of the jews and ignored it for at least a year, until the oil supply was at risk, and pearl harbour), still the yanks bank rolled this one, and you can tell, brain dead rubbish.