Advertisement
When I first saw Inglourious Basterds at Cannes, I walked out of the theater and felt like something was … off. I rushed to my computer and wrote a dismissive review. “Quentin Tarantino,” I wrote, “has never seemed to strain so hard to just make A Quentin Tarantino Film.” I complained about the film’s pacing, the quality of its dialogue, the excessive exposition. “Basterds plays almost like an assembly edit, defiantly presented as-is,” I concluded.
And then I saw the film again, this week, in New York, in a version different from the one I saw at Cannes. Some scenes are said to be shorter, although I couldn’t tell you specifically which ones; one scene excised before the French premiere has been reinstated. After that screening, I went back and read what I wrote about the film from France, and cringed. The review of Inglourious Basterds I wrote in May simply does not apply to the film I saw with the same title this week.
This happens sometimes. We don’t talk about it much, but it happens. Sometimes movies change — and Tarantino and The Weinstein Company have made no secret of the fact that Basterds has changed sine its Cannes screenings. But critics change, too.
The plot is the same. The titular elite squad of Jewish-American soldiers assigned to hunt and scalp Nazis, led by Brad Pitt’s noose-scarred hillbilly Aldo Raine, is only on screen for about half the film. 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 Hitler and Goebbels will be in the audience, Shoshana and her projectionist boyfriend Marcel (Jacky Ido) plot to lock the theater during the film and set it on fire. Meanwhile, the Basterds, in cahoots with a German film star (Diane Kruger) and British film critic-turned-military officer (Michael Fassbender), separately plot to do essentially the exact same thing.
The film’s guiding spirit is encapsulated in an exclamation by Landa in the first scene: “I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading.” Tarantino has made a movie about World War II filtered through rumor — verbally-transmitted urban legends, to be precise. There is no casual conversation in Inglourious Basterds; virtually every scene involves an interrogation and a chance for someone to brag about and/or live up to their reputation. Conscious of the world they live in — ie, not Hitlers, not ours, but Tarantino’s — characters on both sides of the divide take an active role in their own myth-making, to make sure that word gets out as to who they are and why they are to be feared, and everyone takes great pride in knowing that word is getting around. The film’s most oft repeated phrase is “What have you heard?”
This myth-making provides both Basterds’ most fascinating subtext, and its most bloated primary text. Take for instance, our substantive introduction to the Basterds themselves, in which multiple reputations are discussed before three acts of Basterd-on-Nazi violence occur. One Basterd gets his own awkward origin story flashback, narrated by Samuel L. Jackson, before we get to the point of the scene, which is defining which rumor will carry the day. The story of what happened that day will be told in three different forms. There’s what the Basterds tell the sole Nazi survivor of their massacre to tell Hitler; there’s what Hitler tells the sole survivor to tell everyone else, and then there’s what really happened.
Stories are propaganda, and propaganda is a weapon. This is not a film about how the war was fought on the ground (or in concentration/death camps, which are never mentioned), but a film about how both sides fought the battle on screen. In the single Basterds scene that I think is nowhere near long enough, Fassbender’s film critic-turned-British spy describes Goebbels as a warrior in the guise of a studio mogul, fighting for the dominance of the German film industry as a strike against both Weimar silent film and Hollywood, both the provinces of successful Jews. Shoshanna uses celluloid as a weapon in a more literal sense. Her two-part revenge gambit involves film as an explosive, and an explosive film in which she proclaims to be “the face of Jewish vengeance” (“in English,” Marcel insists when directing the scene — the language of the passive Jewish vengeance coming from Hollywood). Marcel’s goodbye to Shoshanna, delivered to her face on a movie screen after her actual body has already expired, is the closest thing to moment of genuine romance that Tarantino has ever filmed.
Ironically, though the film relies on the audience’s knowledge of Nazi atrocities for its effects, it has little interest in actually depicting them. Tarantino reduces the Nazi high command to Hitler, chief propagandist Goebbels, and Martin Bormann (essentially Hitler’s press secretary). The public face and architect of Nazi supremacy and his right-hand men in its promotion are represented, but not Mengele or Höss, none of the real-life figures involved in the nitty gritty of designing and implementing genocide. Inglourious Basterds not only avoids the depiction of the real figures responsible for the Final Solution, but it only presents the Nazi mass killing techniques as they’re appropriated as punishment onto Nazis by the Basterds. If you don’t walk in knowing that Nazis branded Jews, shot them en masse, locked them in buildings which they then burnt to the ground, Tarantino isn’t going to tell you, but the Basterds would lose all justification for their brutality if such events hadn’t happened.
What does this all mean? It depends, I think, on how much credit you’re willing to give Quentin Tarantino as a political provocateur. Is he really talking about the world we live in today? If so, what are we to make of a film that plays like apolitical fantasy, but nevertheless devotes its final images to broadcasting the idea that even when we win, Jews will remain an angry people who will neither forgive nor forget the wrongs done to us? If you want to see Inglorious Basterds as a contemporary allegory, you don’t have to strain — in fact, Tarantino makes it easy by presenting American soldiers who treat torture as entertainment (“watching Germans getting beat to death is the closest we ever get to going to the movies,” says Pitt), in a setting 60 years removed from Abu Ghraib, within a fight that, like our current excursions in the Middle East, is in part about the right of Jews to simply exist. And then, by giving us multiple (if ambiguously intentional) Jewish suicide bombers, Tarantino makes sure that the heroes of Basterds not only do onto their 20th century oppressors what has been done to them, but they also give their key 21st century foes a taste of their own medicine. You could make the argument that Inglourious Basterds is a palpably anti-Semitic film as easily as you could argue that it’s a rah-rah work of pro-Imperialist propaganda for US/Israeli collaborative war against those who threaten either nation’s global interests.
Either reading, I think, probably gives Tarantino too much credit — after all, when has he ever been a filmmaker who ached to make a statement about contemporary events? Plus, the film’s best source cue tempers either extreme. A key, glorious sequence is set to David Bowie’s “Cat People (Putting out Fire)” — borrowed, fittingly, from the soundtrack of the Paul Schrader remake of a Val Lewton horror number that allegorized the struggle of European immigrants in WWII America. It’s one of those musical-montage-as-mission-statement moments: you can’t put out a fire with gasoline without adding to the flames. Every act of war has fallout, and extreme acts burn for decades. Maybe this, too, is giving Tarantino too much credit, to assume that he’d take an active step to undercut his promotion of revenge, particularly when he’s talked at length about wanting to overturn the typical Holocaust film power dynamics to show “Germans that are scared of Jews.” But let’s just say he has a pretty strong track record of speaking through his soundtracks.
I’m still struggling with Basterds, as a statement of ideology (or lack thereof), and as a work of art. There are still things that bother me in terms of the way it flows, and I still think Tarantino sometimes over-exerts himself with the telling at the expense of the showing. But still — mea culpa. My initial assessment of the film was wrong. Maybe what I saw this week in New York really is a complete revitalization, so completely different from what I saw in Cannes as to excuse me from blame for not fully engaging with it in the couple of hours I had to form a correct opinion before the film was rendered old news by the maw of the festival cycle. But probably not. Probably, it is a couple of things. The film is now unquestionably a little bit tighter than the first version I saw; my complaints about the flow and movement of the action sequences is no longer valid, and as far as my complaint about the lack of “rock n’ roll efficiency”, well, that is idiotic now and probably was then, as well. But I honestly don’t know what has changed more since May: the cut of Inglourious Basterds, or me.
Maybe this is unfair to you, the reader — maybe film critics shouldn’t change. Maybe we should go out of our way to lead extraordinarily stabile lives, to avoid financial stress and familial trauma, to not get depressed or even date for fear of swinging too far towards any emotional extreme in the hopes of maintaining absolute objectivity. If that’s the case, I didn’t do what I should’ve done — I’ve been sent through the wringer by all the above over the last three months, and come out a different person. But the world changes, whether or not I stay the same, and at the rate this one is changing, it’s unrealistic to expect something as trifling as a movie opinion to stay fixed indefinitely. In May, I was visiting France from a country just barely emerged from the glowing spell of Obama’s first hundred days. Today, I am currently living in an America where — apparently — it’s okay to compare the President to Hitler because he is trying to make it easier for poor people to go to hospitals and for old people to draw up living wills, and the only person doing anything substantial to combat that theory is a gay Jew who uses “dining room table” as an epithet. The question of what it means to act like a Nazi is suddenly relevant to our everyday lives. It’s possible that we need Inglourious Basterds now more than ever.
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 don’t yet have a dog in the Inglourious Basterds fight. I hope it’s good because I prefer to see movies I like over ones I don’t like, but my life isn’t depending on this movie.
I tend to think Tarantino deserves a lot more credit than his detractors give him, and probably a bit less than given by his fans.
I think it’s great though that you’ve taken the time to rethink this thing and can admit that you’re turning around on it a bit.
Does it detract from what you originally said? I don’t think so. A review is a snapshot in time. A film festival review seems to me to be an even more malleable thing since you’re under lots of pressure and don’t have the luxury of time to sit and think something over.
I’m more skeptical of opinions when the person is simply digging in their heels and being stubborn. A black and white, yes or no, up or down judgment has an appeal, but is it any more trustworthy than something more considered?
i like that you went and decided to watch the movie a second time and was able to compare the experiences. most people wouldn’t even bother with that if the first experience was a disappointment. i’ve been trying to read up on articles about this movie. i’ve only seen and heard about it a few times and am quite eager to watch the movie in the theater. i read an article where Christoph Waltz was interviewed http://www.trigeia.com/article.php?id=79071 I find it’s always cool to hear what the actors have to say.
While the Obama/Hitler stuff is crazy, so was 8 years of Bush/Hitler. How soon we forget.
I take a lot of issue with an article that says the “current excursion in the Middle East”, without defining what it is, is about the Jew’s “simple right to exist”. Perhaps the writer of this piece is referring to the Israel’s recent invasions of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon a few years ago? Is that really what she thinks they are about? If so, that unfortunately overshadows the rest of her article.
It’s a definite plus that you re-reviewed this piece. It’s not like the film is fading out of public consciousness or anything! And surely it’s always better to display honesty, if only for the catharsis of it all.
From my experience of the film, coupled with all of Quentin’s interview material/pre-production talk, it seems pretty obvious that he really does intend all of the allusions to propaganda as a weapon; both in film, stories and music. But creating links to the modern world seems a bit tenuous. This is too confined and tailored to the Nazi/Jew relationship.
What he should principally be praised for is the use of This film specifically as Tarantino’s weapon to break both Hollywood’s modern adage of WWII reverence & the image of Nazi dominance (via a very literal castration et al). Hopefully people will now start making “fun” WWII movies again like there were in the 70’s; a goal I’m certain he was aiming for.
Oh, and that lady’s Hitler remark was totes viral marketing for this flick.
I am now officially interested about what Karina Longworth has to write. Bravo, Miss Longworth. Respectfully.
[...] example, two writers who saw the film at Cannes and since, praise it, with Longworth even posting a worthy piece at Spout.com explaining why she was wrong in her first [...]
Great piece, Karina…but I think BOTH your initial reaction and this one are right on. I saw “Inglorious Basterds” last night at a midnight screening and I fall in line with your original assessment. But the ideas you bring up here are also insightful and valid. However I think we and well, everyone knows, Tarantino isn’t trying to draw a parallel between our political climate (or at least during the Dubya years) and Nazi Germany.
Tarantino knows one thing and one thing only: movies. Wait, and weed. But “Inglorious Basterds” is a mess structurally. While I appreciate Glenn Kenny’s breakdown of the films structure and get what he’s getting at, it’s too scatter-shot and the “big scenes” are nowhere near as great as any of the “big scenes” in every other Tarantino film.
Someone in your other review comments section said we should judge QT films individually, but I think that’s bunk. The guy has painted himself into a corner wherein it’s “Heyyy, c’mon…I do pastiche and pop culture and tension!” When he stumbles at that, as he does here, it’s glaring.
That all being said I am still digesting the film and reading around but I should add, I certainly didn’t hate the film. It’s just not that great.
Great job of doing what I always thought film critics should do-which is to think about a film.
Except the mere fact of the matter is that Americans don’t become Jews or any eurasians and don’t integrate, except all in a spy capacity, and they didn’t enter WW2 until after Pearl Harbor, Americas trans-oceanic descended citizen minority is mainly a tool for Americas inevitable dominance and America is a republic, not a democracy, so a president is a moot and powerless publicity performance in a military intelligence superstate environment. It’s all American espionage and intrigue smoke and mirrors.
Inglourious Basterds - will definitely see this movie!
When I posted my review of Inglourious Basterds on a website that compiles reviews, they contacted me to know if I really wanted it judged as “fresh,” since I had serious qualms about the movie.
I answered that Inglourious Basterds was like a beautiful woman with bad breath. I was still trying to cope.
What I think Katrina is trying to do — and I am, too — is understand Inglourious Basterds as it is meant to be understood. We can’t like something if we don’t understand it.
Once we get on its wave length, we then can more validly judge it on our own terms.
Tarantino has said his movies should be seen a second time. That makes sense.
Time will tell whether something that is different becomes a classic, or whether it is just folly.
Katrina and others are trying to figure out what Inglourious Basterds is. First impressions are not conclusive.
Karina, I don’t get it. Are you saying that a few months (!) and the events of the media day (cobra-fast) have somewhat changed your first assesment of IBs?
Or the tweaking by QT and the Ws?
Sounds fishy ; which to be fair, you do allude to.
Also, you wrote the collective “we’ when speaking about Jewish Affairs.
Why?
Enjoyable read however.
Jerry
IB is a great film. The fantasy of killing Hitler and his goons in one fell swoop as they are trapped in a burning theatre while having a collective orgasm watching a film celebrating one nazi’s expertise as a sniper is brilliant. Movies are not for nothing: entertainment, inspiration, propaganda. Goebbels (who keeps coming back in different forms) understood how to connect and persuade through film. Today the people formerly known as the audience have the means of production to express persuade and rant.
I have now seen this movie three times and in every case at the end of the film the audience cheers and/or claps.
Perhaps the idea of rewriting history –destroying the top bad seen and his coharts, scalping those who follow and/ branding those who get to live– in the age of over the top political correctness is ….appealing.
As a long standing admirer of his work and following my first viewing of Inglorious Basterds last night, I would like to applaud Taranino’s genius in using this subject matter to invite his audience to consider the circumstances (i.e. tyrannical oppression) under which people might be driven to view suicide bombing as their only means of opposition.
[...] former editor of Cinematical, has written a post at Spout reconsidering her [...]
[...] wrong.” What discomfiting, wrongheaded and violent talk. Karina Longworth, on the contrary, takes a balanced line when reflecting on how her understanding of IB has changed over recent months. Having originally [...]
I loved your review and your about face - I think I did the same! Deep down inside I’m really shallow so I’ll admit that my gag point in the midst of a otherwise fairly engaging (meaning at least “where we goin”) movie was Mike Myers. Sorry that didn’t kill it but it was a wound. I loved the final act - Shoshanna’s revenge of the big face, and, of course I knew the second that hunter boy made the deal, payoff was coming from Raines. What good fun! I’m from Texas so perhaps I can say this more flippantly, but who wouldn’t have some fun killing Gnat-zees. Here’s the rub Karina - leave the healthcare bullshit completely out of all your future statements or thinking. I personally know a crack addict who had been partying for 25 days, was run over by a Tahoe she was trying to jack - driven by another hustler who had it off a buyer - and was massively head injured. The stupid bitch - who is a friend of mine! - has had over two years of free first class care in Dallas county’s trauma units (some of the best) and I’m fucking paying for it. Hey, i don’t mind, but don’t whine to me about how people can’t blah blah blah. Noone gets turned away. So I’m going to give the massive bloated and over reaching powers what exactly to make our lives better. Next I’ll hear I can’t hike or Ski cause it’s too dangerous.
. . . .what I meant was I and we the tax payers are paying for that - not me personally. I strongly believe, hope and pray that the Jewish people have learned at least one lesson. You must be the sharp end of the stick. period. No sympathy for those who try and kill you! How much global money do we give away publicly or privately? And like a bunch of billigerent teenagers resentment is the thanks. Thats OK. We are all warlike people. Truth hurts. The backside of the hand is coming
sine > since _ 3rd paragraph.
badass insight.
On a dramatic level the film could have been much better. Tarantino’s other films immediately establish a tone that creates consistency throughout the narrative– the best example being the opening scene of Pulp Fiction — that permits Tarantino to take dramatic risks without feeling like he’s strayed too far. Basterds not only lacks a cohesive thread, but uses title cards to further divide the work into scenes of such varied subject matter, pacing, and storytelling techniques that it’s destined to feel messy.
The original script contained further exposition that was shot but later cut, raising further questions of cohesiveness. Remnants of these omissions exist in the final film, my favorite being the makeshift operating room scene after the tavern massacre, where some of the dogs in cages are inexplicably shot dead.
I liked reading your interpretation of the film, but - like you rightfully admitted - it’s difficult to discern meaning from a Tarantino film given his tendency to insert obscure references and artistic flourishes simply for the sake of doing so– such as the much-questioned misspelling of the film’s title.
I saw the movie as a genre criticism of recent American war movies– not merely a throwback to the more lighthearted Hogan’s Heros and Dirty Dozen, but a direct response to the string of realism-inspired and casualty-driven war movies of the last few decades. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbor, which are purposefully bleak in color and mood, manipulated for sentimentality, yet follow the same US war movie tropes of being American-centered and English-spoken.
I cannot recall another American-directed war film - or any mainstream American film for that matter - that contains as much non-English speaking characters as this one. Some of the best lines in the film were not heard, but read over subtitles. And for a movie that appears to be about killing those always-reliable movie villains , the film resists painting the Nazis as stereotypes or bleeding props to be shot at (until the ending, of course). Tarantino treats the Germans with unusual respect by developing their characters and aknowledging their film history. This decision was intentional on Tarantino’s part not only to make the movie more realistic, but to suggest a major theme of the film.
So much of this movie’s story - and comedy - relies on the characters’ ignorance of other countries’ language and culture. If only Shossana’s family spoke English they may still be alive. The Basterds in particular fall victim to having giveaway accents, not knowing how German’s gesture “three”, and not speaking any of the languages of the countries they’re invading. Brad Pitt portrays the willfully ignorant redneck with perfection. “If you ever wanna eat a Sauerkraut sandwich again take your Wiener Schnitzel lickin’ finger and point out on this map what I wanna know” he tells one Nazi.
BRIDGET VON HAMMERSMARK:
I know this is a silly question before I ask it, but can you American’s speak other language then English?
The Basterds’ attempt to speak Italian makes for the funniest scene of the film. Is Pitt’s character even attempting an accent, or just failing miserably?
The reason this scene even works is because of Col. Waltz, who of course knows the true identity of these Italian posers and tries to both accommodate and instigate them out of sheer pleasure. He becomes the dominant force of the movie because of his ability to speak four languages fluently and adapt to who he’s speaking– though even he can’t get them all right: “That’s a Bingo!”
One aspect of the film that’s been bothering me: despite the film’s marketing that suggested otherwise and no doubt brought in hoards of carnage-seeking fanboys, is the Basterds’ - and by that measure Tarantino’s - violence in the movie glorified?
Aside from the preconceived notion that the Americans are the good guys and carry stereotypical bravado and camaraderie extracted from other films, these Basterds strangely don’t feel heroic and admirable. They are depicted as savagely as the Nazis and their final firestorm in the theater seems both self-fulfilling and futile: the soldiers are essentially shooting people in the backs as they helplessly try to escape a burning theater. Is Tarantino high on bloodlust and vengeance, or is he aware of his American’s inglouriousness?
The most revealing clue to Tarantino’s hidden intent comes from an unexpected attack from the German during the guessing game,
in what will inevitably be referred to as the “King Kong” scene.
Is it by sheer coincidence that the film divulges in the racial history and persecution of Blacks, Jews, and Indians (Aldo the Apache and his crew of Nazi-scalpers).
Then again, Tarantino has made similar digressions without any political significance in his earlier films, such as Madonna’s “Like a Virgin” interpretation in Reservoir Dogs or the Sicilian history lesson in True Romance.
It’s hard to figure out Tarantino’s intent in a film so elaborate, contradicting, and in some ways full of itself. Thus the aggravation of postmodern filmmaking– these moments may mean nothing other than what they are and Tarantino’s methods to remind us that we are watching a film might be simply for the sake of.
I definitely have to see this again. After one viewing, I like it, but didn’t love it. The 2nd viewing is always the true test.
Interesting review. I have this on my list of things to watch. From the review and the comments, it sounds to me like there could be layers of meaning which the Jewish public is not necessarily going to like. One might point out that if there is “justification” for the type of inhuman brutality as depicted here, so, too, would there be equal “justification” for suicide bombers in Tel Aviv and rockets from Gaza City.
for someone who’s probably got a glass jaw this guy’s sure got a lot of violence in his movies. Why do anemic frightened people take refuge in comic book lives and then go around Hollywood throwing ashtrays at people and bullying waitstaff. Infinately better subject for a film than this garbagio. When I was younger and wanted to be mildly entertained and didn’t feel the world was quite as fucked as it is now I’d throw on Resevoir Dogs. The dialogue is clever and there are some very creative film tropes in there but I would never ever waste more than a paragraph discussing these films for their political views or “importance”. Ultimately escapism is escapism. That’s the real nazism…
That said…
I really liked the last paragraph of this piece. It’s kind of loopy and personal and has fuck all to do with Tarentino. Kudos….
I’m not a Swanberg or Katz fan. I think the films could use a little more work but I have to say I find it pretty ridiculous and infuriating that those guys get hammered by questions regarding political content or lack of such in their work and no one asks stupid commercial bastards like Tarantino or worse Eli Roth why their movies are so violent, repellant and disgusting. I’d assume the reviewers don’t because they already know the answer. Commercialism. That’s the same reason they themselves review garbage that they have absolutely no feeling for over and over again. If you don’t promote it or at least talk about it you’re out of job, in exile or have or find yourself with nothing to talk about and nobody to talk about it with. I’m sure the nazi’s that were complicit in the death camps felt the exact same way and just bucked up too. The world is going to shit. End times right here baby.There is no Hitler now to blame it on either. There seems to be just a bunch of commercial bastards with absolutely no values or any respect for humanity, their own included running around like a bunch of kids filling there pockets while they fill the world with more and more cleverly hyped nicely decorated horse dukey.There is no ideology behind Inglorious Basterds beyond that. It ludicrous to even speculate on it. . more bang for your buck! that’s it. that’s the ideology. neat huh? Assholes! And no I didn’t see this film. If my humanity is going to be debased I’d prefer not to willingly shell out nine bucks for it. I want my brain back.
Damn straight, mike. Tarantino is the cinematic equivalent of McDonald’s. Even if it tastes great, it’s junk. And bad for you. How often do you see food critics discussing the intricacies of the Big Mac? And yet film criticism lags behind their food counterparts…
Sounds like you wanted to be the first to say “it sucked,” and then saw that everyone loved it and wanted to change your tune…
The edit is tighter, but the basic film is still there as it was in Cannes. Now you call it “fascinating” and “glorious?” I can see your opinion changing slightly, but a complete 180?
Puhleaze.
ZZZZZzzzzzz
Karina, I appreciate your re-review. I am a professional editor, and I know how much a few editorial changes can exponentially affect the quality of the film. It’s shocking actually and a pity that sometimes those changes don’t happen and a great film is lost for a few tweeks. Your experience I’m sure was very different for each screening. Thanks for the thoughtful recant.
I think it is brave, honest, and highly admirable of you to write this second piece, and I think it’s something critics should do more often. There’s nothing wrong with changing your position on a film, and I think it shows a lot of intelligence and self-awareness.
Great review.
Good review, although lots of other reviewers I’ve seen say its just about movies and not really about anything. I saw the movie, and I was shocked. I realized afterwards that I had taken the violence and the themes too seriously, since it is meant to be funny and not meant to be too much about world war 2 (that’s what the rest of the internet says). I still don’t get the film entirely, but there were moments I enjoyed now that I reflect on it.
I thought the movie was boring, and could barely keep my eyes on it.
It is glaringly obvious that neither the reviewer nor any of the people posting on this thread grew up reading the comic book “Nick Fury and His Howling Commandos.” While I agree that there are wheels within wheels in this movie (and the more I read what you fine people have written, the more the movie unfolds for me) it seemed to me after seeing the movie that one of the things QT was driving at was the raft of World War II comic books that a lot of us read in the 60’s and 70’s. Nick Fury, Combat Kelly, the UK Commando line of comics, Sergeant Rock; a lot of us grew up with this. Consider: Brad Pitt’s noose scar is never explained, neither was Nick Fury’s missing eye. Nick Fury and his band of intrepid warriors were able to operate, at will, in occupied France and Germany just like the Basterds. The English Howling Commando, Percy, goes into battle with a monocle, umbrella and Thompson gun. While Fassbender’s character doesn’t posses these attributes, Michael Myer’s character has dialogue that could almost be lifted, syllable by syllable, from a voice balloon of the aforesaid Percy. Beautiful secret agents, uber evil SS men (and I do think that Waltz walks away with this movie; incredible performance) and American GI’s striking fear into the heart of the National Socialist regime; consider it a tip of the hat to Stan Lee.
One other thing I noticed. If you, as I did, grew up watching all the classic sixties war movies, you would have seen (perhaps ad nauseum) “The Dirty Dozen.” At the end of the movie, the Nazi’s (with their beautiful escorts) are forced into a cellar, doused with gasoline and then grenaded through the ventilation shafts. The incineration of the humans in this cellar is left off screen. I couldn’t help but wonder if QT wasn’t taking us (those of us who, as children, grew up thinking it must be alright to do that sort of thing if they’re nazis) to task by showing his version of what it might have been like in that cellar. Just wondering. Anyway, I loved the movie, have seen it twice this weekend and look forward to seeing all these fine European actors bring their talents to the screen in other projects. Cheers,
Rethink?! This film spurs no thought process, let alone a reversal of previous thought processes. You may as well wax philosophic upon your little brother’s army men battles, though at least then youth could be blamed for the lack of insight and depth. Instead, what we have is a middle-aged man-child expressing revenge fantasies within the framework of the only education he’s ever known: cinema. Consider what the critical response would have been had anyone else–had MICHAEL BAY–honed this detrital effigy: total ridicule. But, because it has been crafted by our resident American “pop genius” –well, well, well, it’s a deep meditation on violence and propaganda! The only propaganda here is that which the critical establishment has been lulled by mediocrity into proffering: Kleboldian splatterporn masquerading as revisionist catharsis. Tarantino’s biggest career achievement has been spending his indie-cred capital on crafting a legacy built around becoming the new Warhol, appropriating his most base impulses and influences and dressing them up with just enough tongue-in-cheek artifice to seduce even the most jaded eye. He’s a huckster and a charlatan, spiking mineral water with snake-oil spectacle. And as he passes it around, everyone takes their happy little swig and nods with charmed affirmation; because the troglodytes are too desensitized to notice the difference, and the dilettantes are too afraid of losing their seats in the front row.
Now, go watch ARMY OF SHADOWS.
THE STORY WRITER IS REALLY A BASTERD