There are two ways of telling someone that s/he is dumb. Either you say “You are plain dumb” or “You have been deprived of common sense”. The latter is only a subtle yet a stylistic manner of telling the friend in question that he is a fool.
In his latest Nazi slugfest, Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino has used the latter version to mock the entire exercise infamously known as Nazism. Told in four chapters, the film deals primarily with three aspects of the Nazi occupation in France---the oppressive Nazis, the defiant Basterds and the victims of Nazism. Each aspect has been embodied through characters, who in their own way, are as blood-thirsty as the leader of the Nazi pack, Adolf Hitler. Colonel Hans Landa of the SS is cruel yet dynamic, an oppressor who has a way with words. In the opening scene of the film, he kills a Jew family taking refuge in a French dairy farmer’s house. The daughter, Shosanna Dreyfus, manages to escape. Four years later, Shosanna herself assumes a new identity as Emmanuelle, heading a small but a well-known theatre in
As Zoller and his filmmaker/ Nazi propanganda minister Joseph Goebbels agree to hold the premiere at Shosanna’s theatre, the Basterds and Shosanna herself come up with their respective plans to blow the auditorium where the ‘Fuhrer’ is also expected to come. The second half of the film puts the four chapters into a perspective with a sole mission---to kill the Nazi leaders who are to attend the premiere.
The plot aside, what holds the film together is the sheer flamboyance exhibited by different characters. Alda’s portraiture, be it in terms of the appearance or the gestures, is not entirely different from Hitler himself. His brand of anti-Nazism is as lethal as Nazism itself, except that he happens to be a reactionary. Add to this the thirst for revenge in Shosanna. So who exactly are these inglourious basterds? The Nazis, the Basterds, who, though operate in small numbers, have waged an equally bloody war against the Nazis, or the revenge-seeking Jews like Shosanna? The answer lies in the title itself and the fact that no character is spared a redemption, not even Hitler himself who instead of committing suicide (which he is believed to have done in reality), is shown dying in the locked auditorium screening Zoller’s film. This very aspect of the film is an evidence of the mockery that Tarantino very consciously plays on each of his protagonists. There are more, but I don’t intend to spoil the film for you by revealing the end.
Any discussion on a Tarantino film is incomplete without an insight into the violence that is an integral part of his art, if his films were allowed to be called so. The violence in Inglourious Basterds works at several levels. Beginning with the title itself. Obviously one couldn’t have named it ‘French Connection 3’. At another level, the nature of the social and the political context the protagonists live in are equally violent. Take this remark from Landa as an example. “What a tremendously hostile world that a rat must endure. Yet not only does he survive, he thrives. Because our little foe has an instinct for survival and preservation second to none. And that is what a Jew shares with a rat.” It is another matter that towards the end the survival instincts in Landa take precedence over the ‘Hail Hitler’ syndrome. Finally, the physical violence. Portrayed in its rawest form, violence is a almost like a universe that the protagonists inhabit. For Tarantino, brutality is brutality. There’s no escape from it. And the finest aspect of his brand of violence is that he doesn’t even want to keep his viewers under an illusion that what they are seeing is a drama which is going to offer the rights and wrongs to them.
The lead actors Brad Pitt (Aldo Raine) and Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark) put up a decent act, but an ‘act’ nonetheless. The Greek God of Hollywood (read Brad Pitt) has a meaty role in the film, but it is only in few scenes that Aldo Raine takes precedence over the star. Ditto for Kruger. In contrast Christopher Waltz (who plays Hans Landa) and Melanie Laurent (who plays Shosanna) come close to living their respective roles. The other actors do not disappoint either.
Don't wait, just bask in the glory of the Inglourious Basterds.
13 comments:
Nice review.
For me, trying to find meaning in a Tarantino movie is a futile exercise. I agree with what you think was the overall superstructure - everybody was an inglorious basterd. The Nazis were cold, ruthless, jew hating, arrogant, superior-race touting. The Americans were their cliched best - smart talking, macho, heroic; at the same time farcical because an exaggeration of these traits.
But that wasn't the point at all. The movie is the farthest from a discourse on WW2. The atmosphere is throughout tongue in cheek. Like all Tarantino movies, the attempt is to create magical sequences and characters within this superstructure, which he did (the initial "jew hunter" scene, the clandestine meeting in the tavern, the finale and so many others) and bind them in a racy, satisfying, riveting whole.
Tarantino movies are pure entertainment, but not the kind which insult your intelligence.
i agree with you pankaj. except that you can't dissociate the context from the film, even if it is for 'pure entertainment, but not the kind that insult your intelligence'. Meanings are not offered on a platter, they are derived. And the tongue-in-cheek humour is a part of mockery that he very neatly makes.
but i do disagree with the cliched bit. If you see the way Hans Landa has been portrayed in the film, he is this seemingly well-mannered oppressor who does not bat an eyelid before brutally killing people. pitted against him is Pit (wow, that almost rhymed) is Pitt and his pack of reactionaries, whose oly aim is to get '100 Nazi heads each'. Somewhere there is a reversal, but overall if you see it's not the kind of cliche that Hollywood banks on. It's the Tarantino brand of absurdity that makes these characters dramatic and 'magical' in your words. :)
the context is War. but its certainly not a movie about War. or a critique of War. or a discourse on war. or a statement on the evils of war.
War provides a setting in which Tarantino works his genius. I dont think that Tarantino intends that any meanings be drawn.
hmmm. the characters are not cliches i guess. each has a magic of their own. i liked Hans especially. "well mannered oppressor" is a good description. i loved Zoller as well - he sees himself as a modest charmer, but really is an overbearing fool who is full of himself.
so u mean to say, that the Nazi setting is just incidental and what's important is the sheer drama that happens?
I wouldn't say completely incidental. Tarantino plays about the elements of the situation (WW2) to deliver absurdist drama. but the movie is certainly not about the evils on Nazism.
i haven't as blatantly stated that the film is on nazism. I called it a nazi slugfest because of the cynicism with whioch he treats his protagonists. The setting offers Tarantino a context to play around with his protagonists. And if you read it, you will know that how the context and his craft merge to offer us a wonderful drama
I did read it! Nazi slugfest is an apt description for the movie.
lol, thanks
haven't seen da movie, cant really follow yurs n Panky's debate....but am sure abt dis one ...Ana, u r goin 2 Hit brilliantly if yu start reviewing flicks for TVs, Newspprs n Mags. Way 2 Go!
hehehe, thanks babe, do see the film. it's beautiful
will have to...yur reviews tempt me to da needful.
I liked the fact that the film was so multi-lingual (French, German and Italian). Even in Kill Bill Vol 2 we see his characters converse in Mandarin, Japanese and Spanish. He's taken it a step further here. It reminds me of the director's remark about wanting to make films "for planet Earth".
Another thing I liked is that he's broken away from his own conventional style of direction. I mean sure he's got his trademarks of shooting from a character's POV and having Mexican stand-offs. But after the 2nd chapter you are able to forget that you're watching a Tarantino film and that's refreshing.
I think it retains a Tarantino signature throughout. He is a genius at creating brilliant moments based on dialog alone. In the tavern, the conversation takes a logic of its own, which has nothing to do with the super plot at all. Yet as it turns out, the culmination of the conversation adds to the plot perfectly (a shootout).
Thats classic Tarantino
Post a Comment