I have loved Quentin Tarantino's movies. He is an evocative translator of historic movie traditions into modern sensibilities. He has written terrific dialogue that no one, before or since, has ever written. His movies play off what has gone before: hard film noirs, gangster movies, heist movies, in his hands they contain: violence as ballet, gore as exclamation points, music as a pulsating aorta to the life blood of electric scripts, arresting movie making, and a unique take on all things movie.
My brother and I spent ten days in Washington, DC, once, going to every movie at a Samurai movie festival. Incredible. Sitting in the theater we met Toshiro Mifune, the John Wayne of post war Japanese movies, the Western looking young anti-Japan Tatsuya Nakadai, unknown to us before and sometimes cast as counterweight to Toshiro. We saw 'The Seven Samurai.' Sword of Doom', 'Samurai Rebellion', 'Yojimbo' and others I can't remember. Incredible films, made possible by John Ford and westerns, striking, exciting, violent in a mannered way that made you itch for the feel of a blade in your hand, to be confronted by Brigands, to live or die with honor. By the end of the ten days I acquired a life long ability to fake speaking Japanese and lifelong fantasies of being a samurai.
Samurai films, based on our westerns, created Italian spaghetti westerns based on Samurai films. Clint Eastwood became a combination of Toshiro and Tatsuya as Sergio Leone channeled John Ford by way of Akiro Kurasawa. Adding hypnotic music to his westerns, far beyond John Ford's Sons of the Pioneers, making a star of composer Ennio Morricone.
Making great movies, based on great movies but done in new and interesting ways, became Tarantino's oeuvre. 'Reservoir Dogs' brilliant; 'Pulp Fiction': a new way to organize film, brilliant; 'Jackie Brown' brilliant. Tarantino consistently gave us cinematic genius, an alchemist in the best sense of the word, art that modern audiences flocked to. Generation X-ers and Y-ers started renting old movies that they had never heard of, but now wanted to experience.
Then, six years ago, his masterpiece, Kill Bill I/II. He, like my brother and I at the festival, infatuated by samurai films and taking all that was best in them: the excess, the drama, the clanging non-Western music, the balletic fight scenes, the over the top characters, and through his magic making it modern yet traditional. A revenge plot to end all revenge plots. Samurai fights like those from 'Sword of Doom', becoming the beautiful duel in the snow in Kill Bill.
I can't tell you how many times I have seen both 'Kill Bills'. They are compulsively watchable. Like 'The Departed' on cable recently, for a while I was watching it once a week.
There is always something new to see or hear in both of them. There are scenes that are so arresting, multiple viewings are needed to try to figure out how Tarantino did them. Both Kill Bills, like all of his films, filled with cultural references, homages to previous films and directors, in jokes, and interesting Director's asides. All of his movies have these personal touches sprinkled throughout. But, such games within his films did not overwhelm the movie. They were not what the movie is about. They did not become the celluloid equivalent of a Friar's Roast with Quentin on the dais directing us to try to be as hip as he.
Which is one of the reasons, 'Inglourius Basterds' is so disappointing. Self-indulgence and tongue in cheek hipness does not a movie make. I read on IMDb that he worked on the screenplay for almost ten years. I don't doubt it. The movie is so disjointed that one imagines the 1999 Quentin is a stranger to the 2005 or 2006 Quentin. He must be changed by ten years of success and failure, loves and losses. Written episodically it would seem, over such a long period of time, this script needed a Maxwell Perkins to add coherence, but probably was vetted by sycophants. By 2008, whatever 'Inglorious Basterds' was meant to be, became, on screen, a movie whose parts did not add up to a whole.
Reviews have indicated that this was Tarantino's attempt to bring a spaghetti western vibe to a WWII film with generous references to movies like 'The Dirty Dozen' by way of 'Where Eagles Dare' , and, maybe, 'The Guns of Navarone.' But, seeking references amid disjointed vibes are games for the cognescenti not the stuff movie dreams are made of.
Whatever the intent the movie is a mess.
Somewhere over the ten years of scripting, his fantasies have been overtaken by events. A band of Jewish American soldiers, maddened by Nazi brutality, led by a ridiculous Brad Pitt, are landed in Occupied France. With no mission other than to cast aside rules of war and go on a revenge raid (see The Searchers for Tarantino's inspiration). A group of Americans torturing, scalping and killing any German they come across. There is no honor in what they do, nor real motivation, it's just pure cruelty.
In a world filled with real terrorists, who do cut off arms and legs, who throw acid in the faces of school girls, who trap tourists of all ages, men and women, in enclosed areas and slaughter them as if mowing the lawn, 'Inglourious Basterds' is neither a satire or ironic or humorous. We sit and endure an American platoon becoming Eisengruppen to satisfy the Director's 'attempt to channel spaghetti westerns.'
Perhaps those bits were written before we could watch beheadings on Live Leak. Seeing 'Inglourious Basterds' in 2009, complete with American soldiers as suicide bombers, one might guess that Tarantino is making some sort of Guantanamo/Abu Ghraib statement on post 9/11 America. Maybe. But, to this viewer, wrapping such a sadistic statement in a movie about WWII, a war that actually had clear heroes and evil villains to be shown in a country where the old guy sitting on the bus next to you might have been at Omaha beach and really did kill Nazi beasts in action, makes for a disturbing and unlikeable three hours.
People laughed at some of the worst violence, but they always do. What other reaction can you have? In one scene an American soldier is cheered by his fellows as he beats a brave, unarmed, captive, German soldier to death. Not with his fists but with an icon of Americana: a Louisville Slugger baseball bat. No Hattori Hanzo blade for our boys in this movie, just the dull thwack of wood on skull as blood and bone fly.
I am reading a history of Germany during WWII and, in it, the author describes an incident that really happened. In a small town in Poland, a line of Jewish men waiting to step into a shed where a large muscular man beats them to death, one at a time. Smashing, with a heavy iron bar, their legs and arms first and finally, amid the screams, crushing their skulls with a final blow. It was hard to read, it is hard to believe such things could happen.
It is even harder to believe that such a scene adds anything to a movie.
Inglourious indeed, from a very talented Director. By far his worst movie. A mess. Unfunny, disturbing, chaotic, slow, senseless, badly acted, disjointed, without merit. A series of in-jokes about unfunny things. A check off of Tarnatino-isms just to show Tarantino-isms. A Ford-ian framing, through a doorway, of a fleeing Jewish girl just to do Ford. But, unlike the majesty of what Ford was trying to convey, a throwaway technique as we await her being shot. The music, an enjoyable experience in any Tarantino movie, jarring in its hipness and lack of meaning.
Finally, a special place among the circles of hell for Brad Pitt's grotesque accent. Far be it for me to give advice to those in Hollywood who actually make movies as opposed to just watching them, but, there is nothing worse than a bad Southern accent. Fingernails on a blackboard are Claire de Lune in comparison.
If they give an Oscar for the worst Southern accent ever, my money is on Brad.
Michael Giltz: DVDs: Japanese Noir? Hai!
Movie and television reviews of DVDs, from little-known Japanese classics to The Office "Season Five."
Mike Miley: Quentin Tarantino and Morally Responsible Cinema
Tarantino gets singled out as being morally vacant because he makes violence funny, and he's successful because he's really good at it.
I have to put my foot down, you can't compare "The Departed" with
Kill Bill, come on Kill Bill?
"""torturing, scalping and killing any German they come across. There is no honor in what they do, nor real motivation, it's just pure cruelty.""
Yes, of course! That is obviously the point.
Since you are a fan, could you possibly agree that Tarantino intentionally avoids 'cheese' and drippy corny sentimentalism? The few scenes at the end of KBII with the daughter were it. Even that was somewhat "controlled". Bruce with his GF in PF was intentionally and obviously for the audience forcing the romantic dialog (she was sweet but a bit naive right?)
Tarantino uses violence and extremes in his art to cover up and gloss over sentimentalism (thankfully for fans like me).
Did we expect him to come out with some scene or plot device to make a moral statement about the deeds in Basterds? He sure isn't advocating that type of violence because if he was he would be locked up like a sociopath.
Maybe we should look at our back yard or other events in the world (like you started to). How many times did we hear someone in 2002-2005 say "turn the desert into glass" or "parking-lot" or "light up your world" or.... I could go on all day....
The use of the WWII bad guys is an obvious tool. They are history's single most hated group (rightfully so). How does it feel to let go of all humanity and just take revenge?
If anything, it seems like the only difference is that now Tarantino is telling a story set nominally in the "real world" rather than the "movie world" in that it uses WWII as a backdrop. In doing so, his evocation of real-life atrocities can cast his style in a different, less sympathetic/humorous light. But the aesthetic hasn't changed.
And I know others have commented on this as well, but as a Southerner, I found Pitt's accent to be a delightful send-up of the kind of accents you get in old WWII films. As LeftLeanWing said, it's camp ... kind of like the whole film.
And the reason I can't stand any of it.
Tarrantino has spoken of the personal significance revenge has for him, and it can certainly be seen in his movies. But even as a revenge fantasy, Inglourious Basterds fails. Not because the "Basterds" are insufficiently violent or cruel, but because no amount of violence or cruelty that could be filmed could possibly be sufficient revenge for real Nazi atrocities. Anything that even started to come close could never (and should never) be filmed. Justice can be imagined for those crimes, but any revenge would require its own atrocities that no civilized people should celebrate even in imagination. I'm not going to give away any spoilers for those that feel they absolutely have to see this film, but ultimately it celebrates an act that not only didn't happen, but wouldn't have been enough for revenge OR justice if it had, and before it gets to that point depicts Allied solders (Jewish Allied soldiers) as the perpetrators of their own war crimes.
As I said, worse than disappointing.
The idea of dropping American Jews into occupied France was a genius idea. Resistance fighters were in danger constantly, and their families and friends a liability to their bravery, placing restrictions on how daring they might be. Observe the first scene with the French farmer and his daughters.)These Americans had no family to protect, did not have to hide their names, and were free to do their damage without external worries. If one was caught what could be tortured out of him? Nada. Brilliant move had they done it.
Why weren't there suicide bombers under Saddam if he was so awful? Because he would kill every single member of your tribe if he caught you or tortured your name out of you. This is what Patton did in the mideast and this kind of suicide mission disappeared after a couple of tries. War is hell, but if you are playing that game you had better understand the rules. And politically correct liberalism or stupid Bushism either/or thinking is not gonna make it.
For an ongoing analysis of the brilliant Inglourious Basterds check out this blog: http//www.focusfree.blogspot.com
What in the world are you talking about?
Perhaps you are correct that sending a unit behind enemy lines to spread fear would have been effective. Perhaps not. I suspect it would have been more effective in aiding enemy propaganda efforts than anything else. I also think that saying that there can be such a thing as a "good terrorist" is a mistake. I'm not a fan of moral relativism.
QT has made some great movies, but is so totally in love with his own never-ending dialogue. Too many scenes sink under the weight of his hot-air yakyak.
Tarantino has fun with those people
The goal of the movie of course is to get mainstream democrats and republicans to cheer terrorism
I would hate to imagine if somebody did a historically accurate WWII, explaining how the British and french had brutal colonization all over the world, but not the Germans. But Then one day the Germans decided to play Western European's game of world domination, and you know the germans, they have their own methods. Very Orderly and technocratic. Not at all like the clumsiness of say, Britain's brutal repression in India at the time. Much more scary the way the germans did it
It was only for the equal brutality on the part of Joseph Stalin that the German's did not take over Europe entirely
Americans often like to think that we defeated the German's, but that's really not the case at all. We defeated the Japanese, which was really not that related to the European war
what the Brit immigrants did to native North Americans
what Brit Army did in India
what the French and Belgians did in North Africa
what the Brits did in South Africa
what the Spanish did all over the Americas
what the US Army did to the natives in America (millions dead)
what Americans did to the imported slaves from Africa and China (millions dead)
what the USA did later in Vietnam and Cambodia (4 million dead)
, you are correct in that the Germans were simply more as you said "orderly and technocratic" or as I would say "horrifyingly efficient"
Although, if you want to talk about incinerating human beings alive, we did a pretty good job of that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I will agree with you in that we defeated the Japanese in WWII and not the Germans. The 29 million dead Soviets won them that war.
I think the motivation is pretty simple: revenge. This is a revenge story, plain and simple, for both the Basterds and for Shoshana. A thirst for revenge is one of the most powerful motivators known to humanity. Sometimes revenge is embarked upon for the sake of honor, but more often then not it is nothing more than a rage filled vendetta. We see this in classic books/movies from The Godfather to The Princess Bride to The Count of Monte Cristo.
In the pivotal scene in TPB in which Indigo Montoya kills Count Rubin, Count Rubin has been disarmed. He is begging for his life and is no threat to Indigo. But Indigo is not killing him out of necessity, nor out of a sense of honor. He kills him for one reason and one reason alone; the Count killed his father. The most quoted line of this film, in fact, is: "My name is Indigo Montoya. You killed my Father. Prepare to die." The enduring popularity of this line shows just how much a good revenge story is appreciated by the movie going masses, and how eagerly we relish in obtained vengeance, whether it was obtained honorably or not.
This ISN'T Kill Bill. It's Inglorious Basterds. And Basterds isn't about the honor of the samurai. It's just a classic revenge story. Honor isn't the point.
Just pointing out that revenge in and of itself is a common theme in our story telling, is in and of itself a prime motivator for violent acts, and that honor and humanity often are brushed aside in its pursuit.
After reading the review, it simply is not my kind of movie.
This isn't Schindler's List, I think the point of this movie is clearly to entertain, not to send a deep artistic message, despite the years Tarentino put into it. And the audience was clearly enthralled. There were cheers, gasps, groans and moans throughout the film, and in the end, the audience not only clapped, they cheered. The main Nazi character was especially enticing, very psychologically fearsome. Whenever he was on screen and speaking, my heart was in my throat.
Despite the above blogger's review, most Tarentino fans I know really enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. But if you don't like his movies as a whole, you definitely wouldn't like this one.
I always at these times am reminded of Brooks Atkinson's awful damning of The Diary of Anne Frank when it opened on Broadway. He was the premier theatre critic of his time.