Skip to main content

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds
(2009)

(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

That’s particularly significant, as I never really got that sense of genuine enthusiasm from the Kill Bills, which always came across first and foremost as formal exercises. Tarantino spent a decade honing the Basterds material, which probably explains how his initial guys-on-a-mission movie ends up repurposed as sporadic appearances by Brad Pitt (Aldo) and a largely forgettable gang of Jewish-American soldiers. And Til Schwieger. Out of them, only Eli Roth as “The Bear Jew” really makes an impression, but he’s about as versatile an actor as he is a director.

The Basterds are largely a subversive conceit on the part of Tarantino by, as Daniel Mendelsohn suggested in Newsweek, “turning Jews into Nazis” through their “taste for vengeful violence”. Mendelsohn’s concern over this is the oft-levelled one of fiction that appropriates and distorts facts (“But these bad guys were real, this history was real, and the feelings we have about them and what they did are real and have real-world consequences and implications”), and it’s a conversation that has resurged around Tarantino with the release of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood; Basterds announces its “fairy tale” vision at the outset, with a “Once upon a time… in Nazi-occupied France” title preceding an ominous arrival out of Once Upon a Time in the West, and a stand-off that takes the form of words rather than gunplay. I’m not sure Claude Lanzmann, maker of Shoah and outspoken critic of dramatised treatments of the Holocaust from the likes of Spielberg, would have seen the Basterds the same way as Mendelsohn, however (“… he told me that he had enjoyed the movie very much”).

Notably too, the Basterds are basically idiots. Maybe not as much as Michael Fassbender’s cut-glass Englishman for going to a meet in the face of warnings that it’s a bad idea, but certainly enough to think they can masquerade as Italians. Pitt, in particular, is playing up such blithe bravado to maximum cartoonish effect, all Clark Gable tache, jutting jaw and superficial swagger. As such, I don’t think you can take the thematic arguments in a movie this self-consciously goofy entirely seriously; they are there, but I doubt it’s Tarantino’s aim to make an internally consistent movie, or that he’d cope well responding to such a self-imposed restriction.

The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw hated the film (and contrastingly thought it represented a lossof the director’s mojo), while the description “kosher revenge porn” was bandied about a lot, which feels like the most simplistic reading available. One might more forgivingly suggest Inglourious Basterds finds the director making a self-conscious counter-propaganda piece, and again, draped under such a banner, one would be unwise to take all the tics and affectations with a straight face or, indeed, at face value (David Cox, in a blog piece for The Guardian, was unsure about the picture’s daffier qualities – “a mighty star… plays a cardboard cut-out” – and suggested “It lacks the cold seriousness that’s given Tarantino’s brutality so much of its impact in the past. If anything, it seems to be a comedy, but not one that provokes many laughs”).

Cox highlights just how film-centric this exercise is, with its film scholar (of German cinema) turned British agent and starlet turned spy, and a climax in which film (stock) and cinema (an actual cinema) themselves are destroyed; essentially, however, I suspect many who don’t like the film arrived at such a position because they find something essentially tasteless about it, that it it’s “going too far” in changing the facts of how WWII played out. Aside from the personal taste element, there are two observations arising; the narrative choice was decisive in making transparent Tarantino’s whole schtick, as the creator of hermetic universes where he gets to play God. And also that, if you rely on such a device, you eventually run the risk of it becoming a tired prop. I’m a little surprised by the flagrant manner in which he went back to the well with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, but then, it’s a picture that is even less apologetic, if that’s possible, about immersing itself in the paraphernalia of cinema itself.

Even disregarding that aspect, though, it’s strange to read Bradshaw, who is otherwise a Tarantino acolyte of the highest order, including of long-winded dud Kill Bill, label the film a long-winded dud and describe the standout scene in the beer cellar as “unendurably, unbelievably tedious” (Bradshaw’s takes often don’t wash, but calling that expertly structured sequence tedious beggars belief). Rather, it exemplifies the manner in which Inglourious Basterds is carefully built on reveals or withheld knowledge in a very Hitchockian manner, whereby one character knows what another does not and turns the tables, from the supremely confident opening in which we realise Landa (Christophe Waltz winning his first Tarantino Oscar) has requested of Denis Menochet’s dairy farmer that they speak in English so as not to tip off the Jewish family hiding out in the cellar, to Landa joining a surprised Melanie Laurent at the restaurant (culminating in the To Catch a Thief-inspired stubbing a cigarette out in a strudel), to the cinema climax taking place with the knowledge that Landa knows Diane Kruger’s movie star is a spy.

The killing of Laurent’s Jewish resistance fighter Shosanna shouldn’t be a shock from the director who offed Travolta, but it comes at a point in the picture that doesn’t allow for playful reframing (albeit, we do see her rendered immortal in the form of celluloid following her death, hence the absurdly titled fifth chapter Revenge of the Giant Face), and so carries with it a sense of almost De Palma-esque nihilism. For all that Tarantino says “In this story, cinema changes the world, and I fucking love that idea!” (of course he does), in contrast to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood he resists allowing his characters happy endings (unless we’re talking Aldo, and as others have noted, he hardly constitutes a rounded character).

Tarantino’s typically eclectic cast includes some aberrations – Roth just gurns, and Mike Myers is indulgent – but also some great picks. Fassbender is mesmerising, and also notable are Daniel Bruhl’s war-hero private, turning from shrewishly shunned to would-be-rapist, and Richard Sammel’s unrepentant soldier, refusing to squeal and so having his head bashed in by Roth as payment. Both Laurent and Kruger make the most of roles that are all about putting on a performance and withholding.

I should emphasise, though, that while I think Inglourious Basterds is a return to form, it’s by no means without fault. There are longueurs (although nothing on the level Bradshaw suggests), part and parcel of Tarantino’s cineaste inter-referential indulgence, his foot fetish is alive and well (Diane Kruger is his latest #MeTootsiesToo victim), and while his overpowering need to drop Morricone in on scenes feels more germane here than in Kill Bill, it’s still a lazy crutch. In general, though, as one who tends to the side of regarding the director as overrated, I admire the way in which Inglourious Basterds is simultaneously about something and as shallow as it gets. There are times when that kind of approach can simply be indulgent or tiresome, but here the director’s enthusiasm is infectious.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for