Despite being one of the most famous directors on the planet, Quentin Tarantino, and his recent few films - notably Kill Bill, Death Proof and his most recent WWII pastiche, Inglourious Basterds (sic) are in an awkward place in popular culture. Serious (one might even say hoity-toity) cinephiles who play in the arthouse sandbox take him to task for not delivering on the promise of Pulp Fiction and in particular, the rapid maturity displayed from Pulp to Jackie Brown, the latter of which succeeded more as an adult romance than a Elmore Leonard low-life heist. I often read in print and on the web that it is Tarantino's wilful lack of maturity that is somehow a problem and that his films should have more human characters instead of cinematic types or worshipful iconography. Then there is the comic-book crowd that find Death Proof 'too talky' and lacking in the cheap thrills and adrenaline par for the fanboy set that takes probably far too much pleasure in Bruce Willis selecting from a plethora of weaponry in a pawn-shop. That Tarantino elevates the genres he plays with seems like a negative to the Comic-Con types that comprise much of the geek-sites. Writing for a site like Twitch, I happen to like the middle ground, the merging of the arthouse and the grindhouse, and that special place is simply and masterfully owned in this film.
With Inglourious Basterds he is none too shy about how he structures his narrative. One chapter for fans of Georges Clouzot and Alfred Hitchcock, one chapter for fans of John Carpenter and Mario Bava. Brad Pitt may be the selling point of the film, and he is great, all twitches and ticks, in his scenery chewing (munching on Tarantino's dialogue, er, monologuing like a pro), it is Christoph Waltz who undeniably steals the show as the cultured Third Reich detective, Hans Landa. The first chapter in the film (likely the films best 'self-contained' movie) is a thing of beauty, structurally, audience expectation, and the simple pleasure of watching a performer as a delightfully wicked force of nature. Driving onto a French farm, observed in long-shot through blowing laundry on the line, he is all oily smiles and perfectly intoned Français. His interrogation of the farmer suspected of hiding Jews is a master class in how to play with audience expectation whilst ratcheting up the tension. Even something simple as the The Hunt For Red October 'lets switch to English' trick to avoid subtitles is (amazingly) factored in a plot point. To write Inglourious Basterds as too knowing for its own good is the highest of compliments embodied in Waltz's uber-Nazi. This shows up again later in perhaps the films other hyper-tense scene involving a theatre-owner and a glass of milk. Watch closely and marvel how this sort of double-level foreshadowing. Showmanship. Some folks are bound to taking issue with Mike Myerss almost-winky cameo, but it is still a fine piece of showmanship.
The only weak-link in the cast is Eli Roth, who gets the 'The Third Man' level build up, and never really delivers the promise of an interesting character. Sure he is great insofar as the foley on his Louisville slugger, but when called to deliver lines, he fared far better in as a misogynistic sex-seeker in Death Proof than as a murderous Jew thug in WWII. But Til Schweiger, as the silent Sgt. Stiglitz is the real treasure in the Basterds rank-and-file. A tense sequence in a basement bar with drinks and parlour games involving nazi officers, foot soldiers and spies has Schweiger silently glowering and stealing the scene in a subtle and fun way. And considering just how much tension is milked from that talky set-piece, it is an impressive feat.
Contrary to reaction to the Cannes print, the eponymous Basterds are not a side note to the film, they get just about the right amount of screen time. The film after all, is not a man-on-a-mission story, but rather a testament to the power of name, fame and cinema. With the central plot revolving around a high-profile film premiere, Joseph Goebbels' latest propaganda piece (fittingly replacing a Leni Reifenstahl 'mountain' film on the Marquee), and the impressively clever use of film as fuel for an attempted mass assassination (fuel for revolution, fuel for impressionable minds, fuel for the fire), the artform is celebrated as much or more than in any other Tarantino joint. G.W. Pabst, David O. Selznick, Louis B. Mayer, Marlene Dietrich, and Emil Jannings are all name-checked, as is King Kong (perhaps one of the ultimate examples of the extremes taken for pure showmanship) and Queen Christina. Winston Churchill himself is even shown to be a knowledgeable film buff. And a key military officer is an 'ex-film critic' with several books published. The mission is Operation Kino which eventually offers up the opportunity to kill Hitler and all of his high command in one room.
The hint-hint-hint on where Tarantino is coming from (thematically) is that everyone in a position of power in the film from the Basterds themselves to Hans "The Jew Hunter" Landa to Joseph Goebbels and his pet-hero/actor Fredrick Zoller (nice to see Daniel Brühl getting mainstream attention here) is obsessed as much with their own reputation (and intimidation) as they are with getting their job done. This is in contrast to the ladies in the film who are more on the defensive; even stalwart in their dignity and grace in to simply hold on to their hats (or in an amusing Cinderella moment, their shoes). The directors foot fetish, and his idiom of female empowerment is very much on display here as well. These women may not have loads of authority, but they have confidence and competence in spades, making the two principle ladies (Diane "Helen of Troy" Kruger and Mélanie Laurent, both superb) more the real heroes in the piece than The Basterds who function both as traditional Shakespearean 'tension-relief' and also as hammy-genre icons.
With the focus on celebrity and infamy over battlefields and gallantry, the film becomes a comment on the power of art with the grandiloquence of P.T. Barnum. Structurally it plays more as a series of propositions than actual action; considering the writer-director's talent for wordplay, this is absolutely a good thing (not unlike Reservoir Dogs heist flick without a heist). The final line in the film is as much Quentin Tarantino throwing down the gauntlet on a reflection of his own work, reputation and auteur grandeur, as it is on Lieutenant Aldo Raine's precision with a carving knife.
More from Inglourious Basterds
- News: Todd (Not Quite) Live-Blogs The Oscars: Supporting Actor
- News: Inglourious Comic Book Covers!
- Reviews: A Second INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Review
- Reviews: A Second INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS Review
- Mastheads: Inglourious Basterds
- Mastheads: Inglourious Basterds
- Mastheads: Inglourious Basterds
Thanks for the review. This is sums up what I've been saying about Tarantino for the past few years: the man has no sense of direction. He is so caught up in the hubris of his "masterful" writing skills, that his movies become self-indulgent talk-fests without much going on (i.e. Death Proof, Kill Bill Vol. 2).
@ Studbio69: Are you saying that it's a problem with his newer films, or in general? I'd say it's a general problem, in case you think it's a problem, which I personally don't.
I just dont get how too much talking is that bad of a thing, if you want action watch die hard.
I think this is more of a recent thing, personally. With Kill Bill and Death Proof, it felt like he was almost going for self-parody sometimes. So in that sense, I definitely agree with studboi69.
Who, me or him?
Hmmm. Still can't wait to see this.
I love everything Tarantino has done, although know plenty or people that hated Death Proof because the constant chatter bored them to tears.
Although I don't mind Inglorious being filled with talk, so long as its entertaining, but this is supposed to be - in Tarantino's own words, in various reviews over time - his Where Eagles Dare.
There is an expectancy in a men on a mission film to contain some action set-pieces (and what has been shown in the clips, although brief, does look ace).
Again, what worries me, is as much as I liked Death Proof, it did not really live up to the promise Tarantino stated prior to its release - a slasher film at 200mph, and Inglorious seems to be heading the same way, which I have a gut feeling could be dangerous for a 70 million plus film and any kind of mainstream success; but really hope I'm wrong.
cool review! everything ive read online either gushes about it or hates it, but that was balanced! you can tell from the trailer that it aint gonna be all that great, but will be enjoyable...and i wouldn't be surprised if Tarantino took some inspiration from Miike and peppered it throughout this film. oh and lets not forget it took QT 10 years to write this film...10 FUCKING YEARS. so it is kinda worrying that it might not be that great aside from some great dialogue here and there- which will be very welcome after the silly, aimless radio-play talk in death proof and the basic, almost inert language of kill bill.
color me intrigued!
has anyone else seen Truffaut's THE LAST METRO (1980) w/ Gerard Depardieu? sounds like a lot of similarities
Interesting review.
Regarding Tarantino's dialogue-to-action ratio, I savored all of his characters dialogue like fine wine....right up until the first 15 minutes of Death Proof. It became one of my least favorite film experiences as it took 4 separate attempts to finally finish the godamned chatterboxed thing.
@kurt - hah, yeah, that is how I meant the comment.
Well, he's either trying too hard, or just too self absorbed to notice he'd started rambling.
For me, this is an excellent review. Glad you are straddling the 'arthouse/grindhouse' line and adding cogent insights (not unlike Quintin, in a way.) Tarantino takes it on the nose from lots of people and critics, but I find his films appeal to me simply because of their high-brow/low-brow, somewhat academic essay.
i do hope it is as good as your review! i await its release with bated breath
Yes well written, a nice balanced and well informed analysis. Yet if i may nitpick, at certain points strangely rambling/disconnected, as if the tobacco supplements might have influenced. Thanks for sharing. Your opinion reflects those of other cinephiles i trust, who also straddle the divide. Its funny that most of the writers on most of the geek sites, the ones i know, seem to have the same good balance, while a big % of the talkbackers in many of them are raving geek loonies.
Moriarty seems much more at home in his calmer new site, the comments section on his old site has become beyond idiotic. You hear that the studios pay attention to what the fans think, i can just imagine some low level studio executive having to wade trough all that nonsense.
thankfully we have twitch.
"the latter of which succeeded more as an adult romance than a Elmore Leonard low-life heist."
I wonder if you've ever read any elmore leonard...
Geezus, I can't imagine the film being as good as this review. A pleasure to read, Kurt.
I've read a lot of Leonard. I understand that my comments may have seem derogatory to Leonard's contemporary crime novels (I've not read any of his westerns), I've always found that Leonard's protagonists are about low-life ex-cons that are looking for a little redemption. Certainly the book RUM PUNCH is framed more from the guys point of view than the girls, and I thought Jackie Brown turned that on its ear. Jackie brown also took the skinhead element out of the book that was particularly skuzzy, and I don't know, it felt 'gauzier' than Rum Punch, which felt 'dirtier'.
Hard to explain, I understand why you'd come to that conclusion from my words, Garth.
I love Elmore Leonard's books, they are great reads and even poetic in their own way. But Jackie Brown was a great adaptation because it was quite different in tone from Rum Punch.
" Then there is the comic-book crowd that find Death Proof ‘too talky’ and lacking in the cheap thrills and adrenaline par for the fanboy set that takes probably far too much pleasure in Bruce Willis selecting from a plethora of weaponry in a pawn-shop. "
WHOA. Now, isn't this a tad bit too dismissive...
scuze me, apart from Rosario Dawson. She's cute, leggy and interesting.
I, for one, find Death Proof far too talky, but that's not the primary problem in my book. The big issue ios that it spends half the running time on one group of people only to pointlessly kill them off before repeating the entire exercise in the second half. If you're going spend half the film's running time forcing me to listen to all of these incredibly talky bits then I'd kind of like them to pay off. Death Proof, in my book, has BIG structural problems. And I still think it would work MUCH better - and would have allowed Tarantino to cycle through both groups of girls if he'd wanted to, if he'd made the film about Stuntman Mike rather than the girls.
"Tarantino’s film is a more thoughtful and interesting tribute to grindhouse than Robert Rodriguez bigger budget splatter-comedy"
Woah boy, don't you go too far? I'm tired repeating this, but, Rodriguez take on Grindhouse is far more creativ then that of Tarantino. And most important, it's much more entertainig, and btw that's not only my own opinion. I discussed this point with many friends of mine, and 99 percent of them agree, Death Proof is pretty boring and lame. So sorry, if I'm not "film geek enough" to "get" Tarantino, but I think a movie should work even the audience has no clue who the actors are, or what is "borrowed" from which movie.
Death Proof definitly doesn't work on the entertainig level.
And your friends don't make up the entirety of the movie watching world Cutterman. In fact you guys are probably friends cause you have similar interests. Anyway, if it means anything in my circle I knew more people who couldn't stand Planet Terror, but dug Death Proof.
@Cutterman - I agree, and I think most people would that Planet Terror was the more entertaining of the two. But I think Kurt's point is correct - Death Proof is way more grindhouse but also has neat QT style tricks that make the boring bits more thoughtful than in real grindhouse. You show me one real grindhouse movie that is as non-stop creative, effectively gory and consistently entertaining as Planet Terror and I'll show you an epic that millions of grindhouse fans and critics have missed for decades...
bn771, apparently, Horror Express (1972 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068713/) with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Telly Savalas is pretty close to what you are asking for! Check it out.
Well, maybe I get it wrong, guys, but if "Grindhouse" means being lame, boring, talky filler, full-stop creative.... well then I have to admit Quentins Death Proof is the real Grindhouse and I dont think it's worth for me to waste even one thought on this discussion. I'm out.
I didn't really enjoy Planet Terror, it felt a bit like it had been made drunk or something. In Deathproof it wasnt that it was too talky for me, just that the talking was irritating and badly acted.
Just to chip in and say I saw this last night and it is a riot! I had a fantastic time. It is self-indulgent, sure, and baggy in places, but it always has the very best intentions at heart and that is why I have never given up on Tarantino, even when he is at his most juvenile. The film held me throughout, I was enraptured by the characters - Christoph Waltz is just incredible, Pitt is surprisingly good value and Michael Fassbender can do no wrong - even Eli Roth evaded me wanting to wrap that bat around his head. Shoshanna possibly doesn't get fleshed out quite enough but her scenes are some of the film's best. This was engaging and always entertaining and the mooment it finished I wanted to watch it again, so this weekend I will. Quite simply, if you love Cinema, it lore and legacy, then you really should love this film. As much as anything else it is a movie about movies for movie lovers.
I totally agree about Christopher Waltz stealing the show. Just wrote that same thing independantly at my review of the movie: Who's the bastard?.
As all Tarantino movies, Inglourious Basterds is all about the actors and their magnificent performances. And the cinematography. And the music. And all these things that make cinema such an exciting and entertaining part of our lives. Yes, the plot is interesting and makes you wonder what happens next, but even if you exactly knew what happens next, it would still be fun to watch.
I'm certainly going to watch it again at least once as Tarantino movies always taste better the second time. And this is best Tarantino in years!
The 'Basterds' script was very entertaining, although I already miss the added Maggie Cheung part(s) that I might never see. I fully expect to go Monday night and be hugely entertained.
'Death Proof' took me back to when I watched films at drive-ins through fogged-up windshields. It does meander through the Land of Dialogue, but I think it's the abrupt change in tone towards the end and even more abrupt ending (roll credits, please) that make it feel so right to my memory of the time.
The consistent and agreeable tone of an Elmore Leonard crime novel has never been captured on film, although 'Out of Sight' came close in spots.