Inglourious Basterds
August 27, 2009
Hello again…
Saturday saw a trip to see Tarantino’s latest, the fantasy-war movie-WW2-X-rated ‘fairytale’ (why is it none of Tarantino’s films can be easily explained in a single genre?) – the fabulously and incomprehensibly mis-spelt Inglourious Basterds. As you might have guessed from my last I’m not the greatest fan of his work, although I’ll watch as there’s a certain joy to be had from watching a fellow film enthusiast indulging himself. Which, as any filmgoer will know, Tarantino is wont to do, to some length.
Positives first – while essentially another broken narritave, told over a number of ‘chapters’ which break the film into shorter, bitesize pieces, for me this film hangs together a lot more easily than the tonally VERY different Kill Bill. As per my initial concern – the cast including Pitt are clearly having a ball, Pitt even getting to indulge a little-used comedic talent. And everything you might have read about the brilliance of Christoph Waltz’ performance is all true. Nuanced, amusing yet threatening, likable and uliable in one package, and all of it coming across flawlessly not just in one language, but in four. All accolades richly deserved.
Also – for me, with some background in studying German cinema, it was actually welcome to encounter one of the year’s bigger releases devoting about 5 minutes to discussing the development of German cinema under the Naxis. I would imagine that the rest of the cinema audience responded somewhat less well however.
On to the lesser parts then – my viewing companion struggled for mainstream film to have such vast chunks of a 2 1/2 hr film in French and German. With a foothold in both I actually found it quite pleasurable, but I can see how the massive amounts of foreign speech, while subtitled (once incorrectly) could be offputting to people expecting Tarantino’s typical rapid-fire dialogue in English. And the film IS undeniably patchy, with no real clear flow, nor really the kind of stand out wordy passages whcih mark TArantino’s earlier films. At worst, it’s downright self indulgent, as with Mike Myers’ scene, which ripped me right out of any immersion in the movie just as if one of his own creations like Fat Bastard or the father from So I Married an Axe Murderer has been drafted in. Humour is all well and good, but the plummy-English military verged on inapproporate English-bashing for my liking. Equally Eli Roth’s big entrance, with a baseball bat, emerging from a tunnel out of the darkness to wreak venegeance on a Nazi officer, was just a tad too drawn out. Unfortunately for me, Tarantino in recent times has been less effective at editing himself down, and the slightest more touch of restraint would have been appreciated. Maybe going into a Tarantino film I should have known better?
I won’t discuss the ending (spoiler-free?, surely not) but again this proved a sticking point for me with the film. More on that perhaps at a later date.
On balance, not Tarantino’s worst film for me, and certainly not bad. Perhaps 3 1/2 out of five?
More interesting, to me at least, was that when I went to see the film, at peak vviewing (8.30pm on a Saturday eveing, central London), but after general release, they were hadning out questionnaires at my screening. Not short ones, either, but asking for pretty long, detailled, handwritten feedback. I’m all for providing this when it’s a preview, or when as an audience you’re getting something back – but when you’ve paid £15 or nearabout to see a film, it struck me as a little presumptive to expect people to hang around for fifteen minutes and fill in a form on their laps with a pencil, especially after a 2 1/2 hour film. More intersting, however, was the thrust of the questioning on the form – essentially enquiring as to if watching the movie had made me change my opinion of Tarantino as a director. Relevant perhaps for test audiences, but after the official launch of the film? If research is not going to change anything, surely it begs the question - why bother?
