Quentin Tarantino has touted the fact that he enjoys paying homage to numerous, often obscure, movies. He sometimes gets it right on the mark, as with Kill Bill, while at other times creating a lacklustre mess like Death Proof, where the anaemic pacing and endless dialogue was further exacerbated when viewed alongside Grindhouse’s accompanying Planet Terror, a film that was tight, frenetic, and genuinely true to its inspirations. Tarantino’s new film Inglourious Basterds (misspelling intentional) suffers terribly from the same ailment: when you hype a film with a similar pedigree to Kelly’s Heroes and Five for Hell, it’s important that action be the focus. Otherwise, viewers are left with a bait-and-switch.
A Case of Mistaken Identity
Some will enter the film expecting a War Epic along the lines of Patton or Full Metal Jacket. Viewers should note that the only thing “epic” about this film is its 150-minute running time. Historical fact is placed squarely in the background, the scope is kept tight, and Tarantino has fun with the results (particularly at the end, when any ties to recorded history vanish altogether). Others may be looking for an updated version of The Dirty Dozen, or a remake of Enzo G. Castellari’s original The Inglorious Bastards. While the films share the same name, albeit with different spellings, there are no further similarities whatsoever.
In Kill Bill, Tarantino managed to distil the essence of what Kung Fu movies were all about into an exciting narrative. In Basterds, he gets the basics right, but then moves off on a tangent. The real problem with Inglourious Basterds is that it fails to live up to the promise of becoming a modern entry into the “Macaroni Combat” (the war version of the “Spaghetti Western”) subgenre, as Tarantino suggested in numerous interviews prior to release. It is simply not that kind of film. It is far different, with better production values, more intricate dialogue, less action, and without the same visceral appeal.
Though one cannot (and should not) call the movie boring by any means, a case can be made that it fails to find its identity at any point throughout its ample running time. Fans of the films to which Basterds ostensibly pays homage will be largely disappointed.
The Structure of Inglourious Basterds
The film sets up three different story arcs which ultimately converge in the final act. Unlike Tarantino’s other films, the narrative unfolds (shockingly) in a mostly linear fashion, so it is quite easy to follow. Having said that, the story arcs carry varying levels of interest, and in some cases, an unusual amount of time is spent developing characters and ideas that ultimately serve little purpose. Take, for example, the premise that most of the Basterds team are Jewish; while this does set up a very tangible explanation for the motivations of the individuals, we see so little of their exploits during the film that any such motivations are hardly relevant.
Despite occasional flashes of graphic violence, the fact of the matter is that there is surprisingly little action in this film. Instead, the movie is structured around several extremely effective and suspenseful dialogue-driven scenes where viewers will be on the edge of their seat awaiting the inevitable. To elaborate would spoil the moment; however viewers should note that these segments are drawn out pieces impregnated with Tarantino’s famous banter. It will work for some viewers, but may not work for others.
Performances in the Film
As for the acting, there is no doubt that much will be made of Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine (a sadly one-dimensional character who comes off as a cross between George S. Patton and an extra from Deliverance), but the film ultimately belongs to Christoph Waltz as “The Jew Hunter”, Hans Landa. His calculating and disturbingly perceptive Nazi officer lends genuine malice to the proceedings, and it is he who is responsible for giving the film an additional layer of intensity that elevates it above mindless violence. So good is his performance, in fact, that his extensive dialogue scenes are uniquely tense and engaging, and fit perfectly into the context of the film. Apart from an effectively understated Til Schweiger as German ex-officer Hugo Stiglitz, there are no other performances of note in the film; a shame, when one considers the size and quality of the cast.
Despite its many flaws, the film is extremely entertaining, and has received numerous accolades. As a technical work from a seasoned director, it stands as Tarantino’s best to date. One hopes that in future films, Tarantino spends less time paying homage to previous movies and more time using his considerable talent to craft tales that move briskly and leave the viewer feeling far more satisfied when the credits roll.
 |
 |
