… around this time you could ask whether you’re real or fictitious. I, however, think that’s too easy, so I won’t ask that yet. Okay, my native land is the jungle. I visited America, but the visit was not fortuitous to me, but the implication is that it was to somebody else.
Multiple storylines. Mindless violence. Mexican standoffs. Long-winded monologues. Obscure cinematic references. Inglourious Basterds has all the above hallmarks of a Tarantino movie and more. However what makes Tarantino unique amongst directors is, not his using these hackneyed themes but, his ability to take this kitsch and turn it into a narrative that is novel and exciting. And it is in this construction of a riveting narrative that Inglourious Basterds spectacularly fails. And to think of it, this might just be Tarantino’s most linear script!
Tarantino’s skill as a film maker has always been to create strong point/s of identification for the audience with the primary characters on screen. With a point of identification established, the cliches suddenly get backstory – a context – and cease to be the ones heard before (Kill Bill, Reservoir Dogs). And with a point of identification established, the audience is on a roller coaster ride and not just watching one.
Also in a certain way he makes his movies as puzzles – not in whodunnit terms but in how-did-it-happen terms. Throughout the movie, he is in charge of giving you the clues, and as audience your job is to figure the puzzle out in the smallest number of clues (Pulp Fiction). What this again enables him to do is to pull the audience into the narrative, become involved in it and immerse themselves in it.
The plot and setting of Inglourious Basterds makes both of the above difficult (maybe nigh impossible) to achieve. WW 2 and Holocaust is a theme much written about and much filmed, but rarely in playful terms. By treating this setting in his usual obliquely humorous fashion, Tarantino suddenly alienates the viewer. And while the major protagonists are all fictional, the presence of the historical figures just does not allow a viewer to slip into the boots of Aldo Raine or Colonel Lander. And in failing to get this involvement running, Inglourious Basterds fails.
And yet, all of the is not to say it is unwatchable. This is Tarantino’s most ambitious work since Pulp Fiction. There are still enough moments in the movie where one can only say (in retrospect), “how the hell did he do that”. And then most importantly the failure of Inglourious Basterds is due to ambition and not mediocrity.
I’m not sure if I can call it a failure. I enjoyed it. Especially the performance of Christopher Waltz was enough to keep one glued to the screen. In fact it was a huge relief after Grindhouse….the clever references to Nazi propaganda movies were also enjoyable…
I am not denying that it is enjoyable nor taking away anything from the quality (and sheer terror) of Christopher Waltz’s performance. If compared against the innumerable flicks that are released every week this is probably a must watch
When I call it a failure, I am doing so by by comparing it with what Tarantino’s vision for this movie might be, and that too according to me. Also, when I call it a failure it means that this movie, in my mind, would not be a Pulp Fiction.