With the release of Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino has pronounced himself an official auteur. Tarantino has only made seven films in an eighteen year career; it normally would take until much later in a director’s career for him to be labeled an auteur. Also, there is are still critics out there that believe Tarantino's time has passed; that he made his good work in his first two years in the movie-making business. I don’t know how I feel about that, but what I got out of this film is this: Although Tarantino may be a well known director, I think that what he really wants to do is write. In “Inglourious Basterds,” the most gripping moments of the film are completely verbal; long dialogues, often insufferably tense and usually spoken in French or German.
Tarantino's films are often tributes or parodies to his favorite things, most likely stemming back to his job as a movie clerk at Manhattan Beach Video Archives. The lot of his work can be categorized as burlesque-style “movies about movies.” However, “Inglourious Basterds” differs from other Tarantino films because its dialogue is pure poetry. Albeit sick, twisted, and bewildering, it is still more eloquently written than any other Tarantino film I have seen.
“Inglourious Basterds” is a WWII-set revenge fantasy about the secret plot of a group of Jewish-American Nazi hunters known as the “Basterds.” It is scrupulously crafted, as are Tarantino's other films, but this one is jam-packed with cumbersome dialogue that is just brilliant; a vast improvement for Tarantino. The film may not completely win over Tarantino’s critics, but it definitely is great progress for the director, as it appears to show him moving beyond just flaunting his knowledge of cinema and bloody fetishes: He actually seems to be analyzing his obsession with the cinema diligently and very cleverly placing it into an suitable (albeit fantastical) historical context.
In Chapter One of the film, Nazi colonel Hans Landa (a brilliant performance by Christoph Waltz) abruptly intrudes his way into the home of a farmer with three terrified daughters and begins to pry for information as to the whereabouts of a family of Jews who have not yet been accounted for. Throughout this tense, immaculately crafted scene (compromised only by the minor Tarantino-style sight gag of Landa taking out a ridiculous pipe from his coat), Tarantino displays the bloodhound-like instincts of the Nazi “Jew Hunter,” whose twisted use of words and inflection manipulates the farmer into revealing that the Jewish family is hiding beneath his floorboards, directly beneath himself and Landa. This scene is brilliant in and of itself; and because it is the opening sequence of the film, Tarantino has you gripped from the very beginning. His new and improved use of dialogue is astounding, surprising, and leaves the viewer excited to see what is to come. The scene comes to a close with violence breaking out, and one survivor-a young Jewish girl-escaping into the fields. This seems to be Tarantino’s stylistic homage to The Searchers. And just as in The Searchers, a revenge plot is what follows.
The film is full of eloquent, memorable quotes (“I'm aware of what tremendous feats human beings are capable of once they abandon dignity.”), most of them from the Nazi “Jew Hunter” Hans Landa. I see some similarities between this character and Tarantino; neglecting the fact that Landa is a ruthless Jew hunter, of course. It is not what Hans Landa does, but the way he is. Hans Landa does possess a brilliant mind and a charming personality (a charming killer, of course, but charming none the less). His eloquent manipulation of words and his caricature-like mannerisms seem to mirror the personality of Tarantino very closely. It makes sense: artists, writers, directors; they usually do put quite a bit of themselves into their characters, and their works.
The dialogue goes beyond simply being witty; it also evokes an ample amount of feeling: anticipation, excitement, horror, and restlessness. How and why people speak to one another becomes a panic far more chilling than any of the actual violence in the film. Most of the violence in the film is purely vocal. Tarantino's words no longer exist entirely to flatter his audience's cinematic knowledge, but to shed some light on the politics of communication and the ways of survival during WWII.
It is very apparent, through most of his films, that Tarantino certainly has plenty to say. Especially with "Inglourious Basterds.” With meticulous care and affection, he single-handedly creates an alternate universe that seems to be about World War II movies, more so than the real war itself. "Inglourious Basterds" is certainly an art film, not solely a mainstream entertainment film for the masses. Tarantino fills the film with his usual appreciation for cinema; the references, and the masterful mise-en-scène, inspired by Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns and the French New Wave.
In conclusion: I think that this film has been one of Tarantino’s greatest accomplishments yet. The masterful evokes a great improvement in Tarantino’s film-making style, and I look forward to seeing his next piece of work, and how he continues to progress.
Tarantino's films are often tributes or parodies to his favorite things, most likely stemming back to his job as a movie clerk at Manhattan Beach Video Archives. The lot of his work can be categorized as burlesque-style “movies about movies.” However, “Inglourious Basterds” differs from other Tarantino films because its dialogue is pure poetry. Albeit sick, twisted, and bewildering, it is still more eloquently written than any other Tarantino film I have seen.
“Inglourious Basterds” is a WWII-set revenge fantasy about the secret plot of a group of Jewish-American Nazi hunters known as the “Basterds.” It is scrupulously crafted, as are Tarantino's other films, but this one is jam-packed with cumbersome dialogue that is just brilliant; a vast improvement for Tarantino. The film may not completely win over Tarantino’s critics, but it definitely is great progress for the director, as it appears to show him moving beyond just flaunting his knowledge of cinema and bloody fetishes: He actually seems to be analyzing his obsession with the cinema diligently and very cleverly placing it into an suitable (albeit fantastical) historical context.
In Chapter One of the film, Nazi colonel Hans Landa (a brilliant performance by Christoph Waltz) abruptly intrudes his way into the home of a farmer with three terrified daughters and begins to pry for information as to the whereabouts of a family of Jews who have not yet been accounted for. Throughout this tense, immaculately crafted scene (compromised only by the minor Tarantino-style sight gag of Landa taking out a ridiculous pipe from his coat), Tarantino displays the bloodhound-like instincts of the Nazi “Jew Hunter,” whose twisted use of words and inflection manipulates the farmer into revealing that the Jewish family is hiding beneath his floorboards, directly beneath himself and Landa. This scene is brilliant in and of itself; and because it is the opening sequence of the film, Tarantino has you gripped from the very beginning. His new and improved use of dialogue is astounding, surprising, and leaves the viewer excited to see what is to come. The scene comes to a close with violence breaking out, and one survivor-a young Jewish girl-escaping into the fields. This seems to be Tarantino’s stylistic homage to The Searchers. And just as in The Searchers, a revenge plot is what follows.
The film is full of eloquent, memorable quotes (“I'm aware of what tremendous feats human beings are capable of once they abandon dignity.”), most of them from the Nazi “Jew Hunter” Hans Landa. I see some similarities between this character and Tarantino; neglecting the fact that Landa is a ruthless Jew hunter, of course. It is not what Hans Landa does, but the way he is. Hans Landa does possess a brilliant mind and a charming personality (a charming killer, of course, but charming none the less). His eloquent manipulation of words and his caricature-like mannerisms seem to mirror the personality of Tarantino very closely. It makes sense: artists, writers, directors; they usually do put quite a bit of themselves into their characters, and their works.
The dialogue goes beyond simply being witty; it also evokes an ample amount of feeling: anticipation, excitement, horror, and restlessness. How and why people speak to one another becomes a panic far more chilling than any of the actual violence in the film. Most of the violence in the film is purely vocal. Tarantino's words no longer exist entirely to flatter his audience's cinematic knowledge, but to shed some light on the politics of communication and the ways of survival during WWII.
It is very apparent, through most of his films, that Tarantino certainly has plenty to say. Especially with "Inglourious Basterds.” With meticulous care and affection, he single-handedly creates an alternate universe that seems to be about World War II movies, more so than the real war itself. "Inglourious Basterds" is certainly an art film, not solely a mainstream entertainment film for the masses. Tarantino fills the film with his usual appreciation for cinema; the references, and the masterful mise-en-scène, inspired by Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns and the French New Wave.
In conclusion: I think that this film has been one of Tarantino’s greatest accomplishments yet. The masterful evokes a great improvement in Tarantino’s film-making style, and I look forward to seeing his next piece of work, and how he continues to progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment