I must admit that I feel a bit “behind the curve” when discussing Quentin Tarantino’s new film Inglourious Basterds. The film has been in theatres for nearly two weeks. Since its release, hundreds of amateur and professional critics have dedicated thousands upon thousands of words to virtually every aspect of Tarantino’s movie. I have seen the picture twice now and have read much of what has been written about it, both in print and on the Internets. I feel that I have very little to add to the conversation that hasn’t already been articulated somewhere along the way. Therefore, rather than offering a “review” in the conventional sense, I’ve decided to simply talk about my feelings toward Tarantino as a director, and how the latest addition to his oeuvre validates my view of the celebrated director’s output.Watching Inglourious Basterds for the second time at a north side Chicago multiplex this weekend, I reflected upon why Tarantino is one of my favorite directors. I am a self-described “film geek.” I love to watch, think about, talk about, and write about movies of all different genres and time periods. Therefore, I’m a part of Tarantino’s target audience in many ways. I love watching Tarantino’s pictures, but I love hearing him talk about movies even more. Tarantino simply knows more about movies than almost anyone alive. He has watched and thought carefully about more films than I will ever have time to pursue in my lifetime. His vast knowledge and passion for all things cinematic make him a critical and film-geek darling. His movies are peppered with obscure film reference upon obscure film reference.
But … vast knowledge of film history and technique is not enough to make a great film. I thought of other film directors who have a similar passion and knowledge for the art of cinema, but do not make films that resonate with their audiences on the same level as a Pulp Fiction or a Reservoir Dogs. What is the difference between Quentin Tarantino, who has not only managed to make the film geeks and movie critics fall in love with him, but also continually reaches a more mainstream audience, and a filmmaker who possesses similar filmic knowledge and cinematic abilities, but whose pictures remain more obscure (say, Jim Jarmusch, for example)?
I think the answer is bound up in a word that probably doesn’t come up enough in film criticism today … fun. Tarantino stubbornly refuses to inject his films with moralizing lessons for the good of humanity or arty cinematic tropes only understood by the most dedicated cineastes among us. Pulp Fiction is simply fun. The plot, which includes a horrific heroin overdose, a watch stuck in an uncomfortable position, and a messy accident in a car involving a misfired gun and a young man’s head, is not fun. The way Tarantino tells the story is. When asked to name my favorite films of all time, I used to say “Vertigo, because it shows us that cinema can make us feel, Citizen Kane, because it shows us that cinema can make us think, and Pulp Fiction, because it shows us that cinema can make us have fun.”
What is so fun about the worlds Tarantino creates in his movies? Tarantino joins the ranks of great directors in history, Howard Hawks and Preston Sturges among them, who create utterly engaging dialogue. I would listen to Travolta and Jackson talk about cheeseburgers and foot massages any day of the week. I wasn’t bored by one second of Death Proof, even though the first hour contained an almost non-stop stream of dialogue. I simply love spending time with Tarantino’s characters, as creepy as they may be at times.
One of the other supreme joys of Tarantino’s work is his play with structure and storytelling technique. Tarantino is never content to tell a story in a conventional, linear fashion. He destroys all sense of time, allowing events to unfold before us in the way that is most logical to the plot and the movie’s overall effect. Rather than seeming like a hackneyed gimmick, Tarantino’s “time play” lends credibility and interest to the stories he tells. Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill are so engaging partially because they challenge us as viewers to construct our own understanding and context for the events unfolding before us. Samuel L. Jackson’s famous monologue at the end of Pulp Fiction works so well because we know things that he and John Travolta don’t know about what will happen to both characters in the future.
These observations about the “fun” of QT bring me to Tarantino’s glourious [sic] journey through Nazi-occupied France. Yes, I loved Inglourious Basterds. No, it is not historically accurate. No, it does NOT deny the Holocaust. Yes, it is graphically violent at times (although in a surprisingly restrained manner). Yes, it does contain one of the greatest openings of any film I have ever seen. Yes, Christoph Waltz gives one of the best performances of the year. Yes, Brad Pitt is both amusing and annoying as all get out in his role as a Southerner whose job is to “kill Naaazis.” No, Eli Roth cannot act. Yes, the David Bowie song near the end of the film serves the narrative perfectly well. Yes … it is really, really fun.
Are Tarantino’s fun-inducing abilities reason enough to hail him one of the great auteurs of our time? Probably not, if it weren’t for the fact that Tarantino is also one of the great technical artists to ever stand behind the camera. Inglourious Basterds, in fact, might just be his greatest achievement on a technical level yet. At least two scenes are absolutely flawless in the way they build dramatic suspense for a long period of time, only to explode in shocking violence. They are both an improvement upon, and a logical conclusion to, the “adrenaline” scene from Pulp Fiction and the “ear” scene from Reservoir Dogs.
One slight word of caution: If you are planning to see Tarantino’s new movie just because you are fascinated with WWII … don’t. Inglourious Basterds is no more about WWII and Hitler than Pulp Fiction is about hit-men in Southern California. Tarantino uses the basic historical context as a canvas to paint upon. He uses the narrative contexts of Hitler, a band of Nazi-scalping Jewish-American soldiers, and German propaganda films to convey interesting truths about his chosen characters.
If, on the other hand, you are dying to see a movie that doesn’t insult your intelligence and displays an astounding degree of originality and care in production, you should check out QT’s latest offering. Get ready to be wowed by, as Alfred Hitchcock once stated, “pure cinema.” Did I mention, by the way, that it’s just a lot of fun?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: I am convinced that more words have been written on the Internet about Tarantino’s latest flick than the healthcare debate, Ted Kennedy’s death, and Michael Jackson’s memorial service combined. Here are just a few online discussions that I have found particularly engaging, amidst all the hype:
Jim Emerson’s Scanners blog:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2009/08/contra-basterds.html
Sergio Leone and the Infield Fly Rule:
http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/2009/08/talking-inglourious-basterds-final.html
Glenn Kenny’s Some Came Running:
http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2009/08/tarantinos-minimalist-maximalism.html
Filmspotting, from Chicago Public Radio:
http://www.filmspotting.net/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment