Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino, 2009


One of the little things I did have a problem with, though, is that the soundtrack seemed like a bad attempt at copying Ennio Morricone. I know that Tarantino wanted to make this seem like a spaghetti western, but trying to copy Morricone’s score for the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly just didn’t work. I wish that Ennio Morricone would’ve came on and did the score, but he didn’t, so don’t try using a score that sounds incredibly similar to it.

It sounded similar because it was Morricone. Tarantino, i think, almost always uses source music in his films- this was no different

Oh, I read somewhere that Morricone decided to do another film instead of this.

Inglourious Basterds
So Tarantino’s appointed masterpiece arrives. Quite a claim, with his back catalogue, Pulp Fiction- even though it’s not my favourite film of his- is hard to top and I personally don’t think he ever will considering the pedestool it’s sitting on. So is Basterds all that?

It’s not a bad film, as always with hi flicks- the soundtrack is the strongest part with some excellent use of Morricone giving it a spaghetti flavour, which is about the extent of his claim to it sitting anywhere in a spaghetti genre go. Aside from the opening ‘once upon a time in… nazi occupied France’ which, while not as catchy would have been a more apt title. The film’s biggest problem are the lack of focus and general uneveness of it. There’s never really any characters amongst the Basterds, half of them get a name drop, one gets a backstory but mostly they’re just faces. And as the misleading title goes, they’re only one half of the film; the other belongs to a cinema owning Jewish refugee with a similar plot to the Basterds. The two strands of characters never interact with each other and flitter between each other through the 5 introduced acts and for two relatively simple narrative arches that eventually kind of intertwine, it’s shouldn’t have been too hard to make both solid.

One manages it but there’s only one to two primary characters, the Basterds on the other hand are far too much for Tarantino to develop. Why? Because he still has his infatuation with drawn out dialogue, he’s dropped the painful referential-ness of Death Proof and introduced some decent tension in these scenes, in both main cases taking almost literally the Hitchcock bomb-under-the-table approach. That being said, the film does redeem itself. Pitt is fantastic, I actually hope he gets an Oscar nod along with the lead Nazi dubbed Jew-Hunter. The cinematography and sets are all well rendered and appealing and the direction is pretty competent, nothing that’s really suggestive of a genius behind the camera, which most know Tarantino isn’t already. The script is where his talent is meant to lie and despite mentioned issues, it all comes together nicely. It does find itself becoming uneven where it can’t be certain if it’s straightfaced or pure farce. Mike Myers cameo-ing as in English Lieutenant? It works but definitely an odd choice. And there were some genuine belly laughs at certain bits.

Tarantino’s masterpiece? Short answer, no. I’m glad Tarantino’s getting a regular output instead of coasting on past work with 5 year gaps between films and he’s got the ideas but he’s not got the modesty to adjust his scripts to operate at a tolerable pace. It’s not a bad film but it’s not a great film, I said before I doubt anything will touch what he did in the 90s so I don’t think it’s a miss-step in his career, more a signal of him levelling off as a filmmaker. Average film, still retains an art-house niche that I can imagine regular cinema-goers will find themselves fidgetting through. Looking forward to seeing reaction from his obsessors. Other than that, it’s a fun retelling of history with some great performances but could do with some editing here and there.

Inglorious Basterds
Once Upon A Time....In Nazi Occupied France opens the film in the first chapter (a signature Tarantino style) of this WWII film in which Jewish American soldiers, who've deemed themselves "The Basterds", ambush and scalp Nazi's. . . .

There are countless war films that are plagued with people already knowing the outcome. Valkyrie is an example of a film that the audience knew how it was going to end. This one throws it all out the window.

The film revolves around an alternate history of the Second World War in which the complete set of Nazi German leadership features Hitler, Bormann, Goering, and Goebbels all attend a big screen premiere in Paris reveling in the accomplishments of a German sniper who had managed to kill 250 American soldiers in Italy. The film’s time frame is set in early June 1944.

... But I got a question I wish someone would answer--does the movie ever explain why this elite group misspells "bastard"? I understand the title Inglorious Bastards was already taken by another earlier film, but do they ever acknowledge the misspelling in the plot?

When asked about the misspelled title, director Quentin Tarantino gave the following answer: "Here's the thing. I'm never going to explain that. You do an artistic flourish like that, and to explain it would just take the piss out of it and invalidate the whole stroke in the first place."

Saw Inglourious Basterds on Saturday. I adored Kill Bill, but I think Tarantino actually might have managed to match it with this effort. Great film; I'm going to try very hard to see it again this week.

The review, by the way, was especially fun to write. I really enjoyed putting this one together. Here's an excerpt, with a link to the rest:

I have heard Taratino say that it's just a in-joke, a private joke if you will. Not sure if it's just for him, some friends or something that happened on-set, but that's the reason I've heard him give. It did start out with the original spelling though, the change came at the end/after filming, I think. I'm sure someone will pick me up on that if it's wrong.

Of course, I'm sure that it's a lot easier to advertise "Inglorious Basterds" than it is "Inglorious Bastards" in the english speaking (most profitable) world, especially for its dvd release(s) which is probably where most Hollywood films make huge profits. How difficult would it be to get the film stocked in rental/retail outlets? Especially in the States? Before Kill Bill, I don't think I'd have thought this way about a Tarantino film, but no one can tell me that wasn't about making maximum profits.

But Tarantino already knew about the original film, it's an exploitation classic. It's the reason his film has the title and is set in WWII, has a group called The Bastards, etc.

Yeah, i'm pretty sure at one point he was quite happy to describe the film as a remake

Jews scalping Nazis??? Hmm, maybe the American Indians really are the Lost Tribe of Israel as some people have claimed down through the ages. I've heard of Marines in the Pacific who had strings of ears and pockets-ful of gold teeth taken from Japanese bodies, but scalping is something new. Sounds cumbersome compared with other atrocities. Do they ever say why they do it in the film? Just curious.