Inglorious Basterds

2009. Dir: Quentin Tarantino. Starring: Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth and Michael Fassbender. ●●●○○



I have an extraordinary dilemma in reviewing Tarantino's latest feature, in that over the last few days since I saw the film I have had three distinct reactions to it.

Whilst watching it, and indeed whilst whistling the closing credits on the way home, I was like a small boy. Imagining I could take on the entire Nazi party, wondering what levels of destruction I could do single handedly, gleefully chuckling as my (imaginery) machine gun torn off the face of passers-by who looked at me funny. Later my film theorist intellectual side reminded me of the various nods to classic cinema, nods to Ford, Aldrich and Godard among others. The intellectual revelled in the period detail and tha audacity of the project, praising the way that tension was built up in each scene.

With the Id and Ego satisfied I could have easily written a five blob review of Basterds on Saturday night, however it was then that the Super-Ego kicked in and I began to have very serious doubts about the film.


To understand this I ought to briefly describe the plot, or at least precis it as much as is possible. There are in essence 2 storylines involving revenge and vengeance. The first involves Shosanna Dreyfus (Laurent) surving the massacre of her family at the hands of Col. Hans "The Jew Hunter" Landa (Waltz) and then following a handy set of coincidences having the opportunity to take a few Nazi's out. The second revolves around LT. Aldo Raine's (Pitt) squad of Basterds, an elite group of Jewish scalp hunters who intend to demoralise German troops in France and their final mission involving the British and German undercover spies. Both storylines come to a head in the cinema owned by Shosanna and a bloody climax ensues.

Tarantino breaks this up into 5 chapters, each of which jumps to the opposing storyline and essentially allows the tension to build from scratch to a different shocking or exciting denoument. Each of the chapters specifically invokes ideas of different genres, and I don't deny I will almost certainly pore over a DVD copy when I can to look for the changes in the camera angles and lighting that reflect each chapter's core style. The tension is in a large part due to Tarantino's hyper-real dialogue with it's playful use of language. Conversations that dance and skirt around major plot points occur in every chapter, whether it's Landa interrogating a French peasant or gentle probing of adversaries to look for weakness as in the LaLouisiane scene.

The actors given these scenes manage to excel Waltz and Laurent do an especially good job, but the performances from Fassbender as British film critic turned spy Lt. Archie Hicox and Diane Kruger as German film star Bridget von Hammersmark are very impressive. Pitt, Roth and the rest of the Basterds are so grossly underwritten that their sections could easily have been cut out completely but for the connections with the other plot strands.

In keeping with the references to other cinematic landmarks Tarantino does his best to constant remind you that you're watching a film. There are a couple of bizarre narrative sections from Samuel L. Jackson, character names are scrawled on the screen, history is revised to such an extent that it makes Braveheart seem accurate and there's even a burst of David Bowie in the soundtrack. With all of these elements together the film can safely be excused as a fantasy, a nerdy film geek getting his own back on history and executing his own private revenge on Hitler.

However there is something rotten at the core of Inglorious Basterds. There were three key moments in the movie where Tarantino clearly shows his hand and possible shows his contempt for humanity. SPOILERS follow from here, so please do not read on unless you are prepared.

1. The Basterds have beaten a German squad during an engagement and now have three prisoners. They interrogate the Sergeant in order to identify the location and armaments of the next nearest unit. Unsurpringly he refuses to tell them so "The Bear Jew" (Roth) is called to execute him, using a baseball bat naturally. The German soldier is prepared to die, Roth asks him whether he received his Iron Cross for killing Jews, he replies "for bravery" then wham! Roth beats him to death. It is bloody and deliberate and close to being funny. The implication is that the bravery doesn't matter, that in some way that Sergeant was complicit with the greatest crimes of the Nazi's, purely due to him putting the uniform on. I disagree with this sentiment whilst discrimination and segregation of ethnic groups was commonly practised most Germans were unaware of the genocide being committed by the Nazi party at the time. It is also sad that we are not given an understanding of the extraordinary peril this soldier would have faced to be given his Iron Cross.

2. Bravery by soldiers leads us nicely to another point. The only German creditted with any extraordinary ability is Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) who as a sniper killed over 200 allied troops from his bell tower vantage point. For most of the film he seems couteous and, whilst not shy about his talents, at least humourous and diffident in front of Shosanna with whom he has become infatuated. During the final cinema scene, watching the Nazi propaganda piece Nation's Pride based on his accomplishements and starring Zoller he visible shuffles in his seat, and eventually excuses himself. For a moment I imagined that he had doubts about what he had done, feelings of guilt or compassion. He goes to Shosanna in the projection room and then turns into an agressive bully - suddenly seeming like he's more likely to rape her than woo her. The possiblity of a noble German or a character identifying the sanctity of human life is again dashed.

3. Finally the film ends with a massacre. Many people are killed. Lots are Nazi generals and politico's, others are simply film makers. The issue of killing civilians, or whether it is right to replace one brutal regime with another is not raised. The victims are shot and then fall down dead, there are no injuries or pain just turning from one state of living to a state of death. The treatment of war is not just cartoonish but frightening.

SPOILERS OVER.

All these elements add up to make me feel that in spite of the brilliance at work, in spite of how enjoyable the film was, I simply cannot endorse a film which treats people which such contempt. Thare's a lot of gloss here, but no humanity.