Inglorious Basterds

Movies are important,  they make rules, they identify roles, they assuage or confront our values and beliefs.  That they also, at times, entertain us, is a neat trick; the icing that makes the cake.  What we may identify in real life as 'evil,'  in the movies can be deliciously wicked.  When the moral universe comes crashing down, everyone is susceptible to its charms.  In the book Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor E. Frankl shows that everyone, in the right circumstances, is capable of doing unspeakable things.  Here we have an alternate history played out, where such circumstances can be tested, and the result, despite what the title says, is rather glorious. 

By making this film about the power of film, Tarantino is able to posit very serious questions about the morality of art.  If Leni Riefenstahls' The Triumph of Will asks if good art can be immoral, Inglorious Basterds lives in a universe where morality is restored, but our tastes are still questioned.  Though a major payback of the experience involves some element of blood lust, it is not a simple revenge tale like Kill Bill.  The comeuppance is unevenly handed, and more complex.

While Tarantino uses his style to bold effect, they seem to enhance these themes rather than intercept them.  It recalls and older time, when we could let our fancies wander aimlessly about without being shoe-horned into genre conventions.  The film, while iconic in its own universe, doesn't seem trapped down by any such formula.  It is what it is, and that is not necessarily what one would expect.  Echos of his previous films are here, multiple stories and protagonists; a slow deliberate pacing; and a wandering camera that searches around different rooms and coridors, and sometimes people...think of the fifties diner in Pulp Fiction, or O-Ren Ishiis hangout in Kill Bill.  Here we have a beautiful movie palace.    The scene of  Shosanna  preparing for the film opening is a sensational highlight, but for the most part the film stays reserved, and remarkably grounded.

Instead of overloading us with a barrage of sensations, the film unfolds gradually, slowly developing interest with sudden revelations.  A Nazi officer in a farmers house.  The tension is palpable.  Yes, that's right, actual honest-to-god TENSION.  A lot of modern suspense of horror films, if you forgive the expression, are all money shots.  It's all pay off when nothing has been built up. But getting there is most of the fun.  When we don't know, what is gong to happen is when our minds play tricks on us.  Tarantino teases us with a lot of skill, at times using misdirection, but always a step ahead.  Unlike in Deathproof, which at times  almost seemed like it was stalling, a little bit is revealed incrementally in a way that builds suspense.

The defining and best signature of a Tarantino film  must be the dialogue.  Some monologues seem to go on for pages, and yet, it's delightful.  Smart people, evil people, good people, all sitting around exchanging ideas.  It is, perhaps, the most civilized, and amusing of customs, one wishes for the characters to keep speaking.  It to, is an old fashioned notion, taking the time to actually get to know someone, to understand how they work with the exchange of pleasantries, before getting to the unpleasant but necessary matter of killing each other.

List of inspirations for Inglorious Basterds here.

Ponyo

When we are children our hearts are wise, and we have a great empathy for living things.  Some people don't remember, but it's true.  I remember keeping goldfish; frogs; and salamanders, and while things never got very deep I loved them as a child loves other creatures.

Miyazaki said once you can't inflict your views onto children.  You can't give them your impression of the world, but they are perfectly capable of having their own impressions.  His respect for kids shows in Ponyo.  The themes are simple but mature, magic is possible but reality is still central. The major protagonists are children, and the film is unashamed to have a childlike perspective.

The film is a moving children's book.  And if it opens stronger than it concludes, it is only because by that point we are so used to being amazed.  From the films opening I was mesmerized.  After decades to get used to it, and new technologies to compete with, old school animation still has the power to leave me transfixed.  I was not watching a cartoon, I was viewing a painting of the sea coming gloriously to life.  I was watching sea creatures, the opening shot took me up on a jellyfish ride.  This is where American animation would have gone if Fantasia had been a hit in 1940. 

On land everything is penciled in with colored pencils.  A young boy finds a fish that got stuck in a jar.  But it's a magic fish that turns humanoid after a drop of human blood.  It speaks, and eventually gets legs, and is very cute.  She gets away and comes back, but not without the boy realizing how much he cares for the fish.  On land he lives with his mother, visits the senior home, sends light signals to his father who is out  at sea.  The boats and peirs are realistically rendered. The sea is dangerous, and beautiful, but so is the food and the paper boats.  There is beauty in simplicity.  I remember watching Spirited Away with some friends at the Avalon.  One of my friends,  a seasoned Anime veteran, remarked that there wasn't enough cool stuff , just a bubble and a scene where she was attacked by paper....huh?   I said, yeah, a dragon made of paper...pretty cool, huh?  He didn't seem to agree.

If I say a lot about how the film looks it's because that is what I am most impressed by.  You could say a lot for the films mythology, but I almost don't want to see it from an adult perspective.  Boy gets fish, but they're kids.  The lesson is simple, it doesn't need to go all Hans Christian Anderson on us.  The plot is for kids, if that is unpalatable for you, there is always the artwork to focus on.

The Miyazaki elements are there;  the slow mannered pace that finds interest in the slightest of contrivances; the heavy life lessons offered with motivational gusto; the extreme reverence for nature and it's inhabitants.   You may say it's not as cool as some of his past films, and maybe it's not, but iat least young kids can enjoy the artistry too.  I was wondering if the deliberated pacing would bore some kids, but the ones in the theater remained as transfixed as I.  There is enough spectacle to amaze without any frenetic action or explosions.  Sure, it's for kids

But did you ever look at the ocean when you were a kid, and while looking did it ever seem like the ocean and its waves were alive?

District 9

In Roger Eberts review of District 9 he states, "...the third act is disappointing, involving standard shoot-out action. No attempt is made to resolve the situation..." I can see why he thinks this. The plot, after establishing its ingenious premise, starts to get a little far-fetched, and hokey. But for me, this was exactly when the movie started to pick up.

The first part of the film is an intriguing, but depressing parable. The aliens are mysterious, gruesome, and ugly. They are introduced in the fake news footage, interest story, shaky hand cam way, that is annoying and disorienting, like watching a very depressing news report in the future. It unfolds this way, explaining the word view of how this poor ugly aliens are the biggest of undesirables, like Guantanamo prisoners with AIDS in the 80's times ten. Nobody wants them around. These aliens get no respect, and for a while we're not really sure if they deserve it.

Things get worse as the humans try to illegally evict them from there district, using violent force when necessary. This is about as entertaining as Schindler's List in South Africa with mutated walking-stick crab people. But then something happens, and I won't reveal what, but it changes the direction of the film and eventually gives it purpose. Things go horribly wrong for a central character. And when I say horribly, I mean it's pretty horrible. At this point the fake documentary style is thankfully abandoned and were watching a real horror show.

This is all very disturbing until another turnaround in the plot. This is when the film finally leaps to life and gives me characters to root for. There is alot of film left at this point but it does not get boring. Scene by scene, we watch more improbable scenarios play out. Strangely, the more improbable things got, the more fun I was having.

The aliens and protagonists are placed in the crossfire between militant corporation and Nigerian gangsters, who deal in alien weapons. This gets pretty brutal, my date noted that, at times it got the audience to cheer for the violence. And so it does, and while that's pretty gross, I think the standard action movie becomes a superlative mythos that is cathartic after all the heavy-handed politics. Honestly, I didn't want to see City of God, again, I was ready for a little escapism.

Much is made of the parable, and it is obvious that it was much influenced by Ditrict 6 while South Africa was under apartheid rule. Some say this is an uncomfortable analogy, and it is, what is comfortable about Apartheid? If this is really how whites saw the blacks it is disturbing, though I'd bet if those whites meet these alien prawns they might reconsider and find the blacks and cape-coloureds suddenly don't seem so bad.

This is alot to chew on, but I never really expected to movie to say anything about apartheid expect perhaps that it is a bad thing. I didn't expect the film to be particularly profound, and Peter Jackson the producer said above all it must be entertaining. By starting the film with the brain, and ending with the heart, the film is eventually, entertaining. We witness human beings and aliens being incinerated and turned into goo, but a surprising humanity runs through this film despite it's harsh brutality. We follow a terrifying metamorphesis, only to discover it is actually a characters evolution. In the same way, after I adjusted to the unsettling premise the film becomes surprising, thought-provoking, emotionally moving, and enthralling.

Genesis, with Bruno, Frida, and Woody

Ajai July 11, 2009 8:53PM PST

"If you want people to stop cramming it down your throat, then don't put it in your mouth in the first place."

Fotios
7/11/09 8:49 p.m.

http://tinyurl.com/nkbnt7

Report Abuse

VH July 11, 2009 10:29PM PST

I love that quote, Ajai.

So, did you like the movie? From the writeup it looks offensive...maybe that is the point for seeing it?

I don't know, I find Sacha Baron Cohen over the top...at least I thought Borat was, although I laughed plenty.

Report Abuse

Ajai July 12, 2009 12:00AM PST

I'm glad you asked VH,

I honestly thought it was better than Borat.
The film mines plenty of humor out of the idea of 'gay panic,' and it makes one extremely uncomfortable. The mixture of reality and satire, is also uncomfortable. (To be fair, one scene gave me straight up 'STRAIGHT PANIC').

As to GLAADs protestations, the Anti-defamation league also protested Borat. I read a good essay once, about how we cannot reject certain Jewish characters (say Shylock) because it is bad for the Jews. Borat is a sympathetic anti-semite which is even more offensive, but Cohen the actor is Jewish (but not Gay), yet Bruno is very Gay, if not always sympathetic. I cannot reject Bruno because someone says it is bad for the Gays. Like Borat, I see him as a tool designed to expose the bigotry of others.

The film is sexually explicit, and not in the sweet MILK way, but intensely so. The fact that it got an R rating is astonishing. Truly outrageous. But isn't that how some people see us? Are we not stripped of all identity but sexual in the minds of certain others? Don't they picture a mad caricature fighting with sex toys? This film exposes that.

It is brilliant.

Oh yes, when he adopts a child and takes it on the show, I was uncomfortable. Knowing many wonderful Gay parents I was a little frightened of how this could be perceived. (To be fair, one scene exposes some REALLY AWEFUL heterosexual parents.)

The thing with Ron Paul, and what he says, was very uncomfortable.

These things DO offend me to be honest. I am thankful to see it in front of me, rather than boiling underneath, on the shadow side where we can't talk about things.

The film could be seen as =bigoted and superficial, or as lampooning bigotry and superficiality...and I tend to see the latter. The last bit is nothing short of genius. A bold artistic and political achievement that I still can't stop thinking about, as it figuratively shoves something down a very deserving throat.

Though I laughed often and hard, it was nervous laughter. I enjoy that sort of thing. (I also like Woody Allen's latest, though it's tame by comparison.)

Unlike the recent Pride parade and festival in Corvallis the film Bruno it is definitely for adults only (and probably only open-minded ones at that.)

Report Abuse

Ajai July 12, 2009 12:04AM PST

Just to clarify, while I am astonished by the R rating, I am not displeased.

Report Abuse

Ajai July 12, 2009 12:12AM PST

Not to say if it's not your thing, you are not open-minded. It is more over-the-top than Borat.

Report Abuse

corvallisoreugene July 12, 2009 2:44AM PST

Wow Ajai, you should be a movie reviewer. Move over Michael Medved...

Report Abuse

Ajai July 12, 2009 10:05AM PST

Thanks COE, I've read Ebert since I could read. I'd like to make movies someday.

Report Abuse

VH July 12, 2009 10:20AM PST

Ajai, thanks for the perspective on Bruno. I am intrigued and will watch it. I totally get what you are saying about Sacha Baron Cohen being Jewish and so being an effective person to lampoon antisemitism. But some of the lampooning was what was over the top. The nude wrestling scene with the assistant comes to mind. After 5 minutes of that it was just plain stupid.

I'm assuming you are talking about Vicky Christina Barcelona. Yes, that was pretty good. I liked the narrative style of the movie and I liked the way it portrayed relationships as non-traditional, as relationships in real life ARE non-traditional. However, there was one aspect that I really didn't like: Here you had three woman who were so in love with one guy that they could care less about his lack of commitment toward them. I get the free-will concept, but the portrayal is highly unrealistic. I saw it as more of a Woody Allen self-fantasy than as art imitating life.

It's funny, I have a total bias against Allen because of his personal life. When I rented the movie to watch it, I didn't know he was the director, just knew the title from friends' recommendations. Once I saw his name in the credits the whole movie was colored differently for me.

Report Abuse

VH July 12, 2009 10:23AM PST

"But isn't that how some people see us? Are we not stripped of all identity but sexual in the minds of certain others? Don't they picture a mad caricature fighting with sex toys?"

Indeed. Sad commentary.

Report Abuse

Ajai July 12, 2009 10:49AM PST

Hi VH,

Actually I was talking about the very latest Woody Allen film, WHATEVER WORKS. Its playing at our local art-house theater right now, (can I name it GT, or is that advertising a business?)
If you thought VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA was self-projected fantasy, you won't like this one. It involves Larry David as a suicidal misanthropic genius who becomes involved with a much younger, naive southern woman.
This is insulting, like My Fair Lady, but before it gets too Pygmalion other family members and characters show up revealing unexpected twists in all of the characters.

If you don't like Woody Allen, you won't like it, but it involves three things that I am a sucker for: philosophical rambling, unapologetic romanticism, and unrestrained social liberalism. It also has New York City, Gershwin, and mean-spirited acerbic humor, so I'm sold, but yes, I can see how others will detest it.

A pleasant diversion for me, but wow BRUNO, that one really blew my mind.

Report Abuse

VH July 12, 2009 11:35AM PST

"philosophical rambling, unapologetic romanticism, and unrestrained social liberalism. It also has New York City, Gershwin, and mean-spirited acerbic humor, so I'm sold..."

Yes, I certainly can appreciate these themes...given another director and I might be sold too. Just my bias.

I was thinking how much I love the movie Frida, which shares some of those themes, plus the tragic component, although in a more realistic fashion...of course it was about real people, so there you have it. Toss in the exotic beauty of Salma Hayek and, well, I think I'll go rent it again.

Oh, and I'll check out Bruno again. I'll have to write you on your page and tell you what I think. Thanks!

Report Abuse

corvallisoreugene July 12, 2009 10:49PM PST

I love the "make you uncomfortable" humor. In its purest form this type of comedy satirizes the differences we all have and makes you think twice about how you feel, or think about these "differences". We should remember Cohen's start on HBO that showcased the three personalities: Ali G, Bruno, and Borat. Borat was, (I think), genius. So I can't wait to see Bruno. I was disappointed with Ali G on the big screen. I like the character but the movie version was very unfunny. It had some funny moments but as a whole not so good. It was also a departure from the documentary feel to the other two movies. Personal life aside, I never really got Woody Allen. His delivery bugs me. I love Bob Newhart, (Similar delivery) but Woody I just don't get!

Report Abuse

VH July 13, 2009 8:52AM PSTSomeone should start a movie blog. Ajai?