I felt compelled to write this after watching Inglourious Basterds for the first time, and let it be known before I begin that I am a massive Tarantino fan. At least, a fan of his first three films.
And that is why I go so far as to say this film is terrible. With Reservoir Dogs he created an incredibly tense, compelling and shocking movie. As a debut it was stunning and it remains undiminished today. Then came Pulp Fiction ,which redefined modern cinema and is possibly the coolest film ever. Following it with Jackie Brown, he reached a peak that I don't believe he has even come close to since. In fact he seems to have tumbled down the other side of the peak into some ravine, broken all his limbs and long since given up on trying to crawl out.
Anyway, let's define clearly the ingredients of a Tarantino film, both good and bad.
1. Dialogue!
Of course it is. His skill with it follows the trajectory of success of his films, as in it's brilliant in RD, better in PF and absolutely genius in JB. After that however, it falls away into a mess of self-indulgence and self-reverence. His dialogue is at its best when it is rambling and seemingly tangential, but obviously makes sense in the context of the particular film. This is why the 'quarter pounder with cheese' and 'let's get into character' dialogues from PF are particularly good; they give us a bit of backstory about Vincent, an idea of Jules' attitude to his job and we really get the sense that these are two guys talking shit on their way to work. My other favourite moment of Tarantino dialogue is in JB, when Ordell and Louis are talking in the campervan after the botched deal, pondering what went wrong. Ironically, the best bit about this dialogue is the silence. Tarantino lets Jackson just think... and then he says, 'It's Jackie Brown'.
2. Non-linear time frames
A Tarantino hallmark not used since Kill Bill (I think!). This is the one I've always felt a bit uneasy about, thinking that it can come across as arbitrary and more as a gimmick than anything else. I like it very much in PF however; it creates an emotional story arc for the audience where there wouldn't be one had the events been presented in chronological order. RD uses it very well to reveal things to the viewer that the characters don't know.
3. Violence
He doesn't like to talk about it (I'M NOT YOUR SLAVE AND YOU'RE NOT MY MASTER), but it is nevertheless a big part in every single one of his films. And it all began so well! In Reservoir Dogs it is genuinely shocking and difficult to watch, as all violence should be. In fact, just to demonstrate how well handled it is in this movie, the camera actually looks away from the violence at THAT particularly difficult moment. (about 2:21 in)
In his first three movies, the violence was just part of them, part of the stories they told. But then something happened, related to my next ingredient...
4. References
Supposedly the ultimate fanboy turned auteur, his oeuvre is littered with obscure movie references, blatant plagiarism and instances of him simply copying the music of other films to achieve the same effect. Again, in the first three QT offerings, this was done well and watching these feels like watching the work of a genuine cinephile.
But, and this applies to all of the ingredients, Tarantino seems to have started listening to what was being said about him. He heard that audiences liked his dialogue, so from then on he made every single character sound like him, and talk for hours about nothing at all and go on and on and on. This is made worse when the actors delivering the lines are not up to scratch; it definitely takes a Harvey Keitel, a Pam Grier, a Sam Jackson, a Christoph Waltz to convincingly say his lines. But look at Pulp Fiction in particular, it is full of different characters talking in different ways and it's interesting. Then look at Kill Bill and Death Proof : they're all Quentin Tarantino! The men, the women, the Americans, the Japanese... all Quentin Tarantino. And watching numerous Tarantinos talking to eachother for hours on end is very unpleasant. Watching one do a ten minute interview is difficult enough.
What has happened to the violence and references is related. After much thought, I've concluded that success must have gone to his head and he is surrounded now by yes-men and fanboys who don't have the guts to tell him when he's going off track. This is the only explanation I have for why an obviously talented, disciplined and exciting film maker could stoop to such lows as KB, DP, IB and Django Unchained .
They actually fall into two easy categories. Kill Bill and Death Proof both suffer from a tremendous lack of discipline. They both are intended as homages to martial arts cinema and grindhouse respectively, but both fail in their intent. JB is an homage to blaxploitation, and it works so well because it takes the feel and the look of the genre it admires and takes it somewhere new and original. It is exactly what it needs to be and no more; it is tight, disciplined. If Tarantino in his first three films is a lean, swanky suit wearing wunderkind, then in every movie after that he is a bulging, slobby, lazy layabout, inviting you into his bedroom to show you clips of his favourite movies. And that is how his new movies feel; like they were made by somebody who has nobody around him willing to speak up and say when a scene is losing its way. Too long, too unfocused , too silly and completely unoriginal.
And now on to Inglourious Basterds. The first and most obvious criticism is that it seems to be AS LONG AS WORLD WAR II ITSELF. And there is no excuse for it. Even the least avid film fan can see how flabby it is. It is like this because Tarantino can't bear to hear his dialogue cut down, he feels that every single precious thought of his must be brought to bear on screen. Even in the good scenes, one feels the passage of time and the gnawing sense of boredom creep in. Even the opening scene - the best in the film and one I think rather brilliant actually - takes far too long. Just cut it down Quentin!
And write some interesting dialogue please! The tedious scene with Michael Fassbender and Diane Kruger in the bierkeller contains such banal conversation it makes 2001 feel like ,well, Pulp Fiction! The bits that I thought interesting were the quips about German and French cinema. At these points it felt like the film might be approaching an underlying theme, but one was soon reminded by a gratuitous scalping scene or bewildering Mike Myers cameo that the film's only purpose was to be fatuous and silly. On that note, let's talk about the ending.
What?!
I just don't get it. The film is utterly boring and tedious and then suddenly we're gunning down Goebbels and Hitler?
What?!
Oh I get it! This supposed Jewish revenge fantasy- morally dubious anyway- is not even really that. What the Jews really needed was Aldo Raine and Tarantino. That way then the war would have gone much better. Scalped Nazis and Hitler dead. But oh wait, Aldo Raine has an Italian name, claims to be part Native American and comes from Tennessee, and Tarantino has an Italian name, claims to be part Native American and comes from Tennessee... So what the Jews really needeed was Quentin Tarantino and Quentin Tarantino.
And from a moral standpoint, it is utterly contemptible, and I feel the same way about Django Unchained. I know it's deliberately historically revisionist (obviously), and I know that one is supposed to look at the violence in the same way as in KB not as in RD,PF or JB, but that is a thin veil to hide behind Quentin, and one can easily see your glee and excitement at the hideous gore through it. When Eli Roth's character took a baseball bat to a Nazi's head I felt physical revulsion in a way I never have in a Tarantino film, it was truly horrible. And not in a good way. Said Eli Roth
“It’s almost a deep sexual satisfaction of wanting to beat Nazis to death, an orgasmic feeling. My character gets to beat Nazis to death. That’s something I could watch all day. "
That's enough from this onscreen and offscreen psycho I think.
The point at which the film really lost me was the end of the bierkeller scene, the conclusion of the standoff involving Aldo Raine, von Hammersmark and Wilhelm. The film had extensively belaboured the point that the latter was a new father, willing to let the others go alive and not altogether too bad. And then they shot him. I was so jolted out of the film that I think I started actually shaking my head. I just couldn't work out the direction of this movie's moral compass; do we cheer the Basterds on, do we fear them, do we take away the standard message that war is hell? What? And then I realised; Tarantino doesn't even know! If your film has actual Nazis in it and you can't work out which characters' side to be on, then your film has serious problems! What a mess. What a disappointment.
As an afterthought, I should point out that I thought Shoshanna the best female character Tarantino has written since Jackie Brown. She was the only character I truly liked in the film. And on this point I suppose I should also note that there were some terrific performances in this film, all faults are the director's!
No comments:
Post a Comment