Inglourious Basterds

[I'm Murrin]

I just watched this, at last. I'm a little disappointed.

Trying to put my finger on exactly what it is that didn't work, all I can really say is that while each individual part of the film is well done, and works, the film as a whole is incomplete. I didn't get to know any character well enough to care about them, except, strangely, for Frederick Zimmer.

The Basterds are shown in fragmentary scenes which tell you who they are and what they're doing, but don't really let you get to know them. In their first scene we simply have Pitt telling us what they're about to do, and then we cut to Hitler's reaction to their success. No question, no tension, they're gonna do it, then it's done. At the end, they're there, in the cinema, going ahead with this plan... but their doing so is irrelevant to the outcome because of the second storyline.

That second line's a completely different story, about Frederick, Shosanna and Marcel, and the Nazis, but it doesn't have enough meat on it to hold the film on its own. Tying Landa to Shosanna in the opening scene never pays off, because apart from the single scene in the restaurant Landa is entirely part of the Basterds' story, not hers.

It almost feels like two films intruding into one another, in a very intricate way, with parts that seem to belong to one being taken by the other halfway through, and sharing a climax that is two different takes on the same event. As well as bleeding into each other, pieces of both stories are missing.

[StevieG]

Good review Murrin - similar to my initial reaction. I just saw this a couple of days ago too and I liked it overall, but couldn't put my finger on why it felt like something was missing. It was just a feeling. Overall, I enjoyed it. I think I would get a lot more out of it on a 2nd viewing.

Minor problem - the subtitles were a tad fast for me, but i'm a slow reader so it may not have been a problem for others.

[matrixman]

Excellent analysis, Murrin!

I had intended to see Inglourious Basterds a second time, but that didn't happen. So I'm not sure what to make of the film now. Maybe it just wasn't the "event" film I had hoped it would be, given that it had the Tarantino name on it. By "event" maybe I simply mean a movie that completely blows me away, putting it dumbly. Kill Bill did that -- sheer, nutty brilliance. Inglourious Basterds was nutty, yes, but I'm not sure of its brilliance. Like I said earlier, I thought the opening scene was very gripping, but the rest of the movie seemed to squander a lot of that initial power and momentum.

[I'm Murrin]

I guess the reason I was disappointed by the film is that I went in expecting a complete story about the Basterds, and what I got was a series of excerpts followed by the third act.

It feels like bad writing. Up until the scene at the vet's with von Hammersmark injured, there are scenes but no coherence.

This is the work of a writer who can't tell the difference between having a few ideas for a story and having the whole story.

[The Dreaming]

I guess the reason I was disappointed by the film is that I went in expecting a complete story about the Basterds, and what I got was a series of excerpts followed by the third act.

It feels like bad writing. Up until the scene at the vet's with von Hammersmark injured, there are scenes but no coherence.

This is the work of a writer who can't tell the difference between having a few ideas for a story and having the whole story.

Really? I felt it was more Tarentino being efficient. He would prod our imaginations a certain way, fill in a little story, and let us imagine for ourselves how to fill in the blanks. For example, do we REALLY need to see scenes of Shoshana crawling through the French Countryside, being saved by a nice family, and getting a new identity? Not really. We have seen it a million times before. It's part of our understanding of the way stories are told in the medium. It was fascinating to me how he got away with showing as little as he did. Did we really need more than a scene and few snippets to tell us everything we need to know about the Basterds? did we need to see them drop in to Italy, fight their way into occupied France, establish a good hiding place, and repeatedly raid the Germans? Not really, I was able to piece that story together from the little he gave us, because damnit I've seen a few World War II movies before!

I am of the opinion that he stayed focused on the really interesting parts of the story and just cut out the filler. There was honestly more talking about violence than there was actual violence. There was honest-to-god suspence! I am not sure a lot of us realize how rare that really is these days.

[I'm Murrin]

The flow and cohesiveness of a story are just as important as the content. We didn't need more plot, what we needed was for it all to fit and flow together better. Connecting scenes help to do that.

The Shosanna story, since you bring it up, had almost nothing missing. You're right, we didn't need to see anything between the opening and "four years later". Other than lacking any payoff on the connection with Landa, it was whole. It just wasn't big enough to fill an entire film on its own, and didn't seem to connect with the other storyline except in that both concern German cinema during the Third Reich.


I just remembered a little while ago what I was going to say before I made that last post. I think the film would have been improved by Tarantino not indulging his usual habit of non-linear storytelling in the early portions. Introduce the Basterds, show the scene where they ask the Germans to betray their positions (including the flashes showing how they got some of their members), then show the scene with Hitler. The carving of the symbol would be held back until the same point it is used in the film.

That simple swap of scenes would establish the Basterds better, because even though the order and content of events are unchanged, the scene with Hitler appearing first implies a very large chasm of missing knowledge, while going immediately to the Basterds' activites makes us feel as though we know what they've been doing.

We lose out on some of the "Bear Jew" build up, but that's not as significant, and can be carried by the Nazis recognising who is about to emerge from the tunnel. Cutting directly from the demand for scalps to the scalpings would also add some impact.

[Loredoctor]

I thought that the inclusion of the Stiglitz sequence during the German captives scene was jarring. It really should have been added someplace else. Just one of my complaints about the movie, but overall I liked IB.

[Montresor]

Personally, I think the subvrsion of audience expectations is one of the things Basterds does brilliantly. The unusual flow and structure of the story is part of this for me. Having watched it for the third time last night, I only like it more and more.

[dlbpharmd]

Personally, I think the subvrsion of audience expectations is one of the things Basterds does brilliantly.

I agree.

[matrixman]

Yay to Christoph Waltz for winning Best Supporting Actor!

[Worm of Despite]

I thought that the inclusion of the Stiglitz sequence during the German captives scene was jarring. It really should have been added someplace else. Just one of my complaints about the movie, but overall I liked IB.

I dunno, I thought the intro was hilarious, 'specially as it came out of nowhere.

[Montresor]

Yay to Christoph Waltz for winning Best Supporting Actor!

Seconded. And well-deserved.

[dlbpharmd]

the acting (let's just go ahead and nominate Waltz for Best Supporting Actor right now,)

I called it first. Indeed, well deserved.

[stonemaybe]

We watched this Friday night. His character made the film - definitely deserved the oscar!

[Zarathustra]

Finally saw this on Blu-ray. After all the criticism and debate, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I'm not a huge Tarantino fan. On the QT spectrum, put me down as loving Pulp Fiction, but underwhelmed by Kill Bill.

I thought its disjointed nature and subversion of audience expectations worked. It was basically a collection of very compelling scenes (built around a few unnecessary ones) that succeeded in telling a decent story. The tension he managed with the opening scene, the restaurant, and the basement bar made the movie for me.

My least favorite part was Brad Pitt. He did not sound like anyone I've ever met from Tennessee. He sounded like he was attempting a (bad) George Bush impression. He was the weakest actor in the entire movie. Pure cartoon. Maybe that was intentional, to produce the disjointed feel, and to provide a sharp contrast with the main villian. But I think someone else could have done it better.

[danlo]

I liked it a lot, it was weird in ways too. Could have done without the graphics and yes Christoph Waltz deserved the Oscar. Had a lot in common with Bakker's and Martin's fantasies-every time I got to really enjoy a character

Spoiler

they got knocked off