Original Release Date: August 21, 2009
Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger, Daniel Brühl, Til Schweiger, B.J. Novak, Sylvester Groth, Julie Dreyfus, Richard Sammel, Samm Levine, Paul Rust, Christian Berkel, Léa Seydoux, Ludger Pistor, Rainer Bock, Mike Myers (Cameo), Rod Taylor (Cameo), Harvey Keitel (Voice Cameo), Samuel L. Jackson (Narrator)
It occurred to me the other day that Quentin Tarantino is a very lucky man.
I don’t mean to say that he’s lucky because of where he’s gotten to; I’m saying that because of where he’s gotten to, he’s lucky.
What do I mean?
Well, as far as I can tell, as a writer and director, Quentin Tarantino:
a. is generally loved by critics
b. is generally loved by audiences
c. generally makes financially successful movies (maybe not blockbusters, but certainly no albatrosses
d. is generally considered to be a serious artist
and,
e. makes the movies he wants to make.
For a director to achieve such lofty status for a fleeting moment, let alone maintain it for over two decades, is a stunning accomplishment. I mean, think about how many writer/directors who have had huge breakout hits in the past 25 years and who are now relegated to the garbage heap (The Wachowskis
That’s not to say he isn’t human. In fact, you could argue that previous to the release of Inglourious Basterds he was in the biggest slump of his career, at least since he’d hit it big with Reservoir Dogs
Then along came a little passion project called Grindhouse, where he and Robert Rodriguez got together to make their own personal double feature, each of them directing one.
Now, look, I don’t know Quentin Tarantino personally, so I don’t know if he took it hard or anything when Grindhouse didn’t do that well, but I do know that in the eyes of the movie-going public his reputation took somewhat of a hit. For one thing, his Death Proof was totally outshined by Rodriguez’s Planet Terror, because Planet Terror on the whole is a more entertaining watch, not to mention actually closer to the “grindhouse” theme they were going for (although, as an aside, the best modern “grindhouse” film has got to be Black Dynamite
Death Proof isn’t a bad movie; in fact it’s pretty good. The dialogue scenes are classic Tarantino, and the action scenes are quite impressive. The real problem is that it might be “too good” (or, rather, too polished) for what it was trying to be. And really, I think the whole Grindhouse project may have been a few years ahead of it’s time, but that’s speculative on my part.
ANYWAY, all of this brings us to Inglourious Basterds (aka Quentin Tarantino’s comeback special).
So, because I have a history degree, whenever the subject of this particular movie comes up, people often ask me what I think. In fact, I’ve had at least one person INSIST to me that I should hate it because of its “historical inaccuracy.”
The truth is, the fact that Inglourious Basterds is “historically inaccurate” is irrelevant, because it was never trying to be factual in the first place. Historical fiction (heck, even historical fantasy) doesn’t have to be perfect. It just needs to get certain details right, and, as far as I can tell, all of the costumes, weapons, and other equipment are all period authentic; and that’s what matters.
I mean, do people rag on Kelly’s Heroes because it’s not historically accurate? Who cares? It’s entertainment.
(Now, listen. If you’re going to base something on actual events, like Band of Brothers, or set a fictional story within actual events, like Saving Private Ryan, then the standard is definitely higher; but movies like Inglourious Basterds, Kelly’s Heroes, and The Dirty Dozen are different animals.)
So, what makes Inglourious Basterds Tarantino’s possible masterpiece?
Well, pretty much all the same elements that make most other Tarantino movies his possible masterpiece.
Before going to the special screening of Inglourious Basterds that I attended this past week, I went back and re-watched all of his big movies up to that point, and something I noticed about Reservoir Dogs became a recurring theme: most Quentin Tarantino films feature dialogue that’s so well-written, they could each be adapted as stage plays with little difficulty. Sure, a few scenes here and there you’d have to work around, or excise entirely, but the audience would get the point nonetheless.
There’s no doubt that Inglourious Basterds was marketed as something akin to Kill Bill, and there’s definitely some shocking violence along those lines, but on the whole it’s much closer to Tarantino’s earlier work: an out-of-order story told in maybe ten or so actual scenes, most of which consist of gripping dialogue. The real twist with Basterds is that so much of it is subtitled, but therein lies the genius of the writer/director.
Now, I don’t want to give all the credit here to Tarantino, because the performances are pretty much impeccable across the board. I mean, this is the movie that put both Michael Fassbender and Christoph Watlz on the map (and thank God for that). The only real downer for me is Brad Pitt’s accent; it’s just a little too grating for my taste. That, and B.J. Novak is kind of a strange casting choice (although not totally without logic). And maybe Eli Roth could have done a little better. But, really, beyond that, I don’t have much negative to say about this movie, because it’s awesome.
In fact, in terms of individually gripping scenes that I could watch over and over again, I’d put Inglourious Basterds on par with No Country For Old Men. Maybe Tarantino and the Coen Brothers should team up someday…
So, the question is, is Inglourious Basterds Tarantino’s definitive masterpiece?
I think the answer is: there is no answer.
I could argue just as easily for Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown
Rating: ★★★★½
P.S. If you loved Wolfenstein 3D, you have no good excuse for not loving Inglourious Basterds as well.