Sonic Youth wrote:Inglorious Basterds - ?/10
I'm still trying to figure out if Basterds is meant to be alterna-history or mere fantasy. If the former, then the film is addressing some very interesting ideological issues. If the latter, it's just Tarantino jerking off.
I'm afraid it's the latter.
When I first heard about this project, I thought it was going to be about the (real) Jewish squads which went after Nazis during the aftermath of WWII. While being apprehensive of the prospect of such an enterprise, I was intrigued by it. Then, as I learned more about it, I just knew I would have problems with its premise. But I tend to be able to like Tarantino's movies. And I was aware of the suggested option, that this piece could be read as an ironic statement about the way history is cinematically depicted – an Israeli leading critic stated it does exactly what Steindler's List did, meaning it offers a way for the viewer to "experience" the holocaust, but in a corrective, positive, life enforcing way (the-showers-in-Auschwitz-being-real-showers anybody?) – yet this time it's done with the full awareness of the fact that, by definition, Cinema is nothing more than fantasy, a notion Spielberg seemed to be self importantly oblivious of. I was willing to try and put my biased preconditions on hold, but it didn't really work for me on any level.
First, I'm quite fed up with "self reflective" cinema. Or at least I don't find cinematic references to be an automatic turn-on. And while I'm aware that Tarantino's opus is all about this kind of film making, I guess I am less willing to accept The Kentucky Fried Movie version of these particular historical events. I can be slightly prissy at times. And as far as revenge fantasies go, I objectively felt this one was short in the catharsis department – they rushed the demises of the greatest villains in history – Hitler! Goebbels! Goring! Jannings! – without allowing us to dwell in it. But most of all, I didn't want to have anything to do with the movie protagonists, those Inglourious Basterds (the title was erroneously, if unintentionally indicatively, translated to Hebrew as Dishonorable Bastards).
While I'm not really into violence festivities on screen, I did enjoy Death Proof and Kill Bill (Vol. 1, not so 2). Yes, it had a lot to do with the tongue in cheek aspect of them, but it also had a lot to do with the fact that the protagonists were female. That (pseudo) subversive reversal of positionings made it emotionally acceptable for me. A Black put down Whites is funny, the opposite is not, a racial remark made by a Jew about Germans can be tolerated, not so if it's the other way round. The same way, I have no inclination to follow a bunch of smug, white male Americans re-ventilating their primal violent tendencies with any kind of admiration. Not attractive at all in my book. Maybe if it was indeed about Holocaust survivors (although I'd have a set of totally other apprehensions in such a case). Or even better – why not make it about a gang of black slaves killing plantations owners, or if you must set it in a cinematically active era, black activists getting even with KKK members. But no way, this will be too risky, it will strike some cords one must not touch.
But after all is said and done, it comes to the unpleasant feeling I was left with, and it was not unlike what I felt about Life is Beautiful, that this is a case of a rather clueless person who's using the grandest, most universally (universe=west) acknowledged, sexiest historic calamity to promote his personal philosophical, aesthetic and/or artistic agenda, knowing it would ensure a built in interest-controversy-prestige-whatever for his project. I wasn't flat-out impressed back then, nor am I now. (And just like Begnini in '98, Tarantino felt obliged to personally come to Israel, charm the natives and get a seal of approval in return, which he did – we just love to be seen open minded).
Edited By Uri on 1253696614