In the past, though, this method of making movies has worked for and against him. The constant movie references, specifically in his “Kill Bill” duo and 2007’s “Death Proof,” became tiresome because Tarantino basically kept referencing the same period of film over and over again. He stopped growing as a movie viewer, which is where the pit of his passion stems from in the first place. Upon seeing the trailer and reading the lukewarm reactions from people who saw it at the Cannes Film Festival a few months ago, I was worried that “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino’s long-awaited WWII project about a group of people all trying to kill Hitler, would suffer the same treatment. There are enough WWII movies being made each year without some fan boy glorifying the genre with Eli Roth in tow.

Much to my surprise, “Inglourious Basterds” is actually Tarantino’s most mature film in over ten years. Not since “Jackie Brown” has Tarantino dug so deep into a mélange of diverse creations by giving each person a fair, benevolent shake. None of the characters in “Inglourious Basterds” – from the likes of the Jewish Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent) who shotguns the story into motion when her family is brutally murdered, to Brad Pitt’s prejudice hatin’ Aldo Raine, and to the magnificent Nazi Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), who wears the face of humanity, but really has the soul of a monster – are merely ciphers of the filmmaker himself for his own fantasyland. By trimming the fat, Tarantino places himself at ground zero of his passion for cinema and brings all of the best aspects of his filmmaking persona back home where they belong. 

And what’s more homey to Tarantino than lengthy conversations? Told over five chapters, “Inglourious Basterds” is essentially something like twelve different scenes and twelve different chats. It’s a conversation spectacle at its core. While the central characters (Raine, Shoshanna and Landa) drive the narrative by their actions as well as conversations, the amazing supporting cast (which includes Diane Kruger, Michael Fassbender and Daniel Brühl) picks up the talky reigns and adds tension to the already hot and sweaty situations. My favorite scene in the film, which is probably the longest (forty-five minutes? Maybe less), takes place at a bar where Diane Kruger’s character, famed German actress Bridgett Von Hammersmark, arranges for the Nazi-killin’ Basterds to meet her there. In what amounts to a Mexican stand-off of a chat, two of the most masculine members of the Basterds face off against a brutal, important Nazi in an attempt to out-man the other man. Though it all ends in bullet shells and lost Cinderella slippers, Tarantino still manages to comment on masculinity as well as build an atmosphere so thick with intensity you could almost stab it with a knife.

Though I could be biased by my own love of all things classic Hollywood, I feel that Tarantino’s success with “Inglourious Basterds” has largely to do with its time period and appropriate movie references. There’s a lot of Sam Fuller (“The Big Red One”), John Ford (“The Searchers”), Jacques Tourneur (“Berlin Express”), and Fritz Lang (“Man Hunt”) within the film, and Tarantino utilizes both his heroes’ subtle tact (maybe not Fuller’s…) and highly expressive energy without being bombastically contemporary. He seems to look at his film and the characters within it from a truly 1940s standpoint. Sally Menke’s hardboiled editing is perhaps the clearest indication of this decision. Throughout every conversation, Tarantino keeps the camera rolling on everyone’s faces a few seconds longer than he normally would. The minimal amount of quick cuts allows us to watch each character think and react, which is just fascinating when watching intelligent characters talk.

Much has been said about Christoph Waltz’s performance as the evil-incarnate, Col. Landa. While I agree with everyone in saying that his embodiment is entirely Oscar-worthy, I can’t help but personally gravitate towards the two main female performances by Kruger and Laurent. Their characters, particularly Laurent’s Shoshanna, are really culturally stimulating from a feminist perspective. In both perfect Fassbinder and Cukor style, these ladies radiate strength and perseverance. Though they’re at the forefront of the story in “Inglourious Basterds,” I think it’s remarkably fitting that Tarantino contained their heroics within the physical structure of the narrative. It’s hard to explain this without giving the game away, but let’s just say that all of their perilous deeds go un-thanked on every level while, of course, all of the good and evil male characters score all the kudos they possibly can. While the world remembers the countless male soldiers and their cinematic representations during WWII, women really only have the figure of Rosie the Riveter to symbolize the plights of women everywhere during that time period. Shoshanna probably could have stood for something similar and brought hope to women all over the world if her circumstances had panned out differently. But maybe not.

As a determined character study, “Inglourious Basterds” succeeds on every level. It’s also, at times, incredibly unsettling and hysterically funny. Robert Richardson’s cinematography is jaw-droppingly gorgeous and brings the vibrant reds, blacks and whites of the stellar art direction to life with as much vigor and pep as any Tarantino film has yet displayed. This film has (hopefully) elevated Quentin Tarantino to the next stage of his filmmaking career, and has me truly looking forward to whatever comes next.

Last word:

Tarantino’s filmmaking voice deepens to the next maturity level. And while “Inglourious Basterds” isn’t one of my all-out favorites of the year, it’s still a fun romp through the 1940s and delivers some of the best performances of the year.

Review By:
Sara Freeman, Staff Writer

IN REVIEW ONLINE