It seems to be a feature of truly excellent films in order to unite almost irreconcilable artistic forms, methods and styles, and, in doing so, introduces the audience to a completely new aspect of narration and style. Quentin Tarantino "Inglorious Bastards" is such a film, but he does not try to seem special, being frayed on curves, unpolished in certain places and not using the moral basis of most films depicting the events of World War II. The script for "Inglorious Bastards", which was written by director Tarantino himself, was developed over many years, which allowed him to polish all the details and develop his unusual story to the extent that the words spoken on the screen seemed as natural as there would be no real scenario. This unique method of writing allowed the actors to take their characters in any direction they wanted, but still remain true to their original background, which was set before the shooting. This fact distinguishes Tarantino from other script authors and allows him to do what he intends to do creatively, first of all, allowing the studio managers to intervene only at the very end, when the entire project is ready to appear on the market, But let's take a close look at the film.
At the level of the video, Tarantino's brutal bastards face potentially potential potential taboos. Let's name some of them. The first question could be formulated as follows: should top-level officers of conquered armies who committed mass war crimes against civilians organize legal surrender (legal and safe channels for rats) or should they be forever branded? Tell me what victory did they expect? Bad Jewish boys Tarantino preferred branding with a knife with curved Nazi swastikas on their foreheads. The second question could also be asked in the form of a question: since justice is seldom fair, and since the victims of World War II (Jews in the first place) cannot be fully repaired for their losses - should victims be allowed to make revenge in their own way? Bad Tarantino boys take scalps, such as Apache, and music supports this association by quoting and mixing music even with the atrocious westerns of spaghetti with music composed by Ennio Morricone. The third question is the problem of postmodern, playful, pseudo-historical reconstruction of the end of the Second World War. Here Tarantino provokes us with the fictitious potential of ending the war, killing Hitler, Goebbels, Bormann and Goering in the cinema (“all rotten eggs in one basket”). After numerous unsuccessful attempts on Hitler, the “Artist” himself was killed while moving photos in a cinema in Paris? No one except Tarantino, attacked such an idea. The fourth question is the problem of German racism against Jews and blacks, which is a very good topic, given some of the real awakening of the neo-Nazi subculture in the whole world. And the fifth question is the problem of a brilliant, intelligent, eloquent, polyglot, charming and well-mannered mass murderer in the character of SS colonel Hans Lande, standing here for some very famous Nazi monsters who managed to escape from justice (for example, Mengele), being a caricature, which is now manages to learn how to use the expression "bingo!". right - but in rather strange circumstances. In addition, Hans Landa seems to be the cross between a detective living on 221B Baker Street and Michael Dobbs. sinister politician Francis Urquhart from his best-selling book House of Cards. Moreover, the rest of the actors brilliantly portrayed many stereotypical roles that could have escaped from the many films of Sergio Leone or even from such films as “Dirty Dozen”, “Where Eagles Dare”, “The Eagle Has Landed”, etc.
In addition, Tarantino seems to have made a film that approaches the quality of the theater in some physically quite static scenes (for example, sitting at the table) that grow to develop the overall dynamics of verbal intelligence performed (determining who will survive - depending on accents, verbal and non-verbal errors in the native language and in foreign languages, depending on the ability to destroy your own meetings before leaving important places, depending on individual luck and fate) with the final deadly E rifle shooting, one way or another, we have here the film consists of five diverse partially known parts of the drama: 1) exposure showing alienate Jewish family Dreyfus "In Nazi-occupied France"; 2) acquaintance with the Jewish avengers in “Inglorious Bastards”, 3) increasing tensions in the “German Night in Paris”, 4) dramatic peripeteia in “Operation Cinema” and, finally, 5) Nazi defeat in “Revenge of the Giant” Face. ” Tarantino’s film, on the other hand, is a film about films, including films that are in conflict: a UFA film about the film of the Third Reich against Hollywood, Goebbels vs. Selznik, a film about film critics and their books.
Nazi films of war heroes (for example, “The Pride of the Nation”) oppose the films of the Jewish expressionism of the 1920s in the Weimar Republic. Tarantino deliberately used the technique of using the expressionos' pyaroscope. The verbal allusion to a bad Jewish boy, called “Bear Jew” or “Golem”, is part of this intertextual playfulness in the film. Pabst is mentioned, and Emil Jannings plays the role of a character in fiction. Len Riefenstahl, Max Linder, “King Kong” and Chaplin “The Kid” are part of the Tarantino film. Shoshana Dreyfus, the only surviving member of the entire Jewish family, collaborates with the Nazis as the owner of the host cinema on German night under the name of Emmanuel Mimieux and takes on the appearance of the supposed collaborating actress Daniel Darry. In addition, the Tarantino film is an indirect film about hate propaganda films - as well as The Eternal Jew (directed by Fritz Hippler, 1940), which became part of people's subconscious even in France: Perrier LaPadite decides to betray the Dreyfus family only after Hans Landa tells his story about rats (which means Jews) that bring disease and disaster. The Savior of the Jews becomes their traitor after the Landa brainwashing and silently points to him - although with tears in his eyes - their location in the basement. This film is also a film about cutting films, replacing them with new built-in, disruptive sequences of films. The film itself (the nitrate seal) becomes ultimately the most important means of annihilating the complete Nazi leadership.
Finally, let's see the reception of the film. The common denominator of most of the early reviews of this film was the fact that everyone praised the overwhelming performance of the Austrian actor Christoph Waltz, expressing his brilliance in the image of the genius Hans Landa and at the same time condemning his mysterious anonymity on the outside Mir. However, it is strictly true. He was almost unknown to the English-speaking world in the sense that he almost never saw him. Most of his roles were made for German television films, but anonymously, of course, he was not. As a fact, people would be surprised by the fact that he was considered a child prodigy in his early acting days, just as Pitt was hailed by Robert Redford from the “next generation”,
However, there is one significant difference between them. Christoph Waltz is a classical actor, in a sense he studied acting at the Max Reinhardt Drama College in Vienna and the Lee Strasberg Theater Institute in New York (same Lee Strasberg who taught Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Dustin Hoffman and part of the actors and actresses of the 80s and 90s - the art of action!) Thus, the waltz, being a classically educated actor, probably has at its disposal a number of craft techniques that he skillfully pleads through this film. Pitt, on the other hand, developed as an actor and shows himself with the same perseverance and charm of the young Frank Sinatra - a role that he gallantly played in the remake of Soderbergh's "Ocean 11". Both actors meet in a setting that serves as a catalyst for their conflict, designed not to tame and reassure, but to provoke and adorn, sharpen feelings and reveal the hidden qualities of both worlds. The film benefits from their mutual exclusivity, and it is not surprising that Waltz won the Oscar for best acting role, which puts him next to Emil Dzhanningsom, as soon as the second Austrian, who received this award. He will certainly go down in history as the man who breathed life into one of the clever but stubborn antagonists in modern cinema history, along with Hopkins Hannibal Lecter or Perkins. Norman Bates from the film "Psycho".
