The American critic emeritus
had originally written a short article in which he reproached IB be morally similar to a denial of the Holocaust, without much define his position. He argued a bit with the two bloggers mentioned above and took it a little more detail on its website its argument. It is also not the only one to criticize the film its lack of historical truth, or rather his complete detachment from any moral responsibility towards history, this argument was echoed by many critics. As noted by Bill R. (One our blogs), the argument is disingenuous: rework the story is not something new, a whole branch of science-fiction fun to guess the likely consequences of a history deflected as Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick in which the Nazis won the Second World War (or in another register The Plot against America by Philip Roth ). The fictional story of Dick disguises a much more drastic than Tarantino, yet it is one of the most famous books by this author cult. In Tarantino Allies always win the war, only the denouement unfolds differently and a little earlier. It does not divert more history that Oliver Stone, for example, that in JFK requires great conspiracy theory. There is in Stone's film one way to interpret the story that distorts so much immoral as IB , especially since the latter is clearly whimsical in nature, while Stone claims to truth .
In fact, unless it is immoral to be moral has been criticized as Tarantino, the film critics argue, refusing any discussion on the theme of moral revenge by not having that as part of a great entertaining show. Rosenbaum's argument makes more sense when he takes the trouble to define it: "Since Many People Have Been Asking Me to Elaborate Why I think we Inglorious Basterds IS akin to Holocaust denial, I'll try to explain What I Mean as succinctly as possible, by paraphrasing Roland Barthes: Anything That Makes Unreal Fascism is wrong. (He WAS speaking about Pasolini's Salo , I think one CAN aim aussi Anything Say That That Makes Unreal Nazism is wrong.) For me, Inglourious Basterds harder Makes the Holocaust, not Easier to grasp have A Historical Reality. Insofar as it Becomes a movie convention - by Which I mean is derived only from Other Reality movies - Loses it icts Historical reality. "Rosenbaum criticizes Tarantino finally doing what he wanted to do was to say to approach the Second World War a purely cinematic point of view, leaving aside any historical truth.
should first ask if it's more immoral to have fun at the scalp Nazis in a fantasy as such assumed that create emotional catharsis from the Holocaust as Schindler's List in or Life Is Beautiful . Rivette said of abjection, I do not see at Tarantino, it is not the beautiful from the ugly, it does not approach a terrifying reality in a soothing aesthetic comforting, only he built his remarks on the power of the image, it departs from reality to do so. In Life Is Beautiful , the horror of the camps is completely discharged, it is even turned into a whole movie just a game by its main character seeks to divert us from the horror that hides Benigni not only his son but also to the viewer, our innocence then being redeemed by his death ... We mourn his sacrifice which allows the salvation of his son and ours since we will never know through his actions what he has hidden abomination (the camera does not show us either way), big thank you we are so better ... That it is the very definition of abjection as Rivette (which can also been added, but to a lesser extent, in Schindler's List or more recently The Reader), a definition that does not fit at all IB.
For Tarantino's film does not drain at all morality or the reality of his speech, only this film is about cinema as a force of propaganda, then its ability to act on reality. If sailing reality through a movie screen, the better to highlight the fact that this movie was on this reality. We are right in Baudrillard, where there is no real referent, the film works only by allusions to other films but these films cater to a certain vision of Nazism, an iconography that magnifies Tarantino, often to the point of make grotesque, hence the shouting and gesticulating Hitler (slightly more cartoonish than elsewhere in the infamous Ganz Downfall of Hirschbiegel) Goebbels or reduced to a film producer. Tarantino plays with the image of wicked Nazi-built cinema, but this picture is the same one we have when we think of Nazism, long ago we forgot the real referent. I understand more or less the reference to the Holocaust Rosenbaum, only the final scene and the film turned into a crematorium directly recalls the Holocaust, the film focuses on war, not the Nazi extermination policies. The Holocaust is not a convention of theater in IB , war and revenge are and it is here that the movie is played. It is true that the Nazis are seen as the enemy Supreme because of the Holocaust, they are detached from all too human traits to avoid reminding us that they were after all only men on the contrary, they are merely monsters, the film seems to say, a inhuman enemy, but it is exactly this vision of the Nazi monster that Tarantino likes to burst, to massacre with blows from a baseball bat. In fact, especially the abyss by giving some weight to his human characters.
The most obvious example of Nazi portrayed as the archenemy is in Indiana Jones , where our beloved Indy can kill opponents with impunity just because they are Nazis. We do not have to wonder about the moral value of Harrison Ford, he has the right to murder because it attacks the Nazis, only humans (and at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark , mentioned in the cinema flame IB even God melts the evil Nazis, in a gesture akin to easily Spielberg's revenge against the atrocities committed against his people). Already, at Tarantino, the Nazi is not so grotesque, some scenes play on a certain ambiguity : There is such an honorable soldier who refuses to reveal the position of German troops. Tarantino plays on difficult terrain (he himself said in interview with the always excellent Charlie Rose), it gives a certain dignity, humanity to a character who is about to be massacred. Never in the Nazis Spielberg has been shown with much empathy, Indy's enemies are bullies, violence appears justified. It seems the least among Tarantino in every scene of violence he bothers to question it, by making these characters more human, as in this example of honorable soldier or The scene in Louisiana with this young soldier newly father.
Zoller's character breaks alone all this iconography that Tarantino drink from a simple soldier he became a hero Nazi, a sniper who shot exceptionally alone three hundred Allied soldiers in three days. This feat was repeated in the cinema in a propaganda film produced by Goebbels, Nation's Pride, which plays its own role Zoller. Already at its second meeting with Shoshanna, he is reluctant to describe his war efforts, it does not seem particularly proud of his heroism. However, he boasts of being a movie star, moving across the film, it's so big movie buff. But seeing his repeated actions on the big screen, Zoller is nauseated, he can not bear to see this: Tarantino then completely breaks the image of Nazi monster, simple serial killer. And of course, is the film that made him see the horror of his experiences, the film that led him to understand his own life differently. At that time, the abject gestures seen on screen has more to him than what he felt when the has really raised the excitement of cinema is more important than the emotion experienced. Ironically, the image of the Nazi monster movie produced by the then destroyed by the strength of that film. In addition, Nations' Pride serves formatting abyss, it is a game whereby self-referential Tarantino puts us in front of our own pleasure to see the Nazis die while we watch those same Nazis applauding and yelling fun before this Nation's Pride where we see the allied soldiers to be massacred.
It's not just that the character of Zoller Tarantino has a priori as a cartoon before the break gradually. All IB remains in the registry and coarse caricature, not a moment did we feel that we must take this seriously, though some characters appear terribly human. The scene at the tavern for example is so long precisely because Tarantino takes the time to present every person: we are to sympathize with the soldiers as allies with the Nazis or the bartender and his daughter. The tension is built in alternating points of view: the climax of this scene is powerful because we had the time to know everyone, we fear for the fate of all those present, not only for our three heroes. There already is a perspective that goes beyond the mere cartoon, which is especially reinforced by the play on language (present throughout the film, but at this time is her best drama). Tarantino said in an interview that the scene is a reaction to Where Eagles Dare, spy movie in which Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood have to wear a suit to German speaking perfect German. It is here, on the contrary, a certain realism in the course of the stage, in how to use the imperfect German Archie Hicox. And of course, is the film, beyond language, that will save lives (albeit temporarily) to film critic ...
Thus, violence free IB reflects the violence with which the cinema grabbed a historical reality to reduce it to its most simple and easily acceptable, that is to say, the equation = Nazi monster. Tarantino shows the predominance of this image on historical truth, it presents the gap, it does not just play innocently with an iconography. By showing the power of film, strength of pressure on the real (whether as an instrument of propaganda Goebbels, that power play between Shoshanna cinephile and Zoller, a tool for survival of an instrument or Hicox Shoshanna for destruction), it reminds us that the image is stronger than the reality it covers, often the truth of the film is much more important than the truth of the real saying. In general moviegoer, it does not condemn all of the strength of the narrative image, however he did by it, hence the love of cinema that we constantly feel in IB .
So where does Tarantino: not in history but in the cinema. This is primarily a movie moviegoer moviegoers to not only thanks to the countless references (there is a semi-interesting list here), but also the vital function basically occupies the film in the works : this is the film that turns the crematorium, the relationship between Shoshanna Zoller and is built on an exchange where the war is translated into film title (Linder cons Chaplin, Pabst Riefenstalh cons), the world's salvation depends on a double-agent actress and a film critic ... The references are many: the opening scene, one of the greatest moments of cinema in recent years, is a tribute to the opening of The Good, the Bad & the Ugly , with reference to John Ford (a plan that incorporates the famous backlit final The Searchers, a masterpiece on the ultimate reason for the revenge). Most of the films mentioned are also on the same basis of revenge westerns of Leone, Carrie for the grand finale, the opening image that evokes the masterpiece from Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven , etc.. References can also be used ironically: in Nation's Pride , the film Zoller, there is a recovery plan famous ironclad Potemkin (a character with a bullet in the eye) as Goebbels wrote in his memoirs that Eisenstein's film is a great film, but poor propaganda (according to Charlie Rose Tarantino), or even the final scene seems to evoke the Metropolis of Lang's favorite movie of Hitler's last vision he has before he died. Other moments are particularly bold, as this test improvised King Kong as a metaphor for the slave or the scene video for David Bowie. There is more here than mere references amusing, than mind games to meet aficionados of cinema: the same about the film is built on this set of references, these images of war, Nazis or revenge that Tarantino uses is to shift or to take them back to their account, thus enriching his work.
Tarantino ...
Eastwood And ... 
The film is more important than reality, the dominant image of reality, all this is staged in the film itself, notwithstanding reference these games or this iconography scratched: several characters have nicknames they stick to the skin and raise the level of myth (Jew Hunter Bear Jew, Aldo Rayne descendant of the legendary Mountain Man, etc..) or Shoshanna to change its name to survive, to adopt a fiction to continue to live or allied soldiers to impersonate Germans in the tavern. The film is thus built on this game of appearances and deceptions, all the tension is built around the same question: will they discover who they really are? The structure of the second chapter also highlights this aspect: this portion is more or less told by a soldier bearing witness to Hitler, it worried about the fact that this story will have on soldiers. So the narrative of the actions of Bastards is important is that it terrifies the German soldiers, the Bastards are being built a myth, an image (by the way we see just what the bastards, the important it is their reputation and the effect they have on the German soldiers, so their propaganda). In the middle of the soldier's story, an omniscient narrator emerges to tell the story of one of the Bastards, too pure product of the picture: all the German soldiers know, all are afraid, because his murderous exploits of Nazi have been widely reported by newspapers. It is a terrifying myth, like the bastards are too. In fact, they are for the Nazis that the Nazis are to us: monsters without souls, a terrifying image. The film does so by inversion, giving the Jews the power to burn on a Nazi swastika as they themselves were marked with the Star of David or by exterminating the Nazi high command in avenging flames (or the character of Zoller, a war hero became a movie star, as Audie Murphy was in Hollywood). That, too, which shocked this answer violence with violence, as if the film was assumed that to kill a monster, we must in turn act monster. IB is a sort of catharsis violent fantasies of revenge sated - a fantasy that only cinema can offer ...
And yet, after all that, I barely touched on what makes the film so memorable, so haunting: Beyond any moral debate, there is the pure pleasure of a rich and consistently brilliant form, the even greater pleasure to discover the talent of Christoph Waltz, absolutely remarkable in the role of Landa the disorientation that comes with a peculiar structure (five-year history distilled into a few long scenes in real time, a fortnight at first glance, long exposure and presentation of all the characters and issues, in three chapters, before the start meet in the fourth chapter, culminating in the final ecstasy, the whole movie built on a single type of scene, interrogation, presented differently each time, the use of long periods dialogues where the tension builds gradually expanded until it bursts into a dazzling short and violent liberation) ... And of course, the pleasure of seeing the movie deal to history, to see a film buff declare openly and without embarrassment that he much preferred the film to reality, love of art that I understand only too well.
0 comments:
Post a Comment