The LAMB Devours the Oscars - Best Picture: Inglourious Basterds

Editor's note: Welcome to the thirtieth of a 33-part series dissecting the 82st Academy Awards, brought to you by the Large Association of Movie Blogs and its assorted members. Every day leading up to the Oscars, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category of the Oscars. To read any other posts regarding this event, please click the tag following the post. Thank you, and enjoy!










By Adam Cohen of The Jack Sack.

Quentin Tarantino deals in basic human emotions, and that's why his films connect so readily with audiences. One of Tarantino's favorite themes is revenge- most notably told on an operatic scale with "Kill Bill" parts 1 & 2. Revenge is where he returns for "Inglorious Basterds," which is set amidst one of history's greatest crime scenes- The Third Reich. One could argue that making a revenge flick about killing Nazis is kind of a cheat- who wouldn't want to kill some Nazis? Well, that may be true, but Tarantino doesn't go after the Germans, he obliterates them in the most creative ways imaginable. So, on a very basic emotional level, "Basterds" is exactly what it says it is- a movie about killing Nazis. But that alone shouldn't get you a Best Picture nomination. And to that end, there's a lot more to this film than offing brownshirts.

When the film opens, it presents its best character, Best Supporting Actor nominee Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa of the SS. Landa is the film's main villain- the embodiment of all that is evil in Germany. He hangs over all that takes place for the rest of the movie- from Shoshanna, the sole survivor of a family of Jews hiding underneath the farmhouse (that Landa and his team kill in the film's violent opening scene) to the later showdown between him and Lt. Aldo Raines- who recruits the titular "Basterds" that are dropped into occupied France to kill Nazis. The film is set up and executed brilliantly by Tarantino's sure hand. Nothing in this movie is wasted. No character lacks life- even ones who are more comical than dramatic (the "Bear Jew") are indelible screen presences.


So, what has the Academy so excited about this "pulp historical fiction?" For one, it's a movie about movies- Shoshanna has fled the French country to Paris, where she becomes the proprietor of a quaint cinema. She is a cinephile, as are many other characters in this film. And the love of film displayed in "Basterds" is an odd but appropriate common thread. German cinema preceding the Third Reich was experimental and groundbreaking. Fritz Lang, Germany's most famous director, was squired by Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels early in Hitler's rule. Lang, like many others, later fled Germany for the West when it was clear that anyone remaining would have to cooperate with Nazi ideology. Leni Reifenstahl remained and became Hitler's most famous and accomplished propagandist filmmaker. No doubt all of these auteurs, and many more were included in British Lt. Archie Hicox's writing for "Films and Filmmakers" (I love everything about Hicox's scene with a silent Winston Churchill).

And "Basterd's" climax exists in Shoshanna's movie house- which I won't ruin for anyone who has yet to see this film. But where fantasy branches from reality, it is wholly befitting that the most ridiculous events occur in this setting. Some may criticize "Basterds" for making some very major departures from actual history. But Tarantino didn't come to this subject to film a "Saving Private Ryan." He purposely plowed through the restrictions a conventional movie might hold itself to and decided "I'm going to let this beast loose." His choice works because he did so with a purpose- to cause the audience to become engulfed in the chaos that exists in a state of war.


I would equate "Basterds" to Tarantino's other most-acclaimed film, "Pulp Fiction" in that it seeks to rip down the barriers that make 99.9% of films safe and predictable. Tarantino wants you to shift in your seat and peek through the fingers covering your eyes. He, like Alfred Hitchcock, embraces the darkest parts of human psychology, and he does so in several brilliantly acted and directed scenes. From the opening farm house massacre, to the most terrifying chat about German pastries ever, and to a gut-wrenching sequence in a lazy pub riddled with drunk German revelers, "Basterds" is a sneaky creation- it's a horror movie, but it's covered in a war movie genre wrapping.

While other films in the Best Picture Category have legitimate claims to the golden statue, "Inglorious Basterds" is the most pure example of movie making among the bunch. It doesn't rely on CGI trickery, nor does it play to safe emotions like finding redemption, etc. Instead, Tarantino uses the film medium to pay a tribute to something old but does so with a modern awareness. I believe its chances of winning Best Picture are strong.