Quentin Tarantino | Auteur Theory

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Cast: Brad Pitt [Lt. Aldo Raine], Christoph Waltz [Hans Landa], Diane Kruger [Bridget von Hammersmark]

Lt. Aldo Raine collects a group of Jewish soldiers to commit violent acts of punishment against the Nazis, during the first year of Germany’s occupation in France. The team of soldiers join with German actress and secret agent Bridget von Hammersmark to bring down the leaders of the Third Reich, who then allies with theatre owner Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent) who seeks to avenge the Nazi’s execution of her family.

My rating: 8/10

Narrative aspects

This film has taken its inspiration from historical events, precisely World War 2, though is completely fictional. It is presented with a division between scenes called ‘Chapters’ which gives it a different feel, as though looking through a book of events. This technique enables the audience to anticipate what would happen in the scenes that follow a chapter title as well as if it is a visual representation of a novel:

Chapter 1 – Once upon a time… in Nazi-occupied France
Chapter 2 – Inglourious Basterds
Chapter 3 – A German Night in Paris
Chapter 4 – Operation Kino
Chapter 5 – Revenge of the Giant Face

Character portrayal and development are strong points in the film, as it follows the storylines of different groups of characters: Aldo Raine and his soldier team, Shoshannah Dreyfus and Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), and Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) and Bridget von Hammersmark, who then all meet at the climax scene location of the theatre and are met with the main antagonist from time to time. This technique keeps the film engaging for the audience as well as creates the set up for the ‘grand finale’ and the opposition of the Nazi-supporting members.

While all the characters created by Tarantino are multi-layered and complex, one character strikes out as different. SS Colonel Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, nicknamed ‘The Jew Hunter’ for obvious reasons due to his interest in killing the Jews hiding in Occupied France, is depicted as quiet and not brutal in his actions yet is very clever and chooses his words of speech very carefully. He himself would not commit any acts of killing and the only commands, but despite that, the audience immediately develops a distaste for Waltz’s well-played character. This could be because of his rather scheming demeanour or how Tarantino chose to show ‘The Jew Hunter’ doing an act he is known for in the first scene of the film.

Infer & Deduce: Immediately looking at the title of the film, one would notice the words being misspelt. There are many theories as to why this is so, with one being to avoid censorship by misspelling the second word, and another being to give tribute to the 1978 war film by Enzo G. Castellari but still have a difference in name for when people search for it online.

Technical Aspects

Tarantino effectively uses certain camera shots, movements and sequences to portray emotions and intent of the characters, and the furthering of the plot. One great example is the opening scene, Chapter 1, where the entire span of twenty minutes consists of cuts between shots but all seem to be as if filmed in one whole take. The editing of this sequence is seamless, and with such a lengthened span of conversation, an audience member would strongly anticipate a twist to occur at any moment. At one point in the sequence, the camera starts to move around rather than remain in the same spot, heightening the tension created and also revealing the secret that the family of Perrier LaPadite, a French farmer, is hiding the Dreyfus family from the Nazis, who are seen hiding under the floorboards in the basement when the camera pans down. When the scene reaches its own climax, the camera starts to zoom in to the two characters present, Hans and Perrier, to clearly show the expressions on their faces to the probably dreading audience.

The above only serves as one example of the film where every shot is intended to serve a deeper meaning, much like the entrance scene of Lt. Aldo Raine, Chapter 2, where the first shot is a wide-angle from a heightened point. As shot analysis deduces meanings of such a choice, a high-angled shot usually signifies the insignificance of the characters shown or making them look slightly powerless, which could well be applied to this scene since the soldiers here are quite disposable. Moreover, the camera shifts to be placed behind the soldiers assembled in a horizontal line and a dolly shot follows Aldo walking back and forth. This could be deduced as showing the scene from the point of viewing of the soldiers yet not being a first-person point of view shot. It portrays the firm ‘pep-talk’ by Aldo in an effective way, making the audience feel as if they are being recruited for working on his team. Also, from the moment an audience sees Aldo, they know that he is a character of great will and superiority.

Furthermore, smaller aspects of the film play their important roles as well, with embedded subtitles creating ease for a viewer not able to speak in German, French and in one scene, Italian. With this technique, Tarantino gives the film a more realistic and ‘homely’ feel, taking the audience back to a time and place where not everyone would know how to speak English. The music choice is iconic in Tarantino films, being classical or old-school, or having intense instrumental compositions that heighten when the scene does.

Favourite Scene

Though a worthy contender for this category is the first scene of the film (Chapter 1), my favourite takes place during Chapter 4, where Lt. Archie Hicox and Bridget von Hammersmark are met with SS officer Major Dieter Hellstrom who notices that Hicox’s accent is “odd”. When Hicox uses the wrong hand gesture to indicate the number three (without the use of his thumb), the Major realises he is an undercover German soldier. And so, like any Tarantino film, violence and a worthy showdown ensues.

This scene captivated my attention as it depicts the observational skills of the men present, that such a small mistake like omitting the use of Hicox’s thumb gave his identity up. Moreover, the scene uses long still shots that create a stronger anticipation in the audience after the notice that the Major has realised something. The Major smoothly transitions into accusing Hicox as not being a German, rather than shooting him at point blank, which represents the character as clever, like the majority of others in this film. Moreover, Hicox plays the conversation very intelligently while reasoning with the Major and having the upper-hand of another man on his side, who points a gun at the Major as well.

Being quite a violent scene, in the end, initially, it is one that is rather quiet and still, which settles the alarm felt by an audience. Though then having the charm of a Tarantino film, jumping to a sudden outburst of gunshots, bloodshed and noise, watching the film makes one unable to predict what to expect and when.

What would I do differently?

Quentin Tarantino is famously known for making films that are violent and brutal, with a hint of unpredictability. If I were to attempt at making my own take on the Inglourious Basterds I would, in my taste, reduce the violence or minimise the display of bloodshed and gore to reach a wider audience of film-watchers that would avoid having the trauma of witnessing such gruesome acts and scenes. having said that, Tarantino definitely places his auteur mark on this film by giving the audience what he is known for. It is a kind of professional and creative stamp that can allow one to realise who this film is made by.