Inglorious Basterds

To be honest I loved this movie, but I wasn't sure what I was watching. It turns out using historical circumstances as a toy for satire and absurdity isn't very becoming of Tarantino. Inglorious Basterds found his usual talent for getting behind the minds of his villains into the world of their motive somewhat wanting... or perhaps staring in the mirror in a self-indulgent fantasy of what it could accomplish if it tried.

Which is sad, because what villains he had to work with! Col. Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz) 'The Jew Hunter', a charming but malicious and murderous Nazi official was a fascinating character who taught us absolutely naught about himself, other than he was a charming and murderous Nazi official. Sylvester Groth's performance as Joseph Goebbels and Martin Wukke's as Hitler were both lackluster, a clear consequence of a director relying on years of previous cinematic satires of the characters, and once again offering absolutely no insights - even fictitious ones - into the minds and motives of the characters. They were fun to watch, but still opportunities wasted.

Brad Pitt as the rugged, war scarred, but whimsical Lt. Aldo Raine carried the caricature well and although his appearence initially burned the retina with look, it's Brad Pitt! he warmed very well to the role. His main offering to the movie - other than the compulsory cocky American - was to give every Nazi he allowed to live (and that's not many) a souvenir of their war actions, so they could not escape them after the war: a swastika carved into their foreheads. And Tarantino spared no expense in pleasuring the audiences gory appetites as Nazi scalp after scalp were carved off before our very eyes.

Of course gore is not unusual for Tarantino, but in this case it was not tied to any point, message, or outcome except for him to get the chance to film some Nazi's getting penance. At least that is the only message one is left with, even if it's a cynical one.

This being said, Tarantino's natural talent for film making still shone through the films murky lack-of-purpose. Suspense is built and held masterfully in numerous scenes. And although the characters may have been more shallow than what we are used to from the film maker, they are no less intriguing and enjoyable.

I've found many Tarantino die-hards leave the cinema confused and disappointed with Inglorious Basterds. It leaves the overall impression that this is a Tarantino film made for Tarantino. Personally, I love him, but not being a die hard fan I found it possible to disassociate myself with the said holes in his film making this time round and have a thoroughly enjoyable time. If taken as a pleasurable trip to the movies, Inglorious Basterds should be a fun experience...

.. just don't think too much.

Two Interesting Ideas

I have finally got around to watching two of the most discussed documentaries of recent times: Ross Kemp on Gangs: New Zealand, and Loose Change: An American Coup.

Some quick conclusions :

Ross Kemp

Kemp provides a valuable introduction and mild insights into gang (namely Mongrel Mob) culture in New Zealand. But I couldn't help but conclude that his personal approach contained all of the character of TV3's Money Man. The fact that the documentary was made with an eye on the *gasp* factor for it's British audience was horribly transparent. Kemp does well in his investigations, but is too uneducated in both New Zealand and Maori culture and history to ever really venture beyond the 'introduction' stage. And I very much disliked his conclusion, during which he describes his shock at 'discovering pockets of such savagery in such a civilised nation' (to paraphrase). It seems some discourse doesn't even change in four hundred years. However, having said this he manages to handle the subject with integrity and from an appropriate and (for the most part) objective angle. I would like to see the same subject approached similarly from a New Zealand journalist with an education on New Zealand and Maori culture, for a New Zealand public. The documentary had real merit.

Loose Change

A believable bundle of ideas delivered in an unconvincing package. The documentary attempts to argue that the US Government has lied about all the events of September 11th, 2001, and it was infact the Government which planned and executed the attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, and the 'crash' of Flight 93. The documantry provides evidence that both the North and South Towers of the WTC were brough down from explosions originating in the basement; the Pentagon was struck not by a plane, but by a cruise missile; and that Flight 93 never crashed but landed safetly in Cleveland. It does so with media analysis, scientific invesitgation, and exploiting inconsistencies with supposedly hard evidence that the attacks were executed by terrorists. Once such example of this is an argument that phone calls made from passengers on all four aeroplanes to their loved ones were faked, and constructed by the government using voice-morphing technology.

As I said, much of this evidence is believable. But it is thrown together in such a rag-tag way that it looks as though the producers were glossing over noticable holes in their arguments. Namely, they don't take into consideration any alternatives, which is highly detrimental to the credibility of their argument. The compilation of evidence for their argument consisted of practically anything and everything they could find thrown together, sometimes without explanation for it's inclusion in the debate. So much time is spent trying to draw links between the events and the government, that they never focus enough on what they're actually talking about to concrete their arguments, and thus making the arguments appear silly. Perhaps the filmmakers fell victim for their passion about the subject. Overall, I would suggest this documentary for anyone who has a spare 120 minutes and can't be bothered doing their own research.