Christoph Waltz

Professor S · 02-25-2010, 09:22 AM

I recently caught Inglorious Basterds, and while I thought it had its moments overall I thought the movie was forgettable (and with a horrible message)... except for one performance.

Christoph Waltz's portrayal of a devastatingly smart and brutal Nazi officer had better win the Oscar this year. The way his character played with his victims like a cat would play with a mouse unnerved me. Now his character's naivete at the end was totally out of place and ruined the movie for me, but until that point I think he was one of the most effective movie villains of all time.

manasecret · 02-25-2010, 11:08 AM

I loved the movie for its wonderful use of suspense. Pretty much every scene had me cringing wondering what was going to happen, if the "good" guys would make it out alive or if the "bad" guys would prevail or somewhere in between. The movie hardly ever let up. I think Quentin can probably take much of the credit for that. The chapter style of this movie is much like most of his other movies.

I don't think any message from it is supposed to be taken seriously. It's an over-the-top farce. My guess is you may have some issues with that statement, as it's somewhat similar to your issue with the Jon Stewarts of the world hiding their message behind humor, but I think it's a legitimate statement. The movie was a farce.

I was also completely struck by Christoph Waltz's performance. He alone created the suspense I loved in much of the scenes. His scene at the end I agree is somewhat out of character, but believable enough to be forgiven. It may even be written off as part of the farce. Here you have this devastatingly smart and brutal Nazi officer who expertly toys with his victims, who in the end is defeated by a simple trick.

Fox 6 · 02-25-2010, 11:54 AM

THAT'S A BINGO!

manasecret · 02-25-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox 6

THAT'S A BINGO!

Professor S · 02-25-2010, 01:03 PM

I should explain my feeling son the movie further: I think the first two thirds of the movie are brilliant at times. The opening scene in the French farmhouse is one of the best executed pieces of cinema I've seen in a long time. Masterful.

But the last third of the movie felt extraordinarily weak and cartoonish compared to the previous storytelling and, a common Tarantino trait over the last decade, self-indulgent. And while I agree that the movie turned into a farce, especially near the end, I challenge anyone to think the opening scene was a farce. There were parts of that movie that were very real and disturbing, a trait not found in farces/comedies.

As for the message, I thought it was one of undying vengeance and guilt. Vengeance for the Jews, killing Hitler and ending the war in hegemonic fashion, a morbid fantasy. Guilt for the Germans, with each surviving German having a swastika carved in their head so they, and on a larger theme their nation, will never be able to escape their past. Neither of those themes are redeeming, in my view. But that's just how I saw it. You'd have to ask Quentin what his intentions were.

Xantar · 03-03-2010, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

As for the message, I thought it was one of undying vengeance and guilt. Vengeance for the Jews, killing Hitler and ending the war in hegemonic fashion, a morbid fantasy. Guilt for the Germans, with each surviving German having a swastika carved in their head so they, and on a larger theme their nation, will never be able to escape their past. Neither of those themes are redeeming, in my view. But that's just how I saw it. You'd have to ask Quentin what his intentions were.

I think it's a mistake to think that Inglourious Basterds was intended to have a message. I don't think Tarantino really thinks that deeply about it. He makes cinema about cinema for cinema's sake. That's why a major subplot of the movie is about the power of propaganda movies. From what I've seen in his interviews, his intention was to create a spaghetti western set in 1940s Germany. Just like Kill Bill was a spaghetti western with katanas. That's it.

Which is not to say you're wrong to dislike the movie's message. Just because Tarantino didn't intend it doesn't mean it's not there and that it's not worth arguing with. I'm just saying that I don't think he was going for any sort of theme or message at all. The guy just doesn't think that way.

Oh, but this thread is about Christoph Waltz. I would like to say as a fairly proficient French speaker that the man's linguistic skill is amazing. We can tell that his English is pretty good, and of course his German is good. As far as I could tell, he speaks French flawlessly. And then just for the hell of it, he whipped out some Italian towards the end. He made me feel inadequate.

manasecret · 02-25-2010, 04:01 PM

Yes, I must agree that the first two thirds were stronger than the end, and I can see the final third being a bit self-indulgent for Tarantino. But, for me, overall I love the movie despite its minor issues.

I also think you're right about the first scene, it is not farce. As I think about the movie more, it actually dances between two halves, two types -- one half being very very serious with Waltz and the Jewish girl, and the other half, with the Inglorious Bastards, being seriously fun farce. And in the end the two sides clash, and I think, for better or worse, farce wins.

Fox 6 · 02-25-2010, 04:28 PM

I really loved how tense the tavern scene was.

Professor S · 02-25-2010, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fox 6

I really loved how tense the tavern scene was.

Agreed. Tension is the word for the farmhouse and tavern scenes. Both are the highlights of the movie for me (that and any scene with Waltz).

The movie for me worked best as a serious espionage thriller, but I think Tarantino is just too in love with grindhouse cinema. His camera work, blocking, lighting, etc. are all magnificent. He has so much talent but seems to let his prurient interests constantly get in the way even when the subject matter doesn't warrant it.

Teuthida · 02-27-2010, 07:42 AM

Just watched it. Boy was that satisfying.

Did Mike Myers take anyone else out of the film? The makeup and accent...I was kept expecting him to break out into Austin Powers level silliness.

KillerGremlin · 02-28-2010, 03:34 AM

Christoph Waltz was insanely brilliant. His character retained a theatrical quality while still being scary...probably the scariest non-horror movie character since Chigurh from No Country For Old Men. I agree the ending cheapened his character a bit...I like manasecret's interpretation of two sides clashing at the end: serious and farce. I think Tarantino reads his film reviews and probably felt compelled to give viewer's a more Hollywood ending, because how else do you end the film? With all the good guys dying and evil prevailing?

The tension in the movie was absolutely heart pounding...and just as good as the tension in Pulp Fiction when Mia overdoes, if not better. I give huge props to Tarantino to making this film because it is his best work since Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown. I was wondering if he was going to continue doing oddball homage films but this film felt more like a cohesive effort reflecting his own ideas....

Again...I think Christoph Waltz should win best actor, pending the other films I haven't seen yet...