Let me just get right to it: the opening sequence of Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is virtually flawless. First, the narrative unfolds methodically. An extreme long shot of a grassy field. A lone man chops wood before a modest cabin, his adult daughter stands nearby. Motorcycle engines sputter in the distance. Germans arrive. Everyone goes inside. Pleasantries are exchanged, and milk is offered. The Frenchman is questioned, first in his native tongue, then in English. Rats are discussed. Names are given. Jews are murdered. As though submitting wholly to the clicks of a metronome, the shots come, the story appears, the characters develop. The film begins.
Second and equally impressive, the mobile framing in this opening sequence seamlessly connects the three characters at hand–the “Jew Hunter,” the French dairy farmer, and the hideaway family. Sure, the shot/reverse shots between Col. Landa and the farmer at the kitchen table are powerful. But it’s that single crane shot that slowly moves down the table legs, to the noticeably different shoes of the two men, beneath the wooden floorboards, to the petrified eyes and mouths of the Jewish family that hides below. Allowing the cinematography to tell the story in this way–as opposed to the dialogue or other inferences–Tarantino momentarily evokes Jean Renoir, whose German/French-focused war film, Grand Illusion, also lets the camera do the talking. Through this framing, the helpless Jewish family literally becomes the “rats” below Landa’s feet.
Third, the props in this sequence offer just the right mix of humor and dread as they toy with our expectations of the characters. For instance, the obscenely large pipe that Col. Landa whips out suggests (rather humorously) that this man–horrifically referred to as “the Jew hunter” no less–has pent-up power issues. Similarly, the milk that Landa prefers over the farmer’s French wine evokes a certain immaturity in the SS officer, which also seems at odds with his heinous position in Hitler’s army. Of course the rampant gunfire to the floorboards that follows sets us straight, reaffirming that we do not want to be on this man’s bad side. Still, the phallic pipe-smoking and the milk-guzzling engage the spectator’s 
sensibilities momentarily, asking him/her to question the characterization that is being carefully developed.
Finally, even Tarantino’s filmic references–which are sometimes less than subtle, shall we say–are restrained here, and above all, artistic. Note especially Landa’s “Au revoir, Shoshanna,” a visual ode to the framed doorway that opens and closes John Ford’s The Searchers (1956). All of it, near perfection.
Your thoughts? What sequence stands out to you?
Related posts:
8 Comments
Leave a Reply
Professor of film and Shakespeare. Advocate of social media. Lover of popular culture,
I've been avoiding this film since I can only go out to so many films and it hasn't gotten the greatest reviews. But this post has intrigued me. Perhaps I'll go now?
The opening scene to Inglorious Basterds was phenomenally shot with exquisite cinematography, colors, and acting. Along with the as-for-mentioned scene the other scene sticking out in my mind is the one in which the Basterds are meeting up with the German actress Hamersschmidt (I am really bad at spelling so this prob came out wrong) in the bar when due to spur of the moment preparation, shit goes wrong and aside from the last scene which, while proposing and alternate to WWII, had slipped on cinematography. I felt as though the cinematography, unlike Grand Illusion in its essence constantly employing beautifully shots scenes with remarkable cinematography, had faded on most scenes only trying to re-capture what had been lost as a whole. While Tarantino has directed some great films I feel as if he is a better writer than director.
Ahh, you write, "While Tarantino has directed some great films I feel as if he is a better writer than director." Even so with the KILL BILL films? (By the way, whom am I talking to?)
Kill Bill is the exception as it was his best directed film. Kill Bill was a beautifully shot movie with scenes and characterization accompanied with phenomenal music choices that will be forever remembered and copied with notable scenes as when "Black Mamba" hacks everyone to bloody pieces in the restaurant wearing the yellow suit and close ups of eye's as to assimilate an intended action along with numerous other area's of remembrance leading the way but with the comment I am not saying his direction is horrible by any means but the writing and characterization are more defined and beyond the level of which he is as a director. With every movie he makes his skill as a director increases as he is still learning. Rodriguez brought Tarantino on to guest direct a scene from Sin City teaching him the finer points of the green screen. Next movie he made was the notable Kill Bill but what I ask is aside from known scenes like the one in Pulp Fiction when Travolta brings back Mia with a jab to the heart with epinephrine and the as-for-mention (and unmentioned scenes) of Kill Bill, what carries on more the dialogue (with great characterization and memorable monologues as heard in Pulp fiction with Sam Jackson's known line and Walken's monologue describing the watch for example)or his directing?
The opening chapter is wonderfully shot, ingrosing and messmerizing. Also, it is a very quite and subtile brillance that feels very comfortable to the audiance.
The scene at the beginning of the film's finalchapter is, I feel, just as, if not more, flawless and brillently shot as the one you describe here. This scene is far from the quite intrigue of the first, but it still has that same brillence that the film maker does not (and need not) over emphasize.
The scene opens with the incredibly striking view of Shoshanna at the window. The near shilloutte light, the red dress, the movie poster half visable beyond her come together with a blarring bowie song. Its followed by the sequence of her before her vanity mirror, where she, the one no one suspects, perpares for hermoment,her revenge. Tarintino skillful mixes the props and symbols around Shoshanna,to convey both her feminenan and sterotypical womanly apparence that is her cover and her defence, and the deadly and strong person that she truly is. There is the lipstick, seen first in close up on just her profiled lips, and then in that brillent Tarantino moment, as her war paint. The theres the hat with the lace vail she slowly unroles before her face; a symbol of feminine modesty, is her disguse, hiding the "giant face" that is going to have its revenge. There the fast close upon her brillently red fingernails as she loads the gold bullets into the hand gun, they are shot and lit in a way that make them seem almost as if theywere her jewels for that night, and, in a way, thats exactly what they are.
This weapon, she loads into a small feminian hand bag. It must be noted that scene is also an incredible visual examination of Shoshanna's character, and her character's femininty and identity. At all other times in the film, and spcecifically in the slpiced in shots in this scene, Shoshanna dresses like a man; slacks, newsboy cap, and she comands her self with a confidence and determination that was rare of a woman (espeacally of a hiding Jew) in the secound world war.
A great characte anf a n incredible scene
Watch it. It's one of his best. I'm not sure where you are seeing the bad reviews because there wasn't many. It was, after all, up for best picture as well as best director.
The bit when Shoshanna runs away reminds me of the Andrew Wyeth painting, Christina’s World: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christinasworld.jpg
Yes, yes, yes. Thanks for pointing that out!