A background in the history of the Cinema or prior attendance at one of the insightful & entertaining Q&A sessions at the New Beverly Cinema - touting Quentin Tarantino as a headlining-guest - may be the kind of reference points required to fully appreciate the Brad Pitt vehicle - Inglorious Basterds - just released Nationwide in Theatres.
For example, on occasion a scene may be a send up of a classic moment in film - but, if the filmgoer has no background subtext (or familiarity with the workings of the director's quirky multi-layered personality half-built on his reverence for celluloid and the giants of the industry that fueled it) it is wholly possible the insightful (brilliant) moments may get lost in the film-flon shuffle.
In the first few scenes of "Inglourious" - Tarantino's traditional approach to laying a foundation firmly establishes not only his capabilities as a mainstream director - but his respect for the medium, as well.
The canvas is lush, the brush strokes are broad and confident, and the characters are set within the framework with precision and ease, by a director who is clearly at the height of his creative powers.
Then, Tarantino takes us by surprise with an off-the-wall "belch" that underscores the auteur is a prankster, a send-up artist, keen on playful cerebral interpretations that end up highlighting a unique signature style.
When I reflected a bit on the subject, it struck me that Tarentino was not unlike Pablo Picasso in some respects.
In some quarters, art connoisseurs were put off by Picasso's abstract expressionist paintings when they were first unleashed on the public decades ago.
Critics howled that Picasso was a fraud who created the anti-art pieces because he was incapable of rendering a portrait in a realistic vein on par with the Great Masters.
Not true.
In early days of his career, Picasso painted a handful of exquisite portraits that breathed with a life and vitality that few artists are capable of capturing on canvas to this day.
Similarly, Tarentino prefers to go out on a limb, with the ultimate aim of stretching his creative muscle along that rocky - but rewarding - road.
Curiously, in spite of the fact Tarantino is a perfectionist, "Basterds" is flawed.
For example, in one dialogue between Brad Pitt's character and a Nazi soldier, Tarantino opens on the conversation with a two-shot (okay, by any professional standard).
However, when the camera operator cuts to Brad for a single, the footage does not match.
For some inexplicable reason, Tarentino's normally-keen eye - was blind to the glaring technical gaff.
Sloppy filmmaking like this is inexcusable for a man of Tarantino's stature.
The "Kill Bill" director also jars the filmgoers sensibilities now-and-then when he recklessly throws musical traditions aside and weaves in a distracting (out-of-place) soundtrack to satisfy a whim.
In another key scene mid-way through the film, though, a punched-up tune by David Bowie is effectively used to shift gears and send the whole cast of characters headlong to a delightful climax.
On occasion - Tarantino exercised poor judgment, too - when he gave the nod to fluff that went against the natural flow.
It is generally held that the technical aspects of filming (such as the set-ups, lighting, camera pans, etc.) should be seamless - manipulated by an invisible hand - if you will.
When the camera moves, for instance, the operator should be mindful not to draw attention to the technique facilitated to accomplish the end goal.
To his detriment, Tartantino broke that golden rule two or three times during the course of the World War II spoof.
In one scene at a farmhouse, for example, two characters chat each other up at a table.
Suddenly, for no good reason, the camera pans "half-circle" from one side of the table to the other.
Because the pan was not effected to seque-into an upcoming entrance or exit, or relevant focal point, the shot fell flat.
Essentially, Tarantino was grand-standing.
Self-indulgences like these ended up adding a slab of unwanted fat to the overly-long Weinstein-produced film (yawn).
Brad Pitt tackles his role as a Lieutenant out-to-scalp a few Nazis with gusto.
Although his performance is a bit uneven at times - underscoring his limitations as an actor overall - Pitt entertains the audience thoroughly with a portrayal that is reminiscent of a John Wayne character - albeit - a twisted one.
There's has been a lot of twittering going on about excessive violence onscreen.
Personally, I did not find those intense theatrical moments uncalled for (or offensive in any way) due to the fact they were a necessary "evil" to carry along the plot line.
Not all filmgoers will warm up to "Inglourious Basterds", though.
After all, it is a film that resonates best with intelligent audiences, who have the patience to wade through creative excesses common Joe's may grow restless and bored with.
If only a film goer could view it through my eyes!
Almost genius, in my opinion!
