Brad Pitt in inglourious Basterds is the most enigmatic performance I've ever seen

Spoilers. If you haven’t seen the film yet, go find a way to do it.

Christoph Waltz steals the show and gets all the accolades for his performance as SS Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds and deservedly so.

But when I rewatched the movie, Brad Pitt’s Aldo Raine, direct descendant of the Mountain Man Jim Bridger, part Apache, and scalper of Nazis, utterly entranced me. Intoxication probably played a role in being so transfixed. If you try to figure out his performance I recommend it.

I’m convinced that Brad Pitt set out to do some kind of bizarre avante garde performance, and creates one of the most memorable characters I’ve ever seen.

Throughout the film, he is somehow both completely sincere and and seemingly on the verge of cracking up at any moment. I sincerely can’t tell if he’s deliberately being goofy and making a caricature or giving a completely genuine effort to embody an odd character. He’s a simple man, and yet very smart, but unlike Landa, feels no need to convince everyone how smart he is.

He’s doing everything at once somehow. Full of opposite traits and yet somehow embodying both at the same time. He’s chewing the scenery and yet absorbing and charming and enigmatic. He looks like he’s on the verge of breaking character at any second and somehow projects unwavering sincerity.

The character himself is something of an enigma. Mission focused and good at his job, constantly at risk of death, and yet still not taking life seriously and not giving a fuck. Having fun with it. Creating a collection of nazi scalps.

The scene that most exemplifies this is when the Basterds are impersonating an Italian film crew when trying to get past the security at the theater and encounter Hans Landa. Landa knows something is up and he’s toying with them, and Raine knows this and knows they’re caught and likely dead soon. The only possible way he might get out of this situation is to convincingly play his role and hope.

But he doesn’t. He doesn’t even try to give a shit. He knows there’s no way his horribly accented Italian can possibly pass. “Bawnjerno!” He knows he’s blowing it and he’s completely screwed and likely dead. But he can’t even conjure up one fuck to give. He looks around like he’s bored, like he’s just waiting to see what happens next.

Later, when he’s negotiating with Landa, Landa is trying to emphasize respect between long running mutual adversaries. Landa is clearly used to being the smartest person in the room, and he respects Raine as an opponent and an equal and really wants acknowledgment of that mutual respect. Raine blows this off and Landa is wounded.

I can’t tell if Raine is fully aware of what’s going on and what Landa wants and plays dumb…or more accurately disintersted in playing Landa’s game. Or he’s just genuinely interested in moving past Landa’s social gestures to get to the point. Both are entirely plausible. And if it’s the former, is it just a way of outsmarting Landa and throwing him off his game or he just genuinely has no respect for any nazis no matter what or both?

Both the character of Aldo Raine and Brad Pitt’s acting are both separately ambiguous here. The character’s motivation itself is ambiguous, and Pitt’s portrayal of Raine’s mindset are ambiguous. I know that kind of sounds like nonsense, but watch the performance closely and tell me you don’t see what I mean.

There are moments when I think Pitt is pulling some sort of practical joke on the audience the whole time and laughing at us in his head and almost winking to us, and yet I also feel like he’s a fully realized character that Pitt thought a lot about when creating and is putting sincerity and sophistication into an odd character.

I’m not generally a big Tarantino fan, but this is his masterpiece. He pulls an incredible performance out of everyone. There isn’t a moment of screen time that isn’t captivating.

The interplay between Landa and Raine is interesting throughout. In the final scene, when Raine murders Landa’s accomplice, Landa is genuinely shocked. They had a deal. Landa is a man of honor - he keeps his word. He the respect he have to Raine as his equal/opponent made him assume that Raine would also keep his word. But Raine was flexible and does whatever he wants at the moment.

But he doesn’t kill Landa too, even though he could’ve probably without too much consequence. After all, while Landa brought an end to the war and spared the Basterds, only a few people knew that. Landa, the Basterds, and some OSS general on the other end of the radio.

But Raine acknowledges what Landa did to end the war and has enough - respect? decency? - not to kill him.

Or maybe he just wants to ruin this happily ever after scenario that Landa has set up for himself, allowing him to live, but always marked and shamed for the rest of his life, instead of the pretend double agent hero status that Landa had created.

The film itself deliberately makes metacommentary about the feeling an audience receives in triumphant violence. We’re supposed to be disgusted as Hitler and Goebbels laugh at the violence on screen at the theater and yet moments later we ourselves react in a similar way upon watching the Nazis get gunned down and burned alive in front of us.

And so I don’t think the final scene, when Raine creates his masterpiece, is meant to be triumphant justice. Raine hated Nazis so deeply that he didn’t feel them worthy of being treated with honor. So we have an honorable nazi betrayed and multilated by a dishonorable good guy. And yet, ultimately, Landa got off easy, just not as easily as he “earned” through his clever plan.

The mutilation isn’t meant to be a happy ending. The film sort of thematically forces you to feel dirty for seeing it that way and cheering it on. It’s an amazing ending that leaves a sophisticated audience uncomfortable and not quite sure how to feel.

If you have the movie available ( unfortunately the only streaming option I can see is Showtime, but there’s on demand and rentals and other ways), watch Pitt’s performance closely and tell me what you think.

Well, you’re not wrong but I’m not sure you’re completely right, either.

What I saw in Raine probably comes from me spending half of my life in Appalachia. Aldo Raine is a mountain man. It’s the one thing we actually know about him and that he states with pride, he’s a direct descendant of Jim Bridger.

But that carries it’s own freight of behaviors and expectations. First off, self-sufficiency and a call to action. When something needs doing, you do it. So when Nazis need killing, you go out and kill nazis just as you would a mountain lion or horse thief or whatever else might be just too dangerous to allow to run around wild and free.

Secondly, you speak of ‘men of honor’. If we run with that theme we run into different definitions of such. Landa is working on an old world, middle and upper class sense of honor. Keep your word, work hard and so forth. Raine is working on a more moderated, independent sense of honor. It’s the sort of sense of honor that holds family and close-held relationships above all else and things outside of that aren’t held to that standard. Raine is the sort of man who can be fiercely patriotic yet still shoot at federal agents who come onto his land or disturb a stilll or try to foreclose on a family members farm. The larger issues are largely irrelevant.

We see this sort of ingathering in how he treats the Basterds. They are, for purposes of Raine’s actions, his family. They’re his tight-knit circle that he respects and cares for. Any other loyalty, even to the US Army, is secondary. He agrees that the war needs to be won and has subverted that to ‘we kill natzees’. It’s a simple solution to a problem that is larger than he is, sure. But within that solution he’s exceedingly effective. Putting him in that position is an astonishingly effective use of resources by the high command. Raine is clearly not cut out for traditional combat roles. Put him in a battalion or as a junior officer in a company and it’s only a matter of time before he punches someone superior to him. But an independent command to go and rack up a body count in scary ways? That’s something he can do.

He’s an interesting character, I agree. The same sort of character as The Swamp Fox or Mosby in American lore.

Mr. Beef, this isn’t meant to trivialize your post, but my comment is about watching movies while stoned. I haven’t used weed for 12 years, and could never handle strong weed in casual style, so I didn’t watch many movies while zoned out.

But I did watch “Interview With the Vampire”, and when the storyline switched from contemporary America to 18th century Europe, I was transfixed. I felt like the scenes had really been moved 300 years back in time, and I had a sensation of time-travel that I’ve not experienced on any other occasion.

In the years since then, I’ve glanced at the movie in passing, and have purchased the DVD from a thrift store, but I haven’t watched it start to end, just because I don’t want to destroy that experience.
And coincidentally, the star of “Interview” is Brad Pitt.

IMO Pitt doesn’t get the acting credit he deserves. He’s thought of as sort of a pretty boy, a tabloid darling, but he can bring it. His role in 12 Monkeys was every bit as good as IB.

And his role in Snatch is every bit as good as that. Pitt has turned in weak performances in weak films, but in those cases it usually seems to be a problem with the writing. And honestly I like him better as a character actor than as a lead. But got to give him his due - the man has talent.

Kalifornia.

Yes, he’s a real actor. And anyone who has seen both Inglourious Basterds and Burn After Reading knows he’s a comic genius.

But he was absolutely horrible and horribly cast in Se7en.

Spoilers?

The whole point of that character is — well, being the guy who doesn’t have as much on the ball as the more experienced cop played by Morgan Freeman, and the guy who gets outmaneuvered by the obsessive manipulator played by Kevin Spacey. Oh, and he has to have plausible chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow.

How could someone have been better cast?

Do you want to hear his speech, but watch the type be expressive as well?

Lt. Aldo Raine Speech with Kinetic Typography

Man, I just watched some scenes from Inglourious Basterds again. Christophe Waltz just knocks it out of the park, doesn’t he?

Every performance in the movie is a masterclass. The only ones that don’t necessarily compete in intensity is between Shoshanna and the German soldier. They’re fine but not completely entrancing. Edit: on second thought, they’re really well acted, the characters are just more normal people who aren’t as intense our unique as the more compelling and enigmatic characters.

But Landa, Lapeditte, Raines, Hammersmark, whoever it is that Fassbender played… Even Maybe Mike Meyers… All career defining performances. Tarantino managed to get an incredible performance out of everyone.

Landa vs LaPeditte, the bar scene, Raine vs Landa, Landa vs Shoshanna, Landa vs Hammersmark. Somehow this one from has like 8 of the best 20 well acted high tension adversarial scenes committed to film.

Every time I watch it I like it more. It’s now in my top 5 all time.

I agree that Pitt is excellent in this film and generally a very good actor. His name alone is enough to interest me in seeing something, and he frequently picks projects I would want to see even if he weren’t in them.

My favorite Pitt role has to be either Floyd from True Romance or mumblegibberishmumble from Snatch.

Emphasis mine.

Seconded. He was funny as hell in that role.

I’ve also always loved the interplay between him and Clooney in the Ocean’s movies. “They say taupe is very soothing.” & the scene where Pitt literally never says a word while Clooney (Danny) has a whole conversation that ends with “we need another guy”.

I think the problem is that you seem to think that a nazi could be honorable.

Danny: Ten oughta do it, don’t you think?
Rusty: [Stares away in silence]
Danny: You think we need one more?
Rusty: [remains silent with his head leaning on top of his folded arms while hunched over on the bar]
Danny: You think we need one more.
Rusty: [remains silent]
Danny: All right, we’ll get one more.
Rusty: [Blinks]

This exchange caused me to fall in love with that movie and the interplay between Clooney and Pitt.

That’s exactly the sort of simplistic view that the movie brilliantly undercuts and poisons with meta-commentary. The German soldier they captured and killed with a baseball bat was undoubtedly honorable. He faced brutal death without hesitation by refusing to sell out his comrades. He’s likely not a member of the Nazi party, but by the Basterds’ definition (kind simplistic popular definition) he’s a Nazi. A soldier who fought on behalf of Germany in ww2.

And yet he is the honorable one by the standards of most people, and in almost any warrior culture. Whereas the Basterds, who are the good guys on account of fighting against Germany, act like brutal outlaws on a campaign of terror.

Landa probably is a card carrying member of the Nazi party. An actual Nazi. Not because he believes in their cause but simply because he’s an opportunist who used them to increase his own power and status. He’s not even passionately antisemetic, he just enjoys the status his position guarantees him. He’s good at finding Jews and he loves the game of it, but if the Nazis were persecuting some other group he’d happily hunt them down instead.

But he lives by a code. When he knows that LaPeditte is hiding Jews. He says it and invites him to confess it with promises of amnesty. He 100% kept his word, he did not punish the LaPeditte family for harboring Jews. Landa won. He broke LaPeddite. He has no desire to be vindictive about it.

Whereas Raine made a deal with Landa and then broke it, even though he acknowledges that Landa ended the war, which made him worthy of being allowed to live. But he murdered Landa’s associate and probably friend and then mutilated a defenseless Landa. Raine is a good guy because he’s on our side - the audience identifies with him and his cause against Nazis. And he has his own code. But he’s not honorable in the way Landa would be, who would likely go to lengths to keep his word.

That’s a running subtext in the film. As the Nazi patrons watching the new film are laughing and cheering as we see the German sniper murder people for an hour in the propaganda film, we hate the Nazis for celebrating and glorifying that violence and we judge them for it.

But then moments later, we, the audience, are cheering and laughing as the Nazi audience is brutally gunned down and burned to death.

The film we’re watching is commenting on people viewing the it with the simplistic mindset you seem to have about it.

Meh. Nazis are bad, are not honorable, and deserve to be killed (in WWII). Simple? maybe. But spot on, IMHO.

There is nothing honorable about shooting unarmed civilians.

Brad Pitt’s character and the rest of the Basterds recognize that, and have absolutely no love lost for killing and/or breaking a deal with Nazis.

And so they shoot and blow up unarmed civilians… (They didn’t know about the fire but planned a lot of murder anyway)

No, I’m not saying they’re the same. But you have a very limited view on this one.

You are reading too much into this. Tarantino sets up cartoon villains and then spends the rest of the movie being unnecessarily cruel to them. The cruelty is the point, he enjoys depicting it and he assumes the audience enjoys watching it. This isn’t Starship Troopers or American Sniper, there is no subtext.