y calculated how much you’ll have to cut back on daily expenses just so you can buy the collector’s edition DVD set of that particular film.At this moment I can think of only two such movies (there may be more of course but I’m not going to make the effort to think all that hard now).
Inglourious Basterds is one such while The Dark Knight was the other.
(no I haven’t bought DVDs for either, but it would definitely be worth it…and someday, it will be for me)
No rewards for guessing why both these are so firmly entrenched in the mind of a not-so-hardcore-movie-buff like yours truly: THE VILLAIN.
I’m not going to waste words comparing Bollywood’s villainous characterizations with those of Hollywood. No sir! The gulf in class is very, very apparent.
What we can think about, is the difference between the villains in the afore mentioned films and those in other Hollywood films.
What we can think about, is the difference between the villains in the afore mentioned films and those in other Hollywood films.
Heath Ledger bloody-well stole the show in The Dark Knight. Right from his little Magic trick at the beginning (Tadaaaaaa! It’s gone!!!) to his renditions of the tale of his scars (you wanna know how I got these scars?) to the absolutely mind-blowing WHY SO SERIOUSSS!
Scheming, smiling, laughing, terrorizing, haunting. Whatever -ing suffixed word you choose, fact remains, he was the kind of villain you literally wanted to get your hands on. Trust me, the more sadistic acts he committed, the more I wanted to strangle him. But no! something in the back of my brain wanted to see more depraved acts, more girls tied behind chairs over sticks of dynamite in a room full of gasoline cans, and more hospitals being blown up.
In other words, he was perhaps the personification of the very limits to which a man’s evil can reach. And like it or not, we all have a curiosity towards finding out what that limit is. The sad part is, we experience more satisfaction in realizing the limits of others rather than our own.
But back to the villains
Hans Lander.
Scheming, smiling, laughing, terrorizing, haunting. Whatever -ing suffixed word you choose, fact remains, he was the kind of villain you literally wanted to get your hands on. Trust me, the more sadistic acts he committed, the more I wanted to strangle him. But no! something in the back of my brain wanted to see more depraved acts, more girls tied behind chairs over sticks of dynamite in a room full of gasoline cans, and more hospitals being blown up.
In other words, he was perhaps the personification of the very limits to which a man’s evil can reach. And like it or not, we all have a curiosity towards finding out what that limit is. The sad part is, we experience more satisfaction in realizing the limits of others rather than our own.
But back to the villains
Hans Lander.
Now what do we call him? I doubt if you can call him scheming on the same plane as the Joker. He was simply caught up in a situation where he had to do his duty, no matter that he did in a stretched out fashion, taking his time with every "kill". His every action/dialogue belying his actual purpose. Perhaps he differed from the Joker with respect to being overly meticulous. Size up the target, lure it into a false sense of security, put on a mask of ignorance, feign an interest in sidebar conversations and finally…attack to eliminate. The funny part was, even though most of his actual actions might be termed "evil" how far was it from the inhumanity meted out by the basterds in their quest to kill as many NAZIs as possible. Again, a good representation of all the evil we thought was only in fantasies.
Another notable difference between the two stalwarts was the manner in which they were finally apprehended. While the Joker was probably laughing all the way to jail, Lander proved that when the barrel is pointed in the wrong direction, attitudes change.
Other aspects of inglourious basterds that were amazing:-
1) Deviation from history: killing off the NAZI high command, including Hitler, Bormann and Goering. I completely expected at least the top three to survive by some miracle.
2) Blood and gore: normally I’m not big fan of these, but the overhead, shot early on, in the movie of a NAZIs head being smashed literally to pulp with a baseball bat sparked a minor fascination that was only topped by the repeated pumping of bullets, towards the end, into Hitler’s lifeless body by the basterds.
3) The fact that it wasn’t just Hans Lander who stole the show (as opposed to the Joker). Every single actor had a definite share of the stealing. Maybe a little less for Brad Pitt due to his over-the-top-fake southern drawl.
With all due respect to both actors, I still consider the Joker portrayal as a winner between the two. Maybe it’s because the Joker didn’t have a ‘thousand-year Reich’ behind him for leverage or maybe because he did those evil, crazy things not for money…but (as Alfred the Butler puts it) "just to watch the world burn"
The world (of films) needed a new class of criminal, and they are here.
Another notable difference between the two stalwarts was the manner in which they were finally apprehended. While the Joker was probably laughing all the way to jail, Lander proved that when the barrel is pointed in the wrong direction, attitudes change.
Other aspects of inglourious basterds that were amazing:-
1) Deviation from history: killing off the NAZI high command, including Hitler, Bormann and Goering. I completely expected at least the top three to survive by some miracle.
2) Blood and gore: normally I’m not big fan of these, but the overhead, shot early on, in the movie of a NAZIs head being smashed literally to pulp with a baseball bat sparked a minor fascination that was only topped by the repeated pumping of bullets, towards the end, into Hitler’s lifeless body by the basterds.
3) The fact that it wasn’t just Hans Lander who stole the show (as opposed to the Joker). Every single actor had a definite share of the stealing. Maybe a little less for Brad Pitt due to his over-the-top-fake southern drawl.
With all due respect to both actors, I still consider the Joker portrayal as a winner between the two. Maybe it’s because the Joker didn’t have a ‘thousand-year Reich’ behind him for leverage or maybe because he did those evil, crazy things not for money…but (as Alfred the Butler puts it) "just to watch the world burn"
The world (of films) needed a new class of criminal, and they are here.
Haven't seen Inglorious yet, so I didn't read that bit (I take not being spoiled very seriously), but I agree with you about The Joker. It was the most convincing portrayal of that character ever. Of course, I had other grievances with the movie (aka, it was too bloody long, and Christian Bale's dialogues were often incomprehensible), but I suppose it's unanimous at this point that Heath Ledger made the movie. I thought Aaron Eckhart held his own pretty well too; his transition to the bad guy was very well done.
ReplyDeleteI like how mainstream cinema is shifting its focus from the hero to the villain now. Which is why one of my favourite musicals/books in the world is Wicked, cause it's about the wicked witch of the west rather than Dorothy/the Wizard, which adds a whole new dimension to the story.
@havent seen or heard of Wicked...
ReplyDeleteand its good u didnt read the basterds part in this post...but yes, please do watch the basterds ASAP. That itself will add a whole new dimension of how history can be portrayed even if for entertainment's sake
Dude, check out Iago from Othello... one of the best vilains in history: "evil for evil's sake" they say. Predecessor and father to all the villainy you admire here. Maybe Joker's slightly of a different breed, but related all the same.
ReplyDelete