Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 World War II fairytale Inglourious Basterds is an interesting piece of cinema. It deviates drastically from historical events while still sauntering around in historically accurate waters. Essentially it uses reality as a launching point, rewriting history. The film is probably his most accomplished to date and the world Tarantino creates is fascinating. The sets are marvelous, the acting is excellent, the cinematography is stellar, and the dialogue contains Tarantino’s trademark monologues but is far more advanced than in his previous films. It’s also probably his most sadistic film, which is saying a great deal considering Tarantino’s films are rife with violence. Although I really enjoy Inglorious Basterds, there’s something almost vulgar about Tarantino’s use of bloodshed, coming across as needlessly vicious and outright cruel – even though Nazi’s are the predominant focus of the violence.

I feel an exploration of Nazi sadism is unwarranted since just about everybody is familiar with their barbaric exploits. Unless you’re living in a cave and unfamiliar with 20th century world history you’ve heard of the Holocaust; their actions will live in infamy for centuries. Their endeavors were malicious, their schemes grand and thankfully the Allies thwarted their imperialist desires. Their propaganda was extraordinary; films by Leni Riefenstahl such as Triumph of the Will are beautifully shot and it’s a shame such a talent made propaganda films for Hitler. Films comparing Jews to rats, especially in a severely depressed economy, rallied a nation against Hitler’s others, responsible for genocide with very few competitors. However, only limited thinking would assume everybody in Nazi Germany believed the propaganda or supported Hitler’s warped politics. Just like any nationalist cause – America’s post-9/11 actions are a good example – not everybody unites behind a singular cause.

I’m fairly certain the Basterds (the covert Nazi killing team in Tarantino’s film) weren’t interested in civilians, but regardless of this it’s doubtful the entire Nazi army fought voluntarily. Of course in wartime astutely determining which enemy soldiers are unwillingly fighting isn’t possible, yet the soldiers in Tarantino’s World War II film possess a singular objective: killing as many Nazi’s as possible. The film’s male protagonist, First Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), even states to his team prior to deployment:

“When you join my command, you take on debit. A debit you owe me, personally. Every man under my command owes me one hundred Nazi scalps. And I want my scalps. And all y’all will git me one hundred Nazi scalps taken from the heads of one hundred Nazi’s…or you will die trying.”

Naturally their objective isn’t benevolent; their goal is mass murder, potentially outside the rules of engagement or the Geneva Convention (which happened after World War II anyways). This is where I find potential fault with Tarantino’s film.

Of course it’s expected that Tarantino’s films will contain excessive bloodshed; his track record speaks for itself. However, the level of sadism depicted in Inglourious Basterds is outside of Tarantino’s normal range. The film is incredibly aggressive and the violence isn’t fantasy like Kill Bill or Pulp Fiction; the violence is ferocious. The Nazi’s Aldo and the Basterds engage many times seem more complex, more human, than the recipients of brutality in his other films. For instance, in Kill Bill Volume I the Crazy 88’s foot soldiers are nameless automatons, like disposable enemies in a video game. Uma Thurman’s the focal point of the film, where the audience places their empathy, their desires, and so forth; in Inglorious Basterds this isn’t the case. The first group of soldiers the Basterds execute are normal people, placed in extreme circumstances by a power hungry dictator. They have families (one even says he’ll hug his mother when he comes home from war), making them empathetic characters. Sure they’re Nazi’s, but beyond their national affiliation they’re people. Here’s where I find fault with the film.

I feel Tarantino uses Nazi’s as the focus of his film’s violence because they’re an acceptable target. The countless horrors the Nazi’s inflicted upon the world are without question horrific, but the level of violence Tarantino injects into his film would receive less fanfare if the beneficiaries weren’t Nazi’s. Scalping people wouldn’t receive critical praise if the victims weren’t Nazi’s; carving Swastika’s into people’s foreheads wouldn’t meet applause if it wasn’t a Nazi being disfigured; beating a man’s head in with a baseball bat while screaming with joy wouldn’t garner Academy Award nominations if it was American soldiers being executed. Tarantino takes a generally despised historical group and makes them the target of excessive cruelty, using them for his own sadistic cinematic aims. It makes me believe he doesn’t really despise Nazi’s but rather likes depicting unforgivable acts of brutality. The victim isn’t necessarily set in stone, but since Nazi’s are still so reviled it makes mainstream acceptance of these acts simpler.

The way Tarantino plays with violence is another reason for my assertion. He doesn’t depict it as a negative act, instead celebrating it. When Aldo carves swastikas into Nazi soldiers’ heads the act’s portrayed as comedic instead of horrific. He toys with sadism, blurring the line between abhorrent and acceptable acts. To him violence is acceptable if framed in a comedic fashion, regardless of the sadism involved. There are truly cringe-worthy moments in Inglourious Basterds, yet Tarantino presents them as light hearted. Regardless of my criticism of Tarantino’s hyper-violent World War II fantasy, I still think the film is great and probably his best film to date.

Tarantino’s films are always derivative of previous works: Reservoir Dogs is a Scorsese infused version of Ringo Lam’s 1987 Hong Kong film City on Fire starring Chow Yun-fat; there are moments in Kill Bill Volume 1 where he pays homage to Akira Kurosawa’s samurai films; Kill Bill Volume 2 borrows heavily from Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns (even using Ennio Morricone on the soundtrack). However, I feel Inglorious Basterds draws influence from more subtle sources instead of lifting directly from the same medium he works in. For instance, a shot of the film’s female protagonist Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) looks just like an Edward Hopper’s 1939 painting New York Movie. Tarantino reverses the pose and changes the dress color, but the mood, the intention, and even the setting is the same. Of course Tarantino lifts from war films like The Dirty Dozen, infusing much of Robert Aldrich’s sentiment into Inglorious Basterds, but he takes this inspiration and makes it his own. Overall Tarantino’s influences have matured; he’s not lifting shot for shot like he did with Reservoir Dogs or mimicking another film’s aesthetic so literally. Instead he’s culling ideas from the past and making them his own.

Below is a shot of Shosanna and Edward Hopper’s painting.

Accompanying what I consider Tarantino’s best film is a great cast, especially Christoph Waltz, who won a best supporting actor Oscar for his portrayal of SS Colonel Hans Landa. Amidst all the excessive violence, Waltz’s performance as the infamous “Jew Hunter” is both chilling and hilarious. He mixes a lighthearted playfulness with terror, playing both off each other and making laughter possible during anxious moments. Waltz is really the glue holding the film together and without his tremendous performance it’s possible the film would descend into mediocrity. The rest of the cast, featuring Eli Roth as the Bear Jew, The Office’s B.J. Novak as the Little Man, Mike Myers as a high ranking British officer, and many others round out the film. Also delivering great showings are Michael Fassbender as British Lieutenant Archie Hicox, German actress Diane Kruger as the actress turned covert agent Bridget von Hammersmark, and Daniel Bruhl as Fredrick Zoller, a notorious German soldier who stars in the Goebbels propaganda film Nation’s Pride (and is also smitten with Shosanna).

Here’s the trailer

6 responses to “Inglourious Basterds

  1. I think it may be a bit much to suggest Tarantino was wrong for portraying the violence as comedic. After all, it wouldn’t be a Tarantino film without such attributes. My initial reaction to the film was that there was nowhere near as much ‘action’ and ‘brutality’ as I expected. The trailers led me to believe that the Basterds were to be the main focal point of the film, and thus I expected more in the way of evisceration. I think I came away craving the horrors you condemn. Regardless, you’re absolutely right when it comes to the interpretations pertaining to the Nazis “… beating a man’s head in with a baseball bat while screaming with joy wouldn’t garner Academy Award nominations if it was American soldiers being executed.” Very true, but I think this may be a problem more for America rather than specifically for Tarantino.

  2. Americans are very puritanical; it might as well be in our DNA. Even progressive Americans exhibit conservative tendencies. I personally find this odd since the United States is at the forefront of neo-liberal nations, regardless of what our current internal political situation may suggest. I said in my essay that I like Inglourious Basterds, even though I feel it uses a justifiably demonized group as the target of violence. I believe Tarantino wrote a story around a set of violent actions, knowing full well he’d get away with it because the recipients of aggression are Nazi’s. I also can’t fully back a comedic glorification of war during wartime. However, Tarantino and his film don’t take a political stance, instead portraying violence and warfare as fantasy. This is ambiguous, since one can view this as either a positive or negative – it just depends on how you believe media influences people.

    The late Neil Postman argues that television and film with an agenda is dangerous since it pigeonholes discourse, limiting exploration of an issue. Postman would argue that Inglourious Basterds, which doesn’t have an overt sociopolitical stance, is a decent film. I like it because it’s fun, although Tarantino’s hyper-violent World War II fantasy just continues a culture of violence for violence’s sake; it’s arguable that’s not necessarily a good thing.

    I liked Shosanna’s storyline and the visual homage paid to classic cinema. I didn’t mention this in my essay (and I should’ve) but her plotline asserts that film is responsible for the war’s end. Film is also responsible for a great deal of Hitler’s propaganda against the Jews, which would mean film was used to instigate social change and conflict in Germany and also end a war. If there is a political theme in Inglourious Basterds it seems it’s about film as a social and political catalyst. =)

  3. I too enjoyed Shosanna’s storyline, perhaps because it was a surprise. As usual with Tarantino films, there are a hundred or more references to films, literature and history that I simply will never recognise. It’s a good thing though, it means the films demand repeated viewings. I’d be interested in hearing Tarantino’s views on whether or not the film does indeed hold a political agenda, or whether it’s simply a film. You can’t deny the political currents within it, but whether he intended to construct a film with underlying messages I don’t know. Regardless, most importantly the film has entertainment value. And I suppose it’s not a bad thing that films lead to debates long after their release. It shows they stay in the mind.

  4. I agree that a good film will inspire debate years after its appearance. My girlfriend and I have been discussing American Psycho – the book and the film – for at least two weeks now (we read the novel and watched the movie at the same time), demonstrating its power a decade since the film’s release and about two decades after the novel’s appearance. I think Tarantino’s film have a timeless quality, even though they sometimes meander in silly pop culture from time to time. I am convinced he writes most of his dialogue when stoned, hence the paragraphs long diatribes. However, I also believe many people have come up with great stuff while smoking pot. Carl Sagan’s a great example – he smoked pot every day, especially while writing.

    I really don’t see Basterds containing any pro or anti war sentiments, although I’m certain he’s alluding to the power of media – especially film. Hitler’s propaganda division really influenced people’s reactions to Germany’s Jewish population, most notably through movies. America did the same thing; World War II era films comparing the Japanese to ants were very helpful for the war effort. If Tarantino intended to say film is a vehicle for social change and criticism he succeeded.

    I also thought about Basterds as Jewish revenge against anti-Semitic fervor. The film was produced by the Weinstein’s and the Basterds and Shosanna outright butcher the Nazi’s. Even though it can’t make up for the Holocaust and the other Nazi atrocities it does make a bold statement, saying Hitler-like actions won’t happen again – the consequences are what’s depicted in Tarantino’s film. Unfortunately, genocide is still active, even though the world pays closer attention that it did decades ago.

  5. Only little boys play at war!

  6. Technically aren’t all men just “little boys?” Although I’m a man (or boy depending on your perspective) I think it’s safe to say there are other factors contributing to the male gender’s constant state of arrested development. Western culture doesn’t help either, promoting an adherence to youth-especially its motivations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s