Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Inglorious Indeed

Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds,’ a Jewish revenge fantasy, does violence to Jewish morality

Print Email

As Quentin Tarantino’s movies have always been heavily laden with allusions to the history of film, and as his new one, Inglourious Basterds, takes the director’s passion for self-referentiality to new heights, placing cinema itself in the center of the plot and portraying it as mankind’s metaphorical and literal salvation, it is perfectly fair to begin a review of Tarantino’s latest effort by discussing a different film first.

The masterful 1969 film Army of Shadows, directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, follows Philippe, a decent and brave civil engineer, as he becomes one of the leaders of the French resistance to the Nazis. In one of its first scenes, Philippe, portrayed by the Lino Ventura, is arrested by the Vichy police and driven to prison. The paddywagon makes a quick stop along the way, and an officer runs out to a nearby farmhouse and returns with some fresh produce. This moment passes quickly and without commentary, but it nonetheless reveals an entire world: the hungry officer pulling rank, the reluctant farmer forced to part with his precious goods, and Philippe, the man of principle, looking from the side in disgust at the whole tableau. All of the horrors and complexity of Vichy are there, in under a minute, without many words.

Inglourious Basterds begins in the same Vichy countryside, in the same year, 1941. It features the same stock characters—the officer, this time not a French policeman but a Nazi colonel, and the diffident farmer, in whose basement a Jewish family of five is hiding. Unlike Melville, however, Tarantino lets the scene stretch on for many long minutes. It’s a set piece, and it’s there to feature the Nazi officer, Hans Landa, nicknamed the Jew Hunter and played with elegance and joy by the Austrian actor Christoph Waltz.

Take away the shiny boots and crisp uniform, and Landa is every other memorable Tarantino character. His speech is the same torrent of brio that flows with hilarious eloquence only to shift suddenly into a menacing growl. Think Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Think Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs. Think, in other words, of the quintessential film psychopath stripped of all refinement and meaning. More than an obedient servant of a specific ideology, Landa is bad for badness’s sake.

As soon as the lengthy vignette ends, another one begins. This one, too, features a charming, murderous, and vacuous movie trope: it is Brad Pitt’s lieutenant Aldo Raine, a sadistic and callous soldier leading a small gang of American-Jewish soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission to kill as many Nazis as possible. Each of his men, Raine insists, must bring him back the scalps of 100 Nazis, and most of the long sequence that follows focuses on the various methods of obtaining said scalps. We meet Raine’s men, known as the Basterds: there’s Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth), a baseball enthusiast who puts his Louisville Slugger to anatomically innovative use; Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger), who never met a knife he didn’t like; and so on. The Basterds are given no back story, and there’s little that sets them apart from each other save for their favored method of murder. When we see them on screen, they are usually elbow-deep in Teutonic brain matter.

All this bloodletting leads the Basterds to Paris, where a gala screening of a new film is held in a small cinema, with the Nazi top brass, including the Führer himself, all in attendance. As they watch the film-within-a-film—a Riefenstahl-inspired propaganda piece titled A Nation’s Pride—the Germans get the kind of comeuppance that makes all the previous displays of torture and violence seem tame.

Still, with all the gunned-down, burned, and exploded Nazis scattered on the screen, it is the cinema itself that takes center stage. The theater is burnt down using highly flammable film reels. The movies kill Hitler, literally. Tarantino says so himself, in the film’s production notes: “I like that it’s the power of the cinema that fights the Nazis,” he quips. “But not just as a metaphor, as a literal reality.”

The sentence is indicative of both Tarantino’s failure as a filmmaker and Inglourious Basterds‘ failure as a film. It is a failure not only of imagination, but also of morality. The desire to turn film into a literal, blunt instrument of revenge drains it of the terrific power it has as a sharp and precise tool with which to cut through myopia, forgetfulness, ignorance, and denial. When in the hands of intelligent and sensitive directors, the results are shocking, evocative, world-changing. Consider Melville’s Army of Shadows, or Marcel Ophüls’s The Sorrow and the Pity, or Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. All three directors cover the same territorial and historical ground as Inglourious Basterds. But they use film not in order to set ablaze heaping mounds of flesh, but in order to try and understand the malice and complicity that led Europe to its benighted state. They do so because they realize that understanding—an act that requires us to learn and see evil not as a black monolith but as a gray composite of many small and often insufferable nuances—is our best claim to humanity, our last chance at grace.

It’s no coincidence that all three of those filmmakers are Jewish. Theirs is the Jewish way. Rather than burn film, they develop it into art. They are talmudic, offering endless interpretations to the fundamental question of our species, the question of our seemingly endless capacity for evil. Tarantino, however, is not interested in such trifles. He doesn’t see cinema as a way to look at reality, but—ever the child abandoned in front of the television set, ever the video-store geek—as an alternative to reality, a magical and Manichean world where we needn’t worry about the complexities of morality, where violence solves everything, and where the Third Reich is always just a film reel and a lit match away from cartoonish defeat.

Eerily, that is precisely the point that the film’s impressive marketing blitzkrieg tried to promote. The film, its producers reminded us again and again, is a fantasy, a fanciful flight of Jewish revenge. To that end, Tarantino called on Eli Roth—who is not only an actor but also a director of popular and particularly gory horror films—to helm A Nation’s Pride, the fake propaganda film whose premiere the Basterds crash.

“It was perfect that he had the Jewish guy do it,” Roth said in a recent interview, “because I knew that the more authentic [A Nation’s Pride] was, the more ridiculous it would make Hitler and Goebbels look.” But watch that film-within-a-film closely—a rapid-fire collection of bullets and anguish and explosions—and you realize it’s not that different from Inglourious Basterds. Both are empty cinematic spools of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Like A Nation’s Pride, Tarantino’s film is a bit of shallow propaganda, promoting not some totalitarian ideology but a worldview in which cool trumps consequence, nothing is real, and everything is permitted. If there’s any justice in the world, it’s a vision viewers everywhere will vehemently reject.

Print Email

A classmate urged me to look at this page, nice post, interesting read… keep up the nice work!

What a great and insightful review! Having just finished watching this film, I couldn’t agree more with your criticism. That this film lacked moral depth is what so outraged me also. Sure, the Nazis were evil, but no evil is so one-sided, and no good so self-righteous. Tarantino’s body of work has consistently ignored the duty that art has to humanity – namely to portray reality in all of its complexity. Rather, he chooses to mask his failure as an artist by saturating film with blood and gore. After watching “Inglourious Basterds,” I can say with assurance that I will never watch another film by Quentin Tarantino ever again.

I am so happy that I didn’t read you review before I saw the movie. Your review misses the point of the film and you go out of your way to give away all plot points and nuances. It’s a revenge film – filled with absurdity, violence and pathetic characters. This wasn’t designed to portray the real war – but the fantasy of war and it’s depiction in movies.

Numerous Oscar nominations and a win for Waltz, not to mention earning over $300 million up to now, I think it’s safe to say viewers DID NOT vehemently reject it; including this Jewish viewer. This movie is an incredibly fun, ultra satisfying, make-believe masterpiece, and I thank God I’m not so full of myself that I can say I enjoyed seeing Nazis getting their asses beaten to a very bloody pulp. Great movie Tarantino, keep it up!

Ludwig says:

As a series of vignettes strung together by a hit-and-miss plot line, the story itself left me largely unsatisfied. There was some great acting, and then there was some foolish and immature acting. The more I enjoyed Waltz’s performance, the more I wanted to crack Pitt’s cartoonish caricature in the face with the Basterds’ baseball bat. There were also many jarring and ridiculous asides that were completely unnecessary and pull the viewer completely out of the film. Overall, the film struck me throughout as a cartoonish art film at best, and the mad flickerings of a deranged mind at worst.

Youre so cool! I dont suppose Ive read anything like this before. So good to search out any person with some unique ideas on this subject. realy thank you for beginning this up. this website is something that’s wanted on the web, somebody with a little originality. helpful job for bringing one thing new to the internet!

Using role reversal, Tarantino turned Jews into Nazis and Nazis into Jews. Ultimately, in his fictional film, did Tarantino not make the Basterds as evil as the Nazis?

After all this film makes Jews out to be bomb throwing terrorists who set movie theatres on fire to kill unarmed people.

Excellent blog you have got here. You’ll discover me browsing your stuff often. Saved as a favorite!

Thank you for another informative web site. Where else could I get that type of info written in such an ideal way? I have a project that I am just now working on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

You can definitely see your expertise in the work you write. The world hopes for more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.

I’ve said that least 658667 times. The problem this like that is they are just too compilcated for the average bird, if you know what I mean

WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..more wait .. …

What¡¦s Happening i am new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It positively helpful and it has aided me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & assist other users like its aided me. Great job.

Therry Neilsen-Steinhardt says:

I’m sorry, but you dignify the film far too much by assigning any sort of maorality to it at all, much less a morality that is insulting to Jews. InGlourious BAsterds is a Tarantino flick, not a film of any sort. He goes for the cheap laughs and the cheap effects, and I honestly think you are reading far too much into it. Get over yourself, and you’ll get over Tarantino too.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Inglorious Indeed

Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds,’ a Jewish revenge fantasy, does violence to Jewish morality

More on Tablet:

Why You Should Watch ‘Funny Girl’

By Isabel Fattal — Rediscovering the relevance of a Streisand classic