You must read Daniel Mendelsohn – ‘Inglourious Basterds’: When Jews Attack
I’ve read a lot of writing about Quentin Tarantino’s new film. Some folks seem to be having a lot of fun at the movie. I wish I’d had fun. Mendelsohn sounds like he saw the same movie I saw – the film that made me feel sad and a little sick – and not the joyride that so many other people seem to have enjoyed.
I’d encourage you to read it… read all of it… before you go any farther in this post.
Okay…
I’m troubled by how many people are applauding and defending the film because it is so “cinematic.” Sure, it’s a showcase of a lot of talent, with a lot of references to other movies. But beyond the talent and the cleverness, what’s the real vision here? Beyond making people squirm, and showing off, I mean? The film is “cinematic” sure, but in service of what exactly? Ego? Appetite for violence? What I saw this weekend was a work of superior craftsmanship that invites us to revel in a revenge-fantasy orgy.
Maybe I’m not sophisticated enough a cinephile to appreciate what Tarantino’s doing here. But I don’t think that’s it. I’ve heard his interviews, and I’ve seen his previous films. I’m still a fan of Pulp Fiction, and I admire certain aspects of Jackie Brown and Kill Bill. But I won’t be seduced into cheering while human beings are carved up, just because a film is slick and stylish.
War is one thing. Reveling in revenge is something else. And taking pleasure in extravagant disfigurement is even worse.
I know it’s a drag for me to bring up Jesus, but since several of my Christian friends are telling me that the inclusion of violent revenge stories in scripture justify such revelry, I should remind them that Christ showed mercy to his murders even as they slaughtered him. He urges me to love my enemies and pray for those who persecute me. That inspires me to hope for something better than the “justice” of revenge. I strive to live with Christ as my guide, not any tale of Old Testament wrath.
I should be concerned if I get some thrill of pleasure from watching a building full of human beings burned down. I need help if I take pleasure in watching a man’s head bashed in with a baseball bat, or watching another man get a swastika carved into his forehead with a bowie knife. Justice is worth desiring. But we should be careful. If there were real justice, all of us would suffer a great deal. We’ve been shown mercy and grace, and it seems inappropriate to celebrate, then, when others are shown no mercy.
This film, for all of its impressive filmmaking (and it *is* impressive) plays to appetites that I do not think should be encouraged.
And no, I don’t buy the argument that Tarantino is asking us to question our “enjoyment” of such violence. The film-within-a-film scene, in which the Nazis cheer as they watch violence against the Jews, may raise an interesting question. But the power of that scene is severely undercut by what comes after it. The last scene is a wink-wink “Isn’t this fun?” punchline. And by honoring Eli Roth with a major role, he persuades me that he’s down with Roth, the king of “torture porn” cinema. (Remember that Tarantino “presented” Roth’s film Hostel, one of the films responsible for the rise of the “torture porn” genre to box office success.)
It’s a shame. Few filmmakers are more talented than Tarantino. But just as the Roman coliseum was an impressive feat of architecture, we must not forget what went on inside.
Also worth reading on this subject: Jonathan Rosenbaum.
And Chris Willman catches Tarantino exploring just how thoughtfully he is (as some critics argue) “critiquing big-screen violence.”
It’s a cliché by now to say someone from outside the world of music is a “rock star.” But Quentin Tarantino? Hate to say it, but… complete and total rock star. Tarantino did an autograph signing Thursday night at Hollywood’s Amoeba Records for the first 300 fans who’d signed up for an Inglourious Basterds soundtrack-and-midnight-screening package. And if you wracked your brain, you might be able to think of two or three other filmmakers who’d have been greeted with the same kind of Staples Center-like ovation QT got upon strutting onto the Amoeba stage. But certainly Spielberg, Scorsese, or Lucas wouldn’t have actually worked the crowd like the frontman of a hair-metal band.
“You guys are true blue!” he shouted over the strains of Dick Dale’s “Miserlou” (as made re-famous by the Pulp Fiction soundtrack), to the hundreds of seekers threading through the gigantic record store’s aisles. The director stroked the atttendees for their dedication, in very NSFCR (Not Safe for Charlie Rose) language. “You guys are the believers! You guys are the Thursday mother-[expletive]s! [Expletive] those Friday [gay epithet]s! Let’s get this STARTED!”
A few hours later, introducing the first midnight show next door at the Cinerama Dome, Tarantino was in similarly amped-up form. “I hope you have a hell of a good time, and you’re seeing it at the theater I always meant for you to see it at, man. So, without any further ado, you guys wanna kill some Nazis?” The sold-out house wasn’t roaring quite loud enough. “YOU GUYS WANNA [EXPLETIVE] UP SOME NAZIS?” That was more like it. “LET’S BRING IT!”
How thoughtful.
UPDATE: Mark Shea!
“I understand that those who don’t know Christ will probably take great pleasure in imagining such spectacular justice — and yes, it *is* a kind of justice. But if justice is what we dream of, we’re all screwed.”
I just wanted to note that there are many non-Christians who feel the same way as you in regard to justice. I imagine you agree, but I wanted to point this out anyway.
Yes, I’m sure there are. I apologize, I shouldn’t have used such exclusive language. Thanks for reminding me.
Alas, there are also Christians who will revel in the revenge fantasy. Those exceptions make me sad.
Wow! I wonder… Brett McCracken doesn’t go this way on this film. A tough call, I am guessing.
Thanks for posting this, and the excellent article. I’ve been curious to see Basterds because of the apparently great across-the-board performances, but I’ve also had misgivings holding me back — which you’ve articulated well, Jeff.
I saw Tarantino talking about the film on Charlie Rose this afternoon (a typically great Rose interview). Charlie asked pointedly about the morality in Tarantino’s films, to which he replied he tries to keep his films “morality free” or not come down on one-side of a moral issue. My thoughts, as a Christian, is, whether you are aware of it or not, it’s simply impossible not to take a moral stance on anything. There is no such thing as a “grey area” or middle ground. Thoughts?
For all the talk of revenge in Tarantino’s films and interviews, there isn’t a whole lot of actual violence in Inglourious Basterds. There is, indeed, quite a bit that makes you think twice about some of the violence these people commit — not least the fact that nearly every one of these revenge-seekers suffers because of their revenge. In a nutshell, the movie asks the audience to think about the revenge a little too much to be all that dangerous a revenge fantasy. I’d be more concerned about movies like Braveheart, which pretend to be real history even though they’re just as bogus as Tarantino’s film, and which are crafted in such a way as to carry the audience along on an emotional tide towards their various vengeful catharses without much thought whatsoever.
Good thoughts. I’ve been swept up by the excitement of a new Tarantino film, I must admit. But just because I’ve seen previews on TV, not really because I knew what the movie was about.
These are good thoughts, and we’ll probably see the movie on dvd anyway! So no box office figures from us! 🙂
I think you are being too simplistic in your calling it a “revenge-fantasy orgy.” For some that might be the reaction. But i watched the nazis cheering on their film nation’s pride and reflected on what i was doing as i cheered for nazis to die. Also, the vengeance seekers all died as well. I think it is much more complex than you are giving it credit.
Also, there is Waltz’s character who is evil but in a different way than all those in the film that show hate or a desire for vengeance.
On a theological note though, i still think Christians should desire justice. That desiring justice and displaying mercy are not necessarily contradictory. Desiring justice because you have been raped does not mean you are screwed, not thinking you need grace from God’s wrath and justice as much as your enemies means you will are in trouble.
There are prophecies and psalms that describe marvelous justice and wrath being poured out on Israel’s enemies by God, through him or by him using other nations. Would you call these passages, that are poetically described to give Jewish people hope in captivity as a revenge orgy.
I am just saying that displaying nazis and Waltz’s character as receiving a just punishment is not necessarily evil or a contradiction of the gospel.
I have to wonder if Peter read both the Mendelsohn review and Jeffrey’s comments above. To assert that this movie is made to make “you think twice about some of the violence these people commit” flies in the face of facts, not the least of which is what Tarantino was barking at his audience at that Hollywood premiere. A man who jumps in front of a crowd and yells, “You guys wanna kill some Nazis?” … “YOU GUYS WANNA [EXPLETIVE] UP SOME NAZIS?” does not want me thinking. He wants me to revel in his violent fantasy and the feeling of revenge.
You didn’t enjoy it? Well, as CT (unfortunately) tells us, “You have to be a member of the Aryan Nation not to enjoy watching Nazis get what’s coming to them.”
That line really, really disturbs me.
That’s like saying, “You’d have to be a serial killer not to enjoy watching a crook fry in the electric chair.”
Dude, I do not enjoy seeing anybody, no matter how guilty, fry in an electric chair.
If we are growing in Christ, I believe we will begin to lose any feelings of “enjoyment” when we see others suffering the consequences of sin. Christ wept over Jerusalem; he didn’t dance for joy to see the judgment that would come upon them.
Daniel, a text is not its author, and a text is certainly not its hype. If you want to talk about facts, please talk about the facts within the movie itself.
Plus, a movie can easily work on multiple levels at the same time. Just as the Bible celebrates the f—ing up of Amalekites and Philistines and Moabites, while also pointing us in other, more merciful directions, so too a movie can indulge a desire to see Hitler get his just rewards while drawing our attention to the fact that revenge, as shown here, is nearly always a self-destructive and suicidal act.
And just for the record, I don’t particularly agree with Tertullian, Jonathan Edwards and others who have said that the joy of Heaven will partly consist in watching the sufferings of the damned in Hell. But I can certainly appreciate that the desire for justice is deeply rooted in most of us, and that the line between justice and revenge can be awfully thin at times.
There is a grand canyon between “appreciating justice” and “reveling in” the suffering of others when judgment comes.
Does a father enjoy spanking or punishing his son?
I read the Gospel as the delivery of “new eyes” and greater understanding. In light of the Gospel, things change. Knowing my own sin, I cannot enjoy seeing others get what they deserve, even if I recognize it as justice.
I may feel relief when Gollum falls into the abyss in The Return of the King, but it is accompanied by a deep sadness over what has been lost. And if Boromir had leapt on Gollum somewhere along the way and carved deep scars into the creature’s forehead, I would have felt horror at that the sight… and I think that would be an appropriate response.
If Tarantino wants us to question the impulse of unleashing cruelty, his competing tendency to whip audiences up into a giddy frenzy is effectively defeating, or at least complicating, that purpose. And I felt that competing tendency within the film, not just in things I read about his public appearances afterward.
I haven’t felt so filthy leaving a movie theater in a long long time. That was my reaction to the film, by the way, not hype. It is possible, yes, to find something thought-provoking in this film. You might find a diamond by swimming through a sewer. Doesn’t mean I’m going to encourage folks to take that swim. The more I meditate on Christ, the more I flinch at the idea of celebrating judgment, or finding any kind of pleasure in watching other human beings suffer disfigurement and death at the hands of other human beings. No matter how nicely it’s filmed.
For what it’s worth, the more I meditate on Christ, the more I see why the Bible would have been severely incomplete without him. It’s in the light of Christ that I read, with a troubled heart, many Old Testament passages. I would never hold those OT passages up alongside the story of Christ and give them equal weight. Christ’s arrival is a fuller revelation of the heart of God, and that heart breaks over the suffering and sin and blindness of humanity. When Christ comes again, the sword he wields is a sword that comes out of his mouth: The Word of God. We’re into heavy metaphor now, so I doubt that we’re supposed to believe Jesus is going to be all about splashing the blood and guts of his enemies all over creation. I believe we’re being given vivid pictures to help us get a faint impression of unfathomable power that will sweep aside a corrupt creation and make all things new… an unfathomable power of love, grace, compassion, and forgiveness.
Thanks for the clarification/explanation, Jeffrey.
I should begin this post by saying I have not seen Inglourious Basterds yet, but I have seen all but one of Tarantino’s other films, and revenge is always a major theme of his movies. He seems to relish in the topic, and it is always comes from an “eye for an eye” mentality, as graphically shown as possible.
Nazis can be very “fun” cinematic enemies in the action/adventure genre, but that is when they are in the fictitious, fantasy world. I think Raiders of the Lost Ark would lose a little something without them as the adversary. The problem that arises is when you start to blur the borders between fantasy and reality. As a teacher, I am continually amazed at how little high school and college students know about history, and I mean basic knowledge, such as which countries fought against whom during WWII . I won’t be surprised when many of my students will view this film as historic fact. That might have more to say about our education system then Tarantino’s filmmaking. He has stated it was not his intent to create a historical picture, but to play around with the ideas of history and film genres. In fact he may have changed around very little, for the theme of killing for little reason remains the same. As Mendelsohn states so well in his review, the Jewish squad becomes the exact same inhuman killing machine that the Nazis were know for. They lacked any kind of reason, logic or conscience. If a CGI artist went into this film and changed the uniforms of both sides, it would become a more “historical” Nazis hunting and killing Jews picture. But it is this theme of brutal revenge that is worrisome.
Last night, I happened to come across a very interesting film which would be the perfect piece to compare and contrast with Tarantino’s. It was an old episode of The Twilight Zone, titled “Deaths-Head Revisited” (Season 3, Episode 74). The story centers around Gunther Lutze, a former Nazi captain who returns to the ruins of the Dachau Concentration camp 17 years later to “reminisce”. While there he his haunted by the ghosts of his victims who tell him that he must atone for the atrocities that were committed under his command and that the victims have risen up to serve justice. As one ghost states, “This is not hatred. This is retribution. This is not revenge. This is justice. But this is only the beginning, Captain. Only the beginning. Your final judgment will come from God.” Captain Lutze is forced to undergo the same horrors as the inmates he tortured. He is not physically touched, rather he experiences the pain in his mind, and it drives him insane. It would be interesting to have a group compare these two films and a discussion follow on the when, where and how of “revenge” and “justice”. Is it ever appropriate?
I’ll end this with the words of Rod Sterling as he closed out the episode:
All the Dachaus must remain standing. The Dachaus, the Belsens, the Buchenwalds, the Auschwitzes – all of them. They must remain standing because they are a monument to a moment in time when some men decided to turn the Earth into a graveyard. Into it they shoveled all of their reason, their logic, their knowledge, but worst of all, their conscience. And the moment we forget this, the moment we cease to be haunted by its remembrance, then we become the gravediggers. Something to dwell on and to remember, not only in the Twilight Zone but wherever men walk God’s Earth.
Here’s the Wikipedia link to information on the Twilight Zone episode, which also contains a link to the actual film at cbs.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths-Head_Revisited
Haven’t seen the film and have been trying to find a way to justify spending money and taking time away from my family to go. I also haven’t wanted to go alone–perhaps wanting to incriminate someone else in my “guilty pleasure” in order to justify it. Shameful, I know. The movie I’m thinking about at the moment to compare it with is Munich, which I did manage to see with a friend. Going into the movie, I had my heart set on seeing Jewish men killing Palestinians and getting some justice for their country. I knew it would be graphic, but I justified it because it was historical, and I figured the victims of the assaults probably had it coming to them. That’s how I drew the line between seeing Munich and not seeing Saw II. But I had also heard that there was going to be a brutal, graphic scene of a woman being murdered that I needed to avoid watching. As I watched, I figured out when it was going to happen in the movie and left the theatre then for a few minutes…leaving my friend behind and unaware of what was about to happen. He later told me he regretted seeing that scene and would have preferred that I had warned him. I felt so guilty for my merely self-serving choice–for exposing him to that scene, which he may now remember for a lifetime, though I understand he could have gotten up to leave, too. I think there’s something about being in a cinema, in the dark, that makes it hard to leave, and without some intentionality you just stay there and tell yourself, “I’m OK, and this isn’t me doing these atrocities I’m seeing. Maybe this scene will end soon.”
Please don’t take this as condemnation, but when Christian reviewers report back about a movie like Inglourious Basterds–even if, like Jeffrey, they strongly advise against others seeing it for moral reasons. When I read the warnings, I’m not so compelled to avoid the film. In fact, it has an opposite effect. Instead, I want to sample the liberty that allowed the reviewers to view it and soak in the knowledge they now have–the dirtier the better. It’s like being in a schoolyard with a kid whose parents let him watch rated-R movies and comes to school talking. Even if he’s shocked, it still inspires a bit of jealousy, and my heart begins to conspire how to get invited to that kid’s house and taste-test what he’s marketing via his VCR or HBO.
However, I am influenced to avoid a movie when I hear it’s boring, over-long, poorly structured or just a big waste of time. Right now, I’m sorely tempted to find a friend and go sample all the images and dialogue delicacies I’ve been reading about–even if the filmmaker did act like a jerk by pandering to the bloodlust in his audience, at the premiere, to get some cheering started. I envy the liberty that allowed other believers to see it, so…we’ll see.
Does a father enjoy spanking or punishing his son?
Well, of course, sometimes, yes.
I don’t think many fathers would “revel in the suffering” of their sons and daughters. But there are so many ambiguities involved in parenting that you sometimes cannot help but relish the clarity of drawing a line, promising certain consequences if the child crosses that line, and then knowing precisely what needs to be done when the child crosses that line anyway.
And this is largely what Tarantino’s films are about: People drawing lines, creating codes of conduct, and acting accordingly — especially when those lines are crossed by others (or even by themselves).
Sometimes, following the code of conduct can be exhilirating, precisely because you “know” what to do and this gives you the confidence and maybe even the justification to do what needs doing. And sometimes, following the code of conduct can be tragic, because you don’t like the outcome. And sometimes it can be both. I think one could easily make the case that Inglourious Basterds allows the viewer to experience all of these feelings.
And since there’s a three-comment limit on this blog, I guess that’s the last thing I’ll have to say about that, here. See you at A&F.
“I may feel relief when Gollum falls into the abyss in The Return of the King, but it is accompanied by a deep sadness over what has been lost.”
But do you feel any such sorrow for Sauron, or the countless orcs that fall beneath the blades of the men of Gondor?
One passage, though, that I think does point us back to some of the things you are saying in our attitude towards judgment, Jeffrey:
“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself–that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forebearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” Romans 2:1-5
But such comments are to be read alongside those that do hope for a day when God will come and call evil evil, and wipe it from the earth. And I do think that many of the Old Testament tales of judgment–often violent–are meant to be read as a foretaste of the final judgment. But I think the key is, as you suggest, that there’s a difference between appreciating justice and reveling in it. And that’s where INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS may or may not cross a very significant line, depending on where you sit on that debate (I lean towards the side that BASTERDS definitely crosses it, even though I don’t necessarily think that signifies the film must now be tossed aside).
On a slightly different note, I don’t necessarily agree that the Gospels somehow “overwrite” the early stories and their significance. The Scriptural story would be incomplete without the personal revelation of Jesus Christ, but all Scripture is necessary, and none of it is really more important than the other. Jesus was the natural end of the Old Testament–and he actually directly suggests that the Old Testament is a direct testament of himself, and rightly so, since his is the on fulfilling the promises written there–but the Old Testament was also necessary for a preparation for Christ’s coming. Thus the OT is not just read in the light of Christ, but Christ must be read in light of the OT (which is exactly what Paul and the other epistle writers end up doing).
Spoiler alert for this post.
I’d like to echo what Mr. Chattaway said – this movie isn’t as violent as everyone says it is, and the way the violence is presented is crucial to how the film is interpreted as a whole. What Mendelson describes the final scene as Tarantino “lovingly showing” us what happens inside the burning building, he’s misinterpreting how it was filmed. As far as glorified violence goes, it’s one of the least glorified violent scenees I’ve seen in Tarantino movies. You get close-ups of Hitler’s face blown apart, and extended shots on Roth’s face as he relishes in the vengeance he’s dealing out, but you don’t get long shots on bodies in the crowd being exploded apart, you don’t get slow mo cuts of blood spattering everywhere – the scene itself is very un-Tarantino. (Contrasted with the hyper-Tarantino cuts of Zoller and Shoshanna killing each other in projection booth.) I think many audiences will applaud what is going on onscreen, but when you look at the way it was filmed it’s impossible to call it “lovingly.” The way we see Shoshanna’s torso explode from the gunshot is “lovingly.” The way we see the Nazis being scalped isn’t. The scalping is shown four, maybe five times, and not once is it focused on or made the main section of the shot.
Also, I think it’s important to note that Tarantino hyping up the crowd about his movie is simply a PR man at work – he knows his audience and knows how to get them excited. Reading into it any further and extending it to his movie is a step too far, I think.
I think it’s too harsh, also, to compare Tarantino’s film to a sewer with a shiny diamond in it. There’s so much juice to Tarantino’s film, and so much happening between the characters in each and every scene and over the whole thing, that it can’t be summed up by calling it an orgy of violence. As has been pointed out before – nearly every one of the people seeking out revenge dies, even unncessecarily in the case of the tavern scene, all because of how much they were consumed by revenge. Pulp Fiction presented certain aspects of the gangster life in what could arguably be construed as loving and friendly, but the consequences were shown too, and they were bretty messed up sometimes. To go back to the revenge thing, and whether or not we as Christians should want justice and enjoy seeing onscreen Nazis being killed, did no one here cheer when Bruce Willis kicked the ass of the dudes who were gonna rape that guy in their basement? It was an awful thing that was going to be done, and someone stepped in and put it right, and we cheered, because we saw good being done.
On a side note, the only time we actually see the Nazi symbol getting cut into the forehead of someone is at the very end, and it’s in the forehead of a fictional character whom we DID see commit an awful atrocity at the beginning of the film. Are we not supposed to cheer or at least feel some satisfaction, JUST because Nazis existed in real life?
Thoughtful reflections (and Jeff, I especially appreciate your comments on the OT versus the Gospels). I ran across this discussion of Tarantino’s films in the Independent of London today: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-tragedy-of-tarantino-he-has-proved-his-critics-right-1777147.html. I think the writer is on to something with Tarantino’s seeming endorsement of nihilism, and he points to the tension between a great piece of film-making and a repugnant message.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I’ve been following threads like this to see whether the film is meaningful enough to sit through. Some of the thoughts that go through my head thinking about the ending of this film, as its been described in posts and reviews, makes me think of the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars. In both of those films, Nazis or “Stormtroopers” are annihilated in a thrilling climax of destruction. I don’t know of many people who don’t get excited about the way those films end, or would morally condemn the films as a whole. I sure did as a kid, and I still do as an adult. Maybe, its because I understand them as fantasies. Yet, should we or do we feel sorrow for all the people who died on the Death Star? Especially at the end of Return of the Jedi, when, as pointed out in the movie Clerks, all kinds of construction workers and plumbers died as well? Do we feel sorrow for the Nazis whose faces melt off their bones at the end of Raiders or do we feel just a bit of giddy excitement? From what I understand about Tarantino’s film, its a bit of a fairy tale, even starting out with “Once upon a time…” It may be more graphic than Star Wars, but just because Star Wars has sanitized violence, does that make its fantasy wish-fulfillment any better. Maybe Basterds is just more honest.
D’oh. I should clarify my remarks a bit. I should have said “I sure enjoyed them as a kid, and I still do as an adult” because it sounds like I’m saying “I sure condemned them as a kid and adult.”
There’s a lot here about the “message” in Tarantino’s movies. I’m not sure the overall message is the point here, though. Sure, the bad guys usually get what they’ve got coming, but that’s hardly philosophy, it’s just story convention. I agree with Jeffrey on this one: Tarantino’s bloodthirst is making me nauseous, and a little depressed. Yes, he’s a gifted, original director, but don’t you think he’s more than a little sick as well? Forget those bigger themes for a minute and just think about how much sadism he’s made you sit through, often played for laughs (tortured cops, exploding heads, dismembered women, various (suggested) rape scenes). This is the guy who “presented” Hostel. That is some sick sh*t to watch (wether you’re a Christian or not). I don’t know, maybe his latest film (or his whole ouevre) is indeed on some level a discussion about the nature of violence, but I’m not sure Tarantino is the guy I want to be having that discussion with anymore. Which is kind of a shame, because in both Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown I thought he suggested some hidden depths.
I also share Jeffrey’s uneasiness with revenge movies in general. As a Christian I do believe in justice, I believe (global) justice is a moral obligation, but revenge is something entirely different. Justice, the way we define it in society, is actually quite rare in movies. We want bad guys to suffer and die, not just get arrested. This is why I think the anti-climatic ending of Fargo is so powerful. And the speech of the cop in Magnolia: “sometimes we need to punish and sometimes we need to forgive, and that’s a hard call to make” – something along those lines.
PS: isn’t there just something really cheap about this whole concept? If someone would make a torture porn movie about Osama Bin Laden, would that make it morally okay?
What did you expect going into a movie by Tarantino? Violent, graphic revenge is kind of his thing. (“Stuck in the Middle With You” ring any bells?) Does anything he’s done in the past indicate a reverence for the “man who showed mercy to his murderers even as they slaughtered him”? What would make you expect it in this film? And that you saw the film on its opening weekend doesn’t suggest huge reservations about subjecting yourself to what you would see. It seems a bit like paying the cover at a strip club only to criticize it because of all the boobs you had to look at. You kind of knew what you were paying for, no?
And Mendelsohn: “Do you really want audiences cheering for a revenge that turns Jews into carbon copies of Nazis, that makes Jews into ‘sickening’ perpetrators?”
I’ve seen nothing of Tarantino’s since Jackie Brown, but my sense is that no, you don’t want a lot of cheering, and if there’s much cheering going on, you’re stuck in a theater with either adolescents or sadists. Tarantino, who often seems to solicit the cheers, is a bit of both. But based on the three of his films I’ve seen, that’s clearly not ALL he is. In any case, if the cheering bothers you, that’s another reason to avoid public screenings of a Tarantino film.
Then there’s Mendelsohn’s problem of reading the bad things done by a handful of Jews as an indictment of Jews as a whole. That doesn’t really follow. And does he really think that because Jews suffered at the hands of Nazis they are somehow immune to becoming “sickening perpetrators”? They are humans, right? No doubt Tarantino is messing with the audience’s sensibilities, as he always does. He’s upped the ante here by depicting Nazis and Jews in WWII. With Pulp Fiction, you had to wait and see if your sympathies would lie with this bad guy or the other bad guy. Here you come into the theater conditioned (largely by movies) to think that Nazis are bad people and Jews are saintly victims. It makes you squirm (perhaps) when the Jews turn out to be as vile as the Nazis. That’s what Tarantino does.
Of course it’s possible that big cheers at the scalping of Nazis was all Tarantino was going for, in which case he’s more of a sadist than I thought, and he’s more of an adolescent now than he was fifteen years ago.
Perhaps Denby said it best:
“The film is skillfully made, but it’s too silly to be enjoyed, even as a joke. Tarantino may think that he is doing Jews a favor by launching this revenge fantasy (in the burning theatre, working-class Jewish boys get to pump Hitler and Göring full of lead), but somehow I doubt that the gesture will be appreciated. Tarantino has become an embarrassment: his virtuosity as a maker of images has been overwhelmed by his inanity as an idiot de la cinémathèque. “Inglourious Basterds” is a hundred and fifty-two minutes long, but Tarantino’s fans will wait for the director’s cut, which no doubt shows Shirley Temple arriving at Treblinka with the Glenn Miller band and performing a special rendition of “Baby Take a Bow,” from the immortal 1934 movie of the same name, before she fetchingly leads the S.S. guards to the gas chamber.”
If Tarintino’s goal, like some of you are arguing, is to make us question the pleasure we get from watching revenge be dished out, than he’s a poorer filmmaker than you give him credit for. None of my peers who saw the movie came out questioning the moral implications of enjoying the film. They all raved about the brutal, graphic ways Nazis were dispatched. Some of my friends were at the Arclight when Tarintino whipped everyone into a frenzy, and judging from the accounts I’ve heard, raising moral or social concerns is pretty much the last thing on his mind. Tarintino made his name by making ultra-graphic, borderline-sadistic films that revel in cringe-inducing violence and gratuitous foul language. I haven’t seen IB, but nothing I’ve heard makes me think it will be any different.
“Forget those bigger themes for a minute and just think about how much sadism he’s made you sit through, often played for laughs (tortured cops, exploding heads, dismembered women, various (suggested) rape scenes).”
If you’re going to start talking about sadism, we can go on and on about violence portrayed in great movies. The amount of violence a director shows is never the point – it’s the context in which it is shown. And when Tarantino shows violence in his movies, he plays with the public’s conventions of violence in film and is usually pretty good at showing the consequences of such sadistic pleasurable violence. He’s not some director how just splatters blood on the screen for sadism’s sake – he makes you think about what you are seeing and look a step beyond the sometimes shocking violence. Sometime’s it’s challenging to look past it, I agree, but to negate what lies beneath the surface seems disingenuous.
“I also share Jeffrey’s uneasiness with revenge movies in general.”
It’s been said before, but it needs to be said again: critics of this movie need to stop labeling this as some random revenge fantasy that only appeals to our baser appetites. It’s much more than that, and within the context of the movie, these people aren’t solely seeking out revenge – they’re in Nazi-occupied France where the Germans don’t belong, and they’re killing and maiming enemies who are murdering babies and tearing families apart and gassing an entire race. The accusation that Tarantino turns the Jews into Nazis is far, far too harsh.
“Isn’t there just something really cheap about this whole concept?”
I’ll agree – one of the reasons being that, before this movie came out, I saw it as just another Tarantino revenge flick that takes some strange and half-twisted idea and morphs it into bloody wordy spectacle. Until I saw the movie, and it’s impossible to all this movie “cheap” in its treatment of the concept if you know anything about movies. The attention to detail is incredible, and the way Tarantino sets up his scenes and his characters and their overall downfall and victory, is *crucial* to understanding his message. I think it’s a shame that all the detractors seem to focus on is the idea about making a movie about revenge and the morality behind that (especially the horrifying idea that some of us may indeed have loved to blow Hitler’s face apart) , instead of taking a look at the movie itself. Tarantino bravely shoves in many people’s faces this violent alternate history and doesn’t shy away from the clear paralells between the Basterds and the Nazis. This will fly over some people’s heads as they mindlessly cheer the violence, but with any kind of movie like this you’ll have that happening, which is why it’s important to look at the movie itself, and ask what it tells us about the diretor’s motivations. Tarantino spent about five seconds hyping the crowd up. He spent more than a decade writing and making the movie. I think it’s safe to say what he wants to tell us can more likely be found in the script, the acting, and the camerawork than an “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” moment to a very excited crowd.
You also asked if someone made a torture porn film about bin Laden, would that be okay. Well, interesting question. First of all, if you’re calling IB torture porn, go watch Saw and Hostel and you’ll know what torture porn really is, and why it’s impossible to call IB that. Secondly, someone made what could be called a torture porn film of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ a couple years ago that believers everywhere pretty much hailed as the movie you HAD to see if you were a Christian – after all, Jesus did this for YOU – you need to literally see the cat of nine tails rip out chunks of his flesh, right? Thirdly – it can’t be said tha making a film where we catch bin Laden and beat his brains senseless with a baseball bat would automatically be bad and morally reprehensible, because what’s important is the context.
And context is what most people seem to be missing when talking about the violence and revenge in Inglourious Basterds.
An essential quotes from Tarantino regarding the climax of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS:
“At some point those Nazi uniforms went away and they were people being burned alive. I think that’s part of the thing that f***s with the catharsis. And that’s a good thing.”
Brandon, fair enough, my gut reaction was based on all his other films I saw. Haven’t seen this one yet and don’t plan to. For a fair verdict on this one, I agree, of course, it should be seen first. It’s just that for me the sadism doesn’t weigh up to the positive elements in his films anymore. The violence really makes me scratch my head and wonder: what am I watching? I think a discussion about that could be meaningful, because I do think Tarantino is partly responsible for introducing explicit vionlence as something cool in movies. Again: Hostel is his idea of a good movie.
But I don’t mean to judge anyone who thinks differently. There is defenitely more to Tarantino than just the violence. Actually, John asked “Does anything he’s done in the past indicate a reverence for the “man who showed mercy to his murderers even as they slaughtered him”?”
And my answer would be: yes, the storyline involving Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction deals with that exactly. He thinks God has shown him grace, and so he shows grace to the guy who robs his wallet (the one that says Bad Mofo on it :)). That’s interesting at least. Also I thought the romance story in Jackie Brown was touching and suggested a more sensitive side to Tarantino, but I haven’t seen that since, and I think that’s a shame.
And just for the record, I really disliked The Passion, for exactly the reasons you stated. I thought Mel Gibsons view on violence was simplistic and distasteful in Braveheart and The Patriot (which he didn’t direct, but still), so that’s not going to change when he drags in Jesus.
let’s tally the comments so far
Jeffrey’s seen Inglourious Basterds and feels negatively about, that’s 1.
commenters who are very negative about it but haven’t seen it … 7
commenters who are negative about it and didn’t mention if they’d seen it … 6
commenters who are still positive about the film but haven’t seen it … 1
commenters who are very positive about the film and have seen it … 3 … well 4 now counting me
14 negatives, 1 of whom (Jeffrey) who’s actually seen this movie
5 positives, 4 of whom have seen the movie
Denby quote
“Inglourious Basterds” is a hundred and fifty-two minutes long, but Tarantino’s fans will wait for the director’s cut, which no doubt shows Shirley Temple arriving at Treblinka with the Glenn Miller band and performing a special rendition of “Baby Take a Bow,” from the immortal 1934 movie of the same name, before she fetchingly leads the S.S. guards to the gas chamber.”
Man, it’s hard to even respond to this sort of thing.
Aslan 369 quote
“As Mendelsohn states so well in his review, the Jewish squad becomes the exact same inhuman killing machine that the Nazis were know for. They lacked any kind of reason, logic or conscience. If a CGI artist went into this film and changed the uniforms of both sides, it would become a more “historical” Nazis hunting and killing Jews picture. But it is this theme of brutal revenge that is worrisome.”
Saying that the basterds lack reason, logic or conscience in what they are doing can only be said if you haven’t seen the movie. There’s a very distinct rhyme and reason to everything they decide to do.
Jeffrey said –
And no, I don’t buy the argument that Tarantino is asking us to question our “enjoyment” of such violence. The film-within-a-film scene, in which the Nazis cheer as they watch violence against the Jews, may raise an interesting question. But the power of that scene is severely undercut by what comes after it. The last scene is a wink-wink “Isn’t this fun?” punchline.
Brandon S explains how there’s a difference between how different death scenes are filmed in the climax. If there’s triumph at the end, it’s the sort of triumph that results from years and years of frustration at watching Nazi movie after Nazi movie where the victims are stoic, noble victims who don’t fight back. This is an ending written by someone who watched holocaust movies asking himself “why are they submitting?” “if he’s going to die, why doesn’t he die by at least taking a couple of the Nazis with him? That’s what I would do.” “why is their willpower so sapped? why don’t they struggle? I would.” This is why I don’t think we can just dismiss the end of IB as “violence porn.”
The thing is that I actually would probably classify most horror movies today as “violence porn.” And I didn’t even think about that until I started hearing so much criticism of Inglourious Basterds. It’s been a great question to ask myself what was it that made me love IB, but hate what I’ve seen of the Saws, Hostels, Halloweens, Rob Zombies, Eli Roths, etc. There’s a difference here, and it’s worth trying to figure out what it is.
Commenters who have said this work strays from the key concepts that define all of Tarintino’s films … 0
I personally find most of his films spiritually demoralizing. From what you all have said, this is more of the same. Can you blame me for not paying $14.50 to have my moral sensibilities assaulted for two hours? I’m no whiz in psychology or statistics, but most experts in those fields would probably tell you that a) those who like Tarintino are more likely to see the film than those who don’t, and b) those who pay to see it are more likely to say they enjoyed it. Basically, I don’t really see what bearing your tally has on the discussion. If you believe the negative points most of us raised are invalid, please say why. Trying to invalidate our point of view by playing numbers doesn’t add much to the discussion.
Ha, you actually did respond with more than numbers. My bad. Forget the last part of my previous post.
Dan, I guess I’d just say that (a) is perfectly true, while (b) is by no means true (I end up liking only about half of the films I see in the theater) – it sometimes seems like the moviegoer enjoys complaining more than praising (and this year’s been a fairly bad one looking at the numbers). However, since I (and others) respect and look up to Overstreet’s film commentary, it is perfectly possible that the majority of those who read his thoughts on the film will be (more or less) convinced by them.
Do I blame you or others for not going to see the film? Of course not. But do I find the stereotypical Christian auto-reflexive criticism of Tarantino, every single time one of his films come out, tiring? Yes, I do, precisely because I’m a Christian and precisely because these criticisms are not true.
10 year old spoilers – You said Tarantino made his name by making films with ultra-graphic, cringe-inducing violence. Well, that is exactly the reputation he has in the Christian community, I’ve heard it over and over again ever since back in the early 90s when they were complaining about Michael Madsen cutting off the cop’s ear in Reservoir Dogs or Vincent accidentally blowing a dude’s head off in Pulp Fiction.
Those two scenes have got to be some of the most famous violent scenes in cinema that have ever occurred … off the screen. The camera doesn’t show either of them happen in either movie. And yet the ultra-graphic violence is why Tarantino is bad. The Kill Bill films are the exception here, but anyone watching those figures out fairly quickly that realism was being discarded for old 60s/70s Chinese/Japanese Kung Fu movie-ism.
Borderline-sadistic – the films? as opposed to specific characters in the films? The first bothers me, while the second doesn’t necessarily. Gratuitous foul language? Well, that’s a good reason not to see a least half of the rare good films out there today.
While I think the concern about the power of film to desensitize the human soul to evil is valid, AND while I believe an increasing number of films in Hollywood actually are guilty of this, I think it’s way too easy to dismiss Tarantino away into this group. Overstreet’s concern seems to be on being asked to take pleasure in or even cheer for violence. In my personal opinion, I don’t think this is always bad – the Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and Terminator series all do this (part of John McLane’s popularity is when he actually cheers for himself, in the middle of or after battle). On the other hand, I do think the intent to make evil attractive is always bad. In spite of what everyone who hasn’t seen the movie is saying, Inglourious Basterds does not have this intent.
And I’ve exhausted my 3 comments for this thread – fascinating stuff though.
For what it’s worth, I’m working on a more complete “review” of the film. These first posts were made not long after I saw the film, and I was still recovering from the headache. I’ve had more opportunity to think it through, and I’ll be posting the longer article this weekend, if time allows.
No, I’m not writing it off as *just* a revenge film or “violence porn.” But I’m certainly not going ignore why this film felt so disappointing to me, while I’ve defended other Tarantino movies.
A similar critique of QT, but more compelling than Mendelsohn I think:
“What’s wrong with this vision? Why does it make me so queasy? I don’t believe works of art should be ennobling. I don’t believe the heroes should be virtuous, or that bad characters should get their comeuppance. It can show deeply violent and deeply cruel people, and tell us that — as in real life — they can be charismatic and successful and never pay a price for their cruelty. But what it should never do is tell us that human suffering itself is trivial. It should never turn pain into a punch-line.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-terrible-moral-emptin_b_270809.html
This is gonna be my last post on this blog since there’s a 3 comment limit, but I wanted to address a few of the comments made since my last one, specifically John’s:
I think I can agree with much of what the author of that article says (see my comment on Jeffrey’s other post about IB for a specific disagreement with that author, as a quote from the same article was used there), but my problem is that I think he is completely misreading IB. Just to cite on example, but earlier today I was at work (I work at a movie theatre) and I was watching the scene where the Bear Jew is first introduced – I was immediately struck by how purposefully and sensitively the scene is filmed. Once Roth goes to town on the doomed Nazi general with the baseball bat, we get several long close-ups of the other two Germans in captivity as they weep in terrified horror at what’s happening before them. I felt a searing sympathy for them, and there’s no way this was accidental on Tarantino’s part. He shows us, purposefully, that the death of this one man is affecting them deeply and probably making them “sh*t their pants” as one of the Basterds says. Not once is there a long close-up on the bat smashing against the general’s face. Instead, we get wide shots of the entire group as they cheer them on, and the Bear Jew himself as he narrates his killing like he was at a baseball game – that’s what the Basterds have turned this into – a game. Brad Pitt is even eating a sandwich nonchalantly as the bat is wailing away. It’s ALSO no coincidence that Pitt says right before it starts, “Watching Donny beat Nazis to death is the closest we ever get to going to the movies.” Tarantino knows you’re in the theatre, watching this movie as it happens. The scene is meant to make you parallel yourself to the basterds as they brutally murder this man. At the midnight screening I went to, this was completely lost on most of the crowd, but that was midnight, a time when hype and buzz are at their prime and everyone’s giddy with excitement. However, even if this message is lost on most of the crowd, it’s insulting to Tarantino to accuse him of merely using violence as a pleasure splatter-mechanism in IB. Just because this or that twenty-something didn’t get it, doesn’t make the movie a failure.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: CONTEXT is everything with this movie. John – that quote that you posted (I read the whole article) talked more about the morality of Tarantino’s movies and how it’s evolved over the years than it did IB itself. It even took a couple of quotes from the guy (out of context, something which is happening a lot when Tarantino’s being quoted in relation to IB), and used them to prove how far he’s fallen. As far as I can tell, IB is one of his most mature and well-thought out films to date, and that includes looking at the consequences of violence morally aside from its use as shock value. IB never tells us that human suffering itself is trivial, and I’d like an example of where it does.
I wouldn’t say I enjoyed this movie, but I’m not sorry I saw it. (I found a hand over the eyes got me though the bits I couldn’t watch.) First, I really liked that a major Hollywood film was made with the majority (or at least half) of the dialogue not being in English. Second, the problems I can see it had as a film did not stop it from being powerful – I kept thinking about it for a week afterwards.
Most of the characters were bad and deserved to die, even the ‘good’ ones, who were often ‘good’ only because they were on the Allies side. The two characters who caught my attention most were the guy played by Christoph Waltz (and what an amazing performance!) and Frederick Zoller. I kept trying to imagine a future in which Frederick didn’t die and he redeemed himself. I felt that I should have sympathized more with Shoshanna, but I just didn’t find her that compelling. (Although, total moment of shallowness – love the red dress.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is that yes, it[‘s got that surface level of violence and killing Nazi’s and a fantasy of revenge and re-imagining history, but that’s not all it’s got. It shows the humanity and inhumanity on both sides. (Rather more of the inhumanity I’m afraid) I’m not going to fault the message just because it comes in an entertaining package, designed to appeal on a surface level to the masses.
I’d also like to ask why must the film be either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for Christians/non-christians to watch? One thing I learned early when I become a Christian was that I didn’t have to stop reading my fantasy and science fiction. Some books give me a bad feeling and I don’t read them, but the rest are fine. I can find aspects of ‘Truth’ everywhere. But the same is not true for my closest friend, who finds that her walk with God is more easily derailed when she reads fantasy.
Jeffrey, I love you, but I think you read too many reviews to justify your suspicion about the film. There is a moment in the film that clicked for me, one that brought consciousness to everything I had seen in a second. It was where the Jewish man from the Basterds’ group was blasting away Hitler to smithereens. So much so, his face was unrecognizable. At that moment, the story from the beginning of the rat and the squirrel, came into my mind. It was a gross injustice to Jews, and yet, this scene felt like a gross injustice altogether (justice going down like this, isn’t so sweet). Why do you think the man who was shooting Hitler was nearly about to cry? Because he was loving getting revenge? Of course not! Like “Kill Bill,” this revenge film ends with a camera angle pointed at us, the audience, as Brad Pitt looks down at us (important angle, cinematography lesson here). We’re sitting in the seats, taking it all in, getting swastikas carved into our foreheads, and for what? To taste sweet violence and watch bloody revenge? Maybe I was in a dead audience, or maybe my audience was a lil’ smarter than most, but whatever the case, people weren’t laughing in that moment. Nor cheering. If this were the case, I would be frightened, too. And unlike the review you posted mentioned, that ‘fantasies can be even more misleading than facts,’…I’d have to seriously disagree. A fantasy is a fantasy, but it’s what it brings out in you that is so important, so telling. That is something hard cold facts rarely do.