Why Inglorious Basterds Gets A Moral Pass

Written by Chris YogerstcloseAuthor: chrisyogerst Name: Chris Yogerst
Email: chris@parcbench.com
Site: http://twitter.com/chrisyogerst
About: Chris graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee with a BA in film studies and English. He is pursuing a master's degree in 'critical studies in film and television' and is the editor of the Parcbench movies section. He is also a contributor to Breitbart's Big Hollywood and Frontpagemag's Newsreal.See Authors Posts (73) on September 11, 2009

It is hard to find someone that finds it in their heart to feel sorry for Nazis.  Leave it up to The New York Times to find reasons to not only question how the Nazis are treated in Inglorious Basterds but also use it as a way to take cheap political shots at the Bush administration.

Richard Bernstein complains that the film gives “sadism a pass.”  What is more sadistic, putting groups of people into big ovens or killing the people with the ovens?

Bernstein goes on to ask why does the film “provide a more unapologetic justification for torture than Dick Cheney has been articulating lately?”  The fact is films like this get a moral pass when the enemies are animals, as the Nazis certainly were.  Any group of people that tries to exterminate an entire race deserves to get scalped, “and I want my scalps!”

Bernstein continues:

“Unlike Mr. Cheney, who claims that “enhanced interrogation” produced invaluable information in the war on terror, the Basterds do their deeds simply to make the Germans afraid of them, and it seems that gross violations of the Geneva Conventions are the best way to do this.”

Again, what is with the remorse for Nazis?  Do you REALLY care how Nazis are treated or are you just using this film to gain short term political points?  If you hate the way the past administration kept our country safe, fine, but this film is apolitical just like the rest of Tarantino’s work.  Look elsewhere for your attacks on our national defense.

Anyone who throws the Geneva Convention at those who treat Nazis, or terrorists for that matter, like animals may find it easy to humanize even the most horrific people.  Let it be known, the “terrorists are people too” mindset doesn’t resonate with everyone.

Take a look at another popular film from earlier this year, Taken.  It is a about a man’s quest to get his daughter back from human traffickers.  Who doesn’t want to see people in the human trafficking business get what they have coming to them?   It is simply rewarding to see the worst people in the world get what they deserve.

Liberals don’t like films with a clear line between good and evil, so they will prefer films that blur that line.  They would rather have a film that humanizes the enemy.  Here is a newsflash: Nazis, human traffickers, and radical Islamic terrorists don’t qualify as “real people” to everyone.

As for Tarantino, his films have been consistently apolitical and to play “attack the Bush agenda” with this film seems childish.  Inglorious Basterds has much more to do with film history than about current global issues.  Here is a list of potential points of inspiration for Basterds.  Anyone who follows film at all knows Tarantino is much more interested in remaking and reshaping his favorite aspects of films past than making political statements.