Is Tarantino’s ‘Inglourious Basterds’ Truly Glorious?

  

148624 comments so far (is that a lot?)http://www.parcbench.com/2010/01/29/is-tarantino%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98inglourious-basterds%e2%80%99-truly-glorious/Is+Tarantino%E2%80%99s+%E2%80%98Inglourious+Basterds%E2%80%99+Truly+Glorious%3F2010-01-29+13%3A26%3A49chrisyogerst

Written by Chris YogerstcloseAuthor: chrisyogerst Name: Chris Yogerst
Email: chris@parcbench.com
Site: http://twitter.com/chrisyogerst
About: Editor for Parcbench and NewsReal Blog as well as contributor to Big Hollywood.See Authors Posts (88) on January 29, 2010

It seems that the only thing more controversial in the discussion of film lately than Ben Shapiro’s list of most overrated directors is Quentin Tarantino’s Inlgourious Basterds. After receiving some Critic’s Choice awards, the film is once again an object of debate.

The awards do not surprise those who love it, but there are still some who see it in a different light. In true Tarantino fashion, he has created yet another film that has audiences divided.

Author Andrew Klavan chronicled his issues with the film on his website. While he praises the film’s opening scene to be reminiscent of great Hitchcock film-making, Klavan found the rest of Inglourious Basterds to be rather appalling. Knowing that Tarantino isn’t one to make political statements with his films, and there certainly isn’t one here, it may be surprising that Klavan is taking issue with it:

For Tarantino, no matter how talented, to address the issues inherent in the event as pure fodder for storytelling, to think his squirrelly man-on-man torture fantasies or his video geek understanding of life provide an adequate moral response to that level of history – I don’t know, man – it just felt to me like he was molding toy soldiers out of the ashes of the dead.  Even real Jews torturing real German soldiers would not provide a profound or even interesting resolution, but this stuff?

I think the main reason I saw the film differently than Klavan is that I didn’t see this stuff (i.e. torture of Nazis) to be the focus of the film. In fact, the “basterds” are only one aspect of the film. Much of it is more focused in on Col. Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz who has been awarded accordingly for his magnificent performance), which feels awkward because the film is named after the “basterds.” Klavan goes on to compare the film with the shoddy post 9/11 war films:

When you ask yourself how our creative class could have responded so shabbily to 9/11; when you wonder how they could’ve made movies that gave aid and comfort to our enemies while our soldiers were in the field; when you wonder why so few of them thought to reconsider their ideology in the face of so horrifying a disproof, you may be able to find the answer in a film like Inglourious Basterds.

I’m not sure that comparing Inglourious Basterds to crappy Iraq war films is the most useful response in this case. Looking back at Tarantino’s catalogue it is easy to conclude that his films are largely apolitical compared to most of his Hollywood counterparts (he is a far cry from Oliver Stone who wears his politics on his sleeve).

I feel that the scene Klavan champions in the beginning of the film sets the tone for what to admire in the rest of the film, which is the riveting and unique dialogue we have come to love from Tarantino. Those who appreciate the opening sequence should be able to appreciate the rest of the film, that is, unless they take a realist approach. The ahistorical backdrop shouldn’t be read into with too much depth, as the film is not meant to be a commentary on World War II. I don’t feel that Tarantino’s intention was to trivialize the Holocaust, if I thought it was I would certainly not have enjoyed the film.

Klavan, like many others, equates the lack of historical accuracy and the treatment of the Nazis in Inglourious Basterds to a complete lack of passion and pity for life in general. This is a legitimate view on some levels; however, I am curious to see how they view a show like 24? How about a film like Taken where the enemy is a group who sells children into the sex trade and is treated with minimal remorse (everything short of a swastika carved onto the forehead).

If anything, films like these ask great questions about how far we should go in terms of representing an enemy. Do they deserve remorse? If not, how far is too far in terms of defeating them on film? Is there a line where we can view an enemy as a monster that justifies no bounds of their punishment? The “basterds” take the term vigilante to a whole new level of discussion.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure that one film on its own can answer the above questions. They are all a matter of personal values.  You have to ask yourself how far is too far? Before you do that, make sure you look at some of your favorite films of years past. If films like Dirty Harry are on that list, Inglourious Basterds should cater to your interest.  Like everything Tarantino does, the “basterds” are only an exaggeration (not a justification) of our favorite vigilantes. You don’t have to condone scalping or be a moral relativist to enjoy the film.

In the end, the differing views between Klavan and me are a great example of why I love film so much. Two people can see the same film and have two differently readings of it, leaving one to love it and one to be offended by it. This type of differing opinion usually leads to great discussion and a better understanding of our own views. I know Klavan has a great eye for film, we certainly agreed on The Hurt Locker (Note: John Nolte disagreed), but I will obviously have to disagree with him on Inglourious Basterds.

My only problem with the film is having to constantly (but correctly) misspell the damn title!

-

Chris Yogerst is the Film Section Editor of Parcbench

Related Articles

No related photos.