Catharsis or complicity? Rethinking Inglorious Basterds
Quentin Tarantino's WW2 revenge tale has a complicated legacy
Released in 2009, Quentin Tarantino’s alternative history World War II movie Inglorious Basterds was a smash hit with audiences and critics alike. It got (mostly) rave reviews and at the time was his highest-grossing movie. Featuring an ensemble cast featuring the likes of Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, and Michael Fassbender, it’s pure revenge fantasy fuel involving two plots to bring down the Third Reich.
It also has more than its share of controversial moments that make for a complicated legacy worthy of a rethink.
Most of the controversy stems from the movie’s revisionist approach to the second World War. There’s nothing wrong with reimagining historic events, but doing it with such a tragic, turbulent period, though, left people polarized about Tarantino’s take on it. Because, in true Tarantino style, he did it with unapologetic violence.
The movie’s parallel revenge plots, Shoshanna’s plan to burn down the cinema during a Nazi film premiere and the Basterds’ mission, both end in violent catharsis that see the Nazi leadership get their just desserts in spectacular fashion. The response, though, was divided. While many people (myself included) felt a certain satisfaction seeing the scum of the earth shot, blown up, and incinerated…not everyone agreed.
Loudest among the detractors was author and critic Daniel Mendelsohn, who slammed Tarantino for showing Jewish-American soldiers committing atrocities like those the Nazis carried out against Jews during the Holocaust. And Mendelsohn wasn’t alone. Several Jewish publications picked the movie apart, with critic Jonathan Rosenbaum going as far to say Inglourious Basterds made the Holocaust harder to grasp and comparing it to Holocaust denial.
As someone who has no personal connection (or history) with the Holocaust, I’ll admit none of Mendelsohn’s or Rosenbaum’s criticisms ever crossed my mind while watching Inglourious Basterds the first time. It never occurred to me that the movie could be viewed as anything but a fun to watch flick with a fantastic cast, sharp dialogue, edge of your seat tension, and a healthy dose of gratuitous violence.
And in no way, shape, or form am I downplaying or dismissing anyone who reacted that way. But sometimes a movie is just a movie. Inglourious Basterds wasn’t meant to be anything deep or thought-provoking. It was meant to be a showcase for Tarantino’s talents. It was meant to be a fun, cathartic World War II revenge fantasy.
It wasn’t meant to turn Jewish-Americans into Nazis, downplay the Holocaust, or any of the other ridiculous criticisms made against it.
At the end of the day, it’s a classic Tarantino genre-mashing thrill ride. It’s violent, unrestrained, and thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. That’s it. Or, as Christoph Waltz’s awesomely evil Hans Landa put it, Inglourious Basterds is, undoubtedly, “a bingo.”
Weigh in on this post by dropping me a line at popcornandparsecs@gmail.com!