Inglourious Basterds is misspelled. Neither words in the title of the 2009 war film are found in any dictionary. The director, Quentin Tarantino, has left the meaning of the title to the audience's imagination. Furthermore, the historical drama paints a blurry portrayal of flawed protagonists, leaving the viewer to reconcile the film's moral ambiguity.
In the graphically violent film, Tarantino inserts dark comedic elements to portray Jews killing Nazis during World War II. It's an alternate historical fiction, perhaps analogous to the "alternate" spelling of the title. The Basterds are a group of mostly-American Jewish soldiers assembled to terrorize German troops. Their brutal methods, including scalping their victims, are meant to bring fear to the Nazis. Their derogatory name is misspelled, perhaps to question whether their actions are justified or immoral.
Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo, commanding officer of the Basterds
In an early scene, the Basterds kill an entire Nazi squad without taking prisoners. They spare a single soldier and carve a swastika on his forehead with a knife, so he can return to his base and show others of Basterd's cruelty. This fictional event violates the conventional code of moral conduct, even during a brutal war battling an immoral enemy. Furthermore, the excessive punishment is imposed on the followers of the Nazi regime, not its leaders. Although they are mere pawns, they suffer the harshest consequences. The Basterds are vengeful and barbaric, and hardly Glorious.
I was about 10 years old when I started to learn about the Holocaust. Until then, I thought Hitler killed millions of Jews all by himself. Like an evil villain in a superhero movie, I believed Hitler literally killed millions of people with his own hands. But when I learned that he ordered others to carry out the murders, I was confused. I could imagine that there was one man in the world evil enough to commit such a heinous act. However, learning that countless others willingly participated in the atrocities was difficult to comprehend.
As I got older, I became more aware of the circumstances behind Germany's attraction to Hitler. Following their defeat in World War I, Germany experienced dire economic hardship. Hitler rose to prominence with the promise to "Make Germany Great Again." His Nationalist message, branding Jews as scapegoats, appealed to the masses longing for a better life. It's uncertain what proportion of Germans were in favor of genocide or just ignored the atrocities because they supported Hitler's ideology. In any case, the minions under the grip of the charismatic demagogue were more than willing to carry out his mission. Subsequently, the German soldiers suffered the indignities of having followed a failed evil leader. However, they were spared further punishment after the war. On the other hand, many who were complicit in leading the fascist regime were justifiably punished following their defeat. Hitler escaped judgment by resorting to suicide.
It’s wrong to equate mass genocide with a failed insurrection that led to five deaths. However, when the rioters stormed the Capitol Building on January 6, similar human frailties were on display. The insurrectionists were motivated by a leader spewing the Nationalist narrative branding immigrants as scapegoats. After the failed re-election bid, their leader convinced his loyal followers that the election was illegitimate. Without evidence, he encouraged his supporters to "Stop the Steal" by disrupting Congress. The minions attacked the Capitol because they believed the conspiracy. In return, some died, and many were arrested. Following their pitiful defeat, the insurrectionists face punishment, but not just in jail time. As their images litter the internet, many have lost their jobs. They also face future consequences as their persona is permanently stained as domestic terrorists. It's as if they had a swastika forever carved onto their foreheads. But what about their leader who incited the riot? The insurrectionists are ultimately responsible for their actions. But until their leader is held accountable, the infamous day's resolution would be far from fair or Glorious.
January 6, 2021, Washington D.C. (ktla.com)
Inglourious Basterds addresses the punishment for both the leaders and followers of an unjust action. As the narrative unfolds, the Jewish soldiers' wrath shifts from the Nazi troops to Hitler and his high-ranking officials. Tarantino's film culminates in a violent ballet of murderous mayhem. In the alternate historical tale, the Basterds kill a theater full of Nazi dignitaries, including Hitler and Joseph Goebbels. The event that would supposedly end World War II and the Holocaust is surely justified, transforming the Inglorious Bastards to Inglourious Basterds, and perhaps to Glorious Heroes. But a scene that precedes the massacre brings an added dimension to the moral ambiguity; it sheds light on humanity's thirst for vengeance and brutality.
Hitler is at a propaganda movie screening. During a scene in the "movie within a movie," where a German sniper is killing numerous Allied soldiers, Hitler laughs hysterically. Tarantino may have included this scene to show Hitler's sadistic nature and justify his imminent death. But is it possible that he is asking the audience to reflect on their own thirst for violence?
The theater is operated by Shosanna, who is hiding her Jewish identity. In a parallel narrative, she is shown to have lost her family to the Nazis. And coincidentally, she is planning to blow up the theater at the same time as the Basterd's attack. As Hitler and his men are brutally gunned down or burned alive in the fiery explosion, Shosanna laughs in a filmed video shown on the fictional theater screen. But what about the audience watching Tarantino's movie? Are they laughing too?
Melanie Laurent as Shosanna
Tarantino is not alone in creating graphically violent films. Often, filmmakers create despicable characters who succumb to gruesome deaths, presumably to the audience's delight. But what does that say about the viewing audience? Are all humans susceptible to sadistic vengeance? Perhaps anyone who revels in violence, no matter how justified, can never be considered Glorious Heroes.
Inglourious Basterds is a great film, although Tarantino's use of graphic violence may not be for everyone. He intertwines multiple characters into a highly entertaining and coherent narrative. The film's exploration of revenge and justice is masterfully presented with impeccable dialogue and outstanding acting.
Andrew’s Grade: A
Opmerkingen