There has been a lot of talk regarding the historical revisionism central to Tarantino's newest referential revenge flick, particularly by Daniel Mendelsohn over at Newsweek and Johnathan Rosenbaum, who claim that Inglourious Basterds "turns the Jews into Nazis." But like, really though? Come on. Tarantino isn't a child (nor are we). He's not trying to put the idea into our heads that this is how World War II was won by the allies, I think he just wanted a subject for revenge so universally despised, who represent such a clear, inarguable division of good and evil, that he could make them endure whatever he wished and still have the audience applaud in delight (as they did at the midnight screening I attended). Since when is historical fiction/revisionism problematic in Hollywood cinema? Why are there those who demand a simulacrous representation of actual events in their popcorn fare? And why is it that the Holocaust is particularly off-limits to creative re-interpretation? Is it because it's so full of human tragedy and representative of the entire scope of what a person is capable? Isn't that precisely why it offers such a fertile framework for a treatise on any number of subjects (in this case revenge and film itself)?
As a Jew, I'm surprised more people aren't a little more insulted that the film that most associate with the Holocaust (that was shown to my entire 8th-grade class), directed by one of the most powerful members of our clan (the anti-Gibson one could say), is about the dubious altruism of a German business magnate. I'm also shocked by the large segment of those who are interested in these kinds of things who cannot abide Benigni's (fucking) brilliant Life is Beautiful, seemingly only because it is a comedy with a decidedly unfunny setting. These folks seem to want nothing more from their Holocaust films than an acknowledgment that it happened and it was terrible (which is certainly present in both Basterds and Life); but there is the potential in this tragic event that has come to define a century to discuss so much more than the happening itself.
For me it will be hard to make a film about the Holocaust more touching, relevant and downright entertaining than Life Is Beautiful, but if it comes to pass that when discussions arise about Holocaust films that Inglorious Basterds is the one that first comes to mind for some, I would have little problem with that. The dialogue is rich, the acting flawless, the action satisfying, and the many moments of tension downright butt-hole clenching, directed with a Hitchcock-ian mastery. Yes, it does deal with sensitive subject matter that is pretty dead serious to say the least, but this is more or less just the frame for a wonderfully engaging story. All said and done, Inglorious Basterds is the most fun I've had at the movies in this really fucking terrible year for them, and thats something of value; and like it or not, just by virtue of being a Tarantino film, it is certain to be remembered, watched and discussed as long as people are talking about these sorts of things. B+
Other semi-related thoughts:
- Maus turns Jews into mice; thats better than having them achieve the symbolic revenge for which we so crave? But don't get me wrong, I love Maus.
-Cloverfield is a film about 9/11 far more relevant than United 93 and that Oliver Stone one.
-"What If?"s are a fundamental part of our post-modern culture. From Dr. Strangelove to "Steampunk", gotta have "What If?"s. They're great. And they're so prevalent since forever; don't give me this bullshit.
-Not that we're particularly oppressed, but I'm down with seeing some depictions of jews that are empowering as masculine and strong characters as opposed to nebbish and neurotic (though I admittedly would fall in the latter category).
-Israel is wack
Posts
haven't seen this one yet but life is beautiful made me cry like no other movie ever has!! that one totally gets an A+ :)
ReplyDeletei approve of your use of cloverfield as a benchmark for movies
ReplyDeleteyou're completely missing mendelsohn's point, though - he objects to a storyline in which nazi behaviour receiving delighted applause. and with good reason. tarantino is only interested in the violence (and its presentation). he is good at that. the holocaust for him is just the medium which he uses as a backdrop, it is (at least theoretically) interchangeable. you can find that there's nothing wrong that or you can find that problematic. i choose the latter.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you anonymous (see the first paragraph), Tarantino is concerned primarily with revenge, and the holocaust merely serves as a medium for his ruminations on that topic. If Inglourious Basterds were set in any other period and place, the violence, and its connotations, would both be very different from what we see in the film. There is irony at work here, and nazi violence against nazis is probably the only time it could be justified. I can understand finding offense with using the holocaust as a means to an end, but I'm going to play the Machiavelli and argue that this is one of the few cases where such means are valid.
ReplyDeletei just saw the movie a few days ago, good analysis sir. i agree with you that its quite a thrill to see such an unconventional representation of jews. those blood-thirsty, scalp-happy jews really put on a show. seeing as im an incredibly hairy jew myself, i especially connected with 'the bear jew'. good job quentin, and good review arlin.
ReplyDelete