Despite my best efforts to find any redeeming quality in Quentin Tarantino’s film “Inglourious Basterds,” I found it to be worthless, offensive garbage.
In Human Rights, the Holocaust and the Law, we discussed the appropriateness of artistic depictions of the Holocaust. While this issue is complex, I can say with confidence that “Inglorious Basterds,” did not only fail to add anything of value to our understanding (even as a blatantly fictional work,) of the Holocaust, but also to nobly handle the topic. What movie-goers got, instead, was a shameful, atrocious circus of poor acting and over-the-top plot high jinks.
Others may contend that the film, with its fictionalized (even glamorized) band of American-Jewish soldiers running rod-shot over Europe scalping Nazis, is a triumphant re-imaging. I, for one, took no pleasure in this gory fairy tale. To imply that simplistic violence is an appropriate vehicle for revenge, reconciliation, or redemption for the Holocaust is disrespectful to the millions of people who suffered beyond comprehension during that period. Moreover, to utilize a comedic “slasher/western” film genre to depict a murderous Jewish resistance disrespects the memory of actual resistance fighters for whom the extermination of their people was no laughing matter. I doubt the fictionalized wanton killing of Nazis on the silver-screen would do anything to soothe the pain of Holocaust survivors or their families. No amount of copious Nazi blood splashing against Tarantino’s camera lenses will change history.
Although Tarantino’s film was probably not meant to provide any sort of solace to Holocaust survivors, that does not preclude the obligatory level of respect with which any artist depicting an event as horrific as the Holocaust should have. Humanizing almost every Nazi provided the movie with that extra tinge of banality found in many films where monsters are given a chance to appear as caring, complex emotional characters. I’m over it.
It may be argued that this re-imagining does not intend to undo wrongs done, or comfort those who have suffered. Some may say that such an outrageous artistic rendering allows us to look at this difficult topic in a new light, and that in itself is of value. While I agree that art (even highly fictionalized) can serve an important purpose in our understanding of painful historical events, such art must force the viewer to deeply question his or her understanding of the topic- the only appropriate goal being to challenge preconceived notions, and in doing so, enrich the discussion surrounding the topic. “Inglourious Basterds” is not this type of art. It does not challenge preconceptions; it does not present a new perspective. Tarantino proves to be a blunt instrument; he fails to understand that the Holocaust is not just another shameful moment in human history. His film does not treat the topic as a complex or difficult one. For him, it may seem to be simple irony: “but guess what, this time the JEWS kill the Nazis!!” He may not feel that his brand of outrageous cinema is bound to the same respect and reverence for unimaginable human suffering that other artists employ. He is wrong.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 8th, 2010 at 8:36 am and is filed under Culture Forum Blog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.