I’ve not been a huge fan of Tarantino’s latter films, so wasn’t aching to see Inglourious Basterds anyway. But an excellent article in Atlantic – “Hollywood’s Jewish Avenger” has certainly made my mind up not to bother.
In it Jeffrey Goldberg interviews QT at length about the themes of the film, and those behind him who made it possible. QT is unequivocal about the sort of film he was wanting to make:
“Holocaust movies always have Jews as victims,” he said, plainly exasperated by Hollywood’s lack of imagination. “We’ve see that film before. I want to see something different. Let’s see German’s that are scared of Jews…”
From the reviews I’ve read, that’s clearly what he’s achieved. Now I’m not going to bemoan the lack of historical accuracy, but this fantasy-vengeance angle does become troubling, I think, when it spills over into the actual present.
QT’s producer is quoted in the article (and forgive the language, but I think it’s important to quote it in full) as saying:
“As your producing partner, I thank you, as a member of the Jewish tribe, I thank you, motherfucker, because this movie is a fucking Jewish wet dream.”
Goldberg – ex Israeli military – is troubled by this, particularly as he finds himself, having seen the film, ‘so hopped up on righteous Jewish violence that I was almost ready to settle the West Bank.’ But when his blood cools:
“I began to think about the morality of kosher porn in the context of current Middle East politics. Some of this was informed by my own experience in the Israeli army, in which I saw my fellow Jewish soldiers do moral things—such as risking their lives to prevent the murder of innocent Jews—as well as immoral things, like beating the hell out of Palestinians because they could.”
The metaphors here I think are informative. QT’s producer thinks the film is a ‘wet dream’, and Goldberg describes it as porn – both of which suggest ideas of fulfillment which are essentially misdirected and unfulfilling – and arise out of some kind of pent-up frustration. It is this Jewish frustration that QT has picked up on in the film and turned into a fantasy.
The reality which gives rise to this frustration though, was far more troubling, as the ex-speaker of the Knesset Avraham Burg has set out in The Holocaust is Over – We Must Rise From Its Ashes. In the book he gently and carefully describes some of the deep-rooted shame that is felt by Jews for their passivity in the face of genocide. Why didn’t they rise up more passionately? In fact, in a very troubling passage, he outlines how those who survived and came from Europe were treated very poorly by the Zionist Jews from the US and elsewhere who founded Israel:
We received the emasculated, displaced survivors, but locked our hearts to them… We found fault in their passivity.
And this is essentially why I have no interest in lining QT’s pockets with this film: this ‘kosher porn’, this wet dream fantasy of Jewish vengeance builds up a fierce head of righteous Jewish violence that only has one outlet: the anger and brutality that so many friends in Palestine experience on a day to day basis. Excuse my language, but while this porn excites Jewish feelings of violence, it is the Palestinians who are getting fucked. Violently, penetratingly.
Thank God for clear-sighted Jews like Goldberg, and Burg and Jeff Halper, who are prepared to see past this blood-lust, and into something better. Called love.
Comments
8 responses to “Inglourious Basterds | Vengeance | Wet Dreams”
I was surprised at how misleading the trailers were for this movie. The trailers made us think the movie would be about this group of revenge-driven American Jews out to kill Nazis. These ‘Basterds’ actually play much less of a role than we are led to believe.
And while, superficially, this movie is a “Jews getting revenge on Nazis” movie, what I thought the movie was about was the power of film as a medium. The entire story revolves around a young Jewish girl (posing as a French girl) named Shoshanna who owns a movie theater in Nazi-occupied France and is forced to show Nazi propaganda. Tarantino actually makes a Nazi propaganda film that we see clips of in Inglorious Basterds and we even see, at a very critical point, Shoshanna is affected by the film.
I actually think the whole marketing scheme is meant to re-enforce this idea. Brad Pitt’s line in every trailer about what’s going to happen in this movie (“one thing and one thing only… killin’ Nazis”) is pure propaganda. (I would guess that the Nazi-killing in this movie totals less than 10 minutes of a 2.5+ hour movie.) Even if that’s not the case and Tarantino truly thinks this is a movie about “German’s that are scared of Jews” … all I can say is, he’s wrong. Writers/directors don’t own the one true interpretation of their works of art and in this case, he’s badly interpreted the film he’s made. But, like I said, I think Tarantino knows what this movie is really about and the lines he’s been feeding the public and the trailers for the movie are pure propaganda.
Anyways, I hope you’ll reconsider watching the movie … I enjoyed it.
I just found this quote from a reviewer:
“The message? There is a thin, possibly an imaginary line that separates films from propaganda. It’s all a set of lies; but we love it. We buy it. We justify ourselves in how we present ourselves through story and rumor. If we really looked at ourselves in the mirror, we’d see that we are all–particularly those who MAKE the propaganda/films–inglorious bastards, each of us. What makes a Nazi ultimately less human than anyone else, if everyone else acts as atrociously as the Nazis do? Propaganda. Storytelling.”
Thanks Eric – interesting points. Trouble it leaves us with is how possibly to decide which movies to go and see if all the promo stuff is not an accurate portrayal of the content of the film?
Hey mate – you might want to check out our podcast on ‘IB’ for a different take. I’ve come to the view that we should take what Tarantino says in interviews with a pinch of salt; I was really troubled by the violence in his films after ‘Reservoir Dogs’, as it all seemed to be turning horror into a cartoon. So I went to see ‘Basterds’ with a degree of dread…but ended up being astonished. It really does serve as an applause/accusation for the power/failure of art to change things; and its use of vengeance as the propulsion of the plot utterly wrong-foots the audience; when one minute we’re disgusted by the movie’s version of Hitler enjoying a propaganda film about a German sniper massacring American soldiers; and the next we’re watching a propaganda film about American ‘heroes’ slaughtering Germans and supposed to support it. I really do think that if this film had been made by someone unknown, it would be exhibited in the Tate as a Turner-worthy work of art; and that it would be taught in moral philosophy classes. It astonished me. But I freely acknowledge it won’t be everyone’s cup of tea.
PS: As for the promo stuff – trailers are made, and films are promoted, to the lowest common denominator. Marketers are terrified that the movie won’t get an audience. If ‘IB’ had been marketed as a coruscating satire on the tastelessness of war movies, the audience’s thirst for violence, and the racial politics of the whole world, it wouldn’t have made more money than ‘Pulp Fiction’. I’d say ignore trailers and select movies on the basis of who made them.
My advice for picking movies is find a reviewer or two who you trust and generally agree with and listen to them.
Eric – that depends. The reviews for Antichrist were incredibly mixed – some people I respected hated it. I saw it today at a press screening for the NY Film Festival and was shocked how moving I found it to be aka Dark Night of a Soul. When in doubt, I say see it (or at least add it to your list of movies you’ll rent when it’s out on DVD).
Glad you liked it G-man. My problem is not with the film as it may stand, but the perception it is propogating to those within its sphere of influence that Jewish violence is to be celebrated. Because, as profound and nuanced as the film may be, it’s really not doing my Palestinian friends much good.