Of all the lively and memorable audacities committed by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds — the casting of Eli Roth, the splatter-happy director of the Hostel films (he looks like a strapping, beetle-browed Brooklyn Jewish prizefighter from 1947), as the bat-wielding “bear Jew” who likes to pulp the heads of Nazis; transforming Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the film’s smiling SS officer, into a nimbly joyful and light-fingered philosopher-detective who’s by far the most arresting character on-screen; or letting the bar scene twist and turn until it becomes a kind of luxurious and elongated suspense playlet, a little movie unto itself — certainly none of these provocations is more noteworthy than the outrageous, what-the-hell, history-as-war-game freedom with which QT rewrites the bloody ending of World War II.
Audacious, to be sure. But irresponsible? I was shocked when a friend of mine, an adventurous movie critic who has often loved Tarantino’s work, said that he was seriously offended by the movie’s big, explosive, death-in-a-Paris-movie-theater climax. He said that he thought Tarantino had stepped over a line of historical veracity, and that audiences, especially younger ones, might be led by Inglourious Basterds to embrace the idea that World War II was just another meaningless pulp fantasy. By now, I’ve heard this line of reasoning echoed in several other places; it could even be the core of a potential backlash. Yet the reason I was shocked is that even though I take history pretty seriously myself, it never even occurred to me to think of Inglourious Basterds as a “trashing” of history. In a strange way, the picture is far too outlandish for that. To me, the movie, and especially its ending, is defiantly a vision of war as a filmmaker’s lusciously subjective, almost childishly wish-fulfilling B-movie fever dream. The great, sick joke of the film’s grindhouse logic is that even though what it shows us didn’t happen, in a larger, almost abstract sense it did happen. (I mean, it’s not as if the Nazi high command, in the end, wasn’t destroyed.)
You could argue that a lot of Hollywood World War II films that we think of as more or less “responsible” have done a variation on the same thing, albeit a lot less…extremely. The Dirty Dozen, for instance, isn’t exactly a sober-minded PBS documentary; it’s a lurid piece of exploitation (which is exactly what Tarantino, and so many of us, love about it). And if you think back on all the World War II movies that were made in the period after World War II — like, say, Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) or The Longest Day (1962) — the real, and insidious, illusion may be that they offer a “true” vision of what actually went on during the fighting of that war. I could name a hundred piously mature Hollywood war films, and even documentaries, that don’t get half as close to the deep-dish, loopy aristocratic inhumanity of Nazi-ism as Hans Landa’s opening monologue in Inglourious Basterds does.
Nevertheless, there’s no denying it: By the end of the movie, Quentin has made some serious stuff up. So what do you think of the historical liberties he takes? Does he have the right to create his own version of World War II? And if not, where do you draw the line?
More on Inglourious Basterds and Quentin Tarantino from EW:
Inglourious Basterds: the EW Review
Inglourious Basterds rules the weekend box office: $37.6M
Quentin Tarantino: 20 Movies -- and Posters -- You've Got to See
Quentin Tarantino: 5 stamps he's left on Hollywood
Inglourious Basterds: Playing 'Spot the Reference'
Quentin Tarantino and the Original Inglorious Bastards
Quentin Tarantino: EW's Trivia Quiz
It’s a fantasy, he can do whatever he wants. I saw the flick, it’s really good. HELLO – it’s like writing a novel. The casting was effing-brilliant, no way around it. And, yes, the extended bar scene is merely a cinematic wonder. The film succeeds on every level. My fave is still Kill Bill but this is there with Pulp Fiction in its standalone fun-ness and rockem-sockem impact. GO Q-T!
Since when are hollywood movies ever not made up? I mean just about every movie in “hollowwood” has been skewed in some way for various purposes.. Tarantino is just doing what’s normal in hollywood, albeit with more emphasis. I haven’t seen it but judging from most of his flicks, i’ll dare to say it’s bloody and pulpy like that fiction movie he made…
Not as bloody or pulpy as you might think, tho it has its moments!. Very different film than the previews suggest. Or I should say, there are really 2.5 films in there (1.5 of which are almost exclusively dialog-driven) that all merge together at the end … in a bloody, pulpy, fiery climax.
Does Bing Crosby have the right to rewrite WWII with Hogans Heroes?
Allied prisoners of war acting as a key arm of the underground in helping prisoners to escape with the help of bumbling german soldiers.
THE AUDACITY. Someone should charge them with some horrible crime. For one it’s a comedy. HOW DARE anyone make fun of WWII.
Same stupid statement as the one made by the author of this article.
Get a grip fella.
The movie is a work of fiction, but so what. This is a movie about The Jewish kicking some Nazi Butt! It’s what alot of us wouldve liked to have seen happen. This is a “Hell Yeah!” movie, one that truelly entertains. Isnt that WHY we go to the movies?
The movie was obviously not following history. It was a comedy if anything else.
We were laughing our guts out.It was very funny.
Absolutely he has the right – not only freedom of speech – but this is art. It is interpreting a vision – How many people have daydreamed about wiping out the Nazis? The artistic freedom with History only added to the suspense and I loved it!
So true Alice.. I remember being so upset as I learned the horror perpetrated by the Nazis that I entertained the idea of building a time machine to so I could meet hitler at my age (8 or so) and give him some hugs and hot cocoa and teach him warmth and kindness so he wouldn’t grow up to be the biggest wuss that ever was…
And what wonderful timing!! With the right wing throwing the designation of Nazi at anything or anybody of whom they don’t approve. Yes, it’s a movie. Yes, it’s fiction. So was Taxi Driver.
The movie is another part of desensitizing a segment of the people toward violence, and giving them a target. Heard anybody called a Nazi lately?
that’s funny, especially since the Nazis were right wing themselves!
“Right wing” they were if you consider them to be Conservative of perpetuating bigotry against the Jews. But their style of government can also be considered central power type, with removal of individual rights and liberty, and in that sense very left wing.
Actually, they were entirely left wing — NAZI means National Socialist Party. I thought only liberals compared people to NAZI’s (see, Bush, G.W. & Cheney, D).
I’m not sure where conservatives got the idea that liberalism=”removal of individual rights.” It’s the most absurd proposition in what has become an extremely absurd political “debate” for the past year or so.
Right wingers are fascists, Left wingers are fascists. From an independent’s point of view, you both look stupid. Bush imposed an illegal war, Obama sold us out to the banks. You both equally lack empathy for those who have less than you. The only real oddness is that many conservatives claim to be Christian, and still they judge the hell out of minorities and homosexuals. That sounds pretty foolish in its hypocricy to me.
From the wikipedia entry on National Socialism–”While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.” While wikipedia isn’t the be all end of of truth, it’s a good jumping place to start your research and back up your opinions. Only personal ignorance of the history of political movements and parties in Germany can account for equating socialism or liberalism with National Socialism. The easiest way to demonize any group you disagree with is to call them a Nazi, which is why both sides of the political spectrum do it. It’s probably this fear of the ignorant not being able to critically “read” a film that is heading the criticism of the movie.
It’s a MOVIE. It’s a STORY. It’s FICTION. Get over yourselves people. If it was a documentary on the history of WWII, then you would have something to complain about. Geeze.
it was only a movie and it was awesome.relax enjoy it,… it doesn’t mean anything.. it’s entertainment
Of course it means something. Art means something. I hate when people say that “entertainment” doesn’t mean anything. It’s true some entertainment is has questionable artistic merit, but meaningless? It is great that this movie has people talking. Don’t just dismiss it. That being said, of course QT has every right to make a revisionist revenge fantasy like he has.
i can believe people are seriously mad about the history in this movie. ITS A MOVIE……….. its supposed to entertain not bore us to death. and i personally would rather see hitler shot to bits than see him kill himself and his mistress in an underground bunker…
Surprisingly, the only historical innacuracies that really bother me in a movie are the really small ones. A filmmaker should act as a historian when filming history and get every detail right. However, the end of WWII is a big thing, and it’s something everyone knows (not some small detail). The end of “Inglourious Basterds” is not some example of how dumb America has gotten or of filmmaker ignorance, but rather of a brilliant auteur taking artistic liberties to a whole new level.
That being said, “Inglourious Basterds” is the best movie so far this year.
Anyone offended over by the historical liberties taken by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds needs to reexamine why they saw the movie in the first place.
What else did you expect?
Of all the problems in the world, I think people trivializing WWII is at the bottom of the list.
The title question misses the whole point: c’mon, it’s a movie! Other than that, I agree with the afore…freedom of speech…artistic license…and a great,fun,thoroughly engaging comedy at that. Bravo QT!! Best yet!
Let’s have more, lots more!
I loved this movie and I dont mind the historical liberities Q has taken because it is a movie, not a documentary. People just need to lighten up and sit back and enjoy his artistic creation.
Lt. Aldo Raine: My name is Lt. Aldo Raine and I need me eight soldiers. We’re gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians. We’re gonna be doing one thing and one thing only… killing Nazis. Woot!!!
I’m sorry I though we were in America, ever herd of freedom of creativity? Quentin can do whatever he want’s to do thats his rite as an American.
It’s not his rite, nor even his right, to pander to a mindless “kill the bad guy(s)” ethic that is getting to the point where shirts and posters calling for the overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence are major, mainstream items. Or where pastors can stand in front of a congregation and list off the people who should be killed in the name of God. This is a violent society, and artists do have a responsibilities.
And where in the Constitution do you find freedom of creativity? Movies sell ideas.
No…I haven’t heard of “freedom of creativity.” I’m pretty sure that one is NOT in the Bill of Rights.
LOL…Nice..”Freedom of Creativity” that’s right next to “Freedom of Fast Food” and after “Freedom to drive an auto-mobile”….Talk about someone needing to bone up on History…hey Robert the basterds didn’t kill Hitler for real just in case you were confused…grab an 8th grade civics book and a 9th grade History book while your at it…then get a little creative.
M-O-V-I-E it’s a movie.
It’s not real.
Of course he can do that.
You give Tarantino to much credit, the film is a revenge fantasy, he can not bring down an entire history and cultural mindset surrounding WWII. If there ever is any lag in a younger generations misunderstandings about what WWII means it is hardly the fault of one film maker. If he portrayed it as truthful and accurate that would be another issue, but he did not.If there is a problem with how history is taught and understood speak to the histories and educators.