Inglorious Basterds
Saw this Friday and it’s good. Sometimes funny, sometimes suspenseful, and intermittently horrifying—like the Tarantino of yore. It’s a gutsy move to make such extensive use of foreign language dialogue in several different languages (a bit reminiscent of La Grande Illusion in this respect) rather than Hollywood’s more conventional “Nazis speaking to each other in German-accented English.” The movie also does a great job of deploying the historical setting to throw some plot curveballs at the audience.
But aesthetic qualities aside it’s also an interesting example of how Jews and the Holocaust have moved closer and closer to the American cultural narrative of World War II. The war itself is sort of the foundational myth of America’s drive for worldwide hegemony, and the story sort of works better with Jews closer to its center. The reality, of course, is that while rounding up and killing Jews was fairly central to Germany’s wartime policymaking, and anti-semitism was certainly central to Hitler’s worldview, rescuing Jews from harm played essentially no role in Allied policy. And of course Basterds in an entirely typical way manages to more-or-less airbrush the Soviet Union out of the European Theater despite the U.S.S.R. fairly clearly being the main Allied combatant on the continent.
None of that is a complaint about the movie itself, which hardly presents itself as historically accurate, but it sort of puts into relief the extent to which even less explicitly fanciful cinematic depictions of the war are pretty far out there.
110 Responses to “Inglorious Basterds”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am
The concept from the trailer of the American squad terrorizing Nazis by being meaner then they are is so stupid I expected this to be an early Razzie candidate, but apparently the subplots involving Europeans actually have some dramatic depth to them. It will be interesting to see of the lowbrow American subplot gets promoted by the Right as justification for current torture and brutality policies.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
The movie is set in an imaginary WW2, but it’s about vengence.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:10 am
“None of that is a complaint about the movie itself, which hardly presents itself as historically accurate, but it sort of puts into relief the extent to which even less explicitly fanciful cinematic depictions of the war are pretty far out there.”
Well, sure. Most period movies are about the present day, and historical accuracy rarely is a priority.
—–
I’ll take this opportunity to pimp my favorite recent WWII movie that got no love at the time, Soderbergh’s The Good German. (Well, OK, technically late 1945 is post-war, so it’s really a WWII occupation movie, but it’s a quite similar setting.)
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
The Good German was terrible. Glacial, artificial, and obvious. A bad movie and a worse book. IMO, of course.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:13 am
“But aesthetic qualities aside it’s also an interesting example of how Jews and the Holocaust have moved closer and closer to the American cultural narrative of World War II. The war itself is sort of the foundational myth of America’s drive for worldwide hegemony, and the story sort of works better with Jews closer to its center.”
It’s worth noting just how Jewy the healthcare debate has gotten.
It’s coming down to Waxman and Weiner vs against Emanuel and Axelrod for all the marbles.
Matthew has bizarrely teamed up with the healthcare Likudniks, which would make Marty Peretz proud. We need a J-Street blog on healthcare.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
It will be interesting to see of the lowbrow American subplot gets promoted by the Right as justification for current torture and brutality policies.
Yes, I’ve been surprised that I haven’t already seen anything on the rightwing blogs saying that the film vindicates the Bush administration.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:16 am
I doubt this will be a popular sentiment, but I want to support everything said here. Just mentioning Army of Shadows is pretty in the comparison.
I admire Tarantino and I think he’s a genius with a camera. I also think that he did really wonderful things for movies, not in allowing for more violence but in opening more space for long, unbroken dialogue, which is really what his movies are all about. But, personally, the Jewish experience in World War II is precisely the last thing I want to see his aesthetic applied to.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:17 am
*pretty damning in the comparison, sorry.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
“The Good German was terrible. Glacial, artificial, and obvious.”
Soderbergh movies are never about plot.
Have you checked out The Girlfriend Experience yet? The plot is relentlessly glacial, artificial, and obvious, but it’s a delirious viewing experience. Not to mention that it’s the best movie about the current financial crisis that will likely ever be made.
Or how about Che, Parts One and Two? That vies with world records for glacialaity, yet it’s wonderful stuff.
The Good German is obviously non-realistic in certain ways, but that’s for the better in the case of this film. And the visual sense of what it would have been like to actually be in occupation Germany right after the war is incredibly realistic.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
“I also think that (Tarantino) did really wonderful things for movies, not in allowing for more violence but in opening more space for long, unbroken dialogue, which is really what his movies are all about.”
Yup. Knowing how to film long group conversations is his genius.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:31 am
You spelled “Inglourious” wrong. But that’s a good thing.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 am
That tabletmag link basically amounts to protesting that Tarantino is doing something that movies dealing with Jews and WWII aren’t “supposed” to do. These other movies approached it in a certain way (and Army of Shadows was definitely effective in its approach), so why isn’t Tarantino doing that too? Why is he doing something else? Doesn’t he know that’s wrong? QT’s approach to “alternate history” in this movie is definitely, shall we say, unusual, but protesting that he’s somehow “breaking the rules” by not making the kind of movie other people have before is an awfully stultifying approach to criticism.
Besides, the whole movie really is much more an imagination of “cinematic revenge” against the Nazis than “Jewish revenge.” The entire subplot of the Jewish girl who gets a chance at revenge is all about cinema: she runs a movie theater, which the Germans choose as the spot for the premiere of their newest propaganda film. And the way the “basterds” get involved with the same event is that they team up with (1) a British commando who’s a film critic and an expert on German cinema, working in tandem with (2) a German double agent who’s a movie star. The scalping/terrorizing/”Jewish experience” part of the story is a minor element in comparison with all the narrative and philosophical elements of the role of cinema.
So while it’s all kind of weird and inarguably self-indulgent (though I do love the movie), protests about “Jews shouldn’t be shown like that” seem largely beside the point.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
Why, as they grow more and more influential in our MSM, do rising bloggers such as our young Matt also employ the weirdly ubiquitous MSM phrase “SORT OF” more and more?
Listen to NPR or cable interview shows sometime: “SORT OF” is the all-encompassing, lazy generalizer and signifier of the Media-Commentariat-Elite. It’s the insider lingo that signals one is one of THEM.
Often you will hear “SORT OF” multiple times in one sentence, spoken by folks who are alleged to be and presented as the cream of our intellectual crop. Matt presents “SORT OF” to us three times in three paragraphs.
Again, really listen sometime. You’ll be astounded how often you hear it in the dialogue that determines our political and social outcomes. Matt has gone a step further by putting it into his writing. Kudos!
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Besides, the whole movie really is much more an imagination of “cinematic revenge” against the Nazis than “Jewish revenge.”
That’s exactly the problem. Reducing the complexity of our feelings towards the greatest criminals in the history of the world to yet another excuse for empty violence is obscene.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 am
“You’ll be astounded how often you hear it in the dialogue that determines our political and social outcomes.”
When you’re shooting from the hip, as nearly all of our opinion leaders are, it’s wise to hedge.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
“The entire subplot of the Jewish girl who gets a chance at revenge…”
I watched a Charlie Rose interview with Tarantino last week where he explained that he originally sketched out the IB script years ago, and had the Jewish girl as the main revenger.
But then he made Kill Bill and gave so many of the Jewish girl’s bits to the Uma Thurman character that he had to completely rework the IB script to be avoid being repetitive.
It’s too bad. I liked IB, but I would have liked it more if done as Tarantino originally intended. I’ve got a soft spot for well-made chick revenger flicks.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:51 am
That’s exactly the problem. Reducing the complexity of our feelings towards the greatest criminals in the history of the world to yet another excuse for empty violence is obscene.
Well, OK then. A lot of people have said similar things about The Dirty Dozen and other WWII action movies. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but if every WWII movie set in Europe should aspire to be Army of Shadows, and anything less is empty/obscene violence, then I’m glad you’re not in charge of greenlighting which movies can or can’t be made.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:55 am
tim, I don’t think you can characterize lazy language as an attribute of the MSM more than other language users. Besides, you have to admit that behind one of those “sort ofs,” Yglesias has a sweet phrase that you wouldn’t read in an MSM source:
And heck, WWII really is only “sort of” that myth.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:57 am
But then he made Kill Bill and gave so many of the Jewish girl’s bits to the Uma Thurman character that he had to completely rework the IB script to be avoid being repetitive.
Yeah, he said she was originally going to have a “death list” of officers, like The Bride, and she was going to snipe at them from rooftops, like O-Ren. The whole thing about getting revenge for the killing of her family while she was hiding under the bed/floor is also similar to O-Ren.
I don’t know if she was going to be the main revenger, so much as she was going to be just as “badass” as the basterds.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am
Haven’t seen IB yet, but it certainly sounds like typical Tarrantino: a genius with a camera who likes to make nihilistic trash.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’m glad you’re not in charge of greenlighting which movies can or can’t be made.
That’s just a non sequitur. No ones talking about not letting movies get made. I’m talking about evaluating the artistic value of a movie that did get made.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
When Titans Clashed: How the Red Army Stopped Hitler (Modern War Studies)
D. Glantz, J House
http://www.amazon.com/When-Titans-Clashed-Stopped-Studies/dp/0700608990
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:18 am
I haven’t seen this one, but what about Defiance? It seemed OK to me, heavily romanticized of course, but hey that’s what making movies is all about.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
“That’s just a non sequitur. No ones talking about not letting movies get made.”
Well, on that topic, we should all be happy that IB opened well above expectations.
That gives Tarantino easier greenlights in the future, which is very much to the good.
—–
Tangentially, I try not to bet things on Intrade outside my area of expertise, but I was itching to bet the over on the IB opening. The studio tracking had it coming in at $30m, but I really thought the tracking wouldn’t pick up all the Tarantino-heads out there.
But since I don’t closely follow opening weekend numbers on a regular basis, I decided to follow common sense and not to make the play. Of course, now it’s looking like IB is coming in around $38m, and I could’ve had a nice 8 to 1 longshot winner if I’d followed my instincts.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:28 am
re 11
You spelled “Inglourious” wrong. But that’s a good thing.
Leave it to Matt to misspell a misspelling. That’s meta as all hell, now that I think about it, what with Matt’s reputation in that regard.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 am
No ones talking about not letting movies get made. I’m talking about evaluating the artistic value of a movie that did get made.
Fair enough…looking back upthread, you made it clear in your first comment that you were talking about your own personal feelings about what you do or don’t want to see. Obviously everyone can make up their own minds about that.
And the method of artistic evaluation discussed in the article you linked to is, to me, artificially limiting and irritatingly preachy.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
And the method of artistic evaluation discussed in the article you linked to is, to me, artificially limiting and irritatingly preachy.
Fair enough!
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 am
If you think Tarantino is a nihilist, you either don’t understand film or you don’t understand nihilism. Or both.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
“It’s worth noting just how Jewy the healthcare debate has gotten. It’s coming down to Waxman and Weiner against Emanuel and Axelrod for all the marbles.”
And, of course, it’s also worth noting how Chuck Schumer keeps doing his best to act as a spokesman for “the center” while pushing things towards the Waxman / Weiner side of the debate…
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Great movie. Tarantino’s movies aren’t about anything but they make you think.
For a long time Europeans thought of Americans as a bunch of hicks and Jews. And the movie really puts on display the evil of ethnic cleansing. That French farmer at the beginning is brilliant. Really good movie.
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
“If you think Tarantino is a nihilist, you either don’t understand film or you don’t understand nihilism. Or both.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
This review at FFC is a good counterpoint to the review at post 7 that fails to see any morality in the picture.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:20 pm
If you think Tarantino is a nihilist, you either don’t understand film or you don’t understand nihilism. Or both.
Hell, anytime a Tarentino film is about anything but suburban wimp self-indulgence, its a win for cinema.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:25 pm
rounding up and killing Jews was fairly central to Germany’s wartime policymaking
Well, it was a side effect. The central aim of Hitler was turning Eastern Russia/Ukraine/Poland into a vast uninhabited territory for Germans to colonize. In Hitler’s twisted mind the Jews were the primary allies of the Bolsheviks and had to be eliminated in order for Germany to complete its imperalist Drang Nach Osten. The Jews are only central in the war from a modern American point of view, to distract from the fact that at its core WWII was about Germany vs. Russia. Hitler didn’t start the war to kill Jews. And arguably pre-war Hitler would have been quite happy to ship as many Jews to the US as we were willing to take, which complicates our moral superiority a little bit.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
This recent piece by Timothy Snyder in the NY Review sheds some light on the places in WW2 history of the USSR and those decimated by the Nazis in Poland and points eastward
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm
And arguably pre-war Hitler would have been quite happy to ship as many Jews to the US as we were willing to take
Not “arguably”, that was their actual plan and their actual policy. Not necessarily to the US, but to any place outside.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:46 pm
#16 “…the Jewish girl as the main revenger.”
In effect, she still is; all the Basterds add to the plot is an outlet for her main target to escape. The Basterds accomplish so little that I was surprised when the end credits appeared. I expected more, or at least enough to justify the inclusion of the Basterds at all. Take, for example, the baseball bat in the poster — when only one Nazi is beaten with it! Further notice that only two Nazis are scalped on-screen. This movie was *not* about the Inglourious Basterds.
August 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
If you think Tarantino is a nihilist, you either don’t understand film or you don’t understand nihilism. Or both.
__
Hell, anytime a Tarentino film is about anything but suburban wimp self-indulgence, its a win for cinema.
If you don’t understand that a brilliant artist can make shitty art, you don’t understand any of the arts, film or otherwise. I understand – and know about – both film and nihilism pretty well, actually. Tarantino is a brilliant filmmaker, but his movies are, as far as i can tell, *all* ’suburban wimp self-indulgence’. It’s his perfect right to be a putz, to make whatever movies he wants, but I don’t have to like them. The several I’ve seen are elaborate, very well-made, wanks. He is the perfect artist for a humorless, literal, laughably earnest, insecure era like this one.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:15 pm
“humorless, literal…earnest”
Those are definitely not the words I’d use to describe his movies.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“If you don’t understand that a brilliant artist can make shitty art, you don’t understand any of the arts, film or otherwise.”
I’d disagree with this.
A work by an artistic genius is ipso facto a “work of genius”.
A brilliant director’s worst effort is still not going to be shitty art.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
“If you don’t understand that a brilliant artist can make shitty art, you don’t understand any of the arts, film or otherwise.”
I think Jonny is of the school that believes that “immoral” art is necessarily shitty art. He is wrong but sadly not alone.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I presume you meant “work of genious.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
He is the perfect artist for a humorless, literal, laughably earnest, insecure era like this one.
I think if you took each of these words and then made them the opposite of what you wrote then it would be a better description of Tarantino’s films.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
OK: “She”…”isn’t”…OK, I’m stumped. What’s the opposite of “the?”
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Really weird experience at our local multiplex last night: many cars in the parking lot with stickers from a historically Jewish suburb nearby. And multiple dozens of 80- and 90-year-old grandfathers and even grandMOTHERs being assisted and wheeled in to this movie.
Cranky
Quote from a 15 y.o. war movie expert: “The only way this could have been made worse [worse in the sense of more brutal] would have been to add some Russians.”.
I will point out to Matthew that while there were some Soviet citizens in France during WWII, they were either (a) those who had volunteered to fight for the Germans after their territory was invaded (b) Russian POWs. None had much to do with anything in France and all are believed to have been shot by Stalin when they were returned to the USSR.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Nihilism? Fuck me. Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.
August 23rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“The war itself is sort of the foundational myth of America’s drive for worldwide hegemony,…”
¿Como?
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I think Jonny is of the school that believes that “immoral” art is necessarily shitty art. He is wrong but sadly not alone.
Yes, I had to read the same Tolstoy essay you did, but while I lauged at Leo’s weird Christian criteria for what makes ‘good’ art, I also realized that it wasn’t a binary question – either Tolstoy is right or ‘art for art’s sake’. Basically: I have no problem with amoral art, but, no, I don’t like immoral art. I don’t think it should be censored, or suppressed in any way, but I don’t like it.
Being an artist myself, perhaps I’m not as impressed as some with mere skill.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Only someone hopelessly and unwittingly under-educated would assume that a discussion of the morality of art necessarily has as its foundation Tolstoy’s polemics. Did you even read the essays or merely read commentary presented in a survey course?
And spare us the implicit appeal to your own authority on aesthetics by self-identifying as an artist.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
People are referring to Tarantino as a genius now? Really, we’ve sunk that low? He’s made some very good movies, “Reservoir Dogs,” and “Pulp Fiction.” Some good, but self-indulgent movies, “Kill Bill.” And some boring crap, “Death Proof.”
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
But how is he immoral? I always thought there was a bit too much moralizing in his films. I’d really prefer less moralizing and more comedy.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
“A brilliant director’s worst effort is still not going to be shitty art.”
So, you haven’t seen DEATH PROOF?
INGLORIOUS BASTERDS is definitely more good than bad, but it looks like we’re never going to get another Tarantino film that doesn’t have serious flaws.
Mike
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“So, you haven’t seen DEATH PROOF?”
I thought Tarantino’s weakest movie was Kill Bill, and that was still pretty good.
I thought Death Proof was most excellent.
(Though Tarantino made a key change between the ‘double feature’ version and the ’standalone’ version that makes the ’standalone’ version weaker. He gives away a piece of knowledge in the ’standalone’ version that he holds back for a while in the ‘double feature’ version, and holding back was the correct choice.)
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Didn’t he have a good scene with a Coasters’ song there? And some good dialog, of course.
August 23rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
“I thought Death Proof was most excellent.”
And we learn that cinema is yet another area on which Petey may be safely ignored.
Mike
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
And we learn that cinema is yet another area on which Petey may be safely ignored.
Don’t you hate the Wire?
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Tarantino is like David Hamilton- some people think he’s great, others think he’s retarded.
What eats me up is what could have been done with the resources. A chick-revenge flic set in the closing days of WW II? Why not mix up the chick-revenge storyline with the invading Russians, who had seen their women raped and killed in huge numbers by the Germans, and were taking revenge on Germany by a campaign of rape. How can this not be an awesome movie?
Well, it can fail by being too real, suggesting to the audience too strongly that this might actually handle the topic, or presenting graphic images too strong for audiences accustomed to the best in fake blood.
Not wishing to sever the umbilical cord that connects himself to America’s entertainment dollar, Tarantino confines himself to his light opera, basically Captain Blood updated with modern film-making techniques. Not to worry, you can imagine the film that might have been made, and your imagination will surely be an improvement.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
You entirely misunderstand Tarantino as an auteur. His movies are not about what they are ostensibly about—they are about the cross-cultural fantasy terrain of film. They are emphatically not realistic, not intended to be realistic, and not intended to deal with morality outside the context of the morality within film. The movie you wish Tarantino had made is not a movie Tarantino could, or should, make.
August 23rd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
A brilliant director’s worst effort is still not going to be shitty art.
Aw, nuts.Hitchcock made dreck, too. He made LOTS of dreck. He was a brilliant director but if he didn’t have brilliant collaborators, he made crap movies.
****
Why not mix up the chick-revenge storyline with the invading Russians, who had seen their women raped and killed in huge numbers by the Germans, and were taking revenge on Germany by a campaign of rape. How can this not be an awesome movie?
You don’t like one chick revenge movie and then fantasize that a different chick revenge movie would be awesome.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Being no expert on Tolstoy or Art, I thought the appeal of IB was the same as WWII shooters – killin’ Nazis.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
But aesthetic qualities aside it’s also an interesting example of how Jews and the Holocaust have moved closer and closer to the American cultural narrative of World War II.
This is very well stated and is very much an American cultural narrative.
The Jewish experience is the most widely known- so much so that many Americans don’t understand that many many other groups were put in camps as well.
I wish that Americans would place this past incident in the broader context of political tactics employed by the Right: Spread a cultural story whereby the majority appears to be victimized by a minority. Unify the majority in it’s reaction to victimization. A short list of examples would include:
Germany: Jews, Gypsies, intellectuals
recent US: “welfare queen” – black, illegal immigrants – Latinos, “war on Christmas” – liberals/ non-believers, gay agendum – homosexuals
it goes on… I wish we would focus on the pattern or the particular as part of a pattern.
Rgds.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Now I’m curious, but can probably wait until it comes out on DVD. I like Tarantino, and his pointy dialogue.
For a new look at WWII, I really like “Enemy at the Gates”. A little hokey, but the Siege of Stalingrad is one phenomenal war story that needs to be told and told again.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I think this might just be his masterpiece.
August 23rd, 2009 at 4:58 pm
For a new look at WWII, I really like “Enemy at the Gates”. A little hokey, but the Siege of Stalingrad is one phenomenal war story that needs to be told and told again.
I really wish they’d do a Leningrad story, too.
Outside of maybe Nanjing’s initial occupation, it was probably the city to which the most unspeakable things happened. Stalingrad was a *battle*, a nasty, brutal, bloody battle, but then so too was every other one in the East.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I was reading a study on stress once, and ran into a fun-fact about the Siege of Stalingrad in it—only one person who survived it lived beyond the age of forty. It was an example of a very prolonged, life-threatening stressor in which there was little comfort or relief—I forget the clinical name they gave it. Bitter cold, hunger, illness, and battle on the homefront for a little over SIX MONTHS.
The Soviets beat the Japanese in China, too. I would definitely like to see more movies about the Soviets in WW II. Our WW II movies seem to dwell on strategy, but you can’t beat the Soviets for logistics.
August 23rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Kieth Ellis @58: very well and concisely expressed. I’m really suprised at some of the critical responses to this movie, like the one linked above at Tablet or David Denby’s at the New Yorker – it’s as if these critics have never seen a Tarantino movie and are judging this one by really misplaced criteria.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Tarantino makes films about film. They’re simultaneously critiques of and homages to films that have been made in the past.
If you don’t like that sort of thing, fine. But if you run around spouting all of the various criticisms people spout in this thread while clearly not understanding the basic POV of his films, you’re just a dumbass.
August 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
But aesthetic qualities aside it’s also an interesting example of how Jews and the Holocaust have moved closer and closer to the American cultural narrative of World War II. The war itself is sort of the foundational myth of America’s drive for worldwide hegemony, and the story sort of works better with Jews closer to its center.
I guess it’s a more inspiring narrative than fighting fascism with another totalitarian dictatorship as one of your allies while bombing civilian neighborhoods in to dust with no material effect to the war effort at all*.
*Read the Strategic Bombing Survey, it’s pretty enlightening.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Yes. One might wish for movies about how the US deliberately murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians with incendiary bombings in Germany and Japan, then followed up with a couple of nukes for good measure.
But we’re the good guys, right?
I watched “Katyn” the other night. It was an instructive reminder of how Stalin’s brutality and evil, though of another flavor, matched Hitler’s; but also (not dealt with in the film) how the US and Great Britain were actively complicit in the USSR’s campaign to blame Germany for the atrocity when every damn person in Poland knew the truth.
The Holocaust has been a central narrative of the US’s involvement in WWII since the 60s. I’d wager that only a tiny portion of those under sixty are aware that a large portion of the US population were sympathetic to Hitler’s antisemitism prior to the war; and that while both the US and Great Britain were well aware of the Holocaust (though perhaps not its full extent), there was essentially no support for any military operations which would disrupt it…including bombing the rail lines leading to the camps.
Instead, a large portion of Americans now see the Holocaust as the primary manifestation of German fascism against which the just and good USA bravely fought and won…despite the inconvenient facts of the Japanese-American “internment” camps and that the USSR did far more, and sacrificed far more, to defeat Germany.
It is the sort of revisionist, self-satisfied, pious history that, ironically, both post-war Germany and Japan have deliberately avoided and which was reflected in spirit in the official history taught during the Soviet era.
The truth is that the early 20th century was a world of unsurpassed organized and institutionalized horror—none of the great nations were exempt. Some were less evil than others. For this, the US has been congratulating itself for sixty years.
August 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Tangentially, I try not to bet things on Intrade outside my area of expertise.
Been laying off politics then?
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Ye gawds of various sects, the self-righteous sermons on how those stupid Americans don’t know how selfish and evil they really are just keep piling up. Is this a intellectual discussion or a revival movement?
Okay, I’ve got a guy who gets tiffed at some puppies for an imagined slight and keeps them in a kennel overnight. Then there’s the other guy who things puppies are dangerous and keeps the animals locked in a dark cellar day in, day out, until half of them starve and freeze. But, there’s another guy who just hates puppies and has been catching them in the neighborhood and beating them dead with a hammer in his kitchen.
Now the first guy gets together with the second guy to call the cops, break down the door where in the house where they heard the screams, and get the third guy under arrest.
We have determined that, if the first guy is proud of what he did, he is dealing in “revisionist, self-satisfied, pious history” because morally he’s just as guilty as the other two and the second guy hurt his shoulder taking down the door?
So much moral condemnation, so completely bereft of serious moral judgment!
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
I never made a claim of moral equivalency. I made the claim that there were no truly good guys and the self-satisfied fantasy that “our side” were those truly good guys is a serious moral failing. This is necessarily true because Americans are not moral relativists. You may be making the argument “we weren’t as bad as those other guys”; but the American Argument is that “we were the good guys”.
By your relativistic standard, the US comes out looking pretty good. By the US’s own standard, it does not.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:46 pm
You know, it doesn’t surprise me that Petey has pretty bad taste in movies, as well, once again proving the adage that you can pretty much depend on choosing the opposite of Petey’s predictions and preferences and end up doing pretty well for yourself.
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
It is the sort of revisionist, self-satisfied, pious history that, ironically, both post-war Germany and Japan have deliberately avoided and which was reflected in spirit in the official history taught during the Soviet era.
Japan? Really?
August 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
#73 apparently Obama is following the Petey Paradox when it comes to universal healthcare
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 pm
@Keith Ellis
“The truth is that the early 20th century was a world of unsurpassed organized and institutionalized horror—none of the great nations were exempt. Some were less evil than others. For this, the US has been congratulating itself for sixty years.”
Right. And you’re right about the firebombing in Germany and Japan. Horrible stuff and a good deal of it clearly was unnecessary. Well-put, as is usually the case with your points.
In terms of sheer disgusting vileness, the Imperial Japanese with their slaughter of Chinese compete pretty well with the Germans. Then again, the behavior of those two actors surely ranks with the worst behavior morally in all of human history. Allied war crimes were horrible, but not at that level.
(And in response to my utilitarian friends, I do think that there is something worse about killing “at close range.” I think that distance is morally relevant in on assessment of the way we treat others. This is why we rightly reproach the guy who lets someone die in front of him, but don’t reproach (or don’t reproach as severely) the guy who lets someone die far away (pace Singer).)
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
I never made a claim of moral equivalency. I made the claim that there were no truly good guys and the self-satisfied fantasy that “our side” were those truly good guys is a serious moral failing. This is necessarily true because Americans are not moral relativists. You may be making the argument “we weren’t as bad as those other guys”; but the American Argument is that “we were the good guys”.
By your relativistic standard, the US comes out looking pretty good. By the US’s own standard, it does not.
What is this “US standard” you are condemning? The one they used in old Hollywood movies?
Any evidence that any serious number of people living now–or then–truly thought that being “the Good Guys” meant we were angels and the other side were devils? Consider the possibility that, even in the 1950s, being the “Good Guys” just meant you acted according to a higher moral standard, not that you were without sin. And that, traditionally, flogging yourself over your own failings whenever making decisions involving moral judgment is not considered a sign of high character, but of narcissistic self-doubt.
Just finished reading Theodore Rex, a fascinating character study of both Theodore Roosevelt and myriad characters of his time, with plenty of insight into how American politics and business works, both in 1900 and today. Lots of villains and sinners, no one is perfect, but Roosevelt and a number of others trying to be “the Good Guys” despite their sins and failings.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
the review at post 7 that fails to see any morality in the picture.
Tarantino is moral as hell. It’s just not always a morality that appeals to the viewer.
In “Pulp Fiction” of course the morality is obvious: Samuel Jackson accepts the miracle and turns aside from his path, John Travolta doesn’t and is gunned down in a toilet. (Wish Tarantino would make a movie about Jackson’s character walking the earth.)
In “Kill Bill” the morality, or ethics, is pagan — Aristotle would’ve understood it. Beatrix admires Bill, loves Bill — but Bill tried to off her, and killed her betrothed, and she has “unfinished business.” It’s an ethical code Bill understands as well as she does.
Haven’t seen “Deathhouse” or whatever it’s called or some of the other Tarantino side projects. But calling his movies nihilistic is like calling a Sergio Leone western nihilistic. People always label as “nihilist” a moral code they don’t share.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
@Anderson 78
I’m sure Aristotle would have understood it. It’s not so clear that he would have thought it obligatory, or even permissible. Maybe you can spin the behavior is contributing to flourishing via contributing to a moral virtue somewhere between two vices–all in a dispassionate way. Aristotle doesn’t often give clear answers on what one should do morally; this is one reason why his ethics were abandoned until recently. Kant sort of does, and Mill appears to. So what good is Aristotle’s moral psychology, people thought.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“Nihilist” is not a fair label, I agree. “Reservoir Dogs” is a great movie, and it’s tragic because the good guys die, and the other good guys helped make that possible by being hell bent on getting the biggest bad guy, no matter what. It’s a good story. The characters aren’t symbols for good and bad, they are good and bad in individual ways—they all have their codes and limits that guide their behavior—even the sociopaths.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“You don’t like one chick revenge movie and then fantasize that a different chick revenge movie would be awesome.”
Touche.
I don’t quite understand that one either.
In my defense, I do like Kill Bill – there is a lot of dazzling stuff there – I just think it’s the weakest work of a pretty impressive corpus. It’s sense of place seemed missing to me. I always understand the details of what world I’m living in a Tarantino film, with the exception of Kill Bill.
And the chick revenger of Death Proof worked far better for me.
Tangentially, I’m a big fan of the ’70’s chick revengers Ms. 45 and I Spit On Your Grave. Classic stuff.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“Aw, nuts.Hitchcock made dreck, too. He made LOTS of dreck. He was a brilliant director but if he didn’t have brilliant collaborators, he made crap movies.”
His dreck ends up being pretty awesome movies. Some are obviously betters than others, but even the duds are well above average flicks.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“Been laying off politics then?”
Two big (temporary) wins of late:
- I shorted ‘public option’ down from 45, covered at the bottom, and went back long at 15, which I am content to keep.
- I went long on Corzine at 30, which I am content to keep holding.
The 2010 markets haven’t really taken off yet, which is a draq…
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 pm
His dreck ends up being pretty awesome movies. Some are obviously betters than others, but even the duds are well above average flicks.
Mmmm. Topaz.
Mmmm. Under Capricorn.
August 23rd, 2009 at 10:53 pm
A possibly interesting tidbit: a Japanese guy told me he couldn’t understand one word of the “Japanese” Lucy Liu was speaking in Kill Bill, which kind of offended him.
Also, I was pleased that in his L.A. Weekly interview this week he named my all-time favorite movie as his own all-time favorite: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.
I don’t even know why I like that movie so much. Can’t help it.
August 24th, 2009 at 12:44 am
This is a strange claim. The Soviets declared war on the Japanese August 8 1945. Two days AFTER Hiroshima. Whatever they did in China, it did fsckall to beat the Japanese.
Look, the Soviets beat the Germans. The US beat the Russians.
There’s enough glory for both in these true statements; and it is a sad comment on America that this viewpoint is not good enough; the US has to have it all.
Fascism is coming to America, step by step. This rewriting of history is a very small part of it — nothing compared to gun nuts, race hatred, torture, war, and Limbaugh — but part, nonetheless, of how small steps along the way get you to where you do not want to go.
Plenty of university professors and businessmen, after all, supported the Nazis at first — “support for the country and the race, so there are a few lies along the way?” Likewise “what’s so bad about exaggerating America’s role in the war? What’s so bad about slightly rewriting our relationship to the jews, to better show the type of people we wish we were? It’s just a movie/book/TV show/play/high school class.”
August 24th, 2009 at 12:49 am
Ever heard of My Lai? Ever heard of Abu Ghraib? Ever heard of US-freaking-torture in Guantanamo bay? Why do you think these things happen?
One reason is because retards like yourself are running around indoctrinating everyone in the military and 80% of the population outside it that the US never has done wrong, never can do wrong.
A US that actually accepted responsibility for what it did in the war, that actually FELT REMORSE AND SHAME for its actions would be a US rather less enthusiastic to imagine that war, violence and torture are the best solutions to most of the problems of the world.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Re: Nihilism? Fuck me. Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.
Lorax,
Actually what makes the Coen Brothers’ phrase so brilliantly and ironically clever, is that the ‘ethos’ of the Nazis was nihilist to its very core. The Nazi ‘new order’ was based on the premise that such eternal verities as justice, mercy, humanity and love were old-fashioned and out-of-date, and that nothing should stop the German race from doing just what they pleased. A better embodiment of philosophical nihilism would be hard to imagine.
August 24th, 2009 at 1:54 am
You know that most of us can tell when you’re just making shit up, Hector.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:14 am
says the guy who earlier claimed Japan had avoided revisionist history in regards to its role in World War II
August 24th, 2009 at 2:37 am
And the theocracy in Spain at the time (and for the next 40 years) followed different principles?
August 24th, 2009 at 2:48 am
[...] IB features dialogue in multiple languages, instead of what Matthew Yglesias called “Hollywood’s more conventional ‘Nazis speaking to each other in German-accented [...]
August 24th, 2009 at 3:17 am
You’re right, that wasn’t quite true. I should have written “…both post-war Germany and Japan have deliberately attempted to avoid, with greater and lesser success, respectively.”
Nevertheless, in Japan there’s always been a national dialogue about its role and conduct in WWII.
In contrast, in the US the position that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could be anything other than just and right is confined to the far left; and, furthermore, there has never been any substantial self-criticism in popular culture for American populist and industrialist support for the Nazis.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Re: In contrast, in the US the position that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could be anything other than just and right is confined to the far left
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were condemned, at the time and since, by the Catholic hierarchy. Hell, Ross Douthat wrote a post a few years back on his blog explaining why nuclear warfare can never be morally licit, as I’m sure you are aware.
The argument that the Nazis were nihilist to the core isn’t a rare one, you know: it was commonly made by religious opponents of theirs from the time they originated (and in fact even before- Maurras’ Action Francaise was like a French precursor of theirs after all).
August 24th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Any of you in NYC Metro might want to catch the very good “The Retributionists” by Daniel Goldfarb at Playwrights Horizons. About Jewish vengeance.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:58 am
Ever heard of My Lai? Ever heard of Abu Ghraib? Ever heard of US-freaking-torture in Guantanamo bay?
Ever heard of Wounded Knee? Sand Creek? Lawrence, Kansas, Samar, the Conestoga Massacre? The Blackhawk War? Mountain Meadows? I could go on for hours listing sins, but . . .
Did you know that in 1917 and 1941 we allied ourselves with the people responsible for the Indian Raj, the Boer Wars, the Irish Famine, and the Burning of Washington? Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and there advisors were well aware of this, and hotly debated whether our intervention in either World War would help or hinder the world’s most dangerous imperial power to keep its ill-gotten gains. In the end they made the decisions based on moral standards rather than moral absolutes, because that’s what adults do in the real world.
Also, along the way, those two administrations deliberately calculated their policies to undercut the political and financial infrastructure of the British Empire, thus ensuring that they did as little as possible to strengthen it and made some small contribution to destroying it. In practice, different from the “Containment” policy we maintained in dealing with the Soviet Union, but in principle, not that much so. Churchill and other British leaders knew perfectly well what the Americans were up to, in both wars, but they did what they had to do to survive and get the help they needed.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Hector,
I didn’t think the reference was that deep. The nihilists in the film break into The Dude’s apartment and tell him that they didn’t believe anything (and the “vhee don’t believe anything” stands out as a line). So he mentions this to Walter and there’s the line I quoted above.
Fwiw, the Nazis did have values. Service to the Fatherland was a virtue, so was allegiance to Hitler. So was hatred of Jews.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Fwiw, the Nazis did have values. Service to the Fatherland was a virtue, so was allegiance to Hitler. So was hatred of Jews.
Two of the three, by the way, were strong, traditional Prussian/German values that the Nazis exploited to their advantage. Which is why German nationalism was scaring the zhit out of people way back in the 1870s, and why American presidents from the 1880s were as worried about German Imperialism as much as they were about British Imperialism, and why fear of Japanese Imperialism, while more prominent in American popular culture from 1902 on, never lay as heavily on the minds of the American elite (the Roosevelts, in particular) as a possible threat from Germany.
No one was really spooked by the Germans when the Austrians and Bavarians dominated German culture. I believe that there was always a saying that the Austrians were better at pastries than war.
Once Prussia unified Germany, the chances of someone going flederuass and invading, say, Venezuela or Long Island went up considerably. Leaving stiff, chiseled Germans in sharp outfits as America’s favorite movie villains.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:33 am
In contrast, in the US the position that the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, could be anything other than just and right is confined to the far left.
Huh? “Firebombing and nukes were bad” has been the default trope in popular and elite culture for almost fifty years. It’s the people who disagree with that view who’ve been on the defensive for the last few decades. “Nukes are good,” for everyone except the far right, went out of fashion about the same time as “Indians are savages,” back in the early sixties.
Furthermore, there has never been any substantial self-criticism in popular culture for American populist and industrialist support for the Nazis.
Definitely true. Aside from the occasional reference to Lindberg or Father Coughlin, the subject has been dead all my reading lifetime. You can’t convince those brought up in American pop culture that it was perfectly normal to see a red flag with a swastika flying over a German consulate or company office in America in the 1930s, or to see that broken cross flying during festivals and business conferences. In 1936, it was just the German flag.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am
“The nihilists in the film break into The Dude’s apartment and tell him that they didn’t believe anything”
Say what you will about nihilists, but at least they don’t believe in peeing on rugs.
Also, nihilists believe intensely in lingonberries…
August 24th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Regarding the thing about the Nazis being nihilists, I remembered that the old Liberalism Resurgent site (Jesus F. Christ but I love that site) had a bunch of Hitler quotes (labeled “from the other side) in the “quotes” section, so I thought I’d skim it for relevant ones. Here’s what I came up with before getting bored:
“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 289
“The question of the [Nazi] movement’s inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle.”
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 346
“We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever.”
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 459
August 24th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
It’s amazing how the Russian experience of fighting the Nazis has been virtually ignored by Hollywood. Not long back I read Harrison Salisbury’s “The 900 Days: The Siege Of Leningrad”. Here, you had ordinary, everyday people prevailing against all odds against the Nazi War machine’s efforts to exterminate them, and yet, it’s more likely a movie will be made about Joe Lieberman’s non-existent heroic WWII resistance than this story.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Did nobody get the elegance of destroying the Nazis with their own propaganda films? Think a lot of you sort of missed the point here…
August 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I think this film is a great concept and have long wanted to see a film in which Jews are not the hapless, passive victims of the Holocaust but ruthless Nazi-slayers.
I think a similar film could be made about a group of freed slaves hired by the Union to spread havoc and terror among Confederate soldiers and southern plantation owners during the Civil War. We had our Nazis, too, and their intellectual and familial descendants are still causing all kinds of trouble. It would be good to expose the Confederates and their sympathizers for what they are: traitors, slaveholders, killers, and thugs who deserve the treatment Tarantino deals out to Nazis. That would be good for the popular and political culture in this country. For some reason, we choose not to demonize these people the way we demonize Nazis, and so people proudly display the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag is and should be considered as toxic as the swastika.
August 24th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
“Did nobody get the elegance of destroying the Nazis with their own propaganda films? Think a lot of you sort of missed the point here”
No, we got the point. We’re just not impressed with it. And since most of the film’s burned came from the “French aunt’s” collection, I doubt too many of them were Nazi propaganda.
Mike
August 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Did nobody get the elegance of destroying the Nazis with their own propaganda films?
You couldn’t fucking telegraph a message more obviously or less elegant.
And, by the way, the point of the Tablet review is certainly not just “QT’s a nihilist”. I don’t think many of the people commenting on it read it.
August 24th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Chuck:
Tarantino has mentioned wanting to make a movie about John Brown eventually.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Tarantino has mentioned wanting to make a movie about John Brown eventually.
Oh God no.
I saw IB the other night and was disoriented for a few days. Was it good, but flawed, or purposefully absurd which made it great? There were some great moments and then some other moments…
I finally came to a verdict today — it was an artful piece of shit. It’s intellectual heft was that of confetti, it’s moral weight precisely that of air — although it’s movie IQ was through the fucking roof! He stole half his characters from the Coen Brothers, and tried to weave them into an ostensibly ’serious’ European movie about fate and compromise, only to have none of it really matter because, well, why not?
Movies don’t have to have a moral core, or even any kind of cohesive point of view, of course. Just don’t fool yourself into thinking that IB had one or cared about having one. It was a giant wankoff.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
I could find no moral core to the movie – Tarantino was trying to fool people into thinking there was a moral – in essence he was pandering to some people’s sick love of violence nowadays and using an “artsy” format to make it seem acceptable. Hearing some of the audience in the cinema roar with laughter when people were about to go up in flames makes it clear to me that no moral message got through at all. The film had some excellent moments – chiefly thanks to Christoph Walz and some good dialogue – but the other characters were uninteresting for the most part. End of Brad Pitt’s career in Germany.
August 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
[...] of Books did so here along with Buchanan’s and others. While he doesn’t mention Baker, Matthew Yglesias‘ recent post on “Inglourious Basterds” makes an interesting point on how WW2 has [...]