Posted by Josh Lipovetsky in Welcome back to FilmInsight!
Quentin Tarantino’s style of filmmaking is like no other. He turns left where others choose to turn right, and turns right when others choose to turn left. His latest movie, Inglourious Basterds, is very unique. Instead of focusing on how bad the Nazi’s were, he focuses on how a war affects every single person for the worst. He demonstrates the corruption of the human spirit, and the lengths we are willing to go in order to find peace. For ourselves, and for others. Unfortunately, throughout the struggle, we may lose our humanity. Inglourious Basterds is a representation of what happens when we lose our humanity, and how it can affect people on a mass scale.
One group of people that nearly every American hates, are the Nazi’s. Their brutal violence and torturing of the Jews will forever be shamed upon. Inglourious Basterds is a fictional depiction of the anger that Jews felt towards the Nazi’s. Although the anger is justified, does it really benefit anyone? If the depicted events were factual, how would Jews and Nazi’s be viewed under today? The Nazi’s would still have a bad reputation, but the Jews would be remembered for the violent way they ended the war. If the events were true, how would our society be different today? The world might have been more violent, and people would see their revenge justifiable. After all, it would have ended World War II. But in the end, what does the seeking of violence and revenge lead to? Through it all, we lose the essential traits that make us human beings. Our compassion, our kindness, our rationality. We lose it all, and for what? To lose our own lives in a battle that isn’t worth fighting for? To seek revenge against any and all who stand in our way? There are always going to be a few rotten apples in our world, like Adolf Hitler. The best thing you can do is to leave them alone, and stay out of their way. But what if they get in your way? If they are a threat to your way of life, you must seek non-violent ways to solve the problem. Violence + Violence = More Violence. More violence = Hate. Hate = Loss of Humanity. When we lose our humanity, then we have lost all hope for our lives. This is beyond the level of desperation, and this is where the Nazi’s stood.
Another issue that Inglourious Basterds deals with, is the ability to walk away from the wrong you have done. When the Basterds let one of Nazi’s leave, they leave a mark on their foreheads. The mark represents that they were once a Nazi, and they can never escape their past. Is it moral, to not let another forget their past? To forgive them for the wrong they have done, and let them live a better life in the future? There are many people we see every day, walking on the streets, who have done wrong in the past. We have all made mistakes in the past, big or little. Despite our shortcomings, we continue to move forward, able to move past the wrong we have done. No physical mark is left on our bodies to remind us of our past. The actions that the Nazi’s took were brutal, cruel, and terrifying. However, is it right to engrave their own mark on their foreheads? What if one of the Nazi’s asks for great forgiveness, and becomes one of the worlds top peacemakers? What if he helps more people personally, than he has harmed? Does his past deserve to be forgotten? As human beings, we are given a birthright. The ability to change, at any time, as we wish. People can go from good to bad. They can also go from bad to good. If a person wishes to change their ways from bad to good, they should not have a constant physical reminder of their horrible past. Isn’t it enough that they are suffering from the memories of all the wrong that they have done? Is it right to judge others by what they have done in the past? No, because at any given time, people can change their ways. And that is what makes us human.
Colonel Hans Landa, played by Christopher Waltz, is a terrifying character. In the beginning of the film, he enters the house of a local farmer, and begins his interrogation. He is looking for Jews being harbored in the area, and he does it in his own unique way. Landa walks into the house, as if he were an old friend. He is very polite, and talks as if he were having a casual dinner conversation. This makes the scene even more intense. How can one person exterminate Jews, and compare them to rats?! Colonel Landa is our primary example of lost humanity. He has no mercy for those he kills, and he lives to serve Hitler. He asks; Would you welcome a rat into your home? What has the rat ever done to you, to elicit such a violent reaction? And this had me thinking, why do we hate rodents so much? Of course, they do spread deadly disease, and they are quite unpleasant in general. But is that the only reason why people kill rodents on sight? It is not. People have a difficult time accepting any other animal/being into their home. Unless invited, we tend to kill any little bugs/rodents that we see. It is a human reaction, that represents mass superiority. Is it our right to take the lives of less superior beings away? What if at one point in time, humans are no longer the superior beings? What if we become ants, and another group of beings feel they can exterminate us at any time? It is difficult and horrible to comprehend, but you get the horrible picture. Just because certain beings don’t belong, does not mean they should be killed. Instead, they should be moved to a place where they will be more appreciated. Rodents do not belong in a home, they belong out in nature.
The Nazi’s treated the Jews like rats. The Jews are great people, and have done absolutely nothing wrong. Yet the Nazi’s wish to exterminate the entire Jewish population! How can something so horrible, happen to our humanity? A twisted belief. I am going to quote Will Smith. He took a lot of heat for saying this, but he spoke the truth about general humanity:
“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, ‘Let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was ‘good.’”
This quote accurately represents what a twisted mindset can do to a population, and how powerful it can be when a leader has lost their humanity. People aren’t evil by choice. They are evil because they have a blocked neuroreceptor, that distinguishes between right and wrong. It seems that Hitler, and all Nazi’s had lost their sanity on what was truly wrong. This can be due to genetics, environment, and they way a person was raised, and what events they had gone through in their life. It’s a shame, but some people believe that violence is good. This is absolutely ludicrous. In no way did God create the world with violence. God never wanted a single person to commit a violent when he created the world. Unfortunately, he gave people emotions. He gave everyone a brain of their own, and let them set out to create their own lives. Some people became wildly successful, some trekked through the middle of the road. And some people dropped down low. Very low. People resorted to violence to give themselves significance. Adolf Hitler was one of these people. He believed that in order to be a good person, he had to commit genocide. I need not explain further, how horrible and wrong this mindset was. The scariest part? It only took one seriously twisted mind, and a whole bunch of followers, who believed that he was right. When evil is given ultimate power, horrible things can happen. We must never let anything like this happen again, to anyone.
One major final event that happens in the movie, is the surrender of Colonel Hans Landa. What causes this change of heart? Why didn’t he choose to save Hitler, and the rest of the Germans? He wanted to end the war, because he was through with the destruction. After he forced himself to kill Bridget von Hammersmark, he had a change in heart. He realized that the war affected not only the Jews and Germans, but everyone else. People did what they could to stop the evil of Hitler, and he was part of the collective evil. Did the Germans know that they were evil? Like I mentioned earlier, they believed, in their own twisted minds, that they were doing right. It wasn’t until the very end of the movie, that Colonel Landa realized that he had pointlessly killed every single person. Bridget von Hammersmark was an actress, who had realized the evil of the Nazis. She used her high-class to stop the evil once and for all, and succeeded in the end. She lost her life because of it. Colonel Landa finally realized what she died for, and he had a change of mind. It goes to show, that no matter how evil a person is, they can always change. Many don’t, but anything is possible.
How does Inglourious Basterds represent society today? Many people are revenge driven. If someone did something horrible to them, they would want to do something equally horrible to the other person. To suppress the part of your emotions that seeks revenge, is to suppress nearly all of the evil in your body. Of course, there are other factors, besides revenge, that play a factor in how humane you are. But revenge is by far the most powerful negative emotion, and its elimination would be in incredible leap for all mankind.
As a Jewish American, I found Inglourious Basterds to be a very interesting and insightful movie. I have seen many holocaust films, depicting the horrors of the Nazi’s. However, Inglourious Basterds takes a different approach. Instead of showing how horrible the holocaust was, it shows an in-depth look at the human beings involved. Including the leaders of the Nazi’s, and a small but powerful group of Jews who rebelled. Tarantino made up a completely new story, that is not only compelling and insightful, but gives a deeper look into what drives human beings and their emotions. I have seen other Tarantino movies like Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction. His movies never disappoint, because they are intense character studies, which use cause and effect, and direct/indirect characterization to describe and analyze a situation. His filmmaking is such a pleasure to watch. However, his movies are only for the open-minded. So if you are not ready to analyze his unique ideas, then you may not be such a big fan. Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s interpretation on the holocaust, and what could have been. It goes to show that we are all human beings, and we all want the same thing: Significance. We all want our own significant role in making the world a better place. However, some of us have a very skewed perception on what actually can improve the world. Following the path of hate will never lead you anywhere good. Hitler tried to improve the world by filling it with hate for a specific group of people. In return, he became more evil by the day. Following the path of love will truly improve the world. Look at Gandhi and Mother Teresa. They wanted significance, and they wanted to make the world a better place. They followed the path of love, and look at what good they have done for humanity! Follow their example, and act out of love. Never follow what Hitler did, because it will contribute to the fall of humanity as we know it.
More Articles!:
[...] because it will contribute to the fall of humanity as we know it. Link to my original article: Inglourious Basterds Thank you for reading! Please let me know if you have any comments/questions. [...]
[...] [...]
Evident that you have next to know movie knowledge, let alone draftsmanship.
Written like a junior high movie analysis.
Hello No Sir,
Thanks for taking your time to leave a comment. May I ask you, specifically, what you didn’t like about the analysis?
The analysis itself is great and by far one of the best that I have read from you. You articles are easily read & creative.
Thank you. Have a great day.
You have a great day as well, Roman.
How is your blog going? Any good ideas?
First of all, the first guy can shut up. Joshy that is awesome, you did a very good job. You know it’s good if even I sit and read through the whole thing. Keep doin your thing!! Love you!
I guess it’s a love/hate thing, Steph
.
Thank you so much for reading!
Josh Lipovetsky.
amateurish at best.
Thanks for leaving a comment! I’m not a professional, but I enjoy writing about film.
Thanks,
Josh Lipovetsky.
Hey Josh, I really respect the effort you are making in dissecting this film. It is such a rich and multi-layered piece of cinema, and I fear that its subtleties are lost on a large number of those who have seen it. While I respect the time you have taken on this film I would like to give you some tips on refining your analysis. Keep in mind that this critique comes from a respect of the real potential you’ve displayed through the time and attention you’ve devoted to this film, and a desire to help you to view and write about film in a much more analytical manner. It’s always a pleasure to view someone’s thoughts on a film and your efforts garner respect.
With that in mind…
Your very first paragraph states that this film showcases the loss of humanity during the quest for peace (paraphrased). But this film has nothing to do with individuals seeking peace. In fact quite the opposite. This movie is about revenge, revenge revenge. The character of Shoshanna is completely driven by revenge. She in fact is driven from a relatively peaceful life running a theater to violence strictly to exact revenge on the Nazis for the deaths of the members of her family. The “basterds” are comprised almost entirely of Jews, each given the task of collecting no less than 100 Nazi scalps. The act of scalping one’s enemy, and more simply the sheer amount of killing expected out of each basterd, speaks nothing of peace, but rather that of creating as much pain as possible as payment for the Holocaust. Peace? No this film is about the quest for revenge and how it takes the Jews, the initial victims, and imbues in them an animosity that rivals that of their tormentors.
View this in the introduction scene of the basterds. Donny Donowitz (“The Bear Jew”) almost nervously asks the German officer if the man got his medals for killing Jews. The officer replies he received them for bravery. In this scene the German officer is actually the brave and moral character. He refuses to put his comrades in danger and willfully chooses to give his life rather than betray them. Donny then bashes him in the head with a baseball bat. Using violence to resolve the conflict, exact revenge and to convey superiority. Although you touch upon the notion of the moral fall of the Jewish characters in this film in your following paragraphs, you misjudge their motives, and that is a very important aspect of this film.
Moving on…
In your next paragraph you speak of the marking of the Nazi’s foreheads with their own symbol, the swastika. While you mention the characters (actually just one character , Lt. Aldo Raine) expressed view that this is a justifiable act, you fail to make an assertion as to whether the film’s message itself (the view of the director) coincides with this. Do not make the mistake of assuming that the moral views of the protagonists mirror that of the director. While I respect (and agree) with your views on this subject, what is more important to a reader is creating an analysis of the director’s message. After this you are free to agree or disagree to your liking. but without explaining this key factor to the reader, your views on the topic have far less pertinence or weight.
I’m sorry to have to tell you that your next two large paragraphs (beginning with “Colonol Hans Landa…” and ending with “We must never let anything like this happen again, to anyone”) need to be removed completely from this analysis. These two paragraphs have absolutely NOTHING to do with this film. Rather they state the obvious… that The Third Reich, and racism in general, are evil. You need to understand that the audience both viewing this film, and the audience reading your article, already know this in their very core. They went into the theater for this specific reason; because they were promised through the film trailer that the corporeal entity that most embodies pure evil in our world’s history (Nazis) will be conquered by good, and in Tarantino fashion, no less. It does no good to tell us what we already know. And your thoughts on the subject, while admirable, could be generically pasted onto any film involving Nazis, or even just mistreated Jews for that matter. What you should be focusing on is what makes this film similar or different to the countless preceding films about this particular subject. How does it comment on them? How does it mimic them? how does this affect the film as a whole?
What this requires is an understanding of the lineage of films that this particular film spawns from. “Basterds” could not have existed without the exploitative “Nazi-killin’” subcategory of the postwar era of Western war films that preceded it. These films, made feverishly between the mid 60’s and late 70’s, bluntly displayed good and evil, portraying Nazis as beasts that needed to be put down and conquered for “good” (read democracy) to prevail. The spoon-fed morality and broad violence of these films made for very blunt affairs that spoke to viewers on very few levels, meant to exploit the latent public outrage of Western society that has never quite faded since the end of WWII.
What “Basterds” does, and quite effectively if I might add, is both fully embody this sleazy category and fulfill the requirements of such blunt films, and simultaneously criticize it, turning the established genre on its head. It is here, this sweet spot between homage and critique, that Tarantino’s film comfortably sits. And it is from this thematic tightrope walk that such wonderful subtlety and thematic mystery is synthesized in this film.
I hope that this has helped, and I hope you don’t take offense at me giving you such a long critique. It comes only from a desire to inform and converse with another film-lover. You’ve got a lot of potential! If you would like to talk more feel free to reply to this post. I will keep an eye on this forum for a few days.
Cheers,
Brett Clair
Brett,
First of all, I want to say: Thank you so much for leaving such an excellent comment. I greatly enjoyed reading your thoughts on my analysis. You are very kind in your writing, and thank you for the great compliments! When you wrote that I had a lot of potential, it just made my day.
With that said, I would like to improve this analysis further. You have given me some great suggestions, which I would like to discuss:
In terms of the individuals seeking peace, I took the meaning a little bit deeper, into my own thoughts. What makes my analysis different from your typical movie analysis, is not that I analyze the thoughts of the director. I like to analyze my own thoughts, and try to incorporate them into the movie equation. A lot of my work strays off of the main theme of the movie, and that is how I write. Is there any way I can improve my writing, in general? Without changing my style? I think that you are an excellent film analyst, and you are such a great movie-lover!
I had mixed emotions when the German soldier had his head crushed by Donny. For one, he was a Nazi. But he was also brave, courageous, and he believed that he was fighting for a just cause. Did he know how horrible the Nazi’s were at the time? Tarantino leaves it up to the viewer. I believe that he didn’t know how bad the Nazi’s truly were. The same can be said for the citizens of Nazi Germany as well.
The 2 paragraphs in the middle of the analysis, provide an in-depth point of view, into my mind. Situations in the movie, as they pertain to the past/present, are analyzed in these paragraphs. I believe they are important; not to the movie analysis, or to garner a deeper understanding of the film. But to garner a deeper understanding of human nature, our motives, and why people become corrupted. So yes, you are right about removing them. If this was a traditional film analysis, those paragraphs would make no sense. But I will mention again, that my articles are very unique from all others in the industry.
I usually analyze up to 4 interpretations in each analysis: My interpretation; Possible interpretation of the viewer; Film Character Interpretation; and Directors Interpretation. Sometimes I cover all 4, but sometimes I only cover 1-2. It depends on what I got out of the movie, and how much I liked it.
I’m really glad that you decided to leave a comment, Brett. I have so much fun writing, and it’s even funner to talk to someone like you. Again, you have given me great inspiration to improve my film analysis skills. Is there any movie in particular, for which you would like me to write an analysis on?
Thank you so much!
Josh Lipovetsky.
Other than going onto too many tangents… less is more after all… other than that there’s not much I disagreed with.
The one major disagreement I have in your assessment is the surrender of Colonel Hans Landa. You saw him having a change of heart, and I find this a naive notion. He saw the signs the Germans would loose and merely sought to save his own skin and escape the consequences of his actions since most would be disgusted by such horrors in the aftermath. Forget what he says, that is merely justification of his getting away with it all. Sociopaths do not exhibit remorse because they do not posses any and one must have remorse to see error in their ways and attempt to make amends. All the more reason why I loved it when those like him got the mark so they can never hide from the hell they caused for others.
Thanks Kimberly! The whole ‘mark on forehead’ part of the movie, is very debatable. It all depends on who you are as a person. If you do something horrible in your life, are you deserving of forgiveness? Or are going to hold a grudge forever?
My analysis of the surrender of Landa is from the viewpoint of forgiveness. I presume the best of his new character, despite the horrible things that he did in the movie. I guess I’m an overly positive thinker.
Better than overly pessimistic, I guess.
Thank you so much for your comment!
Josh Lipovetsky.
I found the film simple and plain, misusing a controversial topic (holocaust) for filming a revenge fantasy. They portrait Hitler e.g. as a stupid motherf***r who likes watching his guys killing the bad guys (Jews and other) which is a very superficial view on his complex personality. This movie will probably satisfy revenge fantasies of young generation Jews who are not involved in holocaust but heard some stories from their relatives…
“One major final event that happens in the movie, is the surrender of Colonel Hans Landa. What causes this change of heart? Why didn’t he choose to save Hitler, and the rest of the Germans? He wanted to end the war, because he was through with the destruction.”
Possibly the stupidest paragraph I’ve ever read. Did you actually watch the movie?