It also applies to this article. I guess I tried too hard, to see the good in such a horrible and merciless villain.

Cheers,
Moose

Possibly the stupidest paragraph I’ve ever read. Did you actually watch the movie?

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.

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.

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.

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