Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” (complete with unexplained directorial spelling caprice) is pure Cineplex whimsy where bloodthirsty Jewish soldiers destroy the Third Reich, gleefully giving their tormentors a taste of their own medicine.
Eli Roth who plays Sergeant Donny Donowitz, aka The Bear Jew, quickly embraced Tarantino’s wild re-imagining of history, which premiered at the Cannes International Film Festival May 20. As Hitler’s worst nightmare and baseball’s most brutal ambassador, Donowitz quite literally swings a bat to bash in the brains of the Nazis.
Like many of the actors chosen by Tarantino, Roth stands out in his role. But as one of the few Jews in the cast, Roth felt it was his mission to supply Tarantino with the perspective of his faith. He invited his friend the director to a Seder with his parents. On the menu was a briefing on Jewish persecution, from slavery in ancient Egypt to the Holocaust.
“I’ve been waiting for a project like this since I was a kid,” Roth said during a Festival interview with the Forward, at the Carlton Hotel. “Of course, it is a Jewish fantasy, but there is a real wishful feeling that we could go back in history and sacrifice ourselves to kill Nazis.”
“I like to think that if I had the opportunity to bring down the Third Reich, I would have done it,” German-born costar Diane Kruger chimed in.
Nary a textbook has been consulted for “Inglourious Basterds,” but the film teems with the movie references Tarantino loves. This is an unapologetic reinvention of history stretched to the limit of artistic license. Roth himself, perhaps best known as the director of the sadism-packed 2005 “Hostel,” which many have dubbed “torture porn,” can relate to this tendency to lean on artistic license. He joked during a press conference that, for him, “Inglourious Basterds” was “kosher porn, something I have been fantasizing about for a long time.”
The movie begins with Nazi colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) visiting the farm of a Frenchman suspected of hiding Jews. A subtle interrogation turns frightening, and Nazis are soon peppering the floorboards with bullets, killing all of a hidden family except a teenage girl, Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent). We later find her in Paris as the owner of a movie theater, under a fake identity, brewing her own scheme of retribution. Laurent, who visited Auschwitz before she was on board for the project, felt so close to her character that it was difficult for her “to see everyday these terrifying uniforms of Nazis on the set, even if inside the costume there was a great human being.”
Shosanna hatches a plan to burn Hitler and his henchmen alive at a movie premiere in her theater. The Basterds, a squad of Jewish soldiers led by the Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), aka Aldo the Apache, embark on their own payback for opening night, with the help of the German actress Bridget Von Hammersmark (Kruger). The Basterds had kept busy mounting guerrilla attacks, collecting Nazi scalps to instill fear among the Aryan rank and file and dent the Reich’s propaganda machine.
“Quentin asked me if Shosanna could ever forgive the Nazis,” Roth recalled. “I told him: ‘Are you kidding? We don’t forgive, we collect interest. We get more angry.’”
“There is a real human feeling of wishing to go back into the past,” he added. “Many Americans and people all over the world have fantasies to have had a role on September 11, and would have just grabbed the hijackers and beat them to death. This movie gives you this satisfaction. It’s about that emotion and also how cinema can give you this feeling.”
The movie conjures all kinds of political analogies, including the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Roth toes a diplomatic line, saying we all want peace in the region. Just exactly what is going on there is difficult for observers from as far away as the United States to determine, he says. What’s important is that the active quest for peace continues on all sides. In its own cinematic way, “Inglourious Basterds” can play a positive role.
“Art can raise discussion and keep the discussion alive,” the actor said.
For his part, Tarantino emphasized to reporters that he made a movie “for planet Earth” that is in no way a commentary on tensions anywhere. His overarching message is that cinema can save the world: “A Jewish revenge fantasy wouldn’t be necessarily the section where I would put it in a video store. There are aspects of that, but more than anything else, my characters change the outcome of the world.”
On a practical front, “Inglourious Basterds” served as the glitz-downsized festival’s one big bang. Big American Director in Quentin Tarantino. Big American Movie Star in Brad Pitt. And enough violence to provide catharsis for a gathering looking to escape the global economic straitjacket.
The movie received a mixed critical reception. Gutsy and imaginative, one side crowed. Pointless and stuffed with gore, the other shot back. Some critics wondered if a summer action movie had a right to reinvent history, especially something as sacred as the Holocaust.
A true account of Jews who fought back, “Defiance,” premiered last December with modest success. Tarantino’s intentionally over-the-top Spaghetti Western is expected to grab more attention when it is scheduled to open in August.
The movie almost never happened. Tarantino was about to publish the script because he couldn’t find the appropriate actor to portray Landa. When all seemed lost, he met with Waltz, who created one of the shrewdest, cruelest Nazis ever to chew up a screen. Landa is affable, polite, cultured, speaks several different languages and claims that he is the only one among the Nazis who can think like a Jew. He is proud of his prowess and of his nickname, “The Jew Hunter.” It’s nothing personal — he just kills Jews efficiently and enjoys it. Waltz won the festival’s best actor award, ensuring some official festival recognition for “Inglourious Basterds.”
“It’s the power of cinema that brings down the Third Reich,” Tarantino likes to repeat. And that’s perhaps the greatest reward for the “Inglourious Basterds” audience: the vicarious thrill of watching underdogs slaughter one of history’s most sinister enemies. No mercy. No remorse. And all from the comfort of a cushy seat with a cup holder.
Karine Cohen-Dicker is a French journalist who currently lives in New York.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Claims Conference Chief Knew of $57M Holocaust Fraud Probe Earlier 
Top Dog: Who Makes the Best Kosher Hot Dog in America?
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Why Do Jews Intermarry at a Much Higher Rate Than Others?
End Orthodox Monopoly on Jewish Marriage in Israel
You've successfully signed up!
Not that chronicles of Jewish resistance do not deserve more screen time, but Quentin Tarantino, a most astute and enthusiastic film buff, but something less than a student of history or of human experience, is not the man to delve into this film territory. chlock and gore are his area of achievement. ON this project he's obviously and completely out of his depth, and the misspelling of the title (and leaving it uncorrected) testifies to his megalomania and ignorance. T'is a pity. Nathan Shuster
"Defiance" was more or less a true account, if that isn't an oxymoron. It wasn't accurate history.
The title is not spelled the way it is out of "caprice" - it is a reference to the 1978 Italian film "Inglorious Bastards" which was an inspiration for this film (the premise is from the Italian film). Hence the "Spaghetti" in the genre title (despite the setting in WWII, not the West). If anyone looks to Mr. Tarantino's work for historical purposes, well, that would be about the same as looking to Jack Hill's films for the same purpose. Or Enzo Castellari's films - the man who made the original "Inglorious."
Tarantino created visual images to prove that the Nazis needed to defend and save civilization by eradicating Jewish bloodthirstiness and Jewish brutality. Tarantino's version of antisemitic Holocaust denial.
Tarantino is a sadistic jerk who just loves to show blood spilled on screen. What is this, "Kill Bill" with chicken fat added?
Tarantino went one giant step beyond Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by showing that the Nazis needed to save civilization from Jewish bloodthirstiness and Jewish brutality. This is not only denial of the Holocaust, it is justification of the Holocaust.
Better people should make films about Jews fighting back than not. We will never know how many Jews fought back because the Nazis and their buddies destroyed that info. My father's best friend was from Berlin. He went out with his 4 brothers and the people in his working class neighborhood with baseball bats to meet the Nazis during the putsch. G-d Bless him....he also found a way to escape from Auschwitz with his wife and mother-in-law...they were not Jews, but they went with him to Auschwitz because they loved him so. He was worth loving. He was the European equivalent of my tough Amerikaner father. My Dad went out to meet Nazi supporters who tried to make pogrom in his Dorchester, MA neighborhood. He met them with his Jewish and Italian friends and they beat the crap out of these Father Coughlin bozos. I love a strong Jewish man. Media will tell you that Jewish men are weak Woody Allen foolish children. No they are strong, tough muthas. As are Jewish women. I am proud of my Dad. I am proud of everyone who fought back...even if all they could do was fight back by bentshing in the Kamps. Baruch HaShem!!!!!!!!
"I am proud of my Dad. I am proud of everyone who fought back..."
I'm proud of the Holocaust, Stormfront, and the PLO.
Forward Reader " "Defiance" was more or less a true account, if that isn't an oxymoron. It wasn't accurate history."
The book on which the film was based was an accurate account of that resitence movement.
The film was exciting to watch but it was pure hollywood.
It is true that the German Army along with the some of the people living in Germany has a few bad apples within their midst, but on the whole they were the exception. The average German citizen was appalled by events as they unfolded. We should not blame every German alive for the actions of a few. The Jews themselves must share some of their own misfortune. They went to their deaths goading the Germans along the way. Rarely did they ever fight back, or defend themselves. We have the very few exceptions such as the Warsaw Ghetto, or Sobibor Concentrating Camp. These were few exceptions. Now we have a movie that depicts Jews with baseball bats. What nonsense, what folly. Right now in Israel the Jews refuse to fight against those who lob one rocket after another. This activity of non violence is a carry over from the World War. Baseball bats? Get real.
This movie shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
And sadly I think very few people protected by the 1st ammendment of the US constitution will get that idiom. I cannot imagine what the Germans who sat through the premier felt at the films 'climax'. In my opinion, based entirely upon the premier reviews it comes accross as a shush movie designed to trivialise every holocaust up to this present day because its just too difficult for some to come to terms with.
Just pay your entrance fee and watch the unreal gratuitous violence explode on your screen against the old enemy of Hollywood, the evil Nartzee.
The historical vandals have chiseled another notch on thier totem pole.
This movie shouts fire in a crowded theatre.
And sadly I think very few people protected by the 1st ammendment of the US constitution will get that idiom. I cannot imagine what the Germans who sat through the premier felt at the films 'climax'. In my opinion, based entirely upon the premier reviews it comes accross as a shush movie designed to trivialise every holocaust up to this present day because its just too difficult for some to come to terms with.
Just pay your entrance fee and watch the unreal gratuitous violence explode on your screen against the old enemy of Hollywood, the evil Nartzee.
The historical vandals have chiseled another notch on thier totem pole.
I just saw the movie, and I found it clever, surprising, entertaining, inspirational, and very, very brilliant cinema.
I suggest people who are confused about the purpose of the film to check out the wikipedia page, or another source of detailed information about the movie and its making.
It's a shame the "The Forwards" comments pages are filled with paranoid drivel. It would be a nice forum to discuss the film.
Georg Starkermann has no clue of what happened during the Holocaust, and neither does Tarantino. Both are falsifying the Holocaust. Tarantino does it to enrich himself while Starkermann does it for his own reasons.
This is the first time I see somebody writing that: while being killed, the Jews goaded the Nazis. Either Starkermann does not know the definition of "goading" or he purposely intends to insult the victims of the Holocaust. However, if Starkermann kows the definition of "goading" then he is just spewing antisemitic obscenities.
Judd Maltin - It is unfair that we exposed Mr. Maltin to our "paranoid drivel". As the most paranoid person on the forum, I personally apologize to Mr. Maltin. Please stay with us.
INGB & Definace - a new genreis born - Jew Porn - disgusting and racist really. oh well, as they are then.
I just saw "Inglourious Basterds" last night. If you can only see one Jewish revenge porn movie this year, see "Inglourious Basterds"!
Tarantino is not everyone's cup of tea, certainly, but to censure his movie because it does not adhere to ones self-imposed standards of reverence and accuracy misses the point. Tarantino never meant this movie to be a documentary about WWII and the Holocaust, rather he means to tell a story —or better— a fable about WWII and the Holocaust. If one objects to "Inglourious Basterds," they might as well object to everything from the Three Stooges' "I'll Never Heil Again" to Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." [BTW, is just me, or does Martin Wuttke look like Moe Howard?]
"Inglourious Basterds" works on multiple levels, even the blood and gore. Contrast the messy violence of the action in the movie with the sterile kills in (the film's) Goebbels' magnum opus, "Stolz der Nation." War is hell, and to borrow from Remarque, it is blood and excrement.
As much as anything, "Inglourious Basterds" is about the way film is used in war. It gives a fairly accurate depiction of the Nazi regime's obsession with film —altho' I don't know if Hitler ever actually salivated at a premiere— and asks "What if that obsession were turned as a weapon against the Nazis?" If only the war in Europe had ended that way, and five years earlier.
I wish I could see with my own eyes what Germans were doing to you in the past... Not in the fantasy world but in reality... killing you like filthy pigs... That would be really enjoyable!