As a History Major and lover of history, especially World War II, one of my favorite periods, Inglorious Basterds is an interesting film. It is at once a historical film while also being completely and utterly fictional. It does not attempt to tell history as it happened. In fact, historical correctness seems to be quite far from the mind of director Quentin Tarantino. It may take place in a historical setting, World War II, but to call this movie as part of the historical genre might be a stretch. Now, very few historical movies are particularly accurate and those that do typically stand out for this reason. The other historical movie we watched this semester, Bonnie & Clyde, had a good deal of fictional elements to it. Enough so, in fact, that multiple people depicted in the film either sued, or complained loudly, the filmmakers or their families did (specifically Balance Barrow and the family of the Texas Ranger). But at least a film like that was rooted in history and attempted, somewhat, to tell a historical story. In Inglorious Basterds, we see the Holocaust, German soldiers, and that is about where the history ends. Even the American soldiers in the film are not even remotely based in history. And, of course, Adolf Hitler and his top Lieutenants were not murdered in 1944, ending the war. Now this is not to necessarily criticize Tarantino or the film itself. This is my second time seeing the movie and I knew what to expect. It is not my favorite and I am not a particular Tarantino fan myself, but it is clear to see his style evident throughout the movie. What we see, more than anything, is a unique way of telling a story. Tarantino has no problem reminding the audience that they are watching a film, with methods such as sudden cuts, flashbacks, and the use of letters on the screen to identify characters. What separates this movie from other historical films, more than anything, is that it is not trying to be accurate. It is uniquely aware of what it is, and that is a fictional movie, and combining that with the setting makes it a creation that is only really similar to other Tarantino films.
Jack,
This post is nicely focused on Quentin Tarantino’s uses (and misuses?) of history in Inglourious Basterds. I like that you draw comparisons to a film like Bonnie & Clyde, as it engages history in a different sort of way. Unlike Tarantino’s film–which, as you say, overtly positions itself as a work of fiction–Bonnie & Clyde purports to be a more authentic retelling of the characters’ lives and experiences. Interestingly, however, both films participate in revisionism; Tarantino’s is simply more obvious. I wonder what you think: which kind of film is more “irresponsible”? The kind that is obviously false and egregiously changes key facts or the kind that subtly changes facts while presenting itself as true?
I look forward to finishing our discussion this week,
MT
LikeLike