I recently had to write a film review for my Comparative Politics class on the film Inglorious Basterds (2009), tell me what you guys think about the integrity of the paper if you have a chance to read some of it. Just drop me a comment below. James Small Comparative Politics Critical Film Analysis Inglorious Basterds Inglorious Basterds (2009) is set during the events of World War II, a time when the worlds super powers clashed in a bloodletting all-out war in the European arena. Germany steadily swept across Europe leaving death and destruction in their wake. Following the events of World War I, formerly known as “the war to end all wars”, sweeping changes in Germany had seen a figure of sheer authoritative power and crushing military might rise to power with a blood-lust for the eradication of an entire culture of people. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, which saw the end of World War I stood as a mark of embarrassment and oppression to the people of Germany. The treaty coerced Germany into disarmament as well as the burden of paying war reparations for the destruction wrought during the war. Yet, one of the most significant features of the treaty came with Article 231 of the treaty, later known as the “War Guilt” clause, forever pinning Germany with the guilt of World War I and a stigma it would carry for generations afterwards. This international embarrassment and lingering oppression from the West fueled Adolf Hitlers rise to power as dictator of Germany. In March of 1933, after “Nazis failed to capture an absolute majority of the votes, they used their domination of the parliament to enact legislation granting Hitler dictatorial powers. Democracy was replaced by the new authoritarian leader state of the Third Reich...Once entrenched in power, Hitler pursued extremist policies. Social and political groups that might challenge the government were destroyed, taken over by Nazi agents, or co-opted into accepting the Nazi regime” (Comparative Politics Today, 248). The world would then witness the rearmament of the German military in preparation for a second coming of world conflict, expressly violating the Treaty of Versailles, in direct challenge to the oppression withstood from Western forces since 1919. These are the harrowing conditions in which Inglorious Basterds (2009) takes place. Following the experiences of a Jewish French refugee named Shosanna Dreyfus, Shosanna would witness the ruthless, inhumane murder of her family at the hands of German Colonel Hans Landa, narrowly escaping a similar fate. In these opening moments of the film, Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) masterfully portrays the blind and disillusioned hatred harbored by German soldiers for individuals of the Jewish faith. This theme of blind, unrelenting hatred and discrimination is a theme that will be revisited many times by director Quentin Tarantino during the course of the film. After establishing the context of events, we are introduced to the Inglorious Basterds, a band of Nazi despising Jewish-Americans orchestrated by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) with the sole purpose of wrecking death and suffering on Nazi soldiers regardless of affiliation or rank. Interestingly, presented to us during a confrontation between the Basterds and their first ambush on German soldiers, many of the Jewish-Americans are depicted “scalping”, or removing the portion of the scalp from dead German soldiers claimed in the ambush. These scalps are paraded around and met with cheers and triumphs from the other members of the Inglorious Basterds whilst the surviving German captives not immediately killed in the initial crossfire watch in horror. The concept of scalping an individual is one that supersedes the mere act of killing another human being, it beckons at a much deeper act of hatred and resentment that pervades all previous motives of the Basterds, and one that will be further explored in depth during later analysis. The focus of the film leaves the Basterds after the scalping incident and once again fixates on the experience of Shosanna Dreyfus, the Jewish refugee. After witnessing her family murdered and coming of age, Shosanana came into possession of a movie theater that would become the central focus of the remainder of the film, being the stage of the final conflict. Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a German war hero (unbeknownst to Dreyfus) makes her acquaintance and then, seeing that she owns a theater in town, divulges to Dreyfus his intent to host a film in dedication of his war efforts at her local theater. Indeed, the event shocks Dreyfus to the core once Zoller concludes that many important figures of German high command would be in attendance of the event, including Hitler himself. Secretly seeing the event as her one chance to exact revenge on the culture responsible for senselessly murdering her family, Dreyfus agrees to host the event and then devises a plan to ensure the deaths of all Nazis in attendance on that night. The film culminates around the final conflict of the plot involving the viewing of Fredrick Zollers film at the theater where many important and high ranking members of German High Command are present including the notorious Adolf Hitler. Here one final theme of paramount importance is presented to the audience by Tarantino; German soldiers are seen cheering in triumph and joy as they watch a German soldier cut down many Allied troops in battle, the increasing casualty toll raising the German viewers enthusiasm and ecstasy. Moments later, Shosannas revenge plot is set into motion as the theater is lit on fire followed trapping everyone in attendance inside the raging theater. Members of the Inglorious Basterds are on hand in the theater boxes seen blindly shooting any and all Germans senselessly along with Adolf Hitler, bringing the conflict to an extremely violent and bloody ending as the theater explodes in a hail of fire. This theme of revenge, of which is very controversial and highly debated will be discussed in greater detail in the following analysis. As previously discussed, the portrayal of Colonel Hans Landa by Christoph Waltz as a discriminative, disillusioned hatemonger is presented early on with his dialogue discussing his bigoted comparison of Jewish people to that of rats. He attempts to justify his eradication of Jews by retorting that an individual knows not why he hates rats, but by his very being he in fact despises them, and as such greets them with open hostility, killing them on sight. Landa equates Jews with the same hatred, comparing them to rats, a vermin he takes liberty in seeking out and senselessly killing. The ill-logic presented in that train of thought only seeks to establish the overall disillusionment of the German military and its commanders. The sheer severity of xenophobia harbored by German soldiers and their leaders pervades all of their motives and actions during World War II; Jews being an unjustified scapegoat for the problems and woes plaguing Germany. This scene attempts to recapture and illustrate this xenophobia veiling German political culture during this era along with the authoritative and oppressive nature of the German regime, an environment we have seen in countless instances this semester with various case studies. Scalping was another theme introduced early on in Inglorious Basterds (2009) that raised many more issues within the film. The Jewish-Americans comprising the Basterds sought to exact revenge on the heinous crimes committed by German soldiers. Although meeting violence with more violence may not be a commendable endeavor in itself, the Basterds scalp their victims in a primitive and barbaric practice that points to a deeper resentment and hatred. The act of scalping a fallen foe shows a deeply rooted psychological pride in the slaying of the enemy, parading their gruesome trophies around as a symbol of pride and worth. In many primitive cultures, scalping was thought to prevent the souls of fallen victims from departing to the Heavens. “The Semites taught that the soul resided in the bodily fat, and among many the eating of animal fat was taboo. Head hunting was a method of capturing an enemys soul, as was scalping” (Early Evolution). The act of scalping superseded the senseless slaughter, it was a potential method to trap an individuals soul to suffer eternal unrest and damnation, a fate unworthy of being wished upon even the bitterest of enemies. Certainly, this act calls into question the intentions and character of the young Jewish soldiers and their endeavor, blurring the lines between the classic “good guy/bad guy” dichotomy. Finally, the final conflict in the theater where Germans are trapped inside and burned alive while being blindly gunned down by members of the Basterds furthers this shattering of the “good guy/bad guy” dichotomy. Tarantino frames the scene to divulge the laughing and triumphant German audience witnessing the senseless slaughter of Allied troops at almost the precise moment we as contemporary audience viewers witness the mass killing of all German viewers in attendance. Are we to laugh and cheer in triumph in the same fashion the German soldiers previously did just moments prior. One critic, Jim Emerson, seems to disregard this claim, “I dont see anything in the movie to support this claim, though I understand the impulse behind it. For one thing, the flaming finale deliberately recalls Carrie which does indeed punish the audience for sharing Carries uncontrollable rage. As she wreaks her vengeance, burning down her school, she kills the innocent along with the guilty...But to say that same dynamic is at work is, perhaps, wishful thinking for those who would prefer to feel at least a little bit guilty about the revenge scene, especially inasmuch as it deliberately recalls the ovens of the Holocaust” (Scanners). Certainly, although it is a subject of much discussion and controversy the question remains, if we as individuals meet violence with more violence does that justify our actions? This philosophical query may be applied to many case studies in comparative politics with varying degrees of success. Yet, it remains that this film challenges our moral fibers as human beings and burdens us with the indefinite question of the moral acceptance or justification of the acts we have witnessed during the course of the film. Inglorious Basterds (2009) was a very enjoyable film to watch and analyze. It created engaged and interesting commentary on the World War II environment and the relationships between many of the cultures of people at the time. It leaves a lasting impression on the viewer posing many indirect questions that may not easily be discerned or answered. The issues and conflicts raised may certainly hold a place of relevance in our contemporary international community during these turbulent times where we as individuals must ask ourselves if violence is a justification for the continual application for more violence, or if we as an international community can strive to work together to create constructive alternatives to our past precedents. Bibliography: Brinkman, Tom. Veterans Roundtable Historical Context.The Scott Hosier Veterans Roundtable. Veterans Roundtable, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Early Evolution of Religion: Paper 86, The Urantia Book.Early Evolution of Religion: Paper 86, The Urantia Book. TruthBook, n.d. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Emerson, Jim. Inglourious Basterds: Real or Fictitious, It Doesnt Matter... | Scanners | Roger Ebert.All Content. Scanner, Apr. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2014. Powell, G. Bingham., Russell J. Dalton, and Kaare Strom. Comparative Politics Today: A World View. Boston, MA: Longman, 2012. Print.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 02:37:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015