Last night, the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS, the primary higher educational institution of the Conservative Movement) hosted a screening and panel on Inglourious Basterds. ( To catch up on how the candler blog feels about the film, you can check Sunrise Tippeconnie’s essay, Once Upon a Time in Violence Occupied Cinema, which was written for the film’s theatrical release.) Though an appearance by Quentin Tarantino was promised, the auteur was a no show claiming a sore throat (he gets the benefit of the doubt from me). Luckily, the producer of the film, Lawrence Bender, one of QT’s hebraic guides on the project, was in attendance to discuss the topic of “Jewish Persecution and the Fantasy of Revenge” alongside Dr. Amy Kalmanofsky, a bible and horror film scholar, and Rabbi Jack Moline, a pulpit Rabbi in Virginia whose Kol Nidre sermon about Inglourious Basterds sparked the institution’s interest in hosting such an event. Also, leading the panel was the school’s Chancellor, Arnold M. Eisen. Phew, now you have all the details, so how was it?
This was my third public screening of the film, though the first one on video. I have to say, if you missed this movie on film, you pretty much missed it. But that’s neither here nor there. This was an academic event so I gave some leeway on projected quality, though I will say I’ve seen much worse in other college auditoriums. Unsurprisingly, watching the film in a room full of mostly Jews, mind you months after the film had been unleashed on the masses, was barely different from watching the film in a room full of gentiles. Duh. A great fry cook once said “peoples is peoples”, of course, these are the chosen people watching their greatest enemies slaughtered on screen with great flair. There must be something different.
Well, let’s see, the audience wasn’t quite as “in” on the jokes that a room full of film critics would be in on. There are points in the film at which I was the only one laughing hysterically, usually violent scenes, but again that happened at my other screenings. While there were no great cheers as Hitler’s corpse gets the Swiss cheese treatment, which Mr. Bender says there were at the Israeli premiere, the audience did seem to get a kick out of some of the Nazi-killing gore. “Say aufedersein to your Nazi balls”, for example, got everyone quite excited. Just as I felt at the film’s release, this is an altogether human story, not one of Jewish redemption. But don’t tell the curators of this event, because they brought up some really interesting points about the film in the context of modern (and ancient) Jewish thought.
Dr. Kalmanofsky, no stranger to Judeo-Chrisitian-pop deconstruction, opened the discussion with some fascinating points about the concept of the revenge fantasy, positing that the Jewish bible, specifically the story of the exodus from Egypt, indulges the concept of violent revenge. Besides the ten plagues brought down against their aggressors, arguably deserved, the Israelites break out in song and dance after they cross the parted Sea of Reeds, which closes and drowns the entire Egyptian faction that was chasing them. This punishment goes well beyond the tit-for-tat measures of the plagues, and remorse is not really discussed until the Rabbinic era of Judaism several hundred years after the fact. In other words, while the modern Jew may be morally inquisitive and emotionally conflicted, in the bible, living out the revenge fantasy was something very real.
Rabbi Moline proffered that the Jewish people have become mired in thought for so long that the idea of physical redemption has been lost. The saying “two Jews, three opinions” comes to mind on this point. As the concept of Talmudic discourse has proliferated, especially in the wake of the Holocaust (Why did this happen to us? Is it our fault?), Jews may have lost the instinct of revenge, which Moline points out is in fact a basic human instinct. The film provides that for a generation of Jews who view the holocaust in a new light. Inglorious Basterds represents a voice for that generation.
Producer Lawrence Bender’s input, obviously the most cinematic in this crowd, was quite interesting. After telling a story about Tarantino calling actors by their characters’ names on set which resulted in more than a few awkward moments with Martin Wuttke, the actor who portrays Hitler in the film, he joined in on Rabbi Moline’s generational perspective of the film. Looking to a specific arc from the last twenty years, he mentioned that we go from Schindler’s List to Life Is Beautiful to Inglourious Basterds. Another way to put it is from drama to comedy to fantasy. This is a concept I could write volumes about, but I’ll spare you for now. Another interesting point Mr. Bender brought up is that in both the Israeli and German premieres of the film, the audiences felt a sense of personal redemption. In both cases, the press mentioned that only a non-German/non-Jew could pull off such a film. I’m not sure that there is any validity to this point, however the fact remains that a non-German/non-Jew did make this film.
All in all it was a fascinating evening. Kudos to JTS for putting together such a relevant program. I don’t really believe that there is all that much specifically Jewish about the film, but Rabbi Moline kept harping on the fact that the film has awoken something in the Jewish community. Not a call to arms, but a call to deconstructing the meaning of the inner vengeance of a people. Polemics have always been an important pillar of Rabbinic discourse, but visceral nature is something often pushed to the side in favor of academics. Perhaps, says the Rabbi, it is a time to finally confront that urge we have to murder Hitler, to root out our enemies. Not to indulge it, but to question it.
Hell, if one little film can bring out all that from the leaders of one of the world’s major religions, it must be doing something right. What say you, readers? Fill up the comments with your thoughts on the matter.
Related posts:
Tarantino’s own brand of obsessive cinephilia is obviously not the only, be-all-end-all version of movie love that exists in our world: Tarantino’s version is almost a self-encapsulated end-unto-itself; whereas for billions of other people, cinema is not only edifying entertainment, transcendent art, or a convenient way to just kill some time, but also a way of learning about and becoming engaged with so many other things outside of cinema as well. I get the feeling sometimes watching his movies that to Tarantino, movies are more important than life itself, and should be for all of us too. To quote the line from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: “A man with priorities so far out of whack doesn’t deserve to own such a fine automobile.”
Anon, you make a lot of sense.
I am a cinephile. I have no filter when it comes to knowing what’s good and marketable in films. I’m a terrible critic and I tend to really love Tarantino movies. I don’t really care about the redeeming quality, only the ride the film takes me on.
If more people in Hollywood had the POV of the audience instead of the cinephile, we’d see a lot less crap on the screen. Movie makers would love to know what was going to work because they’d save a lot of cash.
I’m a black American non-Jew and I’m almost ashamed at the schadenfreude I felt at seeing Hitler made into “swiss cheese”. The moment Shoshanna appeared on that screen and the moments after were thrilling. I actually stood up and cheered.
Although there were conversations between SS officers in the film that dealt with the Nazi view of African inferiority, I wasn’t concerned with that. Jesse Owens had kicked Germany’s arse and had proven Hitler a fool so there was that old familiar white jealousy of black success which actually made the Germans lose face and look weak and resigned that they had been “beaten” by an American black man. I was more concerned about the Jews getting their revenge. That’s the only part I was really emotionally invested in as most people were. I couldn’t figure out if Tarantino was trying to pull me in with the addictional black racism or simply illustrate the extent of Nazi madness but it almost seemed unnecessary to remind us so many times how much Nazis hated Africans. Ok, I get it, they hate everyone. Can we get to the part where the Jews kick ass now?
There wasn’t ENOUGH revenge for me. I was under the impression that the Inglorious Basterds would play more of a role and we would get to see more Nazis fall by their hands.
i am a jew, albeit an atheist one… being the child of hungarian concentration survivors, both of whom were the sole survivors of large families, let us say, i have found it rather difficult to harbour fantasies of supreme beings, benevolent or otherwise.
I have watched, if not all, quite a few of mr. tarantino’s films, some of which i enjoyed very much, a few of which i did not. par for the course, auteur film-makers such as him are, in my mind, allowed to take risks i may not appreciate.
as far as this film in question… yah, i found myself not to be able to be objective… why? exactly for the reasons stated… i thoroughly enjoyed… the historical revision, yes indeedy, i did. not only that, but i wanted to watch it alone, so i did… since most of my friends are non-jews i did not wish for a discussion… instead, having read the many reviews of the film and thus being aware of the plot, i wanted to allow myself to fully be immersed in the, yes, revenge fantasy. and what a splendid fantasy is was, hah. i laughed, i cheered, i pumped my fist in the air. all alone, in front of my monitor, watching it online.
This movie was an ugly perpetuation of the holocaust industry. Quentin’s “apology” for using the word nigger in his previous movies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry
NEVER apologize QT it reveals your true intentions. Let the art speak for itself.
I did not watch the film because I don’t watch holocaust films anymore. They give me nightmares. I also don’t watch violent films. Though I find it odd that there is no revenge seeking amongst this culture. And please don’t think me anti-semetic for having an opinion and an observation. I think all I need to say here is one word Israel. Somehow I don’t think the Palestinians would share in this view of non-revenge seeking.
Moral beings should have shunned this film for its dehumanizing glorification of violence and murder. I could care less about the directing, cinematography or any other aspect of Hollywood ingenuity. This film was disgraceful. Movies like Saving Private Ryan have real world violence and bloodshed without condoning it. This film falls short of anything I would care to share with anyone let along scholars of any faith.
Tarantino is all style, no substance. His films vehemently defend a monstrous immaturity that demeans and dilutes everything else about the work.
Does the sight of Jewish American soldiers brutalizing and scalping Germans make anyone feel better about themselves? The Nazis were stopped, persecuted and executed by the Allies–do we have to indulge in their ugly behavior to feel good about ourselves?
And with American soldiers in two wars now, do we really need this characterization of our troops playing all around the world?
Tarantino is an overrated teenager with a fan club. He will never develop as artist until he pushes himself to grow up and think.
yes. alot better.
ah yes… dang, i knew i shouldn’t have posted…
as with any subject with the word “jew” in it, no matter what the actual subject, it shall soon devolve into an “israel-palestinian” extravaganza of accusations (“holocaust industry” optional).
and then arrives the Let Us Take Fiction Literally and Weep Thereupon. otherwise known as Violence is Just. So. Damn. Dirty… soap brigade and then
no more discussion possible and utter boredom ensues.
tarantino makes movies to entertain, entertaining fantasies, yes, and no matter how (oh gawd, i ain’t gonna use p p p ol… aargh, stop! incorrr rrr… STOP!
okay now.
human beings *need* to be able to occasionally escape all too dire realities so wondrously abounding allovertheplace and
yes. iamanamericanar… oh shit, someone already said that… no matter… here it goes, anyways:
i feel no guilt.
I loved the movie and with all of the tripe that came out this year, Transformers anyone? It was good to see someone with some artistic vision put something on the screen. It was also the most fun I had at the movies this year. I eagerly await seeing Tarantino finally get an Oscar.
Jewish revenge porn, put simply.
Tarantino has gone from being an auteur, an original film-maker who earned his chops, to a film-maker known for his “tributes” to many styles. He has stated that he doesn’t want to keep making films because old film-makers are garbage and I would suggest that he take himself out with the trash. No longer a clever homage, this was as shallow and one dimensional as any propaganda film.
There is no redemption. Only revenge, and like all porn, it leaves one feeling empty and yearning for contact and intimacy. There was no humanity in any of the characters, no depth, no real feeling. So where’s the appeal? Junk food has its appeal too, but one with discerning tastes generally chooses to pass on the lack of nourishment.
When I picked up the video at Blockbusters the young guy who checked my movies out raved about how amazing “Basterds” was and I couldn’t help but think about a young Tarantino working in the video store, watching the movies that he would later rip off. I guess his latest is aimed directly at his younger self. Grow up, man.
i can’t believe the forum didn’t address what was a disturbing part of this film – a portrayal of jewish blood-lust for killing nazi’s.
seeking vengeance in trademark QT style doesn’t really lend itself to thoughtful reflection on revenge because the characters are caricatures (all due respect to QT caricatures, e.g. Kill Bill). several times during the movie I thought QT might be pandering.
the problem with a bloodlust vengeance, no matter how righteous the cause, is that it doesn’t address the root evil. plus the overall plot of Basters pivots on an actual historic event which deserves our true understanding in order to never repeat it.
that said, i recognize that QT is a filmmaker of commercial success and getting to the root of things doesn’t always sell. I guess I’d like to know what it means for us as people that so many took pleasure is this film.
The #1 ranked rabbi in conservative Judiasm. Dr. Rabbi Martin Samuel Cohen offers all the insight one needs to accurately judge the movie, its context and its overlieing meaning to the new generation of Jews.
http://theruminativerabbi.blogspot.com/search?q=inglourious+basterds
In response to max @ No. 10: Thank you very much for the link to Rabbi Cohen’s interesting column. I plan to buy the book of which he writes the next time I’m in a bookstore. How much more masterful a work Tarantino would have made had he filmed a movie version of THAT book, rather than indulged his juvenile bloodlust revenge fantasies with “Inglourious.” True, his filmmaking is impressive, but when you think about the message at its core, you are left wanting something much more substantial than violent revenge, an all-too-human impulse which is not noble.
Whoops! I meant max @ 12.