Professor David Peimer
Inglorious Basterds: The Revenge Fantasy
Professor David Peimer - Inglorious Basterds: The Revenge Fantasy
- Okay, so thank you so much again, Lauren. And hi everybody, I hope everyone is well, wherever we are. We’re going to dive straight into Mr. Tarantino’s quite incredible and remarkable, disturbing, perhaps challenging, perhaps tricky, perhaps certainly controversial, and perhaps boring, perhaps very you know, very much to be dismissed as a serious film or as an interesting film. The entire range of critical response that this movie has generated is quite incredible. And I want to begin in a moment, but first, just to outline the overall area in which I want to have a look at today. And because I do think this film, not only in terms of the entertaining value or the cinematic values, if you like, and the visual power of the film, but the major ideas that it throws out. Which have led to such a mixed response from critics, from people all over the world. Whatever race or nationality. And the fundamental debate, which we all know, but it comes out again and again, it’s extraordinary, over time with so many pieces of art and culture or literature. In this case, film. Which is the debate between historical accuracy and how to show, if you like, stories or ideas which may have emerged from some historical reality. But then are completely transformed into fictional mythology. Or fictional, if you like, transgression or imagination based on that historical fact. And then of course, the whole notion of the fantasy film. The adventure, the war movie, “The Guns of Navarone”, “The Dirty Dozen” and others, the fantasy movie of war, of that genre.
Of course fantasy can be of any aspect of history. Was there ever a Robin Hood? And I’m certainly not equating any of the content here to Robin Hood. I’m merely talking about the notion of fantasy creation in film and in fiction. Was there ever a King Arthur? And so many other ideas that come from fantasy. And then of course the notion of revenge, which was so popular in Shakespeare’s time, in the Greeks and in throughout literature. Not only in the English speaking world, but all over, the idea of revenge, of vengeance. As Aristotle put it, the character, or the people, who undergo undeserved misfortune, and where do we locate their desire for revenge or vengeance, or forgiveness? And so the debate goes on. So this debate, the series of debates that this movie provokes is to me, what is the fascinating context for why look at Tarantino’s film. Obviously we’re going to look at it in relation to specifically Jewish history, the Holocaust, et cetera. But it’s a revenge fantasy in a nutshell. But it’s what these debates bring up and the role of history. Does it denigrate the memory of such absolute evil and horror? Does it show the Nazis as evil but charming? Does it show the Iron Heart that even Hitler called Heydrich? Does it show that cold, indifferent, killing machine of an iron heart to be charming, even if it’s evil? Does it show a cartoon version of something to do with history? To quote the brilliant title of one of his previous movies, which I’m sure everybody has seen and knows, does it create in effect, pulp fiction for us? Is it pulp, and is it fiction? Is it just a cartoon portrayal of a revenge fantasy? Is it satire? How do we look at this conundrum, which is endlessly fascinating for me, in interaction between art history and fantasy, or in the contemporary academic jargon, has become known as the uncanny, which is another word for fantasy.
Going to stick to fantasy. “Lawrence of Arabia”, movies about Churchill, and we can go on and on. We can go all the way back to Homer’s “Odyssey”. Is that historical? Is it accurate? Is it fictional? Does it matter? Doesn’t it? The interpretation of the author and what we call the authorial voice, the interpretation of the author, in this case, the writer and director, and the response by the audience, you know, us as film spectators. What happens in that imaginative connection between us? Is Tarantino far more fascinated with a celebration of his filmic brilliance, his visual and visceral brilliance, as in the way he incorporates film techniques and ways of just creating story visually in film with editing, the shots, the angles, visual motifs, images, and so on. He’s a master of it. So what happens to the content? What happens to the notion of three-dimensional character that we want to emotionally identify with when we have such almost cartoonish, semi-satirical characters portrayed for us? The fact that he loves film so much, we all know that he worked in video stores and others. And that he loves and is constantly referencing other films in his own movies. “Pulp Fiction” is obvious and so many others. There is a self-referential notion of the film director as auteur. To constantly quote film itself in the making of a new film. And then of course, the last question of a lot of these questions is that ultimately the final, the second to final great scene, which is set in a movie theatre.
Where Shosanna takes revenge and the burning of the image and all the Nazi leadership and all the Nazi big shots are trapped inside and are going to burn to death and be shot. It happens in a movie theatre. Which is ironic, metaphorical, and not by chance. Tarantino battled for a long time, for years actually, to try and come up with the ending to the film. until he hits on it to set it in the movie theatre. That final conclusion. Could he push the idea so far into absurdity and ridiculousness, and yet would it be satirical? Would it be in a sense, still have a thread of believability or not? It’s set in a film theatre. So of course it reverberates back on us. The irony, the entire piece is a piece of fiction in film. Entertainment, of course, being the ultimate aim. Or one of the big aims, not only the content or the message. I’ve always regarded Tarantino as one of the most brilliant filmmakers of the last number of decades. I think “Pulp Fiction” is a remarkable piece, not only in academic jargon of postmodernism, which I don’t want to get into now, but as a visionary. And I really use that word thoughtfully, in terms of trying to just take the story of filmmaking itself one little step further. That’s all. In in way for me, Orson Welles, I mean, I’m not putting him quite there with Orson Welles, or Kubrick and others, but he has such a signature vision. A way of showing film and the possibilities of what film can achieve. And there’s always the ironic twist. There’s always a disturbing, but an ironic playfulness inside. And being a lover of art, of theatre obviously, and film and art and music and so on. You know, for me, individuals who can push the genre, the medium, even a few steps further, or at least challenge the received legacy. In his case of film, and at least make it more interesting. To at minimum, give us these series of questions and debates.
I find far more rewarding and valuable than something which we watch, we come out, we have a cup of coffee, we go home and we forget about it. It’s in the challenge, it’s in the very dynamic of the questions for me, that the artistry lies. So Tarantino, and just to remind us all very briefly, the story of course, as I’m sure you know, is the Brad Pitt character gets together a group of Jewish soldiers. And the aim is to go into Nazi Germany and kill as many Nazis as possible in the most brutal way. And cut the swastika image on the forehead of all the Nazis they’ve killed. And in that way, set up fear amongst the German army. It gets all the way to Hitler, eventually. If not fear, then rage and anger, and turn the tables completely. And then the story follows that and the SS colonel, the Colonel Landa character, and he is literally hunting Jews to slaughter. And we know some of the scenes that happen there and then there are various other characters that come in and out of the film. And then finally at the end, the revenge, the great revenge scene, which I will show little bit later today. So I want to start with showing the opening scene with, and of course it’s Brad Pitt. And we can’t ignore the fact that it’s Brad Pitt playing it. And we’ve got to watch it with a bit of an ironic twist, knowing the iconic status of the movie star and the movie star image playing this. So if we could show the first clip, please.
CLIP BEGINS
My name is Lieutenant Aldo Raine, and I’m putting together a special team and I need me eight soldiers. Eight Jewish-American soldiers. Now, you all might have heard rumours about the armada happening soon. Well, we’ll leaving a little earlier. We’re going to be dropped into France, dressed as civilians. And once we’re in enemy territory, as a bushwackin’, guerrilla army, we’re going to be doin’ one thing, and one thing only. Killin’ Nazis. Now, I don’t know about you all, but I sure as hell didn’t come down from the goddamn Smoky Mountains, cross five thousand miles of water, fight my way through half of Sicily, and then jump out of a fuckin’ air-o-plane to teach the Nazis lessons in humanity. Nazi ain’t got no humanity. They’re the foot soldiers of a Jew-hatin’, mass-murderin’ maniac, and they need to be destroyed. That’s why any and every son-of-a-bitch we find wearin’ a Nazi uniform, they’re going to die. Now, I’m the direct descendant of the mountain man, Jim Bridger. That means I got a little Indian in me. And our battle plan will be that of an Apache resistance. We will be cruel to the Germans. And through our cruelty, they will know who we are. And they will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disembowelled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us. And the German won’t be able to help themselves but imagine the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, and our boot heels, and the edge of our knives. And the German will be sickened by us, and the German will talk about us, and the German will fear us. And when the German closes their eyes at night and they’re tortured by the air subconscious for the evil they have done, it will be with thoughts of us that they are tortured with. Sound good?
[All] Yes, sir!
That’s what I like to hear. But I got a word of warning for all you would-be-warriors. When you join my command, you take on debit. A debit you owe me, personally. Every man under my command owes me 100 Nazi scalps. And I want my scalps. And all you all will get me 100 Nazi scalps, taken from the heads of one hundred dead Nazis. Or you will die trying.
CLIP ENDS
- Okay, thanks Lauren. Okay, thank you. So for me, it’s actually a superbly, fascinatingly, and superbly acted scene. Because he’s bordering on the edge of cartoon and satire. The way of saying the word, Nazi, in whatever accent. In portraying the village kid, the tough farm boy coming into the army. Getting the Jewish soldiers together, revenge and killing. Echoes of “The Dirty Dozen”, I think probably mostly, which has been shown endlessly year after year, I think on most TV channels throughout the world. “The Guns of Navarone” a little bit, and a couple of other of these revenge, sort of small mission, a bunch of guys who parachuted into Nazi Germany to kill or destroy, and do huge things way beyond their own small numbers. The commando idea. Which began interestingly in South Africa, where Churchill being part of the Anglo-Boer War, or writing about it as a journalist, he saw the Afrikaners were using themselves as commandos. And instituted that right at the beginning of his premiership. That there’d be these special commando units, et cetera. And so this is taken up by what was then known as the OSS in America. So anyway, coming back to the film, it’s fascinating that for me, the way he uses that camera, sometimes he goes closer to Brad Pitt’s face and the look in the eyes is determination. Steel. And we can believe it for a few seconds, and then we, cold water over our head, and we think, and we almost smile at the satirical, cartoonish portrayal of a character. And the very idea and the image, the very premise of the film. It’s that tension as a spectator of being pulled right in, sucked in, as we’re believing it, we’re pulled back. Of course, this is fantasy. And that’s what makes, I think, an amazing filmmaker, or an artist. That push-pull of theatrical tension. Okay. So, that’s the premise of the film.
And then he gets the Jewish guys together and takes them, they parachute off into Nazi Germany and start to kill as many Germans as they find wherever. And they use baseball bats. Aldo, the Brad Pitt character, has his big thick knife to cut the swastika image into the forehead. And they kill with baseball bats, and they intentionally kill in gruesome ways, not just, I suppose, not just bullets and guns. Okay, now this is partly based, and the question is, who were the real Inglourious Basterds? And there was a group, there were a couple of groups, who were formed by the British and the Americans. And sent in as commando units, as I’m sure a lot of people know, to attack, to destroy bridges, railways, communications, to kill various people here and there. You know, during the war, these units were formed, and I want to show one short clip of one unit. About an, I think an extraordinary human being. Who is a real person, Frederick Mayer. If we could show the second clip.
CLIP BEGINS
[Patrick] This is the true story behind “Inglourious Basterds”. The motley crew of men from all walks of life. German refugees, a Luftwaffe pilot, a butcher, one guy said it perfectly, “this is the craziest group of men I’ve ever been with.”
[Frederick] We were dedicated to killing Nazis and doing it behind enemy lines. That’s what we were trained for, and that’s what we volunteered for.
[Soldier] Go! Go!
[Patrick] Picture going off a sheer cliff, that’s all ice, with no brakes, on a sled, and then hoping you make it. And that’s exactly what that was like.
[Narrator] The messages begin to flow, filled with critical intelligence. Training exercises, troop movement, train schedules, bomb construction.
That’s how we destroyed 26 trains.
[Narrator] By now, Fred has established an extensive network of informants and contacts. His ambitions grow larger. He wants to organise and arm the local partisans to take Innsbruck from Hofer and the Nazis.
[Frederick] Eva went to the door, I knew something was wrong.
There was no escape, there was no second door.
You don’t argue with six sub-machine guns.
Where is the truck?
[Frederick] “Where is your radio operator?” As long as I don’t break, they’ll keep me alive. And I’m not going to break because I’m not going to give anybody away.
CLIP ENDS
- Thanks, if we could hold it there. So this is just a, that was a short clip about an extraordinary person, Frederick Mayer. Born in 1921 in Freiberg, and he died in 2016 in Charles Town, America. German-born Jewish and he became an American spy for the OSS at the time, and an agent. What did he do? He parachuted, he did a lot of these things, Frederick. And he had his wireless operator, he had other soldiers with him, It was basically a Jewish unit. And they not only blew up bridges and killed some of the Germans, blew up installations, military and otherwise. But they, in a sense, he then connected with the local partisans in the area and developed and built an internal resistance unit. Now this is before D-Day, of course. And having emigrated with their families just before the war and managed to get out, they could speak German, et cetera. And obviously knew a lot about Germany or Austria. His life is fascinating and I think so powerful. And he ended up, by the way, negotiating the surrender of Innsbruck with the German major who controlled the army of Innsbruck at the time. A not insignificant achievement at all. What happens is that his story begins where his father had a distinguished military career in the first World war, and he thought that would protect his family. But interestingly, Fred’s mother was the one who saw what was coming and she insisted. And I won’t to go into more detail now, but insisted the family leave.
They immigrate to America in 1938, they managed to just get out. And Fred Meyers did twenty different jobs in New York City and elsewhere. And interestingly, a little incident, but an important one in an individual’s life. And early in his life, he’s young. One of the bosses in New York, the places that he worked in, made a couple of anti-Semitic comments. Fred went straight up to him, punched the living hell out of him, kicked him and resigned his job on the spot. And he had done that previously in Germany. And I think he had done that in a school context, in a more bully context, if you like. Jumping forward, in one of the last attacks that they did, he was arrested by the Gestapo and tortured horrifically. Horrific torture. Because they were convinced, obviously he was going to be a spy, and trying to get as much information. And they thought he must be an important spy to have been to have been knowledgeable of a lot of things about Germany or about Austria and America, et cetera. They were determined to get knowledge. As they’re interrogating and and torturing him terribly. They obviously see he’s circumcised. And they’re two interrogators. And the one says, well, he’s obviously Jewish, kill him immediately. And the other one, who is the superior, says no. He can’t be Jewish because the American OSS would never send a Jew as a spy. They’d never be clever enough, good enough. That’s apparently true that that happened. So his life is partly, he’s enabled to live a little bit longer, he’s tortured more. Then that second one is also a little bit scared that they might lose the war, the Germans. You know, obviously Stalingrad has happened and many other things, the Normandy landings, et cetera. So what happens is they were determined to get him to name names and others and so on. Eventually they stop torturing him and they start to treat him with respect. They start to flatter, they start to take him out for wonderful food and all sorts of things.
And they’re convinced that the Americans would never send a Jew as a spy, let alone a big shot spy. The echoes of that kind of way of thinking are extraordinary in many ways as we can know. So, and then what happened afterwards, you know, some of the many things, the one big event that he did was he negotiated the surrender of Innsbruck and the army, the German army. So the Americans didn’t have to fight for it to take the town. He convinces the major to give up, there’s no point fighting, et cetera. And many other things. So these are just one example of many stories that I’m sure many others know as well. Tarantino has done research. Tarantino has explored, investigated. We know about the story of Abba Kovner, the revenge motif and others, which I’ll come to. Okay. If we can show please, Lauren, the next clip. This is the interrogation of the Brad Pitt, the other two of the characters by the German colonel.
CLIP BEGINS
Tell me Aldo, if I were sitting where you are sitting, would you show me mercy?
Nope.
What is that English expression about shoes and feet?
Looks like the shoe’s on the other foot. Yeah, I was just thinking that.
So you’re Aldo the Apache.
So you’re the Jew Hunter.
Detective, a damn good detective. Finding people is my specialty. So naturally I worked for the Nazis finding people. And yes, some of them were Jews. But “Jew Hunter?” Just the name that stuck.
Well, you do have to admit it is catchy.
Do you control the nicknames your enemies bestow on you? Aldo the Apache and the Little Man?
What do you mean, the Little Man?
German’s nickname for you.
The German’s nickname for me is the Little Man?
And as if to make my point, I’m a little surprised how tall you are in real life. I mean, you’re a little fellow. But not circus-midget little, as your reputation would suggest.
Where’s my men? Where’s Bridget von Hammersmark?
Well, let’s just say she got what she deserved. And when you purchase friends like Bridget von Hammersmark, you get what you pay for. Now as far as your paesanos, Sergeant Donowitz and Private Omar–
How do you know our names?
Lieutenant Aldo, if you don’t think I wouldn’t interrogate every single one of your swastika-marked survivors… We simply aren’t operating on the level of mutual respect I assumed.
No, I guess not.
Now, back to the whereabouts of your two Italian saboteurs. At this moment, both Omar and Donowitz should be sitting in the very seats we left them in. 0023, double 0024, if my memory serves. Explosives, still around their ankles, still ready to explode. And your mission, some would call it a terrorist plot, as of this moment is still a go.
That’s a pretty exciting story. What’s next, Eliza on the ice?
However, all I have to do is pick up that phone right there, inform the cinema, and your plans kaput.
If they’re still there, and if they’re still alive, and that’s one big if, there aint no way you going to take them boys without settin’ off them bombs.
I have no doubt, and yes, some Germans will die, and yes, it will ruin the evening, and yes, Goebbels will be very very very mad at you for what you’ve done to his big night. But you won’t get Hitler, you won’t get Goebbels, you won’t get Goering and you won’t get Boormann. And you need all four to end the war. But if I don’t pick up this phone right here, you may very well get all four. And if you get all four, you end the war tonight. So, gentlemen, let’s discuss the prospect of ending the war tonight. So the way I see it, since Hitler’s death, or possible rescue, rests solely on my reaction. If I do nothing, it’s as if I’m causing his death, even more than yourselves. Wouldn’t you agree?
I guess so.
How about you, Utivich?
I guess so too.
Gentlemen, I have no intention of killing Hitler, and killing Goebbels, and killing Goering, and killing Boormann, not to mention winning the war single-handedly for the Allies, only later to find myself standing before a Jewish tribunal. If you want to win the war tonight, we have to make a deal.
What kind of deal?
The kind you wouldn’t have the authority to make. However, I’m sure this mission of yours has a commanding officer, a general. I’m betting, for OSS would be my guess. Ooh. That’s a bingo. Is that the way you say it, that’s a bingo?
You just say bingo.
Bingo! How fun. But I digress. Where were we? Yeah, make a deal. Over there is a very capable two-way radio. And sitting behind it is a more than capable radio operator named Herrman. Get me somebody on the other end of that radio with the power of the pen to authorise my, let’s call it, the terms of my conditional surrender. If that tastes better going down.
You know, where I’m from…
Yeah, where is that exactly?
Maynardville, Tennessee. I’ve done my share bootleggin’. Up there, if you engage in what the federal government calls illegal activity, but what we call just a man trying to make a living for his family selling a little moonshine liquor, it behoves oneself to keep his wits. Long story short, we hear a story too good to be true, it ain’t.
Sitting in your chair, I would probably say the same thing. And 999.999 times out of a million, you would be correct. But in the pages of history, every once in a while fate reaches out and extends its hand.
CLIP ENDS
- If we can hold it there, please, Lauren. Thank you. So what for me is fascinating here again, and I’m purposely not showing some of the more spectacular scenes. It’s again that very fine thread to a reality. And then the rest we know is 99.9% fantasy. But there is a fine thread to reality. And again, it’s that artistic, that tension between the two. We know that so much is fantasy, but there is a tiny bit of reality. And we go along when that tension is created artistically in a play, in a film. I think it’s got extraordinary power. And Tarantino is smart enough to know this and to incorporate this in the writing, of course, and then to get it out of the actors. And that for me is what lifts this movie. And it’s what makes the film. It is a revenge fantasy. It is cartoon, it is part satire. It is ridiculous, it’s nonsense. It makes so much a joke of so many profoundly horrific and serious things. But there is an element of something and we cannot deny for a second, I think. That such deep human desire for revenge. This movie has been called every Jewish teenager’s revenge movie. Revenge movie for a Jewish boy, a bar mitzvah boy. And of course it is, on the one hand. In a similar way, “The Dirty Dozen” and I’ve mentioned “The Guns of Navarone” you know, these other kind of boys’ own movies. A bunch of young guys train, go out there, small group, a dozen of them. And kill, destroy, achieve, you know, have a huge achievement in a war context. The commando idea pushed to the extreme. Developing on the cowboy idea and many others of course. But look in that acting of Christoph Waltz. And when you’re talking about the little moment of “bingo”, is an amazing moment for a writer to do. To throw that in, that’s a risk. ‘Cause that could look absolutely ridiculous in this Nazi, this evil character. You know, doing that kind of thing is completely ridiculous, and obviously would never happen. It’s purely, it’s a complete filmic invention. It’s fantasy, it’s nonsense. There’s no connection to anything historical. So, and yet it’s thrown in all the extra medals, and even the slight camp, bit of acting, et cetera. The moments which throw us back into, “no, this is nonsense” and then throw us back.
And that’s what he’s been doing, I think all the way from “Pulp Fiction” all the way through. As an artist, as a filmmaker. Roger Ebert, the interesting American film critic, who I find has got really insightful comments often, he said that the film is a big, bold, audacious war movie. Which will annoy some, and startle others, and bore others. For once the bastard gets what’s coming to them and we root for them. The title is a rip-off from the 1978 Hollywood B-movie. It’s got a bit of the Ennio Morricone western music, the use of the movie theatre and so on. The Basterds are savage fighters dropped behind Nazi lines. He goes on, “The Dirty Dozen”, and you’ve got three iconic characters. The hero, the Nazi, and the girl. Three archetypal characters in a way that he’s using here. And he puts it interestingly, he says the characters are larger than life. They are approaching satire in its intensity, but not quite going as far as satire. How does he do it, Mr. Tarantino? And I think that Roger Ebert captures a lot of this exact question that we are looking at today. We look at, we all remember that opening image of when the Christoph Waltz character goes to the farmhouse, the French farm, and underneath the floorboard, the Jewish family are hiding. And they are purposely shown by the camera as rats. We have the echoes of that image being used in many German films of the times and before. Her name is Shosanna Dreyfus, the surname.
He’s intentionally, Tarantino, using so many references to Jewish, to cultural, to American, to Western history, not only film. Shosanna is shown in that very early scene when Christoph Waltz is there and he has milk and he talks to the French farm owner. You know, we get this cold chilling effect, which is almost cliche in terms of portrayal of the Nazi torturer and killer. But then the camera slides, it slides beneath the cracks of the floor. And we get glimpses of the cellar where the Jewish family are hiding. And the absolute horror hits us in the face like a punch in the gut. And it’s the way he uses that camera to just slide in. And then it pulls back and we go back. And suddenly this charming, evil character that we see here in this semi-interrogation scene with Brad Pitt’s character, a whole different perception comes into us. And it’s between the horror and the fantasy that the emotional impact lies for me with Tarantino. And that’s power. It resists categorization. Yes, like “Pulp Fiction”, it may be seen as pulp, it may be seen as fiction. It’s entertaining, it’s exaggeration. It’s as finally as Roger Ebert said, people will either say it’s the best film of the year or the worst film of the year. But the ability to provoke such a mixed or controversial response is something that I would celebrate, personally. I think it’s doing part of its job as a work of art. It’s been called, the movie has also been called a disappointing dud. It’s been called, it’s been amputated, a plunkingly conventional narrative. Brad Pitt gives the most wooden and charmless performance of his life. He speaks as if the lower half of his face is set in concrete and never moves his jaw.
The film has been called kosher porn, an over the top revenge fantasy for Jewish people. These are critics all over the world that have said this. To look at critics, some of whom are Jewish, but others aren’t, and their response. Hans Landa, the Christoph Waltz character is obviously charming and funny and slightly a feat. And he delights in his grasp of other cultures. He speaks Italian, he speaks French, he speaks obviously German, you know, “This is bingo.” He is got American, American-isms. It it has a destabilising effect on an audience. This kind of writing. There is a humour, but we know underneath the humour is absolute terror and horror. And it’s when Tarantino uses that camera in a way I described earlier, going under the floorboards of the farmhouse. When the camera goes slowly into Waltz’s face, here he is negotiating with Brad Pitt and we see the funny starts to drop, something terrifying is revealed. Athol Fugard interestingly used to say, about anti-apartheid theatre, get them to laugh for two-thirds of the play and then punch them and they’ll stop laughing. And they will realise what’s really going on. I’m paraphrasing Fugard. For me, one of the really brilliant playwrights, obviously to come out of South Africa.
When this was first shown in Cannes, the movie’s climax split the critics. Some were offended, some were insulted, some angry, some upset, some regarded as brilliant. And I think the clue is in the very opening to the film. When you see the title card sequence, which simply states “Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France.” Now that’s an extraordinary, provocative, imaginative, disturbing, unsettling way of beginning a film. “Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France.” You’re turning this into a Grimm’s fairytale. You’re turning this into a fairytale? A once-upon-a-time story for kids? What are you doing, Tarantino? Are you being so insulting to memory? Are you being denialist? Are you mocking? Are you joking? All the questions would have to come up immediately in relation to historical fact and truth. In that one phrase, he shows that he’s not taking the austere reverent approach of a “Schindler’s List.” It’s a fairytale, a what-if story, a revenge fantasy. And we have “Schindler’s List” in our collective imagination and memory. We have defiance. We have not only the boys’ own type movies of “The Dirty Dozen” and others. And it’s an extraordinarily dazzling film. Visually and cinematically. Disturbing in that context. And then finally at the end, just throw in Hitler, Goebbels and others come to watch this movie. In a movie theatre run by Shosanna Dreyfus in a little part of Paris. Is it pushing the ridiculous and the absurd way too far? And as they’re watching the film, that Goebbels has made about a fiction of a German soldier who’s killed over 140 American G.I’s. Just completely ridiculous. As they’re watching that, they then get shot and burnt themselves and all the Nazi leadership. A bloody, and revenge fantasy. A revenge of the murdered, of the annihilated, of the abused, of the exterminated. The revenge. It’s a fantasy. But it hits us with such power. If we could show that second last clip.
CLIP BEGINS
When I kill that guy, you got 30 feet to get to that guard. Can you do it?
I have to.
Champagne?
Who wants to send a message to Germany?
I have a message for Germany. That you are all going to die. And I want you to look deep into the face of the Jew who is going to do it! Marcel, burn it down.
Oui, Shosanna.
[Shosanna] My name is Shosanna Dreyfus, and this is the face of Jewish vengeance.
CLIP ENDS
- If you could hold it there please, Lauren. Thank you. You know, watching this, and I’ve watched this so many times, and I’m sure many people have, we know, obviously, it’s fantasy, it’s got a cartoon element. You know, the way the guy’s running in the beginning, it’s got that riff of the guitar music, that sound. But that image of her on the screen, and what she is saying and then the fire beginning, and knowing that all of them are going to be killed within a couple of minutes in the movie theatre. It’s complete fantasy. It’s complete nonsense. It’s complete imagination. It’s revenge. But at the same time, I do think he achieves a thread to a certain reality. And the reality is in us, the audience, knowing the history. Years later, knowing the historical facts. Knowing how deep and profound the theme of revenge is, in all human beings. Knowing the enormity, obviously, of the second World War in Jewish history, global history, et cetera. As a piece of fiction, as I want to argue, as a piece of art. I think somewhere that image, even though it has its problems of being cartoonish, of being silly or foolish, a fantasy, comic book image almost. There is an element I think, which strikes a chord in the heart, in the human heart, and I think in the Jewish heart. And that is obviously part of the huge debate.
But I think when he finally, and Tarantino talks about it, he struggled for years to come up with an ending. And when he got this as an ending, that’s when he realised he could actually make the film. ‘Cause all of it was building towards this climactic scene of utter vengeance. The question is, if it’s just so ridiculous, if it’s so ridiculous that it can have no emotional impact on us, or not. And for me, that is part of the endless debate. Obviously there’s nothing of historical fact in this, but I think that there is something that grips and grabs of such an abused, such a destroyed, such a murderous event that has happened. And somewhere the desire for revenge has to be real. So this is a 2009 movie, but he started writing the script 10 years before. And as I say, only had the guts to make it when he came up with that ending. It cost 70 million dollars, premiered in the 62nd Cannes Film Festival. It made over 321 million dollars. It received mostly positive response subsequent to the original screening. Eight Academy Award nominations, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay. So never forget the writing is so good. Waltz won the the Cannes Film Festival Best Actor award, the BAFTA Actor Award, the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. And so on and so on, we can go on. And finally at the very final scene, which I’m not going to show now, but when the Brad Pitt character takes the Christoph Waltz character, pretending that he will take him, he’s done the deal with a commanding officer and he can go live in America and get his pension and, you know, live a quiet little life somewhere, he says right, okay, you’ll go and live there, but you ain’t going to be so proud to wear your Nazi uniform anymore, are you? No.
So he knows that he’ll go, he’ll get the deal, the war will be over in the fantasy of the film. And what he does is he carves the swastika into the forehead of the Christoph Waltz’s character. And he says, “this is my final masterpiece.” And in that, Tarantino is capturing, it’s a masterpiece of film. What do we mean by masterpiece? In art itself and when art comes into life, as well. And it’s that link again between complete fiction, fantasy, and historical reality. We have a baseball bat used earlier by the big guy, the Eli Roth character, to bash Nazis over the head and killed them. After the first screening, the film received an 11 minute standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival. Le Monde newspaper dismissed it, saying that Tarantino got lost in a fictional World War II movie of pure fantasy. I’ve said, again, Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun Times, “it’s an audacious, bold film. Some will hate it, so it’ll annoy some and startle others, but demonstrates that Tarantino is a director. He’s the real thing.” Interestingly, the author and critic Daniel Mendelsohn was disturbed by the portrayal of Jewish American soldiers, what he called mimicking German atrocities. And Daniel Mendelsohn writes that “Tarantino indulges his taste for vengeful violence by turning Jews into Nazis.”
That’s a hell of a statement. But it’s interesting and we have to be honest and look at all responses from all different perspectives. The Guardian newspaper in England said, “it’s exasperatingly awful film, transcendentally disappointing, it bored me.” The New Yorker dismissed it. “This film is skillfully made, yes, but it is too silly to be enjoyed. Even as a joke. Tarantino has become an embarrassment. His virtuosity as a maker of images has been overwhelmed by his inanity as an idiot.” Daniel Mendelsohn went on again, in the film’s depiction of Jewish soldiers, “do you want audiences cheering for a revenge that turns Jews into carbon copies of Nazis? That makes Jews into sickening perpetrators themselves? Do you want that image?” Mendelsohn writes. Jonathan Rosenbaum equated the film to Holocaust denial, stating that the film is morally akin to Holocaust denial. What he argues is that it makes the Holocaust harder, not easier to grasp as an historical reality, because it becomes a film convention. “By that I mean,” he writes, “by that I mean a reality derived only from other movies. It is thus divorced from its historical reality.” It’s a fascinating point that he makes. Is it only a film reality, and therefore divorced from any historical reality or not? For me, it again, lies in the tension precisely between those two in that polemic, that for me, Jonathan Rosenbaum, he touches on it spot on. I agree with that. But for me it goes in between both. It doesn’t lose historical reality entirely and has not been purely a fantasy film. The BBC Critics’ Poll done two years ago, looking at the great films of the last 20 years in the beginning of the 21st century, the BBC Critics’ Poll ranked the film number 62 of the greatest films made in the last 20 years since the beginning of the year 2000. Is it acceptable to make fun, to do a semi-satire of this particular part of history? Is it not acceptable?
Does it become a fairytale like the Brothers Grimm? “Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France.” In this, discussion groups have happened from Australia to Germany, to America, to France, everywhere, that this film has triggered. Der Spiegel grilled Tarantino in an interview and asked him, “Where does the fun for filmmaking end for you, Mr. Tarantino? Can you really make it like this about the Holocaust?” Tarantino replied in this interview with Der Spiegel, “So many war films of the last two or three decades concentrate on the tragedy, the helplessness of the victim, the guilt of the perpetrator. There’s often perfume with violent music that highlights the disastrous misery depicted in the films. Where is the role of the defiant, the resistor, the non victim?” He doesn’t go on to argue whether he’s trying to do the psychological realism or not. There are fascinating comparisons between Spielberg’s “Munich” and Tarantino’s film. Which of course, “Munich” is a revenge film as well. Revenge, you know, for on Black September. We all know the story. And a very powerful, profoundly moving story. And what’s interesting, what Spielberg aims at is less of cinematic visual effect, if you like, and he goes for three-dimensional character. He tries to make the psychological complexity of the moral questions, of the historical questions, inside the characters in the revenge film of “Munich”. Tarantino doesn’t try to do that. He’s going for entertainment value, yes, fantasy, yes.
He’s not going for psychological realism and he’s not going for moral ambiguity in theme about revenge. He’s going full on for revenge. He’s not going for self-reflection, self-examination in the characters, as happens in Spielberg’s “Munich”. I don’t think one is better or worse than the other. They are both superb films and fascinatingly powerful films. They’re just totally different in how to deal with the revenge genre. I guess that for me in a way, it shows on the one hand, the fragility of historical memory and historical fact. And the fragility of how it’s recorded, how it’s shown in any art form, film, theatre, literature, novels and so on. And it goes way back to ancient storytellers in Africa, thousands of years ago. And many parts of the world, way, way back. And this exact question and debate, how do you capture historical memory of whatever kind, from a culture? At the end of this movie, the Christoph Waltz character says, facts can be so misleading. And I think Tarantino is so aware of what do you do with fact. What does Spielberg do with fact in “Munich”? Knowing the massacre, and then knowing of course, you know, turning it into a revenge film as well. Yes, facts can be misleading. But it is part of, for me, of human nature and the role of art. To take facts, to take artistry, and to somehow play with them and see if you can come up with something that is going to push questions and ideas. And it is fantasy. Is it finally that when fantasy replaces facts, even if they’re misleading, is that where we need to step in morally? Do we need to censor or stop this kind of film? Does it indulge truth? Does it ultimately bastardise truth of history? Does it create a kind of fascinating visual, visceral effect at the price of truth? Or can the two coexist artistically?
And I think for me, I’m going to just at the end, quote from a New Zealand newspaper, The Dominion Post in Wellington, “"Inglourious Basterds” is pretty much the worst load of over hyped drivel I’ve seen this year.“ That’s from one newspaper critic. That if it can, from New Zealand, to Germany, to America, to England, to everywhere in the world. If it can provoke, and it’s winning Academy Awards on the other hand, making a fortune at the box office, et cetera. If a movie can provoke so much controversy and disturbing response, I think it’s achieved something. And for me, he did it with "Pulp Fiction” and he does it here. He does it with “Django Unchained”, he’s done it with some of the other films. Not only as a specifically, art and artist with such a signature vision, but by not being scared to take on these grand themes of art. And I think art would be so much poorer. Art would be so safe and comforting if it didn’t. And I don’t think it would have much of a role other than a few pretty pictures. So, I leave that with all of us and thank you very much for giving up part of your time and hope everybody is well. Happy to take some questions.
Q&A and Comments:
Mona, thank you. No, it’s never boring, I agree.
David, “the most memorable moment of the movie was when the wrong three fingers were put up. American, not European.” Great point. It’s that attention to detail, cultural nuance and detail. Sonya, “A most meta film. Count me as one of the fans.” Tarantino is great.
Julian, “Evil has many faces which appear differently to different people. Banality and charming are but two examples. The whole German nation were charmed by Hitler. "The Pied Piper” is a good metaphor, were it not for the antisemitism and wanting to be so charmed. To depict such faces itself is thus not to do a disservice to the truth. Whether the whole film does, is another question.“ Fascinating. Thank you, Julian.
Mitzi, "I never saw the film, I couldn’t go. I see pictures getting revenge on Putin, but in my opinion there’s no adequate way to revenge the impossible hideousness of the Fuhrer.” That’s a very profound thought, Mitzi.
Marion, thank you. “I love the film and we’ll watch it again tonight. I need it after having suffered last night watching "Power of the Dog”.“ I haven’t seen that yet. Mitzi, "Resistance is not the same as revenge.” Absolutely.
Annette, “Very similar to the fascinating true story in the recent book called "X Troop: The Secret Jewish Commandos” by Leah Garrett. Interesting. Thank you, Annette.
Mitzi, “I think it’s pretty good revenge. Pretty good revenge is Sid Caesar playing a Nazi who turns out to be a doorman.”
Julian, “What you’re saying before the film clip, there are many films that take the Nazis out of context, even in space and zombie films.” Very good point. “It doesn’t mean they’re being disrespectful. Tarantino has a taste for violence, which could arguably be called unhealthy. By making the film, he puts his character trait to good use. Everyone likes to see Nazis getting their comeuppance. Although one wouldn’t necessarily show the film to Holocaust survivor. Everyone wants to always remember evil people are human beings created no different to us at all.” Yeah, Julian, I think you’ve touched on all the ideas that we’ve been trying to grapple with today. Barbara, “thanks so much.”
Q: David, “How did the movie play in Germany?”
A: Well, interestingly, they had to adapt quite a bit of it. Because you’re not allowed to show some of these images of swastikas and other things in Germany. But from what I understand it went very well, and like in many other countries, made money, and received a mostly positive response. But there was also enormous debate that I’ve tried to mention here. You know, and he was questioned by Der Spiegel and some of the other newspapers, “Are you making fun of the Holocaust?” You know, “what are you trying to do here?” So I think the debate was held at the forefront.
Margaret, “I think the ending is very satisfying, kind of makes up for what didn’t ever happen.” Well, it’s a revenge fantasy, and the ending, and I know he took a long time to come up with that ending, but I do think it’s an image that burns into the collective imagination of all of spectators.
Q: Tom, “Can this be divorced from gun violence in schools and so on?”
A: That’s a separate whole question, I think. We’ve got to see it in the genre of art and film context.
Myrna, “Great movie.”
Julian, “There’s always a danger of Hollywood-izing the Holocaust. And there must be greater chance of that happening than with this one.” Very, very much so. ‘Cause also, let’s not forget, you know, Hollywood-izing and the way it’s been done in other films, it throws up profound questions. Susan, thank you.
Julian, “You could just precede films, "The events depicted are not historical.”“
Sonya, "Please address the deliberate misspelling of the title.” That’s from an adaptation from the seventies film, which is where he basically stole the title from.
Q: Mavis, “In years to come, will people come to believe this movie?”
A: Well that’s a very important question. You know, when history is retold in art, whether through film or literature, or film or plays, what do they believe? I mean, Harari’s interesting argument is that the collective fiction of what a group believes in is necessary for the group to cohere in some way. And that phrase, “collective fictions” you know, collective mythical stories. Stories of the imagination, which are made up really. Some might argue of different religious stories, or biblical or whatever. What’s believed and what isn’t, what’s truthful? Centuries or thousands or hundreds of years later is always a profound question.
Q: Ron, “Is there a difference between seeking revenge and seeking justice?”
A: Absolutely.
Q: “Does the underlying intention make a difference?”
A: I think seeking justice and seeking revenge are very different things. For me it does. And I agree. “For me, if meeting our justice is done by a vigilante, could there not be an underlying sense, this must be done in the interest of humanity, not just personal satisfaction?” Great point. You know, the vengeance of the group versus personal revenge or satisfaction. Justice or vengeance? It’s exactly, I think it’s part of the eternal human debate that we face. And I think this movie can be seen to provoke this, totally. In the way that Spielberg’s “Munich” in a completely different way, with psychological nuance and moral ambiguity in the characters provokes as well. It’s also fundamentally a revenge movie.
Q: Harriet, “Could you do Zelensky’s satirical series, "Servant of the People?”“
A: I could. With pleasure. I’ve watched quite most of it, and it’s a lot of fun.
Ryan, "Tarantino is brilliant. As the violence in his films is no different to "Tom and Jerry.”“ Actually there is a difference. He’s more entertaining. He understands, I think what you cannot deny with Tarantino, he understands film, the medium so brilliantly. He understands he’s working fundamentally with a film genre, a visual genre, and that he can work with brilliant written dialogue. And I think those two, he really gets it. Far more than many other filmmakers. He gets the medium. Zelensky, brilliantly, gets social media and politics. Together with his production company and his writers, he gets it, how to use it all together for different audiences.
Sharon, thank you for your comment. Myrna, "Art imitates life.” Yes. Mavis,
Q: “We are therefore accountable for what we produce in art.”
A: We are accountable, but what are we accountable to, is the question. When we write literature and art, and poetry and films, who are we accountable to? Is it Oscar Wilde’s idea, art for art’s sake? Or do we have an accountability? Are we witnesses to a moment of history? Do we have an accountability to an audience, an accountability to entertain, or to make money, or to educate and entertain? These are endless questions. No easy answer. I think for me, what this film does, as I said, it stimulates these questions in a profound way. And yet, it’s so completely and ridiculously entertaining.
Okay, I think that’s it. Great. Thank you so much everybody, enjoy the gala. Please watch, should be fantastic. And thank you everybody so much. And Lauren again, take care.