Hopefully Tarantino's "Basterds" remains apolitical
Â
Anyone who follows Hollywood at all should know that Quentin Tarantino’s newest film, Inglorious Basterds, is being released tomorrow. This film is a project that Tarantino had talked about making as long as I can remember, and he finally pulled the pin. Last night’s Red Eye shed some light onto the new film, explaining how it is a fantasy for Jewish people about killing Nazis.
Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld said:
“Do you have to go back in the past and find bad guys? Aren’t there people right now in the world that want to kill Jews that Tarantino could have made a movie about?â€
The short answer is yes, of course. However, Tarantino wanted to remake 1978’s Inglorious Bastards, which was a weird spaghetti war film that played like a combination of westerns of the 1970s (High Plains Drifter) and war films of the 1960s (The Dirty Dozen).
On the other hand, Red Eye guest and MTV.com film critic Kurt Loder said:
“Nazis are all-purpose bad guys.â€
This is very true.  Nazis provide a convenient “catch all†for evil in a film. Many of the best war films utilize this. For example, The Great Escape, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, The Pianist, and Stalag 17 all have the German Nazis as the bad guys. Doing this is always a safe bet, because who in their right mind will disagree with the fact that Nazis are bad?
It is much more controversial to make a film that blurs the line between good and evil.  Filmmakers like Oliver Stone (Platoon, W.) like to paint America as an oppressor nation. To him, we are the Nazis.
Quentin Tarantino likes to make films that are really about other films in the same, or a similar, genre. I don’t see him trying to make an Iraq War statement or anything like that. He is a true filmmaker who loves his craft. His priority is making a great film, not a political statement. What makes him the most upset is not America’s foreign policy decisions; it is writers and critics who don’t give him a fair shake.
I have faith that Inglorious Basterds will be an apolitical (or at least not anti-American) war film. If that is the case, I will thank Tarantino for it in my review for Parcbench.
What makes a film memorable is the underlying message it puts forth. Your reference to some that remain classics.points that out. Although some seem to be outrageous, the message prevails and becomes too realistic in relation to current events.
I think what makes a film memorable is whether it is entertaining or not. Leave the “underlying message” to film critics and boorish high society types. I like Tarentino’s films because they are, by and large, “tasty” films to watch. And, perhaps more importantly, Tarentino makes films that are just downright FUN. He genuinely enjoys filmmaking. We’re just lucky he happens to love making the kind of films we love to watch.
Excellent point about Jews and Nazis.. This is exactly what put so many Jews into the Communist movement. The period I’m referring to is between 1933-39.. when Stalinist Russia was the only major anti-fascist governemt, based on Hitler’s avowedly anti-Bolshevik, anti-semitic philosophy.
Of course, all this blew up in their faces, when Stalin signed his notorious “Peace pact” with Hitler in 39.
Overnight war-mongers became peaceniks.. AMAZING
He does make a point within the structure of his films as oppose to others. I feel most of Eastwood’s films had subtle messages while still maintaining their entertainment value. The purpose of watching a film is to enjoy it and when it has other effects on you, then it reaches beyond that and you remember it.