Inglourious Basterds Analysis

By Leonard T. Grey

 

The film Inglourious Basterds is not a World War 2 movie. Let me repeat, Inglourious Basterds is not a World War 2 movie.

On face value, this statement seems absurd, but the director leaves various subtle, and sometimes obvious, clues throughout the film that encourage the viewer to look past the façade that is being presented. To put it quite simply, the true message of the film is disguised and things are not what they appear to be. This is visually hinted at throughout, referring to both the surface narrative and meta-narrative.

Getting to the root.

Beyond the veil.

What lies beneath?

Take note of the discrepancies between the painting and Hitler. Are you starting to see a thematic pattern here?

 

Even before the film’s release, the deliberate misspelling of the title was a clue that visually something was off. Also, the marketing materials and promotional trailers portrayed Inglourious Basterds as a jingoistic blockbuster action film. The target audience, however, was misled to find that the actual film featured heavy dialogue driven set pieces with only calculated moments of violence. The inconsistencies between the trailer and the actual film were another hint at something much deeper.

Amurika!

Rah-rah! Get some! Notice that this shot appears in the trailers, but not in the actual film.

 

Tarantino is a master of genre subversion. A perfect example would be Tarantino’s first film, Reservoir Dogs. On the surface, Reservoir Dogs appears to be a heist film, but actually, it is a horror film disguised as a heist film. Think about it, you have a gang bonding like a group of teens in a cabin, a hidden monster (a secret police informant) psychologically tormenting the group, and gruesome scenes of physical torture and gore. These are all standard horror genre tropes, which is why Reservoir Dogs has more in common with John Carpenter’s The Thing then it does with The Italian Job. And to throw it all in your face, YOU ARE NEVER EVEN SHOWN THE ACTUAL HEIST.

“Let me tell you what Reservoir Dogs is about.”

“The whole idea is subversion. You want subversion on a massive level.”

 

In the case of Inglourious Basterds, the film is a spaghetti western disguised as a World War 2 film. Tarantino even explicitly states this in his interview with Rachel Maddow.

“I was trying to do a spaghetti western using World War 2 iconography. So in my re-imagining of this whole thing I’ve placed the Jews as the Indians in this scenario.” – Quentin Tarantino

 

If the words of the filmmaker aren’t enough, take note of the spaghetti western-style intro credits, the Mexican standoff at the saloon, and the constant references to Native Americans.

Scalping? Check.

Indian war whoop? Check.

War paint? Check.

Aldo the Apache and the Basterds. Circa 1850.

Brad Pitt’s raine dancing scene didn’t make the final cut.

Tarantino has a great eye for film, but an even better ear. Notice that most of the film’s soundtrack is taken from spaghetti western favorite Ennio Morricone.

 

So why choose a spaghetti western? Well, aside from being one of Tarantino’s favorite genres, the time period of westerns is more in tune with the actual identities of the characters in the film. Which are of course, the Native Americans and the early Anglo-Americans represented by the Nazis. It becomes clear that this is about a different genocide and resistance.

Pay close attention to the dialogue.

Well, is he?

The card game is a perfect metaphor not just for this scene, but the entire movie.

On the surface narrative, the British and Americans are hiding their identities from the Nazis. The meta-narrative reveals the true nationalities of the characters, which are hidden from the audience by the surface narrative.

• Willhelm: You out there! Who are you? British, American?
• Aldo: We’re American! What are you?
• Willhelm: I’m a German you idiot!
• Aldo: You speak pretty good English for a German.

Check out the poster behind Landa’s head.

 

Cue laughter and cheesy rock song. Hugo Stiglitz is named after a Mexican actor. Clearly we’re not meant to take his German identity seriously.

 

Tarantino has made his liberal views regarding slavery in America and the Indian genocide clear on several interviews. This is why he thematically equates the early Anglo-settlers with the Nazi regime. So now that we’ve established the actual identities of the characters, let’s take these implications to their logical conclusion.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, the film was marketed toward patriotic meatheads looking for their next shoot ‘em up war fix. But what they actually got was something substantially and subversively different. Really stop and think about the climax of the film.

Covertly attacking a nation’s pride.

On the surface narrative, the ‘Nazi’ audience in the theater cheer on the deaths of ‘Americans’ in the film within the film Nation’s Pride. In the meta-narrative, the real life American audience in the real life theater cheer on the deaths of ‘Nazis’ within Inglourious Basterds who they have no clue are really the early Anglo-Americans. Tarantino designed the film to subtly mock the gung-ho US audience members who have no idea that they are actually cheering on the deaths of the early settlers of their own nation. Tarantino even goes so far as to brand them as Nazis at the end of the film!

Getting a whack at planting old Uncle Adolf, or Uncle Sam?

Tarantino brands his target audience as Nazis (not see).

The thirty-three from the Scottish highlands. The film features plenty of occult references.

 

And finally, Inglourious Basterds is not even remotely close to being historically accurate. Once again, Tarantino throwing it in your face that this is not a World War 2 movie.