I just viewed the new Tarantino movie, "Inglorious Basterds" last night.. and I was really struck by my own ambiguity in how to see the ultimate message of the movie. Without giving away the plot, essentially, there is a group of guerrilla Jewish-American soldiers who are dropped behind enemy lines in France and who go about, in a very Tarantino-like manner killing and scalping Nazi soldiers.. without compassion and without restraint.
As I discussed the movie afterwards with my wife, there was some ambiguity in my own mind as to the message of the movie. In some respects, it can be said to be an historically inaccurate Jewish-revenge movie regarding the atrocities of the Nazi's in the second world war.
However - in another respect, it struck me as a modern metaphor for the current struggle we are having, even people like Barack Obama are having - in coming to grips with our reaction to the mindless violence of terrorist extremism.
On the one hand, the "civilized" part of our nature rebels against the notion of an "eye for an eye" and so often we hear that if we resort to senseless violence and torture, we are hardly better than the terrorists we are fighting against.
On the other hand, as we see constant examples of the willingness of terrorists to use our own compassion against us, our own sense of due process and decency against us, by utilizing civilian shields as a battle tool, by now, apparently, distributing "suicide bomber" protocols suggesting they are seeking to prevent civilian casualties.. one, at least on my side of the political fence, finds themselves asking if we are unduly weakened in our fight against terror if we refuse to acknowledge "collateral damage" and that full rights of due process cannot be applied on the battle field.
As I left the movie, it struck me that if Tarantino had penned a script that had modern American and Israeli soldiers utilizing the same tactics against terrorist extremists, as were employed by the Nazi-killers in "Inglorious Basterds", the movie would never get released and would be mercilessly attacked by the left - especially the Sean Penn types in Hollywood who love to pick apart the country who ultimately provides them with their grossly excessive lifestyle.
So - I enjoyed the movie, I thought it was typical in many respects for a Tarantino movie, a la True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. However, if you go watch it, consider seeing it as a metaphor for the current conflict in addressing terrorist activity in the world.
And it becomes that much more enjoyable.
2 comments:
I was lucky to see the film, as a very nice old cinema in Glasgow, Scotland a few weeks ago. And in the audience I suspect there were a few gentlemen that were probably in the war. I could tell that there were surprised that it wasn't a regular war film, but I suspect everyone accepted the films view of looking at the darker side of the war.
The most simplistic theme I thought about, is how much evil does one have to do, to make good. In absolute war how cruel must you be to the enemy, and the civilians of the enemy to accomplish your goals of victory.
In Tarantino's alternate reality, he suggests that by sending in a dirty dozen to be cruel to the Nazis, could strike fear into them, and demoralize them. But of course in reality a commando group that size could not have survived for months in occupied France and committed that much cruelty. But in the context of the war, what we rarely discuss is what the Allies had to do to win, which in hindsight we would call war crimes.
Rob, I hope you've had the chance to watch Errol Morris' Fog of War, the documentary with Robert MacNamara. I fondly remember his discussion as a Strategic Planning Officer in the Pacific Fleet, where he and General Lemay planned the fire bombing of the cites of Japan. In the context of an unsurrendable enemey, where a mainland invasion of Japan would have cost from 400,000 to a Million American casualties, the firebombing was a strategic to sap the resources of the enemy. But had the Japanese won, certainly he and Lemay would have been tried for War Crimes because of the cruelty inflicted on the Japanese. We can see that in total war, the rules may be impediments to victory, which is a cruel but sobering reality.
I haven't seen that film - I'll look for it.
And I agree.. our generation really has the luxury of being able to live in a world where we can even CONSIDER rules of humanity when we are in an armed conflict.
Like so many far left ideals, they only really work when the whole machine is sort of spinning along on it's own.. when the machine really breaks down, one wonders just how "humane" those same people would be. If they were living in a place like Afghanistan, where terrorist murders occur with greater frequency than spring rain in Canada, would they really be that adverse to "breaking a few eggs" to restore peace and safety to the people.
The toll on Germany and Japan during the second world war is something we either don't think about much anymore, or, worse, we now appologize for.
We forget what we were dealing with in places like Dachau and Auschwitz.. and we ignore the more recent attrocities of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
How does the saying go, "Those who refuse the learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it..?"
Chamberlain was convinced that German agression related to their mistreatment by the west under the Versailles treaty.. and was committed to the concept of "peace through appeasment".
He was wrong. Millions lost their lives due to his commitment to "peace at all costs".. and perhaps millions of more lives were saved as a result of ruthless agression of the allies in Germany and Japan.
Certainly - Tarantino didn't mean to make some grand philosophical statement in his movie, however, the message of a work of art isn't controlled by the maker - it's discovered by the viewer.
I enjoy the message that reminds us that sometimes, brutal and heartless violence can, in fact, create peace and save lives.
Post a Comment