I was discussing last week’s contretemps (ICYMI: shots were fired, and then Dresden was firebombed) with a friend when we stumbled on a relatively interesting quandary. We were talking culture and how our beliefs influence what we enjoy, and it got me wondering: Which late-stage Tarantino flick is less reviled by the paleoconservative set? Inglourious Basterds? Or Django Unchained?
You can see their concerns. One is a picture revolving around the efforts of a band of Jews to end "FDR’s War" (as the paleos call it). The other deals with the horrors of antebellum south and the evils of slavery, taking dynamite to lost cause revisionism and causing heartburn for anyone who believes in the sacred principle of secession.
Fortunately, my imaginary friend Larry Danielson allowed me to pick his brain on this thorny question.
##
So, Larry. How do you feel about Quentin Tarantino’s last two films?
Well, that’s a very complicated question. They’re both pretty disgusting creations of a decadent culture and a crumbling Hollywood. But which is more disgusting? It’s hard to say.
I’m not referring to their artistic merits, really; I assume you probably don’t care for such violence-mad pop frivolities. I mean more along the lines of their ideological content.
Naturally. You don’t write unless you want to needle me about something. Typical neocon aggression.
Yes, well, your thoughts?
Let’s consider Inglourious Basterds first. It’s a deeply problematic film for any number of reasons. It elides U.S. responsibility for our entry into the war, for starters. Where’s the discussion of FDR’s economic aggression against the Japanese? To say nothing of his absurd flouting of the law with regard to neutrality. He aided and abetted Germany’s enemies throughout—you’re telling me the Germans didn’t have a right to be upset with us? That we weren’t the aggressors in that conflict?
On the other hand, it does obliquely highlight one of the main reasons America got sucked into FDR's war. The Basterds were, after all, deeply impacted by the Nazi regime.
Oh, come on.
Let’s have a look at a few possibly relevant facts, shall we?
- Felix Frankfurter was one of Roosevelt’s strongest allies. FDR would go on to appoint him to the Supreme Court.
- One of his key aides and speechwriters was Samuel Rosenman. Rosenman would serve as a key figure in the war crimes trials at Nuremberg, a particularly vicious instance of victor’s justice.
- Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau was another close confidante of the president; after World War Two, the "Morgenthau Plan" was used to divide and destroy the German people even further. Some believe Morgenthau based his plan on the writings of Theodor N. Kaufman, the author of a book entitled Germany Must Perish.
And this has … what, exactly, to do with Inglourious Basterds?
Oh, nothing directly. But the message of that film—the idea of "Jewish vengeance" taken by Shoshanna and the Basterds at the film’s disturbingly vicious climax—serves as a reminder of one of the reasons we were involved in that conflict, why so many hayseeds from flyover country were sent over to Europe only to return in body bags. So in that sense, as disgustingly violent as the picture is and as deeply dishonest as its treatment of FDR is, it’s a useful picture.
I see. And Django Unchained?
There’s very little redemption to be found in this film. It is utterly ignorant of history and utterly divorced from reality, a simpleminded bit of propaganda created to demonize the south and give glory to the tyrant that would destroy it.
Lincoln, you mean.
Yes, as I said, the tyrant. Secession is a natural right, one that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in. America is comprised of a variety of enclaves rather than one whole. We should never forget that our nation was founded by splitting off from a greater entity. It is only a matter of time before we endure our own split. Frankly, good liberals everywhere should be more than happy for secession to take place; after all, it beats the alternative.
Civil War?
As a pacifist, I can’t endorse that outcome. Brother against brother … it was a tragedy, a great stain on the soul of our nation. But a people can only bear so much. And to have high-handed coastal elites tell you how to live, tell you what to do with your property, tell you how to behave in your own home—well, that’s what we split from England for, right?
And your thoughts on the treatment of Django himself?
Oh, absurd. Sure, there were probably some evil men who owned slaves. But what about the happier times? The plantations where masters weren’t cruel? Where slave and master more or less got along? Abolitionist porn such as Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave does little to elucidate the real issues of that day.
There you have it. Basterds "wins," by a nose.