Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 4:15 PM
Sun Nov 29
12 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/31/09
08/23/09
Remember: the Second World War belongs to the Jews.
08/22/09
08/22/09
I will try to keep this pithy, but the thesis of Leibovitz' essay seems to be that the essence of revenge in Tarantino's film, the lack of apology for wholesale slaughter of the Nazis, robs the film of its redeeming quality; which begs the question, must Jews always suffer, and perish, nobly, talmudicly transmuting their suffering into higher purposes, in order to make themselves acceptable for public consumption? Are Jews, amongst all others, robbed of their right of righteous anger and vengeance in the face of unquestionably evil forces of extermination? I know my language is strong, but a cursory look at the history books should forgive a moment's hyperbole.
Mt. Tarantino may not be the most high-minded of filmmakers, but it is difficult for this writer to find fault with a popular movie maker who transcends the piety surrounding the Holocaust and feels free to treat the Shoah in a way which is for once not condescending to the Jews as lambs to the slaughter, but equals in so far as the vernacular of WWII films, able to avenge the evils done to them as all other cinematically persecuted groups, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Eli Roth's bat does not in any way negate the suffering of six million, but to claim otherwise is to negate the importance of the six million's suffering the first place.
This is the first "mainstream" film in which Jews are not silent victims, but active antagonists towards Nazis. This is not, in any way, a bad thing.
And, furthermore, this is not a bad film. It is artfully made; some may disagree, which is fair, but the "political" point of this film is unassailable. The Nazis were, without doubt*, an evil which deserved to be wiped from the face of the earth, and any cinematic vision of their demise is to be commended. All of the hand-wringing misses the essential point: No one will walk out of Inglourious Basterds thinking other than that the Nazis were an evil which should have been eradicated, and if they do, then they are not worth talking to, in my opinion, and hopefully yours. Any artistic quibbles are beside the main point of this comment, and fit for other, more fruitful, discussion: Leibovitz' objections to this film focus on its morality, which I feel is unassailable.
The Holocaust, the Shoah, those were amoral. Inglorious Basterds is a movie in which genocidal mass-murderers get their heads beat in, because they are genocidal mass-murderers. If anyone has a quibble with Nazis being killed, then the gulf of understanding between us is so wide as to never be straddled by polite reasoning.
* (And there is no doubt)
08/21/09
Looking past the characterizations, QT delivered a fantasy metaphor that manages to both thank and praise the Jews for their tenacity in Hollywood: rare enough. And then the finale is something that wider audiences will appreciate because Tarantino's agenda escapes being diminished by criticism that he is being self-serving and self-gratifying by the inevitable opponents who attack the film if he were Jewish. Sure, it'd be great if he were Jewish and made this film, but then the criticisms would be much harder, and that doesn't make either unfair for someone with good intentions.
08/21/09
08/21/09
"Hogan's Heroes."
Lighten up buddy.
I mean honestly...what do you expect from Hollywood? Is anything out of that shithole ever good for Jews in the long run? That town can suck it.
If I want Judaic spiritual affirmation I can wait for the International Jewish Film Festival.
08/21/09
Samuel Goldwyn, Louis B. Mayer, Marcus Loew, Robert Evans, +infinity would beg to differ.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
I, however, have been most pleased.
08/24/09
Yes, point taken...we all know those guys made a fortune. I've had this argument at approximately 4000 afterparties and figured "Jewish surnames in movie credits" was already the 300 pound gorilla in the room.
Luckily my family made its money in groceries. I can sleep knowing that we only manipulated produce prices.
(Again...I'm joking. Everyone please lighten up...kthanxbye.)
08/21/09
08/21/09
Wondering when exactly we started taking Tarantino seriously? I still can't look at him and not think that some overlord of puppet theatre won't erupt from his bloated forehead. This does make me fearful for mankind...but his non-Jewishness, not so much. His very apparent brain-monster however...very much so.
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/22/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
08/21/09
Using the word "Manichean" withing fifteen feet of a Tarantino flick is pretty useless, Liel. You need to get down and dirty, if you even can.
08/21/09