Does Quentin Tarantino have the right to rewrite World War 2

[LatinAmericanview]

Several of the TIU community have asked the question is history real? How do we know the official fiction is an accurate account of real past events?  I suggest that history is merely a politically convenient story told to masses wholesale to create attitudes that then can be manipulated when the the powers that be require some sort of social engineering event. Please read the article and read the coments post by people. Could this artistic license be taken with say the holocaust? HoW many people even question if the official fiction is true?

Hitler-Inglourious-Tarantino_lOf all the lively and memorable audacities committed by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds — the casting of Eli Roth, the splatter-happy director of the Hostel films (he looks like a strapping, beetle-browed Brooklyn Jewish prizefighter from 1947), as the bat-wielding "bear Jew" who likes to pulp the heads of Nazis; transforming Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the film's smiling SS officer, into a nimbly joyful and light-fingered philosopher-detective who's by far the most arresting character on-screen; or letting the bar scene twist and turn until it becomes a kind of luxurious and elongated suspense playlet, a little movie unto itself — certainly none of these provocations is more noteworthy than the outrageous, what-the-hell, history-as-war-game freedom with which QT rewrites the bloody ending of World War II.

Audacious, to be sure. But irresponsible? I was shocked when a friend of mine, an adventurous movie critic who has often loved Tarantino's work, said that he was seriously offended by the movie's big, explosive, death-in-a-Paris-movie-theater climax. He said that he thought Tarantino had stepped over a line of historical veracity, and that audiences, especially younger ones, might be led by Inglourious Basterds to embrace the idea that World War II was just another meaningless pulp fantasy. By now, I've heard this line of reasoning echoed in several other places; it could even be the core of a potential backlash. Yet the reason I was shocked is that even though I take history pretty seriously myself, it never even occurred to me to think of Inglourious Basterds as a "trashing" of history. In a strange way, the picture is far too outlandish for that. To me, the movie, and especially its ending, is defiantly a vision of war as a filmmaker's lusciously subjective, almost childishly wish-fulfilling B-movie fever dream. The great, sick joke of the film's grindhouse logic is that even though what it shows us didn't happen, in a larger, almost abstract sense it did happen. (I mean, it's not as if the Nazi high command, in the end, wasn't destroyed.)

You could argue that a lot of Hollywood World War II films that we think of as more or less "responsible" have done a variation on the same thing, albeit a lot less...extremely. The Dirty Dozen, for instance, isn't exactly a sober-minded PBS documentary; it's a lurid piece of exploitation (which is exactly what Tarantino, and so many of us, love about it). And if you think back on all the World War II movies that were made in the period after World War II — like, say, Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) or The Longest Day (1962) — the real, and insidious, illusion may be that they offer a "true" vision of what actually went on during the fighting of that war. I could name a hundred piously mature Hollywood war films, and even documentaries, that don't get half as close to the deep-dish, loopy aristocratic inhumanity of Nazi-ism as Hans Landa's opening monologue in Inglourious Basterds does.

Nevertheless, there's no denying it: By the end of the movie, Quentin has made some serious stuff up. So what do you think of the historical liberties he takes? Does he have the right to create his own version of World War II? And if not, where do you draw the line?

Comments (1-30) of 91  Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

    * PNK
      Mon 08/24/09 6:33 PM

      It's a fantasy, he can do whatever he wants. I saw the flick, it's really good. HELLO – it's like writing a novel. The casting was effing-brilliant, no way around it. And, yes, the extended bar scene is merely a cinematic wonder. The film succeeds on every level. My fave is still Kill Bill but this is there with Pulp Fiction in its standalone fun-ness and rockem-sockem impact. GO Q-T!
      Reply
      Report this
    * Cory Grinder
      Mon 08/24/09 6:33 PM

      The movie is a work of fiction, but so what. This is a movie about The Jewish kicking some Nazi Butt! It's what alot of us wouldve liked to have seen happen. This is a "Hell Yeah!" movie, one that truelly entertains. Isnt that WHY we go to the movies?
      Reply
      Report this
    * Steven Wilson
      Mon 08/24/09 6:33 PM

      The movie was obviously not following history. It was a comedy if anything else.

      We were laughing our guts out.It was very funny.
      Reply
      Report this
    * alice88
      Mon 08/24/09 6:36 PM

      Absolutely he has the right – not only freedom of speech – but this is art. It is interpreting a vision – How many people have daydreamed about wiping out the Nazis? The artistic freedom with History only added to the suspense and I loved it!
      Reply
      Report this
    * d
      Mon 08/24/09 6:36 PM

      it was only a movie and it was awesome.relax enjoy it,... it doesn't mean anything.. it's entertainment
      Reply
      Report this
    * Ben luttrell
      Mon 08/24/09 6:37 PM

      i can believe people are seriously mad about the history in this movie. ITS A MOVIE........... its supposed to entertain not bore us to death. and i personally would rather see hitler shot to bits than see him kill himself and his mistress in an underground bunker...
      Reply
      Report this
    * Ian
      Mon 08/24/09 6:39 PM

      Surprisingly, the only historical innacuracies that really bother me in a movie are the really small ones. A filmmaker should act as a historian when filming history and get every detail right. However, the end of WWII is a big thing, and it's something everyone knows (not some small detail). The end of "Inglourious Basterds" is not some example of how dumb America has gotten or of filmmaker ignorance, but rather of a brilliant auteur taking artistic liberties to a whole new level.
      That being said, "Inglourious Basterds" is the best movie so far this year.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Drmummy
      Mon 08/24/09 6:41 PM

      Anyone offended over by the historical liberties taken by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds needs to reexamine why they saw the movie in the first place.

      What else did you expect?

      Of all the problems in the world, I think people trivializing WWII is at the bottom of the list.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Jamie MacLaggan
      Mon 08/24/09 6:42 PM

      The title question misses the whole point: c'mon, it's a movie! Other than that, I agree with the afore...freedom of speech...artistic license...and a great,fun,thoroughly engaging comedy at that. Bravo QT!! Best yet!
      Let's have more, lots more!
      Reply
      Report this
    * Edible_DNA
      Mon 08/24/09 6:43 PM

      Lt. Aldo Raine: My name is Lt. Aldo Raine and I need me eight soldiers. We're gonna be dropped into France, dressed as civilians. We're gonna be doing one thing and one thing only... killing Nazis. Woot!!!
      Reply
      Report this
    * Robert
      Mon 08/24/09 6:43 PM

      I'm sorry I though we were in America, ever herd of freedom of creativity? Quentin can do whatever he want's to do thats his rite as an American.
      Reply
      Report this
    * conradjohnson
      Mon 08/24/09 6:44 PM

      M-O-V-I-E it's a movie.

      It's not real.

      Of course he can do that.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Patrick
      Mon 08/24/09 6:45 PM

      You give Tarantino to much credit, the film is a revenge fantasy, he can not bring down an entire history and cultural mindset surrounding WWII. If there ever is any lag in a younger generations misunderstandings about what WWII means it is hardly the fault of one film maker. If he portrayed it as truthful and accurate that would be another issue, but he did not.If there is a problem with how history is taught and understood speak to the histories and educators.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Mary Peitrowski
      Mon 08/24/09 6:45 PM

      Sadly, I agree that for many younger audiences THIS will be how they view WWII... truly sad and as far as Mr. Tarantino goes, I'm sure it will be glorious for him... which is an even sadder commentary than the one you've written.
      Reply
      Report this
    * BrandonK
      Mon 08/24/09 6:47 PM

      I've been watching "The Tudors", and as an English historian, I do kind of worry that people who watch that series will take it at face value. However, I think people are familiar enough with the general events of WWII and with Tarantino's reputation to realize this movie is a fantasy.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Melissa2ea
      Mon 08/24/09 6:48 PM

      No where in the beginning of this movie will you find the words "Based on real life events". This is fiction. Purely for entertainment purposes. "Younger audiences" should not see this film. It is a rated R movie for adults. If you are dumb enough to let your child watch this movie and let them believe that was really what WWII was, its not Tarantino's fault. I love all of his films. They are pure entertainment and fun with artistic and stylistic touches that add drama and humor. If you are offended that Tarantino has "re-written" WWII then you are an idiot. I'm sure he would agree that he is in no way trying to disrespect what actually happened, but rather, he has explored a possible alternative ending, once again, in a strictly fictional sense. If you are looking for a history lesson, don't go to the movies, go to the library.
      Reply
      Report this
          o kim in kentucky
            Mon 08/24/09 7:05 PM

            I was thinking the same thing — nor are the words "INSPIRED by true events" used. Just because its set during WWII, doesn't mean it actually happened. I actually had someone at work today asked me if it was based on "real stuff"!
            Reply
            Report this
                + jeffy
                  Mon 08/24/09 7:51 PM

                  Actually, the film begins with the title care: "Once Upon a Time... In Nazi-Occupied France"; how much more of an indication does one need that this is a fantasy/fairy tale? QT is right... his movies aren't for dumb people!
                  Report this
    * Wisconsinite
      Mon 08/24/09 6:48 PM

      QT is much too young to have real emotional connection to WWII. I don't think he could write anything about the subject from an authentic POV. That being said it would be sad if that is the only take on the subject the younger audience (who doesn't even remember the first Iraq war) gets.
      Reply
      Report this
    * jd
      Mon 08/24/09 6:49 PM

      It hardly matters anymore does it? So many American's can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy as it is..."government death panels"...remote drones that kill from the sky... If the American President is Hitler to the paranoid fringe, why not revel in the insanity as QT does? Go ahead, join him in his blood soaked reverie..it doesn't matter. Too many have lost touch of rock and wind and sky.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Dwight K Schrute
      Mon 08/24/09 6:51 PM

      Tarantino is an ass.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Vic
      Mon 08/24/09 6:52 PM

      So how is this worse than Oliver Stone butchering history time after time? At least this movie was entertaining. Anyone too stupid to figure out this is only entertainment (and pretty darn good entertainment) shouldn't be allowed to eat popcorn.
      Reply
      Report this
    * margaret
      Mon 08/24/09 6:56 PM

      Loved the movie. I just really wished Hitler was killed that way.
      Reply
      Report this
    * The Adobo Bro
      Mon 08/24/09 6:56 PM

      One word...FICTION.
      Reply
      Report this
    * Alex
      Mon 08/24/09 6:57 PM

      QT, as a filmmaker, can do as he pleases. It feels like those who are making a fuss over the re-writing of history have nothing better to do than find quirks and issues when it should just be looked as any other work of fiction (which it is!) than anything else. This article just doesn't sit right with me with even bringing up this subject. It's the first I've heard of this "problem" and it had never crossed my mind until now. That friend of yours needs to relax.
      Reply
      Report this
    * candace
      Mon 08/24/09 6:57 PM

      eventually, these types of movies will be written about 9-11...
      big deal
      Reply
      Report this
          o Matthew
            Mon 08/24/09 7:42 PM

            See Postal...actually don't...that movie was awful. But Postal made fun of 9-11.
            Reply
            Report this
          o Jared
            Mon 08/24/09 7:43 PM

            They already did a bizarro world fantasy movie about 9-11, it was called "Loose Change"
            Reply
            Report this
    * Lar
      Mon 08/24/09 6:59 PM

      We have far too many extremists walking around calling our President Hitler and waving swasticas to have any level of comfort that an audience has any real understanding of REAL history and REAL Naziism. So, yeah, I can understand a concern about pulp movies reducing WWII to a cartoon for pop purposes and mass consumption. Too many people are woefully ignorant these days for it to be safe to assume they 'get it.'
      Reply
      Report this
    * bjing
      Mon 08/24/09 7:00 PM

      Come on, this a movie created by and to be consumed by retards. Enjoy it!
      Reply
      Report this
    * Gerald Shields
      Mon 08/24/09 7:02 PM

      I liked the movie, but I know how Hitler really died: He shot himself in the head while simultaneously biting into a cyanide capsule. A coward's way to die to be sure and it doesn't sound too cool in a WII movie. The movie was done based on the assumption that we want to get even with the bad guy, we want to exact complete, cold revenge upon him/her and their associates. The movie accomplished that, so bravo!
      Reply
      Report this
    * lucia
      Mon 08/24/09 7:04 PM

      It's a movie, and it's fiction. QT isn't to blame if some people don't know their history. I think it stands as a work of art.
      Reply
      Report this
    * dmaheu
      Mon 08/24/09 7:05 PM

      Well said DRMUMMY: "Anyone offended over by the historical liberties taken by Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds needs to reexamine why they saw the movie in the first place."

      This silly article is probably exactly what QT was hoping for. Looking too closely at his movies is ridiculous and will only be done by the people that don't get it in the first place. His movies are like a Seurat painting, lots of little dots.... OF BLOOD!!!!!
      Reply
      Report this
    * BOB
      Mon 08/24/09 7:07 PM

      FREEDOM OF SPEECH

      NUFF SAID!!!
      Reply
      Report this

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

From the official Historical point of view:

Quentin Tarantino is a little pile of Jew Sh*t trying to spread itself to a wider Goy audience.  His Inglorious JewTardedness is all too apparent.
If you gave idiot little Hollywood JewTards the election of 1. Fighting on Russian Front against the Germans -or- 2. Getting in a Freight Train headed to a WORKCAMP in Poland.

I'm sure this little Jew would be found on the roster to Poland and would gladly invent all kinds of murderous revenge fantasies there. He actually reminds me of the Fake propaganda that the American Jews threw around at the Nuremberg trials.  Like I said, Tarantino is just a little pile of nasty Jew Sh*t in the corner.

[kolnidre]

Like I said, Tarantino is just a little pile of nasty Jew Sh*t in the corner.

I know CSR is referring to QT's mindset and his being handled by managers and producers, but just to set the record straight that JewTardedness is not an ethnic trait - you can get it from the ether these days - here we go:

Pundits are asking whether the subtitle of the movie should be, G. I. Jews, or Dirty Minyan?

And so, with such a theme, it is natural for us to ask, Is Quentin Tarantino Jewish?

No, he is not a Jew. Tarantino was born in Knoxville, Tennessee, the son of Connie Zastoupil (née McHugh) of Irish and Cherokee Native American ancestry, and Tony Tarantino, part Italian from Queens, New York.

[thirdeyewise]

you are 60 plus years too late in asking that question, they have been re-writing history for a long time now.

[kolnidre]

you are 60 plus years too late in asking that question, they have been re-writing history for a long time now.

More like over 2000 years. How about Moses as a composite of Akenaton and Sorgon the Great?

And then there's The First Six Million - multiple claims of six million murdered or under imminent mortal threat during WW One!

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Really Kolnidre?  I thought QT was a Jew.  Didn't know that. Hmmm...
  I guess QT is just a shameless shovel full anyway ... the more Jew Sh*t a director slops around equates to  more Jew Bucks and Promotion. His fingers are thick with it.

[LatinAmericanview]

you are 60 plus years too late in asking that question, they have been re-writing history for a long time now.

More like over 2000 years. How about Moses as a composite of Akenaton and Sorgon the Great?

And then there's The First Six Million - multiple claims of six million murdered or under imminent mortal threat during WW One!

Firstly, Please reconsider the Jewish name calling it is counter productive. In relation to Kolnidre's assertion that history has unreliable at best for 2000 years. I suggest that we only really can piece history with any degree of certainty for about 800 years. I contend that history is merely a tool of the the powers that be.  According to our sources the established reasoning of the anti-zionist movement Jews have only attained real power over the last 350 years. Therefore there is about 450 years were Jews are part of the historical narrative and yet are not part of the power structure! I find that interesting.

[Free Truth]

The praise this movie (attack) has received strains my being.

i truly had, and still do have some hopes that people are starting to realize the so-called jews are controlling what they see and are starting to figure out the big picture. With the Zio bailouts, organs, Cast lead, anybody with their ear to the news should be able to get a hint.

Though I may be giving the goy too much credit...

..."Inglourious Basterds" is the best movie so far this year.

Poor souls...

[kolnidre]

you are 60 plus years too late in asking that question, they have been re-writing history for a long time now.

More like over 2000 years. How about Moses as a composite of Akenaton and Sorgon the Great?

And then there's The First Six Million - multiple claims of six million murdered or under imminent mortal threat during WW One!

Firstly, Please reconsider the Jewish name calling it is counter productive. In relation to Kolnidre's assertion that history has unreliable at best for 2000 years. I suggest that we only really can piece history with any degree of certainty for about 800 years. I contend that history is merely a tool of the the powers that be.  According to our sources the established reasoning of the anti-zionist movement Jews have only attained real power over the last 350 years. Therefore there is about 450 years were Jews are part of the historical narrative and yet are not part of the power structure! I find that interesting.

I presume you're not cautioning me on Jewish name calling. There is nothing of the sort from me or in my post.

Unless there is something immediately instructive about ascertaining dates in false history that would bring about "lightbulb" moments it doesn't really matter for most people. What is acknowledged is that history is written by those in position to write it, as quickly as they can. Therefore, as we saw with 9/11 and "Harley Guy," BBC and WTC7, Jerome Hauer live on TV lying down (pun intended) the official Muslim Terrorist(TM) narrative while the towers still stood, etc. if one controls events the history can even be written as they unfold.

In recent history we can look at the Ford and Carnegie foundations funding history books and school texts for examples of how this is done.

Does it really matter when Jews became part of the historical narrative, as long as the pernicious roles ascribed to them, including control of money, academia, media, government, resources, and militaries, are in fact being played out? Jew or no Jew, it's a parasitical system, and mechanisms of control like hate speech and hollowcost laws, as well as movies reinforcing certain memes, prop it up.

----------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, anyone else see the Battle Royale movies from Japan? For my money they are leagues better than Tarantino's comic book violence, because there is no enjoyment or belittling of violence. Unfortunately, the result for most people I know that have seen the films is revulsion against the films on such a visceral level that they never give them a chance on an intellectual level. In contrast, QT's films are so campy and slick they hit you at an emotional level and win your empathy as they inure you to horrible violence. The effect is the same as Alex Jones: a sense of detachment and inevitability.

[LatinAmericanview]

Klonidre you are clear. I made no reference to you other than to say that the historical narrative is dubious. I suggest that a good starting place is investigating the biblical tradition. Unfortunately, this line of reason is met with much resistance from most of the truth seeking community. It is self imposed censorship that keeps the truth seeker from having an epiphany! If we have difficulty verifying what happened 40 years ago then how much confidence could we have on assertions claiming knowledge from 2000 years ago?

[scorpio]

The victors write history. No doubt about that one.
QT is a ziotribe member or controlled by them.
He would have not become so 'big' otherwise.
Look at the fitlhy cr*p that he has produced throughout his career.]
Actions speak louder than words!
Does he have the right?
Of course he does - the ziomafia has been doing it for quite some time.
Time for a new paradigm....

[kolnidre]

It really is insidious how "good filmmaking" can excuse or inure viewers to total moral terpitude.

Until and unless I turn on my humanity defense shield on, I would allow all the horrific impaling, blood spattering, mutilation, head cracking, and nigger jokes to get right through. The emotions that override the intellect and let it all through, associating it with comedy and adventure instead of being horrified and disgusted as the intellect would be if permitted to process the information normally. Once the information gets through it is accepted, empathised, and authorised.

This is how incrementalism in the movies and the re-writing of history works. And the result is the Orwellian (and Kabbalistic) overturning of everything.