Quentin Tarantino is known for his gritty dialogues, over-the-top characters, non-linear storytelling, and geeky cinema references that only an avid movie lover like Tarantino himself could think to infuse into his storytelling. As Tarantino’s reputation grows as a filmmaker, he is widely regarded as one of the key practitioners of postmodernism in cinema. Postmodernity advocates the rejection of the grand narrative and asserts a subjective truth. In the context of 2009’s “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino masterfully creates this subjective truth by altering the historical events of the Second World War, offending some fans and critics who viewed it as a sick joke or a form of Holocaust denial.
We all know the evil of the Nazis and the horrors of the Holocaust in the context of history. But Tarantino allows himself to dissect the grand narrative of events and crafts a new truth, presenting a cool “Jewish vengeance” story rather than sentimentalizing one of history’s greatest atrocities. Previous films on this subject matter thoroughly exploited it for its emotional appeal to the point where it seems overused as a subject. Thus, Tarantino’s film—in which World War II ends with a group of American-Jewish soldiers killing Hitler and the Nazi top brass—seems like just the right way to approach the subject today.
Clearly, the events depicted in the film did not occur in real life. The exaggerated characters, over-the-top set pieces, and several anachronisms showcase Tarantino’s clear intention: he does not aim to create a historical reality. As he has often mentioned in interviews, he does not subscribe to the idea of cinema being a reflection of reality maintaining the verisimilitude of the surroundings. Thus, the critics’ arguments that the movie is a fantasy or a sick joke seem redundant. I would argue that “Inglourious Basterds” celebrates cinema’s unique ability to expose the lies inherent in the films of historical context.
Consider Michael Haneke’s famous critique of ‘Schindler’s List’ (a movie based on the Holocaust): “The idea of creating entertainment out of this […] The mere idea of trying to draw and create suspense out of the question of whether gas or water will come out of the shower head, to me, is unspeakable.” Despite the project being carefully researched, the filmmaker took issue with Spielberg trying to extract a level of entertainment, in some guise, from the extremity of human depravity. According to him, “You are creating melodrama, you are trying to reach your spectators, to move your spectators.” Tarantino, on the other hand, rejects cinematic realism altogether. Through his postmodern lens, he exposes a truth that exists only in the cinematic realm—a truth justified within the boundaries of fiction.
To achieve this, Tarantino implements his trademark self-reflexivity or self-awareness, realized through several postmodern techniques, primarily self-reference, pastiche, and allusions to other films. These latter two are key mechanisms of intertextuality. As literary theorist Linda Hutcheon describes it,
“Postmodern intertextuality is a formal manifestation of both a desire to close the gap between the past and the present of the reader and a desire to rewrite the past in a new context. It is not a modernist desire to order the present through the past or to make the present look sparse in contrast to the richness of the past. … It is not an attempt to void or avoid history. Instead, it directly confronts the past of literature—and of historiography, for it too derives from other texts (documents). It uses and abuses those intertextual echoes, inscribing their powerful allusions and then subverting that power through irony.”
Also Read: 20 Best Quentin Tarantino Characters, Ranked
In cinema, this intertextuality enables the exchange of elements between films or other art forms with the examined film itself. In Tarantino’s movies, intertextuality manifests as allusions (with connotations) or pastiche (without connotations). Among all his movies, “Inglourious Basterds” is perhaps the most prominent and direct in its use of intertextuality. This film, without a doubt, serves as Tarantino’s biggest ode to cinema, primarily due to its name’s reworking of the 1978 B-movie “The Inglorious Bastards” and the fact that its plot partially revolves around the screening of a movie premiere. One major subplot is Joseph Goebbels’ movie “Nation’s Pride” and its premiere’s relocation to Shosanna’s theatre.
Additionally, Hugo Stiglitz’s name is given to one of the Basterds, whose team includes third-party collaborators like a German film star, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), and a former film critic, Lieutenant Archibald Hicox (Michael Fassbender). Their mission, “Operation Kino,” directly references the cinematic medium. Furthermore, names like G.W. Pabst and “King Kong” appear in the card game in the La Louisiane tavern, while references to Henri-Georges Clouzot, Leni Riefenstahl, and Max Linder surface in the conversation between Shosanna and Frederick Zoller.
Through these trademark pop culture references and dark, comical dialogues, Tarantino creates his own version of the 1940s. What emerges is a powerful subversion of historical narratives. Tarantino takes historical figures as archetypes and reshapes them through his imagination—a hallmark of postmodernism. In his version, the Nazis are caricatures, while the oppressed Jews are brave, courageous, and powerful—so much so that the Nazis fear them, and even Hitler loses his composure.
The film’s unusual structure and tonal shifts—including documentary footage, commentary on nitrate film stocks, random voiceovers to unravel characters’ backstories, and the “film within a film” device—create an impression that the movie does not take itself seriously. Tarantino has employed these techniques in his past and future films, but applying them to one of the most significant events of the 20th century is undeniably audacious. Yet, for Tarantino as a postmodern auteur, this subversive approach allows him to critique the event with such historical gravitas without being overly dramatic.
Tarantino revisited this approach in his next film, “Django Unchained,” where he expands on subversion, not only by tackling racial injustices in America’s past but also by challenging genre conventions. However, setting that aside, “Inglourious Basterds” deserves appreciation for its subversive brilliance, standing out as one of the best World War II films. It doesn’t aim to evoke patriotism or sentimentalize suffering to elicit certain emotions. Instead, through a postmodern lens, it tells a simple and cool story of vengeance, complete with twists and turns, while demystifying the conventions of cinematic realism in the context of historical films. Thus, the film becomes a fresh and powerful entry in the historical genre, leaving a lasting impression, much like the Swastika carved into the foreheads of the Nazis by the Basterds.
