Asklemmy

Inglorious Bastards ain’t your average war flick or history lesson, it’s Tarantino doing his offbeat thing

I can understand that, I like his style ususally. But that's point of my disappointment. As a historian I cannot see it apart from the historical events. But the crowd reaction is what really freaked me out, it's scary if you think of it.

But remember, Tarantino’s all about pushing buttons and sparking chatter. If it got under your skin, maybe it hit the mark.

It may have. I think the true brilliance of the movie is how the audience, due to framing, can be induced to condone the killing of innocents. I sincerely hope that wasn't actually Tarantino's intention.

For instance the soldier killed by the bear jew refused to give up military secrets under threat of death. He chooses te respectfully refuse and is then killed. Framed differently in lots of war movies this is a heroic act.

But here people then cheer when te bear jew comes out and finishes him off.

All of this is an actual war crime.

That’s just folks enjoying seeing the Nazis get some comeuppance.

Indeed and I know, it's all a bit of good fun. I just can separate it from the very real and very deadly seriousness of this part of history. That was what the main question of this thread was about.

Listen. It is one of the hardest cases to discern guilt in wartime situations. Membership of the nazi parti or being a german soldier is not per se a sign of guilt. Just like just being a jew is no reason to be killed, too. I'm all for sentencing war criminals, but the soldier killed by bear jew nor the people sitting in the cinema (aside from Hitlers direct circle) have been proven to be guilty of war crimes.

If you applaud them burning, you're basicly using the same system of dehumanising a group of people as the nazi party and the SS used for making people belief sloughtering jews, gypsies, gay people is ok. That is very, very wrong.