Though the latest film by Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds, has no shortage of things for movie nerds to wet their pants over, one of the most obvious is the film's brilliant casting. Prominent German actors fill the German roles, the French play the French and though there are a few more exceptions on the American side, a number of Jewish-Americans fill out the ranks of the eponymous Nazi-slaughtering commando unit. Notably, Tarantino cast his protégé Eli Roth — a burly Jewish-American actor-director — as the Basterds’ No. 2, Donnie “The Bear Jew” Donnowitz.
“I learned so much from Quentin,” says Roth. “I'd already learned so much from him as a writer, but working as an actor I saw a lot of things he did that I wanted to bring onto my sets. I really understood what it felt like when you [as an actor] don't feel like you've gotten something right, but everyone else wants to move on, and the director's saying ‘No, let's move on, it's great,’ but you know you can do it better. With Quentin, we're really close friends, so there's no bullshit between us.”
Careers like Roth's are the reason why people from all over the world will abandon their entire lives and move to the U.S. to take a crack at the film industry. Shortly after graduating from film school, he wrote, directed and produced three of the most successful horror films in recent memory — Cabin Fever, Hostel and Hostel: Part II — and befriended two of the most celebrated contemporary film directors in America, David Lynch and Tarantino.
In addition to his minor role in Basterds, Roth also directed the Nazi propaganda film-within-a-film, Nation's Pride, and acted as Tarantino's unofficial “Jewish technical advisor” while the script was being written. When his friend was struggling with the ending of the film, Roth invited him over to his family's Passover Seder, during which the history of the Jews (including the Holocaust) is discussed, so that Tarantino could better understand the Jewish psychology behind never, ever forgetting. Though he modestly makes no claims to any of the script's content, the seder does tie in, chillingly, to Lt. Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) preferred method of marking those Nazis he does leave alive, so that people can always tell what they are, even when the uniforms are discarded long after the war.
“As a kid... I remember watching Holocaust movies where you just want the Jews to stand up and fight back,” says Roth. “It's like, why didn't they just fight back and kill everybody? I just couldn't understand that. Of course, later on in life, you learn that these people were starved in train cars and half delirious and there were kids whose parents were shot in front of them. And they were all put together with people who spoke many different languages so that nobody could communicate and they were all turning on each other.... That was part of the reason why it was so satisfying to make a movie about Jews kicking ass. That was actually a joke on set while we were filming. We kept making reference to Knocked Up, where they talk about Munich as 'Jews kicking ass.' While we were shooting we were like, 'This is the movie those guys were talking about in Knocked Up.'”
Though it rests comfortably on the quirks and devices Tarantino has built a career out of, between all of the prolonged bludgeonings, stabbings, shootings and, in one memorable scene, one man inserting his entire forearm into another's mouth, Basterds is probably the director’s most gruesome film, even if the actual number of minutes where people's bodies are creatively ventilated clocks in well below the slaughtertime on something like Kill Bill Volume I. Some early viewers have criticized the violence in the film for actually making the Jews less sympathetic than the Nazis in some scenes, though this perspective spectacularly misses the point. Spelling out the biggest way in which this opinion is wrong-headed would spoil the ending, though Roth's excitement about “Jews kicking ass” illustrates another, more minor one, perfectly. Tarantino never once forgets that the largest, most unambiguously evil atrocity in recorded history was committed against the Jewish people over half a century ago, and while his heroes may crack macabre one-liners as they go about their grim work, there's also an unspoken understanding that these men are expressing the pent-up, existential rage of a people who refuse to be exterminated.
“People came up to us after our first screening [at the San Diego Comicon], just shaking,” says Roth. “They told us they had fantasized about it. It was exactly what they had been fantasizing about since they were kids, and to see it was — I made the joke that it was kosher porn. It was porn for Jews. Everyone has had fantasies, just as they have about taking down the 9-11 hijackers. Everyone has wanted to go back in time and destroy the most evil people who ever lived.”

Comments: 12
Ron wrote:
To presume that every soldier in the Wehrmacht was a "Nazi" is as ludicrous as presuming that every soldier in the Canadian Forces is a Conservative. Almost all soldiers in the WWII German military were conscripted with the risk of severe penalty to themselves of their familes for attempted avoidance.
Mr. Roth's comments about "fantasies," in particular about "to go back in time and destroy the most evil people who ever lived." is indicative of a mind plagued by delusional pathology.
His view and, apparently, the view of his family (in its Seder discussion) is clearly lacking in historical fact.
The Jewish religion completely omits the historical truth that the U.S.S.R. of Josef Stalin was responsible for more atrocities and deaths than any other person or government - by a VERY wide margin. It destroyed at least 12 million Jews, more than twice the number that anyone has attributed to the Nazis.
However, to the Western Allies, Stalin was "Uncle Joe." In 1945, he had the largest army with the most tanks and artillery. Soon, he had nuclear weapons. Safer and easier by far to demonise Germany and the Nazis than risk conflict with a nation that had no qualms about its own losses and which probably could have devastated the West in a fight.
LOTS of people and governments were no friends of Jews in 1939. Hitleer sent boatloads of German Jews to our shores - and the shores of many other nations - but they were refused entry. Who therefore takes the blame for their ultimate fate?
Finally, if I want to view "Jews kicking ass," all I need do is turn on the evening news, where I can watch them driving bulldozers over Palestinian houses, or shooting unarmed civilians.
All these people need to heed the words attributed to Jesus - "The one of you who is without sin, let him throw the first stone."
on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 2:38pm Report Abuse
cschrag wrote:
on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 11:18pm Report Abuse
Kyle Francis wrote:
on Aug 22nd, 2009 at 11:31pm Report Abuse
fang wrote:
You didn't just call it a bad thing - the words you used perpetuated a shameful western habit of putting this event up onto a pedestal as the worst, most evil thing done in recent history.
Trying to rank evil events in recorded history isn't that simple - as cschrag and ron pointed out, there are other events that are arguably more evil than the holocaust in many categories - this isn't to say that we should diminish the holocaust and its memory, rather the peoples who were affected by the other events deserve some sort of recognition and respect.
I realize that you may not have intended to perpetuate this skewed viewpoint, but we usually expect more from FFWD, at least I do. A simple wording change would have gone a long way: "Tarantino never once forgets that one of the largest, most unambiguously evil atrocities in recorded history was committed against the Jewish people"
on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:39am Report Abuse
Kyle Francis wrote:
Also, I was trying to say "though I have read your comments, I will not argue with you, because no one has ever been convinced of anything in the history of any Internet argument, ever." So, since that didn't get through, there you go.
I stand by the wording. I knew that some people would react this way when I wrote it, and I won't be contrite just because moral relativism is fashionable.
on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 12:04pm Report Abuse
fang wrote:
I can appreciate your position, but perhaps you could explain your claims by listing the objective universal moral truths that you used to determine that "the largest, most unambiguously evil atrocity in recorded history was committed against the Jewish people"
I don't intend for that list to be something I attack (although others may), rather I'm just trying to understand what you, as the author, were saying.
on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 3:37pm Report Abuse
Kyle Francis wrote:
Though I appreciate your generally calm, rational tone (especially in a space too-often dominated by hysterical partisanism), I don't have much desire to engage in a debate on moral philosophy with you, precisely because all of this is in response to something I wrote, for pay, for a third party. To do anything but express my support for the article as-published seems unprofessional.
I regret any ambiguities in the wording, but I don't apologize for them. I hold the supreme evil of Hitler, the operant principles of his political party and the systematized mass-murder he carried out under their authority to be self-evident, and though I'm sure an exchange of viewpoints on this with you would be enlightening and fun for both of us, this isn't the place for it.
If, however, you were to post a response to the piece somewhere (say, a personal blog), I would feel much more comfortable debating in that context. However, if you choose to do this I suggest you see the film beforehand. Though it only ties into this argument in an ancillary way, I think that since it provided the spark to this powderkeg (that would be a lot funnier if this was a WWI movie), operating from a similar base of understanding allows for a more relevant argument.
on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 4:08pm Report Abuse
fang wrote:
Spacing better?
on Aug 23rd, 2009 at 10:41pm Report Abuse
fang wrote:
I should have mentioned that I appreciate and understand your want to support the article as written. In fact this stands as further evidence against your claim that no one is convinced of anything in an internet argument - you just convinced me that standing by your article as published on a third party site is a good thing.
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 2:27pm Report Abuse
Melly Mel wrote:
However, one great thing has happened since it's release.
PEOPLE ARE TALKING !!!
on Aug 24th, 2009 at 3:34pm Report Abuse
Ron wrote:
on Aug 31st, 2009 at 2:22pm Report Abuse
nicoleyukiko wrote:
(I hope my sarcasm comes through with this one...)
on Sep 9th, 2009 at 6:36pm Report Abuse
Post comment: (Login or Register)