"In short, "Inglourious Basterds" is not "Pulp Fiction." It's not even a war movie. It's a movie about other war movies — a riot of references with no stabilizing core. Yet again." - Kurt Loder
Kurt Loder's Full Article Here
I've read review after review of Quentin Tarantino's latest film Inglorious Basterds that has more to say about their opinions about Tarantino's style then they do about the film's merits as a story. Like it or not Tarantino is like a filmmaker's version of a literary historian who cannot tell a story without consciously alluding to what has existed prior. Just because you recognize a shot or a reference or two doesn't mean you can disregard the entire statement as being theft or an homage. The point was for you to recognize the reference. With Tarantino it seems to be an intentional part of the discussion. Unfortunately it is a minority that is capable of adequately participating in that discussion. However, I'm admittedly not well versed enough to invite the entire internet to bombard me with a film history pissing contest. This isn't the kind of article where we debate whether or not the Cabin was a reference to John Ford's the Searchers and whether it was an appropriate choice. My intent is to contribute an interpretation of the film's intent.
(*SPOILERS: DO NOT READ further if you do not want to know what happens)
I think Inglorious Basterds was about Glorification.
On one side you've got The Basterds, on the other is SS Colonel Landa (Christopher Waltz). Both have been glorified by legends that precede them. Each of the Basterds has an infamous nickname Such as "The Apache" or "The Bear Jew", while Landa is called the "Jew Hunter". Both sides have gained a sort of glorification as in they benefit from larger than life personas as a result of their violent actions.
The story lines converge at one major plot event...
The burning of a crowded theater with nitrate celluloid while playing a propaganda film by goebbles that glorifies the famous exploits of sniper turned war hero zoller.
