this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
233 points (99.6% liked)
history
23025 readers
1 users here now
Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.
c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting
Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.
Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).
When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.
Historical Disinformation will be removed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This furthers my idea the film was self satire but idk if it's what Tarantino was going for and even less so of its what he would want to go for.
In the movie the nazis make an ahistorical hyper violent movie glorifying an individual as the reason the war was being won and were supposed to be disgusted at the people in the movie theater cheering on the violence.
Which is exactly what the viewers are doing as they watch an ahistorical hyper violent film about how the war was won by a few plucky American GIs and a "great women".
really not sure if this was supposed to be some kind of commentary or if the point was to rub right up against that point and the moral of the story was "but theyre nazis so fuck em"
Have a hard time articulating without making it sound like he was trying to absolve the nazis and I really don't think Tarantino message was "the people who like my films are just like the nazis" and I also don't think he's trying to comment on how the erasure of soviet contributions to the war is similar to nazis twisting history so maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Quentin Tarantino just wanted to make a movie where Hitler gets shot in the face and I really don't think it's deeper than that.
That's kind of my gut feeling too but then the question is did he unintentionally make a movie about a film where the movie is almost a 1 to 1 stand in for the film?