Nick Emmerson

In what ways can Inglorious Basterds and Fight Club be considered postmodern?

In its simplest forms postmodernism can be defined as a copy of a copy of a copy, mean that
it takes inspiration, or scenes directly from another piece of media, although this doesn’t
only apply to films and TV, a good example would be Austin Powers which is a parody of
James Bond.

The film Fight Club is about Ed Norton’s Character (at this moment, in the film he has no
name) who is board with his life, as he spends every day doing the same tedious tasks, for a
boss who he hates. His life is very structured and repetitive, as he doesn’t do much, other
than work and go to support groups, although he doesn’t really have any of the
corresponding ‘problems’ he still goes but for his personal reason of not being able to sleep
as he needs some form of comfort, as a part of his job he flies to different places, he
becomes friends with Tyler Durden, on a plane whilst is on a business trip. Ed’s Character’s
flat blows up soon after he gets home, from the flight of meeting Tyler, who as a
consequence of having no home he starts to live with.

During the Film they start a ‘Fight Club’, due to beliefs that modern day men aren’t really
men they are just ‘wrapped in duvets’ and pampered by their parents but especially their
Mums, the fight club gives them away to feel alive.

In Fight Club towards the start of the film there is a scene which Tyler Durden (Ed Norton’s
character), explains that he along with most people have become materialistic, and that
they have been smothered by what they own,
meaning ‘what you own, ends up owning you’,
during Tyler explaining this, the there is a scene
which is postmodern, When Ed’s character is
explaining it he uses an example of him trying to
define what type of product from shops such as
Ikea define his personality (linking back to
materialistic and being owned by his possessions)
the scene is like an Ikea advert, or of a Ikea

magazine page, (see image above for example)

this is a postmodern effect being used as it is
an intertextual reference to an Ikea advert,
e.g. the magazine/advert in which it’s
supposed to look like (see image to the left for
example).
Nick Emmerson

The film breaks the fourth wall, as Ed Norton’s character regularly speaks to the audience,
this is a technique/device is postmodern as the actor is breaking the imaginary ‘wall’
between escapism and realism as the actor looks directly at/or speaks to the audience
which has now been forced to have some interaction with the film, as the Ed is having a
conversation with you, the audience. Although the audience has some participation in the
film by being spoken directly to in some scenes, which may make the audience think about
what Ed is saying, but as an audience even with the characters breaking the fourth wall the
interaction with the movie is fairly low right up until the last 20 minutes or so, when the plot
starts to unravel and you can make sense of what was happening through out the film, this
is when you have the largest participation as Ed/Tyler break the fourth wall and you end up
having to do some form of work. Where as other films, you will be able ‘escape into the film’
and enjoy it without having to think about what is happening, etc.

Inglorious Basterds is devided into five main chapters and is set during World War Two
(1939-1945/46), the narrative is about the notourious Americans called the ‘basterds’ who
are several jewish American soldiers, LT. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), SGT. Donny Donowitz (Eli
Roth), along with others, who are sent behind enemy lines in France and Germany to do one
job, which is to kill as many nazi’s and nazi allies as they can, by using as much violence as
possible, although they have an extra task set by Aldo Raine, which is to present to him 100
scalpes from 100 nazis each. If decide that a Nazi shouldn’t be killed they calve a swastika
into their head, so that everybody knows what they were apart of.

In chapter one the audience is introduced to a French family concealing jewish families,
from the Nazi’s this is where we meet Colonel Hanns Landa, who is in charge of finding the
jewish families, when we first meet him he is in a cottage in France interograting a French
man along with his three daughters, eventually the French Man reveals in English (as Hanns
asks him to speak English to conceal what they are saying to the French Jews) to Hanns that
he is hiding families under the floorboards in his house, whilst the SS are shooting th family
we are introduced to Shosanna who, later on in the film finds her self plotting revenge
agaisnt the Nazi’s by burning down the cinema that she and her husband own.

There are many sections/scenes throughout this film in which you could use to argue that
Inglorious Basterds is postmodern, but I will only use a couple, which include; The score and
intertextuality, a fairy tale/audience being constantly told it’s not real and a film with in a
film.

Tarentino, has used several different scores in the film, which includes; David Bowie’s Cat
People and three pieces from Ennio Morricone, along with others, although David Bowie
could be classed as postmodern, these pieces of music used in the film, aren’t post modern
because of their artists, rather becuase the sound tracks are from a different era to the date
the film is set, e.g. David Bowie’s Cat People was released in 1982, which is thirty seven
years after the film was supposed to be set, although the music in the film also contains
intertextual references to Spaghetti westerns and Blaxsploitation, for example Ennio
Nick Emmerson

Morricone’s The Surrender was directly taken from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, which
is a Spaghetti Western, starring Clint Eastwood. This is postmodern because he uses the
soundtracks as ‘nod’ towards the other films. Although intertextuality is used in the
soundtracks of the movie, there are also scenes such as the pram scene in “Nation’s Pride”
(a film within Inglorious Basterds) which is an intertextual reference to Osessa Step
sequence in Battleship Potanka.

Another way Inglorious Basterds could be considered postmodern is by it containing a film

within a film, the film is called Nation’s Pride, it is a film set inside a film, in which you watch
whilst watching the actual film (inglorious basterds), Nation’s Pride is about a young german
soldier named Fredrick Zoller, who was surrounded in a small villages bell tower by 300
italian soldiers. In the 6 minute fictional Nazi propaganda film, Zoller kills all 300 italians,
with only his sniper, whilst being entrapped. The reason why the film within a film is
postmodern is because it is an intertextual reference with in the fim to Nation’s Pride as
Fredrick Zoller is a character in Inglorious Basterds, who also stars as him self in second film,
the film is supposed to be a real life story being told, used as a German propaganda.

As well as the intertextual references, a film within a film and the score, the film also
contains constant reminders that it isn’t real and is only a story. At the very start of the film
it starts by saying “Once upon a time” which is how a fairytale starts, going along with the
fairytale theme it also ends the film in a forrest and in a happy, up beat way (e.g. the ‘good
guys winning and the audience feels happy with the ending’) the reason I have talked about
a fairytale is because they are myths which means they aren’t true or real. Another part
which reminds us that Inglorious isn’t real is the clothing and hair styles. Although Aldo and
his gang was dragged across a dirty floor, been in a fight, had bags over their heads, their
clothing and hair styles stay immaculously clean, it is as if they have only just put them on.
Tarentino throws in more evidence of it being non-fictional is when he reveals the set to the
audience during the scene Shoshanna is preparing her self the the nazi film night at the
cinema, the set is revealed by an overhead camera shot, which follows Shoshanna across set
and over a door frame which is visible.

Finally although Quentin, may have put this in for more than just this reason of reminding
the audience it isn’t real, his narrative doesn’t follow how history remembers World War
Two, because there wasn’t (as far as supporting evidence goes) an anti-German, American
Jewish hit squad sent from the American army to kill all Nazi’s behind the enemy line, along
with the fact that Hitler didn’ actally get murdered in a french cinema, he commited
suidecide with his wife Eva, in a bunker in Berlin, although it was lead to believe they took a
cinide capsule, it turns out they commited suicide by shooting themselves. As well as this it
is ofhigh likely hood that Hitler and his fellow top Nazi commanders would not meet up
together at the same place, due to risk of being a leak or being found by an enemy army,
etc. Although this may have been fairly unlikely it was a risk Htitler and his colleagues didn’t
Nick Emmerson

want to take, so on the occassion they had to meet they would attempt to meet in a secret
location in berlin or they would meet individually which is what happened majority of the
time.