The one mystery Quentin Tarantino refuses to reveal: “I’m never going to explain that”
A recurring issue with modern cinema is that the ‘show, don’t tell’ mantra is being increasingly forgotten in an age of over-explanation, but it’s not something Quentin Tarantino is ever going to allow himself to fall victim to.
After all, it’s been a key part of his signature approach to filmmaking since the very beginning, with Reservoir Dogs defying convention by being a heist flick that doesn’t even show the heist. Since then, the writer and director has been happy to let audiences draw their own conclusions.
The most famous example by far is the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, which became one of the most hotly debated MacGuffins in movies. It’s integral to the plot, and people are willing to kill to get their hands on it, but at no point did Tarantino ever feel the need to elaborate on what was inside.
As a result, something as innocuous as the staple accessory of office workers worldwide took on a life of its own, with countless theories having sprung up in the three decades since his labyrinthine crime thriller changed the face of independent cinema and propelled Tarantino straight to the top of the directorial A-list.
Too much exposition, foreshadowing, or hints at things to come have a habit of robbing any film of tension, drama, and stakes when the need to oversimplify things for an audience takes precedence over originality or creativity. Tarantino has always been happy to let the viewer make up their own mind, a sentiment that even applies to how he titles his pictures.
On the surface, the moniker of Inglourious Basterds could be as construed as a way to both pay tribute to, avoid confusion, and potentially sidestep any copyright infringement claims tied to Enzo G Castellari’s 1978 war flick, The Inglorious Bastards. It’s obvious that Tarantino didn’t come up with nomenclature off the top of his head, but neither did he want to invite comparisons.
His World War II adventure wasn’t a remake, although it did pay tribute to its spiritual predecessor. He liked the title and made it his own, with the two-time Academy Award winner seeing absolutely no reason why he should spell out his reasons for instigating a couple of minor – and inaccurate in a grammatical sense – changes.
“Here’s the thing,” he matter-of-factly expressed during a press conference at the Cannes Film Festival. “I’m never going to explain that. You know, when you do an artistic flourish like that to describe it, explain it, it just takes the piss out of it and invalidates the whole stroke in the first place.”
Why did Tarantino use The Inglorious Bastards as a springboard to Inglourious Basterds? Because he felt like it, and that’s the only justification he’s ever felt compelled to give.
Never Miss A Take
The Far Out Quentin Tarantino Newsletter
All the latest Quentin Tarantino content from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.