Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 63178 times)

gateway

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Boom De Ah Da.
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #430 on: January 01, 2010, 08:19:44 PM »

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!

That doesn't necessarily mean they spoke again. Landa simply could have had one of his officers request the use of Shoshanna's office.
"I hope someday to be rich enough to smoke giant cigars while cackling maniacally."
- Nathan Rabin (echoing my thoughts exactly)

libra_1989

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #431 on: January 02, 2010, 12:19:21 AM »
Okay, I'm new to this board and a major Tarantino-fan to boot. I just saw IB last week and I have a few questions regarding certain scenes that I'm little confused about:

1) Did anybody else notice Landa staring at the farmer's younger daughter after complimenting all three of them? Am I the only one who noticed that small little detail? There was something very strange about Landa intensely staring at her like that...I didn't really understand what Tarantino was trying to convey to the audience with that little staring contest going on between the younger daughter and Landa. What was the need for that small little detail in the script? Was there some kind of a sexual motive behind landa's stare?


I chalked it up to showing that if Landa wanted to take the girl with him, he could have.  He had that power.  And if the father saw it, all the better since the girl's father knew he could take her and there would be nothing he could do.

Actually, now that I think about it, your theory seems to make sense, considering the fact that we really never got to see what happened to the family after Shossana starts running from the farmer's house. We only get to see Landa bidding "Au revoir Shossana!!" while Shossana escapes and the scene gets cut after that. We don't really know whether or not Landa (being the sadistic scumbag that he is!) kept up his side of the agreement that he would let go of Lapadite and his daughters, if LaPadite pointed out where Shossana and her family were hiding. For all we know he might have killed Lapadite and his daughters except the youngest daughter. Landa might have taken the younger daughter with him and raped her. This is the reason I loved this scene, not only because Christoph Waltz's acting is convincingly downright creepy, but also because the scene is left open ended. I like open ended scenes because in that way, it's left to the audience to imagine/assume what might have happened!


libra_1989

  • Junior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #432 on: January 02, 2010, 12:28:38 AM »

2) Landa states to Bridgette Von hammersmark (just before he asks her to put her feet on his lap) that "Emmanuelle Mimieux" handed over her office to him. Now this statement indicates that Shosanna met and spoke to Landa one more time after the strudel-eating scene. It indicates that the strudel-eating scene wasn't the only time that Landa got the chance to speak to Shossana. Now I'm just left wondering why was this scene deleted from the script? I certainly would have enjoyed watching another confrontation between Landa and Shossana!

That doesn't necessarily mean they spoke again. Landa simply could have had one of his officers request the use of Shoshanna's office.

True. But since he never mentioned about having sent one of his officer's to request her for the office, I think it is quite possible that he might have done it himself. This is Landa we are talking about. I'm sure he would not miss out another opportunity to scare Shossana (like the strudel-eating scene). I wonder if there is any deleted scene of it in the DVD?

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11057
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #433 on: January 02, 2010, 02:26:42 PM »
Or maybe he just put up shop there w/o asking and said she let him do it...(the most likely scenario)...
Hey, nice marmot!

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #434 on: January 02, 2010, 08:32:19 PM »
Another question I didn't see addressed in the previous 29 pages  ::)  :)  although, I admit, I didn't read each and every post incredibly thoroughly:

Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I'd be open to suggestions for her motivation or to an explanation detailing why she's not, in fact, kneeling out of compassion at all, but so far, this inconsistency in the characterization of Shosanna is indicative of part of the problem I had with the film. A number of the characters' actions didn't make sense to me (again, I'd be happy for an explanation - maybe I'm just being dense and I've seen the film only once):

1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way? Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally? I've read in this thread suggestions that he did it out of passion because a) he had a previous relationship with von Hammersmark and b) he was mad 'cause she insulted his intelligence. First, indications of the previous relationship seemed pretty slight to me. Did I miss a look or a line of dialogue that showed he was enraged or still in love with her? I sensed no spark between them that would have lead to a crime of romantically related passion. Second, he seemed too confident a character to be so incensed by a silly lie. He was sure of his intelligence, and I didn't see any previous indication in the film that insults to his intelligence would elicit such a response. Frankly, I think the whole thing was just an excuse for some brutal violence (and another shot of a woman's feet), a character's consistency be damned.

3) Was it really consistent for Raine not to be on his guard after von Hammersmark was taken? Really? He thought he'd just stand there after the Jew Hunter had taken her into an office alone? For a Basterd who'd been successfully ambushing and escaping Nazis, he suddenly seems remarkably stupid in this scene. Someone else mentioned the leaving of the shoe and the handkerchief in the bar, too - again, really? The Basterds would not have taken those things with them? Again, it just seems character consistency is sacrificed for the sake of plot points.

Plot holes I'm think I'm more ok with, but when characters aren't consistent, I have a much harder time excusing a film.

zblaesi

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #435 on: January 02, 2010, 08:39:47 PM »
I think people get the "OMG ANOTHER TARANTINO FILM" reaction when they watch IB and overlook its flaws. I can't help but wonder if the script isn't as tight as it seems. For example, a few of the Basterds disappear in the film's final act without explanation. We never learn what happened to them. When the Basterds are fairly one-dimensional and cartoonish to begin with, letting them disappear without explanation only adds to the problem. I suppose this is the result of Tarantino cutting a bunch of scenes out of the film to bring it down in length.

Of course, I loved the film, just saying there might be flaws in the script people tend to overlook. As noted above, Shoshanna's motivations for killing Zoller might be another example.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2010, 08:41:27 PM by zblaesi »

chardy999

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3550
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #436 on: January 02, 2010, 08:44:06 PM »
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.

The other things you bring up are more plot holes than character inconsistencies and even so, they are relatively minor. I mentioned this elsewhere, but if you aren't that invested in a story, these little things grate on you more and more.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
- Groucho Marx

zblaesi

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 150
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #437 on: January 02, 2010, 08:51:22 PM »
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Quote
1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way?


For me, Landa's actions in the final act of the film make perfect sense.

Landa is not pure evil, and his actions are not driven by irrationality. He's a cold-blooded opportunist. Unlike his peers who are motivated by blind nationalism, Landa cares only for himself and how to progress in wealth and honor. He probably realizes that Germany cannot ultimately win the war, and that soldiers such as himself will be tried for their crimes. It is a downhill battle. Landa sees an opportunity to end the war and benefit himself when he captures the Basterds, and being the opportunist that he is, he takes advantage of that opportunity (quite excessively I might add).

That's how I saw it, anyway.

Maybe I'm messed up in the head, but I can't help but think of Landa as a sort of dark hero. He's intelligent, successful, manipulative, rational, and also fierce. Then again... he ruthlessly murders people to get ahead. He's the capitalist's hero anyway.

The fact that Landa - at least for me - comes off as appealing is no doubt a result of Waltz's performance.



Quote
Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

I don't know. Maybe his ego got in the way.
Quote
2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally?

I never thought about it to be honest.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2010, 08:58:02 PM by zblaesi »

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #438 on: January 02, 2010, 09:29:54 PM »
RE: OAD

Landa didn't want to be put in front of a jury and was getting out early.
We know Germany would lose and that there would be a war crimes tribunal. Landa didn't. We don't get any indication in the film that Germany is losing or that Landa thinks they are and he's worried about his future. Tell me specifically what details in the film back up your statement about Landa.

Landa was highly insulted by direct or indirect attacks on his intelligence and the killing of Bridget was a logical culmination of her disrespect.
Again, where in the film do you see this as a part of his character? Give me some details - otherwise, it's only a possibility, not something that's clearly from the film itself. I don't see enough depth in his relationship with Bridget for there to be a culmination of anything.

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #439 on: January 02, 2010, 09:41:43 PM »
Quote
Why would Shosanna kneel down, seemingly out of some kind of compassion(?), to check on Zoller? She's about to brutally kill a room full of Nazis, finally getting some retribution for the killing of her entire family, and she feels compassion for an arrogant Nazi sniper hero who was just about to rape her? Really? (And why didn't she shoot him with more bullets in the first place? Every other character was pointedly generous in the shooting of the bullets department.) Seems to me like it was just an easy way to kill her off quickly and brutally - yay! more violence!! Nice one, Tarantino - you really surprised me by killing a character I kind of cared about! You're awesome. (By the way, as a film buff, wouldn't she have known the villain is never really dead? You've got to make sure about those guys, you know; you riddle them with bullets, but they still rise to shoot you when you're least expecting it!)

I bought it. Sure, Shoshana is about to brutally murder a theater full of Nazis, but the difference is none of these Nazis have a face, a name, a history. They're just Nazis. The Nazis who, symbolically, killed her parents. The Nazis who persecute her people. The Nazis... you get it. On the other hand, Shoshana grows to know Zoller. By the end of the film, she sees a glimpse of humanity in him. He seems almost innocent in death. She takes pity on him at this point.

Maybe it's not wholly consistent, but I wasn't thinking "wtf?" when I was watching the movie.
Yeah, I don't know what else to say except that I didn't buy it. What was the glimpse of Zoller's humanity? The groan? That's it?

Quote
1) I still don't understand (even after reading some of the previous discussion) why Landa would suddenly turn traitor to the Reich. He was good at being a hunter/detective - he thrived on it - why quit now? Why not just tell the high command what was going on, get recognition for valor (something he seemed to want, if we can believe the negotiations deal he made over the phone), and continue on his merry way?


For me, Landa's actions in the final act of the film make perfect sense.

Landa is not pure evil, and his actions are not driven by irrationality. He's a cold-blooded opportunist. Unlike his peers who are motivated by blind nationalism, Landa cares only for himself and how to progress in wealth and honor. He probably realizes that Germany cannot ultimately win the war, and that soldiers such as himself will be tried for their crimes. It is a downhill battle. Landa sees an opportunity to end the war and benefit himself when he captures the Basterds, and being the opportunist that he is, he takes advantage of that opportunity (quite excessively I might add).

That's how I saw it, anyway.
I don't want a "he probably realizes." I need film to give me the answer. Even a just a hint, but something. I get that he's an opportunist and that he's not a nationalist, but I need to understand more clearly why he thinks switching sides (and making a deal with and putting himself in the hands of the Basterds who hate him and want to kill him) is his best bet.

Maybe I'm messed up in the head, but I can't help but think of Landa as a sort of dark hero. He's intelligent, successful, manipulative, rational, and also fierce. Then again... he ruthlessly murders people to get ahead. He's the capitalist's hero anyway.

The fact that Landa - at least for me - comes off as appealing is no doubt a result of Waltz's performance.
Yes, I know what you mean. Landa's intelligence - a kind of Holmesian intelligence - is strangely captivating. And weirdly, had much more appeal to me than anything Shosanna offered.

Quote
Landa was the best part of the film, and his actions in the last act were a big disappointment - they just didn't make sense to me in terms of who the film was building him up to be. (And why was he so stupid about the Basterds in the end? He was really shocked that they'd do what they did in the forest?)

I don't know. Maybe his ego got in the way.
I want more than a maybe. :)


Quote
2) And why strangle von Hammersmark so brutally?

I never thought about it to be honest.
Tarantino was clearly quite taken with the scene, the way he lingered on it. I, honestly, thought it was the most brutal death, so I'd like there to be a reason for it.