Author Topic: Inglourious Basterds  (Read 60517 times)

libra_1989

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #500 on: January 13, 2010, 01:43:48 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.

This is what I thought too. It's just the same as the milk-drinking or the bigger pipe or whatever in the back and forth that demonstrates that Landa is in control at all times. Plus it is creepy.

I was just re-reading the older posts and started doing a little googling on sexual abuse and rape during world war 2. I came across this website http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/actu/actu00/doc2000/womensex.html which contained a lot of information and interviews, taken of some of the female survivors.

I found out that it was in fact very common for SS officers to rape/sexually abuse Jewish women. So since it is a historical fact, I would not be surprised if Landa actually didn't live up to his promise of letting go of La padite's family. For all we know (as I have mentioned before on this thread that we never got to see what happened to La Padite and his daughters) Landa might have instead shot La Padite and his eldest daughters and he and the other three SS officers with him gang-raped and murdered the youngest daughter.

Another thing I've been thinking about lately is what do you think Landa was up to in the four days that passed after the theater got blown up and before he arrived at the forest near the American lines? What do you think transpired in those four days? Landa obviously spent those four days with Raine and Utivich tied up. The audience never got to see this interaction, which means it is a "missing moment". I for one would have loved to see the conversations and chatting going on between Raine and Landa in those four days that passed!

Not only that but I would have loved to see the look on Landa's face if he had ever come to know about Shossana's plan! Do you think there were any survivors from that explosion? If there were what would have happened if the Basterds questioned or interrogated the survivors and came to know about Shossana's plan? What would have happened if Landa came to know from some of the survivors (or the Basterds reveal this information to him at some point) that the theater owner's real name is Shossana Dreyfus (which Shossana anyway reveals to the audience as the smoky figure of her face was burning on the screen before the bombs were set off. So if there were any survivors from that explosion, the survivors will most probably remember her name) and not only that but of Shossana's successful plan of burning the theater? I'm sure Shossana's plan must have spread through word-of-mouth (few weeks after the explosion) from some of the survivors from the explosion as the American soldiers investigate the explosion and interrogate the survivors.



very good points, one and all.

I always wonder about that final scene on the lines.  There was no checkpoint or guards - which struck me as strange.  I can see non-lovers of the film using this to rip on it.  On the other hand if some time had passed, then soilders would have abandoned their checkposts.

You are right. I completely forgot about that. But then again Germany surrendered in those four days that passed after the explosion. So yeah, like you said, the soldiers must have abandoned their check-posts.

Another thing that struck me was that some people might say that there is no reason for Landa to not live up to his promise of letting go of La Padite and his daughters because although he is evil, he is fair, unlike the Basterds. But I really think that this is inaccurate observation, for the simple fact, that this is the same person who pretended to La Padite that he had no idea about the whereabouts of the Dreyfuses, only to turn around moments later and reveal to La Padite that he knew all along that he was hiding them under the floorboards. He basically lied to La Padite. It's one of his interrogation techniques, in order to catch his victims off guard. This is the reason I feel that Landa might have lied about his promise to La Padite too. All of Landa's actions are self-serving and opportunistic (not to mention sadistic). So if he could gain something out of lying to La Padite about his promise, why would he not lie?

And one more thing I found out was an interview given by Christoph Waltz last year in which he gives a much more solid (rather than vague) answer regarding the question of why Landa didn't shoot Shossana in the starting. I've quoted him below:

Q: They're hiding, they're burrowing, they're nesting underneath the house [referring to the Jewish family hiding under floorboards in the movie's opening scene].
Waltz: Yes, they understand how to survive under terrible circumstances. They still know to survive. [Col. Landa] says that, because he appreciates what immense feats human beings are capable of.
Q: Do you mean Shosanna [the family member who gets away]?
Waltz: Maybe. What would have happened if he had shot her [when she ran away in the opening scene of the movie]?
Q: Yeah, I was wondering what his motivation was. If it was actually physical because she was out of range? Or if it was a decision? It definitely seems like a decision.
Waltz: That's a good guess. What would have happened had he shot her?
Q: There wouldn't have been a movie.
Waltz: Yeah, absolutely! Why not?
Q: Because there's no drama for him [Landa] in it.
Waltz: There you go! Exactly.
Q: He's not doing it for intrigue.
Waltz: For testing, if you want. Or what?
Q: Is there a certain level of respect for her, because she got out that far?
Waltz: Yes, possibly. Absolutely, absolutely. And, admiration for [her] guts, and to prove his theory.



And in another interview, the interviewer asks him about the Strudel-eating scene (about whether or not Landa knew who Shossana was). And this time, finally, Christoph's reply was DEFINITELY not vague:

Atomic Popcorn: Yeah, those moments where you would interact with the other characters and they would think they have everything covered but you would still just break them down layer by layer and you could see it on their face, they would all think in their heads “Oh, God, he’s got us!” There was another scene I liked where you with Melanie Laurent at the restaurant after Goebbels left and you offered her strudel with cream. Every time you spoke you were hammering her down and you see her slowly trying not to break down. When you were supposed to ask a question, do you think your character knew who she was or do you think he totally forgot?

Christoph Waltz: what do you think?

Atomic Popcorn: I think he knew because I think the way things were going towards the end of the film, he basically used her to his advantage to help smooth out his plans. That’s what I thought it was.

Christoph Waltz: Well that’s important. I tend to agree, let’s put it that way, I would have been disappointed had you said something else. But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view, why doesn’t he disclose it to her that he knows? Well, it’s in, a way, the same reason that he doesn’t shoot her, because disclosing that he knows would in a way [have] the same effect as shooting her. But he doesn’t.

Atomic Popcorn: Maybe he’s curious to see what’s going happen next. And see how far she goes, as he already noticed she’s around the war hero of Germany?

Christoph Waltz: Yeah exactly – that’s what I think, too.


You can read the first interview at http://www.moviefill.com/Interview-With-Christoph-Waltz-From-Inglourious-Basterds-18056/ and the second one (dealing with the strudel-eating scene), here  http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/interview-with-a-basterd-christoph-waltz/

34 Pages of pure shit....

this movie sucked

Different strokes for different folks! :D
« Last Edit: January 13, 2010, 05:25:47 AM by libra_1989 »

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #501 on: January 13, 2010, 09:27:43 AM »
But it's not Waltz's film and he also stresses that:
Quote
But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view

I can see that from Waltz's interpretation, he feels as though Landa knows who she is but he never got a look at her as she ran away. But QT as the director never talls us definitively anything about it leaving it open to any interpretation.

I feel ya but I am not buying Waltz's take on it - for me - mine works better. :P
Hey, nice marmot!

libra_1989

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #502 on: January 13, 2010, 11:46:56 AM »
But it's not Waltz's film and he also stresses that:
Quote
But Quentin makes it a point that if he wants you to know he would tell you, if he wanted you to know to be certain about the fact that he knows who she is, then he would let you know. So I agree with you, but you could also see it [from] a different point of view

I can see that from Waltz's interpretation, he feels as though Landa knows who she is but he never got a look at her as she ran away. But QT as the director never talls us definitively anything about it leaving it open to any interpretation.

I feel ya but I am not buying Waltz's take on it - for me - mine works better. :P

Photographs were available at that time, so I'm guessing (and this is just my personal interpretation) that he already knew how each of member of the Dreyfus family looked like, including Shossana, before he came to La Padite's house.

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #503 on: January 13, 2010, 12:55:05 PM »
Again - not communicated to the audience and as Waltz says - QT will tell you what you need to know (any director will). My approach to watching film is that I only take the information given to me by the director. I understand the process but to me it feels "not truthful" to the director's intentions.
Hey, nice marmot!

gateway

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Boom De Ah Da.
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #504 on: January 13, 2010, 04:40:56 PM »
I'm not really buying any of the speculation that Landa killed La Pedite's family after that scene ends. Could it have happened? Sure, it could have happened. Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I think Landa's sadism is being overplayed. Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.
"I hope someday to be rich enough to smoke giant cigars while cackling maniacally."
- Nathan Rabin (echoing my thoughts exactly)

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10889
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #505 on: January 13, 2010, 04:48:32 PM »
Agreed
Hey, nice marmot!

ferris

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10832
  • "Bravo Vincent....Bravo!"
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #506 on: January 13, 2010, 04:57:18 PM »
Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I like this theory
:)
"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs" - Exodus 8:2 KJV
(switchboard)

ferris

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10832
  • "Bravo Vincent....Bravo!"
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #507 on: January 13, 2010, 04:58:20 PM »
...Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.

I agree with all this.  Well said
"And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite all thy borders with frogs" - Exodus 8:2 KJV
(switchboard)

FroHam X

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 17792
  • “By any seeds necessary.”
    • justAtad
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #508 on: January 13, 2010, 05:03:30 PM »
There is so much mental masterubation going on in this thread that I seem to have become lost.

Quoting out of Context approved!


Was anybody ever interested in QT showing how Shoshana came to own the theatre?
"We didn't clean the hamster's cage, the hamster's cage cleaned us!"

Can't get enough FroHam? Read more of my musings at justAtad

libra_1989

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: Inglourious Basterds
« Reply #509 on: January 13, 2010, 10:46:33 PM »
I'm not really buying any of the speculation that Landa killed La Pedite's family after that scene ends. Could it have happened? Sure, it could have happened. Landa could have also hopped on a unicycle and started singing Single Ladies.

I think Landa's sadism is being overplayed. Waltz has talked about Landa's sadism in interviews, but pretty much everything I see Landa do in the film is done in what is basically a business-like fashion. In the opening scene, Landa has accomplished his job, he has gotten La Pedite to admit to sheltering Jews and he takes satisfaction in having completed his job. You could say he sadistically toys with Shoshana during the streudel scene, but that only works if he does in fact know that he is talking to Shoshana. He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark. All the satisfaction I see on Landa's face comes from him getting confirmation that he is smarter than everybody, more clever than everybody and more capable than everybody. I don't see how killing La Pedite and his daughters would really give him any satisfaction.

I'm not denying that most of what Landa does throughout the movie are for self-serving, opportunistic reasons, as well as to prove to himself and the people around him, that he is smarter, more capable and clever than everybody else. I'm just saying, that I personally view this as only partly the reason that he is in this job. The other part being, that he is in this job, to give himself an outlet for his narcissistic and sadistic tendencies. So I'm going to agree to disagree :) (especially on the whole "He certainly doesn't seem to get any satisfaction out of killing Von Hammersmark" part). I guess that's the beauty of the Tarantino-films (and art in general), in that, everyone has a unique point of view, by looking at the same scene in ten different angles.