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!