
Very few films are perfect, in my eyes at least. Coen Brothers’ 2007 classic No Country For Old Men is a movie I constantly cite as being one where every single individual scene and performance would be impossible to improve upon in progressing the filmmaker’s intention within that genre. No Country, for example, is a film I have watched at length and found no flaws, nothing that dissatisfies me or that I think could be bettered. Stanley Kubrick’s early crime classic The Killing is another. But these are few and far between.
Of course that’s just my opinion and you guys might be able to come up with a list a mile long about what annoys you about either film and you are entitled to that (I’d love to see such a list however if you do feel that way). But 99.9% of every other movie I’ve seen, even among the hundreds I love and watch incessantly, I’ve found things to dislike, that are irksome to me in some way and perhaps contain missed opportunities for further greatness.
In the first of a new series, I’m going to dissect some films I like and some that I don’t like so much, but always those where I felt like a few things could be tweaked just to make the movie a little better than it actually is. Some of these things were found upon frequent viewings, of course, and perhaps weren’t things I had noticed the first time around where a film worked completely for me.
First up on the block is Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 Best Picture nominated WWII movie Inglourious Basterds, a personal favourite of mine and a movie I’ve seen a dozen times. However, almost since my first viewing of the film, I’ve always felt a few niggles from the movie and here they are…
Of course there are huge spoilers in this article if you have not seen the movie…
1) The Opening Scene – Redemption For LaPadite

A homage to a similar scene in his favourite movie The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, the opening of Inglourious Basterds perfectly showcases Quentin Tarantino’s trademark inventive use of language and love for dialogue as Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) interrogates a French farmer Perrier LaPadite (Dennis Menochet) over whether he knows the whereabouts of the missing Jewish family the Dreyfuss’s in Nazi occupied France. We are informed by a smart camera pan that they are living underneath the floorboards.
After enjoying a glass of milk, toying with poor LaPadite in a Sherlock Holmes impression, even philosophizing with him and subtly threatening the lives of his own family, Landa promises LaPadite a pardon for hiding Jews and promises him anonymity from the Germans for the rest of the war if he was to give the Dreyfuss family up to him today. LaPadite, a good and religious man (notice the cross above his door in the image above), with a heavy heart, gives in to Landa’s questioning for the sake of his own family and is traumatized to point to where the Jews are hiding.
As the scene goes, Landa instructs his Nazi’s subordinates to open heavy fire on the floorboards, killing the Dreyfuss family in hiding, except for one girl… Shosanna (Melanie Laurent), who then runs for her life through the open fields. Landa, like a hunter pointing out a rat, sees her flee and she doesn’t get very far before he points his Luger up at the back of her head as she’s running away. After a considerable amount of time, as the prey is in the hunter’s site, ‘The Jew Hunter’ lifts his gun to point to the sky, smiles, and says ‘Au Revoir, Soshanna’. Whatttttttt?

The allowing of Shosanna to so easily get away in Inglourious Basterds always bugged me. I can only presume Tarantino ended the scene in such a manner perhaps to show that Landa, a character who always seems to be a head of the game – the one character who always seems to see the bigger picture of what is happening and how things will play (note the end scene and how he plays with Soshanna with the strudel) – knows that she will play a huge part in his life further down the road and that’s why he lets her live, but i still don’t like it.
In a brief moment that was in the slightly longer Cannes cut of Inglourious Basterds but was since removed for the theatrical release, Landa remarks to his soldiers that the girl would likely freeze to death on the run in the coming winter anyway but it’s an undeniable fact that the Jew Hunter, had his prey in his sights, and for reasons not obviously explained, he let her go free.
Here’s how I would have played the same scene…
So LaPadite gives up the Dreyfuss’ family under his floorboards and they are massacred in the same manner, except for Soshanna who once again makes her dash for freedom escape. BUT this time, just before Landa is to shoot her, the French farmer grabs his bottle of milk, hits Landa on the back of the head, temporarily stunning him. Landa’s Nazi’s then open fire on LaPadite, shooting a thousand bullets into his stomach, sacrificing himself to allow Soshanna to get away.
LaPadite is redeemed for giving up the Dreyfuss’ and it’s Soshanna’s ability to live like a rat that allows her to survive.
———————————————————————————–
2) Madame Mimieux

In the script for Inglourious Basterds we find out how Soshanna went from being a fleeing Jew on the run from the Nazi’s with no shelter to her name, to a cinema owner in just a few years. This filling in the blanks was omitted from both the Cannes print and the final version of the movie but it briefly went like this;
A character by the name of Madame Mimieux, the original owner of the French cinema, takes in this ‘orphan’ girl who keeps turning up night after night to watch the films (which by now are almost exclusively Goebbels’ propaganda films), presumably for a temporary roof over her head and to avoid running into Germans.
Madame Mimieux finds an exceptional quality about Soshanna and is impressed by her spirited, intelligent and honest attitude and she teaches her the ropes of how to work the projections and although it’s only a brief character, Madame Mimieux is just one of a few players in Tarantino’s movie who don’t quite know why, but must feel that there’s an important, perhaps mythical reason to keep helping this young girl with her struggle.
She is even the one who plants the idea in Soshanna’s head, subconsciously, to blow up the cinema to end the war with dialogue that in the final cut is given to the narrator Samuel L. Jackson;
MADAME MIMIEUX
if I ever see you light up a cigarette
in my cinema again, I'll turn you into
the Nazi's, do you understand?
Shosanna is shocked by this statement.
SHOSANNA
Oui, Madame.
MADAME MIMIEUX
And for bringing a open flame in my
cinema, you deserve far worse then
a Nazi jewish boxcar. With your thick
head, what do you think the highest
priority of a cinema manager is?
Keeping this fucking place from burning
down to the ground, that's what!
In my collection, I have over 350,
35mm, nitrate film prints, which are
not only immensely flammable, but
highly unstable. And should they
catch fire, they burn three times
faster then paper. If that happens..
.POOF...all gone, cinema no more,
every body burned alive. If I ever
see you with a open flame in my cinema
again, I won't turn you into the Nazi's
I'll kill you myself. And the fucking
Germans will give me a curfew pass.
Do you understand me?
SHOSANNA
Out, Madame.
MADAME MIMIEUX
Do you believe me?
SHOSANNA
Out, Madame.
MADAME MIMIEUX
You damn well better.
It was a nice few scenes on paper and Tarantino even went to the trouble of shooting them with the great Asian actress Maggie Cheung to play the part (how a Chinese woman came to own a French cinema is itself the kind of fantasy story that only exists in Tarantino’s mind) but ultimately he cut it for length and for the belief that the mystery of how Soshanna escaped evasion from the Nazi’s and came to own the cinema was better left to the imagination.
Usually, I agree with Tarantino on this statement. We certainly don’t need to know what is in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, we don’t need to know why Aldo Raine has a rope burn scar on his neck… but how Soshanna came to own the cinema, given her circumstances, is a criminal snippet of information not to tell us.
It feels lazy, too conveniently cut, and the absence of it is more irritating than it is intriguing. The eventual extended cut of Inglourious Basterds which we will probably get around 2021, will probably include the scene and I bet the film plays better…
———————————————————————————–
3) Deaths Switch Over

There’s two significant female deaths in the final act of Inglourious Basterds – one where the German movie star/British wartime spy Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) is strangled viciously to death by Col. Hans Landa for betraying the Nazi’s (0r is it because she insulted his intelligence by the ski story???) and the other where Soshanna is shot to death by German war hero Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl).
Two cool death scenes that work on there own merit but I can’t help but think Tarantino made a mistake in how he arranged the death scenes. Why didn’t he write them the other way around?
In all the scenes involving Zoller and Shosanna, it’s made clear the German war hero has a deep lust for Soshanna… and in that red dress, well it’s pushed his animalistic instincts over the edge. Shosanna has flirted with Zoller to get the Nazi officer inside the projection room to avoid shouting in the corridor (and giving her game away) only to once again reject him. But this time, instead of Shosanna shooting him in the back as a pre-emptive shot, why not have Zoller force himself on Soshanna and to stop herself being raped, she reaches for her gun and shoots Zoller.
Zoller strangles Shosanna in a mixture of anger and sexual desire, despite being wounded, and Soshanna, now almost breathless manages to shoot him again… but Zoller’s grip on her remains tight and he kills her, before then expiring himself from his wounds, lying on top of her. Looking like two lovers exhausted after making love, though blood and not semen is the giveaway for what happened.
For Bridget Von Hammersmark’s death at the hands of Landa… all the Tarantino foot fetish stuff could work as before but just have Landa shoot her. He’s not somebody who is previously built up to be someone who has the anger in him to kill someone by his own hands and he’s so neat and precise, why wouldn’t he use the gun?
———————————————————————————–
4) Eli Roth Re-Casting

Tarantino rarely makes casting mistakes in his films, though he dropped a huge clanger with Inglourious Basterds when he cast his friend and somewhat protage Eli Roth for a major role in the movie, that of ‘The Bear Jew’, Sgt. Donny Donowitz. Because of the ridiculously short timeframe he gave himself to get a completed movie in competition at the Cannes film festival, he only had a few weeks to find the right person to play the character, a role he had probably envisioned Michael Madsen to play when he was writing the screenplay intially in the 90′s, but by the time he got around to finishing it, he was too old for the part.
In the final few years of writing, Tarantino had wanted Adam Sandler, in the usual Tarantino trick of casting against type, to play The Bear Jew but he was busy making Funny People.
So under this pressure, Tarantino gave in and against his better judgement, trusted that his friend could pull it off. Unfortunately, Eli Roth is only slightly a better actor than Tarantino himself and all the moments he appears in the movie fail to live up to how well the character reads on paper.
After a huge build up and introduction to his character… perhaps the biggest character build-up outside of a whole movie building up to David Carradine’s appearance as Bill, out comes the director of Hostel. To say the air was suck out of the first screening I attended for the movie, was an understatement.
Casting his friend clouded his better judgement and it’s not a mistake he would have made back in the 90′s.
———————————————————————————–
5) What The Hell Happened To Hirschberg and The Rest Of ‘The Basterds’

Out of the 8 Basterds that make up Aldo Raine’s Nazi-killers, we only find out the fate of half of them. We know The Bear Jew (Roth) and Omar Ulmar (Omar Doom) go down with the cinema, and that Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger) and Wilhelm Wicki (Gedeon Becker) are killed in the bar scene. But what happened to Gerold Hirschberg (Samm Levine), Andy Kagan (Paul Rust), Michael Zimmerman (Michael Bacall) and Simon Sakowitz (Carlos Fidel) whom Tarantino makes such a big deal about in The Dirty Dozen scene near the beginning.
For a movie titled Inglourious Basterds, it’s just a shame that only half of the team get the spotlight and the others just seem like afterthoughts. Could he not have given them just one scene of glory or of note?
———————————————————————————–
So that’s my five things that would improve Inglourious Basterds. Agree/disagree?
Comments welcome…
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.








24 Comments
I didn’t expect to agree with any of these as Inglourious Basterds is pretty much my favourite film and I’ve always struggled to really find fault. For the record, I feel exactly the same about No Country For Old Men too!
But after reading this, there are one or two points I agree with. For example, Eli Roth as Bear Jew. When we first see him, he seems impressive. Exactly how the Bear Jew would be. The kill, the look, the presence. Unfortunately, post-first onscreen kill, he fails to live up to the idea. Part of the problem seems to be he’s too vocal. If he was more of a Stiglitz figure i.e. silent/relatively quiet, he would have worked far better. I expected him to be my favourite character when he came onscreen. He completely fell short.
Also agreed on the points about where the other Batserds go. I’ve always been a bit better that Wicki didn’t get much screentime despite clearly being one of the more elegant Basterds and the fact he was present in the bar scene. But I did get to thinking about what happened to the poor other Basterds. It seems we saw more of them in the cut material featured in the trailers than the film itself. I couldn’t speak for the Cannes cut as I didn’t see that version.
My own other issue with the film is the casting of Mike Myers. I just thought that was a really poor choice as he completely jarred with the rest of the casting.
In regards to your other points though . . . Sorry, I really do prefer Tarantino’s choice over yours. Your versions of the scenes seem a bit too obvious and part of Tarantino’s charms are slightly odd endings to scenes we’ve perhaps seen many times.
Just had to say; I agree to all that :-)
Good list. I agree with most points to some extent! The origins of the cinema, particularly, would have been appreciated. Eli Roth was a strange choice, I agree – the character might’ve benefitted from a different casting choice, though he doesn’t grate on me too much.
“Did you get that for killing Jews?”
“Bravery.”
One of my favourite moments in one of my favourite films.
Taking out the basterds and just telling the expanded Shosanna/Zoller/Landa storyline pretty much fixes every complaint I have with the film. It’s an interesting but discardable piece of tedium with an intensely watchable, exceptionally well-written/directed/acted short film called “Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France” stuck on the beginning.
Without the Basterds, Hitler doesn’t need to go the premiere as a sign of solidarity. They are integral to the story.
She never felt like the protagonist to me. But what bothered me more was seeing the Jews being led in to get back at the Nazis being led by… Brad Pitt.
Shossana is clearly the protagonist of the movie…
I agree with some of the points, but not all of them. The Eli Roth, the cinema owning story and the “what happened to the others?” are good points and would make a better film if included in the final cut, but the parts of the LaPadite scene and the two ladies deaths are absolutely perfect in my opinion, as is the tavern scene that someone mention to be self-indulgent; it’s actually one of my favorites from the whole film
I thought this movie had potential but it wasn’t for me. I liked the opening scene but that was about it. It didn’t have the power of Kill Bill and obviously Pulp Fiction. Disappointment.
Lots of the things in Inglorious bastards is left to the imagination but if you read the original screenplay, like many Tarantino films, things are explained better. However I do agree with tarantinos choice to leave things to the audience’s imagination. I do agree that the bear Jew could of been done better by a different actor but I can’t picture micheal madsen as him. One thing I would add to this list would be that Tarantino should of added the bear jew’s backround and story. The backound Tarantino set up for the bear Jew is brilliant and i think it deserved a spot in the film
I know I’m in the minority here, but I agree with Buglight. I felt that the whole film was self-indulgent. Like a popular novelist whose books get larger and larger, Tarantino’s films are becoming more and more bloated. I love the man and his films, but if he wanted to make a film with a Jewish escapee as the protagonist, it should not have been called “Inglorious Basterds”. We end up with almost two incomplete films jammed together with only a very narrow plot thread holding them together. I totally agree with you on the Eli Roth thing, though. I don’t like the man as an actor or director.
The parts that needed expanding are silly imho. Films should never go too deep into every story if they don’t want to make them feel long and slow. It’s left to the imagination of the viewer and I’m fine with it. That is why the old star wars movies worked so well and the new ones much less. Or do you think there should be a backstory to every planet called out in the Trilogy too?
The only place I agree is the Roth part though I cant find a better US actor that looks relatively young.
Thanks for putting this out there Matt, inviting all of us to join in with our two cents(pence?).
There is some merit in every one of your five revisions. But the one I’d make myself, before any of those you suggest?
#1:REWRITE HITLER + RECAST HITLER
The Hitler of the movie is a crude caricature that stops the action cold and fails the rest of the movie. The actor Tarantino selected is laughably wrong to stand in as the most infamous man to ever walk planet Earth. Hitler should have inhabited the background of this movie like a shadow (figuratively, though come to think of it, indicating his presence through his shadow alone would have been a more effective way of placing him in frame than the cheap impersonator they used). The more seldom Hitler spoke, the better to convey his power. Using his Hitler as comic relief in limp cutaway skits, was to his own story like swatting the needle out of groove in the middle of playing an opera.
I agree with the others who dislike your idea for changing the first scene. It’s clear that she’s too far out of range for him to make that shot (plus she’s a moving target). And if your whole bit with LaPadite took place, we wouldn’t get the little extra “Bumsti!” when he lowers the pistol. This was added by Christoph Waltz. It is a reference to Karl Kraus. In his WW1 drama “Die letzten Tage der Menschheit” (“The Final Days of Manhood”), there is a scene in which Archduke Friedrich is shown a film about the effects of a mortar. Whenever a soldier is killed, he perversely exclaims: “Bumsti!”
I also believe the Mme Mimieux scenes were unnecessary. I really prefer the more stylish, Samuel L. Jackson narrative and the explanatory visuals. I believe if the film had had a more straightforward narrative, it would have been less possible for the audience to suspend their disbelief with Tarantino’s audacious changes to history. The film itself is audacious in both what it presents and what it DOESN’T present, and that’s what makes that suspension of disbelief possible.
There’s a very important reason WHY Landa has to strangle Bridget. He and she are at enough of a distance away from the cinema’s auditorium that a shot would surely have been heard by the guards, and it’s also important to remember that the beginning of the film would have had some narrative before any battle scenes took place. Had Landa shot Bridget, guards would have come running, he would have had to reveal the plot to explain what he did and then he wouldn’t have been able to capture Aldo on his own and make his deal to end the war. It simply wouldn’t have worked.
Add to this the fact that not only is there no reason for Zoller to strangle Shoshanna, but it’s also made obvious that despite his status as a war hero he’s not comfortable even watching men be killed onscreen. Someone like that is far from likely to have the level of brute violence within him to commit one of the most violent acts of all. Landa, on the other hand, does.
I do agree that the Bear Jew could have been more strongly cast. It’s a pity Sandler wasn’t available: the contrast between Sandler’s rather innocent, good-humored face and the sociopathic violence of the Bear Jew would have been incredibly shocking, especially when he first walks out of the cave! It would have been another audacious move in a very audacious movie. With all the Jewish comedians and actors in Hollywood, why on earth would he hire a non-acting director for the part?
It is a shame that the other Basterds weren’t featured more in the film, but I just attributed their absence to attrition through subsequent ambushes by the group. I suppose alternatively they could have been encamped outside of town, since they didn’t need all of them to take part in Operation Kino. I do believe, however, that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for several of them to have been killed in action.
I’d agree with Eli Roth of course, but my only other gripe is the absence of Himmler. I’ve put this down to him ‘holding the fort’ back in Germany, but I’d still licked to have seen him dealt a much-deserved death.
That should be ‘liked’, I’m not that perverted.
I agree with all the points of Inglorius Basterds… didnt think i would either since i love that film.. but great article,, there is one thing i would not agree with..
No Country for Old Men.. great movie all the way up to the retarded ending.. that comepletely ruined it for me and many others.
it was necessary that Landa strangle Von Hammersmark because gunfire in the upper lobby of the premiere would have blown his plans. it was best that few people as possible knew about the bastards presence at the premeire.
interesting article.. some comments..
1)i think the opening if fine. its about landa, not Lapadite. i think giving lapadite a heroic redemption would have been a bit too Hollywood. And it’s not necessary for a character that the audience wont see again. i also think that Landa letting Shoshana go says things about his character that forshadows his turn at the end of the film. He’s not an idealist, or a Jew Hater. He’s an opportunist with an indifference to human life. So he’s not overly driven to killing her out of principle.
2) no opinion on this. i could have gone either way without the backstory of the theater owner.
3) there was a double significance to the way both Hammersmark and Shoshanna die. it was necessary that Landa strangle Von Hammersmark because gunfire in the upper lobby of the premiere would have blown his plans. it was best that few people as possible knew about the bastards presence at the premeire. and the gunfight between Zoller and Shoshana was had two things going for it. for starters, Tarantino used Shoshana’s need to time her initial gunfire with the gunfire in “nations Pride” as a source of tension for the scene. And secondly, there was a significance that Zoller had killed three hundred men by gunfire, but in the end, is shot down in the back by a Jewish woman. He dies wimpering, pathetic and sad and I think that’s an important fate for his character.
4/5)
you are right on 4 and 5 though. Eli Roth cant act, and there was a lot of ambiguity concerning the basterds fates. (not to mention how the ‘little man’ got caught. i think the opening if fine. its about landa, not Lapadite. i think giving him a heroic redemption would have been a bit too Hollywood. And it’s not necessary for a character that the audience wont see again. i also think that Landa letting Shoshana go says things about his character that forshadows his turn at the end of the film. He’s not an idealist, or a Jew Hater. He’s an opportunist with an indifference to human life. So he’s not overly driven to killing her out of principle.
I’d have to agree with Rashad, as his comments were very much astute and on the money.
In asking for expositional dialogue to be included in something as mundane as to the why and how of how Shoshanna got the cinema, is, well…had it been in there, you probably would have said it didn’t need to be as it was exposition. Go figure.
I’m also incredibly sceptical of of the criticism of Landa not having shot at Shoshanna as she ran off…Tarantino took over a decade writing this script, and I’m fairly certain that during that time, he’d done enough thorough research to know that a Luger would not have hit such a far away target, which it couldn’t…
And whilst ‘Quigs’ had some valid points, his argument went out the window when he named a film as, well, ridiculous, as Big Lebowski as the perfect screenplay…
A filmmaker like Tarantino, is a rare breed…he’s consistently amazing (With the exception of Death Proof, and perhaps, Jackie Brown) which is why to me, he’s always going to be streets ahead of the mentioned Coen Brothers…whilst No Country For Old Men is undeniably genius, and IS the perfect screenplay, their body of work suggests little to support the idea that they should be considered in the same leagues as your Tarantino’s. To put it simply, The Coen’s are, in my eyes, a few of many of today’s over rated filmmakers (Did someone say Aronofksy?) But that’s an entirely different argument.
Over all, an impeccably written article and very well thought out answers on this board. A tribute to all fans of cinema.
This list was pretty terrible and it doesn’t leave me wanting any others. I’ll do this point by point…
1) Opening scene — Terrible idea. Just really bad. Forget the fact that the Luger wouldn’t reach the girl. To suggest that LaPadite needed to redeem himself is ridiculous. I thought this scene really personified what men in his position must have felt. He played it perfectly. He was a defeated man and he knew that by giving them up, he was killing them, but he had no alternative.
In your very cliched and badly thought-out version, how the heck would he have gotten to the guy? The moment he grabbed the milk bottle and took a step, the soldiers would have killed him. If he was going to do this, wouldn’t he have done it BEFORE the soldiers came inside, then told EVERYONE to run? But even so … in YOUR version, he would have save Shoshanna and he AND his family would have been murdered. Maybe you don’t like your family too much, but he apparently does.
Also, though the Luger wouldn’t have reached, I always thought Landa saw it as funny that a rat was running away and that she would have to suffer emotional trauma for the killing of her family. Which shows a lot more cruelty.
2) Explaining the cinema — Who cares? Just by watching the film and listening to the dialogue, I had already assumed what you’re saying was in the original script, minus the minute details. I don’t need to know that she kept coming to the theater over and over. I already know, from the film, that she was taken in by a family and they later left her the cinema. Also, the dialogue that’s in the script is a huge amount of overwriting, which Taratino (thankfully) realized.
Look at this way … we don’t know why Chigurh was such a cold stone killer, why he relied on a coin ala’ Two-Face, or why he “had to do” what he does — but you didn’t question that. So why do we need every detail of Shoshanna’s life? I know more about Shoshanna that Chigurh.
On another note, I find it contradictory that you’re fine with a scene that displays a “mythical” reason why the girl must be taken care of, though you scoff at your own suggestion of this same element as it pertains to Landa not shooting Shoshanna.
3) Switch Deaths — Yeah, that would have been a GREAT idea. Have Landa shoot the actress and then have to explain to everyone who heard the shot. Remember, this was before the movie started, so there was very little to cover up the sound of a gunshot. Since he was clearly figuring out his own plan long before this, he needed to kill her silently. Had the Gestapo or whomever learned that even one traitor had been found, they either would have 1) cancelled the event, 2) forced Hitler to leave, or 3) killed all of Aldo’s men before they had a chance to do anything, which would have prevented Landa’s deal.
Your version of Shoshanna killing Zoller doesn’t work for me, either. Not only do I like the surprise of her just shooting him as soon as he locks the door, I absolutely LOVE the fact that this guy who shot and killed so many people and is being celebrated for it ends up being shot and killed by a little Jewish girl. That’s a fantastic retribution, even if he was able to kill her, as well.
4) Re-casting — Roth didn’t bother me. He’s got the size and stature to carry the part and his reactions while he’s shooting the Nazis in the theater worked really well. He might not be the greatest actor, but he was more than sufficient.
My beef is with Michael Meyers. It’s not his fault, but I can’t watch that scene without thinking that he’s doing a skit. He starts with that British accent and smile of his and all I can think of is Austin Powers. It’s the only scene that pulls me out of the movie a bit.
5) This is the only one I can understand. But again, it’s not THAT important. The story was already so loooong. What Tarantino could have done, I guess, is explain what happened to them in an added scene on the DVD. Maybe they were killed in that ambush that Aldo was trying to avoid at the beginning of the film.
Hi Zeroed Out,
1) As you’ve asked… I imagined that the Nazi’s were too busy trying to spot where the runaway Jew had gotten too that the French dairy farmer had a few seconds to get his shot at Landa and he took it. He didn’t last long after that, however.
The reason LaPadite does this AFTER the slaughter of the rest of the Dreyfuss family is because it’s an emotional thing. It is triggered by his considerable pain and anger at what he has had to do and the moment it happened, he felt like a coward. Soshanna escaping is a beacon of hope for a family he clearly cared for and he recognises it straight away… in a moment that was truly on adrenalin… he saves her life and sacrifices his own.
2) I disagree. Just my opinion but I was frustrated with the lack of information in the film as to what happened to her next.
3) An easy narrative change to have Landa wait until the film starts would solve this.
4) I’m glad ‘he was more than sufficient’. If I was casting, I would be picking the absolute best actor for the role.
5) Glad we agree!
I couldn’t believe that Tarantino cut the Mdm. Mimieux scenes off for the length and narrative reason. If the scenes were put into the whole story, the film would’ve be more logical in terms of narration. And as I know Maggie Cheung, who plays Madame Mimieux, had only 2 or 3 scenes. Too long, if Cheung’s cameo scenes were cut into the final version?
WHOOOOOAAAAAAAA…!!!! YOU really live in YOUR own fantasy movie world!!!! I mean, LaPadite, a farmer knocking Landa into the ground, in the opening scene, showing Landa as a weak, unaware commander, from the start???!!!! Zoller wanting to rape Shosanna, in the movie premier??????!!!! WHAT WAS HE, A RAPIST???? What’s this, PULP FICTION??? He was a refined, educated war hero!!! YOU can actually tell that he was really in love with her!!! Landa shooting Bridget????? Michael Madsen????!!!! WFT are YOU talking about????!!!!! YOU are a joke!!! FAIL!!!!
I like the idea of a man of integrity redeeming his decision. ButI’m gonna add to reasons it wouldn’t work:
1) As mentioned, he would put his life and his family’s in severe danger. If he was an emotionally reactive guy as you suggest, he might’ve instinctively attacked landa when the proposal to confess was made.
2) In terms of storytelling flow, by having the farmer fight back, it undermines landa’s formidable intimidation style, which, aside from shosanna’s escape, was the purpose of the scene. In other words, we would feel that landa was fiercesome, but not THAT much if he can’t fully break the man.
But hey! I got a lotta respect for people who have the creativity to suggest alternatives and improvements! Props to you!