Au revoir, Shosanna!

November 27, 2010 2:00 AM

A couple questions about the film Inglorious Basterds (spoilers).

1. Why does Landa let Shoshanna go at the beginning of the film? He seems pretty intent on killing everyone else.
2. Why does he make the deal at the end to end the war?

(1) perplexes me more than (2). I think I'm probably missing some subtle (or not-so-subtle) part of his character or something as I'm not a Tarantino-phile by any means. (We've been discussing the film all Thanksgiving weekend. This was our "movie we watch while the turkey is cooking.")

posted by bluefly to Media & Arts (13 answers total)

1. It is likely that Landa let her off so that he can hunt her down again for sport. It is clear in the scene that Landa appears to enjoy the process of breaking down the French farmer into revealing the Jews' location. Hunting the girl down again sounds like something Landa would enjoy.

2. It's a gamble. Landa is more interested in his ego and reputation than the Nazi Reich. If he sticks with the Nazis, he retains his job, works his way up the ladder and so on. On the other hand, if he sided with the Allies, he had the power to single-handedly end the most bloody war in history.

The "subtle" part of his character really is that Landa loves manipulating people to further his personal agenda.
posted by Senza Volto at 2:13 AM on November 27, 2010

Todd Alcott's analysis of the film addresses both questions here and here. Well, question #1 he doesn't address directly, but the idea is the same: Landa likes to toy with people, and he toys with Shoshanna by letting her go. (It reminds me of a scene in the novel Hannibal when Starling is looking at an amateur hunter whom Hannibal killed; when people ask why he did it, she just says "whimsy".)

Question #2, Alcott addresses directly: Landa is an opportunist, and he wants credit for ending the war.
posted by neushoorn at 2:16 AM on November 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

I thought (1) was a kind of demonstration of his power to be a Jew-hunter to himself - a sort of "it doesn't matter if I get you now because I will be able to find you later if I want to". Or perhaps also a challenge to himself? He seems very driven by his vision of his own intellect and ability.

Those same things come out in (2) as well I think - I don't think he even really cares that much about Nazi ideology per se - it's just a way for him to get power and do whatever he wants, so once he sees it's on the wane, he looks for a way to come out ahead. That makes the final scene rather delicious, for some fairly dark value of delicious.
posted by crocomancer at 2:17 AM on November 27, 2010

Didn't preview, but at least you're getting a consistent story.
posted by crocomancer at 2:19 AM on November 27, 2010

My take, for what it's worth.

1. He didn't actually let Shoshanna go. She escaped on her own. When Landa merrily waved goodbye to her, I took that to mean that he wasn't worried about losing her now because he was sure that he would catch up with her again some other day.

2. With Germany was clearly losing the war, Landa wanted to switch to the winning side to save his own skin.
posted by Uncle Chaos at 2:26 AM on November 27, 2010 [2 favorites]

1. He didn't actually let Shoshanna go. She escaped on her own. When Landa merrily waved goodbye to her, I took that to mean that he wasn't worried about losing her now because he was sure that he would catch up with her again some other day.


That was my take away too.
posted by the noob at 5:08 AM on November 27, 2010

Shoshanna escaped on her own and was too far away to shoot, but Landa turn this loss into a victory by reframing her escape as him letting her go. In this way, psychologically (for him) any outcome is winning.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:45 AM on November 27, 2010 [6 favorites]

The "subtle" part of his character really is that Landa loves manipulating people to further his personal agenda.

Which is why (and this was my big question of the movie) he kills Bridget with such anger. I think he was really pissed off that she was able to out-manipulate him, and he hadn't even realized it until it was too late.
posted by Ideal Impulse at 6:08 AM on November 27, 2010

I honestly thought the answer to number one was that she was too far away for a clean shot, and Landa was not the type of two-bit villain to go shooting after her if he didn't think he could hit his mark. My reading of that scene didn't include any inclination of his that he'd merely track her down later, only that he knew she was already too far away for her death-by-gunshot to be likely. After all, he'd already had his fun in the cottage.
posted by malapropist at 6:34 AM on November 27, 2010

IT also seemed to me that he was using her escape to further his reputation.
posted by sammyo at 6:53 AM on November 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

There's only so much physical effort a devilishly fiendish fiend like Landa is going to put into the hunt and kill. If she's out of range, what's he supposed to do? RUN after her?? bwahaha. No, I'll get you my pretty, and you're dog too!
posted by victors at 8:02 AM on November 27, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's a Tarantino movie, so ultimately, it's all about movies.

Landa wants to be famous, like a movie star. He carefully cultivates his rep as the "Jew Hunter," so lets Shoshanna go when she's out of range because he knows he'll eventually win, and it only helps to have some Jews escape and tell crazy stories about the Jew Hunter.

In this way, he's not that dissimilar from Aldo Rayne, who lets Nazis escape after he has marked them, so they can tell stories about the Basterds and the Bear Jew.

Landa cuts a deal because it's another way to be famous.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:10 AM on November 27, 2010 [3 favorites]

Cool Papa Bell has it, a basic storytelling premise of "Go tell everyone what you saw here." Most recently it was used on "Boardwalk Empire," with two men brutally killed, and the third pardoned and specifically told to inform his boss what happened.
posted by shinynewnick at 6:57 PM on November 27, 2010