I thought Pitt played a very odd character in a very odd movie, but I do agree with the praise for Christoph Waltz. He carried the movie as far as I’m concerned.
It’s probably been said before, but there are two different types of honor being debated:
- Personal honor: Do you have a code and do you live up to it?
- Societal honor: What range of behaviors does the society allow an “honorable” man to engage in, and are those “honorable”?
Manson argues, correctly in my view, that the 2nd trumps the first - that you cannot be honorable fighting for a dishonorable cause. I understand that within his world and its context Landa is an honorable person on the individual level, but given what he has put his honor in service for… and that the Nazi context is just one mindset fighting for its place in a much larger world, a world which defeated it and said “never again”… it’s irrelevant if he played by the rules of Germany, because the rules of the larger world which he inhabited said he was dishonorable. And he was.
Yeah, this is all horseshit. There’s no evidence in the movie that LaPadite wasn’t punished for hiding the Dreyfus family. For all we know the soldiers raped his daughters in front of him then tossed all their bodies in the same ditch as the Dreyfuses. We do know he murdered the Dreyfus family in front of LaPadite when he could have just as easily captured them - in fact, Shoshana escaped because of the flaw in his plan - if he had his men surround the house & order them out he would have grabbed them all. He murdered them because he’s a fucking sadist, and because he wanted to punish LaPadite. It’s the same reason he strangled Hammersmark instead of just having her arrested as well - he wanted to have the pleasure of watching her die at his hands.
Your version of events doesn’t make thematic or character sense.
When Landa is interrogating LaPadite, he figures out that LaPadite was hiding the Dreyfuses, and that they’re hiding in the floor. Landa doesn’t even have to get confirmation from LaPadite, he already knows. So he could simply order his men to execute the Dreyfuses anyway, and then arrest or otherwise punish LaPadite.
But he doesn’t. I don’t have the movie where I am now, so I can’t transcribe the scene, but what he basically says is “I’m not going to punish you if you tell me if you’ve been hiding Jews. In fact, I’ll reward you for admitting it by making sure you’re left alone. So tell me, you’ve been hiding Jews, haven’t you?”
Landa already knows at that point. LaPadite telling him yes reveals nothing to Landa. But LaPadite is offering him a deal. Submit to me, admit that I broke you, that I’m smarter than you, that I won, and you’ll be fine. I don’t want to hurt you or your family.
LaPedite breaks. What choice does he have? At which point Landa has won. What happens to the Dreyfuses at that point he doesn’t even care about. He orders the Dreyfuses to be executed, both to seal his win, and to do what he’s expected to do to increase his prestige. But he spares the LaPadites. Why would he even care to punish him? He understands the desire to protect the Dreyfuses and doesn’t hate LaPadite for it.
This isn’t personal to him. He doesn’t really give a shit about the Dreyfuses outside of scoring another victory. He’s sociopathic, rather than deliberately malicious. He’s playing a game. This is why he doesn’t shoot Shoshanna in the back given the chance - he’s just being sporting. He’s probably amused by the idea of finding her and beating her. The game continues. It’s still a victory even if he allows her to escape, a gold star on his record, and he’s sure he’ll find her again soon anyway after some cat and mouse that he will enjoy.
He wants to intellectually dominate everyone he’s in the room with, and for them to acknowledge that he’s beat them. He wants to grow his reputation as Nazi Germany’s premier Jew Hunter, but if he was assigned instead to breaking the French Resistance, then he’d do everything to become Nazi Germany’s greatest resistance hunter. Jew hunting is just the pinnacle of the game he wants to play, given the disposition and reality of Nazi Germany.
He has them killed rather than captured because that’s probably just what’s expected of him. And he knows that capturing them means their death, anyway. I talked earlier about how the death camps weren’t widespread public knowledge, but a man of Landa’s status, connections, and intelligence would know. He would know that their future would be death following weeks of fear, forced labor, possibly having them raped or tortured. He probably thinks he’s doing the merciful thing killing them on the spot.
He’s indifferent to the Jews he murders rather than being hateful. And as such, he doesn’t particularly hate people who harbor Jews. He understands that they’re decent, honorable people trying to do what they think is right. He doesn’t want to punish them for it, beyond beating them and having them know they’re beaten.
Furthermore, if Landa wasn’t a man who kept his word, then he wouldn’t be so shocked that Raine, who he respected, hadn’t kept his word. He treated Raine as a peer, a worthy adversary. He expected Raine to keep his end of the deal exactly because Landa knows he keeps the deals he makes. If Landa had LaPadite killed, or his daughters raped, it wouldn’t make thematic sense for him to be shocked at Raine’s betrayal and mutilation.
I forgot to add: Landa figured out that LaPadite is hiding the Dreyfuses pretty early in the scene. Most of that scene is Landa toying with his prey, letting LaPadite squirm under the pressure, letting him know that Landa has beat him and dominated him, and setting LaPadite up to break and submit. We see Landa doing this all throughout the film. That’s what he lives for - not killing Jews, but dominating and breaking people and having everyone know he’s always the smartest, most well prepared person in any situation. He always has the upper hand. He’s always one step ahead. That he will always beat you. That you can never outsmart him or slip something past him. Caring about his status and reputation is just a larger scale version of this. But the one on one, toying with prey, breaking people - that’s what he truly enjoys.
It’s actually sort of hinted at the end that he’s not that proud of being known as the “Jew Hunter”, that he wants to be known more as one of the smartest and toughest adversaries you could have, and that he might feel belittled for only being considered The Jew Hunter, as if he wouldn’t be just as good at whatever he set his mind to. I’m not 100% sure about that last part, I’d have to rewatch the film again with that in mind, but I’m 100% sure of everything else I said.
I noticed you skipped over why he strangled Hammersmark. When he could have shot her, or had his men take her away, or almost anything else.
I’m totally not buying that the fact he was shocked that Raine betrayed him means that he couldn’t have betrayed LaPadite. Do you know no one in real life who holds everyone else to high standards, but constantly makes exceptions for themselves?
And again, there’s no direct evidence in the movie, in either direction, for what happens to LaPadite after the scene ends. We don’t see him taken away or shot, but we don’t see Landa reward him as promised either. I will note again that Landa had no reason to shoot the Dreyfus family through the floor, trashing the house & traumatizing LaPadite. The only explanation is he did it to punish LaPadite even further, having the memory every time he’s in his house of seeing his friends die because of his admission.
Hammersmark is problematic. I don’t have a good explanation for that. If he hadn’t himself been so willing to betray his country, it would be easy to say that he was simply disgusted by being a traitor, but I’d have to think about that one more. Anyone else want to take a crack at it? The other stuff I’m saying is so well established that I feel like this may be a plot hole, or there’s just something else I’m not picking up on. The characters in this film are very carefully crafted, so it’s hard to believe that Landa and Hammersmark was simply careless. Maybe he was insulted that she tried to get past him with the “mountain climbing accident” excuse. He does laugh quite a bit, right in her face, to shame her and torment her about it. But that doesn’t seem enough alone to engender that much personal hatred.
As far as Landa being shocked at Raine’s betrayal, a key part of this is how desperate Landa is to get Raine to acknowledge his respect for him as an opponent. His conduct towards Raine in particular would’ve been held to an even higher standard of personal honor that his interaction with people he doesn’t care about. If you watch their interactions, you can see how disappointed is that Raine won’t give him the respect between adversaries that Landa feels that he deserves, and that he’s offering to Raine. Raine is the only one he ever treats as a peer, as someone worthy of being his opponent. Having Raine in particular betray him (rather than respect him) really wounded him.
But it also means that since he respected Raine as a peer, he thought they shared a mutual system of honor and respect. Therefore, the expectations he had of Raine would be the same expectations he would have of his own conduct.
Landa having a personal code of keeping his word and not harming beaten foes unnecessarily is supported multiple times in the film, at least if he views that person as being basically honorable too. Maybe that’s where Hammersmark falls short, as a traitor, whereas LaPadite and Raine do not, as a decent man trying to do the right thing, and a worthy opponent.
As for Landa murdering them in the house - it makes for a really dramatic climax of the scene, sets up Shoshanna’s escape, establishes the indifferent brutality of Landa - I’m not sure we’re meant to read it as being sadistic towards LaPadite. Essentially, he’s completing the transaction he’s making with LaPedite, the conclusion of their game, rather than additional pain and brutality inflicted on LaPadite by punishing him or his family. Killing the family right then and there puts a stamp on his victory, and shows LaPadite how thoroughly he has beaten him.
That’s a fairly narrow reading, I admit, but all together these add up to a consistent characterization.
Also, I know this isn’t the most objective argument, but Landa is a much more interesting villain and the film is much better if he leaves LaPadite and his family alone and crosses them off a watch list like he said he would.
I hate to do this, but cite? Specifically the multiple times? The only foes we see Landa “beat” are LaPadite and Raines. There’s no evidence in either direction what happens to LaPadite, and he’s using Raines as a conduit to Allied high command to get his full pardon, lifetime pension, Medal of Honor, and his house on Nantucket. He knew the war was lost, and had a chance to walk away with an enormous profit. If he hadn’t gotten all that, he’d have happily had Raines shot as a spy.
I’m going to have to rewatch the film and take some notes to give a better cited post. I’ll see if I can swing that.
“Raine,” no S. Sorry.
I am with SenorBeef on this one. If Landa DOES murder LaPadite and his daughters, it just doesn’t fit his character. If there had been a scene where he orders LaPadite shot, it would have been weird and would not have fit the rest of the film.
Landa is Quentin Tarantino’s version of a Nazi, in that he has lots of clever dialogue but, like most Nazis, he’s law abiding within a Nazi context. Landa certainly believes himself to be honorable.
I’m cool with that. But if the code included “Shoot all black suspects on sight, and plant a gun in their hand”, I wouldn’t call a cop who followed that code “honorable”. I call a cop who resisted that code “honorable”
People are calling a Nazi, who hunts down Jews and shoots them, an honorable man.
No, people are saying he would view himself as honorable, and that he lives by a code. And if you understand that code, you can interpret and predict his actions.
I feel like you’re not really trying to keep up.
“Honorable” is when you murder your own daughter because she wore make-up in public.
I agree - Landa believes himself to be honorable. He’s wrong, not only for the Jew-killing parts, but also because he sold out his country in the end for money. (And other small bits along the way.)
He ignores his own failings and contradictions. He wrote himself as the hero of his own story, but he’s not a great writer, so to speak.
The only code he lived by was “What’s best for Hans Landa?” He worked for the Nazis because they were the local power structure, and he could obtain rank, power, & privileges hunting Jews for them, and because he loved the feeling of superiority and power it gave him.
As soon as he found a better deal, he happily repudiated his oath and wiped out the Nazi high command in exchange for immunity, a medal, and a nice house.
What I think you’re missing is that “honor” is not a good thing. People are saying, over and over, that honor can be profoundly evil. Honor is a set of rules. Rules are usually good, as we need boundaries, but not always. Often they’re horrible.
I mean, Shakespeare figured out four hundred years ago that a person can do bad in the service of honor, for Brutus is an honorable man.
I thought of another argument in favor of not punishing LaPadite - a practical one. LaPadite knows who Landa is, so apparently his reputation gets around in at least that part of France, probably wider, since he seems to be pretty well known to high ranking Nazis, too. When the young German soldier tries to get Landa to stop interrogating Shoshanna, another Nazi (Goebbells?) intervenes to tell Landa to take it easy, that his reputation does precede him, and that sets people on edge.
So, then, if there are rumors about Landa floating around widely, wouldn’t having it known that he wouldn’t punish people who cooperated make him better at his job? Knowing that you could turn in Jews before you were caught wouldn’t result in punishment is a great incentive to weigh on people to come forward when facing a really difficult decision. Landa doesn’t benefit from punishing cooperation, and does benefit from the opposite.
So I feel like we have a plot reason - Landa clearly knows LaPaditte is harboring Jews and offers him up amnesty even though doesn’t have to, he could simply have his soldiers search the house after he figured it out. We have character reasons - Landa is shocked by Raine’s betrayal because he himself wouldn’t betray someone he made a deal with. And we have a practical consideration - that allowing amnesty and not punishing cooperation would make him more effective at his job.
Is there any case in the other direction? Something we’ve seen out of Landa, or within the film, that would suggest that he would’ve punished the LaPadittes? I realize that this isn’t conclusively shown either way, but as far as I can see we have multiple reasons he wouldn’t, and no clear reasons he would.
So, what is this, then?
I think from context “Landa believes himself to be an honorable man and holds himself to some standards that most cultures would view as honorable” is the gist of it although I can’t speak for Miller.
The whole point is that no one is wholly good (except perhaps Fred Rogers) or wholly evil. Honor is a concept that inspires a lot of good and can be used for evil or neither.
The film puts a lot more artistry into creating its characters than “here’s the good guy and here’s the bad guy” and in a way It’s partly a deconstruction of ww2 hero films.
But it’s not trying to get you to sympathize with the villains either. It’s not trying to create romantic antiheroes or anything like that.
It’s just a really well thought out film with heat characters and maybe some suntextual subversion.