Comparing Schindler's List And Inglorious Basterds

Ever since the fall from power of the Nazi Third Reich at the end of World War II, there have been numerous attempts of reimagining the unforgivable acts from the Nazi Party in film, animation and games. Although the representation of Nazism varies significantly from case to case, each depiction has one thing in common; Nazi’s are considered to be the definition of evil. This can clearly be seen through the depiction of Nazi characters from two very different takes on World War II, Schindler’s List (Steven Spielberg, 1993) and Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009). Schindler’s List is a realistic take on events that actually occurred and Inglourious Basterds is a fictional revenge story revolved around the events of World War II. This

essay will examine the different use of the language of the moving image, including characters, mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography and sound in a scene from these two films and will highlight how they influence the portrayal of Nazism. The scenes that I will be examining both highly focus on the predominant Nazi characters in each film.

There are many different ways that Nazi characters have been portrayed on film, whether it is the human evil Nazi, the conflicted Nazi, the faceless enemy Nazis, the bogeyman Nazis, or even metaphorical Nazis.

Ralph Fiennes’ portrayal of real life concentration camp “Commandant Amon Goeth is represented as the embodiment of evil in human form” (Juliette Harrison, Portrayals of Nazi on Film, 2011). He is repulsed by Jewish people and believes they are unworthy of possessing human rights. He has no problem with killing someone without hesitations as he does so, so care free throughout the film. This slightly differs from Christoph Waltz’ portrayal of Hans Landa, who can be seen more of a cunning opportunist. Tarantino suggests that “…everything he does is some version of an interrogation, and every piece of an interrogation is a… mind game.” (Quentin Tarantino Inglourious Basterds, Charlie Rose. WNET. 2009) This character is smart and uses that to his advantage. Once Landa recognises the Nazi army are likely to not prevail, he surrenders to the American army and switches sides for the exchange of information. It is clear that he never truly shared the Nazi views, but saw the advantage of the power that came with it. These two Nazi’s are the prominent antagonists of their films but are depicted quite

differently.

The use of mise-en-scene in the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds perfectly establishes this distinct portrayal of Nazism. Throughout this scene, we find Hans Landa questioning a French dairy farmer about whether or not he is hiding a Jewish family. As the farmer smokes from his pipe, Landa pulls out his own smoking pipe. The revelation of Landa’s Sherlock Holmes style pipe can be seen as a form of overcompensation from the character. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Tarantino reveals his motivation behind the pipe when he poses the question, “…what if Landa doesn’t smoke a pipe? He knows the farmer smokes a pipe” (Charlie Rose, 2009). This suggests that Landa definitely has power issues and uses his pipe as a form of intimidation over the farmer. Another key element to the scene is Landa’s glass of milk, in which he chose over wine. Most villains would typically be seen dousing themselves with alcohol but Landa prefers fresh milk. In Roland Barthes’ book on mythologies he suggests that in “some American films… the hero, strong and uncompromising did not shrink from having a glass of milk before drawing his avenging Colt…” (Mythologies, 2009, pg. 60-61) Although it is clear that Hans Landa is definitely no hero, it isn’t deniable that he is a strong and uncompromising character, when it comes to personal gain. He drinks his glass of milk before ordering his men to shoot the Jewish family through the floorboards. From the use of two different props integrated into the script, Tarantino has established this intelligent, yet egotistical Nazi character.