Question: Why did Hans Landa kill Bridget von Hammersmark if he was just going to betray the Nazis anyway?
lionhead
3rd Aug 2019
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Answer: Because Landa planned his escape from the moment he heard about the venue change. Theater: Hammersmark -> Landa "If the shoe fits" Restaurant: Aldo -> Landa "Shoe's on the other foot." We find out Landa knew about the Basterds from the interrogations of their "Swastika-marked survivors." From the shoe, he strongly suspects Hammersmark had tried to set up the Basterds at the bar. So he killed Hammersmark to tie up that loose end to allow the plot, his bargaining chip, to survive. Fun fact: we never know if Hammersmark was a triple agent or just screwed up with the bar location.
Answer: I always took it he admired her so much and maybe even pursued a relationship with her that never came to pass. Her lying to him was a personal betrayal that drove him to strangle her. Crime of passion. Just always has been my theory.
23rd Jun 2024
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Factual error: Although Dieter Hellstrom is a Gestapo Major, he has the SS runes on his uniform instead of a blank square.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Nowhere in the movie is he said to be a Gestapo Major. He is SS. Even if he was part of the Gestapo, he could still be an SS officer, as the Gestapo fell under the SS and RSHA.
19th Dec 2010
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Question: Why does Hugo Stiglitz kill the German officers in the first place? The film mentions his enlistment, but how is this related to his killings?
Answer: Based on his willingness to join the Basterds, we can assume he killed them because he didn't believe in what the Nazis were doing.
There is a cut of him being whipped during the bar scene. I think he was taking revenge for harsh and perhaps undeserved punishment.
No, the whipping is how it feels in his mind sitting next to that SS officer and having to pretend to like him and be a Nazi. He's ready to snap.
3rd Jan 2010
Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Corrected entry: In the beginning of the movie, when Colonel Landa shows up and Lapidite is chopping wood, the shot before he pauses indicates he's about to chop wood but the stump doesn't have a piece to chop. When he pauses, he just slowly places it on the stump. His action was to chop but there was no wood.
Correction: Lapidite was chopping at the stump to remove it. In 1941 France he would have niether the truck nor have the availability to explosives needed to remove a stump of that size. By chopping at it every few days he would open the stump to the elements and decay quicker.
Correction: I have heard this from several people that he was removing the stump and not a movie error. I actually have a different conclusion from both ideas. When Landa walks by and introduces himself you can see the stump has been perfectly cut in half and shelved. Why make it lower? The girls. If he was caught hiding the Jews he was certain he would be executed and the lowering of the stump is so the girls can try to chop wood for winter time. The stump does not need to be removed - it is not in a field and perfectly located from the house for chopping wood. Hence he lowered half of it in case they would have to use it if he was executed for treason. Soooo I think this is one of first clues landa picks up on! After all he calls himself a "damn good detective." I can't believe it took almost 10 years for me to get around to see this flick! It rocks.
Landa already knew there were Jews hiding in the floor. He didn't get a hint from the stump or anything, he just knew. This was probably the last farm he visited and thus the only one that could have housed the Jews.
Maybe. Maybe someone sold them out. The point of the post and this website is whether or not it is a movie mistake. I was simply providing an alternative no-one thought of about the stump... Now I remember why I stopped spending time blogging - either people would cut and paste it as their own or totally miss (or intentionally ignore) the primary focus of the topic in an effort to dismiss a novel idea. Cheers.
Answer: Because she was a loose end who could have conceivably undermined his carefully-constructed lie that he was working for the Allies all along.