Hey everybody, and welcome to Forming Film.
This series will try to analyze movie scenes, techniques, topics, or really whatever seems interesting
in an attempt to better understand film form.
To start us off, Let's Talk Villains
(Hi)
In many cases, a villain is a driving force behind a movie.
Their plan or goal could force the hero into action as they terrorize a single person or the entire world
No matter what type of villain, whether it be a psychopath or an authority figure,
 there is something that all the greatest have in common:
they are terrifying.
Sure, monsters and demons are scary, but the villain of a horror film filled with jump scares isn't automatically terrifying.
Even villains that pose a threat to the entire human race can seem...
undaunted despite any technical danger
(wait...guys! I-wa..)
No, no, no. What I'm talking about is a character whose mere presence frightens an audience and sends shivers down your spine.
So, how are these characters created in film? This could be done in many different ways,
but today I'm going to analyze one of my personal favorite movie villains of all time
Let's talk about the large anti-semitic elephant in the room.
Hans Landa is a Nazi. In film terms being a Nazi, or anything that draws inspiration from Nazi influence,
is a one-way ticket to villainy.
Still, no matter how obvious this symbol of evil may seem,
Hans Lana's terrifying nature comes from the power he holds, not whose side he's fighting for.
The Nazi Officer uniform is a tool that instantly tells the audience that this man is the ability to destroy anybody who defies him.
However, Hans Lana's not a villain simply because he is a Nazi,
but rather because of the perceived cruelty he can display. In the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds,
we never even need to see his power demonstrated to be terrified.
Rather, the masterfully crafted tension warns the audience about how dangerous Hans Landa is.
Any and every film student go on for hours
about how Quentin Tarantino's dialogue about seemingly irrelevant pop-culture topics helps create entire scenes.
(Entire song, it's a metaphor for big dicks.)
(Naw it ain't)
(It's about a girl who's very vulnerable.)
(She's been fucked over a few times and and she meets a guy who's very sensitive.)
(Woah, timeout. Tell that fucking bullshit to the tourists.)
(Tony, who the fuck is Tony)
(Like a Virgin's not about some sensitive girl who needs a nice fella. That's what True Blue is about.)
Although that's a part of it, the essence of this opening scene along with
everything that makes Hans Landa so terrifying derives from one single thing:
Although sounds almost too simple
when concerning Hans Landa
Everything comes down to what we as the audience know and don't know, and also what the characters know and don't know.
When Hans Lana first meets the Frenchman we as the audience only know one thing:
Hans Landa is a Nazi looking for hiding Jews. The Frenchman and his family seemed very tense,
but overall keep their cool. As Hans Landa's investigation slowly proceeds beyond his intimidating "Jew Hunter" speech,
Tarantino hits the audience with devastating information.
There is in fact a Jewish family hidden under the floorboards.
(Now I on the other hand love my unofficial title precisely because I earned it.)
(The feature that makes me such an effective hunter of the Jews is as opposed to most German Soldiers)
(I can think like a Jew,)
(where they can only think like a German.)
(More precisely German soldier.)
Tension builds as this information forms more doubt. Will the Frenchman give up the family? Or more importantly than that:
Does Hans Landa know?
Those four words go through the minds of everybody the colonel meets throughout the film. It iterates why he is so petrifying.
Tarantino allows the audience to know everybody's thoughts throughout the film except for the villain's. Hans Landa confidently and flawlessly
maneuvers his way through interrogations, in four different languages no less, never revealing his hand until it's too late.
Now, Major Hellstrom was given some of the same treatment in a memorable card game scene, but this scene is more situational than character-driven.
Why does the audience know that Hans Lana is dangerous? Because of the other characters' knowledge and reactions,
and with well-timed sound and silence of course.
Does Hans Landa know?
The characters involved are constantly jousting mentally with Hans Landa, and they are always at a disadvantage.
Even as an audience, we do not know what he is thinking.
But we do know that at any moment our heroes can be trapped
or
you know
strangled by Hans Landa.
(And everything he does is some version of an interrogation and every piece of interrogation is a piece of theater or)
(mind game with the participant.)
The best evidence of Landa's intimidating power is in his reunion with a Jewish woman that once escaped his bloodshed
As she is forced to sit and talk with the man that had her family killed right next to her, all Shosanna can wonder is
Does Hans Landa know?
Does he know who I am?
Even after many viewings the film I have no idea if he knows who Shosanna really is
but the scene never fails to give the creeping suspicion that he does, making him all the more dangerous.
So that's it. That's the formula for creating a terrifying character.
Make a villain mysterious well everyone else cowers in their presence.
Oscar winning combination right?
(Oscar and Penelope, that's an uber bingo.)
Well of course not.
(Caught you flinching.)
The combination of phenomenal acting and filmmaking is what created the wonderfully horrifying character.
But knowing what NOT to do is just as important as knowing what works.
Jumping back in time over a decade shows that Quentin Tarantino once failed to create a threatening villain with a similar scenario
in Jackie Brown.
In this film (Ordell Robbie) is an arms dealer willing to kill to protect his own interest and to keep his wallet full.
In one scene Ordell visits a friend the he had recently bailed out of jail for $10,000
Ordell convinces this character to hide in the trunk of his car
to help him set up for a job selling guns.
At the end of the scene it turns out that Ordell had lied about helping out the man with a lawyer and the entire
conversation was a ruse that enables Ordell to get the upper hand in killing the man unnoticed.
(Exactly how long I gotta be in this motherfucker?)
Well although this scene shows that Ordell could be a dangerous man
it fails at its goal of making ordell a scary villain even though it follows a similar structure to the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds.
Slow walk up
Demonstration of power over the other character.
Villain victory
So what went wrong?
To start off, Ordell's scene builds zero to no tension.
What made Hans Landa so scary was the tension built through the scene.
Almost like a miniature play, Hans Landa slowly gains power over the Frenchman until he cracks
and points out where the Jews were hiding, even though Hans Landa probably already knew the truth from the beginning.
This truth and end result is hidden from the scene, slowly building and building and building until...
(You're sheltering enemies of the state are you not)
(Yes)
(Your'e sheltering them underneath your floorboards aren't you?)
Yes
This is the first close-up shot in the entire film (not really, but first of the interrogation)
Whether you notice it or not the shot stands out as
extremely important, and it is.
Hans Landa has won, free to kill the Jewish family, making the action feel like defeat as all of the tension
explodes into operatic power.
Whereas, in Jackie Brown, there is no tension buildup. We never feel like the friend is ever in danger,
so Ordell is not intimidating.
In control sure. but not a danger.
Yeah yeah, we also got a close-up of the villain when he gains full control,
but it doesn't have the same power as in Inglourious Basterds.
We don't know his plan yet, and we never even get a reaction shot of the victim.
He's in the trunk for a Tarantino movie,
which historically
(Jesus Christ)
(I want you to witness the extent of my mercy by witnessing your deformed body)
...is a pretty bad place to be.
See, at this point the audience has already figured out
what is going to happen. Ordell is going to kill his friend. So we wait for it to happen. And...
(two gun shots)
Okay, there we go. He's dead.
No surprise there since we had already figured it out. This scene doesn't build tension nor does it surprise us.
I'm not trashing Jackie Brown as a movie, don't get me wrong.
I love the film. Although Samuel Jackson and Quentin Tarantino made Ordell an engaging character that fits well into the story...
they failed to make him intimidating beyond the man behind a gun.
(Man look at me when I'm talking to you!)
And this shows and the other characters' reactions to him.
(If I have to tell you to shut up one more time imma shut you up.)
Whereas...instead...
...this
This is how I want my villain to be.
(That's a bingo!)
(Is that the way you say it, "that's a bingo"?)
I hope you enjoyed the video and thank you for watching the first episode of Forming Film.
I'm Jon and until next time...
(arrivederci)
you
