A Letterman rebuttal, and understanding Nazis

I love David Letterman, and especially how he stays above the fray of his often crazy or misspoken guests. But in last night's segment with Inglourious Basterd's actor Christoph Waltz, who has been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award, he blew it.

From the beginning, you could tell that Waltz had a bit of trouble with his English and was slow in framing his answers. Dave carried it along just fine but seemed to keep pushing the Nazi point, as in "We all love that your movie totally took down the Nazis!" and "You played a great evil Nazi!"

Waltz said early that he didn't think he was characterizing evil, per say, and Dave sort of moved over it and went on to other things, and it all seemed fine. But after airing a clip from the movie, Dave went back to the "playing a Nazi" point, and Waltz, as an actor genuinely offended by the populist gusto, tried to make his point again.

He asserted that he was as Colonel Hans Landa is in the movie: not so much a Nazi as a man taking advantage of an opportunity. Landa says he thinks of himself as a detective, hired by the Nazis to do that job. He wasn't out to kill Jews and be an evil man; he was a shrewd guy taking advantage of a situation.

In fact, although Waltz did not say this in this interview, part of the great irony of the film is that Landa gets branded at the end for a movement he never supported. He was a parasite latched on to a mission of filth, and he had to pay for it. Landa never intended to be anything more than a mercenary.

Waltz said to Dave that he viewed his role in that way, that he was not playing a Nazi so much. He should have gone on to explain that further, and say he was actually playing a schemer, etc., etc., but Dave ended the interview and flat-out said he didn't get what he was saying. Then, as they closed the segment, Waltz left the stage before the camera had even cut out. I think he may have been offended.

I understand completely what Waltz was saying, and I think it speaks of a deeper misunderstanding America has with the whole World War II struggle and the Nazi party. Yes, the Nazis were evil and horrific. We've been branded to think so as good, patriotic Americans who helped our European friends.

But a lot of the German people were just going along with a nationalistic movement. And a lot of the most sadistic SS or Gestapo guards were just nasty people with an outlet to indulge themselves. Many who "crawled in bed with the Nazis," as my history professor would say, did so because at that time in history, it was the most opportunistic place to be. The Nazis were in charge; they paid well; they let you kill and pillage. Tons of people signed up for the benefits of that.

So, it is disappointing to see Waltz's point (which I think is very instructive to American society as a whole) brushed aside. On the other hand, Letterman is not the place to try to explain such an idea.

Here's hoping that rather than being misunderstood, others can see the layers in Colonel Hans Landa and what he represented for people living in the time of the Nazi regime.