Who is the more terrifying villain: Anton Chigurh or Col. Hans Landa?

[nikolaipromises]

This thread is inspired by Christoph Waltz's win last night at the Academy Awards for his portrayal of Col. Hans Landa of the S.S. in "Inglourious Basterds."

Who is the more terrifying villain: Anton Chigurh of "No Country For Old Men," or Col. Hans Landa of the S.S.? And why?

While speaking about this exact topic with a good friend, we both decided on different choices. He chose Chigurh. I chose Landa. While I understood his reasoning behind his choice, I had a different point of view.

Here is what he said, in a nutshell, about why he chose Chigurh as the more terrifying villain:

He said Chigurh is a more terrifying villain than Landa. He said, "thing is, Landa was simply following orders." He went on to say Landa also recognized a freebie out and took it. Chigurh, though, works for himself and has no civility about him. He'd murder me just as soon as you, even if he had no good reason to. He went on to say Chigurh is cold and calculated, but also raw in power and conviction. He only answers to himself and is more animalistic than Landa.

However, he also said Landa is a smart villain and terrifying, but his communicative nature and demeanor cools the jets a bit.

So, where Landa would try to talk his way out of the confrontation, Chigurh would just shoot him in the face. He said he'd personally want to take his chances with the talker!


My take on why Landa is the more terrifying villain:

That's just exactly what Landa does in the beginning of "Basterds," though: he's calculated. He knows what he is going to do before he evens speaks one word. It's one thing to be a cold-blooded crazy killer (that's predictable) like Chigurh, and it's a completely other thing when you're smooth, cool (even cheerful), calculated and all-together unreadable like Landa.

Landa already has you figured out by the time he says one word. He knew what was going to happen during the massacre scene at the end, and he let it happen. That is far more terrifying than someone like Chigurh, who is predictable and rigid. Chigurh's character had little depth, little personality and therefore has less of a chance to expand. You knew his motives from the very beginning, unlike Landa's character where you have no idea what he is thinking. Take the milk scene in the middle of the movie at the restaurant, did he know who Shoshanna was, or was it all just coincidence? That's depth, and that's plot development, and that is pure tension.

You can even approach it on a moral level: Who is more dangerous, a man with no remorse and care for the people around him, or a man who understands the difference from right and wrong, but chooses wrong anyway? I feel the man with the forethought of right and wrong is more dangerous and in turn more unpredictable.


But what do you think? I'm looking forward to seeing what people have to say. I enjoy analytical discussions, so analyze away.