Django Unchained--Tarintino's new project

[gblews]

^
Interesting. But I'm not sure we actually got much of a character growth arc out of either Django or Schultz. Schultz didn't like slavery from jump, though he was not above using it to get what he wanted from Django. And Django wanted his wife back from jump and never wavered in that.

Perhaps Django's attitude toward other slaves changed, but I would argue that he was merely playing a role at Candyland until he and Schultz got exposed. So it wasn't like there was a sea change there either. More that he had to bury his real feelings until he accomplished his objective.

With Schultz, feeling some responsibility for Django, as well as disgust over slavery, it felt like a logical progression for him to take action against Candie like that. I don't think it was an epiphany kind of moment. Even his action, which imperiled Django and Broomhilda, didn't seem like a change in his character to me.

Agree with your take on Shultz. But with regard to Django, I don't think at the beginning of the story he had any use for any white man. Schultz broke through that barrior. I honestly thought that Django had something close to love for Schults in the end. So, I do think Django had some growth.

 

[davejames]

Django may provide the physical conflict but the dramatic conflict really resides with Schulz. Especially with the dog scene, we see that Django is who he is at that point yet Schulz was still in motion.

I don't think the dog scene was any kind of turning point for Schultz; he had just never seen anything as brutal and horrific as that before, and was no longer able to hide his revulsion.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Django may provide the physical conflict but the dramatic conflict really resides with Schulz. Especially with the dog scene, we see that Django is who he is at that point yet Schulz was still in motion.

I don't think the dog scene was any kind of turning point for Schultz; he had just never seen anything as brutal and horrific as that before, and was no longer able to hide his revulsion.

Read what you wrote there, I'm not so sure you didn't just show that it was a turning point.

 

[DarKush]

^
Interesting. But I'm not sure we actually got much of a character growth arc out of either Django or Schultz. Schultz didn't like slavery from jump, though he was not above using it to get what he wanted from Django. And Django wanted his wife back from jump and never wavered in that.

Perhaps Django's attitude toward other slaves changed, but I would argue that he was merely playing a role at Candyland until he and Schultz got exposed. So it wasn't like there was a sea change there either. More that he had to bury his real feelings until he accomplished his objective.

With Schultz, feeling some responsibility for Django, as well as disgust over slavery, it felt like a logical progression for him to take action against Candie like that. I don't think it was an epiphany kind of moment. Even his action, which imperiled Django and Broomhilda, didn't seem like a change in his character to me.

Agree with your take on Shultz. But with regard to Django, I don't think at the beginning of the story he had any use for any white man. Schultz broke through that barrior. I honestly thought that Django had something close to love for Schults in the end. So, I do think Django had some growth.

With Django's feelings towards white men. I ask, can you blame him? From what little we got of his past, white men had been nothing but cruel to him. So we do see some of Django's perplexed reactions almost from when he first meets Schultz that the dentist is something else all together than the white men that Django has dealt with. I wouldn't consider it breaking through a barrier, as if the onus was on Django and not the white men who had enslaved and brutalized him.

Also, Schultz wasn't above using Django's slave status for his own ends, despite his abolitionist leanings. So even there, there was some exploitation from another white man. But Schultz's other treatment of Django, as an equal and partner, did elicit an emotional response in return, or that's the way I saw it when he touched Schultz's corpse in the barn before grabbing Broomhilda's freedom papers.

Once again, I'm not sure how much that registered as a change in Django. His main objective was to get his wife back. Schultz was going to help him do that, so Schultz was useful to him. Schultz needed help in the bounty hunting business, so he needed Django. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, relatively speaking. But Schultz never changed from his abolitionist stance and Django never changed from wanting his wife back.

If there were any changes, there were not major ones, but of degree. Perhaps Schultz, pre-Django had been willing to live with the evils of slavery, but after meeting Django and Broomhilda, was more willing to confront it head on. His abolitionist feelings increased, but does that constitute a character arc?

Same with Django, he did have some feeling-of friendship, companionship-for Schultz. Even though white men had been cruel to him, I can't say it was beyond his capacity to not have some kind of fraternal feeling for any white man pre-Schultz. But meeting this white man that he could trust, that laid his life down on the line after buying Broomhilda's freedom (though his actions imperiled that freedom), certainly had an affect on him, but does that equate to a character arc?

 

[gblews]

^
Interesting. But I'm not sure we actually got much of a character growth arc out of either Django or Schultz. Schultz didn't like slavery from jump, though he was not above using it to get what he wanted from Django. And Django wanted his wife back from jump and never wavered in that.

Perhaps Django's attitude toward other slaves changed, but I would argue that he was merely playing a role at Candyland until he and Schultz got exposed. So it wasn't like there was a sea change there either. More that he had to bury his real feelings until he accomplished his objective.

With Schultz, feeling some responsibility for Django, as well as disgust over slavery, it felt like a logical progression for him to take action against Candie like that. I don't think it was an epiphany kind of moment. Even his action, which imperiled Django and Broomhilda, didn't seem like a change in his character to me.

Agree with your take on Shultz. But with regard to Django, I don't think at the beginning of the story he had any use for any white man. Schultz broke through that barrior. I honestly thought that Django had something close to love for Schults in the end. So, I do think Django had some growth.

Same with Django, he did have some feeling-of friendship, companionship-for Schultz. Even though white men had been cruel to him, I can't say it was beyond his capacity to not have some kind of fraternal feeling for any white man pre-Schultz. But meeting this white man that he could trust, that laid his life down on the line after buying Broomhilda's freedom (though his actions imperiled that freedom), certainly had an affect on him, but does that equate to a character arc?

Well, I didn't say Django's feelings about Shuultz at the end represented a "character arc". I said that it represented "some growth" (in the Django character), and it did. Django probably didn't think he had the capacity to actually love and respect a white man, but in the end found out that he did because of his relationship with Schultz.

 

[DarKush]

^
I don't think that capacity or lack thereof was ever really evident in the film. He did come to respect and trust Schultz but there wasn't much explored that said that that would be impossible for Django to do before hand. We can assume that Django would have major trust issues with white males, and wisely so, but I can't say that that is supported by what we saw in the film.

 

[gblews]

^
I don't think that capacity or lack thereof was ever really evident in the film. He did come to respect and trust Schultz but there wasn't much explored that said that that would be impossible for Django to do before hand. We can assume that Django would have major trust issues with white males, and wisely so, but I can't say that that is supported by what we saw in the film.

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

Schultz helps Django free himself from slavery and hone the skils that would help Django stay free himself and save his wife's life. Schultz, who hates the evil that is slavery and therefore slaveowners, proves it by killing one knowing full well he will likely die for what he has done. He essentially died for his ideals.

I don't think there is much reason to wonder about how Django feels about white men at the beginning of the movie and no reason to qestion or doubt his feelings about at least one white man at the end of the movie. Understand, I'm not saying Django's view of white people/men changed by the end of the movie, but he finds out in the end that he does have the capacity to care for a white man. That, to me, represents "some" growth at least.

 

[Roger Wilco]

So, I just watched the movie, and while I loved the first ~2 hours, I really have a problem with the ending. Am I missing some deeper metaphorical message or what or was it supposed to be a fairy tale or something? It felt really kind of out of touch with the rest of the movie, almost like a dream sequence. Imo the movie should have either ended with Schultz shaking Candie's hand and walking out of there with Django and Broomhilda or with all three of them dead right there after Schultz shoots Candie.

It made absolutely no sense for Django to be "punished" the way he was, without even any supervision by some of Candyland's overseers. An "uppity" black guy who causes the death of a very prominent white man and numerous other white guys in Mississippi in 1858 just being sold to some mining company like that is absurd. And yes, there was this speech by Stephen, but that made no sense either; castrating Django would've just been the start of his punishment.

Very strange. I'm just not sure wether the ending was shit or I'm just missing some nuance Tarantino was going for there.

 

[ManOnTheWave]

Without the ending, it isn't Django Unchained, it's Dr. King Schultz: Dentist Bounty Hunter and his Valet Django. Up until the end sequence, the movie is about a German hero who buys a black slave, frees the other slaves, shows his slave bounty hunting, uses his slave, frees his slave, teaches him some German mythology, teaches him how to shoot, speak, read, and dress, and then formulates a plan to free his former slaves wife. With the end sequence Django is once again enslaved, but is now able to make his own opportunity to escape, take the opportunity he made, free not only himself but the other slaves, formulate his own plan of attack and implement it by killing the trackers once they are isolated and then lying in wait to kill the plantation staff, the plantation mistress, and the head house slave, and free his wife. Without the end sequence, Django never becomes himself.

 

[Roger Wilco]

True. But then they should have killed Schultz sooner, maybe immediately after Candie discovering his deception and let Django do the rest. Or at least have Django escape in some way that's less hard to believe.

 

[Ayelbourne]

One shocking fact I learned today about the film: In the scene where DiCaprio saws open the skull of his old family servant (supposedly to show the genetic inferiority of the black man), I was left wondering why his left hand was bleeding all over the place. Turns out he actually DID accidentally cut his own hand open with the saw (it wasn't in the script), and he just went with it in a paroxysm of method acting that so impressed QT he used that take in the film (yes, Kerry Washington got an unexpected faceful of REAL Leo blood).

I had a feeling the blood was real and that DiCaprio just went with it. What tipped me off was that they didn't show how he'd injured his hand.

Great movie, overall. Dragged a bit in the middle, but apart from that I enjoyed it quite a lot.
Loved how Samuel L. Jackson channeled Tuco there at the end. You just can't beat the ending of The Good the Bad an the Ugly.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^Tarantino always cameos in his movies. There would have been something lacking had he not. Also, I think there's meant to be humor in that scene. We're supposed to recognize him, and realize he's doing a ridiculous accent. Someone that doesn't know Tarantino wouldn't think twice about it, but a fan would recognize it and laugh.

I was thinking about that scene a little and maybe it's overplayed to show that Django sees these guys in a different light than at the beginning of the picture. Now that he's been free he sees these guys for the clowns they are. (Maybe? Just a thought anyway...)

 

[Admiral_Young]

I finally saw "Django Unchained" last week and thought it was brilliant. I will say that I adore the original script more, and thus looking forward to the comic (issue one was pretty awesome) but this was terrific. There were some magnificent performances in this film, particularly from Foxx, Waltz, DiCaprio (Leo didn't get a nom, I was sure he would finally win his Oscar), and Sam Jackson. Kerry Washington was great as Broomhilda. The soundtrack is probably my favourite since "Kill Bill". I will be buying the Blu-Ray for sure and am looking forward to what QT does after this...maybe "Killer Crows" if he doesn't change his mind to finish off his "Revenge Trilogy".

 

[DarKush]

^
I don't think that capacity or lack thereof was ever really evident in the film. He did come to respect and trust Schultz but there wasn't much explored that said that that would be impossible for Django to do before hand. We can assume that Django would have major trust issues with white males, and wisely so, but I can't say that that is supported by what we saw in the film.

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

Schultz helps Django free himself from slavery and hone the skils that would help Django stay free himself and save his wife's life. Schultz, who hates the evil that is slavery and therefore slaveowners, proves it by killing one knowing full well he will likely die for what he has done. He essentially died for his ideals.

I don't think there is much reason to wonder about how Django feels about white men at the beginning of the movie and no reason to qestion or doubt his feelings about at least one white man at the end of the movie. Understand, I'm not saying Django's view of white people/men changed by the end of the movie, but he finds out in the end that he does have the capacity to care for a white man. That, to me, represents "some" growth at least.

I take issue with your description of a field slave being the lowest of the low. Even within the context of the film, Django mentions black slavers as being the lowest of the low. That being said, I think it does matter how Django would feel about white men at the beginning of the film, as opposed to how he might feel about white men at the end, or Schultz at least, if you contend that that represented growth for his character.

We did see Django and Schultz become friends over the course of the film. But there was nothing in the film that showed us that Django didn't have that capacity beforehand to establish friendships with whites. Granted, I doubted that occurred but I can't say that it didn't. Django was distrustful of whites and vengeful against those that had done him, Broomhilda, or Schultz harm, but outside of that we didn't get much about his thoughts about white males.

 

[DarKush]

So, I just watched the movie, and while I loved the first ~2 hours, I really have a problem with the ending. Am I missing some deeper metaphorical message or what or was it supposed to be a fairy tale or something? It felt really kind of out of touch with the rest of the movie, almost like a dream sequence. Imo the movie should have either ended with Schultz shaking Candie's hand and walking out of there with Django and Broomhilda or with all three of them dead right there after Schultz shoots Candie.

It made absolutely no sense for Django to be "punished" the way he was, without even any supervision by some of Candyland's overseers. An "uppity" black guy who causes the death of a very prominent white man and numerous other white guys in Mississippi in 1858 just being sold to some mining company like that is absurd. And yes, there was this speech by Stephen, but that made no sense either; castrating Django would've just been the start of his punishment.

Very strange. I'm just not sure wether the ending was shit or I'm just missing some nuance Tarantino was going for there.

You would think that Django would've been ripped apart after the shoot out at Candyland, but I think that Stephen's speech was very important. To me, I saw Stephen as a manipulator, of both Candies. It's a very subversive idea, or thought on my part perhaps, but I saw Stephen in many ways running the plantation. Despite his slave status, Stephen took a lot of liberties that you-at least-I wouldn't have expected a slave, even a house slave, to do.

He hid behind some clownish, servile behavior and his old age, but right off the bat he was challenging Candie, he was bossing the overseers, he's the one that tipped Candie off to the plan (and remember how he was casually sitting in a parlor chair, drinking a brandy), and he's the one that planted the idea in Candie's sister's mind to sell Django off.

So even though I have mixed feelings about Django not taking out Candie instead of Schultz, his final confrontation with Stephen made sense to me because he was sort of the mastermind behind Candyland, IMO. Stephen had taken the lemons he was given due to birth and status and subverted them to gain a position of power and influence at Candyland. Of course, "rising" through the ranks in a slave system made him just as monstrous as Candie and other white slave owners. Nor did it really shield him from all the realities of being a slave. It is notable that Stephen telling Candie what's really going on was done behind closed doors, in keeping with the racial customs and reinforcing the idea of white supremacy. And if Candie wanted to shut Stephen down at any time, he could, so Stephen trod carefully.

I agree with those who felt that ending was the right way to go. I could've seen the film ending with Django's capture and the audience could all imagine the horrors that would occur next with Django and Broomhilda. But it wouldn't have been as satisfying or cathartic if we didn't see Django get his full revenge or accomplish his goal of freeing Broomhilda. I also agree with the idea that the ending helped Django come fully into his own. We got to see him doing things solo for once, setting up and executing a plan without Schultz, and I think that's one of the things that helped establish Django as a man/hero in his own right, without someone holding his hand or guiding him.

 

[gblews]

^
I don't think that capacity or lack thereof was ever really evident in the film. He did come to respect and trust Schultz but there wasn't much explored that said that that would be impossible for Django to do before hand. We can assume that Django would have major trust issues with white males, and wisely so, but I can't say that that is supported by what we saw in the film.

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

Schultz helps Django free himself from slavery and hone the skils that would help Django stay free himself and save his wife's life. Schultz, who hates the evil that is slavery and therefore slaveowners, proves it by killing one knowing full well he will likely die for what he has done. He essentially died for his ideals.

I don't think there is much reason to wonder about how Django feels about white men at the beginning of the movie and no reason to qestion or doubt his feelings about at least one white man at the end of the movie. Understand, I'm not saying Django's view of white people/men changed by the end of the movie, but he finds out in the end that he does have the capacity to care for a white man. That, to me, represents "some" growth at least.

I take issue with your description of a field slave being the lowest of the low. Even within the context of the film, Django mentions black slavers as being the lowest of the low. That being said, I think it does matter how Django would feel about white men at the beginning of the film, as opposed to how he might feel about white men at the end, or Schultz at least, if you contend that that represented growth for his character.

We did see Django and Schultz become friends over the course of the film. But there was nothing in the film that showed us that Django didn't have that capacity beforehand to establish friendships with whites. Granted, I doubted that occurred but I can't say that it didn't. Django was distrustful of whites and vengeful against those that had done him, Broomhilda, or Schultz harm, but outside of that we didn't get much about his thoughts about white males.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on all of these issues.

 

[Servo]

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

The real truth of Django's feelings for Schultz comes in that scene, not from Django's actions, but from his choice of words; "Auf wiedersehen". Very poignant after we'd just heard Schultz explain it's literal meaning ("Til we meet again") to Candie.

 

[FPAlpha]

Damn.. that's all i can say about Django Unchained.

A short while ago today i saw it and i honestly can't remember when nearly 3 hours flew by so fast (even with the 15 minute intermission which i haven't experienced in a long time at the movies), not even with the Lord of the Rings movies where i was gripped by the story and visuals but still was aware of the time it took to tell the story.

Django is so chock full of Tarantino style.. it's glorious and brilliant and may be the best movie he made in his life and most of his movies are grouped so tight near the top spot that it's hard to choose.
This one had it all.. funny, gore, action, gripping dialogue, drama and outstanding actors led by a man who knew exactly what he wanted.

I nearly blacked out twice during the movie from laughing so hard.. first one was the Ku Klux Klan scene and then the big shootout near the end which was so over the top it was just amazing and hilarious.

Music choices are genius as always with Tarantino movies and Waltz definitely deserved his Golden Globe for his performance here.

Unfortunately i saw it in the german synchronized version so i can't wait for the Blu Ray to see/hear it in the english original.

Another masterpiece by Tarantino who cements his top spot as the "cool movies" director (and i fell nearly out of the chair when his cameo character was killed.. you know what i mean ).

 

[Servo]

The Klan scene was hilarious. Felt like something straight out of Blazing Saddles.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

Damn.. that's all i can say about Django Unchained.

A short while ago today i saw it and i honestly can't remember when nearly 3 hours flew by so fast (even with the 15 minute intermission which i haven't experienced in a long time at the movies), not even with the Lord of the Rings movies where i was gripped by the story and visuals but still was aware of the time it took to tell the story.

Django is so chock full of Tarantino style.. it's glorious and brilliant and may be the best movie he made in his life and most of his movies are grouped so tight near the top spot that it's hard to choose.
This one had it all.. funny, gore, action, gripping dialogue, drama and outstanding actors led by a man who knew exactly what he wanted.

I nearly blacked out twice during the movie from laughing so hard.. first one was the Ku Klux Klan scene and then the big shootout near the end which was so over the top it was just amazing and hilarious.

Music choices are genius as always with Tarantino movies and Waltz definitely deserved his Golden Globe for his performance here.

Unfortunately i saw it in the german synchronized version so i can't wait for the Blu Ray to see/hear it in the english original.

Another masterpiece by Tarantino who cements his top spot as the "cool movies" director (and i fell nearly out of the chair when his cameo character was killed.. you know what i mean ).

Not yet sure if it gets top spot but it was great.
How did the whole "we are speaking German as a plot point" work when everyone is speaking German all the time? I was lucky enough to watch it inthe original version.