Django: Unchained - More like Django: Enabled

[Ches]

The film was honestly a work of art. I was so glad to see it in the theaters and to hear everyone laugh, and have fun with that picture. There was a lot of garbage coming out for months to the theaters from the Hollywood system, Django Unchained was very entertaining when it was released. Although the character Django in the beginning had sparse dialog (done on purpose to have somewhat of a silent hero), when it got rolling it just didn't stop.

If you think this was an arthouse picture that needs a theoretical class in order to understand it, then you need to check your ego at the door. The movie had some abstractness, but was pretty linear.

Was it tasteless? Yes. Was it racist? Yes. Was it historically accurate? No. Was it funny? Yes. Was it fun? Yes it was. It was a Spagetti Western Blacksploitation film done exceptionally well. Yes Quintin did some research for filming, but it is truly influenced by grindhouse pictures, and spagetti westerns. I remember when I watched it, I thought; "Wow this reminds me of that movie Boss Nigger!", and sure enough it was influenced by that film too.

So don't take this movie seriously at all, just have fun with it!

How come I, as a white woman, was more offended by the movie than you (and other black men/women)?? Trying to figure that one out....

 

[Bookworm616]

How come I, as a white woman, was more offended by the movie than you (and other black men/women)?? Trying to figure that one out....

What offended you about the movie?

 

[Gorath]

How come I, as a white woman, was more offended by the movie than you (and other black men/women)?? Trying to figure that one out....

This is a Quentin Tarantino movie. He researches the material before filming it. After that is done, he tinkers with the material. What if...? Every artist asks that question of themselves and it picks up from there. These are his versions. It is not to be taken seriously.

 

[hellified]

Django took action (on his own when specifically told not to) against the Brittle brothers. He shot (and in one instance whipped before shooting) 2 of the 3 before Dr. King Shultz could even get to where they were.

yes Django did kill two white men on his own..After Schultz bought him. After Schultz gives him his freedom, gives him his dignity, clothes, and a job. Then after he killed the bittle bros. gives him cover by saying "he's with me". The only reason Django was in a position to do that is because Schultz puts him there. The way its written without Schultz Django wouldn't have been able to do that in the first place.

Later in the article, the author mentions that no one has a backstory. I would beg to differ. Because we don't see images of a backstory for Calvin Candie, doesn't mean we didn't know his backstory: he inherited the plantation from his family who had owned it for generations. He was a plantation owner. Not sure what else you need to know about him. He was also a Francophile, though he doesn't speak French and you shouldn't speak French around him. That's basically all you need to know about him.

The backstory on Dr. Shultz is fuzzier, but he's an opportunist, so likely he saw the opportunity of better money to be had by being a bounty hunter and he clearly doesn't have qualms about killing people. He also said he had no intention of dying in the US, so he likely was doing that job long enough to retire and move back to Germany.

I'll concede the back story on Candie but even you admit that Schultz backstory is fuzzy and his actions in the 2nd and 3rd act conflict with his opportunistic manner in the 1st. For a guy who had no intention of dying in the US the motivation to help Django based on a fairy tale is bullshit at best.

You don't need a backstory on the love between Django and Broomhilda. It was very apparent by Django's motivations throughout the movie. Every action he took was to bringing him closer to finding Broomhilda.

But he didn't take action to find Broomhilda..Schultz took action. Schultz bought him, Schultz said he'd help him and provided the plan of going plantation to plantation. Django doesn't initiate any of those actions. Also as the title character and his primary reason for doing anything it would have been nice to see more about them as a couple and individuals in the story but that would require pushing Schultz into the background. Something QT clearly didn't want to do. Even in the advertising and posters you see Django Schultz and Candie not Django, Broomhilda and Candie even tho the actors insist its a love story.

The author said Broomhilda was in the hotbox for 3 days. She was not: she was in there for 10-12 hours I believe, as Stephen told Calvin Candie that she had run away the night before and that she had "10 days left" in that hotbox. Also, her reaction of her screaming when they took her out was proof enough of how it affected her. And when she was brought to Dr. Shultz's room (to speak German), Laura (Calvin's sister) had to prod her repeatedly to speak.

Broomhilda screaming isn't proof of PTSD its proof that she's scared. We saw scenes of her being whipped, branded and now in a hot box for hours its apparent that they have very little regard for her life and well being opening up the box for all she knows means theyre going to torture her some more. In contrast Schultz saw a slave get ripped apart by dogs and hours later he's having twitching flashbacks.

And Broomhilda didn't speak to Schultz because slaves don't talk to or look white people in the eye unless given permission to.

There was a lot of subtlety in that movie that you really had to pay attention.

There is other stuff I could debate about the article but these are some of what stood out for me.

you want to talk subtle? Everything good that happens for Django is because of the auspices of a nice white man. Django doesn't operate fully in his own until the good white man literally takes himself out of the story but thats after Django has been fully schooled and prepared by him. Django becomes the hero only after his encounter with Schultz.

 

[Ches]

What offended you about the movie?

I really can't put my finger on it. Maybe I feel like it's a mockery of something that shouldn't be mocked?

 

[hellified]

I really can't put my finger on it. Maybe I feel like it's a mockery of something that shouldn't be mocked?

Maybe its because portraying white people as evil, ignorant bumblefucks undercuts the seriousness and reality of slavery and the KKK. While the scene with the hoods/eyeholes was funny there was nothing funny about the ku klux klan. Even tho those guys may have been the precursors to the actual klan those lynch mobs and terrorist groups were very effective in terrorizing people in general and blacks in particular. And it begs the question that QT asks thru Candie in the film which is "HOW THE FUCK DID YOU GUYS ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE RULED BY THESE HILLBILLY ASSHOLES FOR SO LONG?"

in fact his comment in this interview illustrates that:
It's ironic that Tarantino is now unleashing a movie boasting of historical realism after his last film, "Inglourious Basterds" (the hit of his career, with global box office of $321.5 million and eight Oscar nominations) rewrote history by killing Hitler. "Django," similarly revels in the catharsis of seeing the evildoers of history get their comeuppance.

"With black audiences, they laugh, they just get it," says Tarantino."Part of the humor is stemming out of: `We were afraid of these idiots?'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/tarantino-unchained-quent_n_2340413.html

that is the most asinine comment coming from him.. Slavery didn't last as long as did because the africans were "afraid" of some "idiots"..

thats like saying 6 million jews died because they were AFRAID of these guys..

 

[Ol'Skool Classic]

I really can't put my finger on it. Maybe I feel like it's a mockery of something that shouldn't be mocked?

How is it a mockery of slavery? Some of the aspects of what actually happened during slavery may have been over exaggerated (Tarantino's trademark in pretty much all of his films) but nowhere near mockery. Had he attempted to try to make slavery look like a noble and just institution rather than the dark stain that it is, then that would have been mockery.

 

[Ches]

How is it a mockery of slavery? Some of the aspects of what actually happened during slavery may have been over exaggerated (Tarantino's trademark in pretty much all of his films) but nowhere near mockery. Had he attempted to try to make slavery look like a noble and just institution rather than the dark stain that it is, then that would have been mockery.

Maybe mockery isn't the right word. I can't explain it - I was just uncomfortable with it.

 

[Morning Star]

Watch the movie with me. I'll deconstruct the movie down so you'll appreciate it more. I tend to do better in my bathrobe and my newly minted killer crocs.

Maybe mockery isn't the right word. I can't explain it - I was just uncomfortable with it.

 

[hellified]

How is it a mockery of slavery? Some of the aspects of what actually happened during slavery may have been over exaggerated (Tarantino's trademark in pretty much all of his films) but nowhere near mockery. Had he attempted to try to make slavery look like a noble and just institution rather than the dark stain that it is, then that would have been mockery.

what. the. fuck.???

what is noble and just about slavery?

 

[Tamstrong]

what. the. fuck.???

what is noble and just about slavery?

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

He didn't say anything was noble and just about slavery. He said if Tarantino had tried to portray it as a noble and just institution, then it would be making a mockery of slavery.


As far as the movie goes, I liked it. It was over-the-top (like most of his movies), but it was a good movie. I almost didn't watch it because I hate Leonardo Dicaprio, but I'm glad I didn't let that stop me.

 

[Bookworm616]

yes Django did kill two white men on his own..After Schultz bought him. After Schultz gives him his freedom, gives him his dignity, clothes, and a job. Then after he killed the bittle bros. gives him cover by saying "he's with me". The only reason Django was in a position to do that is because Schultz puts him there. The way its written without Schultz Django wouldn't have been able to do that in the first place.


I'll concede the back story on Candie but even you admit that Schultz backstory is fuzzy and his actions in the 2nd and 3rd act conflict with his opportunistic manner in the 1st. For a guy who had no intention of dying in the US the motivation to help Django based on a fairy tale is bullshit at best.


But he didn't take action to find Broomhilda..Schultz took action. Schultz bought him, Schultz said he'd help him and provided the plan of going plantation to plantation. Django doesn't initiate any of those actions. Also as the title character and his primary reason for doing anything it would have been nice to see more about them as a couple and individuals in the story but that would require pushing Schultz into the background. Something QT clearly didn't want to do. Even in the advertising and posters you see Django Schultz and Candie not Django, Broomhilda and Candie even tho the actors insist its a love story.


Broomhilda screaming isn't proof of PTSD its proof that she's scared. We saw scenes of her being whipped, branded and now in a hot box for hours its apparent that they have very little regard for her life and well being opening up the box for all she knows means theyre going to torture her some more. In contrast Schultz saw a slave get ripped apart by dogs and hours later he's having twitching flashbacks.

And Broomhilda didn't speak to Schultz because slaves don't talk to or look white people in the eye unless given permission to.



you want to talk subtle? Everything good that happens for Django is because of the auspices of a nice white man. Django doesn't operate fully in his own until the good white man literally takes himself out of the story but thats after Django has been fully schooled and prepared by him. Django becomes the hero only after his encounter with Schultz.

This post right here is the reason I wasn't going to get into this with anyone.

I, frankly, don't have the time to continue debating this.

I can see you have your mind made up about the movie and whatever I say won't matter. But since we're on this, I'll type some more. LOL.

Do you honestly think in the pre-Civil War South, Django would have been able to get out of his predicament without the help of someone?

You don't think Schultz and Django became friends during the winter when they were tracking wanted men?

You don't think that Schultz, who flat out told Django that since he freed him he feels obligated to make sure that nothing happens to Django in the South, went along with Django's plan? Django had a plan. He was going to Greenville (I believe) to see who bought his wife and then he was going to the plantation to get her no matter what.

Schultz told Django that it was too dangerous for him to walk into Greenville alone, even as a free man, so he offered to go along with Django so that nothing happened to him.

And this is the point in the story where Schultz and Django are on equal ground.

You don't think that he felt himself a father figure for Django and that maybe Django saw him as a surrogate father to some extent? Their relationship was very well told and you can tell that they became friends as well as partners.

Had Schultz left Django alone to go on his mission, Django would have gotten himself killed, which is why Schultz offered to go with him.

And if you remember, as they were going to Candieland, Django becomes the leader and Schultz must go along for the ride.

Django was in complete control of the situation and Schultz was merely there strictly because he spoke German and that was a way to get Django's wife alone.

At one point during the ride, Schultz was so worried about Django's behavior that he asked to speak to Django privately (and try to regain control) and Django basically shut him down and told him he knew what he was doing.

Their role reversal on the walk to Candieland was great and beautifully done and subtle.

But like others have said, it's just a movie.

 

[Tamstrong]

This post right here is the reason I wasn't going to get into this with anyone.

I, frankly, don't have the time to continue debating this.

I can see you have your mind made up about the movie and whatever I say won't matter. But since we're on this, I'll type some more. LOL.

Do you honestly think in the pre-Civil War South, Django would have been able to get out of his predicament without the help of someone?

You don't think Schultz and Django became friends during the winter when they were tracking wanted men?

You don't think that Schultz, who flat out told Django that since he freed him he feels obligated to make sure that nothing happens to Django in the South, went along with Django's plan? Django had a plan. He was going to Greenville (I believe) to see who bought his wife and then he was going to the plantation to get her no matter what.

Schultz told Django that it was too dangerous for him to walk into Greenville alone, even as a free man, so he offered to go along with Django so that nothing happened to him.

And this is the point in the story where Schultz and Django are on equal ground.

You don't think that he felt himself a father figure for Django and that maybe Django saw him as a surrogate father to some extent? Their relationship was very well told and you can tell that they became friends as well as partners.

Had Schultz left Django alone to go on his mission, Django would have gotten himself killed, which is why Schultz offered to go with him.

And if you remember, as they were going to Candieland, Django becomes the leader and Schultz must go along for the ride.

Django was in complete control of the situation and Schultz was merely there strictly because he spoke German and that was a way to get Django's wife alone.

At one point during the ride, Schultz was so worried about Django's behavior that he asked to speak to Django privately (and try to regain control) and Django basically shut him down and told him he knew what he was doing.

Their role reversal on the walk to Candieland was great and beautifully done and subtle.

But like others have said, it's just a movie.

Great post, Bookie. :smt023 Sums it up quite well IMO.

 

[hellified]

This post right here is the reason I wasn't going to get into this with anyone.

I, frankly, don't have the time to continue debating this.

I can see you have your mind made up about the movie and whatever I say won't matter. But since we're on this, I'll type some more. LOL.

Do you honestly think in the pre-Civil War South, Django would have been able to get out of his predicament without the help of someone?

yes..there were slaves who successfully escaped the plantation..it did happen from time to time. even in the pre civil war south. That simple act automatically means that Django has taken control of his life. That act doesn't happen until the end of the film. But it didn't have to happen that way. Since its all fiction and writing is fluid, it can go in any direction. Django can escape and still meet and befriend a nice white man who can help him mainly in gaining access to certain things. But he could still initiate all the key things that affect his life.

*Youre a bounty hunter but I know these plantations I can help you make more money (in exchange for the access and cover a white person can provide in those times)...

*We work well together how about this I work for you thru the winter if you help me get my wife...

* I can't get close to candie so I need to you pose as mandingo fighter owner looking to purchase a new fighter and you can buy my wife as well...

These are pivotal issues and moments that mean more to django than schultz so he should be the initiator of them. But these are moments in django's life that he doesn't control the way its written in the film. Thats why will smith said the character wasn't the lead. Its those pivotal moments that a hero controls.

You don't think Schultz and Django became friends during the winter when they were tracking wanted men?

You don't think that Schultz, who flat out told Django that since he freed him he feels obligated to make sure that nothing happens to Django in the South, went along with Django's plan? Django had a plan. He was going to Greenville (I believe) to see who bought his wife and then he was going to the plantation to get her no matter what.

Schultz told Django that it was too dangerous for him to walk into Greenville alone, even as a free man, so he offered to go along with Django so that nothing happened to him.

sure they can be friends and schultz can even feel concerned for django but that doesn't mean it makes sense for him to go from cold calculating opportunist (your description) to getting doe eyed and talking about children stories and doing high risk missions that put his life in jeopardy. Schultz says he VAGUELY feels responsible for django becuz he's never given anyone his freedom before. Then he says when germans meet a real life siegfried thats a big deal:roll: but thats in stark contrast to the man who said he bought django and kept him as a slave to compel him to assist in getting the bittle bros. A man who had no problem using slavery to his favor when it suited him. This is the same guy who goes on a suicide mission?? And he didn't just offer to go with Django he gives him a full plan remember the horse thief analogy..

And this is the point in the story where Schultz and Django are on equal ground.

You don't think that he felt himself a father figure for Django and that maybe Django saw him as a surrogate father to some extent? Their relationship was very well told and you can tell that they became friends as well as partners.

Had Schultz left Django alone to go on his mission, Django would have gotten himself killed, which is why Schultz offered to go with him.

If theyre on equal ground its because django is more familiar with the innerworkings of plantation life and slavery more so than schultz. And if you think Django should view a white man as some sort of father figure then THATS the other reason why will smith and others said he wasn't the lead of the film. Schultz IS an authority figure to django and that lasts up until schultz takes himself out of the film.

And if you remember, as they were going to Candieland, Django becomes the leader and Schultz must go along for the ride.

Django was in complete control of the situation and Schultz was merely there strictly because he spoke German and that was a way to get Django's wife alone.

At one point during the ride, Schultz was so worried about Django's behavior that he asked to speak to Django privately (and try to regain control) and Django basically shut him down and told him he knew what he was doing.

Their role reversal on the walk to Candieland was great and beautifully done and subtle.

Again django becomes more assertive because he understood the world of slavery better than schultz but he wasn't in control of the situation since candie would only deal with schultz. Schultz is the only one who could get close to candie not django. The fact that he could speak german to broomhilda was a great coincidence in the way its written.

But like others have said, it's just a movie.

well thats true but that doesn't mean people can't have opinions about it. Thats the point of message boards and blogs isn't it? I never said anyone who likes the film is wrong I'm just illustrating why some people feel that the character isn't what we thought he would be. QT acted as if he did something different and revolutionary in some way when he really didn't. Sure Django gets revenge and kills a bunch of white people during slavery times but only after he's fully enabled by a nice white man to do it. Whats so different about that?

It seems to me that Django Unchained is a film that only a white person could make and be so universally received in the manner it was. Do you really think a black director or more specifically spike lee could a 100 million dollar budget to make a slave revenge film? Spike only got 40 million to make Malcolm X and even then the studio didn't want to spend the money to shoot in Egypt and mecca instead telling spike to use the jersey beach as a backdrop for Malcolm's pilgrimage, spike had to raise the money himself to make that happen. Tarantino got 100 million to shoot on property that was a real slave plantation.

Its interesting that for all the hype and fanfare of what this movie was supposed to be the only people to receive any kind of critcial acclaim and awards were schultz and tarantino..nothing for jamie foxx, sam jackson or kerry washington not even nominations...but its a movie about a hero ex slave right?

 

[FG]

yes..there were slaves who successfully escaped the plantation..it did happen from time to time. even in the pre civil war south. That simple act automatically means that Django has taken control of his life. That act doesn't happen until the end of the film. But it didn't have to happen that way. Since its all fiction and writing is fluid, it can go in any direction. Django can escape and still meet and befriend a nice white man who can help him mainly in gaining access to certain things. But he could still initiate all the key things that affect his life.

*Youre a bounty hunter but I know these plantations I can help you make more money (in exchange for the access and cover a white person can provide in those times)...

*We work well together how about this I work for you thru the winter if you help me get my wife...

* I can't get close to candie so I need to you pose as mandingo fighter owner looking to purchase a new fighter and you can buy my wife as well...

These are pivotal issues and moments that mean more to django than schultz so he should be the initiator of them. But these are moments in django's life that he doesn't control the way its written in the film. Thats why will smith said the character wasn't the lead. Its those pivotal moments that a hero controls.


sure they can be friends and schultz can even feel concerned for django but that doesn't mean it makes sense for him to go from cold calculating opportunist (your description) to getting doe eyed and talking about children stories and doing high risk missions that put his life in jeopardy. Schultz says he VAGUELY feels responsible for django becuz he's never given anyone his freedom before. Then he says when germans meet a real life siegfried thats a big deal:roll: but thats in stark contrast to the man who said he bought django and kept him as a slave to compel him to assist in getting the bittle bros. A man who had no problem using slavery to his favor when it suited him. This is the same guy who goes on a suicide mission?? And he didn't just offer to go with Django he gives him a full plan remember the horse thief analogy..


If theyre on equal ground its because django is more familiar with the innerworkings of plantation life and slavery more so than schultz. And if you think Django should view a white man as some sort of father figure then THATS the other reason why will smith and others said he wasn't the lead of the film. Schultz IS an authority figure to django and that lasts up until schultz takes himself out of the film.


Again django becomes more assertive because he understood the world of slavery better than schultz but he wasn't in control of the situation since candie would only deal with schultz. Schultz is the only one who could get close to candie not django. The fact that he could speak german to broomhilda was a great coincidence in the way its written.


well thats true but that doesn't mean people can't have opinions about it. Thats the point of message boards and blogs isn't it? I never said anyone who likes the film is wrong I'm just illustrating why some people feel that the character isn't what we thought he would be. QT acted as if he did something different and revolutionary in some way when he really didn't. Sure Django gets revenge and kills a bunch of white people during slavery times but only after he's fully enabled by a nice white man to do it. Whats so different about that?

It seems to me that Django Unchained is a film that only a white person could make and be so universally received in the manner it was. Do you really think a black director or more specifically spike lee could a 100 million dollar budget to make a slave revenge film? Spike only got 40 million to make Malcolm X and even then the studio didn't want to spend the money to shoot in Egypt and mecca instead telling spike to use the jersey beach as a backdrop for Malcolm's pilgrimage, spike had to raise the money himself to make that happen. Tarantino got 100 million to shoot on property that was a real slave plantation.

Its interesting that for all the hype and fanfare of what this movie was supposed to be the only people to receive any kind of critcial acclaim and awards were schultz and tarantino..nothing for jamie foxx, sam jackson or kerry washington not even nominations...but its a movie about a hero ex slave right?

Question for you; how much money does an Quentin tarantino movie pull in vs a spike Lee movie. That is your answer in regards to what budget they get. Its called business. Its av really silly comparison, I love both of their movies but your comparison does not compute.

 

[andreboba]

Quentin Tarantino is flat out a more compelling storyteller and popular director than SPike Lee. Spike Lee doesn't get box office like Tarantino and that has NOTHING at all to do with race.

I agree totally with Bookworm about the backstory for Django Unchained.
In the antebellum South, even an escaped 'free' slave would not have had the freedom of movement that partnering with a WHite man would have afforded him to have. Their partnership was a relationship of necessity for Django, not paternalism.

Personally I think there's a degree a resentment and hostility directed towards Tarantino because he 'goes there' in movies with characters and subject matter some feel as a White man he's not entitled to explore.

Some movies despite their subject matter just aren't commercial. Spike Lee produces and directs pet projects without much regard for who's going to go see his movies. As an artist that's his right, as a profitable movie director you have to know your audience and how universal your story is.

IMO Django Unchained followed Tarantino's tried and true Black/White buddy movie formula.

WIthout the 'good' Schultz character to balance out the horrors of slavery and the evil slave owner played by DiCaprio, I think this movie would have been much uglier and too harsh for most average moviegoers to process.

 

[Ol'Skool Classic]

what. the. fuck.???

what is noble and just about slavery?

What The Fuck on your What The Fuck?? You're writing these novel length long posts and fail to comprehend a simple single sentence that I wrote?

WOW...........

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

He didn't say anything was noble and just about slavery. He said if Tarantino had tried to portray it as a noble and just institution, then it would be making a mockery of slavery.

 

[Bookworm616]

yes..there were slaves who successfully escaped the plantation..it did happen from time to time. even in the pre civil war south. That simple act automatically means that Django has taken control of his life. That act doesn't happen until the end of the film. But it didn't have to happen that way. Since its all fiction and writing is fluid, it can go in any direction. Django can escape and still meet and befriend a nice white man who can help him mainly in gaining access to certain things. But he could still initiate all the key things that affect his life.

*Youre a bounty hunter but I know these plantations I can help you make more money (in exchange for the access and cover a white person can provide in those times)...

*We work well together how about this I work for you thru the winter if you help me get my wife...

* I can't get close to candie so I need to you pose as mandingo fighter owner looking to purchase a new fighter and you can buy my wife as well...

These are pivotal issues and moments that mean more to django than schultz so he should be the initiator of them. But these are moments in django's life that he doesn't control the way its written in the film. Thats why will smith said the character wasn't the lead. Its those pivotal moments that a hero controls.


sure they can be friends and schultz can even feel concerned for django but that doesn't mean it makes sense for him to go from cold calculating opportunist (your description) to getting doe eyed and talking about children stories and doing high risk missions that put his life in jeopardy. Schultz says he VAGUELY feels responsible for django becuz he's never given anyone his freedom before. Then he says when germans meet a real life siegfried thats a big deal:roll: but thats in stark contrast to the man who said he bought django and kept him as a slave to compel him to assist in getting the bittle bros. A man who had no problem using slavery to his favor when it suited him. This is the same guy who goes on a suicide mission?? And he didn't just offer to go with Django he gives him a full plan remember the horse thief analogy..


If theyre on equal ground its because django is more familiar with the innerworkings of plantation life and slavery more so than schultz. And if you think Django should view a white man as some sort of father figure then THATS the other reason why will smith and others said he wasn't the lead of the film. Schultz IS an authority figure to django and that lasts up until schultz takes himself out of the film.


Again django becomes more assertive because he understood the world of slavery better than schultz but he wasn't in control of the situation since candie would only deal with schultz. Schultz is the only one who could get close to candie not django. The fact that he could speak german to broomhilda was a great coincidence in the way its written.


well thats true but that doesn't mean people can't have opinions about it. Thats the point of message boards and blogs isn't it? I never said anyone who likes the film is wrong I'm just illustrating why some people feel that the character isn't what we thought he would be. QT acted as if he did something different and revolutionary in some way when he really didn't. Sure Django gets revenge and kills a bunch of white people during slavery times but only after he's fully enabled by a nice white man to do it. Whats so different about that?

It seems to me that Django Unchained is a film that only a white person could make and be so universally received in the manner it was. Do you really think a black director or more specifically spike lee could a 100 million dollar budget to make a slave revenge film? Spike only got 40 million to make Malcolm X and even then the studio didn't want to spend the money to shoot in Egypt and mecca instead telling spike to use the jersey beach as a backdrop for Malcolm's pilgrimage, spike had to raise the money himself to make that happen. Tarantino got 100 million to shoot on property that was a real slave plantation.

Its interesting that for all the hype and fanfare of what this movie was supposed to be the only people to receive any kind of critcial acclaim and awards were schultz and tarantino..nothing for jamie foxx, sam jackson or kerry washington not even nominations...but its a movie about a hero ex slave right?

I'm not going to go point by point with this post.

But I will ask you this: do you honestly think that if Django had escaped (and yes I'm aware that slaves successfully escaped) he would have:

a. just meet a nice white man who so happens to tell him that he's looking for the Brittle brothers but he doesn't know what they look like and it just so happens that Django knows them and decides to help him as he's looking over his shoulder the whole time?

b. as an escaped slave, been able to find the owner who bought his wife?

c. even gotten close to Candieland on his own to only find his wife but also to successfully get her out of there without both being killed?

If Django was an escaped slave, Schultz wouldn't have had anything to do with him. He doesn't want trouble. And Django certainly wouldn't have had anything to do with Schultz because he wouldn't have been able to trust his true motives. The story ends there.

The fact is: Django had the one piece of information that Schultz needed, which is why Django was the one who was in control. Django could have been bought by Schultz and then high-tailed it out of there at his first opportunity, but he didn't.

They both needed each other.

And Schultz didn't go on a suicide mission to Candieland. They were headed out the door with Broomhilda when Calvin decided to change the rules. That is when Schultz's disgust for Calvin became too much for him to overcome and he knew then that Calvin was never going to let them leave and he did the only thing he could to ensure that Django and Broomhilda had a shot of getting out of there.

Django kissed Schultz's body because he genuinely cared for Schultz. Their relationship was of mutually caring about the other person even though both were using each other for their own motives.

 

[hellified]

What The Fuck on your What The Fuck?? You're writing these novel length long posts and fail to comprehend a simple single sentence that I wrote?

WOW...........

I misread it calm down..

 

[hellified]

I'm not going to go point by point with this post.

But I will ask you this: do you honestly think that if Django had escaped (and yes I'm aware that slaves successfully escaped) he would have:

a. just meet a nice white man who so happens to tell him that he's looking for the Brittle brothers but he doesn't know what they look like and it just so happens that Django knows them and decides to help him as he's looking over his shoulder the whole time?

b. as an escaped slave, been able to find the owner who bought his wife?

c. even gotten close to Candieland on his own to only find his wife but also to successfully get her out of there without both being killed?

If Django was an escaped slave, Schultz wouldn't have had anything to do with him. He doesn't want trouble. And Django certainly wouldn't have had anything to do with Schultz because he wouldn't have been able to trust his true motives. The story ends there.

Yes..because its writing..its fiction..it can go anyway the writer wants and with QT's name on it chances are people will accept it. You can't have it both ways: on the one hand its just a movie thats actiony and spaghetti westerny and blaxploitationy and not meant to be a factual documentary BUT if django acts like an assertive hero from frame one then thats total bullshit and who would believe that . They were wearing early 20th century sunglasses about 50 years before they were invented and you accepted that. I'm not saying Schultz shouldn't have any say or do anything to help Django I'm saying that Django as the hero needed to be assertive from the beginning.

So yes..why can't Django escape at least from the two slavers that were force marching them apparently across the south in the opening. They would be dead and who would know its not like theres CSI in the 1800s.

Why can't Django and Schultz have a chance meeting, Django inadvertently gets caught up in a shoot out as Schultz is collecting another bounty in that area and he in some way helps him kill the target they strike up a friendship of sorts since schultz freely admits to hating slavery. In a conversation Schultz mentions the brittle brothers as his next target and Django says he knows something about them and strikes a deal. DJANGO MAKE A DEAL WITH SCHULTZ not the other way around.

Why can't they forge his receipt or freedom papers?

again ITS FICTION RIGHT..it can go any way you want it.

The fact is: Django had the one piece of information that Schultz needed, which is why Django was the one who was in control. Django could have been bought by Schultz and then high-tailed it out of there at his first opportunity, but he didn't.

He didn't because he was still a slave just under Schultz at that point and if he did hightail it outta there then he would be that escaped slave who couldn't do anything for himself that youre talking about. So we're back to square one right? lol

They both needed each other.

not equally..Schultz just needed a slave who was familiar with the brittle bros. Django's life and wife hung in the balance..thats not even close.

And Schultz didn't go on a suicide mission to Candieland. They were headed out the door with Broomhilda when Calvin decided to change the rules. That is when Schultz's disgust for Calvin became too much for him to overcome and he knew then that Calvin was never going to let them leave and he did the only thing he could to ensure that Django and Broomhilda had a shot of getting out of there.

and what was that? Starting a shoot out that killed himself and Django ultimately lost anyway?? The last 30 minutes are so I don't have an issue with because Django is asserting himself more at this point its the first hour and half thats an issue for me and others who don't see him as the lead in the film.

Django kissed Schultz's body because he genuinely cared for Schultz. Their relationship was of mutually caring about the other person even though both were using each other for their own motives.

i'm not disputing that either. Just that Django had much more to gain and lose and therefore needed to be more assertive from the beginning. You say Django had a plan but he didn't really, he had a want. How was he going to make that plan happen if Schultz hadn't bought him? From the very first meeting until Schultz dies literally NOTHING good happens for Django until Schultz makes it happen for him. This is why Will Smith says Django wasn't the lead in the movie it was the other guy.