Anyone Seen Django?

[TheDarceKnight]

I don't think he approves of slavery, but I agree that QT was critical of him and most "well-intentioned" whites. That he gives Django 1/3rd of the bounty money as his partner is better treatment than any white men give Django in the movie, but he's still not treating him as an equal. Like you said, he also was adamant that Django keep his cool and not jeopardize the transaction by getting mad at swipes at his pride, but shortly after when his pride is insulted he risks everyone's life.

Schultz was a cool character, but there was definitely criticism of him and what he represents today. That's why I really liked the "I despise slavery, but I will take advantage of it. Having said that, I feel guilty" line.

Spoiler

I agree with this. Although a part of me considered that he didn't give a 50/50 split simply because Django was green at that point, and likely wouldn't be good enough at killing that early on to deserve half of the money. In that way I almost thought, "Okay, maybe Schultz really does view Django as an equal, and is bringing him up in the bounty hunting business slowly." But since there was never a later discussion about "Okay, you're the man now, we're going in 50/50" I tend to agree with your line of thought.

 

[DaylitoJames]

I just saw the movie... it was fukkin' awesome!

 

[TheDarceKnight]

I didn't read anything into the 1/3rd thing. Because it's all about the leads, and Schultz knew exactly where to find everyone. What's harder, finding the criminals or just shooting them? I don't think the 2/3 and 1/3 split had any meaning as Django was new and didn't know what the hell he was doing. I think he wanted to focus on Schultz's hypocrisy through his statements, but people are reading too much into it the $ split.

Nice to see I wasn't the only one who thought this. I posted that same sentiment, but that since there was no later discussion on a 50/50 spit as Django improved, that maybe Schultz was happy to benefit from it a many have suggested.

Then again the movie was so long as it was, and a discussion like that probably wasn't necessary later into the film.

 

[CM_Burns]

Nice to see I wasn't the only one who thought this. I posted that same sentiment, but that since there was no later discussion on a 50/50 spit as Django improved, that maybe Schultz was happy to benefit from it a many have suggested.

Then again the movie was so long as it was, and a discussion like that probably wasn't necessary later into the film.

It's possible that that part wasn't meant to be read like that. Looking at how Django reacted (didn't say anything, but just facially), I took it like that. Even without that, I think the other stuff I mentioned supports QT criticizing "well intentioned", or liberal white people's treatment of black people.

 

[gluvnast]

another interesting aspect about this film is how all the white people aren't as intelligent as they pretend to be...

 

[gluvnast]

It's possible that that part wasn't meant to be read like that. Looking at how Django reacted (didn't say anything, but just facially), I took it like that. Even without that, I think the other stuff I mentioned supports QT criticizing "well intentioned", or liberal white people's treatment of black people.

well, schultz's character is made clear... he had "well intentions" but his morals is conflicted with selfish self-righteousness.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

another interesting aspect about this film is how all the white people aren't as intelligent as they pretend to be...

The phrenology part was so ridiculous right? As soon as Leo mentioned "the science of phrenology" almost the entire theater groaned.

 

[Anbesa]

I didn't read anything into the 1/3rd thing. Because it's all about the leads, and Schultz knew exactly where to find everyone. What's harder, finding the criminals or just shooting them? I don't think the 2/3 and 1/3 split had any meaning as Django was new and didn't know what the hell he was doing. I think he wanted to focus on Schultz's hypocrisy through his statements, but people are reading too much into it the $ split.

I agree with this, if he offered him a 50/50 split, that would have been pretty unbelievable to me, not because Django was black and a slave, but because you're not evenly splitting a reward you worked for with some one you just met that gave you information. If that makes sense


anyways I absolutely loved the movie from beginning to end. Everyone killed their roles, the humor was hilarious, action scenes made me and my friends go
And the ending was satisfying to me. I was saying that if the movie ended tragically, I would have been pretty pissed. But him going back and capping SLJ and hearing him cry like a bytch was fun to watch (I also found it funny when SLJ had the nerve to call Foxx an uppity nikka)

Overall great film

 

[gluvnast]

The phrenology part was so ridiculous right? As soon as Leo mentioned "the science of phrenology" almost the entire theater groaned.

the sad thing, that's whut was believed as a "scientific truth" back then! smh...

 

[CM_Burns]

well, schultz's character is made clear... he had "well intentions" but his morals is conflicted with selfish self-righteousness.

Now that you phrase it like that, it makes more sense that Schultz killed Leo. I took it as a surprising twist when it happened, but it also functions to show that when he has to choose his greater motivation, he chooses a moral high ground and superiority over "lesser whites" instead of genuinely helping the black man and his wife.

If schultz is "good", liberal whites, that's a powerful and truthful critique of them and their real motivations.

I might be restating myself, but I feel like I'm seeing this in a new light. This movie was deep to me and commented a lot on American race relations.

 

[kingdarius]

just came from seeing that django and damn was it good, that boy jamie did his damn thing in that shyt.....oh and uncle ruckus aint got shyt on stephen lol that dude right there had me in the theater wanting to punch his damn lights out

 

[TheDarceKnight]

Now that you phrase it like that, it makes more sense that Schultz killed Leo. I took it as a surprising twist when it happened, but it also functions to show that when he has to choose his greater motivation, he chooses a moral high ground and superiority over "lesser whites" instead of genuinely helping the black man and his wife.

If schultz is "good", liberal whites, that's a powerful and truthful critique of them and their real motivations.

I might be restating myself, but I feel like I'm seeing this in a new light. This movie was deep to me and commented a lot on American race relations.

Also about the Schultz character

Quentin Tarantino also said in this interview here that

Spoiler

"He's working from the wrong assumptions. Schultz is so egotistical and is such a control freak, he cannot allow himself to be put in the non-power position of every situation. It's why he ends up getting killed in the first place! They've had it; they got her. They won! But he cannot make himself subservient -- you know, to shake Candie's hand. I think it's one of the cool subtexts of the film that ultimately, yes, they were wrong. If they had approached Candie straight up, Candie would have sold Broomhilda for $5,000.

 

[Reality]

One of the worst attempts at film analysis I've ever read. You're so far off base that it's damn near trolling.

You're white, right? Speaking on a black critique of a film?



Why don't you attempt a response?

 

[gluvnast]

Now that you phrase it like that, it makes more sense that Schultz killed Leo. I took it as a surprising twist when it happened, but it also functions to show that when he has to choose his greater motivation, he chooses a moral high ground and superiority over "lesser whites" instead of genuinely helping the black man and his wife.

If schultz is "good", liberal whites, that's a powerful and truthful critique of them and their real motivations.

I might be restating myself, but I feel like I'm seeing this in a new light. This movie was deep to me and commented a lot on American race relations.

yea, QT really made some interesting parallels to how we are today. i took notice of when stephen was tell django about how it's like being sold to that mining company and it somehow described it as if it was present day prison to which is technically legalized slavery in itself!

 

[gluvnast]

Also about the Schultz character

Quentin Tarantino also said in this interview here that

Spoiler

"He's working from the wrong assumptions. Schultz is so egotistical and is such a control freak, he cannot allow himself to be put in the non-power position of every situation. It's why he ends up getting killed in the first place! They've had it; they got her. They won! But he cannot make himself subservient -- you know, to shake Candie's hand. I think it's one of the cool subtexts of the film that ultimately, yes, they were wrong. If they had approached Candie straight up, Candie would have sold Broomhilda for $5,000.

^^^ yea, basically. candie was more pissed off of them trying to pull a fast one rather than being straight up about it.