Django Unchained movie thread! (open spoilers)

Cafe Society
1

Spoiiiiiiiiiilllllller space!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
First impressions: I liked the movie. Not being a huge Tarantino fan (I’ve only seen Kill Bill), I went into this expecting gruesome violence and lots of swearing. I’m kinda happy to find out that the violence, while numerous, wasn’t as brutal as I thought it would be. Lots of white folks being gunned down, but some of the scenes were extreme to the point of cartoonish. That’s not a bad thing, this movie was at times funny, touching, but it never made you forget that being a black person in the antebellum south was not a pleasant experience. There are some flashes of harsher stuff, and at one point you think its going to happen to our hero, but most of that is implied but not shown. However, I wouldn’t bring the kids, the Mandingo fight was pretty bad

Speaking of which, there is a LOT of N-bombs dropped in this film. So much that I think this movie used up Hollywood’s allotment for the year. So much that at one point, someone does use the word “black” and it stands out solely because you can’t believe that he said that word instead.

Also, the movie’s a bit long I think. There’s a point where you think its going to end and it doesn’t, and you have another 15 mins or so. While it’s an decent ending, I think it could have been wrapped up a bit sooner had one of the plot points didn’t resolve as out of place-ly as it did.

As for the plot, its generally tight and moves at a decent pace. You get to know both Dr. Schultz and Django well enough by the end that you care what happens to them. Which is why their scheme to buy Django’s wife is so strange. Their plan, had it worked the way they wanted it, was to spend $12000 and some change for Hilda and Eskimo Jim. When that went to shit, they ended up spending only $12000 for Hilda herself. So their plan was to spend more money, get someone they didn’t come for, and have to come up a whole plan to trick Calvin into thinking they’re interested in getting into Mandingo fighting when they could have simply offered $12000 for Hilda alone and not needed the whole plan? I don’t get it

I guess maybe it worked out to teach us a lesson, to convince us that Schultz went from not caring what happens to Django to slave-abolishing German Lincoln, and that there are lots of good people out there and slavery wasn’t so universally accepted even though by him existing it proved that point already. Or Tarantino just really wanted to be in the movie and up to that point he didn’t figure out how to shoehorn himself into it until those last few scenes.

I would give it 3.5 stars out of 5. Its not a great movie, its an above average one, and Jamie Foxx turns in a convincing performance as a man out of revenge. Plot aside, Christoph Waltz does play a pretty good suave gunfighter who knows his stuff. And of course Leo was despicable as he should have been as Calvin. One thing we all agreed on after the movie though was that they blackened Samuel L. Jackson’s face some more in this movie. Now if a black guy wears blackface, is that offensive? Anyway, he does his usual thing, lots of motherfuckers around him and he can’t believe a lot of shit’s happening.

2

Since the OP warns of spoilers, I’m not putting anything in boxes. If you haven’t seen the movie and want to be surprised, stop reading here.

I loved the movie. I’m not sure there was a lesson in there, and I don’t think one was intended. It was more an homage to spaghetti westerns (including music from Morricone, among others) - it’s essentially an iconic story about a mysterious gunman who help innocent people, with a few twists and a lot of dead bodies. I don’t think Django was a commentary on the antebellum south anymore than Pulp Fiction was a commentary on LA or Inglorious Basterds was a commentary on WWII. In Tarantino’s world, those places are settings for good stories, no more or less.

Not quite right - they never intended to actually pay $12k for Eskimo Joe. The plan is to make Candie think they’re spending that much on him, but only after he’s checked out by their doctor and the lawyers draw up and finalize a full set of sale documents. Meanwhile, Schultz has taken a fancy to Hilde and they’ll go ahead and buy her today. Since she’s just $300 or so, there’s no need for the lawyer to be involved. They’d get her at the cost of $300 and the promise (that would, of course, go unfulfilled) to come back and pay full price for Eskimo Joe.

Jackson’s character was a combination of minstrel and court jester - the house nigger who shucked and jived his way through all of his public interactions with Candie, but also the one guy who spoke truth to power in private. I thought the blackface (blackerface?) was intended to emphasize the minstrel side of the role. He did a great job with it, both with the overacted submissiveness and with the anachronistic “motherfuckers” that he’s famous for.

3

Another homage? I thought Kill Bill was the homage to spaghetti westerns? Though I’d have to disagree on one thing, if there was no lesson to be learned, why did Schultz have to die? He could have shaken the damn guy’s hand and be off with it, instead he goes out in a blaze of glory.

Ok, that makes much more sense. I didn’t get the impression that they were going to buy her that day, but maybe I missed something

Poor Sam Jackson. No matter where he goes and who he plays, he’s always surrounded by those god damn motherfuckers! Give a guy a break!

4

Oddly relevant to this thread: The Sad Off with Samuel Jackson and Anne Hathaway

5

We saw it today (along with Les Misérables*) and loved it, as I was pretty sure I would. I don’t yet know where it falls on the list, since I love everything Tarantino’s ever done (Jackie Brown being my favorite). I have to see it a few more times maybe.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression that Candie was going to kill Schultz because he was angry about being duped, or at least that Schultz thought Candie was going to kill him, since Candie was so insistent that Schultz shake his hand for no reason that he (or I) could see.

I was sorry to see Schultz die. He wasn’t the best of good guys, but I still liked his character a lot. Christoph Waltz is the man. I’m so glad Tarantino used him again.

I agree with Enginerd. The ploy to buy Eskimo Joe was just a cover and they never intended to pay Candie any money for him. Buying Hildy was intended to look like an afterthought, getting her to keep Schultz company and to have someone to speak German with. Going in with the intention to buy Hildy would have looked suspicious. Django was a runaway slave and it might have seemed too obvious that they were married. I don’t think Candie would have let her go if he’d suspected, at least, not for so cheap. That seems to be what happened when Stephen spilled the beans.

  • Good lord in heaven, words can not express how much I hated Les Misérables. Praise be that I had Django Unchained to wash away the bitter taste in my mouth from it.
6

Django was straight Revenge Drama but Schultz had a genuine character arc.

Schultz killed people for a living. He was at ease with it, he did it casually and even found pleasure in his work. His conscience was rested with the justification that these were Bad Men. That’s all he needed in order to live with himself being immersed in brutality and killing.

Despite living immersed in brutality, he was not at all prepared to see the reality of American slavery up close. He knew enough that he was against it on principle, but he had never really seen the worst horrors. Schulz was deeply disturbed by the killing of Dartagnan and it was all he could do to hold himself together for the rest of their time spent in Candie’s company. Consider the ease with which he played each charade working as a bounty hunter and contrast that with the stammering weak plays he made while conning Candie. From Dartagnan’s death onward, Schulz was an emotional wreck inside. He considered Candie a monster and it took every ounce of willpower to wear a smile in Candie’s presence.

Candie wanted the handshake merely as a power play, to assert that he had won.

Schulz, absolutely detesting Candie with every ounce of his soul, could not stomach one last submission. He knew that killing Candie meant giving up all that they had come for. He had only his small sleeve-hidden pistol and he knew full well that once he killed Candie he would die next- after firing his shot, he turns open arms to Candie’s gunman. Knowing his fate, he still can not sink so low to betray his better self as to shake hands with Candie.

7

Incidentally, before this movie I never knew that Alexandre Dumas was black- reading now that he had one black grandmother.

8

I agree with basically everything bienville has said about Schultz. Adding that Schultz was atoning for standing by while Dartagnan was ripped apart by dogs, and it’s basically a function of the redemption trope that he had to die.

Candie, I don’t think, had any intention of killing Schultz or Django. It wouldn’t have made sense to draw up the ownership papers otherwise. Shaking hands, like pretending to speak French, having an entire library of books he hasn’t read, or studying phrenology, was a way for Candie to assert his intelligence. He’d won, Schultz and Django had lost. Candie just wanted to rub it in a little.

9

Nail. On the head. You hit it.

10

I kinda got that vibe, but there was no obvious foreshadowing (like if they showed Calvin nodding to that mustache guy with the guns). More than that, I got the impression that Calvin wanted to show Schultz that he beat him and he’s smarter than him

Me either. I learned something from a movie! :smiley:

11

One thing that confused me is at the end after Django was killing people and more guards charged in and started shooting, it looked as though they cut down both Samuel Jackson and the heavy maid. Later they were both alive?

12

I didn’t lose track of them at all during the shootout. They were fine.

13

Those were two other house slaves that got shot when the Justified guy and his group stormed in.

I generally liked it. A little too much in the drama department, such that I was a bit disappointed when it turned into a John Woo gun battle for 15 minutes. But the same thing happened

14

More than a story about a mysterious gunman who helped innocent people, it is a story about a black gunman who saves a black woman. Contrast this to the traditional revenge western where a white man saves a white woman from the Indians (e.g. The Searchers).

The film is not a statement about history, but a statement about film history. Which should be no surprise if you know anything about Tarantino. This film is his way of placing black characters in roles that were traditionally reserved for white characters. Is there a greater villain in the wild west than the white slave owner? Is there someone who deserves to be saved more than the black slave? Is there someone who deserves revenge more?

I think this movie questions the all the western heroes saving white women captured by Indians while ignoring all the black people captured by slave owners.

I also liked the way it was set up so you were expecting Django to lose his cool. Yet Django was simply more used to slavery than Schulz was.

15

Reading your posts bienville, Tarwater and YogSosoth, you’re right, and I agree with your interpretations. I have to see this movie again. I keep thinking about it. This and The Impossible are the films that keep swirling through my head, fighting for space.

16

Did anyone else notice the one moment Schulz loses his cool . . .
Schulz who had previously lead a life of violence, Schulz who has now had his eyes pried opened forced to watch the horror and violence of American slavery, Schulz who is now sickened by the horrors he has witnessed . . .

STOP PLAYING BEETHOVEN!!!
I woke up. The pain and sickness all over me like an animal. Then I realized what it was. The music coming up from the floor was our old friend, Ludwig Van!

17

Tarantino should shoot outside more often. There are some grand shots in this film.

I really admire how he dwells in his scenes - particularly the ride to the plantation.

18

Here’s a short story that explains the blood on DiCaprio’s hand during the intense dining room scene. It was an accident and Tarantino kept on filming because Leo was in the Zone and he didn’t want to stop it.

19

I’m pretty sure that this was the Cliff’s Notes version of Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen. 'Cept Seigfried and Brunehilda are black, Wotan runs a slave plantation and Loki is Samuel Jackson. Valhalla is destroyed, etc. Happy ending to history. And Shultz even says that is what they are doing.

Another brilliant piece of craftsmanship by Tarantino and his band.

It is Tarantino’s life and he can spend it any way that he can, but since Jackie Brown he has been doing tribute films, nothing original. Kinda like the pre-Revolver Beatles who were aping all the other available styles. Yes, he is very good at it, but it isn’t groundbreaking. He is going through each genre, like Kubrick did, but in a schlock theater. It’s Pulp, Grindhouse, kung-fu movies when he is capable of so much more. I’d like to see him make the attempt. Or, give us his schlock sci-fi or fantasy film.

20

Wow. That is pretty crazy. Thanks for sharing.

I was confused about the blood but I reasoned that the character cut his hand when hammering off a piece of the skull, that he either cut it with the spike he hammered into the skull or that he cut it along an edge of the broken skull.

The entire production could have had some major problems with the actors union if Kerry Washington had issued a complaint about DiCaprio smearing his real blood on her face without it being expressly agreed upon ahead of time!