Nah, not for me. It is valid to point out that, despite being the true villain in this movie, Stephen is painted rather superficially. His desire for power doesn’t explain his over-the-top sadism towards blacks. He seems to have the same hate for Django that Django has for his wife’s beaters and captors.
drastic seems to think his death tirade “says it all”. But it really doesn’t. What stands out, in fact, is how impersonal it is.
“You ain’t gonna get away with this, Django. They gonna catch your black ass.”
Yes, yes, yes. And? Keep reading it and you’ll find his spiel never answers the question of why Django’s existence offends him so much. The word “I” never even appears in it. But “we” certainly does. What is that all about? He thinks of himself as being one of them, and yet the guy can’t even eat at their table. More could have been made of this, by Django.
I loved the movie, don’t get me wrong, but I do think that by omitting a Stephen backstory, Tarintino missed an opportunity to delve into the sick psychology of black self-hatred. “He’s evil just because he’s evil” isn’t what I’d expect from a sophisticated screenplay that has other nuanced character arcs and whatnot going on. Still a great movie, though.
Yes, I understand all of this. My issue is that Stephen’s hatred towards blacks surpassed even that of the whites in this move, and yet his movitation for being this way is given cursory attention. It does not naturally follow that he’d be this evil and sadistic simply as a result of his upbringing as a house slave.
Yes, house slaves were often unduely loyal to their masters and considered themselves better than other slaves. But for us to accept Stephen’s villainy sans backstory, we have to believe that this loyalty and prejudice caused house slaves to actually think of themselves as white. Which is fantasy. Any man insightful enough to recognize Hilde and Django’s relationship through body language alone would have the self-awareness to see that any power he had was pathetically limited by dint of his race. He would have never forgotten his true place on the social totem pole, no matter how many privileges he was given on the plantation.
You all make good points, but :shrug: I still think it’s very apparent that Tartino had to grossly distort the relationship between slaves and slaveowners to make Stephen work as an antagonist. I have no problems with him being an evil son-of-a-bitch, but I can recognize conveniently lazy storytelling when I see it.
From the movie, it appears he didn’t think of himself as White; he thought of himself as clever and lucky. From his perspective, he was the manipulator. He got the trappings of wealth and power over others out of the arrangement, which was comfortable to him - as long as the perverse rules at Candiland were in place. Lose Candiland and he loses everything, of course.
Not sure why this is a gross distortion. No doubt the low-class White folks Candi hired as his muscle comforted themselves with the thought that they were racially superior to Blacks like Stephen (even though the White muscle apparently lived together like pigs in a sty); and no doubt Stephen smirked to himself when sipping his fine brandy in the library thinking about that.
The use of slaves as trusted servants acting the part of factotums (and their tendancy to gain control their masters) isn’t totally unknown - its a relationship of mutual dependance: the slave goes back to being property if his or her master’s fortunes declines or they die; the master gains absolute loyalty of an able and ruthless person, because the slave owes everything (trappings of wealth and power) to the master. Naturally, only the most ruthless and able slaves are likely to aquire this role, and in many cases they will be stronger personalities than their masters …
Naturally, having acquired such a role, a ruthless man would take every opportunity to reinforce it - by reinforcing the difference between himself and the others. Being particularly harsh and showing no fellow-feeling for other slaves would come naturally - it shows loyalty and reinforces the absolute trustworthiness and indispensibility of the factotum.
Do you really think the dynamic between slaveowners and houseslaves was such that the latter would have blindly taken on hatred for other blacks, to the extent that they’d outperform whites in such capacity? Because that is what I’m talking about as being a gross distortion. The archetype of the house slave as a misplaced loyalty-having race traitor has probably got some grains of truth to it, but come on. There’s little about Stephen that isn’t a gross distortion, if we choose to him as a representative of privileged houseslaves rather than a uniquely psychopathic individual who just happens to be a houseslave.
The same could be said about everything in this movie, actually, but his distortion sticks out to me because of what I’ve already pointed out storytelling-wise. It would be better to argue that Stephen represents a Samuel L. Jacksonized caricaturization of the historically-misrepresented Uncle Tom archetype than to argue that his character rings historically true. Do you agree with this?
I disagree. I mean, yes, I agree, the con failed because she couldn’t hide her reaction, but IMHO the con would’ve failed even sooner if Django hadn’t stepped up to smooth things over after Doc kind-heartedly shot his mouth off about D’Artagnan. (And remember, too, that Doc steps in to criticize Django for being too callous with the slaves while on horseback; Django, though, correctly shuts him down by pointing out that he’s acting in a manner that makes perfect sense.)
Even if he’d made it to Candyland, I’d lay even odds that Doc would’ve blown the whole thing within three minutes of chatting with Stephen like an equal. But, sticking only to what we know, let me emphasize that, even after everything goes off the rails, they can still walk out of there with Hildy – except Doc, who can bring himself to pay through the nose, just can’t bring himself to shake hands with M’sieu Candie.
Django could do that, easy as talking down to slaves or refusing to lift a finger for D’Artagnan. Doc ain’t built that way, and it shows.
Well, pretty well everyone and everything in the movie was an exaggeration, for dramatic effect (among other reasons).
I don’t think for a second that Stephen “blindly took on hatred of Blacks”. He self-conciously and deliberately adopts the attitudes necesary for him to manipulate others and maintain his own position. If that involves looking down on Blacks so be it - he cares not because he only cares about himself and his position.
To my mind, the dramatic reason for having a Stephen character was pretty clear. He’s the opposite of Django, but similar to him in one sense: both are extraordinary characters who demonstrate, in their own lives, the most notable inherent nonsense of American chattel slavery - which isn’t simply man’s inhumanity to man (that happens in various forms all the time), but the notion that Blacks are slaves because they are natural inferiors (Candi explains this in the scene with the skull).
The irony of course being that Stephen (quite naturally given his position) parrots this theory when it is obvious he’s really pulling the strings.
Django demonstrates his lack of “natural inferiority” by being the baddest possible bad-ass. Stephen demonstrates his lack of “natural inferiority” by being a master manipulator - he’s the “slave” dressed in fine clothes sipping brandy in the library.
Difference is that the Doc going out of character could be (and in fact was) put down to him being a foreigner and a soft-hearted fool. It is true that the Doc’s action cause the whole thing to blow up - but that was only after the con was blown.
Django was all along the more serious problem. Several times they show him nearly exploding in violence (that is, hand reaching for his gun-butt) over the treatment being handed out to his wife. His reaction to her and hers to him were always going to be a problem. What if, as was likely, they arrived to find her being raped by someone? Could Django be relied on to be as cool about that, as about the runaway being torn apart by dogs?
Given that the Doc had to go, it would make sense to leave Django behind.
As I keep pointing out though, he goes above and beyond being an enforcer of the status quo. Case in point, he actually argues with Candie over him not beating Hilde for running away. This posture is not necessary for him to take to keep on living the good life. He is invested in making the other slaves suffer, even if it’s of no direct benefit to himself. This is sufficiently excessive that we should infer sadism and hatred are at work, not selfish ambition. (I actually pointed out earlier that selfish ambition would make Stephen’s character more plausible; but it’s lacking in his protrayal.)
I could go with this interpretation. My take is that they are similar in that both present as bold, irreverent, take-nothing-from-nobody-not-even-a-white-man personalities who do what they want, when they want. Where they differ is that one of these men is living a lie and in truth, the opposite of strong, because he is so deluded that he doesn’t realize his way of “winning” undermines his own dignity. He manipulates and controls Candie but sticks his neck out too far…it ultimately leads to his undoing because its pits him against an enemy he has stupidly underestimated.
Which underscores the irony that makes this movie so brilliant: Django ostensibly is the one between the two of them who is putting on the strong act. But in truth, he is the badass master manipulator that Stephen was convinced he was.
I don’t think I can agree with this. We saw how badly Waltz’s character began to weaken the more he witnessed what went on en route to and at Candieland. The point, in my mind, is that while Django needed King initially, it was ultimately King who needed Django in order to succeed on this particular mission. This was not the world King was used to operating in, and the suggestion is that had Django not been present, King would have cracked much sooner and would likely never have made it out with Broomhilde, or at all.
They didn’t succeed in the mission. The “mission” was to rescue B. through a con, not through violence.
I don’t accept the premise that Doc demonstrating weakness would have blown the con. He did in fact demonstrate weakness and the con was not blown. Had he bought the runaway, Candie would no doubt have thought he was a fool, but that wouldn’t have caused him necessarily to leap to the conclusion it was all a set-up. Why would it?
Without Django there, the true motive (rescuing a man’s wife) would have been truly impossible to guess.
Why is it so hard to accept that Stephen as a black man would have inherent, irrational disdain for other black people? Yes, Stephen was a slave but he was not a slave in the sense that the others were slaves. He had power. He had a vested interest in Candyland running smoothly. He had monetary reasons. He had emotional reasons. He answered only to Candy and even then - not really. Why couldn’t a black man be racist? That is not laziness on Tarantino as a storyteller. Refusing to accept that is your laziness as the audience.
Candy didn’t care much about punishing Hilde for running away because he’s a moronic manchild. Stephen knows that if runaways weren’t dealt with swift and vengeful retribution, running away would become rampant, lead to the downfall of the plantation, and ultimately their comfortable way of life. That’s “hinted” at by him doing the books when the Django party rides up.
You don’t think King would have blown his cover during the encounter with D’Artagnan had Django not been there? And that that entire scenario helped re-focus King, at least temporarily?
Yeah, I think the race thing is really getting in the way. Stephen is not a ‘self loather’. He is just a freakin’ selfish, wicked, smart manipulative villain. He wants power and he knows that to get that power, he has to play the angle he is playing. If the game changed tomorrow, he would switch sides and turn on Candie and every other white person. He doesn’t love them. He doesn’t respect them. He totally uses them to get what he wants, since they have the power.
I almost always agree with Ebert, but he really didn’t seem to get it this time. But, of course, these kinds of things are open to interpretation.
I’m kind of tired being lone opinion on this point so I’m ready to bow out here. But it’s just like the whole Mammy stereotype that promotes the idea that pre-Civil Rights black maids were more emotionally invested in white folks and their children, so much so that they valued them over their own families. This characterization of black nannies more accurately represents what white folks thought/think black women actually felt, than it does the real feelings of black women. In reality, “Mammy” was just doing a job, was well aware of what she was missing out at home, and knew that any “kindness” her bosses showed her was only kind relative to the harm that would come to her if she stepped out of line.
With Stephen, it is though Tarantino took the masculine counterpart of “Mammy” and distorted this distortion ten fold. It is a mistake to think his character logically follows from his house servant status (I don’t care how many petty privileges he had), just like it is a mistake to think emotionally neglecting your own family logically follows from being a black nanny. So when you see a character like this, it is lazy to simply assume “he’s like this because he’s a house slave”. He is more than a sell-out. Django offended him.
I don’t think that con would have worked without Django. The cover story was that King was a rich guy who wanted to get into the slave business - not just the slave business, but the mandingo fighting business. But he knows jack about slavery. Django represented the hired expert so that the rich dilettante would at least have a sensible advisor in choosing his fighters. Without Django along to advise, he’s a buffoon, and Candie isn’t likely to believe the story. Any rich guy wanting to make an investment is going to hire expertise he doesn’t have. It’s inconvincing without that.
Would a different plan work without Django? I don’t know. How does King approach Candie, say he’s heard about the German speaking slave (where? how?), that he’s interested in acquiring her just because (why? You’ve never owned slaves before, and you want one?) He’s liable to say no because it doesn’t make sense, and he likes being in charge. Being a jerk is part of his fun. The principle of the scam is that Hildy is incidental to the “important deal”, and thus is overlooked. It makes the mark happy, let him overpay for a difficult slave.
There’s the rub. Django was a risk, but he knew the stakes. He could have soured the deal right away, though, and got them all killed going off half-cocked at Hilde being mistreated. It may not have been the smartest play to put him in that situation. On the other hand, Django is not going to let King go in without him. I just don’t see a way that Django is going to sit it out, no matter what the plan. The plan needs to accommodate Django, or it’s not happening.
Who’s to say that Candy would have let her off the hook in the end? Candy is playing “butter up the mark”, and so it makes sense to pull Hilde out of th box and clean her up. There’s nothing to say he wouldn’t have her put back in the box after King leaves. He’s just trading short term gains against long term impacts to discipline. Once King leaves, there’s plenty of time to give her the discipline necessary. Of course, if King buys her and removes her before that occurs, that solves the problem as well - the troublemaker is gone.
King sees D’Artagnon crying, he goes soft and offers the money. He isn’t convincing as a dedicated slaver with the heart to get into mandingo fighting. Candie is going to question him on that pretty hard. The con is that much harder to sell. That wasn’t something King anticipated, but it certainly was something Django did. Not necessarily that exact scenario, but that level of suffering and violence. He knew what to expect, King didn’t.
The first mandingo fight was pretty unnerving to King. He was no stranger it violence and death, but that kind of gleeful, pointless destruction was more than he bargained for.
Candie: “I don’t believe you have the heart for this mandingo trade. I don’t believe you want to get in this business. What do you really want? Why should I sell my third best fighter to you?”
Even for the money, I think Candie might just have been obstinate about it if he didn’t think he understood King’s true purpose. Because not understanding means he doesn’t have the power. So if he doesn’t understand, then don’t agree so he keeps the power.
I don’t get how or why Stephen automatically deducted that Hilde and Django were married. Django was a fine-looking young buck. Hilde was a smart, beautiful woman. Why couldn’t they have just been 2 people automatically attracted to each other and therefore stealing glances at every opportunity? Did I miss something else that Stephen saw, or was it just a convenient script point (iow, Stephen HAD to assume they were married so he could tell Candie and undermine the scam).
i don’t think it was the runaway brand. I think Stephen was just an incredibly good judge of people. Think about it like this.
Case 1: you see a man you have truly loved, but you thought was lost to you forever.
Case 2: You see a really hot guy.
I think your reaction, and most women’s reaction would be very different. Even if you were trying to hide it, there would be subtle differences. Stephen would have picked up on this. Say what you will about him, he would have to be highly intelligent to live the life he did. He sussed out something was wrong about Django from the first time he laid eyes on him.
Django unchained is a racist turd of a movie that should never have been released to the public. Possibly the worst movie of all time with shoddy directing, poor acting and a sense of smugness that offends the soul.