Django Unchained movie thread! (open spoilers)

I’m curious why you think he needed his lame act to protect his status. If he was truly indispensable and powerful, he would have not needed to feign weakness. He could’ve been who really was, without pretense.

And why do you think Tarantino made a point of having him drop his cane just as soon as he was alone with Django? It was a poignant moment in the film, right? What do you think was being communicated by that? It wasn’t a throwaway scene.

Tarantino is telling a stylized story about the fuckedupness of American slavery. To think that Stephen represented a power-weilding figure in this movie–rather than an evil, selfish, greedy but ultimately pathetic victim of the very institution he dies defending–means you’re not really appreciating what QT is trying to show.

This is getting just weird. Of *course *he needed to play games and feign limps and have pretenses and shit. He was a slave. Come on. In the south at that time NO BLACK MAN could just walk around like a white man. That is the ENTIRE point of why Django was such a spectacle riding up on that horse.

So yes, you are right, Stephen wasn’t an all powerful free man who didn’t need pretenses and games. Yes, he shuffled. The reason the character was so good was that moment when people realized that he actually wasn’t truly a shuffling ol’ docile fool licking Candie’s nuts. He actually, beneath the pretense, was smarter than Candie, and Candie knew that and deferred to Stephen’s wisdom.

The moment that Stephen is introduced to us, we know he’s the boss, Nzinga. We see him signing checks for Candy, calling for folks to be whipped, and acting distinctly unsubmissive around whites. “Shuffling ol’ docile fool”? We are never led to believe him to be this way. His leadership in the house was never treated like a secret.
ETA: Like I alluded to before, I think there was more going on with Stephen than immediately meets the eye. My interest in talking about him simply reflects my interest in the subject of internalized oppression (stop laughing, monstro!). So please don’t mistake my posts for argumentativeness.

No, we don’t, YWTF. We know he is the “boss”. What we don’t know is that he actually has the *genuine *respect of Candie, not the faux, smirking, mocking ‘respect’ that Candie shows at first.

Shufflin’ sambo is exactly the part he is playing. He literally SHUFFLES. He stoops and shuffles and plays the comedic fool. Yes, he is head slave, but that don’t make him smart or respected by whites. It only makes him respected by slaves. I cringed when he first came on screen, because I thought that his character was going to be only that…a limping, bowing slave patronized as being “very, very important”, glad to have the position of head slave.

I was impressed with his reveal as the true villain, and dare I say, mastermind of Candie’s operation. If Stephen was putting on a show, Candie’s was even bigger, with blood flying and bellowing speeches. Nothing was as telling to me than the look on his face, though, when Stephen was giving him the T in that library. Candie was leaned *in *and Stephen was leaned back. The look on Candie’s face was the look of a man used to leaning in to Stephen when something needed to be explained or some action needed to be taken. Real action. Not which slave gets whipped for breaking eggs. That kind of shit is his ‘fake’ bossing as head house slave.

No, this was real business. I tell you, you never heard Stephen speak in his true capacity until he whispered the words, “meet me in the library” into Candie’s ear. Everything before that was an act. And Candie knew it. That is why he finally stopped fucking around and shooing him off. No. It was time to get up and follow Stephen.

Stephen hates Django because Django is the man he wishes he was and could absolutely never be.

Django possesses real power, rather than the fake-ass power Stephen has over the other slaves. And they both know it.

Django can talk to white folks as equals. Stephen can only be familiar with Candy and really only in private. In public, he has to play the loud, shuffling, half-senile buffoon. Django, however, can be himself, without apologies. And he had a slave killed, while silly Stephen can only throw them in the hot box.

He hates runaway slaves because they are trying to subvert a system that he has emotionally thrown his lot with. He punishes them not because he benefits directly from their suffering, but because he has wants to remind them that if he can’t escape, they can’t either. (His last words point to this).

Stephen is nothing like the archetypal house slave, but Candy isn’t the archetypal plantation owner. Candyland isn’t like anything that existed historically. So all of it is a straight-up cartoon.

While I like thinking about Stephen’s backstory, I don’t think there’s much of an explanation needed for why he was the way he was. He was hateful because he was the perfect antithesis of Django. Somehow Candy’s villiany pales in comparison.

I honestly thought it was just, uh, hey, look, the good guy is about to shoot him, so how about not making it look like our hero just gunned down a cripple?

(And then, on the drive home from the theater, I speculated about why he’d been shamming: decades ago, he realized he’d rather be a house slave than a field slave, and faked a condition that made all the difference back in the days of DiCaprio’s granddad? Yeah, okay, could be, I guess; maybe I’m over-thinking it.)

Yes, yes, yes.

ETA: Which is what I like about QT’s handling of it. He wanted to tell a superhero story. Not a slave documentary.

It’s an action movie! It is so easy to get carried away in the horror of the backdrop. It seems we try to make slavery not as bad, or worse than it was, by turns. The grinding reality of it, we shy away from.

I disagree only because we caught a major glimpse of this respect when Candy and Stephen are arguing over Hilde’s beating. Stephen is confident enough to press the issue with him, and Candy respects him enough not to pull rank. IIRC, this was done in broad daylight within earshot of the other white folk. It was the first major clue that Stephen is not a typical slave, and that he was very much a bad guy.

I agree this scene was pivotal in showing the true relationship between Candy and Stephen, and also how deep his interest in the whole kingdom extends. What’s revealed is that Candy relies on Stephen, and trusts him to tell him what’s what. Behind closed doors, he can be frank with Candy in a way that he can’t in public, because otherwise he’d make Candy look like an idiot man-child and that would be no good to either one of them.

And yet I found the cane drop to be a bigger reveal than the Sambo-free library scene, and its appearance during the denouement means it isn’t just a minor detail. To me it broadcasts what Stephen had to give up to be who he was: True power and strength. Being able to control Candy is a hollow victory if you cant even walk upright like a man.

Hahahaha!

He should probably stop saying stuff like this:

I can roll with a superhero movie where we aren’t supposed to analyze the characters too much since they are essentially cartoons. “Django” definitely fits the profile of such a movie. But QT seems to be saying his movie is a more authentic reproduction of slavery than “Roots”. Which is crazy. The story “Roots” told is straight-up fiction and it is definitely corny in the way only a 70s made-for-TV movie can be. But even the most jaded viewer can’t call it a cartoon. Thirty years from now, no one is going to be quoting anything from “Django”. But I can ask the whitest white guy in my office who Toby is, and they will say Kunte Kente!

I’m not a kerfuffle-er about movies, but I understand why QT has rubbed people the wrong way. He has not reinvented the slave movie genre, but has just contributed to it.

Whaaaa???! Is there more to that quote that you left out? He isn’t saying that Django is more realistic than Roots! Roots was supposed to be a true story!

I’m sorry. Let me edit this. I mean to say, Roots was supposed to be a REALISTIC story loosely based on some real life shit. Alex Haley didn’t pretend to be making a spaghetti western.

I don’t think QT was aiming for historical realism with this movie, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say his objective was to just make an action movie.

That said, he’s probably not half as deep as people (including myself, at least in this thread) often make him out to be.

Yeah, I don’t think he just wanted to make an action movie either. I think he wanted to make a funny movie, a smart movie, a movie with awesome characters who happen to be slaves with the complications and bold decisions that would mean. I for one do plan to be still quoting the movie thirty years from now.

'Black people! I suggest you get away from the white people."

Imgur

Ha!

He has said in interviews that it’s “just” an action movie. Probably the true answer is somewhere in between; it’s an action movie that demands scrutiny on many levels, and as you says, it or Tarantino isn’t as deep as we’re making it out to be.

But it does make for absorbing discussion doesn’t it?

The scene from ROOTS that he expressed disgust over was in the final act of the final episode. If you remember the episode, Tom and his father Chicken George manage to get the drop on the dastardly Klanleader played by Lloyd Bridges. Bridges’ character has whipped Tom with a bullwhip, publicly humiliated him, and gotten away with all sorts of crimes and outrages against the black community before and after emancipation*. Now he’s powerless and tied to a tree and crying and pleading as Tom brandishes the same bullwhip that Bridges had previously used on him. Tom jerks back the whip, but he can’t go through with it, especially in front of his wife and kids, because that would make him no better than Bridges.

The scene is not in the novel** but was totally cooked up by some '70s screenwriter. Tarantino hated the scene, and understandably: for many reasons it’s a big mess. Tarantino’s biggest problem was that Tom would absolutely have whipped the guy, probably to death, and that’s one thing he wanted to show in Django- an abused slave who has the opportunity for revenge (Django and the overseer brothers especially- he didn’t need to kill them, but couldn’t not kill them, just as Schulz “could not resist” killing Candie even though he had not been through anything remotely as degrading as slavery).

My biggest problem with the scene from ROOTS was that I agree Bridges and crew needed to die, but for practical rather than revenge reasons; it’s strictly business. (Again, nothing like this happened in real life or the novel, only in the miniseries.)
After deciding not to whip Lloyd Bridges, Tom and his family leave him and his henchman tied up and set off in their wagons for Tennessee. Screenwriter hack dude apparently has no idea just how fast wagons filled with women and children and household goods don’t move; Bridges and his henchmen are going to get free at some point, and when they do they’ll be able to catch up with Tom’s caravan on a blind arthritic mule if they want- they could probably do it walking. If the pursuers are on horseback, Tom and tribe could have a five day headstart and Team Klan could easily catch up with them in under a day, and he’s going to be about 8 counties beyond pissed when he catches up with them.
Tom and Chicken George and crew have absolutely no choice but to kill not only Bridges but every other white man they’ve captured and dispose of their bodies and their horses and anything that can be traced to them. They will never be safe while any of these men lives, so they need to do bypass decency, haul ass past Madea, and go full on Dexter with these crackers.

Anyway, though, I agree that the scene Tarantino took such umbrage with is stupid, but he’s pushing it to say this is more realistic.
*He particularly hates Tom because he thinks Tom knows more about his brother’s death than he’s telling [which Tom does {namely that Tom killed him for trying to rape his wife}].

**If you’ve read the novel you know that Haley spent about 4/5 of the book on the story of Kunta Kinte/Kizzy/Chicken George’s early life, then took the next century of the family (basically from the 1840s through his own birth and early life) at a mad gallop, so the Civil War and Reconstruction goes by way too fast to have any really developed heroes or villains; it’s more a begatting. (Basically, after numerous extensions Haley’s publishers wouldn’t wait any longer for the manuscript so he had to wrap it up quick.)

Shit. I don’t remember that entire Lloyd Bridges scene. But I’ve read the book several times and it does whiz by after Chicken George.

I think you are painting a false dichotomy. Stephen had real power at Candieland. However, he was limited by his race and the society. He could manipulate and advise Candie behind the scenes, but he couldn’t make Candie look bad in public, and he couldn’t put down white people or threaten their authority. He was allowed to challenge Candie directly about the matters of his purview, i.e. running the plantation and overseeing the slaves. But he had to demurr to Candie in the end. And he couldn’t offer insult to Schultz. His shuffling and weak act was deliberate, and it was a mask for his real nature. And I agree he’s a pathetic victim of the very institution he dies defending.

Having some power doesn’t mean he isn’t a victim, too. He is trapped by society. He cannot ride a horse, sleep in the big house, or go where he pleases. He cannot address white men as equals (except Calvin in private). Even if he managed to get set free by Calvin, he wouldn’t be wanted or accepted as an equal by any of the whites in the area. Even if he went north, he’d still be looked down on by the majority of society.

But he managed to find a way to survive and thrive in that environment, by being the head house slave, by being the smart overseer and Calvin’s “nanny” growing up, and thus wielding the power of running Candieland and keeping the books and making Candieland profitable, while Calvin is fancying it up and prancing around acting genteel and playing around with mandingo fighting. All the house slaves don’t just defer to Stephen, they are afraid of him. Fear doesn’t happen without threat, and threat requires power.

The shuffling is not to protect himself from Calvin, it is to protect himself from all the other whites at Candieland, so they won’t see a confident strong smart black man who runs the place, and feel threatened by his existence. They don’t feel threatened that he runs the place, because he’s a weak old cowtowing fool, so it’s okay that he sasses Mr. Candie a bit and that he orders the other slaves around and maybe even they are aware he keeps the books. It doesn’t matter, because he’s a pathetic fool. They are white people, and he’s a crippled slave. But if he were strong and confident and capable, then they would be very afraid, because of what he would represent and the example he would set. Django the slaver, running Candieland.

If that’s just an action movie, I’m Rosa Parks.

He’s not going to tell you it’s a representation of slave culture - two sides of it - for a modern audience, but it sure as hell is. It’s as political as any movie can be. It explicitly tackles aspects of slavery Hollywood just doesn’t.

Whether it’s slave owners demonstrating unquestioning respect for the law, the importance of punishment being essentially theatrical, the nature of subservience, the plantation business model, the decadence, the generational nature, the slave hierarchy and investment in the business, so, so much. It’s all laid out.

Sure it’s alove story told with homage and reference, and humour. But it’s basically Slavery 101 for the multiplex generation.