I think if you take a child, and allow it to be raised in an unimaginably abusive environment, then it’s not surprising that that child might eventually learn to enjoy abusing others, and eventually exceed his teachers in finding ways to torment those less powerful than himself. I don’t think Stephen had any particular hatred for other blacks. I think he had a generalized hatred of humanity in general, which he took out on the other slaves because they were the people he had the power to abuse. If he could have abused white people, I’m sure he would have been all to happy to do that, too, but his opportunities there were limited by his place in society.
I also disagree with you of the significance of Stephen discarding his cane at the end. The scene was strongly reminiscent of a common trope in kung-fu movies where a seemingly harmless old man throws down his cane and reveals himself to be a kung-fu master. I’m pretty sure this was an intentional reference by Tarantino. Stephen isn’t revealing his weakness by throwing aside his cane, he’s revealing his strength. He’s taking his position as the true power in Candieland. He’s not the absolute power there, which seems to be tripping you up some: he still has to follow Calvin’s orders, but since Calvin’s orders are almost always coming from Stephen in the first place, that’s not much of a check on his power.
NB: I’ve heard that there was at least one major scene between Django and Stephen that got cut from the final version of the film, including one that involved Django laying hands on Stephen in some manner prior to their climactic showdown, which might explain Stephen’s antipathy towards Django more clearly. Something to look for on the DVD, I guess.
So, here’s my question: How does Django know there’s a silent ‘D’ in his name?
Stephen doesn’t “throw away his cane and reveal himself to be uncrippled” at the end of the film. He does it earlier, when Django is hanging upside-down. He shuts the doors, stands up straight, stops shuffling, and puts the cane down.
On the cane, there was no reveal in that scene either to the audience (that came in the library) or to Django (see above).
Candie and his sister were dead so, at that point, Stephen had absolutely nothing to live for; better a death standing tall than to face the humiliation of life after the Candie family. He discarded the cane, went for a gun, and intentionally gave Django no choice. I don’t know anything about Kung Fu films so there may be a ref, but it hardly matters - Stephen made his choice.
After the two women run off, Stephen drops his cane and stands facing Django.
Django says “You said in 76 years on this plantation, you seen all kinds of shit done to niggers, but I noticed you didn’t say anything about kneecapping.” BANG!
Then Django walks comes down the stairs making his speech about how he’s that one nigger in 10 000, and BANG! - shoots Stephen in the other leg.
Stephen is standing still facing Django the first time he’s shot, and moaning helplessly on the floor the second time. At no point does he “go for a gun” and there are no guns visible in the scene apart from the ones Django is holding.
Django knew there was a silent ‘D’ in his name because he could read. We saw him reading the wanted poster. Any time anyone learns to read, what’s the first thing they learn? Their own name. I’ve known children of 3 who knew how to spell their own names.
Why wouldn’t Django just be spelled phonetically, I think is really the question.
It’s not like slaves were allowed to walk around with their African names. (We learn this from “Roots”). So the name likely came from the imagination of a slaver. But why would they conceive the name with such an unusual spelling?
But this doesn’t fit because up until that point, Stephen never came across as harmless and feeble. Nevermind the fact that his threateningness was apparent within minutes of his introduction, but he successfully held his own in the gunfight with Django! The audience is never under the impression that Stephen isn’t capable of beating Django despite him being an old, half-crippled man, because we’re led to believe he’s an all-powerful figure. That is, until the final stand off between he and Django. Then we see who he really is.
What sense does it make for him be revealing his strength at that moment, just when Django emerges as the victor of the whole conflict? When Stephen abandons his cane and stands upright, Django promptly blasts a cap in his knee and puts him on the ground to holler in impotence. So he has no “Kung-fu master” moment. If there was such a moment for Stephen, it was the library scene.
Really, in the grand scheme, what we’re arguing about is truly minor if we both agree that Django and Stephen are opposites from another. The former represents strength that is authenticated by freedom, skill, and courage, and the latter represents weakness that is only gilded as strength, since it comes at the expense of dignity, independence, and morality.
We can quibble all day over whether Stephen benefited from the arrangement he had with Candy, or whether he had control over his master, but that’s not really the point. Of course he manipulated Candy. The question is does one really have power when one is required to shuck and jive like Stephen did.
Was he literate - he def looked at paper at paper and the ‘D’ is silent was a nice line to offer, but did he actually relate something he’s read to something he subsequently said?
Django is not a made-up-for-the movies name. Django Reinhardt brought it to fame, though it was a nickname, not his real name.
It’s unlikely (though not impossible) that someone bestowed a French Romani nickname on a slave boy in the 1830s, and knew how to spell it correctly. But, really, given all the other glaring anachronisms in the film, why is it so hard to accept that Django knew how to spell his own name?
Just accept that in the Tarantinoverse it’s possible, and enjoy the film.
We specifically see him read in the scene where he reads the Wanted poster for the man he shoots in front of the man’s son. Schultz tells him to read the poster, and says it’s his “lesson for the day”. Schultz was teaching him to read, and he was at least semi-literate by then, so certainly was reasonably literate by the time of the “D is silent” scene.
Why the hell he was named “Django” as a Romani word is inexplicable.