Yup. But the point is that Tarantino chose not to easily show it on screen, opting to leave it a read-between-the-lines ambiguity. (And for what it’s worth, he’s likewise glad to briskly explain for why the heck Vincent spent all those years in Amsterdam; it’s not that the character was waiting out a statute of limitations, it’s not that the writer had no backstory in mind at all; again, the real point is that Tarantino filmed stories that way back then, in much the same way that he doesn’t bother spelling out what brought Schultz from Germany to Texas these days, or whatever.)
I loved the film, but its only reading this thread that has made me realise something.
I was all ready to make some glib remark about how all I could see in Waltz’ character was Hans Landa with a beard. The mannerisms were the same, the trickery and self-confidence were there, it was Hans Landa all over again, and to me that detracted from the performance.
But on reflection that was only the case with the first half of the film. In trying to remember examples from the second half I realised that Hans Landa was not there for the second half, the character was acting differently. Previously he was always the centre of attention, you couldn’t take your eyes from him and what brilliant scheme he might be in the middle of. But after, he was quieter, most definitely less sure of himself. Reading about how this may be because he was so unseated by the abuse he had witnessed has really given a new appreciation of the performance.
I also have to give Foxx credit. Somebody mentioned subtlety earlier, and there were a lot of subtle touches. One example springing to mind was when he wanted Waltz to tell the story about Brunhilda. There was a strange contrast inside that scene, he puts his plate down and sits in front of Waltz without saying anything, like a submissive slave waiting for a story. But there is no “Please sir please” dialogue from Foxx, he simply sits down. Waltz asks would he like to hear the tale, but still there is no “Yessir, could you please…”, he simply nods. It could have been a childlike fireside story telling, but without words Foxx retained the image of an interested grown man instead.
Another scene was when they were first buying clothes. It was obviously a new experience for him, but again there was no mouth hanging open or eyes wide in wonderment. When told he could pick his clothes he simply grinned and nodded. He may of had wonder for the clothes sure, but he also retained control of himself.
Perhaps its just me, but I did think scenes like that gave me the impression that though a slave, Django is also intelligent and sure of himself. I would imagine that was the goal, and so Foxx did very well with few words to achieve that imo.
My local art house theater, bless them, is screening the original 1966 **Django ** next week, I am sooo there.
Huh. In all these years that never occurred to me. Makes sense, though somehow it seems slightly out of character for Butch.
Maybe for calling Butch ‘palooka’? I don’t know, I’ve never heard this before either.
I know what you mean about some actors (especially when working with the same director) having a kind of character hangover. I’m glad I haven’t seen Inglorious Basterds because I think it would have taken me a long time to warm to the character if I’d noticed Hans Landa in him. As it was, I came in blind and got thoroughly charmed.
As it was, the character got a great response here on the border with Germany. Partially, I’m sure, because it’s so rare to have a German good guy. His incredulous ‘your wife’s named Brunhilde?’ got a big laugh.
Both Foxx and Waltz were brilliant, in my opinion.
I imagine they’ll get a significant amount of volume from confused moviegoers who didn’t read the title very carefully. 
It had never occured to be me either until just recently when I saw Pulp Fiction again on cable. I heard that line and thought “Oh Butch keyed his car!”
Vincent was a dick for no good reason to Butch while in the bar.
Y’know, if Waltz wins the Oscar for this Civil-War-era role the way he won an Oscar for that WWII one, I don’t see how Tarantino could resist setting his next movie circa the American Revolution, complete with a slick Hessian soldier – unless it’s a WWI film with a memorable part for the Red Baron’s smooth-talking mentor.
I would pay good money to see Tarantino do either one of those films with Zoe Bell as the protaganist.
Zoe Bell:
yes, that was her behind that red bandana: “Absolutely,” Zoë laughed when we asked her about the cameo
I hope so – Django from 1966 is a classic, very famous spaghetti Western. It’s a good thing if more people see if more people see important films of the past. Of course, knowing petulant people, I’m sure some would be outraged or something.
I did watch again Django Strikes Again (aka Django 2) – the sequel from 1987 the other night. At least I think I’d seen it a while ago – can’t really remember.
Django Unchained is essentially a remake of the sequel – foppish eccentric rich guy running an exploitative slave ring, person in a mask, the “boss slave,” lots of similarities. Spanish slavery in Mexico, of course, but really remarkable movie and remarkable similarities.
I wonder if QT ever talks about those kinds of obvious (to film buffs, anyway) inspirations in interview – probably not so much.
I’d recommend the sequel to Django to anyone who liked Django Unchained – it’s a remarkable film.
Read the interviews - he talks about the movies he takes from all the time.
Good to know. I’ll probably skip the interviews – I’m in an Anthony Mann groove right now. Speaking of whom, his The Tin Star and, especially, The Furies seem also to have been inspirations for Django Unchained.
Slight hijack, but for those who dismiss QT as just ripping off crappy exploitation movies – those B and Z movies from the 1940s and 1950s by people like Joseph H Lewis, Ulmer, Jacques Tourneur, and everybody were huge on people of Scorsese’s generation. Same thing, kind of.
The wife and I just returned from seeing this movie. We thought it was great. Absolutely loved it.
I did detect a mistake though. Early on, a passing reference is made to Lubbock, Texas. (The sheriff that Schultz kills, one of his crimes was cattle rustling near Lubbock.) Now, I am unfortunately more familiar with Lubbock, Texas than any civilized person has any right to be. That is why I know there was no Lubbock in 1858. The town was not formed until 1909, and even the county was not founded until 1876. It was named after Tom Lubbock, a famed Texas Ranger who died during the Civil War. (He was also the brother of Texas’ Civil War governor, Francis.)
A minor nitpick, but this is the Dope, and that stuck out like a sore thumb to me. There was nothing – and I mean nothing – in that part of the state pre-Civil War. Still a great movie, and we plan to get the DVD so we can learn how many movie references we missed. One we almost missed because I only learned about it the other day. The man whom Django spells his name to was the original Django 47 years ago, Franco Nero. That’s why when told the D was silent, he replied: “I know.” Tarantino likes to fill his movies with that sort of esoterica.
Half deliberate.
Django and Schulz go off to the ‘mountains’ in Texas to practice bounty hunting through the winter. There aren’t any mountains like that in Texas, nor is there that much snowfall in any part of Texas.
And the terrain and flora for their confrontation with Big Daddy doesn’t match Tennessee at all.
You could chalk it to mistakes, but I’d say it was more than half deliberate. Tarantino wasn’t going for 100% realism. He was also mocking/re-creating all the westerns (and other movies) set in various parts of the Old West but filmed in Southern California/Monument Valley (or Spain for Spaghetti Westerns).
Terrain, towns, and history only rarely match reality in Westerns.
I drew a lot of attention to myself when I burst out laughing when I saw him. Not too many other fans of classic Spaghetti Westerns in the theater that day.
Is it particularly stated that they are in Texas at this time? I just assumed they went to Wyoming or Montana or some such.
Possibly.
It snows quite a bit up around Amarillo. Even where I was it was not unusual to get a 6" or more, although that was not frequent.
I still think the reference to Lubbock was a mistake and that Tarantino did not realize it did not exist at that time.
Yup, it’s explicitly stated to be Texas. I’m pretty sure this is deliberate geographic dissonance.
They were more than knee deep in snow up in the mountains of Texas. It’s clearly the Rockies. Fair to say geographic accuracy was not a focus. Westerns screw up geography all the time, too.
If you prefer. I think he didn’t care.
Like geography, historical accuracy in Westerns is the exception, rather than the rule.
It’s only a mistake in a pedantic sense. Especially for movies about a freed slave bounty hunter going on rescue/revenge kill-sprees on antebellum Deep South plantations.
I just saw this yesterday and was also under the impression that they had left Texas for the rest of the winter. Like their bounty hunting had taken them elsewhere.