Masked? As established a minute earlier, she was looking at an image via a stereoscope like this one. Which I thought was QT’s way to answer those who might have been pressuring him to make the movie in 3D.
Django describes the varying levels of status among slaves, with house slaves at the top, earlier in the film when he is telling Schulz. His “ain’t nothing lower” line is in response to Schulz’s laying out the specifics of the charade to be played out for Candie. For the charade, Django will be a hired advisor for Schulz’s purchase of a mandingo fighter- Django’s “character” will be that of a free black man who is himself a slave owner- it is this aspect of the character he is to play that Django finds so detestable: “There ain’t nothing lower than a black slaver.”
He had two shots in that derringer. He should have taken the second shot at the chap with the shotgun. Otherwise, he’s damning Django and his wife to the mercy of Candie’s goons. I considered this to be a weak point in the movie, as I can’t see Schultz abandoning Django like that, knowing what he knows about that plantation.
And even while doing that, her lower face was covered by a red cloth. I too was expecting something to come of her but then she just died in the background.
Yeah, I really am certain that there is nothing more to it than that the character gets to look cool for no other reason than that the actress is a Tarantino favorite. She’s an adored member of the Tarantino Repertory Ensemble*.
Tarantino is working on a new film. The script does not have a character for Zoë Bell but Tarantino calls her up anyway and says “Hey, Zoë! Working on a new film. Come be in it!” Zoë says, “Sure. What do you need me to do?” Tarantino says, “Damned if I know but we’ll figure something out once you get here!”
The character looks cool because there is no way Tarantino is going to allow Zoë Bell to not look cool. That’s all there is to it.
I actually half wonder if, ironically, Tarantino thought: “Uh oh, once everyone sees that it is Zoë Bell, they’re just going to assume she’s going to do something awesome. I know! We’ll put a mask on her so people won’t recognize her! Then they won’t expect anything of the character!”
*Zoë Bell did all of Uma Thurman’s stunts and fight scenes for the Kill Bill movies. She also played herself and, of course, did her own stunts in Death Proof.
He could have just put her among the townsfolk where Shultz killed the sheriff. I think that’s the only other time we see white women (ignoring the sister) in the movie.
You’re probably right (though I wonder if maybe something got filmed then cut), but it was an unnecessary distraction.
Not a complete list, I am certain. I am confident that many incipient rebellions were nipped in the bud. I happen to know of one such instance, on the plantation of the Cherokee James Vann. Vann was a cruel master, and several of his slaves plotted to kill him. Vann somehow found out, and the ringleader was burned at the stake, while the other slaves who were implicated were whipped, then sold off to plantations in Mississippi (those plantations having a special reputation for harsh living conditions).
(Hmm. Looks like slaves of James Vann’s son Joseph Vann were involved in the slave revolt of 1842 on your list. Cruelty must have run in the Vann family.)
Just saw it. Enjoyed it. Classic over the top Tarantino in a linear, Blaxploitation Western. All the violence was cartoonish except the dog attack and the “Mandingo fight.” A bit too much for me.
Question: who’s the heart of the movie - Django or Schultz? Did Tarantino give Schultz a more layered role vs Django or did Waltz just nail the role while Foxx delivered a simpler-but-solid performance?
Oh yes, I’m actually eager to get back to the discussion, considering that Wordman has seen the movie now…but first, I’m going to address the hijack.
It is very glib to say about slaves, “not many of them were rebellious”. As has already been pointed out, your list is by no means a complete list. We will never know how many attempted uprisings were quashed before they had enough steam to be recorded. But just the fact that one has to have an attempted overthrow of power in the face of impossible odds to be considered to be ‘rebellious’ is silly. Of course there were plenty of rebellious slaves who weren’t able to organize an uprising.
Slaves repeatedly ran away, knowing they would likely be caught, whipped, hanged. They were whipped so that they would never think to run away again, but they rebelled against this and ran anyway, into the dark night with the intention of running across entire STATES to freedom. Funny that the character Waltz thought he had to tell them about astronomy…slaves knew full well where the big dipper and the north star was.
It is human nature to rebel against being treated like a piece of property or an animal. Human nature.
Wordman, I too felt that Waltz stole the lead in this film, but I do want to say Foxx surprised me with his performance. He was, dare I say it, subtle. He could have really hammed up the performance, but I saw him pull back when he could have put on the ol’ minstrel show.
Which brings me to Samuel L. Jackson. I loved his performance. The more I watched it, the more layers I could see. The way the entire facade of sambo melted away from him when he was in that library alone with Candie…it became clear that the man was smart as a whip, smarter than Candie, and Candie knew it. When Samuel first appeared on the screen, I didn’t see that layered acting coming. Beautiful.
Great post. You and the others have given me much to look for and think about the next time I see it.
Especially this. I hated that character, so I’m happy to hear of these layers I need to keep mindful of when I see it again. I just didn’t understand WHY he would turn on Django and Hilde like that, when what they were doing wasn’t hurting him or even Candie. Candie was duped but he was getting paid a fair price for her. He wasn’t feeling any shame until Stephen pointed out the duplicity.
Did anyone else feel a twinge of sadness when the editor’s name came up onscreen during the opening credits? This is Tarantino’s first film since his long-time editor Sally Menke died. She was nominated for 2 Oscars but never won. Django’s editor Fred Raskin was Sally’s assistant editor on the Kill Bill films (and a lot of other great films) so he understands Tarantino’s way of working and sensibility.
Ah, don’t mind me. I don’t mean to imply anything at all about the quality or lack of. It’s not for me to judge. If others love it that’s wonderful for them. I just couldn’t stand the story, plus Eddie Redmayne drives me batty, can’t stand him.
He was a bad man. Many slaves who were very smart used their wit to build up their position in the house; if you are a bad person, you can exploit your fellow slaves to raise your position further still.
Samuel was basically the overseer of the house slaves.
Yeah, I know. Why are you telling me that.
Christoph Waltz = Best Actor
Since I was terrified of him in Inglorious Basterds, I was waiting for him to blow away Django and watch a flashback. His negotiating skills, although bullshit, taught Django enough. I loved this film.
I would say that for a role that could gap have been an over-the-top REVENGE served HOT role, or a 1-dimensional cartoon character, yes, Foxx did a great job. My issue is that while I enjoy a lot of what Tarantino does in his movies - the genre mash-ups, the matching of fun dialogue, great actors and perfect music (Jim Croce’s I Got A Name? - yay!!) - I struggle with his relationship with blacks. He gives SLJackson, Pam Grier and others great roles - but overuses the N-word when he doesn’t need to (more Pulp Fiction than Django, given Django’s setting) and now Waltz vs Foxx. The black guy is the ostensible hero, but the white guy is redeemed.
Again, ultimately it was a fun, cool action/revenge flick, but it really struck me that Foxx had far less to work with in his role vs Waltz - but I am open to hearing that, no, Waltz just acted the ever-lovin’ shit out his role…
Wordman, I think Waltz just acted the ever-lovin’ shit out of his role, yes.
But. I have to ask what you mean. I think I understand, but my answer depends on if I understand you correctly; what do you mean by “The black guy is the ostensible hero, but the white guy is redeemed.”
I have comments about QT and the n word, too, but I’m going to make a thread on that…don’t want to hijack too hard.
A movie where the black guy is the hero AND goes through a layered arc - Malcolm X comes to mind; a few Denzel roles, actually - is different from a movie where the badass black hero is a symbol for the white person (that the audience is supposed to identify with) to react to. Does that help clarify? I am still even trying to figure if Django is the latter; let alone if the contrast I’m trying to make is worth caring about…
Ok. I saw Django as a layered character. The thing is, he had a specific drive that won out over all the other conflicts in his heart…that drive was his determination to save Broomhilda.
There are moments when you see the struggle flicker ever so quickly in his eyes, conversation or demeanor. When he explains to Schultz that he is used to American whites, when he tells Schultz that there isn’t anything worse than a black slave owner, when he, pretending to be just that, looks at that slave walking beside him when he’s on the horse and tells him to take his eyeballs off him…he is pushing down his own true character to save his woman.
He really is a superhero in this movie, and Schultz, compared to him, is really the weaker man. This is why he turns to Django after shooting Candie with such an apologetic look. It’s not just that he kind of made things jacked up for Django now…it is that he honestly wasn’t strong enough to go through with this, having been affected by the dog mauling. Django, also having witnessed the horror of the dog mauling (as a matter of fact, pretty much CAUSING the mauling) was stronger because he had that driving force, Broomhilda.
His love for her gave him the super human strength it took for him to make it through, despite the horrors of the mauling, despite the gut ripping pain of having to be seen by fellow slaves as a slave owner, despite his fears, despite his inexperience, despite so much, he was able to get through the whole ordeal without showing any weakness that could mess it up.
The true hero is Django. And the true villain is Stephen. When Stephen sits in the library with Candie, you can literally see him transform from Sambo to a man with a straight back and steely gaze. You can tell by the way Candie isn’t surprised at all to be hand fed what they were plotting that he is used to Stephen hand feeding him. Then, of course, he comes back into the room with his skull and his blood and his rage and his showmanship. All the while, the thinking has been done for him. Candie and Schultz are really pantomiming what is going on much more silently between Django and Stephen.
I tried to explain this theory on a black message board that I visit, and I didn’t get much feedback. Got the feeling lots of folks think I’m way off on this one.
Tarantino discusses the White Savior with Henry Louis Gates.
http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-3-white-saviors
I think this might have something to do with what Wordman and Nzinga, Seated are discussing.
Wow - I love it. Pretty much everything - yeah, when Stephen fully dropped his mask, he was Grinning his Grinchiest grin, wasn’t he? I thought Jackson was magnificent, his cred so solid he could take us over to the dark side and pull it off.
Great analysis; your case for Foxx’s subtlety as Django is compelling. I am back to “Waltz acted the shit out his role.” ;).