Quentin Tarantino's 'Django Unchained'

[CelticPredator]

He should've treated them worse.

But QT got it the best.

 

[turbo.VS.ozone]

Like I said, I didn't have a problem with Django till the end. It specifically started with the scene with the three white drivers (which included you know who) when they were going to take him to the mines.

They didn't even treat him like crap really once they found out he was a free man and were willing to help them after he suggested they pursue the bounty (which they weren't too keen on in the first place).

Like Dr. "King" Schultz said, You always keep you first bounty. It's Good Luck!

 

[DiFabio]

Those three slave drivers were just drivers, I don't recall them doing any foul deeds. They transport slaves back and forth, that's their job.

In fact, Django (though it was somewhat of an act) was far worse to Slaves than they were from the audiences perspective.

So these guys, upon finding out that Django is a free man (remember, they ask the three slaves if he was indeed free and with Schultz) let him go. They agree to let him go and do his thing, even help him, split the bounty, whatever, give him his gun, and he kills all three. The guys were just doing their job. There wasn't a bounty on their heads. So because they were transporting slaves, they were wrong? They weren't even cruel to Django.



I know he most likely wanted the bounty all for himself, but still. That's my problem with him at that point. He's not really someone I can root for after that point. Candie's sister too, while it was lolz and funny (the audience loved it), that wasn't right either. I assume he didn't want a witness so I guess it was justified.




My favorite character was Schultz, no question about it. Not Django. Schultz killed people that had bounties on their heads not "innocents" (till a point of course).

 

[JonWes]

Hmmmm...

The "They are doing their jobs" angle just doesn't work for me. You could say the exact same thing about Nazi soldiers. And, in fact, that's where the infamous "I was just doing my duty" excuse comes into play. And it just doesn't play for me.

They were knowingly transporting living human beings to work at a mine against their will! In a tiny little cage! One of the things Django Unchained did so well (and, in my mind, justifies the excessive use of the n-word to some degree) was paint how this wasn't some isolated, evil plantation owner or something. This was SOCIETY. All around them. Just because all of society was that way, though, doesn't make it right. You could say the same thing about the way he dispatches Miss Lara. I guess it could seem cruel as the character didn't directly do anything particularly evil to Django or Broomhilda directly, but she was a slave owner, fully aware of all the evil done to all the slaves. So... she was a prime target.

Now, this is a revenge flick. So, the hero doesn't operate by the same laws that might govern, say, a superhero. If Django had "spared" say, Stephen or even the Australian slavers (boy did I dislike that cameo) then I just don't think it would have been truthful to the film. Not only as a revenge flick, but as a western. But that's just my two cents.

 

[InspectorSpacetime]

He was playing a character. And in order for their plan to work he could not break character at all. They mentioned this multiple times.

and he was playing it BADLY because he got too cocky. Schultz had to quiet down his BLACK MAN RAGE like 3 times when he was mouthing off. He became more than just a free man he kind of became a violent arrogant jerk. Maybe the most unlikable protagonist in any Tarantino movie...even more so than Stuntman Mike.

 

[DiFabio]

Hmmmm...

The "They are doing their jobs" angle just doesn't work for me. You could say the exact same thing about Nazi soldiers. And, in fact, that's where the infamous "I was just doing my duty" excuse comes into play. And it just doesn't play for me.

They were knowingly transporting living human beings to work at a mine against their will! In a tiny little cage! One of the things Django Unchained did so well (and, in my mind, justifies the excessive use of the n-word to some degree) was paint how this wasn't some isolated, evil plantation owner or something. This was SOCIETY. All around them. Just because all of society was that way, though, doesn't make it right. You could say the same thing about the way he dispatches Miss Lara. I guess it could seem cruel as the character didn't directly do anything particularly evil to Django or Broomhilda directly, but she was a slave owner, fully aware of all the evil done to all the slaves. So... she was a prime target.

Now, this is a revenge flick. So, the hero doesn't operate by the same laws that might govern, say, a superhero. If Django had "spared" say, Stephen or even the Australian slavers (boy did I dislike that cameo) then I just don't think it would have been truthful to the film. Not only as a revenge flick, but as a western. But that's just my two cents.

Every slave owner treated their slaves with cruelty? They all treated them with the same antipathy in the same vein of Calvin Candie?


I don't think so.



My point is, by the end of the film, Django seemed just as bad and unlikable as everyone else, white and black. Yeah, revenge story, I got it, I know it, I love it, but I'm just saying, for me, Django isn't exactly likable to me.

 

[batfan08]

and he was playing it BADLY because he got too cocky. Schultz had to quiet down his BLACK MAN RAGE like 3 times when he was mouthing off. He became more than just a free man he kind of became a violent arrogant jerk. Maybe the most unlikable protagonist in any Tarantino movie...even more so than Stuntman Mike.

You're missing the point. He's SUPPOSED to be acting that way. This is a character who would sell out his own people to make a profit. He's supposed to act like the type of character who is able to sell people into, what will inevitably be, their deaths. The black man "rage", as you put it, was Django's character's superiority complex over the others.

 

[InspectorSpacetime]

You're missing the point. He's SUPPOSED to be acting that way. This is a character who would sell out his own people to make a profit. He's supposed to act like the type of character who is able to sell people into, what will inevitably be, their deaths. The black man "rage", as you put it, was Django's character's superiority complex over the others.

yes. He had a superiority complex. Which made him unlikable. It was not part of a ruse. I was on his side at first but you can see throughout the movie his finger is on his trigger more and more. Schultz played it cool.

 

[JonWes]

Well, look... there's the world of the film and then there's reality. But in either one of them, slavery=bad.

In the world of the film, we are clearly shown the cruelty and degradation faced by Django, Broomhilda and the other slaves. There is no one to root for among the slavers. Part of the reason Shultz is so likable is that he's an island of sanity amongst a world that (hopefully) seems barbaric and cruel to we, the modern viewer.

Now in reality, I'm sure there were "nice" slave owners. Just like there were "nice" Nazis in the real world versus what we saw in, say, Inglorious Basterds. But what does that mean, really? What is a "nice" slave owner? I guess that's what I find slightly frightening about what we're talking about. I don't care if a slave owner kept a slave well-fed or let them sleep in the house (which, we know—historically, in the real world—was by no means common) the fact is they were still slaves. They were regarded as being less than human, and fit to be subjugated simply because society thought it was so.

Look, I'm a white guy so this is just an exercise in empathy for me. It didn't actually happen to my ancestors. But if anyone ever tried to say I was less than them, or stripped me of my freedom simply because of the way I looked or who my ancestors were... I don't care how gilded the cage was, it would still be a cage.

Again, let me make a comparison. I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark again recently. You know the Nazis escorting the Ark transport? How Indy had to fight through them to claim the jeep and try to stop the main transport? Did you think when Indy took one of them out "Oh, those poor Nazis. They were just doing their jobs transporting the Ark and that unlikable old Indy just up and killed them"?

I guess I just don't see the difference here. Even putting aside the reality of if, just on the film's terms I don't think we could say the Australian slavers or Lara or anyone that Django killed was "nice" and didn't deserve it, at least on the film's Western/Revenge flick terms.

yes. He had a superiority complex. Which made him unlikable. It was not part of a ruse. I was on his side at first but you can see throughout the movie his finger is on his trigger more and more. Schultz played it cool.

Superiority Complex? Not seeing that. The way he acted was definitely part of the act, and one he didn't like. Also, he has his finger on the trigger... BECAUSE HIS WIFE IS ENSLAVED AND HAS BEEN ABUSED! He's got more at stake than Shultz. I mean, I loved Shultz but let's remember it's Shultz who eventually can't keep his cool and messes everything up.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

I also don't get the dislike of Django at the end. He was the hero that "we" needed him to be (sound familiar?). Plus, his arrogance was justified. Damn he was a quick shot! I felt his attitude was no more arrogant or cocky than Uma Thurman in KB or Brad Pitt in IB. Django was the man.

 

[CelticPredator]

Difabio missed that whole scene it seems like.

The Le Quent (lol) whatever people were considered worse then slave owners. They overworked the slaves to pretty much death, and once they got to a point where they couldn't work, they throw them in the "N***er hole" to die. If they talked, their tongue is cut out.

Now, while at first glance you could say they probably would've worked with Django. But that doesn't matter because of what they did. Django knows this.

Did you miss the part when they were about to throw all the slaves in the cage into the hole? They were going to just kill these people, for no real reason.

They deserved to die. Django did right. It wasn't really that hard to miss. They were total pieces of ****.

 

[CelticPredator]

W

Superiority Complex? Not seeing that. The way he acted was definitely part of the act, and one he didn't like. Also, he has his finger on the trigger... BECAUSE HIS WIFE IS ENSLAVED AND HAS BEEN ABUSED! He's got more at stake than Shultz. I mean, I loved Shultz but let's remember it's Shultz who eventually can't keep his cool and messes everything up.

I was just about to say this, but yeah, you beat me to it.

Django wanted to play it as perfectly as he could. And he did. He's seen all this **** before. He knows everything that will happen to these people. Does he care? Oh yes. Will he stop it to risk the safety of his wife? Hell no. That's ALL he cares about.

And by the end, he finally took all of Shultz's teachings, his mannerisms, everything, and used it to his advantage.

Despite some people hating the horse trick scene, that was sort of a not too subtle nod saying he emulated Shultz. Which I thought was nice.

 

[InspectorSpacetime]

Tarantino is the filmmaker that's a hero to people who know nothing about film and teenagers with a bloodlust. Made some good movies and some bad ones...just like almost every other director. He's brilliant at times but just as transparent at others. Django was as stale and childish as Kill Bill. Pulp Fiction...now THAT'S a movie.

 

[DiFabio]

If I missed something, whatever. I'd still say that while I really enjoyed the film, Django (the character, not the movie) didn't sit right with me after the shootouts towards the end of the film. Just couldn't really like him like I could in the beginning and middle before the incident with Candie.


It's the same way I felt with Basterds. Towards the end, I really didn't like them. They're the protagonists but I just couldn't root for Aldo and the gang when they're killing off a soldier kid that just had a baby or going on suicide bomber missions after they complete said mission.


Now Hans Landa (an antagonist) and Schultz (a protagonist) I can get behind. That charisma, their style, the charm etc.

 

[InspectorSpacetime]

Yup. Christoph Waltz is brilliant. He carries both films. Without him they'd both be much much worse overall.

 

[JonWes]

I'd still say that while I really enjoyed the film, Django (the character, not the movie) didn't sit right with me after the shootouts towards the end of the film. Just couldn't really like him like I could in the beginning and middle before the incident with Candie.

I can totally respect that. Same with the group in Inglorious Basterds. It's not going to be everyone's cup of tea when you have your main heroes go there. I think it worked and I'd disagree that what was done was really out of the bounds of any number of other screen heroes, but I can understand your point of view.

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

Tarantino is the filmmaker that's a hero to people who know nothing about film and teenagers with a bloodlust. Made some good movies and some bad ones...just like almost every other director. He's brilliant at times but just as transparent at others. Django was as stale and childish as Kill Bill. Pulp Fiction...now THAT'S a movie.

That's ridiculous. This movie had a simple plot yes, but wonderful acting, writing, dialogue, characterization, and cinematography. He does this while making fun films that are over-the-top. Fun entertainment supported by quality work all-around. It's impressive stuff, I feel.

If I missed something, whatever. I'd still say that while I really enjoyed the film, Django (the character, not the movie) didn't sit right with me after the shootouts towards the end of the film. Just couldn't really like him like I could in the beginning and middle before the incident with Candie.


It's the same way I felt with Basterds. Towards the end, I really didn't like them. They're the protagonists but I just couldn't root for Aldo and the gang when they're killing off a soldier kid that just had a baby or going on suicide bomber missions after they complete said mission.


Now Hans Landa (an antagonist) and Schultz (a protagonist) I can get behind. That charisma, their style, the charm etc.

So you can't get behind the guys who let the soldier kid live (the actress spy is the one who got pissed and shot him) and limited their violence towards Nazi's, but you can get behind a guy who's job was to round up the Jews and who also let his entire alliance die?

I understand why you don't like Django now.

 

[DiFabio]

So you can't get behind the guys who let the soldier kid live (the actress spy is the one who got pissed and shot him) and limited their violence towards Nazi's, but you can get behind a guy who's job was to round up the Jews and who also let his entire alliance die?

I understand why you don't like Django now.

Nope. I just don't think the "heroes" in these particular two films are any better than their enemies. Landa wasn't about the Nazi party or jews or anything, he was in it for himself.

Usually my favorite characters end up getting blown away and killed by Tarantino anyway. It never fails. From good guys to bad guys. He kills the guys I root for.


Like Bud from Kill Bill. I didn't think he was particularly as evil as the other assassins (gave her the flashlight, etc.) and I hated seeing him die by the snake.

 

[jnmx2000]

Tarantino is the filmmaker that's a hero to people who know nothing about film and teenagers with a bloodlust. Made some good movies and some bad ones...just like almost every other director. He's brilliant at times but just as transparent at others. Django was as stale and childish as Kill Bill. Pulp Fiction...now THAT'S a movie.

What if you realllllllly LOVE kill bill? I wouldn't consider any movie i've seen of his bad, Death proof was his weakest but even that to me was a good movie.

 

[InspectorSpacetime]

That's ridiculous. This movie had a simple plot yes, but wonderful acting, writing, dialogue, characterization, and cinematography. He does this while making fun films that are over-the-top. Fun entertainment supported by quality work all-around. It's impressive stuff, I feel.

but horrible self indulgent pacing. To make a film boring is the worst sin you can commit.