Django Unchained

CodySolo said:
Interesting to see some of the criticisms here of the films tonal and character "inconsistencies".

Light and shadow, man, that's what makes Tarantino Tarantino in my book. His movies run the gamut from being hyperreal in a way that most other directors aren't able to achieve to being intimately realistic in a way that most other directors could never achieve. All in the same movie.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think up until this film Tarantino had achieved a consistent tone in his movies in how it treated violence. Something like Kill Bill had a consistently over the top, Grindhouse way it treated violence that was different from the sudden, chaotic and more realistic violence in stuff like Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds. Django is sort of the uneasy mix of both styles.
 
I think people are missing why Schulz killed Candie.....They were NOT going to be allowed to leave. When it looked like they were going to be able to leave, they all headed straight for the door, then Candie does the whole "shake my hand" thing and it becomes clear, dude isn't going to let them just walk out with everything they wanted. And if you think Candies character would let them all just leave merrily out the door, then you were seeing a different Candie than I was.
 
A valid point I think, although it would have played better (IMO) if we as the audience had at least a slightly clearer understanding of the (presumed) inevitability of Schultz and Django's being killed anyway, assuming that that idea was actually QT's intention...

pulpfiction007 said:
I think people are missing why Schulz killed Candie.....They were NOT going to be allowed to leave. When it looked like they were going to be able to leave, they all headed straight for the door, then Candie does the whole "shake my hand" thing and it becomes clear, dude isn't going to let them just walk out with everything they wanted. And if you think Candies character would let them all just leave merrily out the door, then you were seeing a different Candie than I was.
Click to expand...
 
Ted Spencer said:
A valid point I think, although it would have played better (IMO) if we as the audience had at least a slightly clearer understanding of the (presumed) inevitability of Schultz and Django's being killed anyway, assuming that that idea was actually QT's intention...
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that...some little extra thing- a look, a nod. The way I looked at it was the scene had a very similar dynamic to many Scorcese movies - Candie (the top head honcho gangster) was made a total fool of by Schulz and Django's con- so he takes the money for the girl, says they're free to go. If the scene had ended like that, I would have called B.S. I had the feeling all along impending doom was on the way, just like for Joe Pesci in Goodfellas, or for Morrie in Goodfellas. Only Schultz knew people very well...which was shown in earlier scenes, so he robbed Candie of the chance to have the final word.
 
Last edited:
Clarity, many say, is among a film's most important virtues. That is, unless ambiguity or an enduring mystery (e.g. "2001") is the desired effect. Those films, on the other hand, could easily be described as 'clearly unclear'. It's the ones in the vague middle ground of that territory are the problems... : )
 
I considered that as well, that Candie had no intention of letting them leave and Schulz knew this, but that doesn't really hold water. If Schulz knew that, he would have had a better plan to escape then to shoot Candie point blank, make a smart alec quip and sit there waiting for Candie's bodyguard to blow him away. He shot Canide out of anger, damn the consequences. For someone as methodical as him, it was a severe lapse in judgement, severe enough to almost not be believable.
 
Batutta said:
I considered that as well, that Candie had no intention of letting them leave and Schulz knew this, but that doesn't really hold water. If Schulz knew that, he would have had a better plan to escape then to shoot Candie point blank, make a smart alec quip and sit there waiting for Candie's bodyguard to blow him away. He shot Canide out of anger, damn the consequences. For someone as methodical as him, it was a severe lapse in judgement, severe enough to almost not be believable.
Click to expand...

A plan? They were heading out the door...Candie asks him to shake his hand, - Shulz knows at this point they won't leave alive, he has a close range pistol up his sleeve. He know this will be a low percentage way out, but what the hell else are they going to do? If he was going to shoot him out of anger, he would have done it sooner...this was a last ditch effort based on Candie being a psycho. Did Shulz want to do it as well? Absolutely.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
A plan? They were heading out the door...Candie asks him to shake his hand, - Shulz knows at this point they won't leave alive, he has a close range pistol up his sleeve. He know this will be a low percentage way out, but what the hell else are they going to do? If he was going to shoot him out of anger, he would have done it sooner...this was a last ditch effort based on Candie being a psycho. Did Shulz want to do it as well? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

Then why sit there like an idiot after shooting him and make a quip? He should have made a run for cover the second he got a shot off. Or signaled to Django his intentions if they were going to make an escape...anyway, Tarantino tried to explain this plot point with a reporter, and while his explanation makes sense at the end, it's still a hole in the writing. And nowhere does he mention that Candie is going to kill Schulz and Django.
 
Batutta said:
Tarantino tried to explain this plot point with a reporter
Click to expand...

Wow...fascinating. Thanks for that link.

and while his explanation makes sense at the end, it's still a hole in the writing. And nowhere does he mention that Candie is going to kill Schulz and Django.
Click to expand...

Right. QT says he drew Schultz as an absolutely compulsive 'win at all costs' guy, and that (as I read it), once Candie insisted on winning the 'handshake contest', it was over - Schultz *had* to kill him rather than risk losing face. QT also somewhat tacitly admits that this character trait may not have been sufficiently clearly drawn in the film; that 'another scene' might have made it so, but it seemed impracticable. All things considered, I'd have to respectfully say that I think he's wrong there. If Schultz's must-win-always mentality were better set up, the ending would have made much more sense. Far be it from me to denigrate a master, which I consider QT to be, but that kind of story hole is a well known issue with writer-directors - they 'know' their characters and story far better than anyone, and sometimes fail to see that others don't. A hazard for the occupationally hyphenated...

I also want to say, in defense of QT, two things: my hat is off to him for his willingness to conduct a serious, highly focused plot-point analysis with a critic who knocked his film, and (somewhat ironically, given the specific issue under discussion), for clearly *knowing his characters in such profound detail*. This latter thing shines throughout his work and is part, IMO, of his great genius. Almost all of his characters are fully dimensional, complex, highly specific individuals. If half the filmmakers in Hollywood did as well at that we'd be in another golden age...

My $.02
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
Then why sit there like an idiot after shooting him and make a quip? He should have made a run for cover the second he got a shot off. Or signaled to Django his intentions if they were going to make an escape...anyway, Tarantino tried to explain this plot point with a reporter, and while his explanation makes sense at the end, it's still a hole in the writing. And nowhere does he mention that Candie is going to kill Schulz and Django.
Click to expand...

That talks about the WHOLE scheme, not that one scene..anyway, I see how people wonder why he would shoot Candie, I viewed it in a different way. Even though it sounds like I am wrong....lol, my explanation makes more sense than Tarantinos. Ha ha. I grant you now, sounds like they were just winging it on that scene.
 
Saw it last night. I enjoyed it. Lots of twists and turns and OhNo moments imo.

I didn't want to read this thread to be honest because...

Batutta said:
I disagree. I think up until this film Tarantino had achieved a consistent tone in his movies in how it treated violence. Something like Kill Bill had a consistently over the top, Grindhouse way it treated violence that was different from the sudden, chaotic and more realistic violence in stuff like Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds. Django is sort of the uneasy mix of both styles.
Click to expand...

...I would agree with that and probably a lot of other posts which I wont read. Bottom line is I thought it was really good if just for entertainment value. Hey, you know?
 
Gord.T said:
Saw it last night. I enjoyed it. Lots of twists and turns and OhNo moments imo.

I didn't want to read this thread to be honest because...



...I would agree with that and probably a lot of other posts which I wont read. Bottom line is I thought it was really good if just for entertainment value. Hey, you know?
Click to expand...

That's all that really matters in the end. Beside's this is a Tarantino film, it's not like we're going to see an Bergman, or Dreyer film!
 
Batutta said:
I disagree. I think up until this film Tarantino had achieved a consistent tone in his movies in how it treated violence. Something like Kill Bill had a consistently over the top, Grindhouse way it treated violence that was different from the sudden, chaotic and more realistic violence in stuff like Pulp Fiction or Inglorious Basterds. Django is sort of the uneasy mix of both styles.
Click to expand...

I found it to be a brilliant mix of both styles. The realistic scenes in the beginning, and then the over the top scenes at the end where what really made the movie entertaining for me.
 
bill totolo said:
Not every scene works. For me, this one didn't jive. I think they could have used another day of rehearsal...
Click to expand...

Finally saw it last night and even though I do agree with what you're saying I was very much entertained. The story was well told , Leonardo Dicaprio did very well and Samuel L Jackson to. If I had to campare this to QT's Inglorious Basterd(which I automatically did after hearing Broomhilda's name ) I must say that the latter had a better dialogue but Django Unchained was much better told. I had hoped that Kerry's Washingtons Character would have been more like that of Bridget von Hammorsmark or even Shoshanna Dreyfus..but this is Django Unchained. So I did like Hildy for who she was. Great acting again well told = Overall I love it.
 
I think we could have (and should have) been given one more instance of Schultz's brilliant planning. Once Kandie knew their true intention, instead of resorting to muscle, he could have attempted to outwit them by relying on Stephen. Schultz would have caught on, of course, and then presented, with Django and his wife and maybe even one or two slaves, one final circuitous ruse that would ultimately fail. That would have salvaged Schultz's character and still have left plenty of violence for the end, including the house blowing up and only leaving about three pieces.
 
Everts said:
I had hoped that Kerry's Washingtons Character would have been more like that of Bridget von Hammorsmark or even Shoshanna Dreyfus..but this is Django Unchained. So I did like Hildy for who she was. Great acting again well told = Overall I love it.
Click to expand...

I loved Kerry Washington's character. She was the beautiful damsel in distress. What I loved about the character is that Tarantino felt free to leave her as a one dimensional character, pretty and in need of rescue. That's all she needed to be and anything else would have been superfluous, making the character complex for no other reason than to make the character complex.
 
Gillvane said:
I loved Kerry Washington's character. She was the beautiful damsel in distress. What I loved about the character is that Tarantino felt free to leave her as a one dimensional character, pretty and in need of rescue. That's all she needed to be and anything else would have been superfluous, making the character complex for no other reason than to make the character complex.
Click to expand...

Good point and I agree. The enjoyment in Django for me, in hindsight, was in watching Jamie Foxx's character grow and how he deals with the situations that are thrown at him.

//edit: Or more accurately, discovering his character as the film progresses.
 
Last edited:
Hmm...hard to applaud a character's 'one dimensionality'. I'm not saying it's a major problem in the film, but if her character had more substance I'd certainly consider it an asset. She could easily have been written in such a way as to drive the story more, show how she motivated such extreme passion in Django (aside from the fact that she's his wife, and beautiful), etc., which I can't see as anything but an improvement. I hadn't given it a lot of thought, but it was in the back of my mind as one of the film's flaws; part of what might explain how I regard it as one of QT's more flawed latter-day films.

Which, as I said earlier, doesn't mean I think the film isn't very good. I do...

My 1/50th of a buck...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top