- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just got back from seeing Django Unchained
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yeah it's 2 movies in a row that QT didn't seem to know how to end it so he basically just said "frick it"
I prefer IB's ending than Django.
1
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:31 pm to flvelo12
quote:
prefer IB's ending than Django
Yes
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
my second guess was that you read the script online. QT always puts narrative in the script that he leaves out of actual shooting
No I never read the script. I will now though. There is a 3hr 20 minute version that will be on DVD next year. So I'll finally read the script to see what they cut out.
quote:
he maintains his cool, calm, and collected demeanor from the "dog scene" THROUGH the caper, even when it goes to shite, and then he just dissolves into irrational morality? no way man, no way
You didnt see the part where he kept turning his head and looking queasy in his seat? It was when Dicaprio/Foxx were talking.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but for how shaken he was and for how profound of an effect it had on him, it didn't seem to bug him much until it was dramatically suitable. he still executed the plan to a T, and the only frickup was by django's wife (not shultz)
He begs to stop it, offers to buy the man's freedom, explicitly stating his life is worth $500. He argues with Django about playing the character too well. And his reaction is a topic of conversation.
How much of a reaction do you want? Fireworks? Would you like Tarantino to walk out in front of the action and explain this scene is important. He practically did. It wasn't subtle.
quote:
by that point in time it was already clear that candie was an idiot and stephen was the HNIC
Candie was not an idiot. He's vain and a poseur, but he is not dumb. He is not portrayed that why either, and he does pick up on Schultz's doubts.
quote:
i don't think this movie was shot very slick and he's becoming preachy and lost direction.
I thought it was well shot, playing up the dirty nature of both the west and the south. Then the pristine nature of the plantation itself. An important contrast. But yes, if indicting slavery as evil (and the Nazis as being bad) is getting too preachy then, yes, guilty as charged. But those are rather easy targets and should be condemned. Unless you're just mad its your ox getting gored.
It's an ox that deserves goring.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:37 pm to Rittdog
quote:
You didnt see the part where he kept turning his head and looking queasy in his seat? It was when Dicaprio/Foxx were talking.
and yet he still maintains enough rationality to handle the situation when it goes to shite and finalizes the deal. he jumps through a lot of hoops in pressure situations with all of this suicidal guilt toppling him. it makes no sense why he wouldn't maintain that rationality for his revenge
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:38 pm to Carson123987
quote:
quote:
prefer IB's ending than Django
Yes
IB did wrap things up better no doubt.
But Django's was badass as well.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and yet he still maintains enough rationality to handle the situation when it goes to shite and finalizes the deal. he jumps through a lot of hoops in pressure situations with all of this suicidal guilt toppling him. it makes no sense why he wouldn't maintain that rationality for his revenge
Traumatic experience should make a person "act of character then and there?"
Anyway...I'll be posting an interview with Tarantino and a critic who thought there was a plothole in DJango. Its good debate and Tarantino sheds light on Waltz character for those who may not understand his actions.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:42 pm to Baloo
quote:
He begs to stop it, offers to buy the man's freedom, explicitly stating his life is worth $500. He argues with Django about playing the character too well. And his reaction is a topic of conversation.
How much of a reaction do you want? Fireworks? Would you like Tarantino to walk out in front of the action and explain this scene is important. He practically did. It wasn't subtle.
i have no problem accepting that he was affected by this. we'd have seen real examples of the effects and not the same character...until it's dramatically favorable
quote:
Candie was not an idiot. He's vain and a poseur, but he is not dumb.
it seems like everything he did without his magical negro was pretty stupid or just mean and not really intelligent
quote:
But yes, if indicting slavery as evil (and the Nazis as being bad) is getting too preachy then, yes, guilty as charged.
he picked easy targets and in IB he gave us a villain that had rounding to him. we could at least respect lanza for being fricking awesome at what he was doing (which actually makes him more evil). all the white people dealing with the plantation were flat (evil or stupid), other than the magical negro.
it's really easy and cheap to pick slavery as your evil and then make all those associated with it simple, hateable characters
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:42 pm to Rittdog
I like the analysis of Stephen's character.
It was apparent at Django's arrival that he was suspicious, envious, and antagonistic towards Django because he couldn't handle another black man surpassing his own social status in southern white society, of which he had worked so hard all his life to establish.
He believed he was the one in 10,000 slaves and wouldn't stand (pun intended) to have Django come in and show him up.
I also find it noteworthy the way Stephen mourned the death of his master, proving the duplicitous side of him was not a charade but more likely genuine.
It was apparent at Django's arrival that he was suspicious, envious, and antagonistic towards Django because he couldn't handle another black man surpassing his own social status in southern white society, of which he had worked so hard all his life to establish.
He believed he was the one in 10,000 slaves and wouldn't stand (pun intended) to have Django come in and show him up.
I also find it noteworthy the way Stephen mourned the death of his master, proving the duplicitous side of him was not a charade but more likely genuine.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 7:42 pm to Rittdog
quote:
Traumatic experience should make a person "act of character then and there?"
to the point of irrational suicide?
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Traumatic experience should make a person "act of character then and there?"
to the point of irrational suicide?
That begs the question...
Was it irrational suicide...
Or did he know they were dead once he antagonized Candie?
One thing we can agree on. He made Candie look like a fool (something he was warned not to do) before trying to leave.
What happens afterwards is up for interpretation. Did Shultz not shake his hand because he was suicidal or did he know that he pissed off Candy and judging by Candy's actions...they were not making it out alive. So he figured he'd might as well kill him.
One assumption is that he was traumatized by the slave being killed by the dog...so either that caused him to be suicidal or he just felt the need to insult the devlish brat that is Candy.
Was the line "I couldnt help myself' meaning that he couldnt help but kill Candy. Or he couldnt help but antagonize Candy (Something that is ironically said by Shultz earlier to Django not to do)
So for the record
1. He was traumatized
2. He LOST (when King's ego isnt use to that)
3. He was insulted.
So when Dr. King Shultz has all those things happen to him.....can we really be shocked by HIS actions?
This post was edited on 12/26/12 at 8:10 pm
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:12 pm to Rittdog
I still think Schulz shooting Candy was way out of character.
Schulz was pragmatic and would never have thrown it all away like that for essentially nothing and also at the expense of Django and his girl.
I guess Candy was right, Schulz was just a sore loser.
Schulz was pragmatic and would never have thrown it all away like that for essentially nothing and also at the expense of Django and his girl.
I guess Candy was right, Schulz was just a sore loser.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:18 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
Then again, maybe that's the point... Schulz preached throughout the movie not to break character and in the end, that's exactly what he does.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:18 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
I guess Candy was right, Schulz was just a sore loser.
An oddly enough...Quentin Tarantino agrees. He was wrong..countless times.
quote:
They won.
They won! But he cannot make himself subservient -- you know, to shake Candie's hand. I think it's one of the cool subtexts of the film that ultimately, yes, they were wrong. If they had approached Candie, he would have sold Broomhilda for $5,000.
LINK
Lot of good stuff there.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:19 pm to Rittdog
quote:
Was it irrational suicide...
Or did he know they were dead once he antagonized Candie?
he dies either way, though
quote:
1. He was traumatized
2. He LOST (when King's ego isnt use to that)
3. He was insulted.
but he still acts rationally after "losing" and seals a deal that left them out of harm's way
he still had adequate time and ability to plan out revenge that didn't kill him (and kill django, essentially)
quote:
So when Dr. King Shultz has all those things happen to him.....can we really be shocked by HIS actions?
yes
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:19 pm to Rittdog
quote:
Schultz is German. He heard on the street that there's a German-speaking woman being prostituted and now he's interested. Something like that?
No, no, no ... that, you know, I mean ... that ... could work. That could work. Here's the thing: you've got to think of who Schultz is. I see where you're coming from. But it does sound like you're thinking what you would do. You have to think about how Schultz would respond. And it is actually kind of interesting that we've been getting a lot of different reviews coming out of England and France and no one has questioned Schultz's methods when it comes to that. But they have been questioned in America. Now, I think there is a little more common sense laid in the American mindset when it comes to these kinds of things.
There's your controversial statement.
Yeah, exactly.
That's my headline: "frick you, world."
[Laughs] But think about it now: if Schultz was a straightforward guy, when he went into Daughtry, Texas, he would have actually gone to the marshal and said, "Look, your sheriff is not who he thinks he is, and I'm going to take him in."
That's a good point. What we see in the movie is a very elaborate way to get the sheriff.
Yeah, exactly. He probably would have gone to the marshal, and then they could have had the marshal get the sheriff to give up and taken him in alive. Now, Shultz would never take anybody alive, because that's how you get killed. But he could have at least gotten him out of town that way and then shot him.
So Schultz likes the theatrics?
He likes the theatrics. He likes setting up these convoluted plans -- creating mayhem. And, inside of the mayhem, orchestrate ...
So does he believe his plan at Candyland is the best way and it will create mayhem?
Well, no. That's the case in Daughtry, but, in this case with Candie, it's actually quite mayhem-less. He's actually being courted like a big-pocket buyer that he is. I mean, Candie couldn't be laying it all out for him in a better way. He's treated wonderful because he's got big pockets and he's coming in to spend some money. But, the way Schultz is and the way he works, it is not his way at any time -- it just doesn't compute to him -- to be in even a remotely submissive situation. In any encounter he has with anybody. Especially somebody as cretinous as Calvin Candie. Especially somebody who fights men to the death.
So you're saying he goes in with that plan because he feels he is in a position of power?
He has to be in the driver's seat. He cannot let Candie be in the driver's seat. If he goes to Moguy [Candie's lawyer]: "I've heard you have a German young gal slave." Now, by the way, let me preface one other thing. If Candie were Don Johnson's character, Spencer Bennett, Schultz would be actually able to be upfront and offer to buy her -- because that's what Bennett does. He sells pretty women. That's not what Candie does. It's a little weird to go and buy this random girl from the plantation.
Except that the two have the German-speaking connection.
They have the German connection -- it's just weird. It's just a little weird.
It's weird, but that could be an "in."
It could be an "in" ...
"I know this is weird, but I don't know anyone who speaks German and I'd like to buy her."
Yeah, absolutely. That could work. In real life, that could work. And even in the case of this movie, in real life, it could work. It could not work and there is no Plan B if it doesn't work. They're screwed if it doesn't work.
So you're saying that this plan creates a Plan B?
Yes. But, also, it's the fact that the minute that Candie realizes that they need Broomhilda is the minute he has the upper hand. In no iota of any way, shape or form can Schultz ever allow Candie to have the upper hand. It's just not his way to ever allow anybody -- especially somebody he finds so cretinous. Even before he knows him! Just from the facts -- that much of a power-mad baron to have the upper hand. Even enough to come up and say, "II speak German. I've heard you have this German-speaking slave. I'd like to pay $5,000 for her." Well, he's afraid that Candie will say, "No, how about $10,000? If you want it that much."
But didn't they wind up paying $12,000?
Well, that's because that ended up happening. They had no choice later.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:20 pm to Rittdog
quote:
So, in my mind, I'm thinking that they went through this whole thing, when they could have just said, "Here's all of our money." I get the upper-hand aspect, but in the end it doesn't work anyway and that's what they wind up paying. Did you ever think that once Candie figures out their true motives, to just have them kicked out without Broomhilda?
No, because Candie doesn't care enough about Broomhilda.
So he still wants the money.
He still wants the money. But here's the interesting thing, though: It's not Schultz's way. Ever. To let anybody he's dealings with have the upper hand.
So just going straight to Candie is giving him the upper hand?
It gives Candie the power position. Candie can say, "yes" or "no." Candie can dictate the price from that point on. Aside from the fact that Schultz doesn't even want to pay $5,000 for her. He'll pay $12,000 to keep her from being beaten to death, but he doesn't want to. He wants to buy her for $350. He wants to pretend he's going to spend $12,000 on Eskimo Joe and get her for nothing. And then they never see him again. He doesn't want to give them any money.
If the plan had worked, would they have not left with both Eskimo Joe and Broomhilda?
He was never going to buy him. They would get Broomhilda, they would leave and five days later, him and his lawyer were supposed to show back up -- and they'd never see him again. That's part of the ruse: that they're spending so much money on Candie's bill of fare -- it's like a toaster you get for depositing $500 in a bank.
So when Candie finds out that their main interest is Broomhilda, why does he care? I mean, as long as he thinks he's still getting his full money.
Ultimately, Candie doesn't care once he gets the $12,000. Once he sells her, it's like, "OK, have cake! Drink! I'm a great horse trader."
But he did take Eskimo Joe off the table.
He doesn't even have to lose Eskimo Joe. This is a triumph for Candie. Candie and Moguy are celebrating as they sign over Broomhilda's papers. They sold a slave that cost $300 for $12,000 -- that is horse trading at the highest level. If you want to entice a horse trader, you have to trade horses. Now ... what's interesting about this whole conversation is ... Schultz was wrong. It would have worked. If they had come and offered to buy Broomhilda for $5,000, Candie would have done it.
I like you.
They don't know that.
You just made my day.
They don't know that.
I know what you're saying, but, honestly, a lot of directors would never say something along those lines. But you're saying that, in this story, Schultz is a character who makes wrong decisions.
He's working from the wrong assumptions. Schultz is so egotistical and is such a control freak, he cannot allow himself to be put in the non-power position of every situation. It's why he ends up getting killed in the first place! They've had it; they got her.
They won.
They won! But he cannot make himself subservient -- you know, to shake Candie's hand. I think it's one of the cool subtexts of the film that ultimately, yes, they were wrong. If they had approached Candie, he would have sold Broomhilda for $5,000.
For me, though ... my perception of Christoph Waltz in this movie -- and in "Inglourious Basterds" -- is that he seems like a reasonable man. Even as a Nazi saying these horrible things, he gives off an air of reason. When he speaks, he sounds reasonable.
But that's one of the biggest differences between Schultz and Landa. Schultz is almost this high-flying lunatic when it comes to these harebrained schemes that he does. One of the really exciting parts of the film is when he goes into Daughtry, Texas, and just shoots the sheriff. He shoots the sheriff and you're like, "Oh my God, what the hell did he just do!" And, so, is Django owned by a lunatic now? Are they both going to get lynched? And I think the audience crosses their arms, "OK, how the hell are you going to get out of this one?" And then he comes out there and says, "No, this man is not who you thought he was. He's this man." And, OK, actually I buy that. I get that. Well, that's his whole modus operandi. It's actually one of the tragedies of the movie -- if they had actually just been more straightforward and hadn't tried to be so tricky. But it's Schultz's way to be tricky and clever. It's Schultz's way to never reveal himself -- to hide under guises and to pretend to be something he's not. To trick people.
I think they're going to kick me out of here ...
Well, thanks for rallying and coming down and talking to me. I understood where you guys were coming from -- I just wanted to deal with it. And, it's funny -- let me finish up one little thing about it. I know where you guys were coming from. And I thought, I could actually have a scene in here where I make it a little more explicit of why they have to do this whole thing. Like, for instance, in a book, I don't think anyone would be thinking about it because I could have taken you into Schultz's thought process more -- so it would be more set-up. But, frankly, it's like right in the middle of the movie I didn't want to have a whole giant scene -- where I'm actually trying to get some momentum going. That, "OK, now I have to explain everything that we're going to do right now." I took a leap that most people would go with me -- would go with the plan.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Was it irrational suicide...
Or did he know they were dead once he antagonized Candie?
he dies either way, though
quote:
1. He was traumatized
2. He LOST (when King's ego isnt use to that)
3. He was insulted.
but he still acts rationally after "losing" and seals a deal that left them out of harm's way
he still had adequate time and ability to plan out revenge that didn't kill him (and kill django, essentially)
quote:
So when Dr. King Shultz has all those things happen to him.....can we really be shocked by HIS actions?
yes
1. Yes he died..but the point is WHY DID HE DIE...right?
2. You say he acts rationally after "losing". What happens next? We see his visions of the dogs ripping apart the slave. So its obviously fricking with him. So much so...he felt the need to insult Candy. He WAS leaving until Candy stopped him.
Either Shultz knew they were dead or couldnt help himself in killing him...even if it cost him his life. If you forced me to give you answer. I believe he figured they were dead once he pissed off Candy. So....he killed him. "I couldnt help myself"
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:26 pm to Rittdog
I quoted the Tarantino interview. But if its easier to click on the link I posted earlier...do so.
He at least sheds light on the character of King Shultz.
He at least sheds light on the character of King Shultz.
Posted on 12/26/12 at 8:26 pm to Rittdog
quote:
1. Yes he died..but the point is WHY DID HE DIE...right?
a sudden turn of suicidal decision making
quote:
2. You say he acts rationally after "losing". What happens next?
they go eat cake. django is happy with his wife. waltz goes emo/suicidal out of nowhere
quote:
So its obviously fricking with him. So much so...he felt the need to insult Candy. He WAS leaving until Candy stopped him.
and then he just devolves into a suicidal maniac who can't even realize he's killing django and his wife?
quote:
I believe he figured they were dead once he pissed off Candy. So....he killed him. "I couldnt help myself"
when he insulted candy he committed suicide, and he knew it. that's what i'm talking about
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News