re: Django Unchained out on DVD today.

quote:

---

Candie has a slave that speaks German which would be a novelty to anyone else but an actual German. Schultz purcahsing her from Candie (above market value as she is a specialty item)is completely reasonable. The whole "farmer won't sell you his horse so you offer to buy his farm as a distraction" is obviously necessary as a plot vehicle but in reality is fairly stupid. Candie, like any other slave owner, would've sold her for the right price.

---

quote:

---

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, "I 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.

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---