Django Unchained - Part 2

He was the lead but was underserved and undeveloped for the majority of the runtime mostly due to having to compete with the almost-lead Dr. Schulz.

Waltz's role was a "supporting" character to about the same extent that Rooster Cogburn or Atticus Finch could be described as "supporting" which is to say it wasn't.

I can't believe so many people that keep harping on this aspect and totally miss out on how it totally serves the character of django.

He was an indentured slave certainly from birth is he supposed to just drop his chains and automatically become "mr. badass"? no he needs time to find himself.

Waltz served as the mentor figure seen in so many of the old-school films in the western/samurai genre that i'm sure tarrantino loves. The figure who helps build up the hero to where he needs to go and that mentor then leaving/dying and the hero getting his justice.

Django was built up very much like a character origin film. If tarrantino was more into sequels the django character has now been set for future adventures.
 
I can't believe so many people that keep harping on this aspect and totally miss out on how it totally serves the character of django.

He was an indentured slave certainly from birth is he supposed to just drop his chains and automatically become "mr. badass"? no he needs time to find himself.

Waltz served as the mentor figure seen in so many of the old-school films in the western/samurai genre that i'm sure tarrantino loves. The figure who helps build up the hero to where he needs to go and that mentor then leaving/dying and the hero getting his justice.

Django was built up very much like a character origin film. If tarrantino was more into sequels the django character has now been set for future adventures.

No Django should not have been "instant badass" but it didn't do much to develop him as a character through out much of the film.

Shultz just has far much more to do throughout the film particularly througout most of the time spent in Candyland. His mounting frustration leading to the handshake, his emotions and motivations drive much more of the conflict of the film and receive more focus than anything relating to the internal life of Django.

Hell, Schultz even has more interaction with Broomhilda than Django does.


The film is certainly an exercise in myth-making, an origin story for the Quckest Gun in the South. I just don't think the film as a whole is entirely successful in contributing to that aim however. Rather than it being a case of a supporting character stealing the show do to a wonderful performance that out shines the principal character, this was more of a similar situation taking place at the writing stage.

There's another film that applies the mentor archetype found in Samurai and Western films. Obi-wan Kenobi certainly acts as a catalyst for Luke's journey, shows him his potential, introduces him to knew ideas and motivates him. But Obi-want is never quite so central to the action of the story, his emotions do not drive entire sections of the film and the final conflict is not dependent upon his choices. Instead, Luke now away from his life as a farmboy and with the basics of his training, Obiwan's role is reduced entirely to one of guidance, a voice to give necessary prompting, but again, not himself or his actions driving the film.

I liked the film a lot when I saw it Christmas day. I still do, but my opinion towards it has begun to cool. However problematic it may be for people racially and politically for some people, I simply have problems with the story structure and characters.
 
Agreed about Schultz having more time with Broomhilda in CandyLand. I mean if I remember correctly Schultz talks to her in German for 5 minutes and then she faints and that's it for her and Django. Next you see her and Schultz talking in German again. A few scenes before of her and Django talking would have been nice. Pretty much agree with redhawk23
 
Target's blu-ray steelbook will be $22.99 release week (4/16-4/21).

attachment.php
 
I haven't seen this pic before, pretty cool.

1dcd5cb4-c5eb-4684-b832-304f9174b73a.img

Can't wait for the release though.

20th of May in the UK! :csad:
 
Whoa nice pic. I never saw that either. Is that from a magazine spread?
 
God why couldn't django get Candie. stared him down while killing his own kind, slaved his wife, tortured her, humiliated her, came close to killing her with a hammer yet, they give it to Schultz who already had enough parts. Would have liked Candie to die at the end before he took out Stephen
 
I have to say I think that could have been executed better. It seemed like they were playing with the idea of having Jackson's character be the real antagonist (the man behind the man), rather than Candie. But then they sort, of had them both try to be the main antagonists, which didn't really work.
 
I can't believe so many people that keep harping on this aspect and totally miss out on how it totally serves the character of django.

He was an indentured slave certainly from birth is he supposed to just drop his chains and automatically become "mr. badass"? no he needs time to find himself.

Waltz served as the mentor figure seen in so many of the old-school films in the western/samurai genre that i'm sure tarrantino loves. The figure who helps build up the hero to where he needs to go and that mentor then leaving/dying and the hero getting his justice.

Django was built up very much like a character origin film. If tarrantino was more into sequels the django character has now been set for future adventures.

Doesn't change the fact that I walked away not giving a ***** about Django, but sure as hell loved Waltz, DiCaprio, Jackson and Washington in this. Hell, the dancing horse at the end had more personality and character than Django.
 
I think it comes down to a bit of a mis-use of the stoic western protagonist archetype. Yeah, Eastwood's characters didn't have a lot of lines but they were enigmatic. He could be so still because the characters were always so assured. Its the same thing with Max in the Road Warrior.

They tried to have Django be the kind of silent stoic type. At the same time Django was also the student half of the type of student/teacher duo archetype others have mentioned being taken from Japanese films and westerns, the kind of thing most famously employed in Star Wars with Luke/Ben and later Luke/Yoda. That kind of personality doesn't really mix well with that archetype though.

Imagine if Luke Skywalker essentially had no lines and had to be actively pulled along into every situation but then also imagine if Ben Kenobi was a verbose eccentric who simply never got the hell out of the way of the story.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't change the fact that I walked away not giving a ***** about Django, but sure as hell loved Waltz, DiCaprio, Jackson and Washington in this. Hell, the dancing horse at the end had more personality and character than Django.


I agree
 
Hi y'all.

I was reading the Django Unchained comic book based off the "original" script, was the character Scotty Harmony the one Tarantino wrote for Cohen?
 
I think it comes down to a bit of a mis-use of the stoic western protagonist archetype. Yeah, Eastwood's characters didn't have a lot of lines but they were enigmatic. He could be so still because the characters were always so assured. Its the same thing with Max in the Road Warrior.

They tried to have Django be the kind of silent stoic type. At the same time Django was also the student half of the type of student/teacher duo archetype others have mentioned being taken from Japanese films and westerns, the kind of thing most famously employed in Star Wars with Luke/Ben and later Luke/Yoda. That kind of personality doesn't really mix well with that archetype though.

Imagine if Luke Skywalker essentially had no lines and had to be actively pulled along into every situation but then also imagine if Ben Kenobi was a verbose eccentric who simply never got the hell out of the way of the story.

I saw it more as them trying to really show Django's character grow - but failing. He starts out as a slave, who obviously never got to do or say what he wanted. Something of a blank slate. Then he started to kind of grow. The problem was, that he grew into a rather boring character with one goal (to save his wife). And there really wasn't a lot else there.

Doesn't help that Waltz gave an awesome performance.
 
I think it comes down to a bit of a mis-use of the stoic western protagonist archetype. Yeah, Eastwood's characters didn't have a lot of lines but they were enigmatic. He could be so still because the characters were always so assured. Its the same thing with Max in the Road Warrior.

They tried to have Django be the kind of silent stoic type. At the same time Django was also the student half of the type of student/teacher duo archetype others have mentioned being taken from Japanese films and westerns, the kind of thing most famously employed in Star Wars with Luke/Ben and later Luke/Yoda. That kind of personality doesn't really mix well with that archetype though.

Imagine if Luke Skywalker essentially had no lines and had to be actively pulled along into every situation but then also imagine if Ben Kenobi was a verbose eccentric who simply never got the hell out of the way of the story.

I wonder if the fact that it was Jamie Foxx rather than Will Smith who ended up playing Django had anything to do with it. Foxx is a very good actor, but out of all the films I've seen him in a major role - Ali, Collateral, Miami Vice, and Any Given Sunday, not a single one of his characters ever stood out as assured, charismatic or even having any kind of magnetic personality. When it comes to Hollywood's African-American elite, Foxx, to me, occupies a very dull middle ground, in that he neither has the super-likable charm of Will Smith nor the dignified presence of Denzel Washington (...and Morgan Freeman is too old to count as a leading man contender anymore).
 
You all must have never watched the Jamie foxx show. Foxx has plenty of likeable attributes and was likeable in this film. Any issues you all have are with Tarintino and not Foxx imo.
 
I wasn't going to buy the Target steelbook, but when I saw it was the same price as the standard version and it came with a bonus DVD...

tumblr_inline_mh2o54UcQM1qerkg1.gif
 
Hi y'all.

I was reading the Django Unchained comic book based off the "original" script, was the character Scotty Harmony the one Tarantino wrote for Cohen?

Scotty Harmony, yessur.

I'm gonna pick that book up in trade at some point I think.
 
I wonder if the fact that it was Jamie Foxx rather than Will Smith who ended up playing Django had anything to do with it. Foxx is a very good actor, but out of all the films I've seen him in a major role - Ali, Collateral, Miami Vice, and Any Given Sunday, not a single one of his characters ever stood out as assured, charismatic or even having any kind of magnetic personality. When it comes to Hollywood's African-American elite, Foxx, to me, occupies a very dull middle ground, in that he neither has the super-likable charm of Will Smith nor the dignified presence of Denzel Washington (...and Morgan Freeman is too old to count as a leading man contender anymore).

For me that's it. Foxx as a leading man has never really stood out as having movie star charisma whilst Smith playing a rare joke free character with barely any dialogue in a, imo, lesser film like I AM LEGEND for example commands the screen. Waltz, Leo and Jackson would still have stolen the show but the complaints from some quarters about Django would have been less prevalent if Will had played the part I reckon.
 
I didn't get that bit. Why did that need to happen? :(

Well,
Candie obviously needed to die. Schultz was just too impatient. If they really wanted to kill him, they could have gone back to Candieland later on and finished the job. But then again, who's to say that Candie would have let them walk out of there alive?
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"