Javier Martinez Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 If you enjoy spagetti westerns or Quentin Tarantino films then i think you might like the film. -Spoilers- I have seen the movie and was wondering if any one else found the clash between King Schultz and Mister Candie to be extremly satisfying and entertaining. I view King Schultz to be very intelligent and moral though he did murder for the state, it was always people that propagated and enforced the instutiton of slavery or great offenders of property rights and life. He was extremely moved by abuse and torment of the black people as made obvious all through out the movie. In particular the mandigo fighting scene and the dog/fighter scene as they headed into candie land. These scences were so graphic and extreme they had both Schultz and the audience squirming in their seats. I view Mister candie as strongest representation of the southern white culture. He is the largest single owner of slaves working the largest plantation in south and owns many slaves who are forced to particpate in mandigo fighting of black slaves to the death. He makes refrences to southern way of living, southern hospitality and the laws of the county that all dictate and reinforce the very evil Schultz dispises. The clash between the two characters was so deep and it could only be made known to me after seeing one of Stefans more recent videos on youtube. It was something along the lines of, the most immoral is the person who does evil with knowledge of morality or sense of civilty and who believe that their actions are correct or logically consistant. I thought that person to be embodied role of Mister Candie. The false sense of civility when the whole place was a hell is bothered Schultz so much near the end. He asked the harp player to stop playing Beethoven, he refused to sit quietly with the rest of the guest and tried to retreat into the library but couldn't escape the horrors of the day. It was the very reason why Schultz felt he had to shoot Candie and could not shake his hand as equals, something that he shared with Django when they first agreed to work together. Well thats my two silver pieces. i do love the movie and if you haven't seen it then please do.
Lowe D Posted January 5, 2013 Posted January 5, 2013 From the previews this movie looked racist and violent in the extreme. What was your impression, before you went to see it?
Javier Martinez Posted January 7, 2013 Author Posted January 7, 2013 It's the style of the director, Quentin Tarantino and was to show the evils of the south at the time. My impression of the movie was more influenced by the director and his previous works than the trailer. I expected an epic journey of a slave fighting to be reunited with his wife. Didn't know much more than that about the movie.
pretzelogik Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 I just saw it last week. I found the most despicable character in the movie that of the one played by Samuel L. Jackson, Mr. Candie's toadie. I looked at that character as a metaphor for a voter in a democratic society. I am having a problem in general, which I felt as a sense of discomfort while watching the movie, with the idea of vengeance. Vengeance is a powerful and pervasive theme and it does feel good to see the oppressed rise up and give the oppressor a taste of his own medicine. The destruction of the plantation was a fitting end for a theme of vengeance, but we all know that burning a church does not end religion. There are quite a few examples of success (empiricism) using the techniques of non-violent communication which responds to brutality with empathy. I am finding near impossible to imagine being empathetic to those that oppress others, even as a mental exercise. The problem is that the need to see vengeance binds oneself to the cycle. It's a work in progress but releasing oneself from the need to see the underdog kick the pants of the bully is tough work.
rey Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Overall I would say that this movie was entertaining. I agree with Pretzelogik that you couldn't help but get drawn in by the theme a vengence and to root for Django to emerge triumphant. What I found most interesting though is when Mr. Candie said something like, "Growing up in a plantation I've seen a lot of black faces... The only question I have is, 'Why don't they kill us?'" The slaves greatly out number the masters and yet, no revolt. How does that happen? Stef talks about this idea in a podcast I recently listened to... Masters don't have to worry about the slaves revolting because the slaves keep each other in line. As soon as one become angry about their situation, the other slaves try their best to "calm him down"
Metric Posted March 22, 2013 Posted March 22, 2013 If I can ever jump the hurdle into making youtube videos, this will be one of the first things I talk about. What I find fascinating is that Tarantino's last couple of movies have basically been "revenge fantasies" against bad ethics of the past, that were enforced by the governments at the time (Django and Inglourious Basterds). In Django, the role I found most fascinating was that of Samuel Jackson, the "Uncle Tom." He probably evoked more hate from the audience than anyone else in entire film, because of how utterly broken he was, and how he supported of the whole slavery system in spite of the fact it owned him and abused his people. So, in my mind, this trend of Tarantino's makes me wonder what future generations would look back on today with similar anger. And I think it would be the fact that we have abolished 100% slavery, but we went right back into "fractional slavery" (income tax), and applied it to everyone. And who would be the Uncle Tom? Everyone that pays taxes but supports the current paradigm -- including, ironically, Jackson and Tarantino themselves.
Wesley Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 So, in my mind, this trend of Tarantino's makes me wonder what future generations would look back on today with similar anger. And I think it would be the fact that we have abolished 100% slavery, but we went right back into "fractional slavery" (income tax), and applied it to everyone. And who would be the Uncle Tom? Everyone that pays taxes but supports the current paradigm -- including, ironically, Jackson and Tarantino themselves. My hope would be the slavery of the family where children are demeaned, beat, forced to do work without pay, and given enough resources for food and shelter only would be the next slavery that people are angered by. Those who justify what their parents did to them and continue the abuse onto others would be the Uncle Toms. I would love a world where hitting a child is looked at with the revulsion of hitting a slave or hitting your wife.
Dumitru Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 I used to love Tarantino movies, (pre-philosphy that is) and some parts of me still do. I went to see it even knowing what to expect content-wise, just to see what my own reaction to it would be. There were a lot of times while watching it that I felt someone was literally choking me. I think that's an improvement. Edit: I just realised I haven't answered the question posted, sorry. There's nothing moral about Schultz. No amount of respecting Beethoven and being polite can cover up the fact that the man murders people for a living.
Recommended Posts