ONE: Dr. Schultz is a very decent and romantic fellow. He thought in terms of ancient myths. It gave him pleasure to bring Django to a place where Django could actually SEE his beloved wife and then to present Django TO the wife in the privacy of the upstairs bedroom. You could see that Dr. Schultz was tickled to reunite the lovers when the wife fainted.
Very reasonable explanation. Schultz just might have his logic clouded a bit by romanticism.
--
Thank you for the agreement here...and..
---
TWO: His plan is risky in any form.
I still don't see it that way.
---
...the more I read what you write, the more I tend to agree with YOU here.
I recall feeling that anywhere and everywhere that Schultz would appear with Django by his side(the town where Schultz shot the sheriff, Big Daddy's plantation, the lounge where Candie is staging a mandingo fight and of course Candyland)....the air is IMMEDIATELY rife with tension because no matter how much Schultz insists that Django is a "free man," the whites (and black Stephen) aren't buying it.
So QT is setting up "tension for tension's sake" just by injecting Django into these situations. (He was only TRULY necessary at Big Daddy's, looking out for the Brittle Brothers and finding them. Thereafter, its like Schultz is purposely making the situation more difficult than it should be by bringing Django along.
I am a big QT fan but I did find that with two movies -- Django and The Hateful Eight -- his "plot writing" was a bit weak -- nobody supervised him, he sort of created situations he wanted to see, logic be damned. Still both movies are my favorites of their respective years -- the dialogue, mainly, and the actors, and the photography.
---
CONT
reply
share
roger1 (2543)
3 months ago
Schultz really didn't even need Django - Hilde could speak German and he could speak German. Calvin would have no doubt that Schultz would be fascinated with Hilde for that reason and would accept an offer 10X her value - but then, we wouldn't have a story with a grand Tarantinoesque bloodbath shootout where Django gets to rescue his princess himself.
---
.."we wouldn't have a story with a grand Tarantinosesque bloodbath shootout where Django gets to rescue his princess himself."
--
Exactly! In some ways, QT threw logic away ON PURPOSE so as to put Django forthrightly on deck for heroism. Indeed, as a matter ot tension, putting Django where he can SEE Hilde being mistreated by Stephen and Candie creates its own suspsense: Schultz hopes that Django will remain calm, remain stoic.. NOT start shooting, and Django holds out as long as he can until something -- somebody's DEATH -- forces Django to unleash in that bloodbath shoot out. We've been waiting the whole movie for this eruption, and it satisfies.
reply
share
strntz (11061)
3 months ago
It is very satisfying - of course except for Schultz's loss.
We have to face it, most movies are implausible at some level otherwise they would be far less interesting!
This movie is in my "guilty pleasure" file for sure.
reply
share
roger1 (2543)
3 months ago
It is very satisfying - of course except for Schultz's loss.
---
Yes... a sad loss...and very much a driver for Django unleashing hell in the seconds afterwards -- starting by killing the man who killed Schultz.
But then this movie had a heart to go with its action violence. Schultz being a good man(if a murderous one for a living) the love story of Django and Hildegaard, and the atrocities practiced on the slaves througout.
---
We have to face it, most movies are implausible at some level otherwise they would be far less interesting!
---
Oh, yes. I always think of Alfred Hitchcock(the granddaddy of a LOT of this type of cinema) who said "I practice absurdity quite religiously." He always mocked critics whom he called "the plausibles," always demanding logical explanations in his plots. He staged the climax of North by Northwest on Mount Rushmore because he WANTED to stage a climax on Mount Rushmore. The birds was about...attacking birds. Audiences were willing to go along both times and enjoy the fantasy.
Hitchcock also said "what is a movie, after all, but life with all the dull parts removed." Hah.
---
This movie is in my "guilty pleasure" file for sure.
--
Oh, I love it. And so did the motion picture academy, which gave Christoph Waltz a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for it(I loved it: an Oscar this time for a GOOD GUY, when his other QT Oscar was for a BAD GUY; a matched pair) and Best Original Screenplay(only Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained won QT screenplay Oscars; I think he coulda/shoulda won for every screenplay he wrote.)
reply
share