MovieChat Forums > Django Unchained (2012) Discussion > Were their fates sealed?

Were their fates sealed?

posted a year ago by jpssteveshanahan (403)
12 replies | jump to latest

Obvious spoilers ahead:

I always wondered what would've happened if instead of Django shooting people, the moment the good doctor was blown away. What if he and his wife raised their hands and tried to reason with them. "We're sorry! We weren't expecting Dr Schultz to suddenly go trigger happy and kill Calvin. But rest assured we had nothing to do with his actions. Granted, your boss is dead. But so is the man responsible. You still have the money that was given in exchange for my wife's freedom. So let us be on our way, and we'll never come back". They probably weren't gonna let them leave anyway! But when Django started blasting. That immediately gave the impression that he had a hand in it.

Thus sealing their fate.

PS: I know! Try to reason with slave owners 😁

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

yaaa your PS sums it all up. if they were white, maybe but I even doubt that. Yes Shultz was dead but every single one of them would have wanted revenge for the death of their patriarchy.

add in the race situation and undoubtably they still would have found a reason to kill the "deceitful and evil N Django " just out of sheer anger to lash out on someone

[–] jpssteveshanahan (403) a year ago

Interesting! I read there was an omitted scene in the script that featured Calvin winning some sort of wager against another slave owner (that's how he got Broomhilda). Like with Dr Schultz, Calvin insists on shaking the man's hand as token of good faith. As soon as they exchange hands. Calvin reveals a knife he was concealing and stabs the guy to death. If included. This would have further justified his actions. Though it meant a surefire death sentence.

[–] LogicalLeftist (869) a year ago

hmmm that is an interesting scene. Calvin was ruthless but he let others do his dirty work. it wouldn't be impossible but would feel slightly out of character IMO for Candy to stab a man to death

[–] jpssteveshanahan (403) a year ago

Been trying to find the source but couldn't find it. Maybe it was on IMDB from back in the day. Here's a link that explains how Calvin won Broomhilda on that aforementioned wager, though the details are different:

https://www.indiewire.com/2013/04/from-script-to-screen-the-12-biggest-deletedunfilmed-scenes-from-django-unchained-99262/

[–] strntz (10885) a year ago

Most likely, with Schultz dead, Django would have had his freedom papers taken away from him and put back into slavery along with Brumhilda - at two different plantations. Oh, and they would keep the money...

Or, they might have killed Django, kept Brumhilda, and yes, kept the money...

I think after Schultz effed up the plan (he did), shooting his way out was Django's only chance to be free and rescue his wife.

[–] jpssteveshanahan (403) a year ago

Of course! No refunds 😁

[–] spurtle467 (1502) a year ago

I always find it hard to believe that Schultz had the premeditated idea to kill Calvin rather than shake hands, knowing full well it would almost certainly result in Django and Brumhilda's freedom ending, if not their lives. He was willing to undo all their work and sentence them back to slavery or death all in that split second. It almost feels out of character.

If he was stewing over having to shake his hand that much, I'd figure he'd come back at some point and kill him off. And I think if Tarantino had gone in that direction, the ending might be better and more satisfying as well, cause once Calvin is killed and the shooting begins the film goes kind of meh.

[–] strntz (10885) a year ago

What you said makes perfect sense (I say this because I said the same thing on another thread!) about Shultz being out of character - it certainly was.

The way I've come to accept the writing of his reckless and frankly stupid behavior was that Shultz was suffering from a PTSD-like condition. Now hear me out on this. Shultz saw a man brutally beaten then killed with a hammer during a fight for his entertainment, then saw another man ripped apart alive by dogs. If you rewatch the scene heading into the Shultz killing Candie scene, Schultz has a flashback about the man being mauled by the dogs. Schultz was clearly affected by what he had seen. He then had a gun put into the back of his skull and as his plan was discovered and forced to pay Candie the money or have his head blown off.

I think he just snapped.

Regarding the ending, I think that Tarantino wanted Django to rescue his wife alone (read that as without a white benefactor) and get revenge on the rest of Candie's crew and destroy his mansion without help.

[–] spurtle467 (1502) a year ago

Considering Schultz's profession of being a bounty hunter and having no problem killing for a living, I'm not sure I buy him being so haunted by those acts of violence inflicted on the slaves to the point he has some sort of PTSD. I just think the whole thing is a stretch for his character to commit that deed knowing the severe consequences it would have on Django and his wife (he even apologises straight after).

Schultz up until this point has come across as a considered and calculating character. He even had the plan to lure the KKK members into a trap earlier on. I think it's more likely he'd have been plotting in his head a way to get back at Calvin Candie, other than the course of action he took that puts all their lives instantly in jeopardy.

As far as the ending goes, I can see how Tarantino might have wanted Django to end up the main protagonist, but it could have still played out that way, if perhaps Schultz had been captured while they returned to take out Candie, or something similar. The fact is the film loses momentum for me when both Candie and Schultz are removed from it.

[–] strntz (10885) a year ago

Considering Schultz's profession of being a bounty hunter and having no problem killing for a living, I'm not sure I buy him being so haunted by those acts of violence inflicted on the slaves to the point he has some sort of PTSD.

Here's what's different: everything Schultz has done and every person he has killed has been "deserving" of death. They were all murderers according to the bounties placed on them and even evil men by Schultz's own morals.

But this goes off the rails when he witnesses an otherwise innocent Mandigo fighter brutally beaten then finished off with a hammer in his skull for his entertainment! He then sees a slave ripped apart alive by dogs for having the gall to try to escape to freedom. Up to this point, Shultz's participation with death has been lawful and "moral". Now he's seen two innocent men violently killed.

Further, why did Tarrantino show Schultz having a mental flashback to the slave ripped apart by dogs? Was it not to clearly show how Schultz was affected by what he saw?

Absolutely, Schultz killing Candie was out of character for him but a lot of people do unexplainable things when they crack.

[–] spurtle467 (1502) a year ago

Further, why did Tarrantino show Schultz having a mental flashback to the slave ripped apart by dogs?

This is what Tarantino and the film have presented, yes, I just don't think it would have had that sort of impact on Schultz. He's probably seen and experienced stuff equally as bad before in his line of work, travelling through the deep south at that time. I mean I get that morally he's against all that brutality and dislikes Candie, but a trained killer being that mentally disturbed by it, I'm not so sure.

Anyway, we just accept that he snapped at having Candie rubbing his face in it with the handshake. It was too unbearable for him to live with I guess. To me it served as an excuse for Tarantino to have an over the top shoot out at that moment. A redoing of the Kill Bill scene, only with guns instead of katanas. Neither of these scenes really does anything for me, I'll be honest.

[–] strntz (10885) a year ago

All I know is that I would be rich if I had the sales account that provided fake blood to QT...