RyzenRaider t1_j2bv5gc wrote on December 31, 2022 at 2:30 AM

I don't think he was an abolitionist. He shows no intent or desire to free other slaves at any point of the film, and the film ends on a happy note when he's finally reunited with Broomhilda. That's all he wanted.

He does come back and kill the last people associated with making Broomhilda suffer, but that's part of the revenge plot. Revenge is about satisfying a selfish desire for justice, and not justice for the community. So he didn't do it to free the other slaves on the plantation, he did it to get them back for harming him and his wife.

smoothjedi t1_j2bxu10 wrote on December 31, 2022 at 2:50 AM

>He shows no intent or desire to free other slaves at any point of the film

I disagree. When he was first saved, he freed the men he was with, and near the end he saved the guys in the cage. I think anyone in his situation at the start of the film would want to free others from the same fate. However it just wasn't the focus of the film, so it wasn't explicitly covered.

Papaofmonsters t1_j2bzpzf wrote on December 31, 2022 at 3:05 AM

Schultz freed the rest of the slaves at the beginning. And even he wasn't a staunch abolitionist. It was just the pragmatic thing to do. He had no problem owning Django and using his freedom as a bargaining chip.

Resident_Bitch t1_j2c26vk wrote on December 31, 2022 at 3:24 AM

Schulz did have a problem with owning Django though. He did it anyway because he needed the information Django had, but he specifically stated that he had a problem with it when they were drinking beer and waiting for the sheriff.

Papaofmonsters t1_j2c9qgl wrote on December 31, 2022 at 4:27 AM

Dr. King Schultz: I must admit, I'm at a bit of a quandary when it comes to you. On one hand, I despise slavery. On the other hand, I need your help. If you're not in a position to refuse, all the better. So, for the time being, I'm gonna make this slavery malarkey work to my benefit. Still, having said that, I feel guilty...

Yes. He felt so bad about it he was willing to own Django for his own personal profit... I think there is a word for that.

Resident_Bitch t1_j2cbxtd wrote on December 31, 2022 at 4:46 AM

I don’t think it’s really fair to call Schulz a hypocrite. Yes, he was willing to “own Django for his own personal profit” but I think that the “for the time being” part of that quote makes it pretty clear that his intent was to free Django.

Papaofmonsters t1_j2cc0tk wrote on December 31, 2022 at 4:47 AM

So slavery is cool if it's temporary?

RyzenRaider t1_j2c7tm7 wrote on December 31, 2022 at 4:11 AM

As per u/Papaofmonsters, Schulz saves the first batch of slaves, and Django doesn't actually do anything extra to save the slaves near the end.

Tarantino opens the cage and throws some dynamite in with the slaves. He does then reach for the cage door before it cuts to him picking up the next batch of dynamite. After Django then kills everyone, he approaches the cage and the door is still open. He needed to kill the slavers to get away, so he doesn't get abolitionist points for that. And he didn't open the door for them, because Tarantino's character didn't actually lock it before he died.