If he could have gotten out of Candyland with Broomhilda without a fight, he would have. That was the point of the charade.

Because the movie isn’t about the abolitionist movement, it’s about a guy trying to rescue his wife.

I think he never had a problem with going in violent. It was the German that wanted to do things peacefully.

[deleted]

i’m not 100% sure about that. don’t forget the scene where he shot candy and said something along the lines of “i couldn’t resist”. he def knew that this would cause mayhem for him and django.

An abolitionist wouldn’t have worn that suit

It was clearly a Revenge story about a man trying to save his wife, now obviously if he could have saved some of the other ones he would have and he did at the end when he let all the other black people leave except for Stephen , but like I said it's just an excellently told Revenge tale about a man trying to save his wife

Tarantino rightfully choose not to encroach on that topic for the film, and it being Django's superhero origin story works extra perfectly because you can imagine for yourself the adventures he went on thereafter including an abolitionist motive if you so wish

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.

There is zero evidence he was a tree doctor

You’re asking if a slave wouldn’t want slavery, as an institution, to end. Exceptionally stupid question.

Or that he terminates pregnancies.

You mean you wanna dress like that?

There are many historical cases of US slaves becoming free and then themselves owning slaves. With slavery it's all about money and power. Morals come second, no matter who you are.

>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.

Isn’t it Brunhilde?

He wasn’t Fredrick Douglass or John brown but killing that man slavers and blowing up a plantation. That’s direct action baby

brünhilde to be precise

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.

Not if it's personal rather than political.

Ah yes, his wife, Broomhandle.

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.

It has nothing to do with abolition

He could be both

..for good reason. There was the minor legal complication of Brunhild belonging to Calvin Candy.

Django didn’t care and wanted to go in shooting , but Fritz Doc Shultz made the logical point if they got out of Candyland alive he- and his wife- would be hunted fugitives for the rest of their days. If and when Django’s luck ran out ,his wife would be “repossessed” and end up back on the slave auctions.

Thus the charade. The goal was to get signed legal papers proving Django’s wife is no longer a slave. With a side bonus of not gunning down a plantation full of assholes.

Yes. Sadly my AutoCorrect disagrees

You're asking if a (former) slave is in favor of slavery?

To be precise, her name is Bendrecle Cumberflax.

Hypothetically, if you were enslaved by Calvin candie what difference does it make of his killer did it for personal or political reasons. You free

That’s because he could not stomach shaking Candy’s hand. I truly don’t think he went in insisting on violence. But some things are just too disgusting to do.

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.

And the film takes place so close to the Civil War that you can kinda imagine what Django and his wife could have done. Whether they would have gotten involved or just left it all behind.

In my historical fanfic series head-canon, I can imagine one scenario where Django meets Grant himself. It’s completely unnecessary but I just like the mental image of Django meeting the general who won the Civil War (with help from Sherman of course).

I never understood that. He had two shots. Why didn't he use the other one on the guy who took him down? He even saw it coming.

He is metaphorically destroying the institution of slavery when he explodes candyland. Check out this wisecrack video https://youtu.be/H5yvhP-9mik

That doesn't make it "direct action" either. Their freedom is a matter of circumstances beyond their influence or control. Direct action is a political term and Django didn't have an agenda beyond revenge.

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slave_owners

He’s abolitionist in the sense he probably doesn’t like slavery and wishes it was outlawed, but he wasn’t necessarily an outspoken abolitionist

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.

So slavery is cool if it's temporary?

He didn’t go in thinking it would happen that way though, the situation changed while they were there.

Well, in the famous words of Broomhilda, “before you do it, you must go through it, or else I blew it.”

This is an insane question.

Brunhildussy

Fritz was a horse. Doctor King Schultz was the man.

I would pay any amount of money for one scene of Django making fun of Jackson for being a fucking weirdo. Preferably in front of Lee and Longstreet.

Quite the dog whistle you have there.

Same here. Our own fanfic historical fiction universe. The Django verse.

Something tells me you’re not black

Nope, Black af.

That’s a lie, but okay.

How bout this? Kiss my ass, a punk mf. That Black enough for you?

You’re not black, it’s okay

You’re an idiot and that’s ok. The fuck anyone has to prove anything to you. Beat it.

Scram!? Skidaddle??

How do I block you? Go get a life.

Click their name and hit alt-f4

Imagining Django to feel great solidarity with people based on skin color is anachronistic, not in keeping with the character, not in alignment with his primary motive nor his mentor's identity, and frankly racist. Just because strangers have similar color skin doesn't make them your family or friends. It was a tough world. Django knew he couldn't really do much about something as vast as slavery, but he couldn't live without trying to rescue his wife.

In actual history there is the inspiring story of John Brown and his attempt to free many slaves and start an uprising. For those unfamiliar with his story please read up on him. Historians say that his efforts though a tragic failure at the time helped insure that the Civil War and freedom would come sooner than later.

Or that he has prejudicial opinions about mountain ranges in eastern North American.

He's just trying to get his lady. My friend, did you make up the abolitionist perspective or really curious? Because I can't see coming to that conclusion even if your head was up your ass.

Spaghetti westerns and probably elements of blaxploitation films of the 70's heavily influenced Tarantino's writing of this screenplay. Django is like the Drifter in Fistful of Dollars ultimately. He doesn't have too many high-minded ideals, but he is clever, quick with the gun, and gets what he wants most of the time.

I don’t think so. There’s far worse things you can do than arbitrarily shake a man’s hand, I don’t think that was Schultz’s problem.

I think that was only after witnessing the savagery of candyland(he was having flashbacks to the guy being eaten alive by dogs before he did it) that he decided sometimes you gotta throw legality and lawfulness out of the window, something that had been at the core of his character the entire movie(I remember in the opening scene he goes to crazy lengths to make sure he doesn’t do anything technically illegal)

This makes me think of how awesome an inglorious bastards style retelling of the Civil War would be.

There was definitely a bit of a pride factor there. They had gone through this whole brilliant charade to gain Brunhilde's legal freedom, but it was turned sideways right in its final moments. Not to mention, it wasn't even Calvin Candie who had uncovered the plot; it was Stephen, who only really figured it out through a hunch and later interrogation. Calvin, however, had such an aggressive superiority complex that he took full credit for uncovering the plot, and attributed it to being smarter than Schultz. The combination of Calvin Candie being such a disgusting person, the uncovering of the plot, and the heat of the moment is what caused Schultz to be unable to stop himself from killing him.

Probably in real German, but in the movie it’s spelled Broomhilda Von Shaft. Maybe it’s a play on the Slave owners ignorance, that they’d named her how it sounds over the true spelling.

They could have just offered insane money for Broomhilda candy woulda taken it. Movie over

EXACTLY …. Django didn’t exactly support slavery but wasn’t fighting against it either.

Broomhilda was the only thing he cared about

I could see a sequel where Django rounds up a team of renegade ex-slaves and goes on missions to free slaves from their plantations. As much as I’m sure he desires a quiet life in the north with his wife, Django’s major skill seems to be shooting, killing, and general badassery.

With a neigh and a curtsy of course

Dog whistle? It's literally a thing that happened in history.

Wait this whole time it thought it was John Randle

No he couldn’t take Calvin being all smug about winning and making him shake his hand. Candy unknowingly presented a perfect opportunity and Schultz “couldn’t resist”.

Which makes it an excellent contrast piece to Inglorious Basterds. They are both historic revenge fantasies but one is deeply personal while the other is about a bunch of men on military suicide mission (but also personal for some of them.)

that's how I took it as well.

It seems like he abhorred the inhumanity he witnessed slaves enduring. IMO he took pleasure in killing terrible people while staying within the confines of the law. Being forced to shake the hand of such Calvin was just too much.

Bro, how does it feel to say the correct answer but immediately contradict yourself and say it's wrong?

Because I know the definition of direct action and it doesn't include killing people for personal revenge. It has an inherently political element which is lacking from Django's actions.

Did he kill Calvin Candie? Directly? Did he burn down the plantation? Directly? Can people have primary goals and secondary goals too? Can you set out to do one thing have just happen to get to accomplish a second unseen goal? Did Django set out to end slavery all together? No of course not, but when the opportunity to end it for a few appeared in front of him... As everyone has stated before it's a revenge movie about a guy trying to save his wife... And get revenge. What's the thing he's trying to to get revenge for? Oh that's right, the whole slavery thing.

If I rob an armored car and in the process people are able to grab money floating around that doesn't mean it was political act to return money to the people from the bank. I just wanted money.

Django didn't give a shit if one slave escaped from Candieland outside of him and his wife. Sure he killed Candie and Steven but there are dozens if not hundreds of white overseers still on the property to keep the rest of the slaves in line.

Cope

Cope with what? That I actually understand the film's narrative and the character's motivation? Look, it's not like they killed Big Daddy for political reasons either. They killed him because he was actively trying to kill them.

Lmao, does Django have to stop murdering white supremacists to look at the camera and say "slavery is wrong. I'm going to end it with a gun". You're a fucking clown for trying to assert that Django is completely fine with slavery. Anything you say to imply this is just proof you're arguing in bad faith. Do you just not want one of the themes of the movie to be slavery is bad? Are you bending over this far backwards to make this argument for some other reason?

Slavery being bad is not the topic of discussion. It's about whether or not what Django was doing was direct action.

I'm not saying he's fine with it. I'm saying he doesn't care beyond getting his wife and getting the hell out of Dodge.

Human trafficking is bad, but in Taken Brian Mill's sole objective is to get his daughter back.

No, you're the one arguing about direct action. The thread is "is Django an abolitionist" you're twisting the argument again and again to fit you're belief. Can I ask you this.

When the movie is done is Django's wife free? She is still property. He just killed her owners but someone else would just claim ownership. All of those slaves Django doesn't free but let's go peacefully; why? Their witnesses to his crime of murder and theft. If his goal is ONLY to save his wife and get out of doge as you claim, then why leave witnesses? Why let himself be known?

Using Brian mills from taken is such a disingenuous connection. Did Brian mills grow up as a human trafficking victim? Did he spend 30+ years being brutally abused in every way a human can be, only to have the chance to confront one of him and his wife's abusers? You're acting as if slavery doesn't play into the story about slaves killing their masters. If slavery had nothing to do with the story then why set the story in the south, during slavery, from a slaves perspective?

Maybe you're right. I'm stupid and you're smart. You understand film themes and I watch pretty colors.

>When the movie is done is Django's wife free? She is still property. He just killed her owners but someone else would just claim ownership.

Candie sells her to Schulz.

>Their witnesses to his crime of murder and theft. If his goal is ONLY to save his wife and get out of doge as you claim, then why leave witnesses? Why let himself be known?

Do you expect him to murder everyone on the plantation?

If his goal is to get out of dodge, than YES! You would leave no witnesses.

Dude, his goal is to save his wife from what again? From being a slave. Django was unchained from what again? Being a slave. Did he accomplish his goal directly or indirectly?

[removed]

>feel great solidarity with people based on skin color

No one is suggesting it would be based on skin color. It would be based on the fact that he had been a slave.

The title of the movie is a hint.

Am I the only one who thinks Django was somewhat unlikable - and by the way, he was the one responsible for the poor runaway getting torn apart by dogs. You can say what you want about “staying in character”, but it made no sense why he’d go that far with it.

>There are many historical cases of US slaves becoming free and then themselves owning slaves.

There are more cases of survivors of childhood abuse becoming abusers themselves as adults.

The leap to concluding they are pro-child-abuse is, however, similarly tenuous.

For the record op her name is Brunhilde, not to be confused with the long running comic strip "broom hilda" of a similar name likely an allusion to the same opera character.

On that note, he's likely an abolitionist but that's not the focus of the story at all, even if it has parallels. There's certainly plenty of animus from the main cast for how the slave owners terribly treat their slaves, but while that might be related to abolitionism it's not exactly the same thing.

This is one of the dumbest takes I've read on this sub and they are always around issues of race. Black people under slavery which enslaved other blacks feeling racial solidarity would be anachronistic because... John Brown existed? Where do you even start unpacking that

He was a free man, a trained and possibly licensed bounty hunter. He at least knew the judges who would handle his bounties. I imagine him and his wife riding off to walk in Shultz shoes and make enough money to settle down comfortably somewhere reasonable.

and it would have made sense since he was german and she spoke german. What german dude wouldnt want a german speak slave if they wanted a slave. Didnt need django at all.

Idk but Django unchained was one of the best films I’ve watched.