Thread: Django
View Single Post
Old 01-14-2013, 02:00 PM   #40
kayb
 
kayb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrills View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000 View Post

Well, that was the case in Beloved, but there were many, many more slave mothers who reconciled themselves to the fact their kids would be slaves, too.

No one is saying slaves didn't have the capacity to love. Just that it would be naive and unrealistic to think Django was going to roll up to Candyland and, feeling so overcome w/ empathy and cameraderie for the other slaves he met there, would have jeopardized his own position to befriend them.

Without Schultz, Django had no power whatsoever and had nothing to offer anyone.
I would agree but....

1) He went above and beyond belittling them. That almost ruined the mission (as they were on the horses coming in to Candyland, right before the incident with the fighter and the dogs). Am I forgetting something? I get that he was trying to show how he was a black man doing a horrible job but what he did was unneccasary. Did this help the mission at all?


2) it would have cost him nothing to say something/assist those also on his way to the mines (after he blew up Quentin)

3) In one scene he is saying that a black Mandingo trader was a horrible person, but in the next scene he is being the worst kind of Mandingo trader. In my opinion, that means he was aware and had the capacity to care for another slave.
But hadn't Schultz like beaten it into Django that he wasn't to step out of character. That he had to be convincing and he ought to play the role in a certain way. That a Black slaver had to be like scum of the earth? If Candy suspected differently, then the plan wouldn't work.

Why would he step out of character and risk messing it all up to befiend the other slaves.

The moment he let his guard down and Stephen (SamL Jackson) caught on...what happened?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrills View Post
The dog scene bothered the doc, but Django, nope.
Django might have witnessed attacks like that before. Plus, he had to stay in character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrills View Post
In the scene on the way to the mine, I think I just wanted Django to seem as smart as the doc was in the first scene. The doc was smart. The doc cared. The doc grew. Why not Django (in ways other those that were violent)?
Not sure what you mean.

But I don't think you can compare the reactions of a free, White, educated dentist-turned-bounty hunter to a brutalized slave. I woud expect the slave to stay stonefaced about a lot more things than fancy pants.

(Jamie and fancy lol)
I do not have the energy to address the last bolded right now.

Re: Stephen suspected Django there is a scene deleted from the movie which explains the hostility btwn the two which may have led to Stephen suspecting and being extra vigilant around Django, it has nothing to do with his stepping out of character. How did he even step out of character?
__________________
I ain't thirsty. There's plenty of fish in the sea, but I don't want all of them, can I have some standards? Or do we just have to settle, for someone's who meh and will do.
"
kayb is offline   Reply With Quote