I feel that some of the problems raised here are legitimate, but it is not realistic to expect one movie to adress the entire reality of what slavery meant.
Django's character isn't realistic, much like Uma's in Kill Bill isn't. It's not meant to be. It's fiction. For one thing, how did he know how to ride horses and shoot guns before we even got the part where Schutz starts mentoring him? What matters is did he expose the violence and cruelty of slavery in a way that was trueful? I would argue QT was well suited for this task, as he isn't afraid to depict violence and not sugarcoat how cruel men can be. There were moments when violence was romanticized, but not when directed at the slaves. He made sure those scenes struck a nerve.
Django didn't bond with other slaves, but I think that would have detracted from the story. This is very much a man who is focused on a mission. He is not out to make friends. When he killed the men who were taking him to the mine, I did also expect him to say something along the lines of what Schultz said to the slaves he freed in the beginning. But I'm glad he didn't. It would have been gimmicky and predictable. Schultz was wordy, used a sophisticated vocabulary that, as a running gag, nobody ever understood. Language wasn't Django strenght. Nothing needed to be said. He did free the slaves, didn't he? He is his own person and doesn't need to morph into Dr. Schulz (that would be an odd definition of growth, IMO).
That scene was more about the slaves looking at him in awe. To me, they were witnessing a legend being born. Artistically, a much better solution than having them all chat with each other. He is more like Clint Eastwood as the man with no name (a lone, mysterious cowboy) in the spaghetti westerns that influenced QT in that scene than like Schulzt.
I think character growth is overrated sometimes. I don't think every movie has to be about how a character learns to cease the day or whatever other self-help platitute you've seen in hundreds of other movies. Sometimes the external objective is enough. However, a character did go through a transformation, and that was Schulz. Having a secondary character go through a transformation instead of the primary one is also a valid narrative structure (one classic example: Ferris Bueller and Cameron) and a very sophisticated one too, I would argue.
Last edited by Dedachan; 01-21-2013 at 07:37 AM.