Django

Like Tree26Likes

Did anyone mention or wonder how a lot if the slave women got their hair the way they did in the film? I know I was curious.
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 52
I've had an opportunity to see it, but I wanted to wait for my SO to come with me.
I just saw it. I liked it. As far as historical accuracy, it's a Tarantino movie. If you want historical accuracy, go see "Lincoln". It is clearly a revenge fantasy, just like Inglorious Basterds was, and that is fine with me. But despite the inaccuracy and the over-the top violence and explosions that are Tarantino trademarks, I thought it was a good film. I thought the actors were all terrific. I enjoyed the cameos. I also thought QT did a great job juxtaposing the supposed refinement of these great southern plantations with the inhuman brutality that all that refinement was built on. And highlighted how everyone involved in the system was implicated in it (like Candie's sister, for example).
To Trenell, MizKerri and geeky:
I pray none of you ever has to live in a communist state.

Geeky is my hero. She's the true badass. The badass who doesn't even need to be a badass. There aren't enough O's in cool to describe her.
I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App
journotraveler likes this.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 01-13-2013 at 07:42 PM.
I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
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.
"
I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
first bolded:

that's what i thought. i think it took schultz killing candie for django to really see he was on his side adn trying to help him. have anyman helping him was a strange concept to him and all he cared about was getting back the one person in the world who he knew did care about him. no time for frienships.

second bolded:

was his teeth crowned? i never really loked at jamie foxx that hard to notice.

third bolded: sammy dont get no respect!! i think jamie is more respected in the acting world. he does have 1 academy and 2 nominations to show for his talent. sammy got nothing!! has people not seen pulp fiction? black snake moan? jungle fever? the man is awesome!
I liked it a lot but it dragged at times.

Django was out for self bc he had to be. He prbly would have shot Schultz in the back if it came down to it. Slaves were pawns of their master and couldn't be trusted to have each other's back. Hell, in the Nfighting scene, they were charged w literally killing each other.

The brutality of this movie will haunt me for a long time.

It was like some kind of really demented fantasy w a lot of bizarre Tarantino fetish thrown in.

Not to be crass but were those really Jamie Foxx's balls when he was upside down?

And do you think he consented to having the crowns on his front teeth changed just for the movie? Or was it just some kind of optical illusion?

About the slave women's hair: I don't think that it was really supposed to be looking any kind of way. it was just supposed to be slaves' hair...natural hair that they styled whatever way they could.

I have always said Samuel L Jackson is one of our time's most underrated actors. And I now feel that Jamie Foxx is also. They were both really outstanding. Actually everyone was.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using CurlTalk App
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
first bolded:

that's what i thought. i think it took schultz killing candie for django to really see he was on his side adn trying to help him. have anyman helping him was a strange concept to him and all he cared about was getting back the one person in the world who he knew did care about him. no time for frienships.

second bolded:

was his teeth crowned? i never really loked at jamie foxx that hard to notice.

third bolded: sammy dont get no respect!! i think jamie is more respected in the acting world. he does have 1 academy and 2 nominations to show for his talent. sammy got nothing!! has people not seen pulp fiction? black snake moan? jungle fever? the man is awesome!
Originally Posted by thelio
Yeah, Jamie Foxx (and Denzel) have those big Chiclet type crowns on their front teeth to close in big front gaps they used to have and were self conscious about.

But in the movie, Django had a small gap btwn his front teeth and his front teeth were chipped in the middle. Not his regular huge white teeth.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 01-14-2013 at 08:20 AM.
I do not agree with the generalisation that slaves could not be trusted to have each others back. This essentially says that the concepts of friendship and loyalty was completely absent from plantation life. It reduces slaves to what they were seen as property. All of whom lacked the basic capacity to trust another human being and fight for them if needed.

To use the Mandingo fighting seen as an example is not sufficient. This was a situation of fight or die, which was demonstrated later in the movie. If I was tasked with fighting to survive and having to kill another man to do it I sure as hell might. I'm not going to stand there and go, "but he's just like me."

We also need to remember that these fighters were from different plantations and therefore probably never knew each other. I'm sure there was some degree of solidarity for the fact that they we both slaves and that one of them had to die, but I liken it to the gladiators, someone had to die but that doesn't mean there is no sense of apology for having to kill you inherent to the process.

Essentially, that statement just not sit well with me. it's just like we are trying to reduce every single human being to rational, self interest, profit maximising agents, ignoring the intricacies of the psyche.

If we are talking about Django himself, I may have to sleep on that analysis some more. Thelio raised an interesting point that I need to flesh out before commenting on it.

But I do agree with the "pawns" part.
scrills likes this.
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.
"

Last edited by kayb; 01-14-2013 at 09:07 AM.
well, i wasn't speaking on slavery in the historic context, because of course they had each others back. harriet tubman, anyone?

but as far as the movie, which is a fictional historical drama, i think that is how django felt. he was alone it the world worth nothing more then what someone was willing to pay (which in history i'm sure slaves may have felt). the one person he loved more in the world and who loved him back was taken away. he didnt care about any of those other slaves.
I agree with KayB.

considering there were slave uprisings and slaves escaping together, I would assume that there was some friendships being formed. I didn't like that the movie made it seem otherwise. They even made mention in the movie as to why slaves didn't get together and fight

I wasn't suggesting the Django, had to make friends, but could have at least shown some solidarity. something. Anything. If they thought enough to have the slave smile, they could have thought enough to have Django say something.

In my opinion, the single-mindedness of the character made me dislike him. The doc helped him, he could have helped the slaves and it could have been in form of some quick suggestions. heck, they helped him. After the way he treated the slaves at Candyland, they could have lied and made sure he ended up in the mines right along with them.
well, i wasn't speaking on slavery in the historic context, because of course they had each others back. harriet tubman, anyone?

but as far as the movie, which is a fictional historical drama, i think that is how django felt. he was alone it the world worth nothing more then what someone was willing to pay (which in history i'm sure slaves may have felt). the one person he loved more in the world and who loved him back was taken away. he didnt care about any of those other slaves.
Originally Posted by thelio
that may be true, but that was also what made me dislike the movie character. He didn't grow in ways that I would have liked him to.

And I think it's odd to see a interview saying that young black men today need to see what slavery was like since they seem to think it no longer matters, but then not show strong male friendships. Sorry. not buying it
kayb likes this.
Interesting that you should mention character growth, Scrills. It had me likening Django to The Bride in Kill Bill. I would say that the Bride grew as a character, maybe because she found out that she was a mother. Django had tunnel vision and it came out perfectly with how he handled meeting up with the Brittle Brothers.

I'm thinking maybe because it's a revenge movie that it become the single driving force, but even then, Oldboy is a revenge movie and O Dasu grew as a character. I'm not sure I like how Django was written even though he is the central character.
scrills likes this.
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.
"
I would imagine most slaves lived in survival mode. just trying to get thru the day w/o being beaten or worked to death or meeting some other kind of violent end. And for some, trying to stay near their children.

I wouldn't assume there were going to be immediate bonds formed btwn slaves who had just met.

There were all sorts of fears and rivalries: men vs women, light vs dark, house vs field, old vs young, up the river vs down the river, born free vs freed, etc.

Survival oftentimes might have come down to placating massah, doing what you had to do and not going out on a limb for anyone.

That's not an assault on anyone's integrity. It's just the reality of trying to stay alive.

I'm sure there were plenty of friendships and fondness felt. But survival is always the first law of humankind.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


Last edited by spiderlashes5000; 01-14-2013 at 10:25 AM.
Interesting last line, not sure if I agree with it. Here is why.
There were a lot of family bonds on plantations, there were also a lot of suicides and matricides as well; because of this, I would agree that a counter point that love (be in self or maternal/paternal) can sometimes override one's own survival instinct which is why you have so many parents killing and dying for their offspring.

In the historical context of slavery, mothers would rather kill their children than have them subjected to a life of slavery. I do believe that there may be elements of survival of self in there as well, but I do not believe that survival is the first law of humankind.

As I said before, very interesting point and for sure it has given me food for thought.
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.
"
Interesting last line, not sure if I agree with it. Here is why.
There were a lot of family bonds on plantations, there were also a lot of suicides and matricides as well; because of this, I would agree that a counter point that love (be in self or maternal/paternal) can sometimes override one's own survival instinct which is why you have so many parents killing and dying for their offspring.

In the historical context of slavery, mothers would rather kill their children than have them subjected to a life of slavery. I do believe that there may be elements of survival of self in there as well, but I do not believe that survival is the first law of humankind.

As I said before, very interesting point and for sure it has given me food for thought.
Originally Posted by kayb
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.
kayb and thelio like this.
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG

Thanks for clearing that up.
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.
"
Interesting last line, not sure if I agree with it. Here is why.
There were a lot of family bonds on plantations, there were also a lot of suicides and matricides as well; because of this, I would agree that a counter point that love (be in self or maternal/paternal) can sometimes override one's own survival instinct which is why you have so many parents killing and dying for their offspring.

In the historical context of slavery, mothers would rather kill their children than have them subjected to a life of slavery. I do believe that there may be elements of survival of self in there as well, but I do not believe that survival is the first law of humankind.

As I said before, very interesting point and for sure it has given me food for thought.
Originally Posted by kayb
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.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
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.

The dog scene bothered the doc, but Django, nope.

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)?

Even the smallest gesture, like tossing them keys or saying "head in that direction"

Last edited by scrills; 01-14-2013 at 01:30 PM.
Interesting last line, not sure if I agree with it. Here is why.
There were a lot of family bonds on plantations, there were also a lot of suicides and matricides as well; because of this, I would agree that a counter point that love (be in self or maternal/paternal) can sometimes override one's own survival instinct which is why you have so many parents killing and dying for their offspring.

In the historical context of slavery, mothers would rather kill their children than have them subjected to a life of slavery. I do believe that there may be elements of survival of self in there as well, but I do not believe that survival is the first law of humankind.

As I said before, very interesting point and for sure it has given me food for thought.
Originally Posted by kayb
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.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
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.
Originally Posted by scrills
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?

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

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)?
Originally Posted by scrills
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)
3b (with 3c tendencies) on modified CG


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.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
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.
Originally Posted by scrills
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?

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

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)?
Originally Posted by scrills
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)
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000
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.
"

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com