I just watched Django Unchained and am a bit unclear on a few details, please help me out.

Submitted by Zarguthian t3_10pabwa in movies

Why is Smitty Django's first bounty and not John?

Django's first kill as a bounty hunter was Big John Brittle. He then killed Little Raj but it was after his 3rd bounty, Smitty Bacall, when Dr Schultz tells him it's good luck to keep the handbill of your first bounty and gives him Smitty's handbill.

Why did Schultz shoot Monsieur Candie?

It was obvious this wouldn't go well for him, Django, or anyone really. Did he object so much to shaking his hand?

Why were the guests allowed to be armed at the dinner?

What's the deal with Stephen?

He talks to everyone like he's in charge and doesn't take shit from anyone, not even Calvin. Is he free? Also, why does he fake his leg injury? He also appears to be the Head House slave of Candyland, the lowest of the low according to our titular hero. This really doesn't make sense to me as surely the head slave has to be higher than the other house slaves.

Am I right in thinking that Django rode the horse naked – rather than saddled and bridled – to be faster on his way back to Candyland?

I don't understand the reimbursement for D'Artagnan. $500 for 5 fights, D'Art has done 3 so if he doesn't fight anymore that's $200, not $500, by my reckoning.

Was that guy (Mr. Stonesipher, I believe) originally holding the dogs in the scene with D'Artagnan up a tree meant to be understood?

I had to turn the subtitles on to understand him, he was about as coherent as Rick from Big Mouth, Kenny from South park or most of he characters from Weebl and Bob.

Why did Django pull Hoot's horse over?

He says "The name of the game is keep up, not catch up, nigger." as Django was a bit slow saddling his horse. This is like modern day banter, minus the racial slur of course (though how everyone says it in the film I'm not even sure if it was derogatory back then). And what was that about walking in moonlight and holding hands? Props to that stunthorse too.

Finally what is Django's wife's name?

The proper German Brünnhilde or this weird Broomhilda that I've only ever seen or heard in Django Unchained?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Beethovens_Stool t1_j6jgqmt wrote

Jesus, dude, it's a movie.

14

shogun_ t1_j6jijor wrote

Honestly it's almost like he didn't watch the movie. A lot of that is explained or even can be gleamed by context.

8

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jiq7f wrote

I'm autistic, reading between the lines is really difficult for me.

6

Problemwoodchuck t1_j6k0a7m wrote

I think I can help with a few of your questions. The order of the bounties isn't important. It's Django learning the ropes of being a bounty hunter to establish him as gunfighter so his big rampage at the end isn't out of nowhere.

Steven's position in Candieland is essentially he's a collaborator who enjoys some privileges due to his long standing relationship with Candie. He's far to old to labor, so he maintains his position through guile, flattery, and degrading others.

The money isn't the issue with D'Artagnan and Candie. It's about Candie having the power of life and death over D'Artagnan, brutally intimidating Schulz and Django, and establishing Candie as one of the movie's villains.

Schulz kills Candie out of contempt and probably some wounded ego after his plan to con Candie into releasing Hilde fails. There's also a good chance that Candie's men were going to kill them anyways, so Schulz may have just wanted to take Candie down with him. Tarantino deliberately avoids giving us clear answers in that scene; Schulz's "I couldn't resist" is meant to open to interpretation.

3

Zarguthian OP t1_j6k95jd wrote

>The order of the bounties isn't important.

To the main story, I agree but The former dentist says that it's is good luck to keep the first bill, this is still his 3rd unless there's something I'm missing.

>The money isn't the issue with D'Artagnan and Candie. It's about Candie having the power of life and death over D'Artagnan, brutally intimidating Schulz and Django, and establishing Candie as one of the movie's villains.

Similar to my issue before, the numbers are wrong but it works for the plot.

2

Problemwoodchuck t1_j6kblc6 wrote

I think the agreement between Schulz and Django regarding the Brittle brothers was for Django to earn his freedom in exchange for identifying them. After he shows skill as a gunfighter, Schulz takes him on as a partner/protege. The next bounty is Django's first as a full fledged bounty hunter.

2

Zarguthian OP t1_j6mbkps wrote

Yes, I guess that makes sense, if a slave does something, the master gets the credit.

1

Huevos___Rancheros t1_j6jija3 wrote

This guy makes cinemasins look like Roger Ebert

7

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jljn0 wrote

I used to watch that but it annoyed me quite a bit, especially the roll credits thing which I have struggled and failed to find a reason for as to why that is a sin and why it is "roll credits", my best guess is that sometimes it's said right at the end of a film or soon after it starts with opening credits but that's very rarely the case.

0

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jl8fl wrote

If that's your view then maybe you shouldn't be on this subreddit, no shade, just saying.

0

Dottsterisk t1_j6jil6x wrote

I can help out with some, but you’re probably gonna have to just rewatch the film, because it does look like you weren’t really paying attention to who these characters are.

But I’ll help out with a couple.

Schultz shot Candie because he absolutely detested every single thing that Candie stood for and he could not stand to A) be beaten by him or B) allow him to continue embodying everything that he views as wrong with the world. Probably a little more Column A than B. Candie demanding a handshake was not only rubbing in the fact that he got the better of Schulz, but also, in its way, demanding that Schulz seemingly approve of Candie and treat him with respect.

Why were they armed? I don’t remember if Schulz was conspicuously armed. Django probably would not have given up his gun.

As for Stephen, you’ve probably gotta watch it again, if you didn’t figure him out. It’s pretty straightforward and integral to the film.

And are you really confused that Django would call Stephen “the lowest of the low,” for having an important role on a brutal slaving plantation?

7

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jjgco wrote

>Why were they armed? I don’t remember if Schulz was conspicuously armed. Django probably would not have given up his gun.

After Stephen informed Monsieur Candie of the deception both their pistols were taken from their clearly visible belt holsters.

>And are you really confused that Django would call Stephen “the lowest of the low,” for having an important role on a brutal slaving plantation?

Yes, the fact that he's important means he isn't low at all! He seems to be running the whole house like a modern day butler or housekeeper would with a team of servants.

−6

Dottsterisk t1_j6jjrdq wrote

Then is your question only about Schulz’ hidden gun?

Do you know what it means to call someone “the lowest of the low”?

3

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jklxj wrote

>Then is your question only about Schulz’ hidden gun?

Calvin Candie: Mr. Moguy, would you be so kind as to collect the pistol hanging off these buys' hips here?

If they were hidden how could Candie know they had them? No one had drawn any guns yet except for the guy with the shotgun behind them.

>Do you know what it means to call someone “the lowest of the low”?

Maybe not, I thought it meant bottom rung on the hierarchy.

−2

Dottsterisk t1_j6jluz4 wrote

I have no idea what you’re asking, regarding the guns. They were armed because they’re bounty hunters traveling across dangerous country. They were disarmed when Candie discovered their deception. Schulz had a hidden gun and used it. Where’s the confusion?

And calling someone the lowest of the low is a moral judgment and not at all a statement about their place in a professional hierarchy.

1

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jn8wu wrote

>I have no idea what you’re asking, regarding the guns. They were armed because they’re bounty hunters traveling across dangerous country. They were disarmed when Candie discovered their deception. Schulz had a hidden gun and used it. Where’s the confusion?

Maybe it's a product of the time, it just seems odd to not disarm yourself or be asked to do so and be refused entry if not when entering certain places, like your host's premises. The only people I woudl expect to have weapons on them in this situation would be Candie's security team/guards.

>And calling someone the lowest of the low is a moral judgment and not at all a statement about their place in a professional hierarchy.

I understand that bit now.

1

ryan30z t1_j6m0blu wrote

It's a hidden gun, the whole point of a hidden gun is that it's hidden.

If you have a hidden gun you're not going to go "oh also here is my hidden gun".

2

nola_mike t1_j6jkakh wrote

When he refers to Stephen as the "lowest of the low" he isn't talking about his importance at Candyland. He's talking about him as a person specifically the fact that Stephen does everything he can in order to keep black people enslaved and ensure he has the absolute easiest life he can as a black man in the South during that time period.

He's essentially calling Stephen the biggest piece of shit out of the entire pile of shit.

3

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jl17z wrote

Ah, right, yeah I agree with that. Now that you mention it I think it was said that a black slave trader (Django's role) was called lowest of the low too.

1

Huevos___Rancheros t1_j6jiexr wrote

Don’t you think putting spoiler tags on every single question is a little redundant considering the post already has a spoiler warning?

1

Zarguthian OP t1_j6jixx6 wrote

It was automatically removed so I thought that might be the problem, I'll change it now and hope it won't get deleted.

1

SargeBangBang7 t1_j6lxlds wrote

Really nitpicky list of questions

Schultz shot Candie because Candie is an asshole. He is a sore winner and thinks he's better than everyone. He is a terrible human being. Shultz couldn't stand him being alive anymore so he shot him and didn't care about the consequences.

Everyone was armed during those times. They are guests they are allowed to be armed. Once they are seen as enemies they are disarmed.

Stephen is a slave. But he has been around so long and basically handles the day to day business. Candie is the owner but Stephen operates everything and has a cushy position. He has a cane to get sympathy and so people think he's a harmless slave. Him being the head house slave is the lowest of the low morally not in terms of hierarchy.

Nitpicky in D'artangnan. Candie paid 500 hundred for 5 fights. He paid in full he expects 5 fights. Candie can't get his money back either. If you pay someone to build a house you expect it to be completed not almost done and take a prorated price.

Django pulled over Hoots horse because he was disrespecting Django. It was clearly meant to be an insult.

1