[removed]

Jesus, dude, it's a movie.

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

This guy makes cinemasins look like Roger Ebert

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

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?

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

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

>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.

Then is your question only about Schulz’ hidden gun?

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

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.

>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.

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.

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

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.

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.

>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.

_______________________

thats a shame

_______________________

yes

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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".

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