Why Does Dr. Schultz REALLY Die?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ค. 2024
- Dr. Schultz is an unbased cringe chungus.
Social Media:
Second Channel: / @sir.jeverjivesjup
Tweeter: / sir_give_up
0:00 - Intro
6:15 - Schultz: The Bounty Hunter
12:26 - Candie: The Mandingo Fighter
16:10 - This Movie Is Not (Just) About Slavery
20:17 - Conclusion
#djangounchained #movieanalysis - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
New video:
th-cam.com/video/NIL5wNXC1w4/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=Sir.NeverGiveUp
To save some time, it's because Tarantino wanted Django to be the main hero in the end. Not Schultz, or Django and Schultz.
You’ve ruined it all
It’s how all hero movies are written for the most part, not original, typical hero screenplay. Same with Luke and Obi-Wan Kenobi. The hero isn’t quite the hero yet but the hero has a talent and a motivation, then the teacher takes him to the next level with training, then the teacher dies making the hero angrier and more motivated, then the hero kills everyone and saves the day.
Thanks dude. Saved me 20 minutes of random rambling. Much appreciated.
To get to the Django shootout.
It's the reason why Will Smith declined the role. He felt like Shultz was the Star instead of Django.
Schultz is a really well written Lawful Neutral character who slides into Neutral Good area in time, in D&D terms.
All the way to chaotic good. Murder for environmental or moral good. The change is multi stage. From a DM xx well noticed, I do the same myself 😊
Was brought here cause I'm making a chatacter like the Dr. But in different ways
Schultz is not pragmatic at all. It is just an act. He didn't have to go through everything with Django, even sharing his bounties, only to identify the Brittle Brothers. He also took insane risks with the Sheriff, the Marshal and Big Daddy only to put on a good show. Schultz is the archetypical German emigrant making his own heroic adventure in the New World. He is a Karl May figure with a twist.
I think these takes overlook the historic background - the German one, that is.
Schultz, having studied at a German university, will almost certainly have taken part in the 1848/49 democratic revolution.
Democracy lost, the princes won, and many revolutionaries were being forced to emigrate to avoid being shot or imprisoned.
Marx and Engels to the UK, Dr. Schultz and thousands of other German revolutionaries to the US. Many became disillusioned with their new home allowing slavery, but they felt as mere guests at first, and did not want to try to overthrow the system a second time and lose again.
That changed with the US civil war, were those (militarily experienced) revolutionary fighters often were first to volunteer to the Union colors, but we are years before that, and Schultz has no real outlet for his inner feelings beyond hunting the worst of humanity.
So Schultz submits to his fate for a while, gets on with the bounty hunter job and ignores the ideals of his youth.
Until Candy finally puts Schultz into a position where all the hate for the (fake) aristocratic slave holders breaks free again, finally.
Tough luck for Django, but you can't have a revolution without breaking some eggs...
It was certainly a good show but I agree. Were it not a movie they would’ve been gunned down the instant shots went off
I think he simply found the situation too perfect to pass up; Candie demanded the handshake and Shchulz opposed it, so he used this opportunity to use his handy dandy derranger. "If you insist" "I'm sorry, I couldn't resist"
I also like the idea from another commenter; Schultz needed the “slave trader” persona he was putting on (he repeatedly talks about being an actor at heart) to stomach being in the room with slave traders, and once candie figured them out, he couldn’t stand it and did the first thing anyone would do in a room with a slave trader and a gun: shoot ‘em
@@thefatherinthecave943 "and did the first thing anyone would do in a room with a slave trader and a gun: shoot ‘em" very true
I once had a professor who asked us what we thought the meaning of a piece of media was. When I started giving my opinion with "I believe" or "In my opinion", he quickly corrected me by saying something along the lines of "Analysis is the meaning that you see. Treat your analysis as the objective truth and it will be stronger for it". This doesn't mean to not accept criticism or feedback after. It just means that the analysis will be stronger if you don't go like "but thats just my opinion" at the some point.
Its just something that stuck with me that I think would make your style more compelling. Great video!
The problem with this is, you get a cavalcade of negative comments telling you that your opinion is not fact. So, you have to choose between either following the proper conventions of persuasive writing, or getting bombarded by an army of turds that don't understand that "in my opinion" is implied when speaking on non-objective matters.
@@augoosto11 This will 100% happen. It will also incite comments from people who wouldn't otherwise comment, increasing the videos engagement. 🧠💯
@@sharker100 well, try making a few videos, and you tell me how worth it the extra 5% engagement is to get bombed by negative comments. Not everyone could shut those out. I know I had trouble. It's a " pick your poison" type situation.
"Treat your analysis as the objective truth"
Except this is pretty much what a lot of ppl do and they even overdid it by gaslighting into others thinking that is indeed the objective the truth, not just for the sake of making an analysis.
@@gwakkkroniicler6400 how can you be "gaslit" into believing the objective truth is something with no objective answer? I mean it's one thing if someone makes a video saying "the objective truth is that 2 is actually 4", and another if someone makes a video saying "Wonderful 101 is objectively the greatest action game ever made". The former could be misleading, but if you are taken in by the latter, you're either very stupid, or were actually swayed by the videos argument, which presumably is the goal it had to begin with.
Shultz %100000 was not acting maliciously with the slavery comment. He def was pretty sure django would help him once he knew the context of his request. But i def think if django insisted on going his own way Shultz wouldn’t have stopped him
Another extremely interesting aspect of your take is that "morality through legality" is a major overarching theme for the film as a whole. The antebellum south couldn't have functioned without that mindset so it informs a lot.
P.S. I shouldn't have thought to type this before I reached section 3 since you directly mention this lol
didnt expect to see you here mang
I think that at the library, after Candie made Schultz and Django drop the act, Schultz was thinking about what he had done - what he had seen - in order to get where he was. Playing a character was very important to Schultz because he simply cannot tolerate being at the same level as a monster like Candie. Right there, he realized that he would rather shoot this man and die than level with him. After all, if all Schultz cared about is the law, why not just shake the mans hand? It was about more than the law at that point. Candie made it personal.
That’s an interesting point. Schultz needed the character he was playing so that he could distance himself sufficiently from the moral conflicts of being in a room with those horrible people and doing business with them instead of killing them outright as they deserved. Once the character was stripped away from him, he couldn’t function anyway so he chose the only moral choice he had, killing Candy.
That’s an interesting point. Schultz needed the character he was playing so that he could distance himself sufficiently from the moral conflicts of being in a room with those horrible people and doing business with them instead of killing them outright as they deserved. Once the character was stripped away from him, he couldn’t function anyway so he chose the only moral choice he had, killing Candy.
Maybe Shultz remembered the last time he made a deal with someone they carved a swastika in his head, thats a new theory there you go, its the Tarantinoverse.
The christoph waltziverse
The pronunciation of D'Artagnan is: Dar tan yon
He's the main protagonist in The Three Musketeers.
Just watch any Three Musketeers movie, and you'll get it.
Personally, I recommend watching the 1973 version.
The algorithm shows me a random video from a channel with 200 subs and great production value? This guy's sub count is about to blow up
buddy edited clips together and got mic. wtf you talking about production value.
actually it sounds like he recorded this in his bathroom with all that echo in his voice recording.
Bro it’s always the channels that have less than 20,000 subs that make some of the best content I swear
thats because the ones with 500k+ are fully at the mercy of the algorithm and have to churn out constant content. while lower subcount channels are not yet at a point of requiring to 'stay on the surfboard, dont fall off because you may never catch a big wave like this again" and have the time and such to put together a more thought out video that took a bit longer to make.
Great analysis. I think another note is that Django and his heros journey speak to Shultz. Whether it's something as fickle as saving Broomhilda, or at the end, taking down such broken systems as slavery and injustice, Schultz believes in Django by the end of the film. He wants to, past the law which has been his moral or definitive standard, see Django succeed. That's why he kills Candy, because he knows Django will see himself out of this.
P.S. there is also a little bit of suicidal nihilism to his killing of Candy, which you slightly mention. Schultz has justified all his wrongs upon a system of laws and rules he justified and so I think a part of his character (personal chracter, not written chracter value) kind of crumpled when faced with other horrors that thinly veiled, evil system allows. In a way I think his final, "I couldn't resist", is him acknowledging to Django that he could never resist his own evil, but that Django could. Or at least, that Django could live with his own evils. Which he does. Django murders a whole a family, and saves his wife. The End.
I always assumed he chose to die and not shake hands because he knew Calvin also had a sleeve gun because he was so insistent on the handshake but because he also had a sleeve gun which is often used with a handshake movement , if he shakes hands he dies if he shoots first he dies so he went with the better option and took him out first
It doesn't seem likely that Calvin would have one too, he was a plantation owner who saw himself as a king and had others do his dirty work, the handshake was more of a spit in your face move signaling that Calvin had won
Candy wanted the handshake to be one last middle finger to Schultz, to show Schultz Candy was the one in control of the situation and to make him jump through one more meaningless hoop.
Candy has no need to kill Schultz and it would be ungentlemanly to kill in cold blood. If he wanted satisfaction for the insults he could duel him.
Schultz basically one upped Candy's last middle finger with his own, hence, "Sorry, I couldn't resist."
Sometimes I wish Quentin Tarantino wouldn't talk so much. I think it devalues his own work
He is a nerd what do you expect
We could all read a book instead:P
You aren't kidding. Been thinking the same for years. To hear another that others think this..anyway. glad it's not just me. I watch and think . Genius. Hear him and think. Huh whaaaat the F....
That can be said about anyone that talks too much
He doesn’t plan to but can’t help himself.
Watching that scene you notice the tension amd the fact that candie had djangos girl at gun point and said "if he does not shake my hand then shoot her down" shultz reached the point where he had no choice AND candies honor and TRUSTWORTHINESS was in serious question at that point. Considering everyone at candieland was a witness on candie's side im sure it wouldnt be hard to imagine that a couple bodies could be buried on candieland, never to be mentioned again. I think shultz realized this was the end of the line and it was starting to look like no matter what he did, things were going south because mr candie was never satisfied unless he felt like he had your FULL submission to his way. He was a slave driver who liked to watch men beat each other to death. Shultz knew it was time to shoot your way out.
I think we should give Christoph Waltz another applause for his performance as Schultz, I genuinely believe if it wasn't for his performance this sense or any of his character wouldn't be as talked about as how much he is now.
(I also find it funny that Django Unchained came out 3 years after Waltz played the complete opposite of his character Schultz as Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, being a complete monster and being fullied indoctrinated into the Nazi party's belief system.)
Honestly yeah. Landa's a great performance but I also love Schultz just as much!
omg i always thought candys death was shot weird, I never noticed it matches jango shooting the brittle brother! but I think in the same way jango changes shultz morals, shultz changes jangos by making him use the law cover morally questionable things (stealing broomhildas document and killing everyone else)
I loved this video! Plus I love Tarantino. You have a new subscriber! The “Shultz loosing respect for the law” that upholds & protects people who have other people ripped apart by dogs (plus the mandingos). It really made me rethink the whole ending
Schultz for one couldn't handle being bested by a slave owner whom he despised for how he handled Dartanan and for two he couldn't bring himself to shake Candies hand because in Schultz mind it would make himself no better than Candie for having made purchase of a slave. Just my opinion of course plus I know QT wanted Django to be the main Victor in the end
One of the better analysis videos from a smaller channel. I'm hoping you get the views and subs you deserve
Thank you for your contribution, I haven't seen the original video essay that you mention here, but all your arguments and elaboration seems to me like quite natural way of reading the scenes and the whole movie and it's quite funny that it was neccesarry to correct some statements from Mr. Anime video. :d But yeah, that's the beauty of art - it can be read in many ways. Again - thank you for very enjoyable 22 minutes!
Morality through legality. I didn’t
See it at first but this definitely opened my eyes to the notion despite it being so obvious upon retrospect. He was using the law as a justification for his actions no matter how ethically challenging certain bounties maybe.
He was always uncomfortable with the barbaric practices of the antebellum south but did not intervene because it would be against the law to do so.
So we look at Shultz disagreeing with Django’s methods as hypocrisy on his part because he was willing to kill a man in front of his son because in that previous scene it was probably the most pragmatic to do so. This also assumes that Django is being pragmatic and selling the act by berating the slave. Embracing the by any means necessary approach to accomplish said mission of reuniting with Brumhilde.
I think it was a combination of events that caused Shultz to snap. Between the Mandingo fight, the dogs ripping a man apart, pulling people out of hot boxes, candies ignorance, unsophistication, sadist behavior, and his pleasure he gains from it. Then the idea of being bested by him out of nowhere had sent him over the edge. Which ironically enough Steven was the one bested him I don’t even think he knew. Not to mention the playing of Beethoven replaying the scene like a Mantra in his head.
Was it reasonable no, do I understand why he did it yes.
Great work!
I agree with your analysis for the most part. However in my opinion I don't feel that Schultz loves the law. Maybe I misinterpreted the video, but at one point it seemed like that was a point you were making. From my watches I always saw him as an opportunist that had a strong disdain for certain parts of american culture, slavery being one of them. I believe he used being a bounty hunter as a means to make money within the confines of the law that also to him feels moral. I do think he feels justified in what he does atleast until questioned, but if I had to guess I don't think he'd care much about the law other than staying out of trouble himself unless he saw an opportunity to get paid. That said I'm not saying he's a secret anarchist, I just think he uses the law to his benefit financially and morally instead of him actually having faith in the system. This could just be my head canon, but that's my opinion.
On the whole I agree with you, in retrospect my video could have been more explicit. I think Schultz, despite hating slavery, is too attached to the law.
He fears the prospect of breaking the law and therefore his protests ammount to rather weak upholdings of the status-quo.
Django represents a more radical approach, one that understands the unfairness of his system and therefore doesn't respect it.
Thanks for the criticism :) I really appreciate it.
@@SirNeverGiveUp Hey I appreciate you reading it and responding. I agree completely. I wasn't necessarily trying to criticize, but I guess technically I was. Great video!
@@twizn1tch criticism doesn't have to alway be negative :)
I think these takes overlook the historic background - the German one, that is.
Schultz, having studied at a German university, will almost certainly have taken part in the 1848/49 democratic revolution.
Democracy lost, the princes won, and many revolutionaries were being forced to emigrate to avoid being shot or imprisoned.
Marx and Engels to the UK, Dr. Schultz and thousands of other German revolutionaries to the US. Many became disillusioned with their new home allowing slavery, but they felt as mere guests at first, and did not want to try to overthrow the system a second time and lose again.
That changed with the US civil war, were those (militarily experienced) revolutionary fighters often were first to volunteer to the Union colors, but we are years before that, and Schultz has no real outlet for his inner feelings beyond hunting the worst of humanity.
So Schultz submits to his fate for a while, gets on with the bounty hunter job and ignores the ideals of his youth.
Until Candy finally puts Schultz into a position where all the hate for the (fake) aristocratic slave holders breaks free again, finally.
Tough luck for Django, but you can't have a revolution without breaking some eggs...
Great video! How do u only have 200 subs?! I’m subbed rn!!!
But you never answered your question. And I will: He kills Candie because he couldn’t twist his ideology of Law into his Moral Compass. Candie was a law abiding, educated man PROTECTED by the Law. The haunting death of a man named after his favorite book character, and Candie trying to lord his superiority over him, got him to realize the falling of Law, and he embraces Justice. Tarantino is always making movies about Justice over Law.
Subscribed hoping for more movie analysis/videos like this!
So I clicked on this video because I watched Django unchained 30 times at this point and wanted some youtube content. I was given a wacky ,but also serious, subversive something. I approve of this something. Do more movie videos. I want to hear more of your takes. Rest in pepperoni Schultz.
Thanks 💖 I appreciate the kind words :)
One of my pet peeves is that almost anything you watch the most random thing is foreshadowing by some people. Its just one of those things the film maker of them times likely did not intend at all to imply, but its any random thing
Great video and great analysis! What's the music piece that plays at Section one, Schultz the bounty hunter?
Thanks, I can't remember the exact music. But it's from the Rango for xbox 360 soundtrack lol
@@SirNeverGiveUp Thanks a lot! Keep up the good work sir!
He sacrificed himself for Django’s goals imo, Schultz is a bounty hunter, not a profession one chooses for a long happy life, nor is it one where they are drawn to it for being happy, it’s a short often brutal life, Schultz paid it forward with his life to give two ex slaves a good life together, which is part of why it’s such a good sacrifice in my opinion. Also, as bounty hunters, they get to act as brutal or lawful as the situation needs, the west overall was a brutal place where one could die numerous ways especially if you were unwilling to act
Schultz kills Candy because there would be no reason for Django to destroy Candy Land since the deal was successful in the end. Django and this the viewer could not enjoy their revenge if Shultz hadn't killed Candy. Pure story utility to get to the shootout in the end.
Pronoucing D'artagnan as Bonjouro got me! Very funny and good analysis
I enjoyed this video, good luck with your channel growth.
The way southern americans pronounce d'artagnan (and in the movie) as "dar-tanyan"
How do you pronounce it
@@andrewmaddox2889 like a mix between that and the french
With french and Italian, you can consider the "gn" letter combination to sound similar to the Ñ in spanish. Like Lasagna is lasanya in italian.
Likewise the French town of Avignon is pronounced similar to "Avinyon"
50 seconds in I knew I was going to love this channel. E,r vibes! New sub here
Most of Tarantino's movies are about being allowed to be horrible to other people because those people are horrible.
I enjoy watching different people's analysis of the same media, especially when it's literature analysis. Literature analysis is something that I "don't get" the standard thoughts on (neurdivergent). Dr Octavia Cox is a classic lit channel that dives into specific paragraphs or sentences. The older the text, the more removed from the way of language. Language is an ever evolving thing and even just a few years can show shifts.
Wow, what incredible quality for such a small channel. Keep it up
Thanks 💖
Still one of my favorite movies. I've seen it waaaaay too many times. Sometimes, I think Schultz shot Candie because he simply WANTED to do it. in that moment, nothing mattered to Schultz except killing Candie. No bounty, no plan to survive after, no exit strategy for Django/Hildy, no reward, no reason. HE COULDNT RESIST!
Yea, he's seen first hand what Candie does for his enjoyment, and he absolutely hates him. The one thing that probably kept Schultz calm was the opportunity to get one over Candie, but instead, it was the opposite. Once Candie decided to rub it in with a handshake, he couldn't stand it anymore.
I think these takes overlook the historic background - the German one, that is.
Schultz, having studied at a German university, will almost certainly have taken part in the 1848/49 democratic revolution.
Democracy lost, the princes won, and many revolutionaries were being forced to emigrate to avoid being shot or imprisoned.
Marx and Engels to the UK, Dr. Schultz and thousands of other German revolutionaries to the US. Many became disillusioned with their new home allowing slavery, but they felt as mere guests at first, and did not want to try to overthrow the system a second time and lose again.
That changed with the US civil war, were those (militarily experienced) revolutionary fighters often were first to volunteer to the Union colors, but we are years before that, and Schultz has no real outlet for his inner feelings beyond hunting the worst of humanity.
So Schultz submits to his fate for a while, gets on with the bounty hunter job and ignores the ideals of his youth.
Until Candy finally puts Schultz into a position where all the hate for the (fake) aristocratic slave holders breaks free again.
Tough luck for Django, but you can't have a revolution without breaking some eggs...
This video feels like a wonderful mix of LazerPig and early Ralphthemoviemaker.
Well made video, surprised of the subscriber count honestly! Here. Have my sub
My guy out here rocking the Rango and deathloop music
I think you misinterpreted my video in some ways. Firstly, “Schultz thinks Becall deserves this for some moral failure”. I don’t think I ever made that point, even in the clip you use. Schultz is clearly more concerned about Django’s perception of this event rather than whether Becall deserves this or not. Even by the end of the scene, it is not clear if both of them agree Becall deserves death, but they do agree on the trade being the way it is, and this is how you deal with the issues you are having.
I think you could go down the path of morals through legality, but I don’t think it’s right to argue that the handbill is some sort of legal ploy to convince Django. First of all, I heavily doubt the possibility of Django being concerned about what Smitty Becall did at all because the only question he is having involves killing a man in front of his son.
Yes, murder is illegal, and you have to be a bounty hunter to do these things, but to that end, if Django was concerned about the murderous aspect of bounty hunting, he wouldn’t have been relatively enthusiastic about “killing white folks for money”. This ties into Schultz using the handbill not to pull on Django’s legal heartstrings, but to win him over with the brutality of his Becall’s crimes. Not to highlight an idea of “since the crimes of Becall were gruesome and illegal, I believe I am in the right to carry out the law, and you should feel that way too Django!” If we were to assume Schultz was simply misunderstanding where Django was coming from when he was against killing Becall, then I could see where you are coming from. But in this circumstance, there is no telltale sign that Schultz would bother to use the handbill in a legally coercive way when the issue is clear that Django doesn’t feel right to kill a man in front of his boy. The only avenue Schultz could have possibly delved into is to help Django cope with the reality of the trade, in the same way, he does, which is dancing around moral questions, not with legality, but with misshapen beliefs and understanding means to an end. Maybe if there was a quote in the movie talking about his opinion on lawmakers or lawmaking in relation to his trade, or even like a spare line that’s like Gee WIlikers! I wish those Capitol Hill doofuses would stop this bounty-hunting nonsense so I don’t have to kill people! Frankly, I don’t think this particular scene is the best evidence of this idea at play.
I agree with your other scene choices for this idea like the Marshal and Big Daddy confrontations because those actually display Schultz using lawmaking to his advantage, but still, I don’t think it’s about necessarily agreeing with their validity. So I don’t think it’s reasonable to gauge if Schultz even believes in lawmaking as a strength of his character. It seems more reasonable to think of the law as something in his arsenal. But even then, he is portrayed as a pretty well-rounded figure, being able to weave his way through tricky situations with charisma and logical conclusions that anyone could agree with. So at least in my eyes, him having a morality defined by legality doesn’t really feel any more apparent than his subtleties. I’m pretty sure it’s just straightforward morality arguments being made.
You also bring up Django and Australians as evidence of this, but I think that’s Schultz’s influence kicking in, not his strict ideals going 1 for 1 into a new person.
As for the PTSD point, I didn’t really see the impact of it as a critical moment to Candie’s death in the sense that, because he is a brutal slave owner, this is grounds for his death? Because Schultz has probably paid visits to many slave owners in search of his bounties, it isn’t a stretch to assume in his experience, he has seen quite a few monstrosities occur, but none as particularly horrible as on Candie’s plantation. But still, the grounds to kill a man over that is quite the argument that I would have to make. As this evidence plays on those parallel scenes alone, where I think the issue of Candie’s death, at least in my opinion is strongly favored on the self-ideals at play. In order for the Mandingo fighting parallel to D'Artagnan to work, I think that the argument I would have to make would involve Schultz being a character that has such a code, that he would really go out of his way to make sure true justice should be done to one of humanity’s worst. So if I were to explore what I phrased as a “PTSD thing”, I believe I would have just made a different video covering his code of justice and retribution.
I do agree that I underplayed Schultz’s aversion to people like Candie, and I do think it's reasonable to say that, like Django, he is also playing a character, but perhaps 2. One is of the immigrant mandingo enthusiast looking to make a purchase, and the other is a person that is ok with moral degeneracy. And the second character is the one that really starts cracking.
I think the rest of the video is you bringing into question the contradiction between Schultz loving the law but despising slavery. But in order for this to work, we would actually need to understand if he even “loves the law”, which I don’t believe I really understood completely through your examples. But assuming I did believe your sentiment about him being more concerned about legality, your new points about him questioning the law because slavery is legal and you can have dogs rip a man apart is something I don’t really understand. And just when you bring up these points, which could be interesting, you go down the route of historical inaccuracy when I’m pretty sure there's movie evidence to support these claims. For example, you could chalk up him in Candie’s library thinking about “that poor devil you fed to the dogs today” as a possible question of the institution. Although I think it’s more of an emotionally founded devastation towards D'Artagnan, I could see you argue that. But I think your last segment’s tangent in meta-commentary towards historical fictionality rather than the intricacies of how this film isn’t about slavery should have been cut from the script. Just me though, just kind of felt odd pacing-wise. Especially when you re-enter the argument with “being able to legally kill slavers is quite fun, and it definitely seems to make Schultz feel better”. I have to hard disagree with this sentiment because I don’t think any context of the film supports the idea of Schultz's killing equating to a better feeling about himself. He kills because he has to and because it is his trade. I don’t believe there is any joy in doing such things for him. He may be nonchalant about killing the Speck brothers after being antagonized, but I heavily doubt he feels a positive emotional jump from it. You also pose that these killings don’t help, in relation to his relative moral status to his relative legal status. I think that’s what you are saying. But even in that case, you pose the idea that Schultz has an intent of fixing a broken system while upholding it. I also disagree with this because I don’t see how that makes sense when in the Saloon scene he makes it completely clear that he wants to make use of slavery while he can. I don’t know where this notion that Schultz wants to change the system comes from unless I’m misinterpreting what you are saying. Because since I am assuming this is a part of your reasoning for why Schultz kills Candie, I just still do not understand the contextual evidence that supports this idea. (1/2)
Now, this is the section that really stumped me.
You say, paraphrasing just a little.
“So yeah I think it is more of a symbolic move on Schultz’s part, there are also very clear visual similarities between the deaths of Candie and John Brittle. Not only does this show Schultz is starting to embody the moral standings of Django, killing Candie out of genuine resentment as opposed to the breaking of the law. See that’s how you make a moral argument Mr. Anime. Candie’s just a hillbilly. Even though he’s acting lawfully, he’s just as bad as the Brittle Brothers.”
So what I think you are saying is that Schultz kills Candie in visual parallel, entertaining the idea that his murder of Candie is equivalent to the energy Django brought the Brittle Brothers.
But I am not sure about this specific line “killing Candie out of genuine resentment as opposed to the breaking of the law”.
So you are saying that since Schultz, throughout the entire film is concerned about the legality of his morally questionable issues, it is grounds to say that this is a reason for killing Candie.
Or are you saying that since Schultz is legally grounded, him killing Candie out of resentment is character development?
Or are you saying something else?
I find that line really unclear, especially because you say that’s a moral argument when it functions off of your point that Schultz had a legally founded mindset. So either I’m just stupid, or the sentence is unclear.
So I guess I don’t see! Mr. Give Up!
I also find your de-emphasis of Candie because of the parallel he shares inaccurate. Django was the main stakeholder in the antagonism towards the Brittle Brothers. Schultz didn’t really even have a say in what happened to the first two because Django took it upon himself to settle it in dramatic fashion. Earlier in the video, you pose the idea that Schultz was clearly aware of what Django was going to do in terms of the Brittle brothers (kill them), but when they are camping out and Schultz wants Django to work with him, he clearly says Django was out of line with that and pretty much implies “I did not think you would have done that”. So, to that end, I don’t particularly see any relation to Django being concerned about breaking the law so I don’t see how Schultz is taking one out of Django’s book. This parallel that seemingly equates Candie to the brothers makes it not seem like the contemplative showdown it is portrayed to be and fixates on resentment as two recurring issues. Resentment is not quite the word I would have used to describe how they feel about their adversaries, but let’s go with that for now. Candie is no hillbilly, at least compared to Billy Crash or the brothers. His pretend sophistication is not all a rouse, as it’s clear he does read and study things that interest him, like phrenology. Even if inaccurate and nonempirical, it is safe to say Candie doesn’t strike anyone as your typical country bumpkin. But the more pressing issue is that Schultz, who isn’t notorious for just killing one out of resentment, and is legally controlled, is so profoundly influenced by Django that he just has to kill Candie? I cannot see how that works. In order for this to operate, I would have to believe a couple of things. I would genuinely have to believe a parallel has that much influence on this major characterization moment. I would also have to believe that this idea of “resentment” is so strong that nothing else could possibly be more interesting to me. And I would also have to believe that my scene interpretation of the strategy meeting before Candy Land is completely false as you deem it ignorance.
Parallels are fun cinema moments, but I’m not going to base my opinion on a couple of frames of similar visual nature. I had an entire 2 hours to make up my mind about what kind of guy Schultz is and I don’t think soyjacking over 10 seconds of parallel is going to be the difference maker for me.
I also can’t believe your resentment idea because I don’t even believe in the legality point.
And I don’t believe that my interpretation of the strategy meeting is wrong and I still think it’s the most critical part of Candie’s death.
I don’t particularly understand why you think my video is bad, especially if it intrigued you far enough to use my video as a foundational idea for your own argument. Considering Django is my favorite movie of all time, I think I did more than enough justice in analyzing what I think to be one of the most interesting ideas in the film. I am glad this video has boosted your channel activity, but I can’t help but think that you lack integrity by not linking my video first of all, but also using it extremely liberally to my detriment and to supplement the making of an original video like your Iglesias series. It would have been flattering to have my video mentioned in a “Dr. Schultz: Morality through Justice” video, but instead, your video is just offensive and feels exploitative of my idea. Also “weirdos in white bags” was a joke. It obviously didn’t land for you, but I can assure you it was satirical! (2/2)
Jesus goddamn christ man im willing to bet its not this deep
@@pretentiousanimefan also whine more
@@sRetailStoreMusic The RZA, the GZA, Ol Dirty Bastard, Inspectah Deck, you-God
Ghost Face Killer, the Method Man, Raekwon the Chef, the Master Killer
Raw Desire, LeVon, Power Cipher
Twelve O'Clock, Sixty Second Assassin, the 4th Disciple
The Brand White
K.D. the Down Low Wrecka, Shyheim AKA The Rugged Child
Doo-Doo Wales, Mista Hezakiah, better known as the Yin and the Yang
The Tru Masta, Asan, DJ Skane, The Tru Robocop comin' through
Scientific Shabazz, my motherfuckin' man Wise the Civilized
The Shaolin Soldiers, Daddy-O and Popa Ron
Comin' down from the motherfuckin' South end of things
@@sRetailStoreMusicI agree I don’t think Tarantino thought this much when writing this but over analyzing is mostly harmless bro.
I think its more of a gray area as to whether Schultz is appealing to Django's morality or to the law in the Smitty Bacall scene. While Schultz uses the hand note as evidence as to why Smitty should be killed, it seems that the hand note is really evidence of Smitty's moral failures. Schultz says "If Smitty Bacall wanted to start a farm at 22, they would have never have printed that, but Smitty Bacall wanted to rob stage coaches and he didn't mind killing people to do it." Now, those are crimes, but I don't think that Django is convinced by knowing that killing a criminal, he already knew that, rather the manner of crimes he committed is the tipping point.
Yeah, at the start he offers Django a third of the bounties, to which you might say, "Well that's not fair; it should be 50/50!" But look at it pragmatically. A third to someone who is untrained with a gun is actually quite a good deal for Django, not to mention the language tutoring, the gun training, the protection and knowledge of the world that the Dr. offers-- it's a no-brainer. I think it was a mighty fine offer from Shultz.
I think I have a an idea on why Schultz shot Calvin though this is just my opinion on the matter. Schultz despise slavery. That is very clear from his action. However, I don't think he hated the people who does it. He's not supporting it nor did he want to participate in it but he does not despise the people who does it. In his eyes, the people who is deserved to be antagonized is criminals. Those are wicked people and in his eyes, they deserve to die regardless of the situation they're in at that very moment. This is signified by him convincing Django that Smitty Bacall is not a farmer with his family as Django sees it rather a murderer and a robber and in order to do this, Schultz uses the wanted poster signifying the law. He does everything by the book. Now his moral is challenged when they met Calvin and try to go to Candyland with the slaves. Django antagonizes the slave even though he was one because he's now a free man. Django has been given freedom and pride and anyone who look down upon that pride is antagonized by Django such as Billy Crash and Steven. When the slave is eyeing him with hatred, Django saw it as a sign of challenging his pride so he antagonizes the slaves. Schultz doesn't like that. I mean both of them are essentiallly bonding with their partnership as a bounty hunter in the winters. Even more so when Django antagonizes the slaves as if he didn't remember where he came from. Later on, as he watches D'Artagnan (slave) got ripped apart with dogs, he starts breaking character. Now granted he does breaks character a bit with the Mandingo Fighting scene but I don't think he's disturbed with the idea more so that he's disturbed with the extent of sadism these slave owners do. Even when meeting Lara and Hildi, he act differently from the way he met Big Daddy. He's much more apparent about his hatred towards the slavers because of Calvin's action to kill a slave in such a brutal manner. Schultz is cornered and he has no way to defend the values he believes in and he sees how much of an immoral Calvin is without breaking the law. Calvin forcing him to shake hand is the sign of Schultz being civilized with a savage and barbaric person and thus he shoots Calvin. I don't think Schultz have a deluded moral. Is just that his moral compass is the law. And as he saw the worst of the worst human being and that person is still abiding by the law and consider that they're equal, he snapped.
Mr. Candy broke the law when he changed their agreement to include a handshake, becoming an active thief and therefore a potential threat
Whats the song that plays during the beginning of Schultz The Bounty Hunter?
I don't remember the exact name but it's from the Rango for Xbox 360 soundtrack
So you're saying that dr. Schultz's disgust with Candy ordering one of his slaves to be killed by dogs and another killed in a fight to the death WASN'T ENOUGH to want Candy dead? Schultz WAS NOT going to shake Candy's hand to seal the deal, so why not a bullet?
I seriously think you guys are reaching with a theory that Schultz is a flawed character. He NEVER did ANYTHING on impulse.
What's the song you used at 6:15, please it's so goddamn catchy
Rango for xbox 360 Rodent Clan 2
@@SirNeverGiveUp Thanks!
Schultz's death is a heroic statement that he would martyr himself to kill morally repugnant people despite his wish to only kill within the confines of the law. He decided, in the end, to work outside the law to commit a heroic act of good, and to top it off, he did it in a joking manner with the coy line, "You *really* want me to shake your hand?" He even says, "I'm sorry, I couldn't resist," as a form of semi-sincere apology to the legal system he supports, and he accepts his death. He is a hero, and we ought to all live like his character.
Django is even more of a hero because, despite his lowly origins, he drags himself up and becomes powerful, and clashes with the system that oppressed him. We ought to also live like Django's character.
I don't think Shultz necessarily respected the law, but he wanted to be protected by it and at the end he simply left that protection knowing it would lead to his demise to redeem himself from those horrors of law abiding. So agreed on everything except the respect for the law thing.
PLEASE. What is the song at 6:18?
Rango for xbox 360 Rodent Clan 2
They were going to kill them all anyways, they had men waiting to ambush them outside
I don't necessarily know about that. I mean Candie had already won, he got his money, he doesn't care if Broomhilda goes free. Why would he want to complicate his earning of his money by trying to illegally kill Django and Schultz, who were legally invited there and have signed a document proving their intentions.
I feel the people outside heard the gun-shots. There's no supporting evidence that they were explicitly waiting to kill them because we already know Candie had these guards and they could have been doing their job, guarding.
Awesome vid
I just realised my german teacher looks exactly like shulz
My man, make a tiktok or some shit, I can't believe I'm withing the first 500 subs
This is amazing content
I think your video could be way more fluent and concise, if you wouldn‘t cut to the other video all the time. Especially when showing part of the video we already know. Other than that great vid!
Yep both videos have their own flaws but video essays are hard! That said, this is a little better tho.
I feel like Schultz was always a born killer. The only thing that was stopping from him killing evil men was not his morality, but being afraid he would be labeled as a serial killer and would be hunted down. So I believe Schultz justifies his killings not only because they are bad people, but because they are bad people and because it's legal. Mr. Shultz reminds me of the "Fear is the mother of morality" quote which basically means we don't do bad things because of our moral compass, but because we are afraid of facing the consequences of commiting those actions. Schultz to me is just a man who wants to takes the life of men that don't deserve living. Which is why I believe Schultz wanted to kill Candie so bad since he was possibly the worst being he has ever encountered, because of his killer like instinct, and because of his disgust towards Candie which causes him to say, "I couldn't resist."
He is a Bavarian Khight on a Rescue Quest to Free Broomhilda! Returning the Queen to the King!
Schultz did have a second barrel to fire but he didn't even try against that SOB bodyguard?
King Schultz is Wotan in the Ring of the Niebelungen by Wagner, based on German folk legend. Django is Siegfried and Brunhilde is Brunhilde, as Schultz himself admits earlier in the movie. In "The Ring", King Wotan's unforgiveable crime is to place his daughter Brunhilde in the ring of fire, and King Schultz' unforgiveable crime, as he himself admitted in the saloon earlier in the movie, was to obtain the services of Django as ostensibly a slave. Even though he made a bargain with Django, Schultz acknowledges that he is wrong. Wotan dies, causing the Gotterdamerung, or Twilight of the Gods in the Ring series, and in the same way, King Schultz brings the nightmarish world of the Candie Plantation, every much a fake "heaven" as the "Valhalla" of the gods, to a close by the manner in which he chooses his death. Schultz dies because only through his death can the heroic Siegfried (Django) truly earn the love of his beloved Brunhilde.
Howdy friend, I would like to ask you to look up the word polysemic. And then try and engage with discussions about films in a more nuanced way.
Also, maybe think about the fact that allusions to other media are not the start and end of a discussion about a film.
Why did he die? Well generally when someone takes both barrels from a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun it tends to kill them!! LoL
Have you never seen Three Musketeers in your life
Watched Django like 20 times
Schultz does genuinely like Django
He did a stupid thing
But honestly after all of Candy's bullshit and attitude at that point i would also do the same, reasons why i never really questioned why he shooted Candy
Nice vid man. Sometimes the algorithm finds good shit
Dar-tan-yan. Try that.
I always ask. Why didnt he just shoot the one guy that was armed, then kill Candy
i think its the weapon in question those guns only holds 2 bullets and he wanted to be sure candy was dead
he died because he turned around and didn't shoot mr pooch
The name is pronounced DAR TAN YON , no doubt named after the main character in The Three Musketeers. Just a little novel read in high school.
Only if you are speaking English and forget, ignore, or don't care that it's a French surname. The pronunciation differs quite significantly from your indicated phonetic.
@@CameronCajun I appreciate that. Thank you for the info.
Whoever this guy is (the author of this video) one thing is sure - he represents an appalling sub-level of illiteracy and stupidity; A person who can't pronounce 'D'Artagnan' as if it were some village in the wastelands of ''Krakozhia'' and speaks about deeper meanings of...well ANYTHING: plastic bags, the quality of Sahara sand, Anna Karenina's predicament or Doc's flux capacitor is simply one more ridiculous, sad clown in this crazy world.
@@Zed-fq3lj Exactly lol. Good call Zed!
@@Zed-fq3lj I've always felt that a grammar and basic knowledge test should be required for all authors and narrators on TH-cam!
As soon as you play stardew you will notice how it’s music is in every TH-cam video ever made
I came straight from the other video. I couldn't explain it, but the analysis felt crooked and shallow, totally out of line of my viewing experience.
Now you video good sir is much better imo. Yeah it was probably just a bad video after all.
When I look for analysis on Yourube, I'm looking for a rational expansion of what I understood, and you did just that. The law-based morality of the doctor makes hella sense. So yeah, great video
Now I just want a video all about those awful The Shinning theories.
Everyone usually reads the name as Dar-tan-yan
You should mention how idiotic & irresponsible it was for Schultz to shoot Candy at that moment because of the very high possibly Django & Broomhilda could've been killed by Candy's men after witnessing the murder, especially since Pooch had a gun pointed at Django when he did it. Candy's men could've assumed Schultz shooting Candy was premeditated and killed D & B because of it or had them arrested and made to stand trial for it.. At the very least he should've known killing Candy would almost ensure Django & Broomhilda would not be allowed to leave Candyland afterwards, thus making going there to purchase Broomhilda's freedom completely pointless.
Maybe I’m simple minded, but to me it was more that Schultz is just a very sore loser and willing to if pushed far enough go scorched earth all else be damn. Especially when losing everything to a dumber man who would take pleasure in feeding people to dogs. I think if he knew Steven was the puppet master he still would have been mad but not red rage mad because he would have felt he lost to an equal. I think he resistor as long as he did because of what ever he felt for Django. If your looking for symbolism Under this I don’t think there is any it’s just the old Adventure story telling third act of leave your hero in the worst possible position simile beaten in every way.
Best explanation I've heard so far
when it comes to bad things done by people named Mr.Anime. this is in the top 5
I want a Django 2
Schultz was clearly portrait as morally ambiguous with some degree of "goodness" within himself, such as being openly against slavery, yet utilising slavery to his favour. And he was well aware of this trait of himself, his moral compass pointed where his interests were.
He got himself killed due to an ego pulse kind-of-thing rather than trying to be intellectually or morally superior to Candy(which to be fair, wasn't really hard to be fair here). Schultz couldn't stand to shake this rich rotten teeth lightheaded brat who thought too much of himself just because his house ne... Discovered their mascarade, not himself. It's clear Schultz was acting on ego rather than logic...
It's weird seeing a video who references Mr anime a guy who literally tried to shoot up a school and commit mass genocide after murdering his entire family lol.
I definitely should have looked up the name before calling this guy that...
Seeing Schultz as a liberal who believes in the system and laws doesn´t make sense because of the very first scene, where he meets Django. He did not have to liberate the other slaves, tell them where the north is and nudge them towards killing their owner, then ride of when he clearly knew he was getting murdered by them. That very first scene shows that Schultz doesn´t believe laws are moral, but has a morality of his own and is doing his best to exercise it without breaking the law. He stays within the confines of the law not because he is a liberal, but because he is German.
Bacall kill isn´t that relevant. Django was simply hesitant before his first kill, and Schultz witnessed death so many times that it affected how he viewed what was important in life - not that you die, but how.
1. About the slaves. Yes, he didn't have to allow the slaves but unless you think liberal means bad person then this point doesn't make sense. Schultz allowed them to go AFTER he established his right to kill in self-defense. Most liberals(at least the ones I've seen) support the rights of individual minorities but are more hesitant in more systemic change. Schultz allowing individual slaves to liberate themselves when in a viscerally bad situation makes sense.
2. Bacall was not Django's first kill he had killed the Brittle Brothers. Django has a more emotional response to killing than Schultz. Schultz is more pragmatic and doesn't see the worth in killing beyond within the law(there's a scene I didn't include where he used horse thieving as a metaphor, that stealing a horse makes you a horse thief and they hang horse thieves). This results in him instead enforcing the law, fixing and upholding a system that(I think) is inherently bad and making it more palatable.
Dead or Alive
Didn't work that way in history, it meant the bounty would be paid either way
But the arrest had to be legal
Sniping a guy who is farming in front of his family would have gotten bounty hunters sent after you instead.
Calvin had no incentive to let them leave Candyland alive, quite the contrary. The original screenplay featured a scene that sets a precedent of Calvin being a bad loser and a penchant for going back on his word. Rendering his airs of civility and manners a façade.
Calvin was going to kill them , keep Hildy enslaved and keep the money.
Except in southern gentleman culture killing in cold blood was socially frowned upon and would ruin a reputation with accusations of cowardice. Hence duels.
Not to mention the law implications.
What incentive did Candy have to kill them? Django is black and he doesn't like black people? Schultz insulted him?
@@kmitchell9891 he’s a hypocrite that goes out the window esp with Django and Brunhilde involved
@@kmitchell9891 right, to add injury to insult to send out a warning in the context pf the film because that racist mask off Tarantino bullshit about the one in amillion … well that wouldnt fly in the face of the Haitian revolution or nat turner
Specificqlly inthe previous screenplay it was brunhilde’s previous owner that had lost a bet so not only did Calvin walk out with money but shot the boy and got Brunhilde in the deal
Django is my favorite western, The Hateful Eight is my second favorite western.
But in an interview Tarantino gave a hint and made me feel like dr.Schultz’s could be Django’s alter ego and dr Schultz isn’t really real
Awesome disclaimer, Sir. I hope you get monetized.
This dude has never read the 3 musketeers and it shows.
we are men, and after all it is our business to risk our lives.
Is that C-milk narrating lol????
Expanding into movie huh?
And being a fan of exploitation flicks ,QT is clearly being exploitative re a touchy subject. Hence Spike Lee’s criticism about said exploitation
It's resisted. Not resist.
Movie analysts that haven't seen a single Musketeers adaptation, and so can't say d'artagnan crack me up. 😂 While calling others out incompetence. Classic.
True, the irony/hypocrisy is palpable - maybe it’s well disguised sarcasm? That said the video is a valid take, the original video by that small anime creator channel is not a very useful analysis because it ignores or misinterprets crucial aspects of the characters.
If he did resist then Django wouldn't have been the revenge porn film they wanted.
It’s my pet peeve in the film.
I almost thought you were retroactively debating an analysis by "Mr. Anime" the TH-camr who murdered his family. Unfortunate coincidence.
First he killed Schultz and now I'm learning about him killing his family 😭😭😢
Does this man know no mercy?
Came here to say this. I heard "Mr. Anime" and was like, oh... no.
Fuckin hell this video blew up, but it was deserved. I really liked this video, especially as a fan of Django Unchained. Keep it up you devilish lion mask wearing bird in the pfp organism!
You have defiantly wasted my time man you can dance around an issue.
He killed Candy because of the dog attack
Bro what deathloop soundtrack
It's got an amazing soundtrack!