MovieChat Forums > Django Unchained (2012) Discussion > Shake my hand

Shake my hand

posted 4 years ago by moviechatterer (15583)
8 replies | jump to latest

That was quite a turning point in the movie
Our 2 heroes were about to leave with everything they wanted , and then there was the little squabble because german guy didnt want to shake Leo's hand ( cos he's an awful human)
and then all hell breaks loose.

Do you think , if he had shook all would ok?
or Leo had a sneaky trick planned?

Also I was a little dissaponited the way the Dr. basicaly let himself be killed after he shot Leo , as if it was unavoidable.

[–] The LA Baker (971) 3 years ago

I think the handshake would have been the end of it. Calvin had made a fortune selling one slave(who was sold to him cheap at the command of their previous owner). That and forcing the Doctor to shake his hand against the Doctor's wishes was enough for Calvin to feel he had won and punished them for trying to fool him.

I too was disappointed that the good Doctor did not even attempt to avoid death.

[–] strntz (12224) 3 years ago

My opinion was always that Schultz's killing of Candie was completely out of character for him. He was the coolest drink in the cooler. It was he who taught Django that bounty hunting was a business and to keep emotions (including pity) out of their business. It was Schultz who taught Django how to "act" in order to escape Candieland with their prize. That he left himself defenseless against Candie's bodyguard with the double barrel shotgun made no sense.

I chalked Schultz being so easily killed while breaking character as weak writing, BUT as I watched it again the other night, I realize that Schultz didn't voluntarily deviate from his character as much as he seemed to be suffering from something like shock or PTSD.

Right before the handshake, Schultz kept having flashbacks to when that slave was ripped to shreds by Candie's dogs right in front of him. I think watching that man murdered so viciously and not being able to help him affected him badly, and watching the Mandigo fighter being slaughtered for sport just added to it. Sure, Schultz had seen a lot of death even at his own hand, but everyone he killed was evil, unlike those two men who were butchered in front of him.

He even barked at Candie's sister for playing the harp. He wasn't himself for sure. I believe Candie's handshake demand was the last straw of what sanity Schultz had left.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 3 years ago

I like that analysis

Maybe that culminated in Shultz concluding if he removed Candie from the world , it would cleanse some of his own sins

[–] juviejay (456) 3 years ago

That, or maybe he equated all the killing he had done with that of Candie and didn't see much difference. Therefore, he felt they both deserved to die.

My take is that it was fate catching up to him. Remember when they are traveling across the plantation and Django is arguing with one of Candie's men. King tells him to settle down cause he has no intention of dying in, "[whatever county], Alabama."

How often do we declare things only to have life show us just the opposite to be true? I think that's what this was, and I think it was good writing.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) 3 years ago

like Strntz said , there was a huge difference his targets (murderous criminals) and Candie's (innocent slaves)
but maybe "not enough difference" .
I'm sure Shultz would have been in a "grey area" a few times

[–] strntz (12224) 3 years ago

Exactly - both of you. I always marvel at human being's ability to justify anything, and even though Schultz operated within the law and his targets were criminals, there could have been real cracks in his justification of shooting men under the guise of bounty hunting. The bizarre happenings at Candieland may have driven wedges into those cracks and opened them wide.

I think at some point Schultz began to feel some real guilt over his, as he would say, "selling corpses for cash".

[–] spurtle467 (1546) 2 years ago

I'm still of your first opinion on the matter, that it was out of character and weak writing. Sure, he may have been affected by the death of the slave he was having flashbacks of, but I think how it would most likely have played out is that he would simply have shaken Candie's hand with the pretence that they'd then be on their way, and maybe have gone back and killed him at a later time, since he would not be able to live down shaking the man's hand.

By shooting Candie instead of shaking his hand he knows that that would be it for Django and his wife, they'd never be able to be free. He even apologises for it so he knew what he was getting himself in for. It just seems unbelievable he'd be so compromised emotionally that he'd jeopardise everything he's worked up to with Django. I mean presumably he'd have been prepared to shake Candie's hand in accordance with their original plan anyway? But for the sake of Tarantino getting to nerd out with a bloodbath shoot em up scene, kind of like what we saw in Kill Bill: Vol 1 (with guns replacing katanas), he had to suddenly make Schultz an idiot I guess.

[–] einstein (2561) 2 years ago

i think you are making mental gymnastics here. your first statement was right schulz would not have done that, bad writing and forced mass shootout/action scene.