What would you do to rescue the woman you love? Fight, maim, kill? What if, after doing all of those things, the one true test left was holding back? Could you? Would you want to?
Less than a decade before the Civil War, Django (a slave portrayed by Jamie Foxx) is being escorted, in chains, by his masters, the Speck brothers. They are traveling through a remote, wooded area when they encounter someone unexpected. Their unexpected company is former dentist, Dr. King Schultz. Schultz (portrayed by Christoph Waltz) is looking for a slave formerly owned by men he wishes to find. The slave, it turns out, is Django. The Specks have no intention of surrendering Django to the doctor and make that point very clear. The doctor then kills one Speck brother and leaves the other alive but seriously wounded. Schultz (Waltz) then informs Django that if he can identify the men he's searching for, whom Schultz is hunting in hopes of securing a bounty, and aid in their capture, Schultz will grant Django his freedom and give him $75 and a horse. Schultz also reveals that he despises slavery as a concept. Once the men Schultz was after are found and dealt with, Schultz tells Django that, as he has never given anyone their freedom before, he feels a certain responsibility. The two men become colleagues, hunting fugitives for money. In addition, the former dentist offers to help Django find the one thing he really wants: his wife Broomhilda. Broomhilda (also a slave, portrayed by Kerry Washington) was named by her original owners who were German, like Schultz. She was left scarred by her owners, who were also Django's, and then the two were auctioned separately. After a few inquiries, they learn that Broomhilda is now in the possession of well-known plantation owner and Francophile Calvin Candie and residing with Candie on the plantation counter-intuitively referred to as Candie Land.
While some people worship Tarantino's body of work, generally speaking, I can take it or leave it. I didn't like Pulp Fiction, or Reservoir Dogs, thought Inglorious Basterds was decent but overrated, but loved Jackie Brown. Jamie Foxx, on the other hand, has proved his skill time and time and again and, while not every film he's appeared in could be considered quality, the fault rarely, if ever, lies with him. As for Waltz, it is refreshing to see him portray a character with redeeming qualities and he does so very well. DiCaprio, contrastingly, tends to play characters that are, or are at least meant to be, likable. Despite being well-mannered, Calvin Candie is anything but. Even so, his performance is masterful. Critics who dislike this film have come at it from both sides. Some take issue with the film for not depicting slavery seriously. Others see the depiction of Caucasians as villains as the continuation of some sort of disturbing trend. Of course, the fact that Christoph Waltz portrays one of the protagonists would seem to contradict that but, why let logic interfere with an argument? As for what I think, those who suffer typically deserve it and slave masters are shown as vicious because, more often than not, they were. I liked this film and I can't imagine why those who can see this film with an apolitical eye wouldn't.
Less than a decade before the Civil War, Django (a slave portrayed by Jamie Foxx) is being escorted, in chains, by his masters, the Speck brothers. They are traveling through a remote, wooded area when they encounter someone unexpected. Their unexpected company is former dentist, Dr. King Schultz. Schultz (portrayed by Christoph Waltz) is looking for a slave formerly owned by men he wishes to find. The slave, it turns out, is Django. The Specks have no intention of surrendering Django to the doctor and make that point very clear. The doctor then kills one Speck brother and leaves the other alive but seriously wounded. Schultz (Waltz) then informs Django that if he can identify the men he's searching for, whom Schultz is hunting in hopes of securing a bounty, and aid in their capture, Schultz will grant Django his freedom and give him $75 and a horse. Schultz also reveals that he despises slavery as a concept. Once the men Schultz was after are found and dealt with, Schultz tells Django that, as he has never given anyone their freedom before, he feels a certain responsibility. The two men become colleagues, hunting fugitives for money. In addition, the former dentist offers to help Django find the one thing he really wants: his wife Broomhilda. Broomhilda (also a slave, portrayed by Kerry Washington) was named by her original owners who were German, like Schultz. She was left scarred by her owners, who were also Django's, and then the two were auctioned separately. After a few inquiries, they learn that Broomhilda is now in the possession of well-known plantation owner and Francophile Calvin Candie and residing with Candie on the plantation counter-intuitively referred to as Candie Land.
While some people worship Tarantino's body of work, generally speaking, I can take it or leave it. I didn't like Pulp Fiction, or Reservoir Dogs, thought Inglorious Basterds was decent but overrated, but loved Jackie Brown. Jamie Foxx, on the other hand, has proved his skill time and time and again and, while not every film he's appeared in could be considered quality, the fault rarely, if ever, lies with him. As for Waltz, it is refreshing to see him portray a character with redeeming qualities and he does so very well. DiCaprio, contrastingly, tends to play characters that are, or are at least meant to be, likable. Despite being well-mannered, Calvin Candie is anything but. Even so, his performance is masterful. Critics who dislike this film have come at it from both sides. Some take issue with the film for not depicting slavery seriously. Others see the depiction of Caucasians as villains as the continuation of some sort of disturbing trend. Of course, the fact that Christoph Waltz portrays one of the protagonists would seem to contradict that but, why let logic interfere with an argument? As for what I think, those who suffer typically deserve it and slave masters are shown as vicious because, more often than not, they were. I liked this film and I can't imagine why those who can see this film with an apolitical eye wouldn't.