I saw the scene of Schultz's death a little differently. Schultz has come to profoundly reject the slave culture that Candie represents, and the handshake which Candie insists upon is an act which would cement Schultz's role as a tangential participant in that trade. His experiences at Candieland left him shaken, horrified and repulsed by what the slave trade represents, and he now seeks to reject his earlier hypocrisy and moral weakness. Candie insisting he shake is a determination to drag Schultz back down into the morally unsupportable realm where Candie lives, and faced with that necessity to proceed, Schultz rejects the requirement in the most vehement and final method possible. What he can not 'resist' in his own final words is his conscience, and he choses a self-destructive but (in his opinion) morally necessary act, regardless of the consequences.
@@atribecalled_quest that's the most logical and rational way to go about it, yes, but humans are not, and will never be fully logical and rational. we're flawed beings of passion, and schultz's just happened to get him killed
@@atribecalled_quest yea, but it would still send the message that he did 100% support the slave trade as an equal to Candie. Even if he later came back to kill Candie, he still would've conceded to be on Candie's level in an 'honest'/'lawful' way. It was no longer something he could swallow and play-along, it was him conceding 100%, Candie knew that, hence he asked for the handshake. He's sorry because he up-hold his morals/principle over Django's live. It was still selfish, a some-what twisted sense of 'altruism'.
I think Schultz was fully aware of his selfishness in his death scene; his final words being “I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.” Some may believe this to be an apology to Candie’s staff for murdering their employer but in reality I believe it’s an apology to Django for no-longer having enough self-control to take the logical & selfless approach to such a situation anymore & knowing he will cause his ally hardship as a result
I see it Calvin also had a sleeve gun hence his over insistence on the hand shake which is where he would deploy the gun ...if he shakes hands he dies , if he refuses he dies , so he shoots first ... Only someone who has a sleeve gun and how to use it will recognise when someone is desperate to use it
Somebody else mentioned this but I think it isnt that deep, and that he killed candy because shaking his hand is stooping to his level and almost accepting his ways in a way, and that's everything that schultz is against, so he shoots him dead, that simple. At least I agree with it. Schultz also was particularly interested in the story of broomhilda , and he killed candy and died there to sort of " pave the way" for django to live out that story . I doubt it was that though in my opinion
“He only gives Django 33% of the bounties” I mean it is Schulz’s business and they are using Schultz’s connections, legal license and legal knowledge as a bounty hunter. He also taught Django how to read and fight and the business. He also pays for his food and clothes. And it’s not like they have been working together for years and Django doesn’t have room to advance. As good as Django is he’s still new to it all and relies on Schulz’s planning and experience. It seems like a pretty standard apprenticeship type deal to me.
I was about to say just wait till you find out what the percentage cut in regular capitalism is. Most jobs function like this. You see a minute cut of what the actual business produced despite the fact you probably put in much more work in then what you got out so 33% seems like a lot when considering how the real world functions.... HAVING SAID THAT, I do find this system exploitative and unfair but I am a socialist. It's clear that he wants Django around because he's very good at the job and a quick learner. The relationship does seem like that of an apprentince though so it's possible they could've eventually split it 50/50. Django only worked with him for a winter and was still learning how to read among other things for which Schultz was teaching him so overall it's a pretty good deal both today and especially back then. At the rate Django was learning he probably could've started his own bounty hunting business which I'm assuming is what he did after the events of the movie.
The handshake was a power move. As another comment here suggested, candy only wanted to shake hands to essentially get Shultz “down to his level” trying to show psychological dominance.
I think Candie was also looking for a reason to kill them all, it might have really been a act of self-defence. Instinct protected King up until then. We never seem him emotionally shaken until then. Maybe the actor was a little too subtle with the performance, but I think the script explains it all.
@@iWhisperASMR The script doesn't explain it. Candie didn't want to kill them, he wanted to bask one more time in humiliating Shultz. And Shultz was tired from humiliating himself for this charade even before their cover was blown, so that was the last straw.
i never saw it as a character decision but a writing one. Quinten talks to the camera through Shultz saying he couldn’t resist right as the whole movie turns to this blood and gore fight.
This. It was completely out of character and only served to set up a third act in which nothing happens except a bunch of faceless mooks, about whom we don't care, get gunned down, plus an "uncle tom" character. Far from the cathartic violence that the rest of the film mostly delivers it felt like someone focus grouped the last half hour of the movie to death.
I like that. Just when we think everything's so close to a peaceful conclusion, Tarantino gonna Tarantino. I partially disagree with Bombkangaroo. Schultz' core characteristic was his pride. He was most enthusiastic about the bounties he completed in front of an audience. His pride turned Django from a slave who knows what one bounty looks like into an unstoppable killing machine. He was proud of his profession, he was proud of his heritage, and he was proud of his creation, Django. His pride eventually got him killed. Without his giving into his vice of pride, we wouldn't have seen the full fruits of his labor. As one example: In the scene of his post-Schultz escape, Django talked his captors into releasing him with confusing manipulation techniques he'd learned from Schultz. The German doctor is no longer in the driver's seat for the third act, so Django takes over to show us that he's perfectly capable on his own. It's also worth mentioning that Django wasn't too proud to play the role of a black slaver to get what he wanted, which means that at the end of the film, Django didn't have the vice that got Schultz killed.
No, I think you're all wrong. Schultz was a very sympathetic character who inwardly hated racism and slavery to its core, as it was shown over and over. His shooting of Candie was something that had been building up the entire time. First of all, he had to grit his teeth and smile through the worst of atrocities for days, and even act like he was amused by it. All for the sake of getting Django's wife. Keep in mind, he was doing this entire operation as a personal favor to Django, and for no other reason. Well, it not only put him in a bad mood when he was found out, humiliated, and had to pay $12,000 just to get out of this mess (=$500,000 in today's money, probably all the money he had and NEVER intended to spend here), but to lose it to such evil and flat out ignorant people. In the scene preceding the shootout, Schultz is seen reminiscing about D'arctanian being ripped apart by dogs, while Candie's sister plays Beethoven on the harp. At this point, he is virtually overwhelmed by his disgust for these people and their way of life. But of course, there's nothing he can do about it. At least they had Broomhilda, and he was content to just leave with that. (And Django probably felt very guilty, and probably would have worked with him until he made all that money back.) And Schultz tried very hard to leave without showing his disgust for Candie too much. He didn't want trouble. But Candie caught on to his little quibs, and was jealous that Schultz still felt morally and intellectually superior. So he saw an opportunity to humiliate and disgust him one last time; to pour salt in his wounds, and give him something that would sting for life. It was, of course, the handshake. Schultz didn't think Candie would go so far - after all, if they killed Broomhilda, the deal would be off, and Schultz could legally demand that Candie give back his $500,000. But so fragile was Candie's pride, and so confident in his victory, that yes, he insisted. And so, Schultz's action was an overwhelming act of passion. Candie thought he was so smart and in control, but he didn't know about the gun up Schultz's sleeve, and he didn't know that he had just given him the perfect opportunity to shoot him point blank with it. And so, Schultz "couldn't resist". At the expense of the whole mission, and even Django and Broomhilda's safety, Schultz's entire pain and frustration with the whole ordeal came out in one easy action. At that point, he was willing to sacrifice everything, just to wipe Candie's disgusting, self-satisfied smile off his face, and show him once and for all that, no, he was not smarter than Schultz, and that in fact, he was the worst, most miserable scum of the earth. Killing him was not out of Schultz's hurt pride, but as an irresistible benefit to humanity. I don't think Schultz knew what was going to happen next. At best, jail, and hanging. But the minute he died, Django knew that there were no cards left on the table. Candie's men were absolutely not going to let him and Broomhilda just leave, even if she was just purchased legally. They would not fear any legal reprocussions from a black man. And so, in combination with all his days of hidden frustration as well, he quickly acted on his instincts, and started his own rampage.
Dr. Schultz helped Django escape slavery, taught Django everything he knew about bounty hunting so Django can survive in an era where slavery was rampant, and even helped Django rescue his wife. He went out of his way so many times to help Django. To think that he had any malicious ulterior motives would be unfounded here.
The author of the video treats Django like the victim here, as if he wasn't excited to learn how to kill white men. Django is his own person capable of making his own decisions and he does not have to make the most morally just decisions. You sir are entirely correct to point out that there is no reason other than pure compassion for Django that Schultz would have gone to Candie Land. Killing Candie was an act of selfishness caused by pure disgust at the incredibly evil man Candie was and how much he demented the Honorable European Aristocratic image that Candie and Schultz try to live up to. Candie represents the side of aristocracy of gluttony, ignorance, bigotry, and arrogance while Schultz represents the more morally positive sides of aristocracy, like honor and compassion, contrasted by his choice of trade. Schultz's act is him giving in to his greedy and selfish side for once to wipe what he views as the embodiment of disgust off the face of the earth
@@ClockworkGearhead But still, any accusations of Dr Schultz using Django for malicious means remains baseless and unfounded. He helped Django and stayed true to his promises to him till the very end. He only died because he couldn't help being angry at Candie, not because he wanted to put Django in danger.
@@JBrander I think one commonly overlooked thing about Schultz' death is that this Deringer of his held two rounds, as previously shown when he killed the sheriff. He could've easily shot the dude with the shotgun and survived at least a bit longer, but he instead wasted this chance just to apologise to Django.
I remember watching the movie a second time, and I always believed that he did it because he would literally rather die, then show any gesture of civilization to Candy. Throughout the entire movie it is shown he believes slavery and the slavers to just be barbaric. And he is proven right time and time again. When he hears that woman play Beethoven he almost has a nervous breakdown because he can't believe such savages think they have the right to appropriate such a beautifully artistic piece of his culture. And the handshake was the nail in the coffin. The act, no, the IDEA to show a near neanderthal like Candy even a hint of a civilized gesture as simple as a handshake, is something he knew he couldn't live with. That is why "He couldn't resist." He had to pick between dying, or dying inside. The first option was at least quick.
I’ve thought this since the first time I saw the movie. I’ve seen it a bunch of times and always had the same point of view. I think most people are just overthinking it.
It’s ridiculous to think Schultz didn’t have some sentimentality towards Jdango. He could have just bought him as a slave and made him do all this stuff. Doing it that way would have been better and safer for Schultz in the long run. I think it’s extremely generous to give Jdango 1/3 of the money. He saved his live, clothed him, protected him, fed him, gave him a horse, gave him skills and a job and helped save his wife. Anyone would be thankful for just one of those things. Did he love him like a son probably not but he definitely cared for him like a friend and had respect for him.
That's assuming that Schultz was spending 2/3 of the rest of the money? On what? I am sure it was more of a German way of, I get 1/3 you get 1/3 and then we have 1/3 for emergencies or other business matters, or even to just buy Django's wife. One-third of the total bounty for the Brittle brothers is $2,500 alone.
You misread this movie. Need a 7th watch: Schultz definitely cared for Django. As soon as learned of Brumhilda he knew he was apart of something bigger than himself. Sure he “used” him to make profit, but a 3rd of their take is good money when you saved someone’s life completely. He taught Django how to be a killer because he’d need those skills to survive this new world as a Freeman.
Shultz understood it wasn't his story. He specifically says that's not a place he wants to die, and yet completely accepts his death because it was necessary. When he learns that Django is trying to save Broomhilda, he tells the story of the princess and why the meaning behind that story is so important. Broomhilda will remain imprisoned unless a hero can save her. He talks about Siegfried facing the dragon because he's not afraid, how he walks through hellfire. When Django says "I'm not afraid" Schultz telegraphs it by saying "I'm starting to realize that." Schultz was molded by heroic tales from Germany, and he realizes that what he's been doing this whole time is creating Siegfried. It's a resignation that if he wants to do the most good, he must lay down his life to make way for a hero to rise. Schultz embraces this and takes down a dragon of his own, satisfied that he played his part and welcomes death. Schultz absolutely loved Django, not as a son but as his student. Schultz knew his time had passed and didn't selfishly cling on. He chose to be the match that would set everything off.
I think you have to be really careful with calling Schultz's knee-jerk reaction to shoot Candie dead something heroic. It certainly didn't do Django or Broomhilda any good. Considering that both he and Django were surrounded by a small army of Candie's hired guns, Schultz had no good reason to think there was any possibility Django would make it out of the situation alive any more than he himself would. Which certainly wouldn't leave Broomhilda any better off. I also think it's hard to argue that Schultz killing Candie and kicking off the bloodbath left Django or his wife any better off in the end. Sure, they got to kill Calvin and his sister, as well as Steven, which was surely cathartic, but that's not much consolation for the fact that Django and Broomhilda will be wanted fugitives and spend the rest of their lives on the run. Even if they somehow escape any suspicion, it's likely some other nearby black people would get lynched in retaliation. Schultz made things worse for the people he was trying to help as well as himself. And Schultz himself clearly knows that, which is why he uses what he knows are his last moments alive to apologize for it.
@@dark7element I disagree. You're applying consequence to intention, something impossible to do in situations like that. John Stuart Mill said “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Schultz chose to be a good man, but good action is not always rational action or correct action. Removing a man like Calvin from the earth inarguably is an act of good, but that's before you take into account consequence. And Schultz was not thinking of the consequences of his actions past paying for them with his life, he simply had no time to. In the stories of Siegfried slaying a dragon, the act of saving a woman's life is a good thing, but what are the consequences to slaying a dragon? Unknowable because by their nature in such stories, their origin is unknowable. Are they made of pure magic? Does killing them upset a food chain? Is the light of the world dimmed by their absence? Impossible to answer. But Schultz never discusses consequence in regards to slaying a dragon, only heroism and morality. Calvin was a dragon, and though Schultz was not Siegfried he sure wishes he was. All he could do was assist the hero to be and make his path lighter. And he paid for it, dying as a hero.
@@DannyBellTheAuthor He didn't die a hero. He died an idiot. There was absolutely nothing heroic about that. He didn't make Django's path lighter, he almost got him killed and the woman they risked so much for a hell worse than she was already in. Why are you attempting to romanticize his last moments like this?
Because it's a Tarantino film, filled with such classic romanticism of a characters last moments. Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds, The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained. It follows a signature of sorts to make something out of an abrupt moment that would stay in the mind of the audience. It is in and of itself irresistible, and who are we to resist? Also idk man good movie moment make brain feel funny
@@dark7element but Django's and Hildi's freedom was purchased by Schultz so why they should be chased? i think they lived happy ever after and the movie ends right there
I think that after staring evil in the face he just took the opportunity to wipe it off the face of the earth. I don't think he was trying to be intellectually or morally superior because he accepted his death. Loved seeing a different perspective tho, awesome video!
I think another good take is how Shultz is a dentist who doesn't go for sweets, no cheap thrills to rot your teeth. But he hasn't practiced dentistry in some time and eventually gives in, indulging in some Candie. *"I'm sorry, I couldn't resist"* He accepts his fate, and subsequently, his punishment.
Actually.. names in books and films are often chosen with *great* care. and I think you are on to something there. Candie is the natural enemy of dentists.
Implying that Shultz doesn't care for Django is wild. He literally risks his life to go save Brumhilde. He also tries to save D'Artagnan before Django stops him and is plagued with visions of his death immediately before he kills Candy. Shultz isn't a perfect person, but he clearly detests cruelty and values the lives of innocent people.
Schultz at his core is a good man, and has some form of decency. He freed the other slaves that were with Django at the start of the movie even though it didn't benefit him. And he became traumatized/disgusted after he saw an innocent slave get torn to shreds by dogs.
I really think that was one of the more pivotal scenes in the movie, and really gets down played. It's hard to portray racism without also giving racist what they want to see too. The dance between it all is that some, as shown in the movie, love that brutality. It really could have been a graphic scene, but instead that is saved for all the slavers death later on. I think history will show that part of the movie is the pivot for Shultz, but it's kind of the audience is desensitized like Django is at that point by all that's happened. It is poorly framed, at the least.
The portrayal of Schultz "pacifism" can also be seen by the way he kills as a bounty hunter, unless deserved he always aims his pocket pistol towards the heart of his opponent, a comical interpretation of an instant death. This makes me think if Schultz wanted to become a bounty hunter in the first place or is it tragic profession.
Shultz actually was written to be morally pure. Per the actor's demand Think you misread the ending It is, Candie is untouchable Candie wins..... Candie flaunts it. Shultz with one bullet, changes that. Candie proves the simple point, the man without the gun is always subservient to the man with the gun. He couldn't resist because in Candie's final seconds. He realizes he was in fact powerless. And Schultz apologies because he simply couldn't not take the chance to ruin Candies invincible complex Candie felt safe and invincible in his own house. His fortress, and Shtultz wanted to prove he could reach out and touch him.
Agree with this, its the forest scene and the exchange between Schultz and Django where it shows that Django is wholly committed to saving his wife, whereas Schultz wants to end Dartangans suffering. And Schultz goes along with it cause it's necessary, and he thinks it will be justified when they finally "win" over Candie. But they dont win, he and Django stand wholly defeated at the end, and so he shoots Candie to effectively wipe the smile off his smug face. At least that's how I saw it in the film.
@@Timidberserker24 def feels he is SCREAMING internally to kill him the whole time inside. He barely hold back. But when Candie makes him shake his hand and go BACK, it broke the camel's back. Biggest detail is he puts his hands up in a surrender gesture. What he did was a selfish action and knows his life is forfeit but still, to him, it was worth it.
Wich has been my view since I saw this movie for the first time But i boiled down this view to "he just couldn't take Candie's annoying behavior anymore"
I agree on the win part, to the point where you already know that Candie had little intention to actually let them go. The handshake was for what? He wanted to rub in that he had won. He also stated just before the shot that the deal, the 12k and the paper were just that. Paper. And he could back down on it "if he didn't get a handshake". I think the possibility exists that they would never have gotten off the ranch alive. Even with the handshake.
I've always believed that Schultz has a deeply sown hatred of Racists. As shown in the movie, even though he tries his best to fit in amoungst them and "respect" them. He always ends up excuting them all, especially when his honor is brought into question. Which I believe is why he dies in Candyland, because he would rather knowingly die with honor fighting for the surpressed then to shake hands with those who hold them hostage.
His disdain for racists and slavery is also seen in how he treats Django throughout the film. Sure he treats him as a lower when they play their act of slaver and slave, but outside of that Shultz views Django as a man. He talks to him in an understandable and non-condescending way, he frequently serves food and pours drinks for him, and listens to his opinions regardless if he agrees with it or not.
This is literally one of the worst takes I’ve ever heard in terms of film. Like your reading into it too much then reading into that to find something that fits a narrative. Shultz clearly doesn’t do everything for himself. Why is he even in candy land. There’s no bounty there he’s there to help Django because they’re friends and he feels an obligation to help him. Like a good person.
Nah bro, the maker of the video understands archetypes pretty well. Schultz's ego got the best of him, that's what being an in betweener will do to you. You must either be on the far side of good or bad or you are just instrumental to the bad parts of your character. Someone who wasn't addled with insecurities would've simply shook his hand and walked away for his Friend Django and his wife. Because you would be smart enough to know that there is no inherent meaning to shaking someone's hand,but in the context of the social construct you know that is just signaling that you are the inferior man to everyone else in the room.
@@timpetrochilos1257 it wasn’t his ego, more his want to not stoop to level of Candie by giving him the handshake he wanted. He wasn’t clouded by his ego, but so upset with needing to shake hands that he simply could not as anything to do with slavery was against his morals. It was a powerplay by Candie that ended up forcing Shultz’s hand to kill him based on his own beliefs
I always interpreted it as this: I think Shultz chose death as an emotional reaction. He was frustrated that Candie got the best of him and he was willing to accept it because ultimately, although he was forced to pay an outrageous amount of money to survive and also to get Broomhilda, we have seen that he has made that money before in a single bounty. The money is an inconvenience that he can get back with relative ease. But it's the fact that Candie was rubbing it in his face that got to him. He had made the deal, money had been transfered and he wanted to just be done with the situation. When Candie tried to force him into a handshake, his pride got the better of him. He refused to submit. He hated the idea that his agency was taken away in that situation so he took it back in the only way he could.
"He only gives Django a third of the bounties" I mean he pretty much freed and gave Django a whole set of skills, including reading, no matter how self serving his intentions were. Movie could have been finished once they killed the brothers, Schultz could have lied, left him stranded in the south with very little to actually survive on and did his own thing, put a bullet in his head, or just sold him back to whoever he wanted (Django Unchained And Then Chained Again would be a funny parody movie), and no one would bat an eye at any of the outcomes. That's how much sheer power this man had, if he actually felt some type of way. I think keeping 66% of the bounties is a pretty decent trade off, from being brought from slavery to being able to decimate an entire plantation basically single handedly.
@@yourevilhalf1413 Plus everything done after their initial couple months of doing bounties does not benefit Shultz in any way. By deciding to hel Django rescue Broomhilda, he puts himself at risk for no real reason other than helping his friend and partner. Even if he is helping Django because he wants them to continue being partners, it is way too much of a risk when he could easily find a new bounty hunting partner
@@alpacawithouthat987 This. It feels like the author of this video forgot some important details like that about him. “He only gave him a third of the bounties” - Even if you disregard the earlier comment, you could also say it’s more of a teacher-student relationship, so naturally it makes sense he’d get more since Django is a noob to bounty hunting at the beginning of the movie. “He didn’t wanna die in Chickasaw County, MS” - It’s almost as if dying in Candieland sounds really unappealing to begin with, there are a million ways to take this sentence, assuming he’s only saying that because dying helping Django would suck is preposterous, if he were afraid of that he wouldn’t have come. He just didn’t wanna die in quite literally a hellhole.
The videos comments also fails to recognize the time period in its analysis. Bounty Hunting is a respected and necessary trade in this period in order to keep some type of order and bring evil people to justice. Like you said Schultz has not only gave him his freedom, but gave him skills that are very much useful. Useful in helping Django succeed when they eventually do go their own ways.
I always felt his execution of Candie was a sort of "knee-jerk reaction" to the circumstances. He already hated Candie and everything he stood for, and bein' forced to shake his hand was jus' too much. He jus' couldn't stand lettin' him win. So he sacrificed his life so they could both lose.
Yeah it is very obvious. Idk how this dude is trying to come across or what he’s trying to accomplish with this video. But it’s literally a waste of time with no valid points or interesting insight.
Also they were already getting out, literally one foot in the exit door. But then Candi went and demanded another thing from them. Maybe the Dr realized how easy it is for Candi to demand everything and not have any consequences, also k*lling those who disobey him. Like that man who was murdered by dogs
I watched this movie for the first time earlier this year and I loved it. From the beginning, I felt like Dr. Schultz was just genuine. He didn’t have to save Django, or train him, or pay him. He was kind to him because he was a kind man, and he viewed his job as a job that was helping save lives, despite the killing
For me, Candy had no intention to let them go, and the "shake my hand" very icy and tense moment was a clue they were trapped, and eventually about to get killed.
I mean respectfully I disagree Before Schultz killed Calvin Calvin basically won With the help of Stephen Calvin turned the tables on Schultz and Django and made Schultz partake in the slave trade by paying twelve thousand dollars for Broomhilda Now you could say that Schultz already partook in the slave trade by freeing Django but he really didn't as he left the money that he gave to Richard Speck for the other slaves present as he knew that Speck wasn't getting out alive However with Calvin Schultz didn't have a choice it was either pay the twelve thousand for Broomhilda or him Broomhilda and Django would be killed Schultz tried to get the upper hand without violence by proving he was more knowledgeable than Calvin but then Calvin tried getting the last laugh with the hand shake further rubbing it in Schultz's face that he played a part in the trade he detests which brought Schultz to his breaking point causing Schultz to kill Calvin I believe that if Schultz didn't kill Calvin and shook his hand Calvin would've let Schultz, Django and Broomhilda go because before Schultz killed Calvin Calvin basically won
Your assumptions of Schultz's morality is framed within modern standards of morality. Relative to the time period, Schultz is a decent man living in an indecent time.
Funny how the creator missed the obvious part where Dr. Schultz decides to HELP HIM GET HIS WIFE BACK. He is responsible for his freedom so he feels responsible for him. Along the way, Schultz is worried about Django not being able to play his part but after they are found out, Dr. Schultz no longer has to be the fake character he is playing. In the matters of right and wrong, Schultz was not Candy. And they were not equals. The intellectual theory is the one that is most sound and rings true. Its more than just the juxtaposition of Schultz and Candy. It was the world and its views on Slavery. How it was evil but we can overlook that and as they say multiple times in the movie..."Let's keep it funny". Furthermore, the scene about Old Ben truly showed how ignorant and mentally depraved Candy was by suggesting that blacks were a different species altogether and more submissive. It was a tone set by him meeting Django who refused to acknowledge Candy's authority.
I always viewed the scene as a subversion of the cinematic "White Savior" trope. Where the white person saves a less fortunate minority, though not to be applied to real life as I'm sure there are genuinely good people out there no matter their skin color. In the case of Schultz, he saved Django and taught him everything he knew when it came to bounty hunting, both mind games and gunplay. Schultz has a deep rooted hatred for slavery and when he lost the mind games against Candie, it really got under skin. So on his way out he tried to get the last word by implying that Candie wasn't as smart as he thought he was with the Three Musketeers line. So when he was forced to shake hands with a slave owner, he would rather die getting the last word and essentially doomed Django and Brumhilda to their fate. But in the end, Django saved himself overcoming the savior trope.
"overcoming the savior trope" "white savior". way to make him sound like a villain even for doing good. are you sure that you're sure there are genuinely good people out there no matter their skin color? not just non-whites?
You have the best take on this. This channel owner should listen to your opinion. Also another thought I had was that Tarantino wanted to kill Schultz as a way to subvert meta-expectations. Christoph Waltz was the fan-favorite of Tarantino’s previous film, and so that puts him on a pedestal with audience members coming into this new film. As the film progresses we again see Christoph playing an outsized role and I think Tarantino pulled the same meta-move that the Coen brothers did in The Big Lebowski. Quick review: in Fargo, Buscemi’s character was in-your-face and outspoken throughout the entire film. Ethan Coen said this is why they made Steve Buscemi’s next character be a pathetic pushover with barely any lines. It was to subvert the inflated hype that can often follow an actor around for years, which isn’t good for anyone. It was an act of love and jest. It plays a joke on both the actor and the audience, who expects the next role to be similar to the last. So back to Django, we as the audience are “blown away” when Schultz gets shot (hence the visual gag).
I disagree with this entirely. Schultz told the story of Brynhildr to encourage Django to go after Broomhilda. If he was just trying to use Django, why would he do that? If things went well, it would've likely resulted in them being separated. It's not "self interest" to not want to die in Candyland (to the extent of not wanting to die isn't all that "selfish", rather just a normal human emotion) more than it is him reassuring that everything they're about to do is a one big act - I think this is well supported throughout the scenes at Candyland (Django reaching for his gun at the table, Schultz talking to Broomhilda in German in the bedroom to protect Django from being caught, etc.). Also it was Django & Broomhilda's inability to keep the act together which is ultimately what lead to the shootout and everything - Schultz was merely foreshadowing rather than putting his own interests first I think Schultz shot him largely because 1: ego - Schultz is represented as a very smart person (well spoken, knows English, German, & French - is a doctor, etc.) and for the first time, he got outwitted in a sense and 2: from the cliche of a movie format, it wouldn't really make any sense for Schultz to live. If that scene didn't happen, then what, they give the $12,000 and walk away? Sure, could've happened, but that entire buildup would've been boiled down to a transaction
i absolutely agree this just feels like he’s making him villain just to make him a villain i think any one watching this would agree schultz did so much for django for virtually nothing in return
"Kind of enslaved" lol. This interpretation is surprisingly "modern" Schultz was disgusted by slavery, by Candie, and every moment he spent with Django made the philosophic objection more concrete. You have to have a very specific and unwavering world view to interpret this the way the creator of this video did.
I mean knowing the meta, the actor said he would only due the role if he could play a "saintly German." Consider his last role from inglorious b. it seemed fair. Even before knowing that inside bit, i got the vibe the character was meant to be earnest and held in a good light. I mean as good a light as a bounty hunter is gonna be.
I think it's much more simple than all this, when candy demanded a handshake king knew he wasn't getting out without it, and extending his arm for a handshake would activate the arm gun, "I couldn't resist" quite literally couldn't stop it from happening. "you reaaaally want me to shake your hand?" he was trying to subtly warn him as if to say "you really don't want me to do that"
he clearly made the decision to kill Candy that is why he apologized to Django, if he wanted to shake his hand he could have simply walked up close enough to do so. I think you are right about the last part of their interaction being a subtle warning but that's because he knows he'd rather kill and be killed than shake his hand.
@@chadwillett619 Yeah, cuz he clearly aimed right for his heart. Even if what he says was true about the gun, if he had walked up to him and gave him a proper handshake there's no way the bullet with have hit him in the chest...
@@jojocapone4861u don’t understand the way it works the moment u move ur wrists up for a handshake the mechanism activates now ask urself why engage in a hand shake at all with that factor
I disagree with much of the rumination you do on Schultz - my take was, and still is, that although Schultz had a certain "moral flexibility", he was, at his core, a decent man. A good man that did some bad things. As opposed to being intrinsically a bad man that did some good things. Killing Candie was an impulsive act by a man who was just suddenly overwhelmed by the evil that surrounded him.
Shultz is willing to do anything to complete a bounty. His death marks a change in that perception. And that’s it. Question answered. Shultz being good or bad morally is irrelevant to the action he preformed. In that split second he wasn’t thinking “I hope this save Django” or “I sure hope this screws over Django”.
It's really a great movie, and interesting question. There's a lot of different answers you could read in this, because there's different aspects of the character that motivates them. One thing to consider is that Candie and Schultz are mirrored, in that they're decently smart men who act as partners with an oppressed minority, who gains safety and influence and freedom through their protection of their white 'leader' in public, and gets along quite well with them personally. In this context, I view that Schultz is both aware of his hypocrisy at the start, something he brings up about how bounty hunting is like the slave trade of trading bodies for money, and rather comfortable with it, his rationalizations and justifications are enough that he can enjoy his life and it's pleasures, and can easily choose to help a black man or mock southern white supremacy as he pleases. He intentionally keeps his distance from actual society, spending much of his time on the 'frontier' while primarily making money from the government jobs. But when confronted with the actual realities of Mr. Candie up close, and the way he treats his slaves 'better' the most slave owners, and views himself as an actual progressive on race relations compared to many of his peers, Schultz sees a mirror of his own actions, and justifications, and hypocrisy, which leads to a lot of distress, and his previous rationalizations and justifications can no longer protect Schultz from the realities society he participates and benefits from. His other major character trait, his cleverness, ability to manipulate people, and get them to do what he wants for his benefit, is likewise questioned by the Stephen/Candie team. He shown not to be able to out think candieland, to make them act to his wishes rather then theirs. He's forced to participate in their slave trade in basically good faith, paying fair value for 'desirable' traits in human beings, and measure their worth according to the slave culture. Then he's left with the raw unvarnished choice to accept this evil that he's surrounded by, or to violently oppose it. If he thought he could outsmart them, or make a fool of them, perhaps he would have taken the setback and worked another angle. But he didn't feel that was a real option, and instead resorted to violence, even knowing he would die. The game he played on so many others was reversed on him, and he refused to accept it. Schultz I believe really did care both about Django as a friend and partner, and Django's wife who he never met, cared for her in the way you can care about any stranger who suffers, but he was a character who balanced his selfishness with higher ideals, and both of these drove him to refuse to accept the situation presented him. I think at the end, Schultz had come to the point that Django reached long ago, where he wants to do anything to stop this system, escape from it, stop it from hurting him, but has no ability to do so, or even know how to learn to do those things. Django begged and upheld racist theory and justifications to try and stop the whipping of his wife, and failed. Schultz likewise failed here to really stop anything, But Django who always understood better what he was actually fighting against, was able to carry on, because he was always aware of what his true enemy was, views and habits that even Dr. Schultz had in his character and habits.
That is on one hand a rather interesting theory. However, I believe it is way more complex in detail while ironically way more straightforward in character. This strange ambiguity is way more obvious if you are familiar with the template Tarantino used for the creation of Dr. Schultz - and knowing this in detail is unlikely for any American viewer. The main trope of the character is the „good German guy“, namely a very specific character. In the end of the 19th century, a German author named Karl May wrote a whole lot of novels, both as fictitious „travel reports“ and in 3rd person, mainly set in the Wild West and in the Orient (interestingly without ever having travelled there himself, and with rather „inventive“ takes on English, Arab, Spanish and several supposedly Native American languages). In all his novels, he either had a main character of German origin (and I‘m talking born, raised and educated in Germany or rather one of the several King- or Princeton’s of the then-Holy Roman Empire), or he himself was said protagonist. What all those characters had in common was their strict morales, their education, and their faith. I could go on about this for quite some time, but for this purpose, that should be enough. Now, the popularity of May‘s books is, while fading, still existent - and was even more so some 50 years ago. So in the 60s, several of his books were adapted for the Silver Screen in Germany (in cooperation with then Jugoslavia). Those movies were quite successful and, while altering the novels quite freely in several cases, still had the trope of the main white hero, named „Old Shatterhand“, being that morally predominant German dude (ironically portrayed by American actor Lex Barker) alongside his best friend, the Mescalero chief „Winnetou“ (portrayed by French actor Pierre Briece), who was educated by another German character (and therefore also a strictly morally „good“ character). When Tarantino filmed „Inglorious Basterds“, he spent a considerable time in Germany, and as a known film fan, he stumbled across those 60s Karl May adaptations, watched them and liked them. At the same time, he of course worked with Christoph Waltz, and they created one of the best movie antagonists of all time, Hans Landa. For his next film, planned to be set in the Wild West, Tarantino wrote a character specifically for Waltz: Dr. King Schultz. And here comes the straightforward part. He simply allowed himself to be inspired by the May adaptations, and therefore made the character German (which is also sensible, given that Waltz is Austrian/German). Also, he adopted the moral trope set by May, that a German character can never be a bad person and has to be well educated. So, mainly, Dr. Schultz is a classic Karl May hero. However, Tarantino being the brilliant writer he is, Waltz being an actor who is best at playing multi-layered characters (and Schultz was, remember, written specifically with Waltz in mind), morally „radiant“ characters being honestly rather dull and most of May‘s tropes even annoy Germans nowadays, Tarantino opted to change the trope to fit both his story and the actor. You see, May‘s heroes would never work as bounty hunters - on the contrary, they preferred to act humanely on every possible occasion and only killed when absolutely necessary. Tarantino altered the trope to „bounty hunter, who rather kills then captures to save the hassle“, basically adding more violence and a feasible amount of egoism (that part you worked out quite correctly). On the other hand, and here lies your mistake when we consider what the character‘s roots are, Schultz is most certainly a strict adversary to slavery. For me, knowing both May‘s books and the movies from childhood, Waltz plays the role very much in this manner. He didn‘t use livery to bind Django to him. He would have freed him immediately, if he could rely on Django helping him regardless. His concern for Django‘s safety is genuine, and teaching Django culture, Wild West skills and morale fits perfectly to the May origins. I could go into even more detail, but the text is already stupidly long. To wrap things up: Schultz is most certainly not a character who questions his own morale or feels ashamed of anything. And him killing Candie, knowing fully well that he will not survive this, fits 100% into this perfect modernised and Tarantino-esque alteration to a classic German Karl May protagonist.
@@pretentiousanimefanWhy does Dr Shultz die..... Haven't you seen the movie or don't you know what happens when you're shot with a double barrelled shot gun?
@@jryan2552 thank you. In those cases, I feel obliged to clarify the original character trope - especially as I grew up with May‘s novels and still read them sometimes today. Admittedly, the strong emphasis on Christianity and pages over pages of landscape descriptions is annoying, but May‘s talent for bizarre and comical side characters is just brilliant and still very much fun. The thing is, he is not too well known even in Germany nowadays and basically completely unknown in America.
I personally think that the reason to his death and the killing of calvin is a lot easier than thought out. I think that shultz' reaction was due to the trauma of seeing d'artanan being ripped apart by dogs and candy constantly annoying him like a little child brought him to a boiling point, and when calvin tried to make a final jab of superiority by trying to force him to shake his hand, Shultz snapped and shot him. You can also see how frozen he was after the deed was done
5:58, disagree - the fact there's so many heavily armed guards and gang-members with advanced weapons that only Candie could've funded to them, point being that it seems like they were there to murder Schultz and Django after the deal was over and they were going to leave. (Let's assume the film ends around 1860, otherwise things like Henry rifles make no sense unless again we pretend they're Volcanic repeaters. But then again they're also using Remington M1858s and Spencer M1860s, which would not become common in large quantities until post-1862/63.)
@@mojostigletts1358 Same, except he seemed to not connect the dots, much like anyone else. Unlike most people I've seen reacting to the film, my old man seemed to smell Schultz and Candie's death from a mile away, though.
@@jakobinobles3263 My main point about the guns is they didn't exist, though - it would be more realistic to be set later, in 1860 or 1861. Regardless of how rich Candie is, he'd be a timetraveller from several years later to be able to have them. Doesn't help having these advanced weapons owned by the Daughtrey townspeople too. Like how the Colt Peacemaker was actually produced two years following its model date, the iconic M1858 Remingtons we keep seeing weren't produced until 1862 to make up for the Colt factory burning down. The Spencer too is an innacuracy - in the American Civil War, hundreds of thousands of examples were produced and issued - making the Civil War the most significant war and use of lever-action rifles ever. Unlike the misconception that they were rare in the war, there were more than 106,000 used - in comparison, that's more than there were Lewis guns in WW1, and we think of those as common, iconic weapons of that war. (And proportionally that's far more common to have a Spencer in the civil war than a Lewis in WW1.) Point is, the first real production and examples of them was in 1861, with Custer being among the early users, and then an order for 12,000 was made in 1862, and another for over 90,000 in early 1863. And so on. The Spencer rifle didn't exist in May, 1859, when the film ends - it was being designed at most. Same with the Henry rifles, unless you excuse them as being Volcanic rifles (Which is passable). Even the M1860 revolvers are yet to be used... literally everything in the film would be more accurate if it were simply a few years later. Hey, the rest of the guns are accurate though! Schultz should have a four-barreled version of the Remington Derringer M1866 he uses - that would be, the Sharps Patent M1858 - and his Sharps rifle can probably pass as one of the many models of Sharps carbines in the 1850s, although it appears to be a metallic-cartridge firing version, which would only exist in 1865 and later.
Schultz is a representative of Wotan ... one of the titles of Wotan is the lord of contracts. He created the world and the rules within it that everyone must abide and follow, including himself Schultz is german for village headman or sheriff so King Schultz is a way to say the king Sheriff which again references Wotan As long as Schultz follows the law and his contracts, he is safe and cannot be killed. Its his protective shield. But when he kills Candy, he violates their contract and breaks the law, so he is no longer protected and is killed himself
He wasn’t protected as he engaged in swindling and Candie could have carte Blanche in killing a German national and a freeman even if they were servants of the Federal court.
I think it was more Calvin had got the better of him with the handshake because he knew he couldn't beat him with brain so he decided to force him to shake his hand by physically threatening Brunhilde and Shultz one uped him by showing he wouldn't win that way either and that he's willing to die to show Calvin that he still could get the better of him in both ways. Also I feel he knew Calvin wasn't just gonna let them walk outta there
Interesting even tho I disagreed w/ almost every assessment lol. Yes, Django is only good bc he benefit Shultz. But Shultz also teaches him a craft that’ll last long after he’s gone. A 1/3rd of the bounty’s seems reasonable since he provides the knowledge, the transportation, the clothes, the weapons and ammo, and the ability the walk into plantations w/o being harassed. And the mere fact that he’s willing to spend around 400k w/o thinking twice for Brumhilda really says all ya need to know imo.
People are so cynical and nihilistic these days they cannot accept a character that was actually moral and good. Modern culture has brainwashed people into always expecting caveats and believing in a gray world. But the fact is, Schultz was exactly how he is portrayed: a moral, good man. Not an anti hero, not a secret villain. I'll admit, when I watched the movie I kept waiting for his to turn on Django. When I watched the movie again with family, I was asked a few times "so is he secretly a bad guy". People have completely forgotten that *actually* good people exist and have existed throughout history. Not everyone is secretly delusional or psychopathic.
I thought it was much simpler There's this overdone but kinda true saying "Beware the fury of a patient man" Schultz isn't nice, he isn't good, he might be from Django's perspective but they both practice moral relativism But overall Schultz is calm most of the time, reasonable, gentle even. Never gets impatient with Django or people who took issue with them And since i believe he had a subtle but potent hatred of racism he finally lost his cool and straight up offed a guy who not only annoyed the shit out of him but also stood for a lot of things Schultz hated. It's one of the strongest contrasts in the movie, almost everyone else treating black people like something less than human and Schultz approaching, treating and talking to them like they're just another person, not coddling or offering false sympathy just normally dealing like with a fellow human being, doesn't even consider it that way just comes to him naturally. And that last glance at Django before he approaches Candie to me seems kind of like "I taught this lad well. He will manage, because i really had enough of Candie's shit" Schultz simply snapped because everyone has their limits.
Legit, Schultz hates Candy and when candy reached out his hand for a hand shake he LITERALLY couldn’t resist using his taxi driver sleeve gun. He let the intrusive thoughts win 😂
There was also a battle of wits between Django and Steven that to me was more intense than King and Calvin’s, and Django was trying to explain this dynamic to King about “intriguing” Calvin Candie by trying to show he’s despicable, but Django couldn’t even act as low as Calvin’s own house “”, Steven. I think King had been had by an evil person like Calvin before, and was enlightened enough that he knew at the moment of the forced handshake, that Calvin had no intent of letting them leave in one piece. The apology was code to Django that there wasn’t another option at that point-the jig was truly up. And gave Django the gift of a few moments of shock over the room to try to escape. It was obvious from Calvin’s prior actions that he’ll do whatever it takes to preserve his reputation that no one escapes Candyland, and that at that point of the handshake, it was way past any amount of money and laws when it came to the ego of the ignorant, arrogant, cruel Calvin, and Calvin was toying with them and planned to make an example.
My theory about this is - Calvin also had a sleeve gun , he is over insisting on shaking hands with shultz and thats how shultz uses it , he puts his hand out and boom , Calvin insists do much he knows if he shakes hands he dies , if he doesnt shake hands he dies .....so he goes for option 3 and shoots first ..then dies
I have a different take. Schultz expresses, at the opening of the film, that he employs slavery for his own ends reluctantly. There's no real reason for him to lie about this. Furthermore, it is consistent with the European attitude towards American slavery during the years after Europe had abolished their own form of slavery but America had not yet. Then the course of the movie takes Schultz on a guided tour of the American South and its abhorrent institution. Unlike Django, who has already plumbed the depths of a slaver's cruelty, Schultz is genuinely shocked by each new depravity. It's my interpretation that by the time he has to shake hands with Candi, Schultz is wracked with guilt about having become, to whatever degree, himself a slaver. He kills Candi not to remove Candi from the world or in some sort of suicidal ideation, but because killing Candi is extravagant redemption. He is a little slaver, and it gnaws at him. What better gesture of moral repudiation than to kill one of the biggest slavers?
I honestly don't think that would've been the case. They could've killed them at ANY time after they disarmed them, but they made the deal for Django's wife, drew up her freedom papers, and even served them dessert. I just don't see why they'd go to all that trouble just to murder them afterwards.
And you get their money in a civilised manner rather than robbing them and then in your defense , you say that they were trying to swindle you in your own home
I honestly never thought about Schultz this way. On the surface he appears to be a well spoken, sophisticated bounty hunter opposed to slavery. Looking back on his actions on the film he definitely uses Django for some good but does in fact have his own ulterior motives. It kind of makes me think Thomas Jefferson, he owned slaves and he even wrote about how it was wrong but didn't outright release them.
The issue is that both men are effectively stuck. It doesn't matter if they are opposed to slavery they alone can't change it. They can take steps to help slaves, free them, educate them and try to give them jobs but that's only a small step towards making things better. Plus simply releasing them doesn't guarantee anything since as we saw with Django during the beginning, most slaves didn't know how to read, write or even speak especially well, so freeing them effectively is just throwing them out into the world with no skills or means to make a living, effectively dooming them to either die quickly or selling themselves back into slavery just to survive. And even if they do have useful skills and are free that's no guarantee of anything either. 12 Years a Slave proves that even if Slaves due end up freed, they can just as easily be captured and sold back into slavery and because slavery is a common practice very few people will do anything about it or care. It's unfortunate but Schultz and Jefferson needed to be care with their actions, lest they condemn the people they are trying to save.
I saw an interesting theory lately, one that said Schultz recognized Candy as the dragon to Brunhilde's story, and in the moment he just couldn't resist the opportunity to "slay a dragon".
I had always interpreted it as refusal to act as though he had good faith in Candie. The "and now you want me to shake your hand?" part was always something I interpreted as confirmation of the ridiculous nature of Candie's request, to him, and so he decided that he'd rather kill Candie and die himself than to do such a thing, because he just hated Candie and the way he acted that much. Maybe that's just projection, though. I don't think I could have resisted either.
Narratively, it just makes sense, this is a story about Django, he gets to save Broomhilda from an army of antagonists, Schultz's sacrificial elimination of the head evil leaves the door open for that. After teaching Django the trade of revenge and blood, it's just all that was left for his character.
Shultz was a former dentist and a bounty hunter but he was never into slavery before, he didn't like it but he certainly didn't mind it until he met Django. He used Django for his own purpose but after hearing Django's wife's story, he was compelled to do what he thought was the right thing, especially as a German he felt a connection to aid the hero. It was going well until he met Calvin. Notice the look on Schultz's face during Mandingo fighting. He wasn't enjoying it. Then later he felt pity for D'Artagnan because he was truly seeing the ugly side of slavery, and it was getting into him. At Calvin's home, he felt disgusted and when they got caught, he was outsmarted a by slave who defending his master. He saw how vile those people were. During the harp session he remembers that he couldn't keep poor D'Artagnan alive, his tragic death which he could have prevented but didn't because of his promise to Django. Now after signing the papers and even getting 12000 dollars, Calvin was still adamant of showing his ego to them, as he was allowing them to take a slave from him, which he could've easily declined. That handshake he asked for signified that the deceivers were going away on Calvin's terms, not on their own. Shultz snapped at the handshake moment because he couldn't let this win be on Calvin's terms, so he was compelled to shoot him and say "I'm sorry I couldn't resist."
They should have made an alternative ending, where he just shakes his hand and leave with Broomhilda and bring her to safety and then return and burn the whole place down. However, someone like Calvin would have never let them leave safely.
Plus not considering the lack of option, and the potential of an actual "exploit" that he can do to Django, the time period, the state of black people on that time. His take is trash
Overanalyzing Schultz, ignoring who candy is. The foundation is tainted. You're forgetting how big a figure candy is, all he made possible, encompasses, and represents. It was twords the end of the movie, apparent Schultz had created a man capable of freeing others, and we can only assume partially knew the route Django would take after freeing his wife, so the sentence "I couldn't resist" was him basically saying the time was right, even tho djangos wife was present and not safe, it was simply time to flick the first domino and start the falling of Candy's empire and everything attached to it. This is just a movie, and it's obvious enough that it's insinuated this was the beginning of the ending of slavery, so they wrote a character who got to be the personification of that whole event unfolding - Schultzs last action being rhe killing of the face of slavery.
3:18 in what manner did he "enslave" Django? You brought up the salon so many times, but somehow the "mutual agreement" he proposed you gloss over... Not to mention that's a deal of a lifetime for someone in his position. 🤦♂️👍
Ye the deal of a lifetime, for a slave. What he did was in a way exploit the fact that django was a slave without a dollar to his name and needed a way to get a new start. It was a good deal yes but king kinda offerd Django the deal knowing he wasnt in a position to decline it, forcing him to take a good deal, but it was still more or less forced. Sure he got paid for his work but its still forced labour and a form of slavery in that sense.
@@mr_raisin_face2577I mean, he fed Django, taught Django how to read and shoot, most likely bought both the horse and the very expensive clothing Django wore...so like, sure he technically enslaved him, but if you get paid thousands of dollars over the course of three months, is it really slavery so much as it is like any other job?
That would be in line with how tarentino portrays bounty hunting in his other films (hateful eight) and the films he draws inspiration from (The Great Silence). Tarentino doesn't view bounty hunting as a purely noble profession, but as something somewhat twisted/corrupted. Bounty hunting is both the law and the comodification of human life (poinient in a film about slavery).
$75 Bucks for all 3 brothers is equivalent to $1200 more or less in 2022. Still, not much for three murders but back then it could of gotten you far enough.
You know what’s truly sickening about this time is that all the shit that Candy did in the movie was perfectly legal, except killing Shultz. That’s what makes it all the more infuriating, Candy would have gotten zero repercussions for the wave of human misery he caused, and Shultz just couldn’t take that, the fact that the literal devil was standing in front of him, and the law he enforced was powerless to bring Candy to justice.
I think he knew he was gonna die. Candy had all the power in that position, all the pride, and all the man power. I think he wanted to go out on his own terms.
Very impressed with your conclusion. I always thought Schultz cracked when he killed Candy and couldn’t bear to sacrifice his own morals and standards and give into the disrespect that Candy had insisted upon. After all the playing along and sacrificing of his soul Django did to get to Broomhilda and all he put up with, I always thought Schultz had acted short-sightedly and cracked in stark contrast to Django. He screws up all the progress and basically damns Django and Broomhilda just because he can’t bear to shake Candy’s hand. A fantastic character but it’s a very selfish end to his character.
I always had an issue with Schultz's death. After going through all that trouble helping Django save Broomhilde, he pretty much guarantees their death with this reaction. Yes, you can find some motivation if you really try, but it just seemed out of character for someone so meticulous in his planning and foresight.
Because it was moving closer and closer to a helpless situation. Candie was outwitting him when it came to power. Its also still massively possible candy was going to kill them on the way out.
Schultz had nothing to earn from Django finding his wife. He was selfless, he just felt no remorse for killing people who knew the consequences of their bad actions
What I didn't get is the movie makes it clear Schultz is a pretty badass gunfighter/combat fighter.. yet after he does his thing it's a full 28 seconds of him just standing there before he gets shotgunned. He had to know what the next threat was likely to be and had plenty of time to do.. something. The guy with the shotgun was kind of an old man.
Because there was nothing he could do. All their weapons were confiscated and the Derringer is a close range gun with two small bullets, meaning he had zero means to kill Butch from the distance he was at.
Actually the movie does a really good job of showing that Schultz is more of a methodical hunter. Every time the circumstances are disadvantageous, he instructs Django to throw down their weapons. Give up. Django is the classical gunslinger. Schultz is the patient hunter, setting environmental traps. Pouncing out from the shadows.
@@jaredbryant8297 Great reply, this is true. Django was itchy on his trigger finger because he PERSONALLY experienced their wrath. Schultz hasn't, but he sympathizes with Django, and so he doesn't feel a personal vendetta against them necessarily.
I think he knew that they weren't gonna escape from Candy's pasture. They were gonna hunt them down and murder them in terrible ways. So he just took his shot right there.
I think at the point that Schulz kills Candy, he's prepared to sacrifice himself because hes sick and tired of the whole game with Candy, whom he despised, and he knew Django would take care of business. Schultz felt he had a mystical connection to Django and his wife because of her name and so he was really on a holy mission. I love Django Unchained. Its my favorite film by Quentin that gets better the more I watch it.
I've come to think there's a strong parallel with Schultz and Hans Landa as characters. They are both murderers who view killing as part of their business, both incredibly charismatic to the point that you can't figure out who they are under the polite facade but also have such a need to be in control at all times that they almost can't fathom a situation they aren't in control of. It feels like Waltz played Landa as an antagonist and mirrored that role as a protagonist for Schultz. You could even argue Landa isn't racist and views hunting Jewish people as simply a role that provides purpose and a paycheck, and would feel the exact same way and act in the same manner if he were told to hunt any other group for the state (such as outlaws). Schultz died because of pride, purely because he didn't want to be told what to do by Candy and thus cede control of the situation. The handshake was Candy's way of saying that he won the exchange. and as you said Django and Brunehilda paid the price for his pride.
Incredible breakdown of one of my favorite film characters. Broke my heart Schultz died, because I felt like they could’ve been an incredible series as a dynamic duo that went around freeing slaves and taking out terrible slave owners. As much as I didn’t like his death, seeing the way the film unfolded after, it feels almost like his death was necessary to push the story forward the way it did.
I think a lot of things are happening in this brief moment all at once that it's hard to talk about all of them or (especially) to synthesize them into a singular meaning. One thing I will add to the pot on what's happening here: we are seeing the student surpass the master. Schultz frequently lectures Django on pragmatism and level-headedness. We see first see Django start to grow out of Schultz's shadow when he berates the slave and justifies his performance to Schultz. When Schultz shoots Candy, we see Schultz's pragmatism fail completely at a time when Django's does not, despite the fact that Django must be feeling at least as much fury as Schultz. It also shows how Schultz's more privileged life has made him emotionally soft. Django has years of practice choking on the rage he must feel toward white slave owners. He has learned to keep a cool head in order to survive.
Schultz killed Candy because as a dentist he has always been in a professional battle with candy.
This is the answer right here
Lol
Bingo!
Now that you bring it up Shultz was hunting the Brittle brothers and eventually killed C. Candie.
This is the best theory
I saw the scene of Schultz's death a little differently. Schultz has come to profoundly reject the slave culture that Candie represents, and the handshake which Candie insists upon is an act which would cement Schultz's role as a tangential participant in that trade. His experiences at Candieland left him shaken, horrified and repulsed by what the slave trade represents, and he now seeks to reject his earlier hypocrisy and moral weakness. Candie insisting he shake is a determination to drag Schultz back down into the morally unsupportable realm where Candie lives, and faced with that necessity to proceed, Schultz rejects the requirement in the most vehement and final method possible. What he can not 'resist' in his own final words is his conscience, and he choses a self-destructive but (in his opinion) morally necessary act, regardless of the consequences.
yeah this makes sense but like. the "morally necessary act" would be unneeded if he just let django and hildi go after he leaves candyland
he would almost never need to do anything slave related ever again unless he gets another slaver bounty target
@@atribecalled_quest would it? candie would still be murdering slaves
@@atribecalled_quest that's the most logical and rational way to go about it, yes, but humans are not, and will never be fully logical and rational. we're flawed beings of passion, and schultz's just happened to get him killed
@@atribecalled_quest yea, but it would still send the message that he did 100% support the slave trade as an equal to Candie. Even if he later came back to kill Candie, he still would've conceded to be on Candie's level in an 'honest'/'lawful' way. It was no longer something he could swallow and play-along, it was him conceding 100%, Candie knew that, hence he asked for the handshake.
He's sorry because he up-hold his morals/principle over Django's live. It was still selfish, a some-what twisted sense of 'altruism'.
I think Schultz was fully aware of his selfishness in his death scene; his final words being “I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist.” Some may believe this to be an apology to Candie’s staff for murdering their employer but in reality I believe it’s an apology to Django for no-longer having enough self-control to take the logical & selfless approach to such a situation anymore & knowing he will cause his ally hardship as a result
And causing Django the grief of Schultz's death.
You believe? He LITERALLY turns to Django to say it.
@@thisguy1413 he doesn’t highlight much of that in the video so I’d mention it here, no need for that response
I see it Calvin also had a sleeve gun hence his over insistence on the hand shake which is where he would deploy the gun ...if he shakes hands he dies , if he refuses he dies , so he shoots first ... Only someone who has a sleeve gun and how to use it will recognise when someone is desperate to use it
Somebody else mentioned this but I think it isnt that deep, and that he killed candy because shaking his hand is stooping to his level and almost accepting his ways in a way, and that's everything that schultz is against, so he shoots him dead, that simple. At least I agree with it. Schultz also was particularly interested in the story of broomhilda , and he killed candy and died there to sort of " pave the way" for django to live out that story . I doubt it was that though in my opinion
“He only gives Django 33% of the bounties”
I mean it is Schulz’s business and they are using Schultz’s connections, legal license and legal knowledge as a bounty hunter. He also taught Django how to read and fight and the business. He also pays for his food and clothes. And it’s not like they have been working together for years and Django doesn’t have room to advance. As good as Django is he’s still new to it all and relies on Schulz’s planning and experience. It seems like a pretty standard apprenticeship type deal to me.
nightcrawler logic right there lol
Makes sense to me. Especially considering that as a slave Django was paid nothing.
@@JoaoVitor-ki3zh i mean that is a pretty standard apprenticeship deal.
Yeah this whole video feels way over analyzed. Shultz character is not complicated at all. It’s why he is so likable.
I was about to say just wait till you find out what the percentage cut in regular capitalism is. Most jobs function like this. You see a minute cut of what the actual business produced despite the fact you probably put in much more work in then what you got out so 33% seems like a lot when considering how the real world functions.... HAVING SAID THAT, I do find this system exploitative and unfair but I am a socialist. It's clear that he wants Django around because he's very good at the job and a quick learner. The relationship does seem like that of an apprentince though so it's possible they could've eventually split it 50/50. Django only worked with him for a winter and was still learning how to read among other things for which Schultz was teaching him so overall it's a pretty good deal both today and especially back then. At the rate Django was learning he probably could've started his own bounty hunting business which I'm assuming is what he did after the events of the movie.
The handshake was a power move. As another comment here suggested, candy only wanted to shake hands to essentially get Shultz “down to his level” trying to show psychological dominance.
I think Candie was also looking for a reason to kill them all, it might have really been a act of self-defence. Instinct protected King up until then. We never seem him emotionally shaken until then. Maybe the actor was a little too subtle with the performance, but I think the script explains it all.
@@iWhisperASMR The script doesn't explain it. Candie didn't want to kill them, he wanted to bask one more time in humiliating Shultz. And Shultz was tired from humiliating himself for this charade even before their cover was blown, so that was the last straw.
Exactly he wasn’t gonna get bitched
i never saw it as a character decision but a writing one. Quinten talks to the camera through Shultz saying he couldn’t resist right as the whole movie turns to this blood and gore fight.
wellll... works both ways, haha
This. It was completely out of character and only served to set up a third act in which nothing happens except a bunch of faceless mooks, about whom we don't care, get gunned down, plus an "uncle tom" character. Far from the cathartic violence that the rest of the film mostly delivers it felt like someone focus grouped the last half hour of the movie to death.
AWESOME
I like that. Just when we think everything's so close to a peaceful conclusion, Tarantino gonna Tarantino.
I partially disagree with Bombkangaroo. Schultz' core characteristic was his pride. He was most enthusiastic about the bounties he completed in front of an audience. His pride turned Django from a slave who knows what one bounty looks like into an unstoppable killing machine. He was proud of his profession, he was proud of his heritage, and he was proud of his creation, Django. His pride eventually got him killed. Without his giving into his vice of pride, we wouldn't have seen the full fruits of his labor. As one example: In the scene of his post-Schultz escape, Django talked his captors into releasing him with confusing manipulation techniques he'd learned from Schultz. The German doctor is no longer in the driver's seat for the third act, so Django takes over to show us that he's perfectly capable on his own. It's also worth mentioning that Django wasn't too proud to play the role of a black slaver to get what he wanted, which means that at the end of the film, Django didn't have the vice that got Schultz killed.
No, I think you're all wrong. Schultz was a very sympathetic character who inwardly hated racism and slavery to its core, as it was shown over and over. His shooting of Candie was something that had been building up the entire time. First of all, he had to grit his teeth and smile through the worst of atrocities for days, and even act like he was amused by it. All for the sake of getting Django's wife. Keep in mind, he was doing this entire operation as a personal favor to Django, and for no other reason. Well, it not only put him in a bad mood when he was found out, humiliated, and had to pay $12,000 just to get out of this mess (=$500,000 in today's money, probably all the money he had and NEVER intended to spend here), but to lose it to such evil and flat out ignorant people. In the scene preceding the shootout, Schultz is seen reminiscing about D'arctanian being ripped apart by dogs, while Candie's sister plays Beethoven on the harp. At this point, he is virtually overwhelmed by his disgust for these people and their way of life. But of course, there's nothing he can do about it. At least they had Broomhilda, and he was content to just leave with that. (And Django probably felt very guilty, and probably would have worked with him until he made all that money back.) And Schultz tried very hard to leave without showing his disgust for Candie too much. He didn't want trouble. But Candie caught on to his little quibs, and was jealous that Schultz still felt morally and intellectually superior. So he saw an opportunity to humiliate and disgust him one last time; to pour salt in his wounds, and give him something that would sting for life. It was, of course, the handshake. Schultz didn't think Candie would go so far - after all, if they killed Broomhilda, the deal would be off, and Schultz could legally demand that Candie give back his $500,000. But so fragile was Candie's pride, and so confident in his victory, that yes, he insisted. And so, Schultz's action was an overwhelming act of passion. Candie thought he was so smart and in control, but he didn't know about the gun up Schultz's sleeve, and he didn't know that he had just given him the perfect opportunity to shoot him point blank with it. And so, Schultz "couldn't resist". At the expense of the whole mission, and even Django and Broomhilda's safety, Schultz's entire pain and frustration with the whole ordeal came out in one easy action. At that point, he was willing to sacrifice everything, just to wipe Candie's disgusting, self-satisfied smile off his face, and show him once and for all that, no, he was not smarter than Schultz, and that in fact, he was the worst, most miserable scum of the earth. Killing him was not out of Schultz's hurt pride, but as an irresistible benefit to humanity.
I don't think Schultz knew what was going to happen next. At best, jail, and hanging. But the minute he died, Django knew that there were no cards left on the table. Candie's men were absolutely not going to let him and Broomhilda just leave, even if she was just purchased legally. They would not fear any legal reprocussions from a black man. And so, in combination with all his days of hidden frustration as well, he quickly acted on his instincts, and started his own rampage.
Dr. Schultz helped Django escape slavery, taught Django everything he knew about bounty hunting so Django can survive in an era where slavery was rampant, and even helped Django rescue his wife. He went out of his way so many times to help Django. To think that he had any malicious ulterior motives would be unfounded here.
It's one of those, "The lady doth protests too much, methinks," situations. He so clean you can't help but believe it's fake.
The author of the video treats Django like the victim here, as if he wasn't excited to learn how to kill white men. Django is his own person capable of making his own decisions and he does not have to make the most morally just decisions. You sir are entirely correct to point out that there is no reason other than pure compassion for Django that Schultz would have gone to Candie Land. Killing Candie was an act of selfishness caused by pure disgust at the incredibly evil man Candie was and how much he demented the Honorable European Aristocratic image that Candie and Schultz try to live up to. Candie represents the side of aristocracy of gluttony, ignorance, bigotry, and arrogance while Schultz represents the more morally positive sides of aristocracy, like honor and compassion, contrasted by his choice of trade. Schultz's act is him giving in to his greedy and selfish side for once to wipe what he views as the embodiment of disgust off the face of the earth
@@ClockworkGearhead But still, any accusations of Dr Schultz using Django for malicious means remains baseless and unfounded. He helped Django and stayed true to his promises to him till the very end. He only died because he couldn't help being angry at Candie, not because he wanted to put Django in danger.
@@alexselby802 Exactly. Thank you.
@@JBrander I think one commonly overlooked thing about Schultz' death is that this Deringer of his held two rounds, as previously shown when he killed the sheriff. He could've easily shot the dude with the shotgun and survived at least a bit longer, but he instead wasted this chance just to apologise to Django.
I remember watching the movie a second time, and I always believed that he did it because he would literally rather die, then show any gesture of civilization to Candy.
Throughout the entire movie it is shown he believes slavery and the slavers to just be barbaric. And he is proven right time and time again. When he hears that woman play Beethoven he almost has a nervous breakdown because he can't believe such savages think they have the right to appropriate such a beautifully artistic piece of his culture.
And the handshake was the nail in the coffin. The act, no, the IDEA to show a near neanderthal like Candy even a hint of a civilized gesture as simple as a handshake, is something he knew he couldn't live with.
That is why "He couldn't resist." He had to pick between dying, or dying inside. The first option was at least quick.
omg ur right. i was wondering if there was any other reason he told the girl to stop playing. thats why. yhank you!
Wonderful take!
@@yuyureishinoshojo And Beethoven was German as Schultz himself so it enraged him even more
I’ve thought this since the first time I saw the movie. I’ve seen it a bunch of times and always had the same point of view. I think most people are just overthinking it.
How he sees the slavers is almost as intense of how the slavers sees blacks.
It’s ridiculous to think Schultz didn’t have some sentimentality towards Jdango. He could have just bought him as a slave and made him do all this stuff. Doing it that way would have been better and safer for Schultz in the long run. I think it’s extremely generous to give Jdango 1/3 of the money. He saved his live, clothed him, protected him, fed him, gave him a horse, gave him skills and a job and helped save his wife. Anyone would be thankful for just one of those things. Did he love him like a son probably not but he definitely cared for him like a friend and had respect for him.
Fun fact:That was Jamie’s horse in real life.
"Jdango" 🤣🤣🤣
@@Generationalwealth94 ”The J is silent”
@@konradwireen7082 Dango 🗿
That's assuming that Schultz was spending 2/3 of the rest of the money? On what? I am sure it was more of a German way of, I get 1/3 you get 1/3 and then we have 1/3 for emergencies or other business matters, or even to just buy Django's wife. One-third of the total bounty for the Brittle brothers is $2,500 alone.
You misread this movie. Need a 7th watch: Schultz definitely cared for Django.
As soon as learned of Brumhilda he knew he was apart of something bigger than himself. Sure he “used” him to make profit, but a 3rd of their take is good money when you saved someone’s life completely. He taught Django how to be a killer because he’d need those skills to survive this new world as a Freeman.
Shultz understood it wasn't his story. He specifically says that's not a place he wants to die, and yet completely accepts his death because it was necessary. When he learns that Django is trying to save Broomhilda, he tells the story of the princess and why the meaning behind that story is so important. Broomhilda will remain imprisoned unless a hero can save her. He talks about Siegfried facing the dragon because he's not afraid, how he walks through hellfire. When Django says "I'm not afraid" Schultz telegraphs it by saying "I'm starting to realize that."
Schultz was molded by heroic tales from Germany, and he realizes that what he's been doing this whole time is creating Siegfried. It's a resignation that if he wants to do the most good, he must lay down his life to make way for a hero to rise. Schultz embraces this and takes down a dragon of his own, satisfied that he played his part and welcomes death.
Schultz absolutely loved Django, not as a son but as his student. Schultz knew his time had passed and didn't selfishly cling on. He chose to be the match that would set everything off.
I think you have to be really careful with calling Schultz's knee-jerk reaction to shoot Candie dead something heroic. It certainly didn't do Django or Broomhilda any good. Considering that both he and Django were surrounded by a small army of Candie's hired guns, Schultz had no good reason to think there was any possibility Django would make it out of the situation alive any more than he himself would. Which certainly wouldn't leave Broomhilda any better off.
I also think it's hard to argue that Schultz killing Candie and kicking off the bloodbath left Django or his wife any better off in the end. Sure, they got to kill Calvin and his sister, as well as Steven, which was surely cathartic, but that's not much consolation for the fact that Django and Broomhilda will be wanted fugitives and spend the rest of their lives on the run. Even if they somehow escape any suspicion, it's likely some other nearby black people would get lynched in retaliation. Schultz made things worse for the people he was trying to help as well as himself. And Schultz himself clearly knows that, which is why he uses what he knows are his last moments alive to apologize for it.
@@dark7element I disagree. You're applying consequence to intention, something impossible to do in situations like that. John Stuart Mill said “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” Schultz chose to be a good man, but good action is not always rational action or correct action. Removing a man like Calvin from the earth inarguably is an act of good, but that's before you take into account consequence. And Schultz was not thinking of the consequences of his actions past paying for them with his life, he simply had no time to.
In the stories of Siegfried slaying a dragon, the act of saving a woman's life is a good thing, but what are the consequences to slaying a dragon? Unknowable because by their nature in such stories, their origin is unknowable. Are they made of pure magic? Does killing them upset a food chain? Is the light of the world dimmed by their absence? Impossible to answer. But Schultz never discusses consequence in regards to slaying a dragon, only heroism and morality.
Calvin was a dragon, and though Schultz was not Siegfried he sure wishes he was. All he could do was assist the hero to be and make his path lighter. And he paid for it, dying as a hero.
@@DannyBellTheAuthor He didn't die a hero. He died an idiot. There was absolutely nothing heroic about that. He didn't make Django's path lighter, he almost got him killed and the woman they risked so much for a hell worse than she was already in. Why are you attempting to romanticize his last moments like this?
Because it's a Tarantino film, filled with such classic romanticism of a characters last moments. Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds, The Hateful Eight, Django Unchained. It follows a signature of sorts to make something out of an abrupt moment that would stay in the mind of the audience. It is in and of itself irresistible, and who are we to resist?
Also idk man good movie moment make brain feel funny
@@dark7element but Django's and Hildi's freedom was purchased by Schultz so why they should be chased? i think they lived happy ever after and the movie ends right there
I think that after staring evil in the face he just took the opportunity to wipe it off the face of the earth. I don't think he was trying to be intellectually or morally superior because he accepted his death. Loved seeing a different perspective tho, awesome video!
But you need to remember WHO he is, trying to be morally or intellectually superior isn't something you can't imagine Schultz doing.
This.
@@JnEricsonx Jon Ericson!? It's the guy that designed the USS Monitor!?
@@SStupendous Nope.
@@JnEricsonx Damn, reeeeeallllly thought it was you
I think another good take is how Shultz is a dentist who doesn't go for sweets, no cheap thrills to rot your teeth. But he hasn't practiced dentistry in some time and eventually gives in, indulging in some Candie.
*"I'm sorry, I couldn't resist"*
He accepts his fate, and subsequently, his punishment.
Why do I like this so much lol
Yoo. That’s actually pretty clever. Props to you for figuring that out
Actually.. names in books and films are often chosen with *great* care. and I think you are on to something there. Candie is the natural enemy of dentists.
This is a genius take that I haven’t noticed yet, hats off
I think this comment was better than this whole video creator's take on the movie even after watching it like 6 times.
Implying that Shultz doesn't care for Django is wild. He literally risks his life to go save Brumhilde. He also tries to save D'Artagnan before Django stops him and is plagued with visions of his death immediately before he kills Candy. Shultz isn't a perfect person, but he clearly detests cruelty and values the lives of innocent people.
Schultz at his core is a good man, and has some form of decency. He freed the other slaves that were with Django at the start of the movie even though it didn't benefit him. And he became traumatized/disgusted after he saw an innocent slave get torn to shreds by dogs.
I really think that was one of the more pivotal scenes in the movie, and really gets down played. It's hard to portray racism without also giving racist what they want to see too. The dance between it all is that some, as shown in the movie, love that brutality. It really could have been a graphic scene, but instead that is saved for all the slavers death later on. I think history will show that part of the movie is the pivot for Shultz, but it's kind of the audience is desensitized like Django is at that point by all that's happened. It is poorly framed, at the least.
The portrayal of Schultz "pacifism" can also be seen by the way he kills as a bounty hunter, unless deserved he always aims his pocket pistol towards the heart of his opponent, a comical interpretation of an instant death. This makes me think if Schultz wanted to become a bounty hunter in the first place or is it tragic profession.
Shultz actually was written to be morally pure. Per the actor's demand
Think you misread the ending
It is, Candie is untouchable
Candie wins..... Candie flaunts it.
Shultz with one bullet, changes that.
Candie proves the simple point, the man without the gun is always subservient to the man with the gun.
He couldn't resist because in Candie's final seconds. He realizes he was in fact powerless. And Schultz apologies because he simply couldn't not take the chance to ruin Candies invincible complex
Candie felt safe and invincible in his own house. His fortress, and Shtultz wanted to prove he could reach out and touch him.
Agree with this, its the forest scene and the exchange between Schultz and Django where it shows that Django is wholly committed to saving his wife, whereas Schultz wants to end Dartangans suffering. And Schultz goes along with it cause it's necessary, and he thinks it will be justified when they finally "win" over Candie. But they dont win, he and Django stand wholly defeated at the end, and so he shoots Candie to effectively wipe the smile off his smug face. At least that's how I saw it in the film.
@@Timidberserker24 def feels he is SCREAMING internally to kill him the whole time inside. He barely hold back. But when Candie makes him shake his hand and go BACK, it broke the camel's back.
Biggest detail is he puts his hands up in a surrender gesture. What he did was a selfish action and knows his life is forfeit but still, to him, it was worth it.
Wich has been my view since I saw this movie for the first time
But i boiled down this view to "he just couldn't take Candie's annoying behavior anymore"
I like this take the most.
I agree on the win part, to the point where you already know that Candie had little intention to actually let them go. The handshake was for what? He wanted to rub in that he had won. He also stated just before the shot that the deal, the 12k and the paper were just that. Paper. And he could back down on it "if he didn't get a handshake". I think the possibility exists that they would never have gotten off the ranch alive. Even with the handshake.
It's a dentist vs candy. They had to take each other out.
Good one😂
I've always believed that Schultz has a deeply sown hatred of Racists. As shown in the movie, even though he tries his best to fit in amoungst them and "respect" them. He always ends up excuting them all, especially when his honor is brought into question. Which I believe is why he dies in Candyland, because he would rather knowingly die with honor fighting for the surpressed then to shake hands with those who hold them hostage.
His disdain for racists and slavery is also seen in how he treats Django throughout the film. Sure he treats him as a lower when they play their act of slaver and slave, but outside of that Shultz views Django as a man. He talks to him in an understandable and non-condescending way, he frequently serves food and pours drinks for him, and listens to his opinions regardless if he agrees with it or not.
He also straight-up tells Django that he hates slavery and all that it stands for.
Why would he shake the hands of those who hold them hostage?
This is literally one of the worst takes I’ve ever heard in terms of film. Like your reading into it too much then reading into that to find something that fits a narrative. Shultz clearly doesn’t do everything for himself. Why is he even in candy land. There’s no bounty there he’s there to help Django because they’re friends and he feels an obligation to help him. Like a good person.
Nah bro, the maker of the video understands archetypes pretty well. Schultz's ego got the best of him, that's what being an in betweener will do to you. You must either be on the far side of good or bad or you are just instrumental to the bad parts of your character. Someone who wasn't addled with insecurities would've simply shook his hand and walked away for his Friend Django and his wife. Because you would be smart enough to know that there is no inherent meaning to shaking someone's hand,but in the context of the social construct you know that is just signaling that you are the inferior man to everyone else in the room.
Ur wrong on this one
@@timpetrochilos1257 it wasn’t his ego, more his want to not stoop to level of Candie by giving him the handshake he wanted. He wasn’t clouded by his ego, but so upset with needing to shake hands that he simply could not as anything to do with slavery was against his morals. It was a powerplay by Candie that ended up forcing Shultz’s hand to kill him based on his own beliefs
I always interpreted it as this: I think Shultz chose death as an emotional reaction. He was frustrated that Candie got the best of him and he was willing to accept it because ultimately, although he was forced to pay an outrageous amount of money to survive and also to get Broomhilda, we have seen that he has made that money before in a single bounty. The money is an inconvenience that he can get back with relative ease.
But it's the fact that Candie was rubbing it in his face that got to him. He had made the deal, money had been transfered and he wanted to just be done with the situation. When Candie tried to force him into a handshake, his pride got the better of him. He refused to submit. He hated the idea that his agency was taken away in that situation so he took it back in the only way he could.
"He only gives Django a third of the bounties"
I mean he pretty much freed and gave Django a whole set of skills, including reading, no matter how self serving his intentions were. Movie could have been finished once they killed the brothers, Schultz could have lied, left him stranded in the south with very little to actually survive on and did his own thing, put a bullet in his head, or just sold him back to whoever he wanted (Django Unchained And Then Chained Again would be a funny parody movie), and no one would bat an eye at any of the outcomes. That's how much sheer power this man had, if he actually felt some type of way.
I think keeping 66% of the bounties is a pretty decent trade off, from being brought from slavery to being able to decimate an entire plantation basically single handedly.
My thoughts exactly
@@yourevilhalf1413 Plus everything done after their initial couple months of doing bounties does not benefit Shultz in any way. By deciding to hel Django rescue Broomhilda, he puts himself at risk for no real reason other than helping his friend and partner. Even if he is helping Django because he wants them to continue being partners, it is way too much of a risk when he could easily find a new bounty hunting partner
@@alpacawithouthat987 This.
It feels like the author of this video forgot some important details like that about him.
“He only gave him a third of the bounties”
- Even if you disregard the earlier comment, you could also say it’s more of a teacher-student relationship, so naturally it makes sense he’d get more since Django is a noob to bounty hunting at the beginning of the movie.
“He didn’t wanna die in Chickasaw County, MS”
- It’s almost as if dying in Candieland sounds really unappealing to begin with, there are a million ways to take this sentence, assuming he’s only saying that because dying helping Django would suck is preposterous, if he were afraid of that he wouldn’t have come. He just didn’t wanna die in quite literally a hellhole.
The videos comments also fails to recognize the time period in its analysis. Bounty Hunting is a respected and necessary trade in this period in order to keep some type of order and bring evil people to justice. Like you said Schultz has not only gave him his freedom, but gave him skills that are very much useful. Useful in helping Django succeed when they eventually do go their own ways.
Another thing is that essentially django is at the mercy of his saviour especially when you think about the times
I always felt his execution of Candie was a sort of "knee-jerk reaction" to the circumstances. He already hated Candie and everything he stood for, and bein' forced to shake his hand was jus' too much. He jus' couldn't stand lettin' him win. So he sacrificed his life so they could both lose.
This is the answer. Seems kind of obvious to me.
@@grammajam3682 Sorry. I couldn't resist.
Not to mention that Dartanian was on the forefront of his mind at the time
Yeah it is very obvious. Idk how this dude is trying to come across or what he’s trying to accomplish with this video. But it’s literally a waste of time with no valid points or interesting insight.
Also they were already getting out, literally one foot in the exit door. But then Candi went and demanded another thing from them. Maybe the Dr realized how easy it is for Candi to demand everything and not have any consequences, also k*lling those who disobey him. Like that man who was murdered by dogs
I watched this movie for the first time earlier this year and I loved it. From the beginning, I felt like Dr. Schultz was just genuine. He didn’t have to save Django, or train him, or pay him. He was kind to him because he was a kind man, and he viewed his job as a job that was helping save lives, despite the killing
What an absolutely horrendous misunderstanding of Schultz’ whole character arc in the movie.
For me, Candy had no intention to let them go, and the "shake my hand" very icy and tense moment was a clue they were trapped, and eventually about to get killed.
I mean respectfully I disagree
Before Schultz killed Calvin Calvin basically won
With the help of Stephen Calvin turned the tables on Schultz and Django and made Schultz partake in the slave trade by paying twelve thousand dollars for Broomhilda
Now you could say that Schultz already partook in the slave trade by freeing Django but he really didn't as he left the money that he gave to Richard Speck for the other slaves present as he knew that Speck wasn't getting out alive
However with Calvin Schultz didn't have a choice it was either pay the twelve thousand for Broomhilda or him Broomhilda and Django would be killed
Schultz tried to get the upper hand without violence by proving he was more knowledgeable than Calvin but then Calvin tried getting the last laugh with the hand shake further rubbing it in Schultz's face that he played a part in the trade he detests which brought Schultz to his breaking point causing Schultz to kill Calvin
I believe that if Schultz didn't kill Calvin and shook his hand Calvin would've let Schultz, Django and Broomhilda go because before Schultz killed Calvin Calvin basically won
@@matspilerman8695 This was the reply I was searching for, so I wouldn’t have to type it myself. I agree….It’s probably just that simple!
Your assumptions of Schultz's morality is framed within modern standards of morality. Relative to the time period, Schultz is a decent man living in an indecent time.
W comment
Funny how the creator missed the obvious part where Dr. Schultz decides to HELP HIM GET HIS WIFE BACK. He is responsible for his freedom so he feels responsible for him. Along the way, Schultz is worried about Django not being able to play his part but after they are found out, Dr. Schultz no longer has to be the fake character he is playing. In the matters of right and wrong, Schultz was not Candy. And they were not equals. The intellectual theory is the one that is most sound and rings true. Its more than just the juxtaposition of Schultz and Candy. It was the world and its views on Slavery. How it was evil but we can overlook that and as they say multiple times in the movie..."Let's keep it funny". Furthermore, the scene about Old Ben truly showed how ignorant and mentally depraved Candy was by suggesting that blacks were a different species altogether and more submissive. It was a tone set by him meeting Django who refused to acknowledge Candy's authority.
It would be a funny and dark twist if we found out that Django beats his wife and Schultz wasn't even fazed 😂 😭 it's the 1800's
Yes wtf is he saying??? Schultz is a comically good person for the setting. How stupid can you get
@@Political_Brainrot_Auditor yeah by modern standards he is pretty bad but by the standards of his time and place he lives he is practically saintly.
I always viewed the scene as a subversion of the cinematic "White Savior" trope.
Where the white person saves a less fortunate minority, though not to be applied to real life as I'm sure there are genuinely good people out there no matter their skin color.
In the case of Schultz, he saved Django and taught him everything he knew when it came to bounty hunting, both mind games and gunplay.
Schultz has a deep rooted hatred for slavery and when he lost the mind games against Candie, it really got under skin. So on his way out he tried to get the last word by implying that Candie wasn't as smart as he thought he was with the Three Musketeers line.
So when he was forced to shake hands with a slave owner, he would rather die getting the last word and essentially doomed Django and Brumhilda to their fate.
But in the end, Django saved himself overcoming the savior trope.
"overcoming the savior trope" "white savior". way to make him sound like a villain even for doing good. are you sure that you're sure there are genuinely good people out there no matter their skin color? not just non-whites?
You have the best take on this. This channel owner should listen to your opinion. Also another thought I had was that Tarantino wanted to kill Schultz as a way to subvert meta-expectations. Christoph Waltz was the fan-favorite of Tarantino’s previous film, and so that puts him on a pedestal with audience members coming into this new film. As the film progresses we again see Christoph playing an outsized role and I think Tarantino pulled the same meta-move that the Coen brothers did in The Big Lebowski. Quick review: in Fargo, Buscemi’s character was in-your-face and outspoken throughout the entire film. Ethan Coen said this is why they made Steve Buscemi’s next character be a pathetic pushover with barely any lines. It was to subvert the inflated hype that can often follow an actor around for years, which isn’t good for anyone. It was an act of love and jest. It plays a joke on both the actor and the audience, who expects the next role to be similar to the last. So back to Django, we as the audience are “blown away” when Schultz gets shot (hence the visual gag).
@@davidswanson5669 "This channel owner should listen to your opinion."
No he shouldn't lol.
@@LordVader1094 “no he shouldn’t lol”
Yes he should
@@davidswanson5669 the channel owner is white so of course they won't listen
I disagree with this entirely. Schultz told the story of Brynhildr to encourage Django to go after Broomhilda. If he was just trying to use Django, why would he do that? If things went well, it would've likely resulted in them being separated.
It's not "self interest" to not want to die in Candyland (to the extent of not wanting to die isn't all that "selfish", rather just a normal human emotion) more than it is him reassuring that everything they're about to do is a one big act - I think this is well supported throughout the scenes at Candyland (Django reaching for his gun at the table, Schultz talking to Broomhilda in German in the bedroom to protect Django from being caught, etc.). Also it was Django & Broomhilda's inability to keep the act together which is ultimately what lead to the shootout and everything - Schultz was merely foreshadowing rather than putting his own interests first
I think Schultz shot him largely because 1: ego - Schultz is represented as a very smart person (well spoken, knows English, German, & French - is a doctor, etc.) and for the first time, he got outwitted in a sense and 2: from the cliche of a movie format, it wouldn't really make any sense for Schultz to live. If that scene didn't happen, then what, they give the $12,000 and walk away? Sure, could've happened, but that entire buildup would've been boiled down to a transaction
i absolutely agree this just feels like he’s making him villain just to make him a villain i think any one watching this would agree schultz did so much for django for virtually nothing in return
They weren’t going leave the plantation alive anyway
@@kevinbutler6783 he couldn’t handle that he got bested!
I think this is what they call "overthinking".
You must go through life underthinking then huh
It’s a Tarantino movie. The writing is defined by the word “overthinking”.
@@warweasel2832 not this though, thinking the character is secretly a piece of shit and doesn’t care for django is an objectively incorrect reading
@@onelazynoob15 you really think this character study was good?
"Kind of enslaved" lol.
This interpretation is surprisingly "modern"
Schultz was disgusted by slavery, by Candie, and every moment he spent with Django made the philosophic objection more concrete.
You have to have a very specific and unwavering world view to interpret this the way the creator of this video did.
yo you completely misread this character, i feel there's some external things affecting how you see this character
W comment
I mean knowing the meta, the actor said he would only due the role if he could play a "saintly German." Consider his last role from inglorious b. it seemed fair. Even before knowing that inside bit, i got the vibe the character was meant to be earnest and held in a good light. I mean as good a light as a bounty hunter is gonna be.
I think it's much more simple than all this, when candy demanded a handshake king knew he wasn't getting out without it, and extending his arm for a handshake would activate the arm gun, "I couldn't resist" quite literally couldn't stop it from happening. "you reaaaally want me to shake your hand?" he was trying to subtly warn him as if to say "you really don't want me to do that"
he clearly made the decision to kill Candy that is why he apologized to Django, if he wanted to shake his hand he could have simply walked up close enough to do so. I think you are right about the last part of their interaction being a subtle warning but that's because he knows he'd rather kill and be killed than shake his hand.
@@chadwillett619 Yeah, cuz he clearly aimed right for his heart. Even if what he says was true about the gun, if he had walked up to him and gave him a proper handshake there's no way the bullet with have hit him in the chest...
Candy's smugness killed him here
I think this is spot on
@@jojocapone4861u don’t understand the way it works the moment u move ur wrists up for a handshake the mechanism activates now ask urself why engage in a hand shake at all with that factor
I didn't see it coming and was absolutely heartbroken, after Django himself dr. Schultz was my favorite character and I did not want him to die.
Just a quick observation: in 2:32 I don't believe he said "Today's lesson" as you put it but rather because he's teaching Django how to read
@@williamdiaz8599 gonna say this is the correct interpretation considering they literally go straight into a reading lesson
I disagree with much of the rumination you do on Schultz - my take was, and still is, that although Schultz had a certain "moral flexibility", he was, at his core, a decent man. A good man that did some bad things. As opposed to being intrinsically a bad man that did some good things. Killing Candie was an impulsive act by a man who was just suddenly overwhelmed by the evil that surrounded him.
Better take than this page
He kills criminals
Shultz is willing to do anything to complete a bounty. His death marks a change in that perception. And that’s it. Question answered. Shultz being good or bad morally is irrelevant to the action he preformed. In that split second he wasn’t thinking “I hope this save Django” or “I sure hope this screws over Django”.
What was he thinking then
@@KerioFive it was a mental breaking point, he couldn't bring himself to shake that hand after the trauma he experienced the last few days
@@KerioFive He wasn't thinking. He acted purely on feeling.
@@KerioFive “God, I hate all of this”
He was thinking "Fuck this guy" then shoots him
It's really a great movie, and interesting question. There's a lot of different answers you could read in this, because there's different aspects of the character that motivates them.
One thing to consider is that Candie and Schultz are mirrored, in that they're decently smart men who act as partners with an oppressed minority, who gains safety and influence and freedom through their protection of their white 'leader' in public, and gets along quite well with them personally.
In this context, I view that Schultz is both aware of his hypocrisy at the start, something he brings up about how bounty hunting is like the slave trade of trading bodies for money, and rather comfortable with it, his rationalizations and justifications are enough that he can enjoy his life and it's pleasures, and can easily choose to help a black man or mock southern white supremacy as he pleases. He intentionally keeps his distance from actual society, spending much of his time on the 'frontier' while primarily making money from the government jobs.
But when confronted with the actual realities of Mr. Candie up close, and the way he treats his slaves 'better' the most slave owners, and views himself as an actual progressive on race relations compared to many of his peers, Schultz sees a mirror of his own actions, and justifications, and hypocrisy, which leads to a lot of distress, and his previous rationalizations and justifications can no longer protect Schultz from the realities society he participates and benefits from.
His other major character trait, his cleverness, ability to manipulate people, and get them to do what he wants for his benefit, is likewise questioned by the Stephen/Candie team. He shown not to be able to out think candieland, to make them act to his wishes rather then theirs. He's forced to participate in their slave trade in basically good faith, paying fair value for 'desirable' traits in human beings, and measure their worth according to the slave culture.
Then he's left with the raw unvarnished choice to accept this evil that he's surrounded by, or to violently oppose it. If he thought he could outsmart them, or make a fool of them, perhaps he would have taken the setback and worked another angle. But he didn't feel that was a real option, and instead resorted to violence, even knowing he would die. The game he played on so many others was reversed on him, and he refused to accept it.
Schultz I believe really did care both about Django as a friend and partner, and Django's wife who he never met, cared for her in the way you can care about any stranger who suffers, but he was a character who balanced his selfishness with higher ideals, and both of these drove him to refuse to accept the situation presented him.
I think at the end, Schultz had come to the point that Django reached long ago, where he wants to do anything to stop this system, escape from it, stop it from hurting him, but has no ability to do so, or even know how to learn to do those things. Django begged and upheld racist theory and justifications to try and stop the whipping of his wife, and failed. Schultz likewise failed here to really stop anything, But Django who always understood better what he was actually fighting against, was able to carry on, because he was always aware of what his true enemy was, views and habits that even Dr. Schultz had in his character and habits.
favourite comment from here
That is on one hand a rather interesting theory. However, I believe it is way more complex in detail while ironically way more straightforward in character. This strange ambiguity is way more obvious if you are familiar with the template Tarantino used for the creation of Dr. Schultz - and knowing this in detail is unlikely for any American viewer.
The main trope of the character is the „good German guy“, namely a very specific character. In the end of the 19th century, a German author named Karl May wrote a whole lot of novels, both as fictitious „travel reports“ and in 3rd person, mainly set in the Wild West and in the Orient (interestingly without ever having travelled there himself, and with rather „inventive“ takes on English, Arab, Spanish and several supposedly Native American languages). In all his novels, he either had a main character of German origin (and I‘m talking born, raised and educated in Germany or rather one of the several King- or Princeton’s of the then-Holy Roman Empire), or he himself was said protagonist. What all those characters had in common was their strict morales, their education, and their faith. I could go on about this for quite some time, but for this purpose, that should be enough.
Now, the popularity of May‘s books is, while fading, still existent - and was even more so some 50 years ago. So in the 60s, several of his books were adapted for the Silver Screen in Germany (in cooperation with then Jugoslavia). Those movies were quite successful and, while altering the novels quite freely in several cases, still had the trope of the main white hero, named „Old Shatterhand“, being that morally predominant German dude (ironically portrayed by American actor Lex Barker) alongside his best friend, the Mescalero chief „Winnetou“ (portrayed by French actor Pierre Briece), who was educated by another German character (and therefore also a strictly morally „good“ character).
When Tarantino filmed „Inglorious Basterds“, he spent a considerable time in Germany, and as a known film fan, he stumbled across those 60s Karl May adaptations, watched them and liked them. At the same time, he of course worked with Christoph Waltz, and they created one of the best movie antagonists of all time, Hans Landa.
For his next film, planned to be set in the Wild West, Tarantino wrote a character specifically for Waltz: Dr. King Schultz. And here comes the straightforward part. He simply allowed himself to be inspired by the May adaptations, and therefore made the character German (which is also sensible, given that Waltz is Austrian/German). Also, he adopted the moral trope set by May, that a German character can never be a bad person and has to be well educated. So, mainly, Dr. Schultz is a classic Karl May hero.
However, Tarantino being the brilliant writer he is, Waltz being an actor who is best at playing multi-layered characters (and Schultz was, remember, written specifically with Waltz in mind), morally „radiant“ characters being honestly rather dull and most of May‘s tropes even annoy Germans nowadays, Tarantino opted to change the trope to fit both his story and the actor. You see, May‘s heroes would never work as bounty hunters - on the contrary, they preferred to act humanely on every possible occasion and only killed when absolutely necessary. Tarantino altered the trope to „bounty hunter, who rather kills then captures to save the hassle“, basically adding more violence and a feasible amount of egoism (that part you worked out quite correctly). On the other hand, and here lies your mistake when we consider what the character‘s roots are, Schultz is most certainly a strict adversary to slavery. For me, knowing both May‘s books and the movies from childhood, Waltz plays the role very much in this manner. He didn‘t use livery to bind Django to him. He would have freed him immediately, if he could rely on Django helping him regardless. His concern for Django‘s safety is genuine, and teaching Django culture, Wild West skills and morale fits perfectly to the May origins.
I could go into even more detail, but the text is already stupidly long. To wrap things up: Schultz is most certainly not a character who questions his own morale or feels ashamed of anything. And him killing Candie, knowing fully well that he will not survive this, fits 100% into this perfect modernised and Tarantino-esque alteration to a classic German Karl May protagonist.
Thanks for the insight! Really interesting stuff!
@@pretentiousanimefanWhy does Dr Shultz die.....
Haven't you seen the movie or don't you know what happens when you're shot with a double barrelled shot gun?
Your comment is as long as hell’s thighs but I breezed through it. It was really well written and articulate.
@@jryan2552 thank you. In those cases, I feel obliged to clarify the original character trope - especially as I grew up with May‘s novels and still read them sometimes today. Admittedly, the strong emphasis on Christianity and pages over pages of landscape descriptions is annoying, but May‘s talent for bizarre and comical side characters is just brilliant and still very much fun.
The thing is, he is not too well known even in Germany nowadays and basically completely unknown in America.
I personally think that the reason to his death and the killing of calvin is a lot easier than thought out.
I think that shultz' reaction was due to the trauma of seeing d'artanan being ripped apart by dogs and candy constantly annoying him like a little child brought him to a boiling point, and when calvin tried to make a final jab of superiority by trying to force him to shake his hand, Shultz snapped and shot him.
You can also see how frozen he was after the deed was done
5:58, disagree - the fact there's so many heavily armed guards and gang-members with advanced weapons that only Candie could've funded to them, point being that it seems like they were there to murder Schultz and Django after the deal was over and they were going to leave.
(Let's assume the film ends around 1860, otherwise things like Henry rifles make no sense unless again we pretend they're Volcanic repeaters. But then again they're also using Remington M1858s and Spencer M1860s, which would not become common in large quantities until post-1862/63.)
Saw this with my old man , that was one of the first things he said afterwards - Django and Schultz were not meant to leave that house...
@@mojostigletts1358 Same, except he seemed to not connect the dots, much like anyone else. Unlike most people I've seen reacting to the film, my old man seemed to smell Schultz and Candie's death from a mile away, though.
@@jakobinobles3263 My main point about the guns is they didn't exist, though - it would be more realistic to be set later, in 1860 or 1861. Regardless of how rich Candie is, he'd be a timetraveller from several years later to be able to have them. Doesn't help having these advanced weapons owned by the Daughtrey townspeople too.
Like how the Colt Peacemaker was actually produced two years following its model date, the iconic M1858 Remingtons we keep seeing weren't produced until 1862 to make up for the Colt factory burning down.
The Spencer too is an innacuracy - in the American Civil War, hundreds of thousands of examples were produced and issued - making the Civil War the most significant war and use of lever-action rifles ever. Unlike the misconception that they were rare in the war, there were more than 106,000 used - in comparison, that's more than there were Lewis guns in WW1, and we think of those as common, iconic weapons of that war. (And proportionally that's far more common to have a Spencer in the civil war than a Lewis in WW1.)
Point is, the first real production and examples of them was in 1861, with Custer being among the early users, and then an order for 12,000 was made in 1862, and another for over 90,000 in early 1863. And so on. The Spencer rifle didn't exist in May, 1859, when the film ends - it was being designed at most. Same with the Henry rifles, unless you excuse them as being Volcanic rifles (Which is passable). Even the M1860 revolvers are yet to be used... literally everything in the film would be more accurate if it were simply a few years later.
Hey, the rest of the guns are accurate though! Schultz should have a four-barreled version of the Remington Derringer M1866 he uses - that would be, the Sharps Patent M1858 - and his Sharps rifle can probably pass as one of the many models of Sharps carbines in the 1850s, although it appears to be a metallic-cartridge firing version, which would only exist in 1865 and later.
@@SStupendous also that music that was played on harp didnt exist till few years later
movie should be set in 1865
@@Hubert_G Wasn't DISCOVERED until a few years later. Beethoven made it long, long before all this.
Schultz is a representative of Wotan ... one of the titles of Wotan is the lord of contracts. He created the world and the rules within it that everyone must abide and follow, including himself
Schultz is german for village headman or sheriff so King Schultz is a way to say the king Sheriff which again references Wotan
As long as Schultz follows the law and his contracts, he is safe and cannot be killed. Its his protective shield. But when he kills Candy, he violates their contract and breaks the law, so he is no longer protected and is killed himself
dang thats an interesting take
Wotan = Odin = *The* Oathbreaker.
that’s like your own theory man
He wasn’t protected as he engaged in swindling and Candie could have carte Blanche in killing a German national and a freeman even if they were servants of the Federal court.
@@JoshSweetvale First off, Wutan and Odin, while they have the same origins, are different deities.
I think it was more Calvin had got the better of him with the handshake because he knew he couldn't beat him with brain so he decided to force him to shake his hand by physically threatening Brunhilde and Shultz one uped him by showing he wouldn't win that way either and that he's willing to die to show Calvin that he still could get the better of him in both ways. Also I feel he knew Calvin wasn't just gonna let them walk outta there
Interesting even tho I disagreed w/ almost every assessment lol.
Yes, Django is only good bc he benefit Shultz. But Shultz also teaches him a craft that’ll last long after he’s gone.
A 1/3rd of the bounty’s seems reasonable since he provides the knowledge, the transportation, the clothes, the weapons and ammo, and the ability the walk into plantations w/o being harassed.
And the mere fact that he’s willing to spend around 400k w/o thinking twice for Brumhilda really says all ya need to know imo.
People are so cynical and nihilistic these days they cannot accept a character that was actually moral and good.
Modern culture has brainwashed people into always expecting caveats and believing in a gray world.
But the fact is, Schultz was exactly how he is portrayed: a moral, good man. Not an anti hero, not a secret villain. I'll admit, when I watched the movie I kept waiting for his to turn on Django. When I watched the movie again with family, I was asked a few times "so is he secretly a bad guy".
People have completely forgotten that *actually* good people exist and have existed throughout history. Not everyone is secretly delusional or psychopathic.
Best part about Quinton is that he makes his movies to be interpreted by the viewers and we can all create our own ideas and reasonings
I thought it was much simpler
There's this overdone but kinda true saying "Beware the fury of a patient man"
Schultz isn't nice, he isn't good, he might be from Django's perspective but they both practice moral relativism
But overall Schultz is calm most of the time, reasonable, gentle even. Never gets impatient with Django or people who took issue with them
And since i believe he had a subtle but potent hatred of racism he finally lost his cool and straight up offed a guy who not only annoyed the shit out of him but also stood for a lot of things Schultz hated. It's one of the strongest contrasts in the movie, almost everyone else treating black people like something less than human and Schultz approaching, treating and talking to them like they're just another person, not coddling or offering false sympathy just normally dealing like with a fellow human being, doesn't even consider it that way just comes to him naturally.
And that last glance at Django before he approaches Candie to me seems kind of like "I taught this lad well. He will manage, because i really had enough of Candie's shit"
Schultz simply snapped because everyone has their limits.
I believe it was his final lesson to django
Legit, Schultz hates Candy and when candy reached out his hand for a hand shake he LITERALLY couldn’t resist using his taxi driver sleeve gun. He let the intrusive thoughts win 😂
There was also a battle of wits between Django and Steven that to me was more intense than King and Calvin’s, and Django was trying to explain this dynamic to King about “intriguing” Calvin Candie by trying to show he’s despicable, but Django couldn’t even act as low as Calvin’s own house “”, Steven.
I think King had been had by an evil person like Calvin before, and was enlightened enough that he knew at the moment of the forced handshake, that Calvin had no intent of letting them leave in one piece. The apology was code to Django that there wasn’t another option at that point-the jig was truly up. And gave Django the gift of a few moments of shock over the room to try to escape.
It was obvious from Calvin’s prior actions that he’ll do whatever it takes to preserve his reputation that no one escapes Candyland, and that at that point of the handshake, it was way past any amount of money and laws when it came to the ego of the ignorant, arrogant, cruel Calvin, and Calvin was toying with them and planned to make an example.
He trained Jango. That took time, effort and money for bullets and food. That is why Django only gets 1/3 the bounty. It's actually pretty generous.
Schultz just simply does not care about Django being a slave, and he never threatens him about leaving
My man is so disgusted by Candy he just go: " fck it we ball"
My theory about this is - Calvin also had a sleeve gun , he is over insisting on shaking hands with shultz and thats how shultz uses it , he puts his hand out and boom , Calvin insists do much he knows if he shakes hands he dies , if he doesnt shake hands he dies .....so he goes for option 3 and shoots first ..then dies
I have a different take. Schultz expresses, at the opening of the film, that he employs slavery for his own ends reluctantly. There's no real reason for him to lie about this. Furthermore, it is consistent with the European attitude towards American slavery during the years after Europe had abolished their own form of slavery but America had not yet. Then the course of the movie takes Schultz on a guided tour of the American South and its abhorrent institution. Unlike Django, who has already plumbed the depths of a slaver's cruelty, Schultz is genuinely shocked by each new depravity. It's my interpretation that by the time he has to shake hands with Candi, Schultz is wracked with guilt about having become, to whatever degree, himself a slaver. He kills Candi not to remove Candi from the world or in some sort of suicidal ideation, but because killing Candi is extravagant redemption. He is a little slaver, and it gnaws at him. What better gesture of moral repudiation than to kill one of the biggest slavers?
Idk I always felt that no matter what candy or his men would have tried to kill king here or shortly after.
I honestly don't think that would've been the case. They could've killed them at ANY time after they disarmed them, but they made the deal for Django's wife, drew up her freedom papers, and even served them dessert. I just don't see why they'd go to all that trouble just to murder them afterwards.
@@forman208 southern hospitality, feed your pigs well before you butcher them so they're too tired to put up a fight
And you get their money in a civilised manner rather than robbing them and then in your defense , you say that they were trying to swindle you in your own home
I honestly never thought about Schultz this way. On the surface he appears to be a well spoken, sophisticated bounty hunter opposed to slavery. Looking back on his actions on the film he definitely uses Django for some good but does in fact have his own ulterior motives. It kind of makes me think Thomas Jefferson, he owned slaves and he even wrote about how it was wrong but didn't outright release them.
The issue is that both men are effectively stuck. It doesn't matter if they are opposed to slavery they alone can't change it. They can take steps to help slaves, free them, educate them and try to give them jobs but that's only a small step towards making things better.
Plus simply releasing them doesn't guarantee anything since as we saw with Django during the beginning, most slaves didn't know how to read, write or even speak especially well, so freeing them effectively is just throwing them out into the world with no skills or means to make a living, effectively dooming them to either die quickly or selling themselves back into slavery just to survive. And even if they do have useful skills and are free that's no guarantee of anything either.
12 Years a Slave proves that even if Slaves due end up freed, they can just as easily be captured and sold back into slavery and because slavery is a common practice very few people will do anything about it or care.
It's unfortunate but Schultz and Jefferson needed to be care with their actions, lest they condemn the people they are trying to save.
No, he released him and empowered him, giving him a job should he choose that would be far better than any alternative.
Thomas Jefferson is actually a great analogy because he did free his slaves, but only after their mother agreed to be his wife
Thomas Jefferson is a lot more like Candie than Schulz
@@adamkastler7538 I mean they wouldn't be captured again and turn into a slave if they know their dad is a rich white man.
I saw an interesting theory lately, one that said Schultz recognized Candy as the dragon to Brunhilde's story, and in the moment he just couldn't resist the opportunity to "slay a dragon".
If he didn't killed candy, the plot would not continue.
I had always interpreted it as refusal to act as though he had good faith in Candie. The "and now you want me to shake your hand?" part was always something I interpreted as confirmation of the ridiculous nature of Candie's request, to him, and so he decided that he'd rather kill Candie and die himself than to do such a thing, because he just hated Candie and the way he acted that much.
Maybe that's just projection, though. I don't think I could have resisted either.
Narratively, it just makes sense, this is a story about Django, he gets to save Broomhilda from an army of antagonists, Schultz's sacrificial elimination of the head evil leaves the door open for that. After teaching Django the trade of revenge and blood, it's just all that was left for his character.
Shultz was a former dentist and a bounty hunter but he was never into slavery before, he didn't like it but he certainly didn't mind it until he met Django. He used Django for his own purpose but after hearing Django's wife's story, he was compelled to do what he thought was the right thing, especially as a German he felt a connection to aid the hero. It was going well until he met Calvin. Notice the look on Schultz's face during Mandingo fighting. He wasn't enjoying it. Then later he felt pity for D'Artagnan because he was truly seeing the ugly side of slavery, and it was getting into him. At Calvin's home, he felt disgusted and when they got caught, he was outsmarted a by slave who defending his master. He saw how vile those people were. During the harp session he remembers that he couldn't keep poor D'Artagnan alive, his tragic death which he could have prevented but didn't because of his promise to Django. Now after signing the papers and even getting 12000 dollars, Calvin was still adamant of showing his ego to them, as he was allowing them to take a slave from him, which he could've easily declined. That handshake he asked for signified that the deceivers were going away on Calvin's terms, not on their own. Shultz snapped at the handshake moment because he couldn't let this win be on Calvin's terms, so he was compelled to shoot him and say "I'm sorry I couldn't resist."
They should have made an alternative ending, where he just shakes his hand and leave with Broomhilda and bring her to safety and then return and burn the whole place down. However, someone like Calvin would have never let them leave safely.
>asks question in title
>awnsers it in thumbnail
finally, the perfect piece of short-form content
You sure assumed a lot about a character with absolutely no context to back it up besides how you "feel"
W comment
Plus not considering the lack of option, and the potential of an actual "exploit" that he can do to Django, the time period, the state of black people on that time. His take is trash
@@ajanddj7874 ur mom
Overanalyzing Schultz, ignoring who candy is. The foundation is tainted.
You're forgetting how big a figure candy is, all he made possible, encompasses, and represents. It was twords the end of the movie, apparent Schultz had created a man capable of freeing others, and we can only assume partially knew the route Django would take after freeing his wife, so the sentence "I couldn't resist" was him basically saying the time was right, even tho djangos wife was present and not safe, it was simply time to flick the first domino and start the falling of Candy's empire and everything attached to it.
This is just a movie, and it's obvious enough that it's insinuated this was the beginning of the ending of slavery, so they wrote a character who got to be the personification of that whole event unfolding - Schultzs last action being rhe killing of the face of slavery.
Shultz is a man of honor. His moral principles are above all else. And sometimes an ethical stance is all you have left, even in mortal danger.
This wasn't the ethical thing to do he got django enslaved
Schultz knew django could handle his own before he died, he called him the fastest gun in the south
3:18 in what manner did he "enslave" Django? You brought up the salon so many times, but somehow the "mutual agreement" he proposed you gloss over... Not to mention that's a deal of a lifetime for someone in his position. 🤦♂️👍
Ye the deal of a lifetime, for a slave. What he did was in a way exploit the fact that django was a slave without a dollar to his name and needed a way to get a new start. It was a good deal yes but king kinda offerd Django the deal knowing he wasnt in a position to decline it, forcing him to take a good deal, but it was still more or less forced. Sure he got paid for his work but its still forced labour and a form of slavery in that sense.
@@mr_raisin_face2577I mean, he fed Django, taught Django how to read and shoot, most likely bought both the horse and the very expensive clothing Django wore...so like, sure he technically enslaved him, but if you get paid thousands of dollars over the course of three months, is it really slavery so much as it is like any other job?
Great video, I love your anaylsis (And anything to do with a video like this and Tarantino.)
It's mostly a sloppy reason for Tarantino to do his thing and have everyone die in a big climactic ending.
You framed the entire video as if bounty hunting wasn't a law abiding hunting of convicted criminals on bounties issued by the state.
That would be in line with how tarentino portrays bounty hunting in his other films (hateful eight) and the films he draws inspiration from (The Great Silence). Tarentino doesn't view bounty hunting as a purely noble profession, but as something somewhat twisted/corrupted. Bounty hunting is both the law and the comodification of human life (poinient in a film about slavery).
"Schultz taunts Django" That was the tamest ribbing I've ever clapped ears on
Him: "Why did Schultz die? "
Me as a intellectual: "he was shot"
$75 Bucks for all 3 brothers is equivalent to $1200 more or less in 2022. Still, not much for three murders but back then it could of gotten you far enough.
That's a lot for three LEGAL murders. Most people who legally kill don't get paid at all
You know what’s truly sickening about this time is that all the shit that Candy did in the movie was perfectly legal, except killing Shultz. That’s what makes it all the more infuriating, Candy would have gotten zero repercussions for the wave of human misery he caused, and Shultz just couldn’t take that, the fact that the literal devil was standing in front of him, and the law he enforced was powerless to bring Candy to justice.
Terrible take my bro. You didn’t understand the movie at all.
Explain yourself bih
@@pablochavez8539 Read any of the other comments. The uploader missed the point pretty hard.
The way Schultz says "if you insist" screams he couldn't resist.
I think he knew he was gonna die. Candy had all the power in that position, all the pride, and all the man power. I think he wanted to go out on his own terms.
Shultz is shows himself as a dentist and candy is exactly opposite of the dentist
Very impressed with your conclusion. I always thought Schultz cracked when he killed Candy and couldn’t bear to sacrifice his own morals and standards and give into the disrespect that Candy had insisted upon. After all the playing along and sacrificing of his soul Django did to get to Broomhilda and all he put up with, I always thought Schultz had acted short-sightedly and cracked in stark contrast to Django. He screws up all the progress and basically damns Django and Broomhilda just because he can’t bear to shake Candy’s hand. A fantastic character but it’s a very selfish end to his character.
I always had an issue with Schultz's death. After going through all that trouble helping Django save Broomhilde, he pretty much guarantees their death with this reaction. Yes, you can find some motivation if you really try, but it just seemed out of character for someone so meticulous in his planning and foresight.
Because it was moving closer and closer to a helpless situation. Candie was outwitting him when it came to power. Its also still massively possible candy was going to kill them on the way out.
Schultz had nothing to earn from Django finding his wife. He was selfless, he just felt no remorse for killing people who knew the consequences of their bad actions
I always thought that Shultz dying was like the last lesson he’d ever teach Django, giving him an opportunity to rise from his student to his own man
0:53 in all fairness, $25 dollars in 1858 has a modern purchasing power of 3k and some change. 9k isn't nothing
Why does Dr. Shultz die? The simple and obvious answer, it's because he got shot in the chest.
i think its becouse his heart stopped beating
@@Hubert_G That too. He also stopped breathing as well.
What I didn't get is the movie makes it clear Schultz is a pretty badass gunfighter/combat fighter.. yet after he does his thing it's a full 28 seconds of him just standing there before he gets shotgunned. He had to know what the next threat was likely to be and had plenty of time to do.. something. The guy with the shotgun was kind of an old man.
Because there was nothing he could do. All their weapons were confiscated and the Derringer is a close range gun with two small bullets, meaning he had zero means to kill Butch from the distance he was at.
Actually the movie does a really good job of showing that Schultz is more of a methodical hunter. Every time the circumstances are disadvantageous, he instructs Django to throw down their weapons. Give up. Django is the classical gunslinger. Schultz is the patient hunter, setting environmental traps. Pouncing out from the shadows.
@@jaredbryant8297 Great reply, this is true. Django was itchy on his trigger finger because he PERSONALLY experienced their wrath. Schultz hasn't, but he sympathizes with Django, and so he doesn't feel a personal vendetta against them necessarily.
In addition to what the others said, Schultz didn't kill candy expecting to survive, it was very impulsive and he knows it was the wrong thing to do
He realised
That no matter what he did
He wouldn't change anything
I think he knew that they weren't gonna escape from Candy's pasture. They were gonna hunt them down and murder them in terrible ways. So he just took his shot right there.
I think at the point that Schulz kills Candy, he's prepared to sacrifice himself because hes sick and tired of the whole game with Candy, whom he despised, and he knew Django would take care of business. Schultz felt he had a mystical connection to Django and his wife because of her name and so he was really on a holy mission. I love Django Unchained. Its my favorite film by Quentin that gets better the more I watch it.
idk how you miss the mark by so much after seeing the movie 6 times.
Shultzs' decision, his life... his death.
The dog attack scene shook him very badly. He lost his mental composure.
Imo I felt like he knew that Candie had no intention on letting them leave alive, and that the handshake was setting him up for an ambush or something
Very true
I've come to think there's a strong parallel with Schultz and Hans Landa as characters. They are both murderers who view killing as part of their business, both incredibly charismatic to the point that you can't figure out who they are under the polite facade but also have such a need to be in control at all times that they almost can't fathom a situation they aren't in control of. It feels like Waltz played Landa as an antagonist and mirrored that role as a protagonist for Schultz.
You could even argue Landa isn't racist and views hunting Jewish people as simply a role that provides purpose and a paycheck, and would feel the exact same way and act in the same manner if he were told to hunt any other group for the state (such as outlaws).
Schultz died because of pride, purely because he didn't want to be told what to do by Candy and thus cede control of the situation. The handshake was Candy's way of saying that he won the exchange. and as you said Django and Brunehilda paid the price for his pride.
This is silly, Landa murders Innocents
Incredible breakdown of one of my favorite film characters. Broke my heart Schultz died, because I felt like they could’ve been an incredible series as a dynamic duo that went around freeing slaves and taking out terrible slave owners. As much as I didn’t like his death, seeing the way the film unfolded after, it feels almost like his death was necessary to push the story forward the way it did.
I think a lot of things are happening in this brief moment all at once that it's hard to talk about all of them or (especially) to synthesize them into a singular meaning. One thing I will add to the pot on what's happening here: we are seeing the student surpass the master. Schultz frequently lectures Django on pragmatism and level-headedness. We see first see Django start to grow out of Schultz's shadow when he berates the slave and justifies his performance to Schultz. When Schultz shoots Candy, we see Schultz's pragmatism fail completely at a time when Django's does not, despite the fact that Django must be feeling at least as much fury as Schultz. It also shows how Schultz's more privileged life has made him emotionally soft. Django has years of practice choking on the rage he must feel toward white slave owners. He has learned to keep a cool head in order to survive.
It kind of felt like he was going to be shot anyway after the handshake, candy had no intention of letting them leave after tricking him.
Great analysis! looking forward to the next one!
just started it honestly this intro is such a beautiful masterpiece