Django Unchained: Why the scene with the Australian slave owners is important.

Django Unchained: Why the scene with the Australian slave owners is important. 

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for the film. 

                Django Unchained has always been my favorite Taratino film right next to Pulp Fiction. The reason being is because Tarantino streamlines his pacing linearly compared to his out-of-sequence narrative approach with Pulp Fiction. This reaffirmed his strength as both a writer and director. The first time I watched the film, I didn't feel the 165 minute length until after the massive shootout in Calvin Candie's Big House 3/4 of the way in. Many felt like this, feeling the rest of the film starting dragging on after Django was sold to the mining company where he'll be worked to death. 

This scene where he cons the mining company slave owners started to become more bearable after several re-watches and I started asking myself why and others who saw this film felt otherwise at first. Why did this scene and the rest of the film afterwards feel drawn out? What was missing or what was needlessly added? I might know the reason: it might have to do with the absence of Christoph Waltz's character Dr. King Shultz.

The dynamic between Django and King has been notably the highlight of the film. Not only from many of Waltz's scene-stealing moments, but because of how Shultz handled almost 90% of the situations him and Django encountered. Shultz's role in the film plays heavily into Django's character arc throughout the story. This includes many small moments such as Shutlz reminding Django to remove his hat when they enter the racist bar earlier in the film, and when he'd usually have to reiterate, enforce, or the most obvious one, vouch for both of them. 

Django's character grows from his relationship with Shultz. Django learns not from what Shultz teaches him personally, but from what he didn't teach him, and more of what Django learns about himself. This is a vice versa with Shultz, who is an enforcer but only enforces the side of slavery he's familiar with. When he enters deep into Django's world, he makes the brash decision he tried to prevent Django from doing. As he told Django (and I'm paraphrasing a bit) "You need someone to with a conscience to go with you".  But the role reversal is slowly revealed as they enter in the uglier side of slavery. Django still isn't perfect, but he understands the harshness they encounter more than Shultz does. 

And lastly the Calvin Candy Big House scene shows Shultz no longer as the composed, enforced, controlled mindset after seeing how much of a monster Candy actually is. Witnessing what Django has experienced, our expectations are subverted after seeing Django almost make the first violent move. But alas, it's Shultz that makes the first violent action, unable to control his subtle anger, frustration, and hatred of Candy's treachery, shooting him with the same tiny gun he used earlier, and what Django used no soon after. With Candy dead, and Shultz killed right after, Django taps into his inner instinct, as well as what potential Shultz pulled out of him, only getting so far. 

Now finally this leads to what might possibly by one of my favorite scenes in the film. Django cons the director and the other two slave owners into going back to Candyland to kill the wanted men he tricks them into believing are actually there. The reason I've grown to love this scene is because it felt like Shultz was still there. It felt like Django and Shultz fused into one singular character and both traits of both characters were taking the proper action at the needed time. This scene stuck with me because we've seen Django starting out as a slave that felt like he had no power or control, but really pulling the potential he had from inside based off his relationship with Shultz. 

Shultz being a German character also brings a new element into what Django weaponizes against both Candy around the second act and the mining company slave owners. It shows the power of persuasion is universal and it helps him escape the mining slave owners. Once Django uses this power of persuasion he learned from Shultz, he goes full Django and plugs bullets into all three. For me personally, this was another subversion I didn't expect. I expected them to actually go back to Candyland but I digress; what did happen made more sense. 

So when people say this was less Django's movie and more Shultz's, I can understand that. However, I feel that was intended so that Django can become a fully-bodied and fleshed out character, making his victory all the more rewarding by the end.

Have you seen the film? How did you feel about the scene? Or the film in general? Leave a comment below! And Happy Friday!