Waltz Shooting Di'Caprio? Reason?

All you movie enthusiast , what was your opinion/theory for the cool, calm, collective Waltz abruptly shooting DiCaprio when going to shake his hand, without a plan, real motive, knowing it would end in losing gunfire? Seemed out of character, and Tarantino is such a master I doubt it was done on accident, just trying to figure out what the reason/ storyline was behind Waltz losing his cool? I Loved this movie and was hanging on every scene. However this scene left me with questions. Anyone else?
steve p.
12-25-2012 07:02 PM

Thread Replies

Please log in to participate in this forum.

CommandereON

Anthony M

check out the huffington post interview with tarantino, apparently, the film not being narrated constrained tarantino to explain schultz's thought process, schultz was a control freak who? did his job with the penchant for theatrics and orchestrated plans that he rode through to the end always winning (like the incident with the sheriff he shot), but during his plan at the kendie plantation, everything exploded in his face and he couldn't take the fact that calvin got the upperhand on him

Jun 23 - 10:26 PM

Ash Gilmore

Ash J. Gilmore

Also I hadn't seen the movie before you wrote this (not many had actually) and I was super pissed when you spoiled this plot point for me, so thanks.

Jun 16 - 03:16 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Think about it this way. Waltz made a living of killing, executing "bad guys". In fact, he didn't really know if they were bad or not. He just went on the word of the government. That was enough. Although he was a calm, rational person, he had zero problems killing people who were considered "bad". It was part of his identity. Now throughout the second half of the movie, Waltz gets to witness just how evil and degrading DiCaprio (and slavery in general) is to other human beings. It clearly bothers him more and more as the movie goes on. The worst part for him is when DiCaprio gets the upper hand and Waltz is forced into making an unfair "deal with the devil" with DiCaprio who he utterly detest by now. In any other circumstance, Waltz would have put a bullet in DiCaprio's head immediately and not blinked twice. This time however, Broomhilda's life was on the line and he was forced into an uncomfortable deal with a devil. That's why he was so unnerved and shouting at the harpist to stop playing her pretentious music. Waltz had been brought to an emotional boil by this point. The tipping point was when DiCaprio tried to force Waltz to shake his hand, just to let him know one more time he was boss and his evil ass had gotten the best of Waltz. By then, it was too much for Waltz to bear. He did what came naturally to him; killing the bad guy! He couldn't live with himself if he had let DiCaprio get away and so he died for his own honor and identity. If you look at it that way, this was completely in his character!

Jun 3 - 11:33 AM

Blondie

No Name

That was the perfect analysis of Waltz's character. Nice job.

Jun 3 - 04:39 PM

IkkleMissMuffin

karen worrall

because he was too much of a cool guy to shake his hands and if he had shaken his hands the deal would have been done and django and waltz would have gone and the film would have ended there and then with no blood or guts or gun fights.

Jun 2 - 01:37 PM

freestylefreak

John Woo

Who cares. This movie sucked shit. What a clusterfuck.

May 25 - 04:33 PM

Josh G.

Josh Galbraith

I believe that was addressed immediately after he shot Candie, when he turned to Django and said "I'm sorry, I couldn't help it." He was so deplored by Candies actions that he just couldn't bring himself to shake his hand and since Candie had already stated if he did not shake his hand he was going to kill Broomhilda, it left him no option but to kill Candie.

May 16 - 07:13 AM

Greg Stefan

Greg Stefan

That drove me nuts too...just led to a lot of unnecessary bloodshed...Candie didnt even really seem that evil to me...I also didnt get why Django had to kill EVERYBODY, even Candie's harmless sister

May 1 - 11:17 AM

Ash Gilmore

Ash J. Gilmore

"Candie didn't even seem that evil to me" Um... what? He put Broomhilda in a fucking hot-box, and had an injured slave torn to shreds by dogs. I know that's not THAT many reasons but they're pretty big ones.

May 1 - 07:35 PM

Greg Stefan

Greg Stefan

Sorry, never found him to be a scary villain...so he made them pay 12 grand for a slave...Oh what a monster!! No comparison to Waltz in Basterds

May 2 - 02:55 PM

Brendan Sullivan

Brendan Sullivan

he owned a slave plantation. He deserved to die just on those terms.

May 2 - 05:20 PM

Rami Nawfal

Rami Nawfal

Greg, Candie forces male slaves to fight to the death, he forces female slaves into prostitution, he had a slave who was begging for his life fed to the dogs, and you have the nerve to say he isn't a monster and not that evil?

May 3 - 06:16 AM

Greg Stefan

Greg Stefan

Samuel L Jackson's character seemed more evil to me...he was the one who put Djngo's wife in the hot box...Anyway, it was hard for me to root for Django near the end, 'cause he shot everyone on the plantation just for being white

May 3 - 10:44 AM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

Amen Rami

May 3 - 09:00 AM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

I feel ya there, Greg, I can see how some of these whites seemed somewhat innocent, but if you look at it carefully, this isn't the case(IMO); Most, if not all, of the white people he shot that walked into the house doors, those were all 'overseers', the same exact thing as the character of Ace Woody/'Moonlight', who almost castrates Django. The overseers are the ones who took care of the whippings and torture and keeping the slaves 'in line'. Dr. King Schultz specialized in tracking down Old West outlaw fugitives who went into hiding and became overseers on slave plantations; essentially all the people Django shot during the shootout were overseers, every bit as bad, presumably, as Ace Woody, the Brittle Brothers, etc. They're the same exact thing, overseers, they just weren't established as characters with backstories, but if you look into, you'll find that most of these guys Django shoots are overseers, with the exception of Candie's sister and his lawyer, BUT, it was Candie's sister's idea to hand Django over to the La Quint Dickie Mining Company, and she seems polite, but is clearly racist, and when push comes to shove, she proved to be a despicable character, personally coming up with the idea for the worst punishment for Django.
As far as Candie's lawyer, he seemed like a nice guy, in fact even more nice than people may have observed in some ways, BUT, Still, he definitely condoned slavery and was completely involved in everything that was happening, so, all in all, even though a couple of these characters had sympathetic aspects to them, when you think about it, their deaths were justified from this perspective.

May 3 - 11:32 AM

Greg Stefan

Greg Stefan

So everyone who's a racist should be killed? Interesting debate. I think in 1858 people were racist because of ignorance. White people were educated to believe all blacks were savages from the jungle.

May 3 - 07:00 PM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

Well, first of all, nobody said everyone's who's a racist should be killed. Second, this is a MOVIE. Third, all the people he killed are more than mere 'racists', they're people directly involved in the torture and killing of slaves, and in a REVENGE movie, in short, yes, they definitely had it coming. Again, it's a movie, you're aware of that, right? And the idea that 'white people were educated to believe all blacks were savages from the jungle' is hardly an excuse or a justification for the overwhelmingly vile and disgusting treatment of these people, and in an over the top revenge thriller about a former slave saving his enslaved wife and getting revenge on their slavemasters, it is absolutely silly to me for anyone to think that they should have been more civil with these sadistic, oppressive, torturous murderers. MO

May 4 - 07:28 AM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

And by the way, I think to be an overseer, someone who, by job description, whips, beats, and tortures slaves day in and day out, I mean, these were hardly sympathetic people, you know? I suggest you do some research on the realities of slavery, but I do appreciate your civil attitude, but we are dealing with a revenge thriller here, so, you know..

May 4 - 07:40 AM

Rami Nawfal

Rami Nawfal

Amen Tim

May 16 - 11:25 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Feeding other human beings to savage dogs because they won't fight to the death for you is pretty darn evil... you don't think? *backs up* lol. And Django doesn't kill everyone for just being white. He shot Stephen (who was black) and if Waltz (the German) was still alive, I'm sure he wouldn't have shot him. He basically shot anyone who had something to do with enslaving other human beings and, in particularly, his wife.

Jun 3 - 11:46 AM

Hunter Primm

Hunter Primm

They were trying to kill him for the last half of the movie. It wasn't really out of character, since he did it earlier to the guy with the shotgun in the town. Plus, he is a wanted man and he isn't going to go with them alive. He had confidence that Django could finish the job that Shulz started. He dragged the shoygun guy off of Django so he could do something. It was a perfect twist to me.

Apr 28 - 06:39 AM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

Watashi Mo ^_^ (me too)

May 3 - 09:02 AM

Shawn Cary

Shawn Cary

As a German American, loved him. Not a Nazi, or stereotype movie German. When be told story of Brronhilda, and brought him down at the cost of his life, was interesting enough. And I would shot him, (though bad move at the time.)

Apr 26 - 02:44 AM

CJ C.

CJ CJ

He didn't like him, and it's meant to keep the movie less predictable. The whole movie is leading up to that moment. He's a by-the-book kind of guy and never shoots anyone without the legal papers to do so. He warns Django not to lose his cool at the Candie house. All those scenes with Django almost losing his cool at the dinner table and reaching for his gun. The last person you expect to lose their cool is the guy who's always by the book and keeping their cool. In addition to this, I also think that in most movies, when a good guy is about to walk off and the bad guy has an angry look on their face like Dicaprio did, it usually means the bad guy will try to take one last stab at the good guy. So when he asks him to shake hands, you're supposed to expect Dicaprio to be up to something no good, but instead, Waltz doesn't give him the opportunity and shoots him first, out of anger.

Apr 23 - 12:37 AM

Ben Thompson

Ben Thompson

I actually thought that Calvin would let them live if Schultz just shook his hand. The Doc would've lived, and Django and Broomhilda would live happily ever after. But I feel as if Dr. Schultz needed to die, because throughout the whole movie it seemed like not much effort was put into Jamie Foxx's performance, but after Dr. Schultz died, Django had more screen time to himself and I saw that Foxx's performance became better.

Apr 24 - 10:43 PM

Jacklord Alan Keen

Jacklord Alan Keen

he hated him and was disgusted...

Apr 21 - 12:09 AM

Diego Tutweiller

Diego John Rottweiler

He really, really, really wanted to.

Apr 20 - 10:34 PM

Rui Pereira

Rui Pereira

Another commentator pointed it out - a lazy way to get to the shoot out. Waltz's character was just as bad as the rest. Except that he claimed to be in the right - DiCarpio just did not give a shit. The story would have simply ended with cash paid and they walked away - with what they wanted. Tarantino is too obsessed with the action than the story - but to his credit he has excellent dialogue - he just goes over the top trying to ape better films. I have watched the scene several times and it does not make sense - the revenge is there but for all the wrong reasons and Waltz's new found moral compass is just not coherent to the rest of the story. The subtly is gone for an expedient jump in the story...Tarantino wrote himself into a corner - thought the scene was great and made a narrative jump cut. Tarantino has got to stop thinking that he is still working in a video store and be more creative.

Mar 24 - 06:36 PM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

I respectfully disagree with most, if not all, of your statements. I'd elaborate, but I would be just re-iterating what many have already said, just read the other comments, many people have it right. To put it in very basic terms: Schultz was definitely established as a morally principled character who despised slavery, and Candie stood for all that. To shake his hand would be to, among other things, compromise his moral integrity. On top of this, many complex dynamics of the story hinge on this scene, and I think it developed organically and was effective and was essential to the trajectory of the story.

Apr 23 - 07:57 PM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

Tarantino didn't 'pull a fast one', or as you put it, he didn't do a 'narrative jump-cut', all the circumstances in place that lead to the climax of the scene were firmly established and built organically, and yet it was still unpredictable and exhilarating.

Apr 23 - 08:00 PM

Tim Boone

Tim Boone

I think you're confusing 'unpredictable' with 'contrived'.

Apr 23 - 08:01 PM

Ark Builder

Ark Builder

I think the more important question would be why didn't he kill the other man with the shotgun too ? I mean that gun he had can shoot two bullets, he killed the sheriff with it earlier in the movie, could he have loaded it quickly and shot the other guy ? he would have lived, but as for the reason, I think it is clear, a matter of dignity, he couldn't just live with himself humiliated by shaking the hand of the man he hates the most in the world and who represents everything he personally refuse, its like throwing all your believes down the drain, he would rather kill him and die than shake his hand, because that will worse than death ..

Feb 27 - 04:25 AM

Kuba Zimoch

Kuba Zimoch

In my opinion it's the most important scene in whole movie. It explain everything which was before it and after. Remember the scene, where Schultz is telling Django legend about Broomhilda? Django can only become Sigfrid if he save his love by himself. He need to get at the top of the mountain, cope with fire and kill the dragon. Schultz teach him about shooting and help to reach Candyland (top of the mountain), but rest of the task was up to Django. If they left with handshake, Schultz would rescue Broomhilda, not his ex-slave friend. Going further, Schultz despised slavery, racism and all those dark things represented by America at the time. Candy was a personification of all of those terrible things. And by handshake he would agree with this. When it comes to Schultz's occupation, he was dealing with killing people and living his way of life. But when Django and him flip and roles, he was unable to be cope with playing a slave trader. He could save poor d'Artagnan, but was stopped by Django. All those things have accumulated in him, so the only thing he could do was killing Candy, as his voice against racism and slavery. IMO this scene is brilliant and can be analyzed on so many levels. Without this part, "Django" won't be so great movie.

Jan 31 - 12:47 AM

Jacklord Alan Keen

Jacklord Alan Keen

agree with you...

Apr 21 - 12:09 AM

russ a.

russ allen

THe point of the good Dr. losing it with Candide is precisely the point that builds throughout the movie.....he lost it and recall that the movie is "set" two years before the Civil War. I believe that the Dr is a personification of the North at that point...they were getting fed up with slavery. Again the big shoot em scene at "Candyland" is a metaphor for the upcoming civil war...white vs. white (the dr personifying the north) and black vs. black (freed slaves vs. slaves).

Jan 27 - 10:19 PM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Ahhhh! I never thought of it that way, but that metaphor makes complete sense!

Jun 3 - 11:52 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Many of the smaller interactions in the movie can be viewed as the precursors of things to come after the movie. The gun battle = ensuing civil war, the bagheads gathering = rise of the klan costume, the vicious dogs and the escaped slave caught in a tree = future Jim Crow era. I'm sure I can think of more now...

Jun 3 - 11:56 AM

Zane B

Chum Chum

Who wouldn't?

Jan 27 - 06:02 PM

rodycaz

Rodycaz V

Because he would rather die than shake the hand of someone that represented everything that he hated about the society and values of that time. He knew that if he refused to shake Candie's hand, he was going to get killed or tortured, so he decided to act first and shot him, knowing that he was going to get killed afterwards, but at least going out with honor. Makes perfect sense to me.

Jan 25 - 02:05 PM

Itmar Jameson

Itmar Jameson

Everyone saying it was out of character is obviously wrong. He did it. End.

Why he did it? Partly because that's what the audience wanted. I wanted it. Didn't you? I wanted to see Candie shot dead. I was waiting for the gun-up-the-sleeve to make an appearance. It was the perfect move for the characters.

Surely we the audience had been anticipating this for a while. At least since the harp scene.

I might have preferred if Schultz had taken the shot and then taken cover or hugged Candie and used him as a body shield and then joined the fight as we've seen Django do. More heroic, but less poetic. In the end, I loved how the scene played out.

Jan 25 - 03:54 AM

Gareth Rg Jordan

Gareth Rg Jordan

I think it has something to do with the handshake being a submissive action by Schultz to Candy. As others have stated he held his nerve long enough, it was the final straw. Shaking Candy's hand would signify submitting to him, becoming Candy's slave. So in keeping with the recurring theme of individuals standing up to slavery/racism Schultz is martyred for emancipation.

Jan 24 - 10:16 PM

Jack W.

Jack Watling

Because he hates slavery, and more importantly people who condone it. He even gave the man a chance to walk.

Jan 22 - 10:47 AM

Fena P.

Fena Pjove

you have more about it at rottentomatoeshdstream.lqhw.com

Jan 22 - 09:17 AM

Luvagoo

Tallulah Robinson

Reason?

Because he was a cunt?

That was the reason, which was evident, and which was enough for Schultz, and worth dying for. I thought it was very much in character.

Jan 22 - 12:34 AM

Oliver Stychno

Oliver Stychno

It was made clear that Schultz hated slavery and DiCaprio was a horrible person and ran huge extremely cruel plantation. All it took was that fact and DiCaprio trying to force him to do something to make Schultz snap. He thought it was worth dying for.

Jan 21 - 08:01 PM

James Weir

James Weir

It was essentially a lazy way of getting to the shootout

Jan 21 - 05:43 AM

Colin Hinckley

Colin Hinckley

agreed

Jan 24 - 05:20 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Lazy would have been if the shootout had started from the dinner table like I thought it was going to at first. I thought Stephen was going to come out the doors blazing or something. lol

Jun 3 - 12:08 PM

Priyatam Ch

Priyatam Ch

its just a case of a man's pride and ego getting the better of him.
it happens to even the most composed and cool headed people like schultz sometimes.He knew the moment he did it that it was a mistake hence the apology to django

Jan 20 - 01:37 AM

Russell Brown

Russell Brown

Its not supposed to be ''well explained'', your supposed to work it out for yourself. He just snapped.

Jan 20 - 12:43 AM

Russell Brown

Russell Brown

Everybody saying it was out of character, thats why he had the scence with the harp to show that he was losing his shit, and was on the edge of snapping, the hand shake pushed him over the edge, because he knew Candie would always want to win and slavery would never end, unless HE put a stop to it personally, after seeing that guy get eaten by dogs.

Jan 20 - 12:41 AM

Russell Brown

Russell Brown

They both hated to lose, Waltz character had lost, and leo's character felt like he was losing as well, it was pretty simple.So then they shot each other because he couldn't help himself, he hated the guys guts and would rather they all go down in blaze of bullets then that fuck live another day, he knew there was still a chance django and his girlfriend would live, but he just wanted Leo to die

Jan 20 - 12:38 AM

Chris Styan

Chris Styan

throughout the film, apart from that scene, he never lost, and we found out, just as candie said, he was 'a bad loser' candie wanted to rub salt into the wounds by forcing him to shake his hand, and losing to a man he despised so much, someone he couldnt bare to see beat him got to him, so he did all he could to relieve himself, resulting in the shooting of candie, people are reading too much into it.

Jan 19 - 06:24 PM

Valeria Orani

Valeria Orani

An European, as Quentin feel, is completely impregnated by filosophy and leteracture, myths, legends, story, ethics. Shultz never "use" Django like a slave, never think about him as a slave. If you remember when during the dinner Django say that he is more accostumed to americans than Shultz, you can better understand what I mean. Asking Shultz to shake the hand, Candie touch the soul of him, he can't do that, becouse he don't care about money, he don't care about to win or to loose, bu he care about deeply diversity between himself and Candie.

Jan 19 - 02:43 PM

Jaime Lannister

Jaime Lannister

Needed a reason for Django to start killing everyone of course. Otherwise they would have walked out of the mansion, end of movie.

Jan 19 - 11:40 AM

hollis m.

hollis mills

shut up, im fucking tired of people saying that

Jan 19 - 02:14 PM

Mike Tuff

Mike Tuff

i would have to say its fairly obvious why he shot him. he despises the man and everything he stands for, slavery at the forefront. i thought that was pretty well illustrated throughout the entire film he even said it himself in the inn.

Jan 19 - 02:52 AM

Ali  V.

Ali Valdez



Ali Valdez

I viewed it as the following: Remember when they were sitting at campfire and Waltz was telling the myth of Broomhilde? The hero has three tests to earn her hand. One was the climb up the mountain: the season in the winter earning bounties. Then it was the slaying of the dragon, Candie seems obvious, Big Daddy, too, the evil white slave owners, but in my opinion the dragon was Candie's black servant who earlier Django said slaves betraying or selling other slaves were the worst kind of people. The man servant was the Judas to his own people. Then symbolically the purification by fire. He could not earn Broomhilde til he walked through fire, which was the burning down of Candieland, murdering the man servant, and then prancing around heroically on his nag in front of his princess.
If Waltz had not created the 'last test' and the movie ended with them easily walking off to freedom, then Django could not immerge a hero by his own merit. His own claim to heroism, in theory, could be ensalved to the mercies and whims of Waltz. He earned it the hard way.

Jan 18 - 10:55 AM

Kelsea Leidy

Kelsea Leidy

I would like to point out the fact that I thought your post was the most descriptive and beneficial one to this topic, in my opinion. I completely agree with it actually. I am not sure that this is the specific idea that Tarantino was trying to portray and quite frankly none of us will except for Mr. Quentin Tarantino himself, but I think he left it up to us on purpose, so that we could use our own imagination. With that said, my imagination lead me to the same place yours did, despite a few differences.
In the tale of Broomhilde, the hero was indeed given three tests to earn the lovely Broomhilde?s hand. The first one was to climb up a mountain, in which I think was probably a similar to what you had stated. I think not only was it a huge part of Django?s getting all of his bounties and ?working his way to the top?, but also any other obstacle that was in his way during his journey, as well. Then, the slaying of the dragon is the second step. I agree that most would think Candie was the viscous Dragon and he still very well be, but once Schultz ?slew the dragon? named Candie. It messed up the entire story, but there was a purpose for that, I think. This is where I had a different view on what you had said. I think that Shultz had to kill Candie in order for Django to kill his dragon which was Stephan, Candies servant/slave. Stephan, was the main person behind all of the madness and he was truly the main person stopping Django from getting to his lovely wife. Stephan was the one who raised Candie?s suspicions that Django and Broomhilde knew each other which lead to all the hostility and violence at the end of the movie. Stephan was the one who was not going to let Broomhilde go. All of this would have been nearly impossible or at least less entertaining if Schultz would not have shot Candie and then giving Django the chance to really get ahold of Stephan. There are also other motives involved with Schultz shooting Candie. Shultz was offended when the definition of everything he hated was trying to force him to shake his hand, which should only occur between true gentlemen. Shultz rather die than to go against everything he believed in. This is what Tarantino does; he gives many different twists and turns in his films in order to force his viewers to think. This ending also allowed Django?s quest to become a bit more complicated and shock everyone when we all thought it was almost over. The third test of walking through fire was simple. Django caught the Candie plantation on fire and walked away with his wife. It was a tad dramatic, but it had to be done to fulfill the entire tale Schultz had told and it made a good ending. I felt as if this was your main focus in your explanation as to why Shultz shot Candie, so in my opinion you strayed away from the true topic. All in all, great explanation.

Feb 22 - 04:33 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Exactly. Good tie in with the story of Broomhilde.

Jun 3 - 12:13 PM

Facebook User

Facebook User

because shultz is a man of honor and he cant bare to be treated like on of candie's slaves. back then, a man's honor and dignity was very significant

Jan 16 - 05:30 PM

Yousef Shaaban

Yousef Shaaban

Motives of Waltz's character was not well explained. Waltz said in the very beginning of the movie that Django was his 1st freed slave(for a benefit) and also he didn't help the cold slaves that were chained along with Django(30 miles away from nearest town). So the change in his character into slaves' carer was kinda mysterious and missing and specially in the case of helping Django in his search for his wife based on their agreement (why didn't he just use him as he became his after he took him from the 1st two slavers he shot in the woods)?!?!

Jan 16 - 04:42 PM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Waltz character would not have been nearly as interesting if he had shown no complexity or growth of character during the entire movie. In the beginning, he is very apathetic to the plight of slaves. Django is just a means to an end. After spending time with Django and hearing his story of his lost wife, he is finally able to empathize with this "slave" and see him as a human being with a valiant cause, something Waltz can even believe in. The story of Broomhilde was a pivotal part of showing Waltz' character growth. Another major turning point for Waltz' character was the firsthand witnessing of the atrocities that were being done to slaves, namely the mandigo fight to the death and the fighter being eaten alive by dogs. Both of these experiences weighed heavily on Waltz' formerly blind conscious. He was beginning to care more and more. So his growth in character was not very mysterious if you understand that in life, we are changed through our intimate conversations and personal experiences. This is what occurred to Waltz throughout the movie until his ultimate demise.

Jun 3 - 12:37 PM

Jennifer Vissicchio

Jennifer Vissicchio

It was because Candie demanded he shake his hand. It was all about the handshake. He'd rather shoot him over shaking hands. Waltz was trying to leave without that handshake

Jan 16 - 02:48 PM

James Weir

James Weir

I thought that was a poor part of the film, instead of putting his "principles" and ego aside he essentially killed Django and Broomhilda for his own selfish reasons. There was no way he could have really forseen Django and Broomhilda ngetting out alive. As everyone said he was disturbed by the dogs scene but this was a man who killed people in various ways for a living without so much as batting an eyelid and transporting and "selling" the corpses.

Jan 16 - 03:30 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

I don't necessarily think it was a poor part of the film. It was necessary to push the overall story and action along. More so I think it was a poor decision on his part definitely. Truth to live though, sometimes we all get caught up in our feelings and make bad decisions.

Jun 3 - 12:36 PM

Leo Figueroa

Leo Figueroa

Dr. King hated Candie cuz he let the dogs eat the slave and like he said He couldnt resist.

Jan 15 - 07:11 PM

andrea c.

andrea cold

One of the best scene of this movie, if you need to ask "why he shot him?", well, then maybe these kind of movies are not for you, they are not "your cup of tea".

Jan 15 - 01:10 PM

Billy Bone

Billy Bone

it did seem out of character for schultz to shoot candie. not because it was suicide for him, but because he was basically killing django and broomhilda when they were pretty much home free. what i THOUGHT was going to happen was candie was going to shoot shultz when they shook hands, and then django would snap and go on a tear. i felt like that would have been more believable.

Jan 15 - 09:10 AM

Andy Richardson

Andy Richardson

This is completely off topic, but I can't figure this out or find a place to pose this question. During the previews of Django there was a really strange and odd upcoming film that I cannot remember the name of. It was really out there. Anybody remember the name of that film or what I am talking about?

Jan 9 - 11:44 AM

Stacey Gray

Stacey Gray

Do you remember what it was about or who was in it?The only one that stands out for me is World War Z with Brad Pitt,a zombie movie.It stands out because Im dying to see it.

Jan 14 - 02:00 PM

Dillon DeWitt

Dillon DeWitt

It'd be appreciated by many if you could add spoiler alert before spouting off information pretaining to an obviously important scene. Perhaps there were people who had not yet seen the movie?

Jan 8 - 01:14 PM

hollis m.

hollis mills

everyone who comments here has already seen the movie, you are the dimwit who choose to click on a thread that read "waltz shooting Di'caprio".....no sympathy for you pal

Jan 8 - 07:55 PM

Stirge  F.

Stirge Fluton

You're on the discussion board, what do you expect??

Jan 15 - 08:10 PM

Craig Watson

Craig Watson

Sorry man.
We'll just wait till every single living person has seen Django Unchained before we start using the discussion boards.

Jan 19 - 05:28 PM

Justin Glover

Justin Glover

as he says right after he shoots him, "i couldn't resist"

Jan 4 - 08:56 AM

Andy Richardson

Andy Richardson

plus you could tell he was having serious moral struggles with Monsieur Candie with the flashbacks to the scene where the dogs are tearing up the slave. I certainly don't think it was out of the blue, there were several elements that sort of led up to it.

Jan 9 - 11:42 AM

Jean Picard

Jean Picard

In Germany, the "Kaufmannsrecht" ("law among salesmen") still applies in cities like Hamburg, with a binding-by-law tradition, where a simple "shaking of hands" is enough to "seal the deal". You don't even need paperwork (and as you see in the movie "seal a deal"....with a seal), just "the word of a man". You only do that with people you respect and people of honor.

So Schultz had no problem signing some papers, but when Candy asked him to "shake his hand, because that's how gentlemen seal deals here", Schultz couldn't help himself and shot him, because that was an ultimate insult for him, an honorable men with principles showing respect to a savage like Candy. To shake the hand of a man he so much despised would be equal to him losing his honor and dignity.

Jan 4 - 06:09 AM

Jon Knights

Jon Knights

Awesome, informative post. Cheers for that, buddy.

Jan 14 - 04:37 PM

Koltin Kislia

Koltin Kislia

Also, I think that shaking the hand truly emphasizes (to Schultz) that by only saving Broomhilda they are essentially remaining apathetic to the treatment of Candie's slaves. This open acknowledgement of inaction is too much for Schultz, and so (instead of allowing Django to simply go on with his life) takes the satisfaction of shooting Candie himself. In doing so he causes the chain of events that ends with the destruction of candyland.

Jan 14 - 06:46 PM

Kalynada

Jake Jones

Great stuff!

Jan 17 - 09:44 PM

Ashley Batte

Ashley Batte

Yes

Jan 20 - 12:08 AM

Deyan Angelov

Deyan Angelov

You're probably not aware that the film hasn't been released everywhere worldwide, right?

Jan 4 - 04:22 AM

Kevin Rojas

Kevin Rojas

I feel like Schultz felt he had to do what was necessary to avenge the slave who was mauled by dogs earlier in the movie. He may have felt somewhat responsible for his death, since he would have had the choice to pay off his debt, but did not. And similar to that of Django's situation when he made him a free man, its only logical to think the same for the slave who was killed by dogs. Also, I had a hunch that if it wasn't Schultz that killed DiCaprio, it would have been DiCaprio that killed Schultz (insisting to shake ones hand and threatening to throw away a 12,000 deal was a questionable motive to believe so.)

Jan 3 - 09:54 PM

Andi Malisheski

Andi Malisheski

I agree with the other comments, this was a really weak point in the plot which Tarantino rushed to bring on the showdown. Schultz's desire to see them all out of there alive would have been greater than his desire to kill DiCaprio. His cool-headedness in those kinds of diplomatic situations was beaten into our brains from the beginning, and he had a flair for convoluted plans. He would've just come back another day to screw/kill DiCaprio, without risking Siegfried and his princess. He had to have known he was condemning them to slavery, death, torture again with his action. Totally out of character and the biggest failure of the film, in my opinion.

Jan 3 - 03:45 PM

Chase Jarrell

Chase Jarrell

This is why women shouldn't have opinions.

Jan 15 - 08:23 PM

Market Man

Eric Shankle

It's because Tarantino wanted to have an ultra-violent shootout scene no matter what the instigation. This scene felt a bit off to me as well.

Jan 2 - 10:52 PM

Emma Jane

Emma Jane

You're exactly right, but I think perhaps you're overlooking something. the intentional "out of character" I think the line was addressed at the audience directly from Tarantino, so as though he could have such a shoot out.

Jan 9 - 09:10 AM

He Zhang

He Zhang

quentin felt like he should die but was too lazy to figure out a logical way

Jan 2 - 10:36 PM

hollis m.

hollis mills

schultz knew a man like candie didnt deserve to live

Jan 1 - 04:54 PM

Suzanne Gooch

Suzanne Gooch

Uh - maybe because Tarantino had kept his cool - for him anyway - but really couldn't wait to get to what he really loves - the blood bath?!

Dec 29 - 11:34 PM

Latanya Ivey

Latanya Ivey

I really do not believe that Candie would've let him leave alive and Shultz knew this. Therefore, why not kill Candie? He was despicable - not much of a loss.

Dec 29 - 10:07 PM

Curt Rapp

Curt Rapp

Waltz was appalled by slavery which shows from the very start of the movie. After seeing how Candie treated his slaves as just so much entertainment he couldn't in good conscience shake Candie's hand. He was willing to just walk away, but Candie cornered him and you can see he know how this was going to end so he decided to make sure Candie was dead BEFORE they killed him.

Dec 29 - 08:53 PM

Carol Stevens

Carol Stevens

I agree, Waltz had been pushed to the edge with what he had witnessed and could not shake hands with such evil.

Dec 30 - 11:41 AM

Cody H.

Cody Halpert

Makes sense.

Jan 2 - 09:30 PM

Bill Jennings

Bill Jennings

The movie does a great job of switching the characteristics of Django and Schultz by the end of the movie. At the beginning, Schultz is the one who has ice running through his veins, pushing Django to get over his qualms about shooting the criminal with his son. But once they get to Candyland, you start to see the other side of that coin: Waltz is someone unable to cope with evil having spent his life slaying it. The scene where he accuses Django of losing focus only to have it turned around on him represents all this.
Django is the one on Candyland doing what needs to be done. He stops Schultz from buying the slave about to be eaten by dogs in order to maintain their front, then watches steely-eyed as the slave is ripped apart. "I'm just a little more used to Americans."
For Schultz, slavery is a moral wrong, a philosophical abomination. He is clearly an educated man, exemplified by his final speech about Alexander Dumas. In the end, I believe that he could not let such evil stand, especially when such evil was mocking its victory over him. Django, meanwhile, having saved Broomhilda, has lived his life in slavery, and so the moral and philosophical wrong of it is somewhat buried under the reality of the situation, which is first and foremost saving his wife.

Dec 29 - 05:23 PM

Joshua Veverka

Joshua Veverka

exactly right

Dec 30 - 07:32 PM

William Ward

William Ward

Best explanation, but still a weak point in the plot because Schultz still had to know that with his prideful action he was condemning Django and Broomhilda to an overwhelming battle for their own lives.

Jan 3 - 05:50 PM

Nick Bisceglia

Nick Bisceglia

Maybe it's because he trusted him to get out of that situation...he did say in the flashback at the end that Django was "the quickest gun in the South"

Jan 5 - 09:52 AM

Levar Higgs

Levar Higgs

Schultz was not a saint. I'm sure if he hadn't been pushed to such extreme emotional turmoil, he might have made another choice. But in the heat of the moment, he did exactly what he was accustomed to doing, killing the bad guy. It was more an emotional response than a rational one. That's why I think it's actually more realistic and strengthens the plot some. We got to witness the Dr.'s breaking point.

Jun 3 - 12:48 PM

Jeane Harrison

Jeane Harrison

This is where the movie started to really let me down. I couldn't buy it after that, I didn't enjoy Tarantino's vanity scenes--that whole scenario was beyond belief. It seemed as if he couldn't figure out how to wrap up the ending, very messy indeed.

Dec 29 - 02:06 PM

Curt Rapp

Curt Rapp

No, it just highlighted the fact that the entire slavery system was driven by greed and only greedy little men were involved and that greed was their downfall.

Dec 29 - 08:55 PM

zinc alloy

zinc alloy

Tarantino was asked this and he said Waltz's character could never stand another having the upper hand on him so he had to shoot him....

Dec 26 - 02:58 PM

Chris Conner

Chris Conner

Tarantino is not such a master, Why would Django be allowed to have any paperwork on him when being sent back to his life of slavery?

Dec 26 - 12:47 AM

Curt Rapp

Curt Rapp

Because it was in a hidden pocket and whites didn't soil themselves by touching slave clothing.

Dec 29 - 08:56 PM

William Taft

Mikey Jordan

He clearly had flashbacks and was disturbed by the treatment of the slaves (the dogs in particular). This led him, in the heat of anger, to kill Leo's character.

Dec 25 - 10:54 PM

Curt Rapp

Curt Rapp

I don't think it was anger, but a acceptance that he would never be allowed to leave alive. So he made sure Candie died first.

Dec 29 - 08:57 PM

Ivy Miles

Ivy Miles

Waltz's character left alive would have taken the movie in a more complex direction. The original Django did his thing alone--guns blazing, hands torn to shreds and all. So yes, this scene seemed rushed so as to just get on with it/finish up, etc... But if you need an explanation to quell and appease, the Waltz' character already explained it. He "couldn't resist." He was annoyed, and angry at Candie,and wanted to leave post haste. Anger makes you lose focus; and he did. Though earlier in the movie the Waltz character claimed, he was planning on leaving Candieland alive. Guess not.

Dec 25 - 10:52 PM

Sixghun Garrilla

Sixghun Garrilla

Almost every plot has a weak point and this is the weak point in this one. Of course it was totally out of character and nothing more can be said about it.

Dec 25 - 10:34 PM

Latanya Ivey

Latanya Ivey

Emotion before reason. It's as simple as that.

Dec 29 - 10:05 PM

Pug Bujeaud

Pug Bujeaud

I suppose, to simplify it, he was a man spent his life shooting bad people, and (as he says himself) he simply couldn't resist.

Dec 25 - 08:03 PM

Luis Cuevas

Luis Cuevas

First of all he despised what slavery was. They were trying to fuck calvin over in the first place and when he fucked them over dr. shultz was even more mad. The dude didn't want to shake his hand he wanted to leave before he did something stupid. Leo didn't let him disrespect him so he killed him.

Dec 25 - 07:50 PM

Jose Rodriguez

Jose Rodriguez

I guess like he said, he couldn't help himself

Dec 25 - 07:36 PM

Andrew 2.

Andrew 222

Exactly haha!

Dec 25 - 08:45 PM

Vince Dimalta

Vince Dimalta

he kept saying he didnt want to shake hands, he wanted to get out quickly because he knew if he stayed longer he would snap and django wouldnt get out - candies insistence that they shake hands was the final straw for him... he couldnt resist.

Jan 19 - 03:20 PM

Robert Hirst

Robert Hirst

He had the flashbacks to the sceen with the dogs (twice) and, I think, he just wanted to leave and not have to deal with Candie any longer. You know what happens next. My question is why didn't he immediately turn and shoot the guy with the shotgun but, I suppose his "wrist gun" may have only been capable of one shot.

Dec 25 - 07:36 PM

steve p.

steve parkson

that was my question as well, of why he didnt immediayely shoot the guy with the shotgun. Which ties into my original question, why did he do that with no plan? That guy was going to go down as the slickest character in the Tarantino franchise before that scene.

Dec 25 - 07:45 PM

Jonathan Meadows

Jonathan Meadows

"he simply couldn't help himself." he did what he thought was purposeful and that is killing one who is evil. Leonardo's character was everything Waltz wasn't. The point was, he had no point. And plus the gun in his wrist was only good for one shot. Those types of guns don't carry more than one bullet. Waltz did what he wanted to at that point because he had been bested and he was sick of dealing with it. You push someone who kills for a living will end up doing something out of character.

Dec 25 - 08:28 PM

Ryan Hepin

Ryan Hepin

he shot the sheriff twice w that gun in the beginning of the movie. but then django only had one shot w it later. and of course who knows at the end. boo-urns.

Dec 29 - 11:13 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile