Django Unchained falls short of being a good story in my opinion. The dialog and tap dancing between characters was entertaining. The production design and cinematography were eye pleasing. But the overall storytelling lacked internal conflict. It lacked having a single character show fear. And could have been grounded in a little more reality.
Take Dr. Schultz. A man who makes his living, surviving off of the capture and return of criminals. He seems to be on the anti-slavery (non activist) side of the story the entire time. A subtle peppering of internal conflict about Slavery towards the end of the movie that leaps to an overt-unrealistic sacrificing of his own life in opposition to slavery.
Take Django. A "free'd" slave.
Issue (1): How is a free'd slave shown to be different from a slave? This area of the story is not really explored.
Issue (2): Dr. Schultz risks and sacrifices his life for another man. To be that bold, something in the storytelling needs to change. A man does not risk his life for another man just because he might agree in his belief system.
In dealing with issue (2) and developing the internal conflict , I think Dr. Schultz should have either ran away at a time when Django needed him most during the end of the second act, never to be seen from again. OR...
Dr. Schultz should have left Django after Django got him the three brothers he wanted for bounty. Django could have pleaded with Schultz to help him but ONLY if money was involved.
Or Dr. Schultz could have used Django for money the entire movie.
As it stands, Dr. Schultz motivation for helping Django is his interest in Django as being similar to an old German Folk Hero. But would a man really risk his life because he felt that another man reminded him of a character from a story...
So what I'm arguing is that Dr. Shultz's real motivation should have been money. He should have had some other plan. Perhaps to sell Django to Candy?
I think that Mr. Tarantino wanted Dr. Shultz to be a hero and fill an agenda which led to forcing this character to do something we would like him to do but not what he would do. I think part of it was playing with the idea of a German coming to stop Slavery, contrasted with Americans going to stop the holocaust.
Now with Django - a man who wants to free his wife. I think his character had far too much confidence and intelligence to be believable for someone who was a slave without any education. His one internal conflict is resolved in a single scene..."should I kill a man who is a father?" And rather lightly. They could have explored that question... Why not kill the man? What are you afraid will happen if you kill him? You'll feel guilty? Well, part of the reason they didn't explore that conflict is because it's got little to do with slavery. It's a conflict for another story. In fact the whole "bounty hunter partner for the winter season" takes out of the situation and lowers the stakes. If your wife is imprisoned, you don't take the winter to make some money and have fun. You go after your wife.
Beyond that there are simply external obstacles of a mostly ridiculous nature(shooting many men and not going wounded) that he easily overcomes. He is a badass man, able to dodge bullets, talk back to people who could have easily taken him out of his room while he was sleeping and make him disappear.
Issue (3) - This story doesn't deal with the issue of slavery from an internal standpoint. Two sides are not drawn and argued. I think the Schultz character or Django could have embodied this conflict. I think there are numerous points in the story this could have came up.
Take the dog's ripping the slave apart. Upon seeing that Dr. Schultz could have said OK, I've had enough I'm leaving. I can't take this. This is wrong. I'm going back to Germany. I'm going to the North. I'm just disgusted.
Same with Django. He could have said Fuck this I'm free and I'm going north. perhaps Schultz could have said you can't leave your wife!
Neither "hero" shows a moment of weakness, a moment of selfishness, a moment where the reality of their situation bares so heavily on them that they can't go through with it. There needs to be a character on the anti-slavery side who shows some fear. Shows that Slavery exists because the power that institutionalized it is so strong it can't simply be turned on and off like a light switch.
And on the other side of the coin...The pro slavery side...there could have been a character who wants to keep driving slavery but has a moment of selflessness. A moment where they see how horrible it all is...but perhaps they realize their livelihood depends on it, their whole family is involved in it, they don't want to give that up.
Take Brunhilde - there's no conflict with her. Why not make her so scared of getting killed that she refuses to leave with Django? Surely he could have found her in the middle of the night, and tried to convince her to run away. She could have argued for him to leave her there. She could have said I'm not going anywhere. This story deals with an institution similar to The Shawshank Redemption. Brunhilde could have been a Brooks. Or a Red. What if Brunhilde is discovered having hung herself? They would have been a HUGE surprise. They would have been a powerful twist in the story. It would have said I'm so scared to runaway again that I'd rather be dead than risk it.
So for me, when you write a story without any fear in it, it ends up being boring. There are no surprises. You know how each character will behave. Throw fear into the mix and now expectations are out the window. I don't know how it's going to end anymore. I don't know if Schultz is going to leave. I don't know if Django is going to cave. I don't know if Brunhilde is going to throw a wrench in the whole thing.
And what's the point of Storytelling? To show both Human Strengths AND Weaknesses. To show the power that selfish evil can have. To show the glory and beauty that self sacrifice can have.
There are two sides to every issue and at least one character should put their toes into each side of the pool before making their third act decision.
