I love most of Django Unchained, but the part where Django pushes for the slave to be eaten by the dogs bothers me. It's a great movie about justice, except for this one scene where Django pushes for injustice. Is there a reason why Django pushed for the slave to be fed to the dogs?

4 Answers 4


Django is a slave himself as he does not like what he is seeing, he still has to remember what he came to do, not to let his emotions get in the way of the task at hand. (Remember you can't save everyone.)

By letting Candy unleash the dogs shows that Django respects Candy and that he wants him to know that he does not fear him and that he needs to be taken seriously. He disagrees with what has happened but as the doctor said, Django is playing a part (acting), as he is to pose as the brains not a hot head slave out for revenge.

Now if Django stood up for the slaves it might have expose his cover, and may have tipped off Candy that he is there for another reason not just to buy a prized fighter. Candy could have even felt disrespected and never let them to the ranch.

  • 1
    Good answer. I'd also add that he also did partly out of spite. Because Dr. Schulz forces him to play such an evil black slave trader, he plays him especially evil. There's some dialog around that scene that also reinforces this.
    – Napoleon Wilson
    Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 21:30
  • 1
    True, Candy's trying to get a rise out of him, Which can be seen throughout the film. - One of the reasons that makes the film so compelling.
    – akors
    Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 21:40
  • That makes sense expect for one thing. Schultz offered to reimburse Candie in an inconspicuous way. Django could have just as easily said "Well if he won his first three fights and had the boldness to run away, he seems to have potential!"
    – Gabe
    Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 22:00
  • Yes but there not looking to actually buy a fighter. When the Doctor offers to reimburse Candy he only does it because he feels sick he can't stand watching what he is seeing. Lucky that Django was there to keep up appearances and explain that they would never pay for a pickintyy like that. They have to seem impartial to the act because they themselves want to get into the business they see in front of them, or so they say.
    – akors
    Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 22:19
  • 1
    They were already saying they were looking for someone they weren't. I'm kind of debating about it morally in my mind; part of me is inclined to think Tarantino just wanted more violence, but on the other hand, the dog scene does play a role later when Schultz can't get it out of his head and ultimately shoots Candie. I appreciated how there was a legitimate reason for the violence in this movie. Thanks for your helpful explanations. :)
    – Gabe
    Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 23:54

Because he was undercover. If he wasn't racist they'd probably question why he was okay with slaves being beaten to death by eachother too


He doesn't really know he's going to unleash the dogs either. He says you don't mind seeing I do anything I see fit to him. Then django says he's your nigga. That's when candy unleashes the dogs.


Django had no personal relationship with the runaway slave and could stay in CHARACTER but he breaks CHARACTER when they're at Sugar land. That's how they get caught. They should have told Hildi about staying in CHARACTER. That obvious relationship was learned because of it. I didn't see anything that would cause the widowed sister to say that Hildi was more interested in Django rather than the Doctor but it got Stephan thinking and watching. I wonder if the sister wasn't fishing for the Doctor for herself. I found it odd that the man of the manor would attend to kitchen issues instead of the lady of the house. I also found it odd that the sister didn't stop the stripping of Hildi at the dinner table immediately. Everyone but Stephan and Calvin found it inappropriate & the sister had to yell to have it stopped. Why couldn't she address Stephan directly herself to stop promoting the stripping & remind the men that they could look at Hildi during after dinner drinks and discuss business then too. The household is overseen by the women not men. Business is men's work, the house is women's work. Biblical and accepted in America from the start. Only a man would write the 'discovery scene' happening at the dinner table in the 1800's, especially in the South. I do think they could have offered 200 for the runaway slave as he won he 3 fights and he could attend to the Mandingo cause you know uppity Django wasn't going to attend to the fighters needs himself. I think it was a good argument that would seem reasonable. But the story needed something really horrific and true to the times. I myself was at least as uncomfortable as the Doctor with the scene. Hard to imagine that it even happened once let alone all the times it really did. Its sad that people still use the 'N' word after seeing the reality of the times & how awful it must be to have no rights & not even be cmonsidered a person.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .