Django Unchanged Analysis

I chose to write about Django Unchanged. I’ve seen the movie before, and knew it was not one of those films that depicted the Old South in a glorified way. It is a raw, and disturbing movie. It truly does a good job and showing people what slavery was really like. It was interesting to me to watch this film again, after what I had learned throughout this course. The first thing I noticed was that Django and Dr. King Schultz were the others in the film. This film was set two years before the Civil War. Obviously, during that time, African Americans were not viewed as people. Dr. Shultz stood out to me the most. He lived his life very differently than most people in that time. The very first example of this is in the first scene. Django is with a group of other slaves, chained, and be transported somewhere. Dr. Shultz stops them and “purchases” Django. He also gives the other slaves a gun, to kill the man transporting them, and directs them to the North. He lets …show more content…
As bad as some of the s--t is in this film, a lot worse s--t was going on. This is the nice version." I think this is true. Many people refused to see this movie. That was what the other article was about. Yes it was gory, and hard to watch. It was realistic. Media has a way over glorifying the Old South. It was a horrible time to live in. Like Crosley said, this was the nice version. I’m sure slaves were treating in ways that neither of us can even imagine, and it was perfectly alright.
To me, this movie was a good way to show why African Americans are still bitter about slavery. Yes, it was hundreds of years ago. But, you can see in this movie how horrible it was. People have ancestors who lived these lives. My family is very family oriented. We tell stories about our old family members when they still lived in Italy. I cannot imagine how disgusted I would feel if I knew someone with my blood was treated this way, and it was just the