"The 'D' is silent" "I know"
"Waddya mean 'I know'?"
The actor is FRANCO NERO, who played the original "DJANGO" in Sergio Corbucci's 1966 classic.

22:50 Fun fact: The guy asking Django about his name, is the same actor that played the original Django in the 1966 Movie.

Apparently, DiCaprio initially refused the part since he didn't want to play such a character. Foxx had to reach out and personally ask him to play the role, he didn't see anyone else as that character. Leo begrudgingly agreed and played one of the most despicable villains of the century. What a legend.

Fun fact: Leo actually cut his hand on the glass when he shattered it, but continued the scene like an ABSOLUTE LEGEND

Can we talk about how AMAZING Kerry Washington was in this movie!?!? I feel like her role is overshadowed by some of the other major players in the cast. Her raw emotion is just heart-wrenching.

But like Alex mentioned several times, I can’t help but wonder what the cast members felt while portraying these characters. Imagine the places you had to go to mentally! Such a great movie.

22:55 the man who talks with Jamie Foxx in this scene is the original Django.
Quentin Tarantino payed homage to the original Django movie from the 60s hiring the main actor (Franco Nero) and putting this scene as a little nod to the first movie and spaghetti movies in general because it's one of his favourites movie genre if I'm not mistaken

"I like the way you die, boy." man, that line is so dang cold. Chills every single time.

The acting from Leo after he smashes his hand with glass, bleeding everywhere, rubs his own blood on Hilde, doesn't stop to fix his cut up hand, and just continues to NAIL the scene perfectly. Incredible.

10:50 this was actually something that would happen. Southern slavers/slave owners would go to free states with warrants for missing slaves and would be able to force them back into slavery. This was predominantly done to runaway slaves but many freed slaves and black people who were never slaves in the first place were placed in custody and forced back into slavery.

Anyone else finding it so hard to believe Alex was ever a practicing lawyer with his sense of humor? LMAO.

If I remember correctly, Leo had a hard time committing to this role. He and Jamie had a long discussion that brought him around.

Leo actually smashed one of those glasses and cut his hand up, freaked everyone out proper but he kept in character and it was SO intimating to our pair of heroes.

Editor here! Saw a decent amount of comments saying how hard this must’ve been to edit, so I want to thank you all for watching!

I did try to include as much as possible WHILE keeping it fun and engaging, so I hope you enjoyed it!

Much love as always!

I just found out that $150 in 1850-60's is worth in today's economy is $5,809.61.  So, he paid a LOT of money for Django.  And $5000 is worth $193,653.61 in today's money.  And $7000 is worth $261,720.72 today.  $12,000 is worth $451,564.34 today.

As for any of the actors who had difficulty getting into their characters, funnily enough, Jamie and Leo were the only ones that were named to have troubles with their roles. Jamie wasn't filling in the act of a slave that smoothly, as he was so accustomed to playing headstrong badass characters. It took Tarantino pulling him aside and emphasize to him that while Django is written to be a badass, that comes later and must be grown into his character organically. After a little bit of filling in with some retakes, Foxx stepped up and killed it.

As for Leo, he had a deep discomfort of playing such a vile and racist character (in fact, its stated that Calvin Candie is the first and so far only character Quentin has written for a film that he absolutely despises), especially when he held such high respect for his peers. But this time, it was Jamie who pulled him aside and convinced him to commit to the role, saying that in the world of this movie, they weren't friends. Leo was a slave master, Jamie a slave. After that pep talk, DiCaprio got so into the character that even before shooting, he wouldn't greet any of the other talents on set.

People were dying in the theater I first saw "Django" in during the bag-head scene. This is absolutely one of Tarantino's best films and an unmistakable gem of cinema. A stylish, multifaceted, and refined gem you just want to admire again and again. "Inglorious Basterds" was certainly his most mature work, and "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood" is a modern fable taking his tried-and-true style while applying every aspect of his craft that he has refined over the years in a commendable way. "Django Unchained" is just a straight-up celebration of classical filmmaking that takes very real, serious and unflinching subject matter and proves that not only can it be used to tell an inspiring tale, but a heroic one, a legendary one, and a bloody entertaining one.

The best thing you've ever done is get an editor. Takes stress off you, and he's FUCKING HILARIOUS. Thanks for being awesome, both of you.

BTW: The best theory I've seen for the violence in this movie is this. Anything done to a white person is pretty over the top, because it didn't happen. Every scene of violence towards a slave is VERY realistic, because it absolutely happened.

2:45 Actually the Django opening song was not made specifically for this movie, it was from the original Django movie from 1966, starring Franco Nero. The man who asks Django about the spelling of his name is actually Nero himself, making a cameo appearance. His white gloves are a reference to the way the original Django got his hands maimed at the end of Django 1966.

6:55 best impression of a tooth in YT history .

As for why Schultz couldn't shake Candy's hand there's several things. He's not from around there and absolutely is not desensitized to this horror. He's shown consistently throughout the movie to react more strongly than Django to the treatment of slaves because for him it's new and horrible, for Django it's monday. Right before this he was thinking of what happened to Dartagnan. It was weighing heavily on him that he stood there and did nothing while an innocent man was mauled to death. So he really hates Candy. He hates him even more because Candy makes a mockery of his home continent, to try to appear refined with nothing but a surface understanding of European culture (styling himself Monsieur without speaking French, naming his slaves after characters created by a Black man, his sister playing a Beethoven piece when Beethoven was a strong egalitarian). Candy is everything he loathes and hates and he wants him to shake his hand? To act like they are equals, friends, and to be good sport about losing? Schultz is a violent man, his works is killing, it is much much easier for him to resort to violence than most people. So when pushed to his limits, he kills.

But also, Shcultz's plan was stupid. Had they rode off to Candyland to buy Brünhilde, odds are they easily could have, even if for more than market value. But Schultz is a theatral man, who needs to show how clever he is by outsmarting everyone. So he came up with this plan to fool Candy, to get one over him. He does this because, despite being an ally, Schultz is still coming at this from a position of privilege. It isn't his struggle. For him it's an occasion to play out his romantic ideal, helping a knight rescue a princess, and in doing so he inadvertently centers himself. Because he is removed from this. But to Django this isn't a game, it's his life, it's the love of his life. So Django never takes his eyes off the prize, he is ready to do anything it takes to save Brünhilde. Which is why, despite his best intentions, Schultz is the one to mess it up and die, while Django has to clean up his mess and dets to ride off into freedom. Because beating candy did not matter to Django.

To me this is about allyship, it's telling allies not to make the fight about themselves, those who are oppressed have to lead the way, we are just to help however we can.