Nobody tell my kids so I have an extra two weeks of not having to take them to this movie.

LA Confidential, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Nice Guys, The Black Dalhia all show it to be a pretty terrible place. Even Hail Caesar shits on it through satire.

>When the movie is done is Django's wife free? She is still property. He just killed her owners but someone else would just claim ownership.

Candie sells her to Schulz.

>Their witnesses to his crime of murder and theft. If his goal is ONLY to save his wife and get out of doge as you claim, then why leave witnesses? Why let himself be known?

Do you expect him to murder everyone on the plantation?

Slavery being bad is not the topic of discussion. It's about whether or not what Django was doing was direct action.

I'm not saying he's fine with it. I'm saying he doesn't care beyond getting his wife and getting the hell out of Dodge.

Human trafficking is bad, but in Taken Brian Mill's sole objective is to get his daughter back.

Cope with what? That I actually understand the film's narrative and the character's motivation? Look, it's not like they killed Big Daddy for political reasons either. They killed him because he was actively trying to kill them.

If I rob an armored car and in the process people are able to grab money floating around that doesn't mean it was political act to return money to the people from the bank. I just wanted money.

Django didn't give a shit if one slave escaped from Candieland outside of him and his wife. Sure he killed Candie and Steven but there are dozens if not hundreds of white overseers still on the property to keep the rest of the slaves in line.

Because I know the definition of direct action and it doesn't include killing people for personal revenge. It has an inherently political element which is lacking from Django's actions.

Dog whistle? It's literally a thing that happened in history.

So slavery is cool if it's temporary?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Black_slave_owners

Dr. King Schultz: I must admit, I'm at a bit of a quandary when it comes to you. On one hand, I despise slavery. On the other hand, I need your help. If you're not in a position to refuse, all the better. So, for the time being, I'm gonna make this slavery malarkey work to my benefit. Still, having said that, I feel guilty...

Yes. He felt so bad about it he was willing to own Django for his own personal profit... I think there is a word for that.

That doesn't make it "direct action" either. Their freedom is a matter of circumstances beyond their influence or control. Direct action is a political term and Django didn't have an agenda beyond revenge.

Not if it's personal rather than political.

Schultz freed the rest of the slaves at the beginning. And even he wasn't a staunch abolitionist. It was just the pragmatic thing to do. He had no problem owning Django and using his freedom as a bargaining chip.

>Had this super annoying conversation with my mum over Christmas where she was arguing that the depiction of insest & rape of minors in the game of thrones tv series was "essential" to the plot and wouldn't be realistic without it

Incest is kind of essential to the plot when it revolves around a family that has wed brother to sister for centuries.

>I don't watch the series but my cousin said there was a sex/rape scene in the new spinoff featuring actress who is only 16 or 17.

If it's Milly Alcock, she's 22.