I once wrote a rather lengthy analysis of this movie. The idea was to mirror the story of the movie with the story Schultz tells Django about Broomhilde and Segfried. Anyway, this scene you mention was particularly important because it shows the "Dragon" is actually SLJ's character. Right after Candie is shot you everything is in slow motion; SLJ turns and you can actually hear an animal roar sound (which I think is the Dragon). SLJ is actually the brains behind Candies business -- he's the one that figured everything out. As a further aside, after Django gets revenge, SLJ's character, who had been walking with a cane, drops his cane, stands up straight, and walks without a limp -- as though he is showing his "true form". It's an awesome scene, as you said.
@@stoopidpants Yes. Love that too. The act put on by his character as this kind old man with a cane, this perfect slave, was all BS. Dude was just working the system for his own benefit, small as it was in that system.
I think the scene where SLJ and Leo are both sitting comfortably in the ante room sipping brandy confirmed that they were both ‘partners’ on a more equal footing than the public saw. SLJ knew perfectly how to control the slaves and ward off danger and Leo was just the front. It was a glorious scene indeed
@@dayoolaleye1265 Loved that, but still a full partner wouldn't have to put up an act unless he was doing it for the benefit of the others around Candie, keeping up appearances and such.
What I found most interesting about Candie is that he isn't Django's villain. That title goes to Stephen. Calvin Candie, although mainly seen interacting with Django, is Dr.Schultz's villain. Everything that Schultz is, Calvin is the opposite: Schultz is well-mannered, travelled and both empathetic and humble despite his profession Whereas Calvin is crude, maintains a facade of being a well-educated man when in reality he is wholy ignorant and an absolute monster to almost anyone that challenges his ego
@@MrHousecup I mean, I personally don’t really see it. He definitely has an ugly manipulative side more or less, I mean, he is sort in participating on an uncivilized system such as slavery even though in his own country that is already a banned barbaric practice; all for the sake of his mission and interests, he uses what is there on the platter for him, but at the same time acknowledges it and such. He isn’t loved by every character, his best relationship with Django was that of uncertain friendship in the end, and every other character either feels jealous or hates him.
@@newguy8288 I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. But a Marty Stu is the male version of a Mary Sue, which is a character who is perfect in nearly everything and almost never fails. Or whatever character flaws he or she has is actually charming or amusing. Another example of this could be Rei from the Star Wars sequel trilogy.
@@MrHousecup he's not really a Gary Stu tho. If it wasn't for Django he would have blown their cover when Candie was belittling D'artagnan and the whole final act of the movie happens the way it does because Schultz killed Candie , even tho it was literally the stupidest possible choice at the time since all he had to do was shake his hand and they would have been scot free
9:56 "Of course, Calvin finds out that Jango in fact isn't all that he pretends to be" The most ironic thing is: Calvin didn't find out. His slave Stephen found out and told him.
This! And the way he goes about confirming his suspicion was so great! First, he picks up on Calvin's sister's remark that Hilde only has eyes for Django, after which he pressures Hilde on wether or not she knows Django, which she basically confirms by the way she was behaving, and lastly he eliminates all remaining doubt by manipulating Candi into treating Hilde in such a way it was bound to get a reaction out of Django. Ironic, how in spite of Candi's belief in white superiority, the by far most intelligent person on Candiland was a black man.
@@CommanderLex It just goes to show that intelligence isn't measured by how much you know, but rather how you can apply whatever kind of knowledge you gain to solve a problem.
I'd love for you to do Stephen as well. It's so fitting that Stephen is the final villain of the movie, because he represents all the venal, selfish, amoral aspects that Django is set in opposition to. Like Django he is playacting at being something else than what he is (intelligent) but he uses his intelligence only to help his master inflict further cruelties upon his fellow slaves, so he can improve his own lot at their expense. Samuel L. Jackson described Stephen as the most vile black man in the history of cinema.
@@edwardgaines6561 well some did I couldn’t give you a percentage but it was definitely a thing however I don’t know if Stephen would indulge in it seems to me he was just using slavery as a way to keep himself at the top if he was free i doubt he’d run the risk as he is well aware of how smart most slaves were unlike Calvin
A part of me was sad for Stephen cz he made himself a POS just to survive, even if that meant he got no love from the other enslaved. Complete survival mode, as deep as it gets.
I'd argue that Stephen, and not Candie, is _the_ main villain. He survived three white owners with his calculating intelligence, he is totally amoral, and has a razor sharp sense of self preservation and advancement, with the genius, overall, to make Candie believe that Candie is doing his own will, and not Stephen's. And, he does die last, as any main villain should.
I think the film works so well (in part) because it shows how many people are complicit in creating a place like Candieland--often many of the victims themselves, like Stephen. Personally I cheered the hardest when Candie's sister got plugged. Tarantino said everyone always laughs at that bit.
It helps that Candie clearly sees Stephen as a father figure. Compare the relationship that Calvin has with Stephen to the way he talks about his daddy the one time he bothers to bring him up vs how he interacts with Stephen and it's clear who he he really holds as a father figure and it's not his daddy. I dont think he would admit it aloud even to Stephen. But Stephen knows.
I sort of agree, and always have felt Stephen as like when the animals look into the windows in the book 'Animal Farm' and see the pigs dressing, drinking, and acting like humans. Stephen acts submissive when in view of others with Calvin, but when it was Stephen and Candie together, he looked very confident and informative about Django's true intentions.
@@fuferito I think it's interesting that when Stephen speaks with Calvin about Schultz and Django in private he speaks to him not as master and slave but very much as equals. In public Stephen was the picture of deference but in private the lines were completely blurred and it looked, at least to me like Stephen was the one really in charge.
@@Dan-ud8hz Wasn't he an illegal escapee from Maryland? Then the North was harboring a criminal, which amounts to conspiracy and treason. Just yanking your bling. Douglass was a great orator. But the slave/master paradox is about the same as the landlord/tenant one. Believe me, I know.
@@enqrbit A lot of the people in the Nazi party were, especially within the SA and SS. Which is more evil I’ll let the commentators decide. The Nazi? Or the man who piggybacks off them
I remember hearing about that, yeah! You actually see him examine his hand as the scene winds down a bit and I think he wraps it with some spare cloth on set.
In my opinion, the actor that played D'Artagnan, brief though his part was, gave one of the best performances in the film. He portrayed perfectly everything his character was feeling almost without saying a word. The look of servility, of defeat, acceptance of his fate, whilst also showing how petrified he was with mostly facial expressions and body language was just superb.
There's also the fact that everything he and his cronies did were 100% absolutely legal. And what Schultz and Django did by killing all of them was illegal but it had to be done.
that's why it's the wild west. Actions back then were poorly dictated by law to the point that the local government was the highest of the town due to poor modes of communications. Killing the sheriff and knocking out communication is far easier then, than it is now.
What I love about Candie is that his design tells you everything you need to know about him. Handsome, charming, rich, but then you see those teeth and it all comes together; this man is rotten inside. Everything else may be pretty, but under the surface is nothing but festering ugliness.
Most people had bad teeth in the 1800s. It's hilarious that none of the slaves in the movie had bad teeth, considering how they probably weren't even given toothbrushes, ate terrible foods, and never went to a dentist.
@JakeKoenig No, slaves used certain tree barks and fashioned brushes for themselves to clean their teeth and the "horrible foods" they ate were the scraps of animals like innards which are actually good for you. I actually have photos and written accounts of former slaves in my family for the details.
@@JakeKoenigSugar is what rots teeth- Slaves wouldn't have had access to it. Peoples' teeth could be crooked or blackened due to smoking, but slaves wouldn't have had access to sweets like that.
The most "evil" characters, are not those who exert the most observably evil traits, but those who mask it behind something you can understand. Been waiting for this one, because this character is just **chefs kiss**
When an actor performs so well at their skill, that you completely forget the actor entirely. Throughout the movie, I completely forgot this was Leonardo DiCaprio. All I saw was Calvin Candie. As a black man, I was both surprised and uncomfortable with how impressed I was at this performance 🎭 👏
@@MrBen51309 There is no such thing as a benevolent slave owner. That's already a strange oxymoron (I think that's the word for it, or am I thinking of misnomer?) It'd be like saying gentle rapist or friendly serial killer. Yeah they can act nice but they're still doing something fucking abhorrent.
I read in some interview somewhere about Calvin's fascination with phrenology. By the time the events of Django Unchained takes place the entire pseudo-science of phrenology had been largely debunked by the scientific community, which further implies that Calvin is not only wilfully malicious in his approach to knowledge but also ultimately ignorant in science.
@@pagodebregaeforro2803 Exactly what I was gonna say: there are so many idiots in America right now who refuse to accept their entire worldview has been factually debunked... they'll cling to those beliefs _because_ they seemingly back up the person's sick, twisted view of the world.
He mastered the southern accent in this movie. His character was a hypocrite. Unfortunately southern culture of this time in history groomed him to be who he was. It is both satirical and shameful
Absolutely murder. Murder isn't an unjustified killing, but an illegal one. And killing this scum would have been illegal back then, even if morally right.
One of DiCaprio's best performances. Fun fact: That scene where his hand is bleeding... was real blood. DiCaprio accidentally hit his hand on a wine glass as he slammed his hand onto the table. However, he didn't break character the entire time. Tarantino was even shocked at what he saw but kept filming. The blood on the hand added more to the character's insanity.
@@worldofdoom995 Hope she didn't suffer some trauma from that experience, or think of DiCaprio as some sort of psychopath outside of his role. Though I bet as soon as Tarantino yelled cut, DiCaprio broke character and screamed out loud in pain.
@@horsepower523 Exactly. His 'evil' is in his perfect adaptation to a given path. Him being (kinda) at peace with doing awful stuff for awful people. But Vincent the grey = super evil, while thugs and gangsters from the 'hood' = victims of sOciETy...
@@Wastelander1972 Bill the Butcher’s “Nativist” ideaology isn’t what makes him a villain at all. For me it’s difficult to consider him a anything more than a typical old man being left behind in an ever changing world. He starts off as a Villian, but you come to admire him halfway through the movie. His death is not a triumph of good vs evil. But merely a passing of wisdom from one age to another with an ending of an era. What makes him scary is the “butcher” part. And his lack of empathy for humanity, being nothing different than what you’d find hanging on a meat hook. Without this, He’s basically just Clint Eastwood in Grand Torino
@@Wastelander1972 I think it's more than being born American. His family fought in the revolution. So he thinks anyone not connected to the founding of the country isn't really American.
I must say as someone who loves every one of these videos, how greatly appreciative it is that most of your villains you analyze are never the obvious pop culture choices. Every video I scroll through I see people wanting to see Joker, or Walter White, or some other character we've seen that are popular and analyzed and talked about a million times already. It's nice that each choice is a great pick and one I'm not expecting nor have seen anyone analyze before. Excellent work!
Please do an Analysing Evil for Stephen. He's an incredibly interesting Villain, easily the most intelligent person on the plantation playing the role of a jovial house slave while subtly manipulating everything from behind the scenes, causing everyone to greatly underestimate what he is truly capable of. The only person to see anything close to his true self is Django, which I find interesting for many many reasons. The scene where he speaks to Candie about Broomhilda gave me chills the first time I watched it, seeing him switch completely behind closed doors
Yep! That’s real at first. The scene cut out, our boy LD went and got stitches, then they went back and finished the scene with fake blood. Although it didn’t occur on camera, there’s a similar story with out other buddy Brad in Seven.
i never viewed Calvin Candie as anything more than a cartoon character with just how vile and insane he was, loved what DiCaprio did with his performance, but its interesting to see and hear that he may actually have some layers to him
He's a child who never grew up, because he never needed to, because everything was handed to him on a silver platter. And he was raised in an environment that not only enabled, but actively encouraged his worst qualities.
what makes you say he is a child because he's born rich and privilege he seemed pretty mature to me and very smart for his time period just remember he is a product of his time what he was doing was perfectly legal most people at that time period was pretty racist in the south because the average southern barely had access to outside world and most of them have barely dealt with black folks so many of them had false beliefs about black folks it's in human nature to hate and fear what we don't understand even the north that fought to end slavery was racist towards blacks they just didn't believe blacks should be enslaved that's all their things we do now in 300 years society will look down on so my take on Calvin Candie is a indiviual who was racist due to the environment and society and morals he was thought he was a indiviual who was a product of his environment and time
I believe when Leonardo slammed his hand on the table he cut himself on the glass in the process. Yet, he stayed in character making the scene even more believable. 🥃🤚🏥🚑
Yes if you notice when he slams his hand you hear the glass break, he hollered in pain because of it. Then later he is seen picking glass from his hand. Lastly he rubs his real blood on Kerry Washingtons face. Amazing how they all stayed in character but you can tell from their faces that was real.
@@SP-lt5kd He does not rub his real blood on her face. They did several takes and liked the one where he accidentally cut his hand so much that they did another take with fake blood so he could then rub it on her face.
Please analyze Tony Montana from the film “Scarface” Always wanted to hear your perspective on the character’s ideals, motives, morals, & ultimately what made & drove him to his self demise. Very interesting villain no doubt he was evil but felt that he was better than the other murdering drug lords who surrounded him. He had an issue with following a direct order that he knew would cost him his own life because it would of resulted in the killing a woman & child. He was also overly protective of his sister & felt the need to protect her from an evil world that he help make even more evil resulting to him killing his best and only real friend because he was going to marry sister which only drove his poor sister insane a straight looney nut case. Tony was toxic and either would eventually kill you or drive those close to him insane.
@@maratonlegendelenemirei3352 - No he wasn’t evil at all, just killed a dude for a favor. Sold cocaine to the masses and destroyed countless lives, treated his wife like dirt, killed unarmed people, he was more of a Mr. Rogers type character.
@@maratonlegendelenemirei3352 Just watched it about a month ago & he gave very weird vibes off to his sister where she honestly thought he wanted her sexually at the end which was creepy, lol. But in the restaurant he admits of being the bad guy & embraces it. Also from the same point of view one can say Hannibal Dr Lector wasn’t evil either because he also loved children going as far as punishing a serial child predator right? Gave him a popper making him cut his face up. He also befriended & saved Clarice’s life more than once. Considering he’s saved more life & was more culturally aware than Tony Dr Lector is far from evil yet he’s been analyzed. Darth Vader is also not evil for the same reasons when only seeing he’s good traits & ignoring the lives they took. Nice try though buddy, lol
@@downfromthereeefters His wife was a lazy good for nothing bum. I think Tony did way too much for her as a husband. Tony imported coke but he didn't hold no gun to someones head saying "hey, buy this shit or else"
@@saintbabylon7250 That restaurant scene was full of diners who were all crooks. Tony called them out on their bullshit. “Behind every great fortune there is a crime.”
Can you analyze Al Pacino "Tony Montana" I feel that his character played with everyone's emotions. We go from cheering him on to slowly hating what he has become.
Tony's downfall started when he refused blow up the car that had children inside. because Tony had morals and values.... Kinda. Even though he was a bad man, he refuses to kill children so I perceive Tony Montana as a good man.
Like most psychopaths, Calvin is a great actor _ I don't mean Leo Di Caprio. Psychopaths can not understand feelings of empathy or even pity but pretend to very well. He also exhibits love for himself vicariously through others like his sister or even Stephen. Thanks so much for the outstanding video!
If you're interested in tackling someone who is utterly reprehensible and irredeemable, consider an analysis of the title character of _Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer_ (and you could even throw in a mini-analysis of his sidekick Otis as a bonus!).
@@Galantski intersting contrast between Henry and Otis. One was a purpose driven psychopath with his own ethical code rooted in an aversion to sex and attachment, while the other was simply an opportunistic, predatory sociopath with nothing but hedonistic pleasure as his guide. They were bound to fall out, and did over Otis' sister. I thought the ending was surprising, but in retrospect, Henry stayed true to form.
@@shanefelkel9966 Yeah, and that ending? Just brutal,. Even though we see nothing but Henry leaving the suitcase at the side of the road in the morning, we know he's leaving alone after spending the night with Otis's sister. Poor Becky, but she should have better sense than to a) visit Otis, and b) fall in love with Henry, who told her (ala the Joker) different versions of how he killed his mother : Stabbed her, clubbed her with a baseball bat, and/or shot her in the head.
@@shanefelkel9966 And you know the big irony? Henry ends up killing Otis after he catches him trying to have sex with Becky ("Don't do that Otis, she's your sister!"), then ends up killing Becky himself after presumably having sex with her.
The moments where he is being all charming and making jokes, would trick you into thinking he had some sort of human side to him. But then the scenes where he is sending his dogs to eat someone else alive or forcing 2 men to fight to the death wake you up from that thought. As well as him just being so nonchalant about it.
What's very ironic about Candie's love of the French culture as "being sophisticated", is that every violent and ruthless treatments by Candie to his slaves, to the French slaveholders did even worse when they owned Saint-Domingue. The scene with the dogs tearing the old slave apart is directly inspired from the infamous "Rochambeau's Dogs" in the last moments of the French occupation of Saint-Domingue, when Rochambeau had imported slavehunting dogs from Cuba and "tested" them on slave prisoners as a form of twisted entertainment.
it's funny to me because Dr Schultz is generally humble and patient but when faced with what basically is a fedora lord with way too much money he just CAN'T take it and cannot resist the urge to sneak in the little Derringer shot at the best moment
To add to the "their skulls are smaller and thus cause deficiencies in mental capability" viewpoint, there have been a multitude of cases of people losing LARGE portions of their brain matter, and returning back to normalcy after some time of "brain rewiring". I remember seeing a video of a man who lost almost 50% of his brain matter, and has a large dent in his head, and after 2 years he was back to full capacity again. Yeah, minor differences in skull shape do not indicate intelligence capability.
Oh man it’s 4:57am and I just finished watching this movie and I came straight to these videos! Django Unchained is easily among my top favorite movies ever!
I'd love to see an Analyzing Evil on Johan Liebert from Monster. That series is exceptional and unfortunately horrifically underappreciated and I'd love it if more attention were payed to it, especially since there's so much to Johan that you could dissect
Heck Id have gone with roberto tbh. Hes fascinating. Hes so much more brutish than johan but equally intelligent and ultimately emotionally deadened by the program he was subject to. Its a shame he never met Grimmer face to face it might have awakened something in him like when Johan fainted after reading the book
@@TheLordexilius Considering he ruins a guy's life out of a creepy obsession, he kind of counts. I'd say he's a tragic villain in the sense that he's mentally sick and desperate for some kind of human connection, which fuels his dangerous actions. Kind of like Leatherface in that both of them do horrible things, but are so mentally warped, you question if they even realize what they're actually doing.
i do'nt think Carrey's CableGuy can be considered to be featured in these series? I mean by the end he was no hero,but then again can he be placed between Cannibal Lecter,Darth Sidious, John Doe etc?
I would love to see you analyze evil in the Tolkien/Lord of the Rings universe. There are a lot of differing "styles" of evil in that universe, much more than just Sauron and Saruman.
@@carldrogo9492 Usually you'd be right, but in this case you can find deeper motivations. Sauron desires to dominate all life for the sake of eternal peace and order, for example. Most probably due to Tolkien's books being closer to mythology than normal fairytails
@@carldrogo9492 No, the most nuanced villains with the deepest backgrounds I've ever seen were all entirely fictional. But that's just my experience personally.
Willard from “Willard” would make a great subject for this series. Either the 1970s original or the 90s version with Crispin Glover. Loving this channel
Something to note about Calvin Candy: Quentin Tarantino admits that he actually has a degree of respect for every single villain he has ever written: except for Calvin Candy. He's the one villain that he sees as having no redeeming qualities. In a way this is explicitly reflected in the text when Dr. Schultz actively chooses to kill Candy rather than simply shake his hand as a means to affirm their transaction for Brunhilda. That's Tarantino simply saying: "A sadistic slave master is such a vile, disgusting human being that their very essence taints every other action they could possibly take external to that, even simple politeness."
If anyone wants a good documentary on slavery, "journey through slavery" is one of the best I've seen. It goes through the "ins and outs" of chattle slavery, including not only the history but laws against slaves and even the slave owners. Its long but worth it.
@Greta Thanos There are still plenty of people who think the Civil War didn't come about because of slavery, so I'd say it hasn't been beaten in enough yet.
@Donald Kohn if there are people as of today still believe in retarded theories of earth being flat, it isn't hard to imagine some still believe civil war isn't about slavery but "muh state rights"
@@moxiethegamebunny937 it did but not for the reason it ended. The north wasn't originally freeing the slaves out of the kindness of thsir hearts. It was because slaves were to expensive for the north to maintain. The south needed them as they didn't have factory. Later on the north rebranded for outside support and the moral highground. It didn't become about ending slavery until the second half of the war
Just wanted to point out that contrary to what Tarrentino may say, those slave fights did occur every now and then, albeit in smaller numbers. There is a famous free African-American boxer who, when asked where he acquired his skill, told people that his former master used to have him fight other slaves for his entertainment. And there are a few other accounts of white owners putting bets during some festivals on certain slaves winning fights against other slaves. Truly barbaric.
Calvin is *spoiled.* He's impulsive, wrathful and whimsical, yes. Because he's never had to apply self-discipline. It's very similar to a lot of people with inherited wealth who, whether succesful themselves or not, simply can't apply self-control. One thing he did learn from Stephen was cunning. Spite may be the one thing that keeps Calvin Candie from immedeate gratification.
You're not evil if you're a racist unless you yourself find racism evil and yet is still racist. Morality is subjective and as such we can believe in different things and have different moral beliefs. Thinking one people is evil simplistically is exactly the way white slave owners thought of blacks as inferior. If that was the message you got from history then remaining ignorant of it all together would have been better. Your unsophisticated approach leaves a lot to be desired.
"Calvin Candie is a thoroughly repugnant character, a vicious merchant of flesh hidden beneath the charm of a southern gentleman." - Wow, that's some good writing right there.
Its been a while since I've seen the movie, but my impression was that he wasn't really a racist at all, but a sadist. And that kind of makes it worse. He didn't really believe that Black people were inferior, it was just that he liked to hurt people, and they were the people he could get away with hurting. He used other people's racism to mask what he was really doing. And again, I kinda think that makes it worse
I know this is a character study, I wonder when we are going to start doing study on Leonardo as an actor. I am fascinated by what he does and the understatement of it. Most of his roles I don't think he gets the recognition he deserves. Not in terms of awards only, but by discussion of his craft and to me the subtle approach he takes and then dialing it up. Case in point, I am not a Tarantino fan, the ones I do watch are because 1. Dicaprio is in the movie or 2. A recommendation. I really liked Inglorious Bastards which was a recommendation but I despise Kill Bill. Which brings me to Once Upon....which I resisted watching but when I did I absolutely loved Leo's acting. The movie itself was meh....but how Leo gets me so engrossed in his performance, all of his, I would love to see more on it.
The Ancient Romans "watched two men fight to death", but they didn't necessarily dehumanize those that killed each other in front of the audience. There were gladiators who were free, or even very rich, citizens. Those gladiators were after money and fame, and were deified, not dehumanized.
That was an outstanding performance by Norton. However, like Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze, the character is too much of a walking plot device to credibly flesh out.
I think it’s crazy how people like Calvin still exist through out the south the way he tries to seem upstanding and smarter than he is but only knows how to be racist and say slick racist things it’s all throughout south
There's people like that all over the world. If you think it's restricted to the South US. Why don't you visit Hollywood? You'll meet plenty of holier-than-thou morons who think they're intelligent
The east coast is racist as well. The oldest slave plantation was in mount Vernon new York. America was and is a racist country ever since European people stole America 400 years ago
Idk if you do characters from manga, but I think Griffith from Berserk would be really interesting for one of these episodes. As always, great work. Love this channel.
I was surprised when I heard that Mandingo fighting never occurred in history, so I thought I’d give an example of how it was worse: Slave owners used to buy slaves to use their skin as leather. It was a sign of great wealth, and they said it was the most “enduring and pliable” leather known to man. There are also articles talking about cannibalism on ships and plantations during the Civil War. So, it was definitely worse.
This is a masterpiece every year for me its kinda like the Grinch a monthly festivity …I can’t got with out watching it …because it embodies our sad world . Tarrintino doesn’t fail to hit the points which show how the actions of our predecessors have transcended to through out the ages .Hateful 8 is even more on point .
I watched this film for the first time a couple days ago, and although i know it's fake, the scene where calvin is making the 2 slaves fight for the sake of providing entertainment was just... hard to watch in a way. I just felt so horrible inside. If I was Leo Dicaprio I'd feel kind of uncomfortable or embaressed to play a character like that, but Leo did do a very accurate job though.
@@kellymcphaul2793 If that's one of the most horrible things you can imagine then you're not very creative. That's pretty tame all things considered. People fight to the death every day. Humans revel in suffering, and contact sports are brutal and DO cause permanent injury to many people for the entertainment of others, all completely legal. When it comes to torture, humans are exceptionally gifted.
