Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

[awepittance]

i agree Django was a better film than Basterds, but i did mourn those really long tension building scenes that he's so good at. I guess the dinner table scene was supposed to be like that, with the skull lecture but i don't know, even if Dicaprio really did slam his hand into a glass and keep going, something about it didn't work great

[SR4]

i can't argue with that, those are valid points. kerry washington's character was badly written, but it didn't take away from my enjoyment of the film. i do think django is better than inglourious basterds, as a whole, although the opening scene of basterds was a master class on building tension...all of which is lost in the next scene when brad pitt single handedly ruins the movie. i don't think django contains that sort of tonal inconsistency. jackie brown and pulp fiction are still his best films and there's a pretty distinct point (kill bill) where tarantino stopped trying to engage the general audience with "real" stories and fully embraced his own fetish for niche and exploitative cinema. kill bill was terrible, but i think he's come a long way.

 

as far as sr4, i think you're projecting the common criticisms of hipsters onto tarantino's films and forming a causal chain that simply isn't there.

 

 

you misread.

 

essentially what I am saying is this:

 

QT's last few films were sloppily edited, awkwardly written, and poorly plotted. Whenever I mention specific instances of this I almost always hear "It was intentional-he was paying homage to x".

 

You can pay homage to something and have it be amazing. You can also pay homage to something and fall flat. I think QT falls flat more than he used to, and Im very surprised/confused that so many people are considering this an amazing film.

 

No need to feel offended or anything, of course its subjective, we are talking about fucking movies here.

 

 

tbh I think me going on a "crusade" as zaphod put it is because I guess Im so disappointed in his stylistic changeups so far...PF blew my mind when I first saw it...and I still think the man is capable of another masterpiece but he seriously needs to get some better editors.

[syd syside]

Inglorious Basterds was disjointed but it built up to a nice climax. It was also funnier imo. Django because it relies on Waltz for a good amount and he is so similar to Landa there is a feeling that the story was dictated by his previous styles more so than by the original context (western during slavery). So for me Django felt like a tipping point for his formula. He has gone too far with it and now has reached the level of overtly giving homage to his own work (old or recent). He needed to surprise us with something more serious and focused. I honestly like Death Proof more than Django because Death Proofs style of grindhouse already molds nicely with Quentin's style. Raw, Low-Budget, Gore and goofy dialogue. A western to me is something more about atmosphere and long drawn out moments of silence/suspense. But instead we got flashbacks, music videoy montages, and absurd violence that would appear and disappear like a kid playing with a box of fireworks on the 4th of July.

[Guest zaphod]

i wasn't offended. i just disagree with everything you're saying. some of his best writing has been in his last two films. some of his most tightly edited, best staged scenes as well. nothing to do with paying homage to anything. it's clear that he's a great film maker, which is why i'll always watch his films in the theater. if this is simply a disagreement on whether or not we think he's jumped the shark, you've got a right to your opinion. but you were writing about a "hipster" effect and a bunch of other stuff that seemed condescending toward the general audience of these films, and i feel you're projecting your own bias onto people who might have genuinely enjoyed the film free of its historical context.

i also want to mention that django may be his funniest movie.

[SR4]

i wasn't offended. i just disagree with everything you're saying. some of his best writing has been in his last two films. some of his most tightly edited, best staged scenes as well. nothing to do with paying homage to anything. it's clear that he's a great film maker, which is why i'll always watch his films in the theater. if this is simply a disagreement on whether or not we think he's jumped the shark, you've got a right to your opinion. but you were writing about a "hipster" effect and a bunch of other stuff that seemed condescending toward the general audience of these films, and i feel you're projecting your own bias onto people who might have genuinely enjoyed the film free of its historical context.

i also want to mention that django may be his funniest movie.

 

 

ah, ok, but im not calling the audience hipsters

 

think of it like an institutionalized irony feedback. i guess nobody wants to be a hipster, but at this point in time culturally speaking, every single person with access to the internet is one. the word is depraved of its original meaning, but that was my point of calling the "effect" that. like, I don't think its necessarily a conscious decision.

 

and id probably agree with you on the funny part.

[Guest zaphod]

i guess i'm just wondering what our generation's built in post modern post ironic self awareness has to do with tarantino. or like, how is tarantino somehow exacerbating that with his films. i feel like you could level all these criticisms at something like tim and eric, and i'd disagree with you on that as well.

 

a good example of a film that is empty and too self aware and nostalgic is the house of the devil. that film exists as a stylistic exercise and nothing more.

[Guest abusivegeorge]

he is responsible for people talking about slavery in a way they haven't for thirty years? wtf? wtf is he talking about?

 

 

slavery as exploitation splatter film? i guess..am I the only one here that doesn't find this idea revolutionary? I mean, Ive dreamed about fucking up slave owners and nazis since I first heard about them.

 

Well when I heard this response my thought directed towards watching anything on the television about slavery, documentaries, movies or any other. The truth is, British TV is flooded with documentaries about nazis, the world wars, politics, nature, Egyptians, Romans, Jack the Ripper, period dramas. So I racked my brains and I couldn't think of anything I've seen or heard of on the box about slavery in the last 5 years, Maybe it's been there, but it certainly hasn't been advertised as much as the above. So perhaps he is referring to Django as being a piece of RECENT cinema exploring slavery, in way that hasn't been done for a few years?

 

Or I could be just totally unaware of a load of shit that has been on and I've missed it and he's talking bollocks.

 

But then there is the viewer ratings for his movies, they are fucking gigantic, big enough I'm sure, to have sparked the biggest slavery debate in a long time?

 

Django is awesome btw I thoroughly recommend.

[soundwave]

best Tarantino film in a very long while, Fox was slick and not overplayed, Waltz kept the classic Quentin dialogue flowing like in Bastards, DiCaprio was well cast and Jackson was trying hard not to be Jackson.

 

B-movie cliches weren't too self indulgent and I'm glad it didn't look too much like a ironic cheap grindhouse flick. Tarantino concentrated on the virtues of his script/character writing and tension building scenarios to keep within the limits of his directing skills.

 

[Rubin Farr]

Weinstein agreed today to stop producing the action figures, resulting in this:

 

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewitem?itemId=170976131573&index=4&nav=SEARCH&nid=57350865466

[lumpenprol]

Just started watching this this evening with the wife, I came in with fairly high expectations given the watmm praise but...say what, did you guys (mostly) like this? We actually turned it off at the point of QT's cameo because we were bored stiff.

 

Have to say I agree with Smetty, the film is bloated, pacing and emotional beats are off, music is poorly chosen...there was a moment when they first arrived at Candyland (which is what, halfway through the film already?) where things started to look up - primarily due to the combo of Sam Jackson's Stephen and DiCaprio's Candie. For a few moments I "couldn't see the strings" and was caught up in the movie, not distracted by the direction, as with Tarantino of old. But then it just went downhill again.

 

Put a fork in Tarantino, he's done. I don't expect another good flick out of him (though Basterds and maybe Django are still better than the Kill Bill movies...I guess).

 

Funny cause in anticipation of watching Django I re-watched about half of Pulp Fiction, which was still as entertaining as I remembered.

 

I give it a 6/10, for effort, but that's being generous. He should have just played it straight, when he did - during most of the Candyland sequence - the film was much better than the cartoonish parts that bookended it.

[Guest Frankie5fingers]

why'd you turn it off then? you had like 5-10 minutes left in the movie. lol

[Schlitze]

I'd agree that some of the music was poorly chosen. Hip hop tracks just don't sit well with a film set in the 1860's unless it's an all out comedy. Django takes itself seriously for the most part, there are tense moments and serious themes explored as well as comical moments which break the tension (the bodies getting shot to smithereens during the shoot-out), but the rap tracks didn't fit well anywhere. The overuse of the n-word also reached comical proportions where they threw it in everywhere, it was like a running joke:

Waltz: ''We want to create a black hercules''

Jackson: ''Niggales?''

Also, thankfully, mandingo fights were fictional and didn't occur according to some people who were around at the time.

I rate the film 4/5

[SR4]

Lumpy- yeah you might as well have watched the end, some of the funniest moments were right there.

 

But yeah, Ive seen in three times now and I'm ready to leave the theater a half hour before it ends...it's just bloated.

 

But the more I watch it the more I am convinced that Samuel Jackson deserves an award for this. The scenes between him and Kerry Washington are amazing in how subtle he pulls off that terrifying personality...then walks out with a happy "yes massa" face in the dining room. Really amazing job.

[Schlitze]

Indeed, Jackson is excellent. Morally corrupt to the core yet plays it perfectly. Also a big shout out to the hair and make up department.

I have a few issues with Waltz's characters moral compass. Why sit back and let a man get ripped apart by dogs then seize the moment with an opportunistic handshake when all the damage has already been done and you are about to escape with everything you wanted and the game is done. It was sittin at a nice 3/5 90 minute movie right there

[Guest boo]

charming film

[SR4]

Indeed, Jackson is excellent. Morally corrupt to the core yet plays it perfectly. Also a big shout out to the hair and make up department.

I have a few issues with Waltz's characters moral compass. Why sit back and let a man get ripped apart by dogs then seize the moment with an opportunistic handshake when all the damage has already been done and you are about to escape with everything you wanted and the game is done. It was sittin at a nice 3/5 90 minute movie right there

 

i guess its because of his guilt over not intervening during the dog affair.....IIRC, when hes sitting waiting for the contract to be signed and finalized, there are brief shots of the attack...i spose showing his conflicted, increasingly angry mind.

 

But yeah, I didn't get that part either because he lectured Django about blowing the whole charade....so now that its over and done with and they get what they want, Waltz decides to kill the head of the plantation and endanger himself, Django, and Django's wife? wtf was the point then?

[awepittance]

i agree with Schlitze, i kinda wish QT had the balls to just admit that while he was trying to be historically accurate, he also wanted to use the word nigger comically in a similar way to Blazing Saddles. Sort of a mashup of a racial commentary/exploitation/relishing in the obscenity and offensiveness of it all. He's totally bullshitting when he says he simply did it to be historically accurate

Waltz decides to kill the head of the plantation and endanger himself, Django, and Django's wife? wtf was the point then?

it barely made any sense, it just seemed like QT wanted to shoe-horn a cool 'hand-shake' scene idea that he had just floating around in his head, whether it worked in the context of his Django screenplay or not. Its like he just used up all his 'good' ideas for the last few years in the same movie without really thinking too much about if it would make the story stronger or not.

[Blir]

Saw this today. Hard to think of anything about it I didn't like to be honest...

[SR4]

he wasn't even close to being historically accurate.

 

 

for one, the KKK didn't exist until after the Civil War.

 

but that aspect of the movie I have no quarrel with.

 

 

edit: and I can't say for certain, only from my experience as a historian, but the word "negroe/negro" was used much more in official letters/bills of sale and in informal writing, like diary entries...so you might be onto something there...

[gaarg]

I loved this film. But it also scared me a bit. The scene where Django strikes that guy with a whip over and over again...I enjoyed it way too much. Maybe I never enjoyed anything the way I did this. I probably have a huge thing for redeeming for the wrongs.

[awepittance]

i think it's safe to say that for a man who wrote a scene for himself in a movie where he gets to say 'did you see a sign on my house that said dead nigger storage?... because storing dead niggers ain't my fucking business' probably is getting off for other reasons than trying to be historically accurate by gratuitously using the word. All i can say for sure is that he has a lot of fun using it and making his actors say it.

[lumpenprol]

I completely agree about Jackson being the best part of the film, although I felt his acting slipped during the "Django upside-down scene", when he looked and sounded almost like typical Sam Jackson. But up till that point he was fantastic, best acting I've seen from him - the slight ALS/palsy head-bob, plus great facial expressions...

 

edit: oh and I thought the "Niggales" comment was one of the funniest lines in the film, just because of the way Sam Jackson says it. No prob from me there.

[awepittance]

i laughed at that line too, i just wish on some level QT would acknowledge that he's trying to get the audience to laugh at using the word nigger. Just for the record, i wouldn't think any less of him or find it particularly problematic if he admitted to that. I just think part of him is afraid to acknowledge that he finds using the word gratuitously entertaining, hilarious and lurid for non historical purposes.

[Guest zaphod]

he wasn't even close to being historically accurate.

 

 

for one, the KKK didn't exist until after the Civil War.

 

but that aspect of the movie I have no quarrel with.

 

 

edit: and I can't say for certain, only from my experience as a historian, but the word "negroe/negro" was used much more in official letters/bills of sale and in informal writing, like diary entries...so you might be onto something there...

 

the kkk scene was a pretty obvious birth of a nation reference. he talks about it in the root podcast, where he was watching birth of a nation, realized john ford was in it and hated john ford westerns and came up with that scene. but maybe i'm defending the movie in the way you seem to have a problem with.

 

i don't think django is presented as being a historically accurate film, it's more of a hodgepodge of film references with a historical context to drive the emotional side of the narrative, as was inglourious basterds. but i'm neither a historian or film expert.

[lumpenprol]

Ok, I just finished the film, I stick by the 6/10. One prob with it was I think the subject of slavery in the South is a rich vein to mine, but the film felt like it just scratched the surface. I like how Tarantino showed the cognitive dissonance of people like Calvin Candie and Stephen, and the people around them who just accepted the casual brutality and power dynamics of the slave system. I think he could somehow have dug deeper into the incongruities and almost surreal nature of it all (as he did when he showed the girls on swings near the woman being whipped).

And I think QT should have just ditched the blaxploitation and "hip music" trappings and played it straight. I think he tries really hard to be cool, but in this case it just worked against the film (as Smetty said). He doesn't need to do "genre mashup." If he wants to make a spaghetti western, then do it! Those films had a great sense of humor, but the best of them were never just content being "B movies". The side effect of QT's B movie choices was that nothing in the film had any weight, not even the violence (which was mostly way too cartoonish).

Speaking of spaghetti westerns, one of the things that made Clint's "Man with no name" such a memorable antihero was that, well, he was an antihero. Like Han Solo, you have no idea what really motivates him. Is it just money, like he says, or possibly something more noble? And that enigma is what makes the characters so memorable - the tough laconic shell hiding...something. Unfortunately Django's motivation is completely obvious, which makes him quite boring. Fox gave it a good go, but there's just no there there. His character underwent no transformations or big decisions. Sam Jackson's character (and hell, Ving Rhames' character) in Pulp Fiction have much better arcs than Django's.

If QT wanted to really go a bold route, he could have for example, gone Dogville: show a very nuanced view of the South, both the unspeakable evil but also the flashes of good and decency. And then have Fox decide that, NONETHELESS, despite the good, he wanted to bring down the judgment of God upon them. THAT would have been shocking and worthy of buzz. Man I love Dogville.

Oh also: I'm tired of the low budget look of QT films. Each one seems to look worse and more sloppy than the one before it. Fer chrissakes, spend a little more money for proper lighting so every scene doesn't look like a stage. Spend just a little more so the cotton fields outside of Don Johnson's estate don't look about the size of a swimming pool. Even the tight shots suffer - remember the delicious close-ups in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction? (I've never seen Michael Madsen be shot better). What the hell happened to QT's lush filmmaking skills?