Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

[syd syside]

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?

 

Good summary, agreed with everything. There was no sense of grand scale, it felt like a bunch of stages/sets. No breathing room between different locations without obnoxious music choices. Inglorious still had a great sense of atmosphere in parts, at least much better than Django, but it still had this problem of too much micro attention between many different characters without a larger macro backdrop of what war time or slavery was like.

 

I mean just something like this opening shot ffs, c'mon QT!

 

[gaarg]

This is legendary

[BOCfan]

I really enjoyed it. My favourite of QT's recent output.

[MCJ]

Abysmal.

 

★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

[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...

 

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.

 

 

no, i have absolutely no problem with the film being historically inaccurate. like I said, I have no quarrel with that aspect of the film.

[Guest abusivegeorge]

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

 

I didn't find that scene representative of the KKK, they'd all just cut some holes into sacks to conceal their identity, it clearly wasn't a uniform or form of concealment any of them were familiar with nor had they tried it before, and they all thought it was a stupid idea. I admit that aesthetically it was clearly aimed at them, but my thoughts were more towards that this is how the KKK started out.

[Guest Iain C]

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing this film, but I really enjoyed this essay on it: http://therumpus.net/2013/01/django-take-3-rechained/

 

Performance

Jamie Foxx is not a slave. Samuel L. Jackson is not a slave. They are paid to perform the parts of slaves and free blacks for the director Quentin Tarantino. They are in blackface. Especially Samuel Jackson, whose exaggerated minstrel show blackness is the only reason for his character’s existence.

[awesomeperson]

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

 

I didn't find that scene representative of the KKK, they'd all just cut some holes into sacks to conceal their identity, it clearly wasn't a uniform or form of concealment any of them were familiar with nor had they tried it before, and they all thought it was a stupid idea. I admit that aesthetically it was clearly aimed at them, but my thoughts were more towards that this is how the KKK started out.

 

I haven't seen the movie (nor do I plan to, ever) but going by your description it sounds like an "homage" aka ripoff to the original Django movie from 1966 in which the gang wore red sacks with holes.

[SR4]

so the problem here is nobody knows whether the scene was an homage or historically inaccurate?

 

*smug*

[Guest zaphod]

it's a parody

 

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing this film, but I really enjoyed this essay on it: http://therumpus.net/2013/01/django-take-3-rechained/

 

 

Performance

Jamie Foxx is not a slave. Samuel L. Jackson is not a slave. They are paid to perform the parts of slaves and free blacks for the director Quentin Tarantino. They are in blackface. Especially Samuel Jackson, whose exaggerated minstrel show blackness is the only reason for his character’s existence.

 

you enjoy an essay about a film you haven't seen? and what does the above quote even mean? are all black actors in films in blackface? what a miserable fucking piece of writing. and that's coming from me.

[SR4]

it's a parody

 

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing this film, but I really enjoyed this essay on it: http://therumpus.net/2013/01/django-take-3-rechained/

 

 

Performance

Jamie Foxx is not a slave. Samuel L. Jackson is not a slave. They are paid to perform the parts of slaves and free blacks for the director Quentin Tarantino. They are in blackface. Especially Samuel Jackson, whose exaggerated minstrel show blackness is the only reason for his character’s existence.

 

you enjoy an essay about a film you haven't seen? and what does the above quote even mean? are all black actors in films in blackface? what a miserable fucking piece of writing. and that's coming from me.

 

 

parody indicates imitation. is it imitating the KKK, or a scene from the original Django, or both? or none?

[Guest Iain C]

you enjoy an essay about a film you haven't seen?

 

Um, yeah. I don't think that's impossible or even particularly weird. I saw a link to the essay, I read it and I thought it had some interesting ideas, I enjoyed the unusual structure of it, and it even made me curious about the movie. Obviously I'm not about to weigh in and say whether its take is right or wrong; I just thought I'd share it here for people who had seen it.

 

As for that quote, I can't tell you what it means. I posted it because I thought it was one of the more provocative statements the author made - in other words, I thought it get people to click the link rather than just skim past it.

 

As you were.

[SR4]

very cool use of George Fitzhugh.....but ill go ahead and say Im not really "getting" the point behind the article...

 

 

though I was thinking to myself that, yes, I do like the idea of showing American slave society in its most disgusting surrealistic truths, but it at least for me as an individual sends mixed psychological messages when the horrors of slavery are conveniently wiped away with revenge fantasy action scenes.

 

this isn't a particular criticism i feel should necessarily be aimed at Tarantino, but again more at the people that watch Django and take away the idea that Tarantino made it more "real" and is somehow the first legit director to address how horrible slavery as an institution was. and just so you know Im not making this up, search around youtube for interviews between him and morning radio crews in NY and such. its really strange how they shower him with this particular strange series of accolades....but maybe its all for promotion.

[Guest Gary C]

I have absolutely zero interest in seeing this film, but I really enjoyed this essay on it: http://therumpus.net/2013/01/django-take-3-rechained/

 

 

Performance

Jamie Foxx is not a slave. Samuel L. Jackson is not a slave. They are paid to perform the parts of slaves and free blacks for the director Quentin Tarantino. They are in blackface. Especially Samuel Jackson, whose exaggerated minstrel show blackness is the only reason for his character’s existence.

 

I almost agree at Jackson's character having little need to exist. Doesn't mean what Jackson did wasn't amazing, but any other character could have tipped off Candie, maybe the widowed-sister because she can see love in Broomhilda?

 

But the article isn't completely disparaging.

 

 

 

Django Unchained verges on what the French avant-garde filmmaker René Clair called, in 1925, cinéma pur—pure cinema—the “elemental origins” of cinema in “vision and movement.” Which brings us back to style. How should a film be? Should a film depicting the excess of evil also be excessively evil? For it may be that the story that any work of art tells—whether a novel or a painting or a film—is really and secretly the story of its telling. And the less invisible the style, the more this becomes obvious. Which is to say: often, a supposedly righteous film tells a story of terrible things, such as Schindler’s List. But sometimes, and more rarely, a villainous story is told by a truly villainous film.

 

Django is full of villains. Full of inverted roles and subterfuge. The only really innocent victims during the course of the film appear to be the women.

 

Ultimately, it's a dirty film full of queasy moments, but one that finds moments of glee in a revenge/hero story.

 

I loved it, by the way. It might not be Tarantino's best and it might not stand-up very well in the future, but it's a great journey and a brilliant cinematic experience.

[goDel]

Django is full of villains. Full of inverted roles and subterfuge. The only really innocent victims during the course of the film appear to be the women.

 

Good points in your post, but here I have to disagree.

 

Although there aren't many women given any meaningful screen time, it's certainly not the case that women are innocent, imo. Couple of examples: the women in DiCaprios loft (the scene with the two guys fighting by the fire place). Those were not innocent women. And, although I may have to watch the film again, in a number of places it is alluded to that the women could sell their bodies if they'd want to make their lives easier. That's an option the guys generally didn't have. So, the only innocent woman is the woman which married Foxx. Name alludes me as well. But apart from that roll, no really innocent victims. (perhaps all the other manly slaves with any lines? hmmm....these silent witnesses always seem so innocent).

[goDel]

ehm

 

that should have read "without any lines".

 

sorry for hasty postings and all. it's just a frustrating exercise when fingers can't follow the mind... O.o

[syd syside]

ehm

 

that should have read "without any lines".

 

sorry for hasty postings and all. it's just a frustrating exercise when fingers can't follow the mind... O.o

I have so many problems with this. My fingers are fucking cunts.

[Braintree]

How could you forget a name like Brunhilde?

[goDel]

....

 

lol

 

 

You'd almost start to wonder how inhumanly slow my fingers must be, if the mind is unable to remind the brunhilde thing.

 

Django and brunhilde might not be Wagners cup of tea, btw. So maybe this is Quentins way of saying that out of all the characters, brunhilde is the most fictational. Ergo, innocent women do not exist.

 

XD

[Friendly Foil]

I mean just something like this opening shot ffs, c'mon QT!

 

One of the best scenes in any movie of all time. OF ALL TIME!

[vamos scorcho]

I have absolutely no idea why people have chosen this film to backlash on Tarantino. I suspect it's because there is an underlying feeling in the WHITE community that race relations have been solved and are no longer something to focus on. It goes unspoken but those unspoken things are very serious.

 

I think quite the contrary that this film is almost genius in its subtlety.

[SR4]

I have absolutely no idea why people have chosen this film to backlash on Tarantino. I suspect it's because there is an underlying feeling in the WHITE community that race relations have been solved and are no longer something to focus on. It goes unspoken but those unspoken things are very serious.

 

I think quite the contrary that this film is almost genius in its subtlety.

 

 

nah. i just think its a shit film.

[soundwave]

kinda wish I went to the cinema to watch now

 

just short of being a classic but quality entertainment

[syd syside]

I have absolutely no idea why people have chosen this film to backlash on Tarantino. I suspect it's because there is an underlying feeling in the WHITE community that race relations have been solved and are no longer something to focus on. It goes unspoken but those unspoken things are very serious.

 

I think quite the contrary that this film is almost genius in its subtlety.

 

 

nah. i just think its a shit film.

 

I don't think its a shit film, I'd give it a 7/10. But my expectations were way too high I guess so it felt more like a 5/10.

[Atop]

you will like it more in two years.