Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino)

[eternity]

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1853728/)

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BNjI4NzkzODM3Nl5BMl5BanBnXk FtZTcwMzk1NTIyOA@@._V1._SY317_ CR0,0,214,317_.jpg

[eternity]

Very brutal. Very witty. Loses its luster as it goes along. Sally Menke is missed dearly. Headache.

[Ezee E]

Very brutal. Very witty. Loses its luster as it goes along. Sally Menke is missed dearly. Headache.
Yet 4 stars?

[ledfloyd]

the advance word i've been hearing has been overwhelmingly positive.

[Pop Trash]

Sally Menke is missed dearly.

Uh oh.

[plain]

https://twitter.com/jandersonesque/status/277495164803629057

[Boner M]

Seein' tomorrow.

[baby doll]

the advance word i've been hearing has been overwhelmingly positive.A Quentin Tarantino movie getting good reviews?! I'm flabbergasted.

[Skitch]

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/tarantino-talks-for-an-uncensored-hour-on-howard-stern

[Robby P]

That's actually quite interesting. I had no idea Tarantino was a high school dropout.

[Boner M]

It's not a bingo. :sad:

[DavidSeven]

Django Unchained (Tarantino, 2012) **½
Jack Reacher (McQuarrie, 2012) ***
This Is 40 (Apatow, 2012) ***


Well, this is an unexpected turn of events.

[Boner M]

Well, this is an unexpected turn of events.
Yeah, it's been a weird week.

Still processing my disappointment (although the trailers didn't do much for me). Is it the fact that QT's characters can't possibly be into movies this time the reason why the film feels, for the most part, so slack and disengaged? Possibly. It works best as a broad comedy.

[Sven]

... the film feels, for the most part, so slack and disengaged...

Distressing word, particularly after my reaction to the slack and disengaged Inglorious Basterds, a movie that, for me, was a tensionless meander.

[Grouchy]

tensionless meander.
Seriously? I know this is probably a debate you already had, but... you're calling Inglourious Basterds "tensionless"?

[Sven]

Seriously? I know this is probably a debate you already had, but... you're calling Inglourious Basterds "tensionless"?

That movie was a flatline for me. Every scene that was supposed to be exciting felt rote, like a million other films before it.

[Ezee E]

That movie was a flatline for me. Every scene that was supposed to be exciting felt rote, like a million other films before it.
Crazytalk!

[transmogrifier]

Crazytalk!

Especially from someone who can find the good in something as rote as 16 Blocks.

[Pop Trash]

I have a feeling this is going to bomb big time. The toxic combination of a violent movie about slavery being released on Christmas Day (good plan there Weinsteins?!), the Connecticut shooting, plus deflating buzz is just not going to work, but we shall see...

[Ezee E]

I feel like IB had the same worry with the multiple languages and oddity of it all. It became Tarantino's most successful movie.

This wil get past the climate because of its Awards nominations, word of mouth, and simply being a Tarantino movie. $60-$100 mill probably. It only cost $40.

[Pop Trash]

I feel like IB had the same worry with the multiple languages and oddity of it all. It became Tarantino's most successful movie.

This wil get past the climate because of its Awards nominations, word of mouth, and simply being a Tarantino movie. $60-$100 mill probably. It only cost $40.

They did a good job marketing IB though. All the ads played up the WWII actioneer with Brad Pitt aspects and played down the French female protagonist. Plus, August release and no major violent USA news (I don't think?...beyond the usual daily USA shootings.)

You're probably right this will have legs in January and won't be an outright bomb, but I wouldn't be surprised if it does much less than IB. The last major release to focus on slavery was Beloved and that movie tanked. It's just an issue both Black America and White America don't like to dwell on too much (outside of Civil War dramas like Glory or Lincoln.)

[MadMan]

Interesting insight. I'm curious how movies like Jack Reacher (they cancelled last night's premiere), Django, and Gangster Squad are going to perform in this climate.

Tarantino has the benefit of a young & rabid male fanbase. As with Kevin Smith, those fans unquestioningly eat up anything he does. So I don't think Django will out and out bomb, but its opening day might be a little weaker.

Jack Reacher might be in serious trouble. Apparently, that movie opens with a lone sniper opening fire on a crowd of unarmed civilians. Another Christmas movie!Wow. I had no idea that Jack Reacher featured such a scene. So X-Mas=horrible violence on a massive scale. Fantastic! :pritch:

I agree that Django probably will see QT reverting back to lower box office numbers. Didn't Gangster Squad ax the theater shooting scene? Its cast is enough to overcome certain misgivings, I think. Jack Reacher isn't a movie I thought was going to gross a bunch of money simply because Tom Cruise, MI:4 aside, just isn't the draw he used to be.

[number8]

I went to see Zero Dark Thirty today and there was a trailer for Snitch. At one point, Dwayne Johnson talks about protecting his children and it shows him walking into a gun shop and looking at all the rifles on the rack. I heard the people behind me audibly cringe.

[Barty]

l6dX7Zhw9LU

[Ezee E]

Shit. I made my first big mistake as mod.

I was quoting number8, and instead edited his message.

Sorry about that...

Umm... 8, care to repost, and I'll quote?

:embarassed:

[Spinal]

Shit. I made my first big mistake as mod.

I was quoting number8, and instead edited his message.

Sorry about that...

Umm... 8, care to repost, and I'll quote?

:embarassed:

Heh. I remember the days when I did that.

[Raiders]

There, I split the posts. We actually do that quite frequently.

[number8]

I just read the first issue of the comic. I laughed a few times. Can't wait to see this tomorrow.

[D_Davis]

I don't know what changed in me, but I now have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see this movie. It went from my most anticipated film of the year, to I don't care if I ever see it. I've been trying to figure it out, but I can't put my finger it.

Is it black, is it white?
Is it really out of sight?
I can't put my finger on it.
da-da-da

[baby doll]

I feel like IB had the same worry with the multiple languages and oddity of it all. It became Tarantino's most successful movie.According to Box Office Mojo (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=tarantino.htm), that's not unambiguously true. If you go by domestic figures adjusted for inflation, Pulp Fiction is still his most successful movie. On the other hand, Inglourious Basterds made most of its money abroad (in contrast with Pulp Fiction, where it's a fifty-fifty split), and the worldwide figures aren't unadjusted for inflation, so actually there's really no way of telling which film was more successful.

Oddly enough, even adjusting for inflation, Reservoir Dogs made less money in its US theatrical run than Four Rooms.

[Pop Trash]

Oddly enough, even adjusting for inflation, Reservoir Dogs made less money in its US theatrical run than Four Rooms.

Yeah, as popular as it is now, it's easy to forget that Res Dogs only found its cult following after it came out on video (similar to Donnie Darko, Office Space, and Repo Man.)

[Ezee E]

I don't know what changed in me, but I now have absolutely no desire whatsoever to see this movie. It went from my most anticipated film of the year, to I don't care if I ever see it. I've been trying to figure it out, but I can't put my finger it.

Is it black, is it white?
Is it really out of sight?
I can't put my finger on it.
da-da-da
Hatemonger.

[MadMan]

Fuck you.:rolleyes:

[D_Davis]

Hatemonger.

Actually, it's probably because I'm really racist.

[baby doll]

Actually, it's probably because I'm really racist.I don't like people from Luxembourg. I'm just being real.

[Bosco B Thug]

A modest success. This is Tarantino making the piece of entertainment he's always wanted to make - so, knowing Tarantino's taste, this is an artistic disappointment. It's totally not a tonal piece or thematic work. It's an honest-to-god popcorn exploitation flick. Tarantino is in Kill Bill mode here - busy, busy filmmaking, trying to channel the energies and capriciousness of the real filmmaking of olde - but without Kill Bill's scope, tonal exquisiteness, or focus.

He tries his absolute damndest to make every minute come straight from the 70's or 90's (and I love it - it doesn't result in a masterwork, but I love it). Augmenting the 70's filmmaking joie de vivre with the scrappy 1990's sense of narrative propulsion results in Django Unchained - a dumb grindhouse flick, but an intelligent and audacious one... which is the way one wants to describe those 70's pieces of detritus worth remembering (or dated 90's slogs worth remembering). Well done, Quentin, you've realized your dream with your weakest, clearly most slapdash picture. Had a great time, though - the screenplay is full of high points and some fascinating returns.

[plain]

Django plays like a FAR less cohesive B-side to Basterds' measured brilliance; it's never dull, but perhaps QT's emptiest. It's everything you're hoping it is and everything you're fearing as well. Waltz and Sam Jackson steal the thing.

[Mysterious Dude]

I noticed Ted Neeley's name in the credits. I didn't recognize him in the movie. He is still the best Jesus.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/550319/Ted+Neeley.jpg

[Bosco B Thug]

Django plays like a FAR less cohesive B-side to Basterds' measured brilliance; it's never dull, but perhaps QT's emptiest. It's everything you're hoping it is and everything you're fearing as well. Waltz and Sam Jackson steal the thing.
Jackson for sure. DiCaprio handled himself very finely, too, I thought. You all were right - you can just tell Foxx is a rather limited actor, but he's entirely suited to the role given him, and his sideline performance - along with Kerry Washington's as Broomhilda - nicely makes them the sole "real people" amidst a bunch of white person grotesques. Their completely passive role in the first climax is the film's biggest stroke of brilliance for me.

[plain]

Could have sworn QT was one of the KKK members, anyone else recognize hs voice?

[Bosco B Thug]

Could have sworn QT was one of the KKK members, anyone else recognize hs voice?
Didn't occur to me, but I dunno.

That was a baaad scene, btw. More so in execution and performance, though why Tarantino let it go on and on to a groan-worthy point is beyond me.

[plain]

Would agree. Anyone else slightly turned off by the zooms?

[Bosco B Thug]

Would agree. Anyone else slightly turned off by the zooms?
Yes. It's what sends off the signal that Tarantino's main prerogative here is to make a 70's B-movie, a film to be taken seriously be damned. Yes, there are so many in the beginning.

[TGM]

This movie was freaking nuts. Had a blast with it!

[Pop Trash]

I have a feeling this is going to bomb big time. The toxic combination of a violent movie about slavery being released on Christmas Day (good plan there Weinsteins?!), the Connecticut shooting, plus deflating buzz is just not going to work, but we shall see...

I might eat crow here since the show I saw was nearly sold out on a Wednesday afternoon and the crowd was vocally into it by the end (one older guy behind me mentioning he liked it better than Pulp Fiction) so the word-of-mouth should be pretty great.

Anyways, really liked it, better than I expected. It has the usual Tarantino trademarks of being simultaneously funny, disturbing, interesting, politically incorrect, brutally violent, and crowd pleasing often in the same scene. It also seems to be a big 'fuck you' to anyone who wants to recontextualize 'south-will-rise-again' Cracker Barrel-esque Americana as warm and fuzzy. Like Basterds Tarantino understands the power of films to create an image we have of history and fills in a new image for that historie(s) du cinema.

Don't really get Boner's complaint that since Django takes place pre-cinema, something is lost from Basterds timeframe. This is about our memory of American History via The Western Movie just as much as it is about actual American History. I thought the use of hip-hop as a timeless expression of Black Male Empowerment makes just as much sense as Robert Altman's anachronistic use of Leonard Cohen as sad bastard folky tragic cowboy music.

I will nitpick and say the final act seemed redundant, and unless I'm missing something, could have easily been woven in to Leonard DiCaprio's (who is great btw) demise as the grand finale shootout. Not sure why we needed to see Django escape then come back to Candyland. I feel like that all could be one long epic Wild Bunch-esque finale and cut the running time down by 15 or so minutes.

[Boner M]

Don't really get Boner's complaint that since Django takes place pre-cinema, something is lost from Basterds timeframe.
Huh?

[Pop Trash]

Still processing my disappointment (although the trailers didn't do much for me). Is it the fact that QT's characters can't possibly be into movies this time the reason why the film feels, for the most part, so slack and disengaged? Possibly. It works best as a broad comedy.

Isn't this what you are saying? That the characters can't be tied into cinematic pop culture since cinema didn't exist in the 1850s? So Tarantino's 'thing' feels disengaged as compared to Basterds (where the main character is a total cinephile)?

[Boner M]

Ah yes, sorta. Your prior sentence just seemed like a misreading.

[number8]

This made my Christmas. Certainly Tarantino's simplest narrative, but incredibly satisfying. It's like he distilled the essence of shooting Hitler in the face and stretched it out to 3 hours.

[Grouchy]

Doesn't open here until January 31st. Fucking sonsofbitches.

[EyesWideOpen]

Waltz owned this movie but Foxx was quite good also.

[number8]

Foxx was really good, actually. I can see what Tarantino meant when he said that he cast Foxx because he's got a cowboy quality that Will Smith and Idris Elba lack. Django is probably Tarantino's least talkative protagonist. So much of that performance is just the unspoken restrained anger and disgust at white folks, and Foxx conveyed it perfectly.

As I understand it, Foxx grew up in Texas and was called a nigger quite a lot as a kid. I think this is another case of Tarantino's excellent eye for casting the perfect people in the perfect roles.

[Spinal]

It seems clear to me that Tarantino's use of the word 'nigger' is intended to contribute to the overall experience of this film as a visceral exercise and not an intellectual exercise. Like other directorial choices such as the copious amounts of blood, the protracted degradation of innocents and the use of contemporary hip-hop evoking modern racial tensions, Tarantino is baiting the viewer into passionate involvement - involvement that receives a certain kind of primal satisfaction once the violence explodes. The use of that inflammatory word has less to do with historical accuracy than it does setting an atmosphere of highly-charged emotion - emotion that Django must battle to contain for a period of time lest he make the mistake of striking too soon.

Anyway, I can see the intellectual argument against such tactics. However, I enjoyed the tension and slow burning rage contrasted against the cool-headed German who always seems to know how to handle himself in a dangerous situation. I also enjoyed how the two characters began to influence each other and take on small aspects of the other's characteristics.

I'd say it falls short of Tarantino's best, but is still a highly competent, highly watchable journey.

[Watashi]

I'm a very mild yay on this one. I enjoyed DiCaprio, Waltz, and to a point, Foxx, but this takes way too long to begin and way too long to end (this thing has more endings than ROTK).

A minor Tarantino, and also his least funniest.

[Watashi]

I also think the heaps of praise given to Sam Jackson is kind of weird. I mean, it's a good and often funny performance, but it's a role that Jackson can do in his sleep. Sam's Uncle Tom is basically him getting to say "nigger" and "motherfucker" every sentence in a southern drawl. Not that much of a reach.

[number8]

The last act is pretty important. Simply killing Candie and rescuing Broomhilda wouldn't complete Django's full hero's journey.

[Pop Trash]

A minor Tarantino, and also his least funniest.

I dunno man, when it was funny it was hilarious.

Biggest laugh for me was Tarantino blowing himself up, mostly because it's as if QT heard my psychic groans when he appeared and started speaking in the world's worst Australian accent.

[Pop Trash]

The last act is pretty important. Simply killing Candie and rescuing Broomhilda wouldn't complete Django's full hero's journey.

Do explain.

[Ezee E]

Liked it a ton. Loved the boiling anger from each and every character. Did not like Tarantino's bit, and the use of hip hop seems kinda weird. Definitely feels like there's a lot missing from this movie that I'd like to see. I'll have to seek out the comic now.

[Pop Trash]

I also think the heaps of praise given to Sam Jackson is kind of weird. I mean, it's a good and often funny performance, but it's a role that Jackson can do in his sleep. Sam's Uncle Tom is basically him getting to say "nigger" and "motherfucker" every sentence in a southern drawl. Not that much of a reach.

I found his character pretty fascinating. He's like a slave version of Stockholm Syndrome or the fast food workers in Compliance. His moral compass only points in the direction of Candyland.

[Watashi]

The funniest line is a throwaway line by the deputy. It was something on the lines of "It was my birthday yesterday. There was cake. It was okay."

[Bosco B Thug]

A minor Tarantino, and also his least funniest. I agree with this. This actually boils it down quite well.


Definitely feels like there's a lot missing from this movie that I'd like to see. Maybe Tarantino will pull a Ridley Scott and put out a Director's Cut that I'll find superior. Django Unchained moves at the fastest clip of any Tarantino film, which might be a good rationale for why it feels minor. (Reality check, though: it achieves far less but it's already the length of Inglourious Basterds).


And I'm not just saying this, but Tarantino's performance didn't bother me at all. I thought he was pretty good. Maybe his accent was crappy, but he didn't mug or self-flatter.

[Ezee E]

They needed more of the guy that mumbled.

Also, is Broomhilda the worst Tarantino female? She didn't have much to do.

[number8]

Do explain.

Well, there's a reason why Schultz is the one who killed Candie. Django wouldn't have. He'd been okay walking away from the whole thing $12,000 short with Broomhilda alive.

The character is suppressing rage for the entire movie. He cares only about saving his wife by any means necessary, which is a personal quest, but inadequate for the scope and intent of the story as a whole regarding slavery.

The film's last act is Django embracing a certain revolutionary stance and starts killing people no longer for money or himself, but because they represent the institution of slavery, from the mining company employees to the trackers in the woods to all the people in Candyland. He could've grabbed Broomhilda and bolted, but he made the choice to systematically destroy Candyland and free their slaves.

The most important shot of the whole sequence is probably that one of the mining slave smiling as he watches Django kill the slave drivers and ride off. He's become an inspiration for other slaves.

[number8]

By the way, I don't think that a western featuring Rick Ross and Tupac on the soundtrack is any weirder or anachronistic than a western using Burt Bacharach, Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan.

[Bosco B Thug]

They needed more of the guy that mumbled.

Also, is Broomhilda the worst Tarantino female? She didn't have much to do. Loved how unembellished she was.

[Pop Trash]

Well, there's a reason why Schultz is the one who killed Candie. Django wouldn't have. He'd been okay walking away from the whole thing $12,000 short with Broomhilda alive.

The character is suppressing rage for the entire movie. He cares only about saving his wife by any means necessary, which is a personal quest, but inadequate for the scope and intent of the story as a whole regarding slavery.

The film's last act is Django embracing a certain revolutionary stance and starts killing people no longer for money or himself, but because they represent the institution of slavery, from the mining company employees to the trackers in the woods to all the people in Candyland. He could've grabbed Broomhilda and bolted, but he made the choice to systematically destroy Candyland and free their slaves.

The most important shot of the whole sequence is probably that one of the mining slave smiling as he watches Django kill the slave drivers and ride off. He's become an inspiration for other slaves.

Interesting points, and I predicted the final scene would match Basterds and have the plantation being symbolically destroyed (I figured it would go up in flames and there would be some nice Tarkovsky-like shots in there, but maybe he thought that would be too similar to Basterds) but I still think he could have wove the two finales together or at least written around the Aussies w/o much harm done and crisper pacing.

[Ezee E]

By the way, I don't think that a western featuring Rick Ross and Tupac on the soundtrack is any weirder or anachronistic than a western using Burt Bacharach, Leonard Cohen or Bob Dylan.
I've thought some of those were weird too. Great comment about the necessity of the return of Django though.

[DavidSeven]

This was a lot of fun! I had modest expectations going in, so I was surprised when it hooked me almost immediately. It's broad and fantastical in the Kill Bill vein, but I thought this was a lot more polished than his original vengeance saga. He's hitting the right notes here, and you sense Tarantino's developed this unrivaled ability to work an audience through the small details. It's the filmmaking equivalent to a musician or stand-up comedian mastering the craft of concert performance through years of subtle adjustment. I'll admit Django doesn't quite reach the game-changing energy of Pulp Fiction or the thematic mastery of Inglorious Basterds, but out-and-out masterpiece is a pretty tough standard to meet. I'll happily take several more of this quality if he has it in him.

[Skitch]

Well, there's a reason why Schultz is the one who killed Candie.

Spoiler? I would have preferred not knowing that was gonna happen.

[ledfloyd]

I can't argue with plain's claim that this is QT's emptiest film, but I also can't claim I wasn't entertained for the full 165 minutes.

[EyesWideOpen]

Foxx was really good, actually. I can see what Tarantino meant when he said that he cast Foxx because he's got a cowboy quality that Will Smith and Idris Elba lack.

Obviously you haven't seen Wild Wild West.

[Ezee E]

This already made $42 million, and looks to make another $20 this weekend. Add the eventual Oscar noms, and this is going to do $100 mill. Nice.

[Spinal]

Quentin hates John Ford (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/27/quentin-tarantino-hates-john-ford)

[ledfloyd]

the 2pac did feel off to me, but i enjoyed the use of 100 Black Coffins.

there are some really meaningful images. the Leone close-ups on Foxx's eyes as they pull Broomhilda out of the hot-box has really stuck with me.

[Pop Trash]

Quentin hates John Ford (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/27/quentin-tarantino-hates-john-ford)

He mentioned that on Charlie Rose too recently. It's a bit of a :rolleyes: since he loves Taxi Driver (aka the movie most influenced by The Searchers) so much.

[Mysterious Dude]

Is it not possible to like Taxi Driver and simultaneously dislike The Searchers?

[Spinal]

He mentioned that on Charlie Rose too recently. It's a bit of a :rolleyes: since he loves Taxi Driver (aka the movie most influenced by The Searchers) so much.

I like Lost in Translation, but don't really care for Wong Kar-Wai, so I don't really take issue with this.

[Pop Trash]

Is it not possible to like Taxi Driver and simultaneously dislike The Searchers?

Well sure anyone can like/dislike anything they want. He can come out and say he loves Jaden Smith's Karate Kid but hates Ralph Macchio's Karate Kid. I don't care. I just find it a bit silly.

I'd like to see a conversation between Scorsese and Tarantino about John Ford.

[Bosco B Thug]

Quentin hates John Ford (http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/27/quentin-tarantino-hates-john-ford)The headline should be "Quentin Tarantino is philosophically unsympathetic to John Ford." No matter that he literally says "I hate him."

[Spinal]

I just find it a bit silly.


I think he makes a substantive argument against Ford and his philosophical influence.

[Pop Trash]

I think he makes a substantive argument against Ford and his philosophical influence.

Dude. If you take issue with the representation of minorities and women in classic films you can pretty much set the entire TCM canon on fire. Films reflect the times they were made. Women, Blacks, and Natives were subjugated pre 1960s (and after really) and the films are reflections of that. Cut to 2012 and America is still a gun loving violent place where crazy young guys go on a children murdering rampage. Django Unchained comes out and conflicts are resolved by gun fire. Mirrors reflecting into mirrors.

[Spinal]

Dude. If you take issue with the representation of minorities and women in classic films you can pretty much set the entire TCM canon on fire. Films reflect the times they were made. Women, Blacks, and Natives were subjugated pre 1960s (and after really) and the films are reflections of that. Cut to 2012 and America is still a gun loving violent place where crazy young guys go on a children murdering rampage. Django Unchained comes out and conflicts are resolved by gun fire. Mirrors reflecting into mirrors.

I think you're taking this way too far. No one's saying burn the films. No one's saying don't watch the films. One man's opinion is that Ford's films espouse questionable morality in regards to race and he's reacting to that with his own art. That's all. I thought it was interesting context for the film in question.

Dude.

[Watashi]

All my black friends are championing this film as the greatest film ever because literally every white person in the film dies.

[Derek]

All my black friends are championing this film as the greatest film ever because literally every white person in the film dies.

meg's head just exploded.

Also, that's not true. Some of the KKK guys got away by horseback.

[Spinal]

More from the original article (http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-1-django-trilogy?page=0,4):


But the thing is, one of my Western heroes is a director named William Witney who started doing the serials. He did Zorro's Fighting Legion, about 22 Roy Rogers movies; he did a whole bunch of Westerns. Great action director for Republic Pictures. And he worked all the way into the '70s.

So he was like the low-budget John Ford where John Ford was the high-budget John Ford at Republic. And he worked with the same guy: Yakima Canutt is his stunt guy and everything ... William Witney ends his career directing the movie Darktown Strutters, directing the Dramatics doing the song "What You See Is What You Get" in his film. He also directed Jim Brown in I Escaped From Devil's Island. So it's like John Ford puts on a Klan uniform, rides to black subjugation. William Witney ends a 50-year career directing the Dramatics doing "What You See Is What You Get." I know what side I'm on.

[Spinal]

Some of the KKK guys got away by horseback.

Sequel!

[Pop Trash]

I still think it's silly to take John Ford to task for this (especially when on a pure technique level he was pretty great...do you think Leone would trash Ford?) when Tarantino loves other directors with questionable philosophy.

Here's some quotes from Howard Hawks (one of QT's favorite directors):

"If I want to have fun at a party I'll tell The Duke [John Wayne], "See that guy over there? He's a Red!""

"Most of the leading men today, the younger men especially, are a little bit effeminate. There's no toughness. [Steve McQueen] and [Clint Eastwood] don't compare with [John Wayne]."

[Spinal]

"Elvis was a hero to most/
But he never meant shit to me you see/
Straight up racist that sucker was/
Simple and plain/
Mother fuck him and John Wayne/
Cause I'm Black and I'm proud/
I'm ready and hyped plus I'm amped/
Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps ..."

-- Public Enemy, 'Fight the Power'

Tarantino is basically saying something similar. Technique is not the issue. This is about an artist reacting passionately to what moves him.

[Spinal]

Here's some quotes from Howard Hawks (one of QT's favorite directors):

"If I want to have fun at a party I'll tell The Duke [John Wayne], "See that guy over there? He's a Red!""

"Most of the leading men today, the younger men especially, are a little bit effeminate. There's no toughness. [Steve McQueen] and [Clint Eastwood] don't compare with [John Wayne]."

I think you'd have to cite examples from Hawks' actual films to make this argument fly.

[Pop Trash]

I think you'd have to cite examples from Hawks' actual films to make this argument fly.

You could say the same thing about Tarantino re: Ford.

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure Tarantino likes Ford's films, just not the director. I mean, he clearly homages the final shot in The Searchers in the beginning of Inglorious Basterds.

[Pop Trash]

"Elvis was a hero to most/
But he never meant shit to me you see/
Straight up racist that sucker was/
Simple and plain/
Mother fuck him and John Wayne/
Cause I'm Black and I'm proud/
I'm ready and hyped plus I'm amped/
Most of my heroes don't appear on no stamps ..."

-- Public Enemy, 'Fight the Power'

Tarantino is basically saying something similar. Technique is not the issue. This is about an artist reacting passionately to what moves him.

ckjuux3UE7E

[Skitch]

Pop would you accept any criticism of Ford? He's on my list sacred cows that no one can say anything negative about. I, on the other hand, don't believe anyone has a perfect CV.

[Pop Trash]

Pop would you accept any criticism of Ford? He's on my list sacred cows that no one can say anything negative about. I, on the other hand, don't believe anyone has a perfect CV.

Sure, I'm not even that big of a Ford fan and haven't seen a lot of his films, but he was hugely influential. I mostly just find it perplexing Tarantino calls out Ford for his politics in classic Hollywood westerns, politics that were so troubling a new genre, the 'revisionist western' came out of it, but not the genre as a whole. A lot of those classic films were about 'killin' Injuns' whether or not Ford helmed them.

[Skitch]

Sure, I'm not even that big of a Ford fan and haven't seen a lot of his films, but he was hugely influential. I mostly just find it perplexing Tarantino calls out Ford for his politics in classic Hollywood westerns, politics that were so troubling a new genre, the 'revisionist western' came out of it, but not the genre as a whole. A lot of those classic films were about 'killin' Injuns' whether or not Ford helmed them.

Cool. I have appreciated the few Fords I've seen for what they are, but I've frankly found them a bore. Granted I haven't seen many.

That is a fair point you make though, taking the whole of the genre of the time into account. I need to watch the video that this conversation sparked though. Need to get to a computer.

[ledfloyd]

i was over getting pleasure out of Armond White's horrible reviews, but this is a new low.

http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/still-not-a-brother/

[Skitch]

i was over getting pleasure out of Armond White's horrible reviews, but this is a new low.

http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/still-not-a-brother/

I really dislike that fellow.

[Bosco B Thug]

I still somewhat admire the man and can't join the backlash, but seriously now:


This pseudo (not neo-) Blaxploitation film about a freed slave (Jamie Foxx) who goes on a killing spree with a psychopathic bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) two years before the Civil War (rendering that conflict unnecessary)

[Pop Trash]

i was over getting pleasure out of Armond White's horrible reviews, but this is a new low.

http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/still-not-a-brother/

Most of the black folk commenting on his review come across as a lot more intelligent.

[Qrazy]

"Most of the leading men today, the younger men especially, are a little bit effeminate. There's no toughness. [Steve McQueen] and [Clint Eastwood] don't compare with [John Wayne]."

Can you imagine if he'd seen what leading men have become since then?

I just imagine him watching a Dicaprio film and continually smacking his forehead.

[Fezzik]

Obviously you haven't seen Wild Wild West.

Or maybe he has? ;)

I still haven't seen this, but should over the next couple of days. Maybe even today. We'll see.

Based on everything I've read so far, I am really looking forward to it.

[Fezzik]

I am really becoming a big fan of QT. This was a slight film, as many have mentioned, but I really don't care.

It's big popcorn movie done completely right. Waltz, Jackson and DiCaprio are all superb, and now that I've seen the film, I agree Foxx was the right choice.

Smith could've done cowboy, but I am not sure if he could've done it without Will Smith the person coming through. Foxx is a blank slate - and I don't necessarily see that as a criticism - that its easier to see him as this character and not as Jamie Foxx.

Lots of gore and guts, but I felt it justified, especially in the final gunfight - all of the blood in that entire scene felt like a justification - a climax of all the rage Django's been forced to bottle up for so long.

And as much as I usually do love DiCaprio, I thought he was really good here. His best moment:

His second scene in the dining room with the skull - he was amazing in that entire scene.

[number8]

FYI, the blood was real. Leo accidentally cut his hand during the take and improvised with it without breaking character. Tarantino decided to use it.

[Fezzik]

FYI, the blood was real. Leo accidentally cut his hand during the take and improvised with it without breaking character. Tarantino decided to use it.

Wow...that just makes the entire scene even more impressive.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I was wondering how he even cut his hand there. It was a little strange, but the performance sold it. Not enough people are talking about him.

I'm going to see it again.

The skull scene is definitely the most "Tarantino" of the movie. DiCaprio sold it well. Now I understand why they've been wanting to work with each other for some time.

With that, Tarantino has already made rumors of his "next movie" which is sort of a combination of Inglorious Basterds with Django, in which Black Soldiers take on armies on a warpath to Switzerland. It doesn't sound real at all.

[Rowland]

Enough high-concept revenge; as much as I enjoyed this, I'd like to see Tarantino try returning to the stripped down approach of Reservoir Dogs, which seems to bear an ever-waning reputation amongst cinephile-types, but I still believe it's one of his best.

[Pop Trash]

FYI, the blood was real. Leo accidentally cut his hand during the take and improvised with it without breaking character. Tarantino decided to use it.

I also read Leo was the one who came up with the phrenology stuff when he was researching the role. Tarantino liked it and wrote it into the script. These things make me respect him even more.


Enough high-concept revenge; as much as I enjoyed this, I'd like to see Tarantino try returning to the stripped down approach of Reservoir Dogs, which seems to bear an ever-waning reputation amongst cinephile-types, but I still believe it's one of his best.

It's still my second favorite. I like the stripped down, minimal, no fat approach.

[Qrazy]

I'd say Reservoir Dogs is his second best script but aside from one or two moments he didn't have much in the way of visual chops on that project. Good direction of the pacing and the acting though.

[Derek]

Meh, we get enough stripped down, minimalist action and crime type movies. I prefer Tarantino making his 2 1/2 hour, high-concept films since, even when they're a mixed bag, there's nothing else like them.

[Spinal]

FYI, the blood was real. Leo accidentally cut his hand during the take and improvised with it without breaking character. Tarantino decided to use it.

That explains why the moment is confusing and unclear. Didn't really work for me.

[Mysterious Dude]

Yeah, I wondered why his hand was bleeding.

[ledfloyd]

I was also wondering where the blood on his hand came from.


I also read Leo was the one who came up with the phrenology stuff when he was researching the role. Tarantino liked it and wrote it into the script. These things make me respect him even more.

I read the script last night and the version the Weinsteins released for awards consideration doesn't have that scene in it. There is a lot that isn't there, and some stuff that is in the script that didn't make the film (some if it is in the trailer, like the scene of the Brittles walking in on Django and Broomhilda in flagrante delicto), like a sequence tracking Broomhilda's journey from the slave market to Candyland. Overall I think the film is stronger than the script, which is the opposite of how I felt about Basterds.

[number8]

Maybe you guys missed it, but when he slammed his hand down on the table, you can hear glass breaking. They did try to explain it. Maybe they should've shot an insert or something.

[DavidSeven]

Thought it was pretty clear he cut it when he slammed his hand on the table. I also assumed it was an accident and that he really cut himself. Just seemed too random to be intentional, but I guess you never know with Tarantino.

[Pop Trash]

I guess you never know with Tarantino.

WHY IS INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS MISSPELLED? WHAT THE FUCK IS IN THE BRIEFCASE? WHO SHOT NICE GUY EDDIE?

[MadMan]

WHY IS INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS MISSPELLED?Because it looks cool.


WHAT THE FUCK IS IN THE BRIEFCASE?Marcellus Wallace's soul.


WHO SHOT NICE GUY EDDIE?A magic bullet from the shooter hiding somewhere in the warehouse. Bam! Answers! :P

Oh and I flat out loved Django Unchained. My current rating for it is probably way too damn high, but I don't care. I'll gladly go see this again. Thoughts later, or something.

[Dukefrukem]

Way too long.

[Dukefrukem]

FYI, the blood was real. Leo accidentally cut his hand during the take and improvised with it without breaking character. Tarantino decided to use it.

Seriously? Fucking awesome.

But was it real when he wiped it on her face?

[Qrazy]

Meh, we get enough stripped down, minimalist action and crime type movies. I prefer Tarantino making his 2 1/2 hour, high-concept films since, even when they're a mixed bag, there's nothing else like them.

I'd like him to make a space western (Cowboy Bebop-esque).

[Rowland]

A fabulous conversation (http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublemakin.html) between Steven Boone and the Odienator, two prominent black critics, concerning their reactions to the film.

[Bosco B Thug]

A fabulous conversation (http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublemakin.html) between Steven Boone and the Odienator, two prominent black critics, concerning their reactions to the film.
Yeah, it's a great read (if you're someone who wants to perceive the film as tackling slavery with emotional/cultural complexity and positivity, anyway). Love the two themselves' wide-eyed, euphoric positivity. (Really wish the film was better... nuts-and-bolts-wise...)

[Dukefrukem]

Ha, anyone hear this (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/samuel-jackson-challenges-tv-interviewer-n-word-air-article-1.1231687)? I may be a little late on it. But it's hilarious. Also, Kat Williams is having issues with QT too. The exchange is 13:54 into the video,.

j3b2dH6n3Qg

[number8]

A fabulous conversation (http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublemakin.html) between Steven Boone and the Odienator, two prominent black critics, concerning their reactions to the film.

That's the best thing I've read about this film so far.

[D_Davis]

Kat Williams has a lot of problems.

[Ezee E]

A fabulous conversation (http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublemakin.html) between Steven Boone and the Odienator, two prominent black critics, concerning their reactions to the film.
Thank you for posting that. Wonderful article.

I really like the one critic for pointing out that he almost thinks the ending is hallucinatory a la Taxi Driver.

[ledfloyd]

It's an interesting though, but, as 8 laid out, I think the last half-hour fits too neatly into Tarantino's conception of Django's "hero's journey" (which Bilge Ebiri pretty effectively argued is unnecessary (http://ebiri.blogspot.com/2012/12/django-unchained-good-bad-and-incomplete.html)) for that to be the case.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I couldn't get on board with this one. Found it entertaining through the first 60 minutes, but the longer it went on, the more bloated it felt, the more it overstayed its welcome, and the more issues I had with how slavery was used as a machination for the love story. It's a fairly callous film, which is odd considering the jovial nature at the start. The violence on display against slaves was just too harrowing and too excessive for me to take in stride, and the revenge perpetrated against any and all southern white men in the film didn't serve as justification. With Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino exhibited the same revenge fantasy tactics against a group just as reprehensible (even moreso) than southern slave holders, but by withholding the extreme violence against the Jewish population outside of that opening scene, which was tame by comparison, the film maintains its entertaining form right through to the end. Django doesn't follow this path, and it's a mistake, especially considering Django himself is a passive observer from the start, and even transforms into an encouraging presence, all in the name of love? Watching him stand by stoically while a slave is ripped apart by dogs, yet move for his pistol in near irrepressible rage because his wife's scars are exposed was more than I could stomach. This is someone I'm supposed to root for? No thank you.

[ledfloyd]

The violence on display against slaves was just too harrowing and too excessive for me to take in stride.
I don't think it's meant to be taken in stride.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I don't think it's meant to be taken in stride.

Then it shouldn't present southern planters as though they've been ripped right out of O Brother, Where Art Thou. My point was that Quentin wants to have it both ways, and it doesn't work.

[ledfloyd]

I think it does. I feel like he's juxtaposing the historical folksy characterization of the southern gentlemen with the unspeakably barbaric acts they committed on a regular basis.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think it does. I feel like he's juxtaposing the historical folksy characterization of the southern gentlemen with the unspeakably barbaric acts they committed on a regular basis.

It doesn't work for me as a piece of entertainment, which should have been its main function considering the tone established from the start.

[Watashi]

I agree with KF. Tarantino is trying make Django into his own "Man with No Name" stoic badass, but there is no real mystery behind Django. He doesn't have much of a backstory except that he wants his wife back.

Just compare him to the Bride of Kill Bill and there's no question who is a more complex character. Beatrix has real goals beyond just killing Bill. Her motherly devotion in rescuing her daughter is much more rewarding because she goes through obstacles and obstacles to achieve it. I understand Django was a slave his whole life, but when the film starts and he is granted his freedom, does Django really any trouble or jump through hoops to save his wife? His stakes are far lower than the Brides.

[Mal]

I don't see him as a "Man with No Name" type. Not yet. He's a freed man and in training. This would be a prequel of sorts to any "no-name" status, his legend hath not come into fruition... not yet.

[Ezee E]

I also don't think he had any reaction to the other slave because he had seen it happen so much. As the critics talked about, that's why Schultz had the larger reaction to the dogs, which even came back to him later. The only thing Django had a reaction to was when it was personal.

[Watashi]

I don't see him as a "Man with No Name" type. Not yet. He's a freed man and in training. This would be a prequel of sorts to any "no-name" status, his legend hath not come into fruition... not yet.
What training? He was a sharpshooter from day one. It's not like Waltz ever had to show him the ropes anyway.

[Mal]

What training? He was a sharpshooter from day one. It's not like Waltz ever had to show him the ropes anyway.

Well, for one, he learned how to read... and then everything after that. Bounty hunters. What its like to not be a slave. ETC. ETC.

[Dillard]

I agree with KF. This film fails as a piece of entertainment. The ending is way boring. There are no stakes and Django is invincible. And I felt sort of nauseous when Django was shooting Stephen in the knees and a older white woman at the front of the theater stood up and yelled, "Yeah! Get him! Get him!" And several others in my all-white theater cheered. BLECH. But Tarantino sets it up this way; apparently, Stephen is the arch villain in the film? The last man standing? That's the part he's playing there as the last baddie. Is that what Tarantino meant to say?

As far as smart criticism of Tarantino goes, Adrian Martin is one of the best. Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N19hYoDQh5o), Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTRcpxqNTU) on why Tarantino is a juvenile historian in Inglorious Bastards. I think his criticism applies equally well to Django.

[EyesWideOpen]

I also don't think he had any reaction to the other slave because he had seen it happen so much. As the critics talked about, that's why Schultz had the larger reaction to the dogs, which even came back to him later. The only thing Django had a reaction to was when it was personal.

I think most people are forgetting that he is playing a part at that time. He is told by Waltz that he has to play the part of the best black slaver there was. Foxx knows that the only way to get his wife back is not to break character. That's the only reason he's acting ambivalent to the scenes of violence against slaves in Candyland.

[Dukefrukem]

I couldn't get on board with this one. Found it entertaining through the first 60 minutes, but the longer it went on, the more bloated it felt, the more it overstayed its welcome, and the more issues I had with how slavery was used as a machination for the love story. It's a fairly callous film, which is odd considering the jovial nature at the start. The violence on display against slaves was just too harrowing and too excessive for me to take in stride, and the revenge perpetrated against any and all southern white men in the film didn't serve as justification. With Inglourious Basterds, Tarantino exhibited the same revenge fantasy tactics against a group just as reprehensible (even moreso) than southern slave holders, but by withholding the extreme violence against the Jewish population outside of that opening scene, which was tame by comparison, the film maintains its entertaining form right through to the end. Django doesn't follow this path, and it's a mistake, especially considering Django himself is a passive observer from the start, and even transforms into an encouraging presence, all in the name of love? Watching him stand by stoically while a slave is ripped apart by dogs, yet move for his pistol in near irrepressible rage because his wife's scars are exposed was more than I could stomach. This is someone I'm supposed to root for? No thank you.

Great post.

[Hugh_Grant]

Slightly off-topic, but I'm really looking forward to Steve McQueen's Twelve Years a Slave. I've taught slave narratives--Mary Prince, Olaudah Equiano--and other abolitionist literature, so perhaps my disappointment is based on knowing how fascinating (disturbing, unnerving, but nonetheless enthralling) those stories are, compared with how dull (especially the second half of Django) is.

[number8]

It is deliberate. Quentin said in interviews that he edited out some of the more disturbing torture flashbacks of Django and Broomhilda because he wanted the movie to be entertaining and thought those scenes would unnerve audiences too much to get on board the rest.

[Pop Trash]

If Twelve Years a Slave is anything like Shame I'm pretty sure I'll prefer Django. I'm not really looking forward to a molasses slow long take of a slave singing a spiritual or floggings set to depressing music.

[D_Davis]

I hate that there is another person in film named Steve McQueen. If you're not THE Steve McQueen, and your name is Steve McQueen, you should have to change your name.

[Pop Trash]

I hate that there is another person in film named Steve McQueen. If you're not THE Steve McQueen, and your name is Steve McQueen, you should have to change your name.

It doesn't bother me that much. One is a director and alive, the other is an actor and dead. The end.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think most people are forgetting that he is playing a part at that time. He is told by Waltz that he has to play the part of the best black slaver there was. Foxx knows that the only way to get his wife back is not to break character. That's the only reason he's acting ambivalent to the scenes of violence against slaves in Candyland.

I'm not forgetting at all. Talked about it in my post. The ends don't justify the means for me. Plus, it doesn't excuse his passiveness before and after he's "acting." He doesn't even take a moment to unshackle the chains of the slaves locked in the back of QT's wagon before riding back to Candyland in the end.

[number8]

Did you guys stay after the credits, btw?

[Kurosawa Fan]

No.

[ledfloyd]

I agree with KF. This film fails as a piece of entertainment. The ending is way boring. There are no stakes and Django is invincible. And I felt sort of nauseous when Django was shooting Stephen in the knees and a older white woman at the front of the theater stood up and yelled, "Yeah! Get him! Get him!" And several others in my all-white theater cheered. BLECH. But Tarantino sets it up this way; apparently, Stephen is the arch villain in the film? The last man standing? That's the part he's playing there as the last baddie. Is that what Tarantino meant to say?

As far as smart criticism of Tarantino goes, Adrian Martin is one of the best. Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N19hYoDQh5o), Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InTRcpxqNTU) on why Tarantino is a juvenile historian in Inglorious Bastards. I think his criticism applies equally well to Django.
Two things. 1.) It was the old black women in my theater that cheered when Stephen got his comeuppance. 2.) A rewatch of Basterds actually served to temper my appreciation of Django. That film has such interesting dialogues, narrative structure, and subtext that Django's relative straightforwardness can't help but pale in comparison.

[Ezee E]

Did you guys stay after the credits, btw?
Me neither.

But to me, Django was doing the same thing that Schultz did to the other slaves when he essentially freed them.

[Ezee E]

I hate that there is another person in film named Steve McQueen. If you're not THE Steve McQueen, and your name is Steve McQueen, you should have to change your name.
I agree with this. There's maybe 20 names that get to have this.

[Dillard]

Two things. 1.) It was the old black women in my theater that cheered when Stephen got his comeuppance. 2.) A rewatch of Basterds actually served to temper my appreciation of Django. That film has such interesting dialogues, narrative structure, and subtext that Django's relative straightforwardness can't help but pale in comparison.
Apparently, these are called Django moments (http://gawker.com/5971346/the-django-moment-or-when-should-white-people-laugh-in-django-unchained). The writer of the article talks about how Django moments are when a person of color feels uncomfortable with the perverse enjoyment of a white viewer, but I think the Django moments could equally describe any uncomfortable moments experienced by viewers unsure of when to laugh or experiencing discomfort at others laughing in the context of racially charged violence.

[number8]

Just me, then? The tag after the credits is just a short funny thing with the slaves in the wagon again. Not really important or anything, I was just curious who else saw it.

Re: Django's passiveness, I'm just gonna quote the best bit from that great article Rowland linked to.


Yet, Tarantino knows that, as a White man, he processes his rage against the institution of slavery differently than Blacks. I can make this statement based on the mini-arc he crafts for Dr. King Schultz. When Leonardo DiCaprio's Calvin Candie authorizes his lackeys to turn the dogs loose on his runaway slave, Waltz's Schultz is clearly shaken. Foxx's Django remains unsurprised, and even somewhat complicit. The latter I'll talk about next time, when I pitch the art of slave role-playing as a side hustle. The former is made explicit in dialogue: "Your man looks a little green," Candie says to Django. "He ain't never seen a man torn to pieces before," Django responds. Later, it is Schultz who has the flashback to that horrible sequence, and the fact that it's so new to him contributes to his fate. Django is also angry, but like most Black folks, that anger is both stoked and tempered by a sad familiariity, a "been there, seen that" stoicism stitched into our DNA by the experiences of both our ancestors and our contemporaries. (Think about how you feel when you hear about police shootings et al.) Touches like this are what haunts me about Django Unchained.

[Bosco B Thug]

Just me, then? The tag after the credits is just a short funny thing with the slaves in the wagon again. Not really important or anything, I was just curious who else saw it. Spoil it please.

[Skitch]

Yay. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't put it top 3 of QT's work. It was interesting watching a film so racially charged with a diverse crowd. I would say an average theater crowd in my area is about 10% non-white. Today it at least 50%. I wish I couldve had a group discussion after the film to get everyones thoughts. The one African-American couple that sat near us laughed uproariously at every single N-word. Everyone seemed to really enjoy the film, but I wouldve loved to hear in depth thoughts.

All that aside, the film is a tad disjointed as it goes from place to place to place. More a nitpick (based on expectation of normal three act structure) than an actual complaint. I'll need to see it a time or two more for full perspective, but at this point I can't imagine I'll find it as repeatably enjoyable as Inglorious Basterds.

[Spinal]

Spoil it please.

http://aftercredits.com/2012/12/django-unchained-2012/

[Bosco B Thug]

http://aftercredits.com/2012/12/django-unchained-2012/
Thanks!

There's not much to it. Another failure of the film is that I did not get much out of its use of that focal slave. There needed to have been more of him.

[Dukefrukem]

Just me, then? The tag after the credits is just a short funny thing with the slaves in the wagon again. Not really important or anything, I was just curious who else saw it.

Re: Django's passiveness, I'm just gonna quote the best bit from that great article Rowland linked to.

I saw it.

[ledfloyd]

a second viewing of this just amplified the problems i initially had with it.

[Ezee E]

a second viewing of this just amplified the problems i initially had with it.
Then a second viewing must amplify what I must like about it. Perfect!

[ledfloyd]

Then a second viewing must amplify what I must like about it. Perfect!
it's worth pointing out that i enjoyed more than i disliked the first time through.

[MadMan]

I want to see this again. I still think its fantastic, although even I'll admit that it dragged a bit near the end.

[Henry Gale]

I never really popped in to share my feelings on it, but I've read so much about it both here and elsewhere that I'm pretty sure everyone else has the discussion covered. But since I'm already here...

It's historical fiction taken to its extreme, just as much as Basterds was, but tackling something that isn't nearly as conquered in American cinema as WWII and finding a way to build an enthralling journey with a real catharsis without skipping out on the genuine malice or brutality of its subject matter.

It's an oddly satisfying thing for me to see American audiences making this such a huge hit at the box office considering a significant portion of that movie-going public are essentially made to be all-encompassing villains of it (only displaced in time). It's easy to make Nazis the broadly drawn antagonist of a period piece because of how cinema has established them as the face of such a specific evil time and time again, but it's a much trickier thing to make any and all white people fit a similar bill for a similar audience. So the way the film rightfully pulls no punches in terms of allowing its protagonist to prevail both in his own situation and the overall themes of this story works as well as it does because of how explicitly we see the roots of his vengeance, something we hardly ever see in film, especially a near $100 million-budgeted Christmas release.

A lot of people have mentioned the use of Rick Ross as feeling out of place, but personally that didn't take me out of the movie any more or less than, say, Richie Haven's Freedom performance from Woodstock being used. All of the music is anachronistic, why not simultaneously use it illustrate the evolution of black culture that this narrative directly plays into wanting to see long after Django is dead and gone (and possibly becoming an ancestor of Shaft)?

Then of course there's the "Holes in the Hoods" scene everyone seems to have a problem with. If it were a bunch of KKK members cracking jokes with one another or doing things that provoked the audiences laugh with them, then I could see it being hugely problematic. But as it is, I don't see what's wrong with watching them find themselves in a situation that's comedic exclusively for the audience, especially in how it derails their plot that's already been foiled ahead of time by Waltz's character. Even if the way the characters are acting is almost cartoonishly idiotic, we don't forget what awful things they're there to do, but I think it's a strangely brilliant way to relieve the tension of the sequence to throw such a significant tonal curveball of while letting that extremely petty dispute occur right before their telegraphed deaths.

It might be a lesser Tarantino, but that doesn't mean it isn't one of the stronger efforts from anyone this year. Bring on the four-hour or more version!

****

[Ezee E]

Fantastic legs. Dropped only 33% this week and has past the $100 mill mark. All worries of it being a disappointment are diminished now.

[dreamdead]

This was enjoyable but as most have already suggested, not nearly as invigorating as Tarantino's earlier work. Somehow it all comes off as perfunctory, partly because Schultz's motivations are left unstated and partly because Django himself is rather empty. Individual scenes work, but the film's best when centered on Schultz or Stephen, as Waltz and Jackson are stellar here.

Most impressively, this film has no foot fetish scenes. Is there any other need to know that it's Tarantino-lite?

[ledfloyd]

Most impressively, this film has no foot fetish scenes. Is there any other need to know that it's Tarantino-lite?
I don't know man, the first shot after the opening credits is of the chain-gang's feet.

[number8]

Remember also that the whole Broomhilda segment got cut out. There are probably a bunch of Kerry Washington feet shots in those deleted scenes.

[Ezee E]

Rewatching this, and Django's rage is there. Look at the scene where he takes care of the Brittle Brothers. There's so much anger and he's about to let it out right there. Think a lot of us forgot that.

Also, Schultz's face of horror is evident right at the beginning when Django removes his blanket to reveal all the scars on his back.

[Pop Trash]

Something of an unofficial review from Ebert, but there is a notation at the bottom saying he would give it four stars:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/01/django_unchained.html

[Ezee E]

Also, Candie breaks his hand when he slams his table, allowing his honchos to walk in. There's the sound of broken glass, and it's on the table after. There's just no insert of it. But you see Leo definitely look at his hand for a small moment.

[MadMan]

Rambling thoughts on the film here: http://madman731.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/cowboys-and-controversy/

[Kurosawa Fan]

Rewatching this, and Django's rage is there. Look at the scene where he takes care of the Brittle Brothers. There's so much anger and he's about to let it out right there. Think a lot of us forgot that.


Right. The Brittle Brothers, who tortured his wife.

[number8]

Aw, man, apparently there was a planned scene cut out that is a crossover with The Man With the Iron Fists. That would have been kinda neat.

RZA's blacksmith character would've been part of the chain gang in the opening scene.

[Rowland]

A few cut scenes I read about that I miss include a bit when they first arrive at Candie's plantation in which Django and Stephen have a verbal standoff and Django calls Stephen a nigger (both Foxx and Jackson have stated in interviews that they miss this scene), and a bit of dialogue while Django is being transported to the mining company revealing that the Australians are themselves slaves of a sort being forced to work for the company to pay off their debts for traveling to the US. As nice as it would have been to see Broomhilda further developed as a character, I don't know if her scenes would have been all that necessary, ditto more scenes featuring Walter Goggins that were cut.

[ledfloyd]

A few cut scenes I read about that I miss include a bit when they first arrive at Candie's plantation in which Django and Stephen have a verbal standoff and Django calls Stephen a nigger (both Foxx and Jackson have stated in interviews that they miss this scene)
i feel like this would've added significantly more weight to the final (second) climax.

[number8]

http://i.imgur.com/npLod.jpg

[MadMan]

Yey Django Inception style joke memes on the Internet. Hurray. And of course Leo gets featured again. Fantastic.

[Ezee E]

I LOLed.

[transmogrifier]

58/100


Tarantino's most haphazard screenplay yet, with a lack of signature set pieces (well, ones that work, anyway), a rather hollow set of motivations and obstacles.

For example, why not start with Django having given up his wife as dead, so that his self-loathing for not fighting back can begin personal - why did I give up on her? - and then end up with a more outward looking view - why aren't I fighting back against this? That way, the fact that your nominal hero is rescued by chance is less of a contrivance and more of a second chance. Also, why have Django literally raze Candieland to the ground to rescue Hildy? Wouldn't it have been more resonant if he had got away with the girl earlier and then decided that she wasn't the only one who needed to freed? (Yes, I know that technically he found her before he blew up the house, but it is presented all as the same mission on the context of the film). It would also have made the notion of such a bloody revenge more pointy.

Added to this, Tarantino's direction is unusually ham-fisted in places (the flashback to the dog attack in order to spell out why Schultz would rather stupidly decide to make a moral stand when he does is groan-worthy, not to mention the way the Brittle Brothers are taken down, with graceless slow motion and ever-annoying shutter effects) and it just doesn't have the typical eye for interesting shots he has (though I liked the zooms).

It's still worth sticking with for the performances and the undercurrent of humor throughout, and it certainly isn't scared of diving headlong into a controversial topic with gusto.

But it's not anywhere near his best. A shame, because I thought he would have belted this one out of the park.

[Dukefrukem]

Sometimes trans writes my thoughts exactly sometimes he writes the exact opposite. In this case he's correct.

[transmogrifier]

Individual scenes work, but the film's best when centered on Schultz or Stephen, as Waltz and Jackson are stellar here.

I found Stephen overwritten. A good idea for a character, but I would have liked him to have been toned down a bit and his nature unveiled over time, rather than in the first screeching scene he appears in.

[transmogrifier]

Well, there's a reason why Schultz is the one who killed Candie. Django wouldn't have. He'd been okay walking away from the whole thing $12,000 short with Broomhilda alive.

The character is suppressing rage for the entire movie. He cares only about saving his wife by any means necessary, which is a personal quest, but inadequate for the scope and intent of the story as a whole regarding slavery.

The film's last act is Django embracing a certain revolutionary stance and starts killing people no longer for money or himself, but because they represent the institution of slavery, from the mining company employees to the trackers in the woods to all the people in Candyland. He could've grabbed Broomhilda and bolted, but he made the choice to systematically destroy Candyland and free their slaves.

The most important shot of the whole sequence is probably that one of the mining slave smiling as he watches Django kill the slave drivers and ride off. He's become an inspiration for other slaves.

Disagree with all of this.

He kills to get free, and he kills so he is not tracked by the dogs later. And it's still all presented as part of the mission to rescue Hildy, even though he finds her before he blows up the house. I think the movie chickens out at the end by allowing it all still be about the wife, and yet still keeping Django as some sort of revolutionary and enacting bloody revenge.

[The Bad Guy]

Disagree with all of this.

He kills to get free, and he kills so he is not tracked by the dogs later. And it's still all presented as part of the mission to rescue Hildy, even though he finds her before he blows up the house. I think the movie chickens out at the end by allowing it all still be about the wife, and yet still keeping Django as some sort of revolutionary and enacting bloody revenge.

Well...

These issues of personal quest/revenge and abhorrence for slavery are not mutually exclusive. Certainly from the audience's perspective Tarantino is setting it up for a cathartic payoff by showing us the atrocities of slavery along the way. When Schultz kills Candie he does so after mentally recalling the image of a man ripped apart by dogs, not because it has anything to do with the mission. Similarly, Django takes a risk in coming back to the house to exact revenge, which I believe he does both out of his personal stake in the matter as well as his desire to punish the wicked.

[transmogrifier]

They are definitely not mutually exclusive, but Tarantino doesn't do a very good job of establishing the latter. And the Schultz flashback scene maybe my least favourite part of the entire movie.

[Duncan]

And the Schultz flashback scene maybe my least favourite part of the entire movie.

Agree. Especially since he explicitly says what he was thinking about like a minute later.

[The Bad Guy]

They are definitely not mutually exclusive, but Tarantino doesn't do a very good job of establishing the latter. And the Schultz flashback scene maybe my least favourite part of the entire movie.

You'd be surprised at how many people (even serious film buffs and critics) missed the point with that. Many are still complaining that the film displays horrific scenes of slavery without ever tying it in to a cathartic payoff or the narrative. Even some of the discussion in this thread seems to be veering in that direction.

The flashback scene may have been explicit, but it was probably necessary for a lot of people to see the connection. And, as I said, a lot of people still didn't.

Without that there could be a serious debate as to whether Schultz was acting out of petty spite or whether he was acting because of his abhorrence for slavery and Candie's brutality.

[Pop Trash]

I think trans watches movies way too literally.

[transmogrifier]

You'd be surprised at how many people (even serious film buffs and critics) missed the point with that. Many are still complaining that the film displays horrific scenes of slavery without ever tying it in to a cathartic payoff or the narrative. Even some of the discussion in this thread seems to be veering in that direction..

I don't think the cathartic payoff needed to be tied to slavery, necessarily, but as presented in the film, it doesn't really seemed to be tied to anything except the demands of the genre Tarantino was trying to emulate. I don't think it worked on a personal revenge level, or on a wider institutional level, and it certainly didn't work on an intentionally morally ambiguous level - it was muddled and messy.

[transmogrifier]

I think trans watches movies way too literally.

I think Pop Trash makes pointless statements that are impossible to rebut because they are devoid of an actual content.

Edit: Just messing, but you are going to have to elaborate if you want me to actually understand the point you are trying to make.

[transmogrifier]

Agree. Especially since he explicitly says what he was thinking about like a minute later.

Just evidence of the huge structural flaws in the narrative of this thing.

[The Bad Guy]

I don't think the cathartic payoff needed to be tied to slavery, necessarily, but as presented in the film, it doesn't really seemed to be tied to anything except the demands of the genre Tarantino was trying to emulate. I don't think it worked on a personal revenge level, or on a wider institutional level, and it certainly didn't work on an intentionally morally ambiguous level - it was muddled and messy.

*shrug*

I thought it was very straightforward and deliberate. It worked for me both as Django/Schultz's revenge tale and as a broader attack on the sins of slavery.

Agree to disagree, I suppose.

[Pop Trash]

Just evidence of the huge structural flaws in the narrative of this thing.

WTF? "huge structural flaws in the narrative" is like 10 seconds of the film?

[The Bad Guy]

Agree. Especially since he explicitly says what he was thinking about like a minute later.

People can lie about what they were thinking and Schultz has been shown to do this often throughout the film.

[Pop Trash]

I thought it was very straightforward and deliberate. It worked for me both as Django/Schultz's revenge tale and as a broader attack on the sins of slavery.


Exactly. Tarantino is doing his Tarantino thing which is couching deeper issues within the context of 'just' an exploitation/action/popcorn/whatever movie. He treads a fine line between the two (although in interviews he seems more than happy lumped in with the exploitation/genre films of yore) and that's what makes them interesting.

[transmogrifier]

WTF? "huge structural flaws in the narrative" is like 10 seconds of the film?

You know what evidence is, right?

[Duncan]

People can lie about what they were thinking and Schultz has been shown to do this often throughout the film.

Why would we think he was lying here? Elsewhere in the film we are given cues to let us know that he's lying or putting on a charade. This is like his most earnest scene in the movie.

[The Bad Guy]

Why would we think he was lying here? Elsewhere in the film we are given cues to let us know that he's lying or putting on a charade. This is like his most earnest scene in the movie.

Because Schultz has also shown himself to be a man with great pride and one who needs to be in control of every situation. The contention that he is a "poor loser" might have rang true with many viewers were the flashback removed. That still may be an element of it, but at least with the flashback there is some strong evidence as to where his true motivations lie.

Again, you'd be shocked at how many people find the brutality of slavery in the film gratuitous and fail to see the connection between what Schultz did and what we've witnessed. It amazes me that this is the case, but while you might view the flashback as unnecessary, it wasn't even sufficient for a lot of people.

[transmogrifier]

My opinion is that if you need to insert a flashback of a scene the audience has already witnessed previously right before a significant decision by a character in order to make that decision understandable, then you have failed to structure your story correctly. Characterization is the accumulation of details so we can understand (or at least guess with some sort of accuracy) the motivation behind their decisions as the movie progresses. This doesn't happen very well with Schultz at all, hence the cheesy flashback, because without it, the audience would have no idea why he would do such a thing. And that's not good writing.

[ledfloyd]

Exactly. Tarantino is doing his Tarantino thing which is couching deeper issues within the context of 'just' an exploitation/action/popcorn/whatever movie. He treads a fine line between the two (although in interviews he seems more than happy lumped in with the exploitation/genre films of yore) and that's what makes them interesting.
up until Django i think it would be hard to classify any of his films as 'just' "exploitation/action/popcorn/whatever" movies. with the possible exception of Reservoir Dogs, which i suppose one could look at as "just" a crime film. and even including Reservoir Dogs he has never made anything this straightforward before.

[The Bad Guy]

My opinion is that if you need to insert a flashback of a scene the audience has already witnessed previously right before a significant decision by a character in order to make that decision understandable, then you have failed to structure your story correctly. Characterization is the accumulation of details so we can understand (or at least guess with some sort of accuracy) the motivation behind their decisions as the movie progresses. This doesn't happen very well with Schultz at all, hence the cheesy flashback, because without it, the audience would have no idea why he would do such a thing. And that's not good writing.

I disagree with your characterization of ambiguous character motivation as bad writing, especially since it's something inherent in film. The medium has limitations as far as the character's inner thoughts. Obviously, Tarantino wasn't going for ambiguity here, but I think it's an inaccurate assessment of storytelling in film.

If you look at many of the greatest novelists, a huge amount of their writing deals with the inner thoughts and emotions of characters. In the case of writers like Tolstoy, this goes so far that it is more important than the plot itself. Movies do not have the same luxuries that the written word has, so any such attempts are going to be less artful in their execution. But I don't fault filmmakers who employ these literary techniques in a limited fashion to get their point across in a similar way.

Schultz is a complex character and there could have been some debate as to his true motivations in that moment. That doesn't make him a bad character, however, and had Tarantino decided to go this route it would have been interesting. But Tarantino decided that he wanted the audience to have a privileged insight into Schultz's motives. I imagine much of this had to do with the sensitivity of the subject matter, and so he wanted to eliminate any potential confusion about who Schultz was and how the film deals with slavery.

[Ezee E]

Not really sure what the argument is over here, but I watched a third time with my gf, and she walked out after Django's capture because she was horrified of the violence, the dog scene in particular.

[The Bad Guy]

Not really sure what the argument is over here, but I watched a third time with my gf, and she walked out after Django's capture because she was horrified of the violence, the dog scene in particular.

Tarantino makes violent movies...

[Skitch]

Tarantino gets in an argument with an interviewer. I side with QT on this one.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/quentin-tarantino-loses-his-cool-on-journalist-seeking-a-quote-on-movie-violence

[Ezee E]

Tarantino makes violent movies...
She's only seen some of Kill Bill.

[ledfloyd]

http://tongue-tiedlightning.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-man-with-no-editor-django-unchained.html

this comes off perhaps more harsh than i intended, as i did enjoy watching the film, but its problems are still its problems.

[MadMan]

Not really sure what the argument is over here, but I watched a third time with my gf, and she walked out after Django's capture because she was horrified of the violence, the dog scene in particular.Heh a friend of mine had to go view the film with me because he was forced to walk out of it the first time he went to go see it by his gf because she was horrified by the dog scene.

[Dukefrukem]

Tarantino gets in an argument with an interviewer. I side with QT on this one.

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/quentin-tarantino-loses-his-cool-on-journalist-seeking-a-quote-on-movie-violence

I don't think it was an unfair question. I also don't fault QT for his response. The interviewer should have just accepted it and moved on.

[Pop Trash]

up until Django i think it would be hard to classify any of his films as 'just' "exploitation/action/popcorn/whatever" movies. with the possible exception of Reservoir Dogs, which i suppose one could look at as "just" a crime film. and even including Reservoir Dogs he has never made anything this straightforward before.

I sort-of agree with this but in interviews Tarantino does his hardest to explain how he's making action/revenge/entertainment films and not 'message' movies. He keeps saying how he's not making Schindler's List style experiential films (which I disagree with since SL is very stylized...something like a Dardennes' film would be a better example) and I'm assuming Lincoln could be lumped in to what he is not trying to make as well. However, it's pretty obvious that there are deeper, resonate ideas going on in his films that make them more haunting than something like Texas Chainsaw 3D or what have you.

Also, I think the Kill Bills and Death Proof are probably closer to 'just' exploitation/popcorn movies than Django. I think people are judging the screenplay separate from the images on screen.

[Bosco B Thug]

Re-watched this. Opinion relatively unchanged, but if anything lower. Yeah, this is his most unpretentious film, and thus his weakest. Before Candieland is reached, you can count "great" scenes or moments on one hand: parts of King's liberating of Django (and the other slaves), the filtered flashback sequence of Django and Broomhilda's attempted escape, maybe the greeting scene with Big Daddy just because it's so funny and arch, and the slow-mo horse when Django shoots Big Daddy.

[Pop Trash]

Aren't you the guy that thinks Death Proof is his best movie? Or am I confusing you with someone else on here?

[Bosco B Thug]

Aren't you the guy that thinks Death Proof is his best movie? Or am I confusing you with someone else on here? Yes, I do think that. Death Proof or Inglourious Basterds. Pulp Fiction's pretty brilliant but I don't connect much to its themes. Jackie Brown and Reservoir Dogs are sort of on the same level, though Jackie Brown is his most poignant and the ending gets me every time.

[transmogrifier]

Death Proof is his best movie since Pulp Fiction, anyway.

[Boner M]

Yeah, this is his most unpretentious film, and thus his weakest.
I'd been holding off saying something to this effect; beyond whatever dramatic shortcomings it has (highlighted in these pages), it's the first of his that hasn't felt truly neurotic or eccentric or wonky, and to me that lack of a crucial X-factor here only highlights what's made his films worth watching in the past. There's nothing about it that I want to revisit (bailed on a free screening tonight) - unlike Death Proof, which I disliked immensely on first viewing because of very surface-level things, but then had me clamouring for another go cos its undeniable personality beckoned.

[Pop Trash]

So Django is too what...populist or something? The Kill Bills were pretty populist. Death Proof is his 'worst film'*, but it's still pretty watchable/entertaining even if the DP girls had no personality beyond espousing 70s pop culture jargon they were too young to be into. They were basically Tarantino's Juno.


*he has yet to make a film less than 'good' imo

[ledfloyd]

Also, I think the Kill Bills and Death Proof are probably closer to 'just' exploitation/popcorn movies than Django. I think people are judging the screenplay separate from the images on screen.
I don't know, Death Proof has such a unique dialectic structure, establishing and deconstructing the slasher genre. Whatever problems it may have, there's a lot more going on there intellectually than there is in Django.

[number8]

I wouldn't call Death Proof purely popcorn at all considering its very obvious appeals to gender role/feminist readings. If anything, it was Tarantino's most subtextually charged film prior to Basterds.

[Wryan]

Death Proof is his best movie since Pulp Fiction, anyway.

Really? After the first four hours of the women's dialogue, I wondered when the movie would start. Stuntman Mike (version 1.0 and 2.0) is great, though.

[DavidSeven]

I said Death Proof was his best movie since Pulp Fiction when it came out. Basterds has since surpassed it, but I still stand by the sentiment.

[Wryan]

I liked DU quite a bit, though not as much as IB, and it's too long to boot. I don't really think the revenge fantasy angle (of either) is all that important, other than the modestly electric thrills; I kind of got more enjoyment here out of watching the actors and the gears and trappings--just seeing the thing play out. To me, on balance, it's a stacked-deck challenge to our thoughts about violence and when we condone it. Killing earnest Nazis, Hitler and slave owners is hardly a worrisome prospect in our media. Most here and in IB are eminently terrible people, representatives of two of the great, unquestionable moral failings of our species. But killing them with extravagant gory relish, likely accompanied by hoots, hollers, claps, and cheers, and capped by dark red ribbons of blood that sail up to twice a man's height and pitch across a room like an Olympic long jumper, seems to beg a point, a message no matter how much Tarantino says he's just having fun ("is violence ever answerable with violence, and should circumstances ever make it easy to condone it?" in very short). I'm quite caught--like loose clothing in a bramble--by the final sights of Django wearing Calvin's clothes (partially, sure, because he thought it'd be one last "fuck you," but not an accident regardless), dealing out his personal choices for life and death like, hmm, a master of a plantation; Django's grin to Hildy/us after he's blown the big house right the hell up; Django's celebratory horse tricking; and Hildy's giddy, weird, childlike clapping. I say they're ghoulish in this moment, no matter how righteous the cause. I say the heroes walk away alive and "triumphant" but stained. Anyway, this is just one reading, and it's just one small facet of what I enjoyed. DiCaprio, Jackson, and Waltz waltz away with the damn thing left and right.

EDIT: Best line: "Alexandre Dumas is black." Also, I sincerely cackled throughout all of Don Johnson.

[Ezee E]

How does Django connect with the Tarantino-verse? Someone made a connection:


Dr. King Schultz says he quit dentistry 5 years ago to become a bounty hunter, but it isn’t mentioned why. The obvious answer, however, is that his wife, Paula, left him, and he was so devastated that he took up a profession he would never think about otherwise, the profession that would ultimately lead to his death in 1859. His former wife slowly realizes her mistake in leaving Dr. King, and after 6 years apart, seeks him out, only to find he’s been killed at the hands of Calvin Candie. Devastated, faulting herself, she never remarries, keeping her ex-husbands name, and finally dies, alone, in 1893, when she is buried in the Lonely Grave of Paula Schultz, the same grave Beatrix Kiddo will escape from more than 100 years later.

[number8]

The grave is Paula Schulz, not Schultz. Unless there's a whole backstory about how the gravestone has a typo...

There's a more obvious one:

http://c15065204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/pulp_django.jpg?9d7bd4

[Henry Gale]

Actually, just checked my Vol. 2 Blu-ray, it is Paula Schultz, 1823-1898.

It works!

[Pop Trash]

It's an allusion to this movie:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063805/

[Irish]

Wow, I hated this movie. And I need to see it again.

From elsewhere: "Django Unchained was unbearably cartoonish and just awful. The structure was pure shit; the worst Tarantino has ever written. Interesting to see him flail around in dialogue, though, without his usual pop culture crutches. It's a crap movie, but I do have to respect his attempt to drag race & slavery, and the brutality of American history, into the multiplexes. Everyone seems to be dancing around that in the reviews, and I can't really blame them. As a narrative, the movie is terrible & boring, but as a stepping stone into a larger discussion, it's interesting."

Against the flock of fans, who seem more an organized cult than moviegoers these days, I'll say this: I wish to hell Avery would get out of jail and Tarantino would hire him. Those two really had a great working relationship, and it ended far too soon. "Django's" overall sloppiness is living proof of that.

[Grouchy]

Watched this yesterday. I'm floored again by Tarantino's unique talent. I'm just gonna make a list of everything I found note-worthy.



Ennio Morricone's original music! Even if it was for just one brief moment, it made a helluva lot of sense that QT would ask him for his first Western. And in fact I foresaw this.
This is the most straight-forward movie that Tarantino has made so far in terms of narrative, but at the same time it might be his most thematically heavy and thought-provoking.
For all that people rant on and on about the violence, I thought QT really toned down most of the gory scenes, maybe out of concern of spoiling the fun. The guy being torn apart by dogs, for example - it was cut too fast to be off-putting. The Tarantino of old would probably have included some close-ups of dog jaws and guts, for example.
I still don't like Foxx in general, but for this movie... Perfect casting.
Leo Di Caprio was my favorite performance in the film. That whole scene with the phrenology speech and the random hand injury made my day.
QT's cameo made me laugh for all the wrong reasons. It was specially funny how everyone else in the mining workers' party was dirty and unshaven and Quentin looked like he'd just stepped out of the shower and put on a cowboy hat.
I think this film just increased the amount of Google searchs worldwide for Alexandre Dumas 1.000 times. I for one had no idea he was black.
I'm glad to see Franco Nero's cameo was respectful to the man's inherent coolness.
I loved all of the music except for the rap inserts. But that's just a personal thing - I can't stand rap. I get why it was thematically relevant, I just wish they'd kept it for the closing credits and out of the actual film.
By far one of my favorite scenes was Django riding bare-back and one of the slaves inside the cage slowly smiling. It's the most important climax of the whole movie, I think.
The biggest laugh for me was Calvin's sister being yanked backwards by the shot in an impossible angle. It made me laugh just as much as the giant pipe in Inglourious Basterds.
My favorite cinematic reference is Django getting to choose his own distinctive wardrobe, much like Clint Eastwood did for A Fistful of Dollars.



My opinion is that if you need to insert a flashback of a scene the audience has already witnessed previously right before a significant decision by a character in order to make that decision understandable, then you have failed to structure your story correctly.
That's a pretty stupid opinion, trans. Flashbacks are a narrative resource just like any other. They're generally used to convey previous information about a character. And that's what that flashback was doing.

[Irish]

That's a pretty stupid opinion, trans. Flashbacks are a narrative resource just like any other. They're generally used to convey previous information about a character. And that's what that flashback was doing.

Whoa. I couldn't disagree more. When I read trans' post about that, I nodded at the screen in agreement. I knew exactly what he was referencing, and I always think it's a low-rate move.

These kind of inserts strike me as the producer either (1) not trusting the audience or (2) not trusting the actors.

In case of the audience, they're thinking we're either we're all too drunk, too high, or too stupid to remember some shit that we literally saw less than an hour ago, so they need to shove it in front of our faces again.

In the case of the actors, they don't trust the dialogue enough and don't trust that the actor can deliver it in a meaningful way. That sucks on two levels: You're admitting that your in-scene writing sucks and your actor isn't good at a key aspect of their job.

Either way, when I see this, it's a sign that the movie is second-tier. You could argue that Tarantino knows this, and uses the flashback as some kind of creative commentary on the kind of movie he's making (like he did with crash zooms earlier), but I honestly don't think that's the case here.

I think it was just lame, and in this one instance, trans is absolutely right.

[Grouchy]

See, what you guys are assuming is that the flashbacks are there in case you don't remember the man being eaten by dogs. I don't think that's true. They're there to show what the character is thinking about at that precise moment, and they come back to him in flashes like an uncomfortable thought that he can't shake of his head. And that - I think - is good cinematic language.

[Irish]

See, what you guys are assuming is that the flashbacks are there in case you don't remember the man being eaten by dogs. I don't think that's true. They're there to show what the character is thinking about at that precise moment, and they come back to him in flashes like an uncomfortable thought that he can't shake of his head. And that - I think - is good cinematic language.

I disagree. It's terrible cinematic language because it attempts to break through the biggest limitation of the form: You can't get inside someone's head.

It also makes the actor, for those moments, totally irrelevant. What a terrible way to undercut a performance and a performer.

Edit: The fact that Tarantino did this to an Academy Award winning actor, who got nominated again for this very performance, makes it even worse.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I'm definitely with Irish and trans on this one. Flashbacks like that communicate to me that the director thinks I'm stupid and can't remember what happened in the film 30 minutes ago. I didn't need shots of the dogs again to understand why Waltz was breaking down mentally in that moment. The film had established that already.

[Grouchy]

Well, precisely. They're used to get inside the character's head. You should go and tell Eisenstein he was wrong all along.

I don't get what was so criminal about that moment. If Dr. Schultz hadn't been remembering his shock at the slave being eaten alive, he wouldn't have shot Calvin and the movie would've been over. That was what the scene was about. Removing the flashbacks would only make the scene weaker in my opinion. And that's not because Waltz is a bad actor - it's because a piece of information would simply be missing.

[Irish]

Removing the flashbacks would only make the scene weaker in my opinion. And that's not because Waltz is a bad actor - it's because a piece of information would simply be missing.

When Rick is putting Ilsa on the plane, we don't need an insert back to pre-war Paris to get the emotion of the scene. We understand what he's talking about when he says "We'll always have Paris" because it's playing out in their words and across their faces.

Waltz isn't a bad actor. So why not trust him to communicate the interior life of Dr Schulz in that scene? Why not write a better scene with a better dramatic structure? The insert is a shortcut and it's lazy.

PS: I'm unclear as to what you were referencing with Eisenstein. I could guess, but I don't want to guess. Can you elucidate?

[number8]

It's not criminal at all. It's using film editing as it's intended to be used. It's just unnecessary and a bit tacky form-wise in modern cinema that has a more evolved audience, is all. It's like using melancholic piano sounds during a death scene. Once upon a time, it worked. These days... Eh.

[Grouchy]

PS: I'm unclear as to what you were referencing with Eisenstein. I could guess, but I don't want to guess. Can you elucidate?
Well, Eisenstein is the inventor of modern montage, so I was just joking. But on a more specific level, he wrote about different types of montage and particularly about "intellectual" cutting in which two images are used to relate two ideas.

I don't know if I'm just defending this particular detail of the movie because the whole blew me away, but I frankly don't see anything wrong with how the moment was set up.

[Grouchy]

On another level, spaghetti westerns are famous for their use of flashbacks to show what the not-that-great actors are thinking about. It's like the flashbacks from Death Rides a Horse which were imitated verbatim for Kill Bill.

[Grouchy]

Against the flock of fans, who seem more an organized cult than moviegoers these days, I'll say this: I wish to hell Avery would get out of jail and Tarantino would hire him. Those two really had a great working relationship, and it ended far too soon. "Django's" overall sloppiness is living proof of that.
By the way, I looked this up and Roger Avary has been out of prison since 2010.

[Fezzik]

I'm definitely with Irish and trans on this one. Flashbacks like that communicate to me that the director thinks I'm stupid and can't remember what happened in the film 30 minutes ago. I didn't need shots of the dogs again to understand why Waltz was breaking down mentally in that moment. The film had established that already.

TBH, until that flashback, I thought Schultz was reacting to the phrenology speech and being "beaten" by Candie. I was glad to be reminded.

[transmogrifier]

I'm not against flashbacks in general, just certain uses, much like any movie technique really. The problem with the one in Django Unchained is that it is so clumsy, and is used to substitute character development, rather than deepen it. Up until that point in the movie, Schultz is kind of a cipher, and we aren't asked to really pay much attention to his reaction to anything outside his immediate goals. Suddenly, because Tarantino needs a reason for there to be a bloodbath, we are given a flashback of something we have already seen to give a character the motivation to carry out a bit of plot mechanics. It's awful writing, really. Tarantino could have done a bit more with Schultz prior to the handshake scene to provide the context of his decision, or he could have figured out another way to get the bloodbath going. Instead, he decides on Schultz to do it, and then realizing that the audience are likely to be thinking "Why the hell would he suddenly do that out of nowhere?" we are treated to a coup,e of seconds of half-assed "characterization" via lazy flashback.

[Irish]

Well, Eisenstein is the inventor of modern montage, so I was just joking. But on a more specific level, he wrote about different types of montage and particularly about "intellectual" cutting in which two images are used to relate two ideas.

Okay, right. There's a difference between using the edits to juxtapose divergent ideas, and using it to try and leap into the interior of a character, as if in a novel.

It's been awhile, and I've only seen "Potemkin" and "Ivan," but I don't remember Eisenstein using montage to enter anyone's head.


On another level, spaghetti westerns are famous for their use of flashbacks to show what the not-that-great actors are thinking about. It's like the flashbacks from Death Rides a Horse which were imitated verbatim for Kill Bill.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to address before. I don't think he was doing this as a form of commentary. The problem with Tarantino's hoover-like, xeroxing style is that he picks up all the bad with some of the good.


By the way, I looked this up and Roger Avary has been out of prison since 2010.

:D Good to know!

[number8]

You know who hates flashbacks? David Simon.

[amberlita]

Watched this yesterday. I'm floored again by Tarantino's unique talent. I'm just gonna make a list of everything I found note-worthy.

Ennio Morricone's original music! Even if it was for just one brief moment, it made a helluva lot of sense that QT would ask him for his first Western. And in fact I foresaw this.

But can it really be considered Morricone original music? It's a reworking of the theme from Two Mules for Sister Sara (which is, no shit, my favorite Eastwood western outside of TGTBaTU. I was beside myself when that music hit).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE4MW2HNluw

Anyway, I saw this tonight and still can't decide whether to give it a Yay or Nay. I think it'll require a second viewing. It was fun, but it was all over the place and edited with a hatchet. Whoever mentioned it right at the beginning, I agree. Sally is missed.

[ledfloyd]

And that's not because Waltz is a bad actor - it's because a piece of information would simply be missing.
It wouldn't though, because when Candie asks him he says "I was just thinking about the man who was eaten by dogs."

[Duncan]

You know who hates flashbacks? David Simon.

I always thought it was a terrible misstep in the pilot of The Wire when D has a flashback of the murdered witness on the stand.

[number8]

I always thought it was a terrible misstep in the pilot of The Wire when D has a flashback of the murdered witness on the stand.

It was the only fight Simon ever lost to HBO execs, who insisted on that shot. Apparently, Simon is still pissed about it to this day.

[Duncan]

It was the only fight Simon ever lost to HBO execs, who insisted on that shot. Apparently, Simon is still pissed about it to this day.

Interesting. Not surprised. The filter and slow-mo make it especially garish and jarring.

Anyway, I think this is Tarantino's worst film not just because of the flashback, but because it lacks the self-questioning about its violent retribution at the end. Seemed like a step back from *spoilers for Kill Bill, Death Proof and Inglorious Basterds Kill Bill (she's teary-eyed when she delivers the fatal blow to Bill), Death Proof (with Russel's desperate pleas), and IB (with the Nazi propaganda film playing during the climax). Here it all seemed endorsed full-heartedly and even jokingly at the end.

[Melville]

I thought this was pretty great. Though a step down from Inglourious Basterds, it was interesting in the same way, as a postmodern pop history; I find the playing with history in these movies a lot more engaging than the playing with pop culture in some of his others. I especially liked how Django became an increasingly mythical figure throughout the movie. Within that heightened tone of myth-making, the bloody vengeance became almost purely metaphorical, a revenge against the historical existence of Southern slavery itself, culminating in the annihilation of the plantation house, symbol of antebellum romanticism. The movie as a whole felt like an excavation and destruction of slavery, bringing the raw ugliness of it into the public realm of the pop format, and then smashing it apart.

[number8]

Bromance.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgt5JEhx15w

[Grouchy]

I had never heard the song from Two Mules For Sister Sara. Beautiful. I'm downloading the movie right now.

[Fezzik]

Christoph Waltz strikes me as a truly genuine, sweet guy. I love that he's found this level of success.

[dreamdead]

Waltz intrigues me because he seems so natural and effortless in QT's films, whereas in stuff like Carnage (which I've admittedly never seen) he just seems to be trying so hard.

Philip Seymour Hoffman also has this problem occasionally.

[Raiders]

Waltz intrigues me because he seems so natural and effortless in QT's films, whereas in stuff like Carnage (which I've admittedly never seen) he just seems to be trying so hard.


Well, you should see that film first as this isn't a very apt description. If anyone in that cast tried too hard, it was Foster.