Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (2012)

[Spaceman Spiff]

I dislike Jamie Foxx

[Irish]

It's not "offbeat" to observe and argue that Tarantino has something to say about human beings and culture, about moral bankruptcy and moral complacency, and that these have been themes he's been dealing with in his work since his very first film. It only seems offbeat to mainstream movie journalists who dismiss what academics have to say and don't appreciate what many audiences register emotionally, even if it isn't articulated by some as clear is it is felt. There's just something about Butch hesitating at the door and turning back into that pawnshop to reproach the defiling of his nemesis. It's something more than just Tarantino vying cheaply for thrills. It's not just "cool" and "fun" and all laughs. It means something. If you want to dismiss it as cheap entertainment, you go ahead and do that, and I'll continue to think you're missing what the best of commercial cinema has to offer and why it's important.

I think it is a bit offbeat, because Tarantino doesn't write stories about people in the real world. He writes people-as-movie-characters that frequently inhabit spaces that could only exist in the movies (like the retro diner in Pulp Fiction, the bar in From Dusk til Dawn, the House of Blue Leaves in Kill Bill, and the movie theater in Basterds).

His references aren't real life or real people, but characters and other movies. So I think it's a bit off the mark to ascribe greater aspirations to him, like social, cultural, or political subtexts.

"I'm going to find a place that actually resembles, in one way or another, the Spanish locales they had in spaghetti westerns -- a no man's land. With US soldiers and French peasants and the French resistance and German occupation troops, it was kind of a no man's land. That will really be my spaghetti Western but with World War II iconography. But the thing is, I won't be period specific about the movie. I'm not just gonna play a lot of Edith Piaf and Andrews Sisters. I can have rap, and I can do whatever I want. It's about filling in the viscera."

Does that sound like a guy who's interested in a helluva lot of subtext? About making larger comments about the human condition? It doesn't to me.

Now watch this clip. This is Samuel Jackson describing Tarantino's directing style. Again, this doesn't seem to be a man who is overly concerned with making statements with his films. He's making references and a pastiche, which is what he has done with every movie he has made.

I get the impression that you view "entertainment" as something of a dirty word (notice, I never said 'cheap,' you did). I think that creating something that's pure entertainment is just as difficult, if not more so, than trying to create art. And probably rarer. So for me, saying something is "entertaining," without any qualifiers, is high praise.

PS: There isn't something deeply meaningful about Butch's hesitation. QT is making a joke and playing off a cultural fear of male rape, and giving Butch two chances to gain esteem in the audience's eyes (because he saves another male from what many would imagine as a fate worse than death, and because Marcellus gets some measure of comeuppance without Butch having to directly be the heavy. This helps later, because Butch murders Vincent in cold blood and we don't hate him for it).

PPS: You seem to have been insulted by large chunks of my post. I apologize for any off-tone remarks, as this was not my intention.

[Irish]

not to mention just because things weren't placed there consciously or purposely doesn't mean they aren't there or are any less significant for that.

Well, yes and no. Interpretation is a little bit easier when a movie takes an overt stance (as in Dirty Harry or Death Wish) than when it really doesn't (as in Die Hard or Lethal Weapon).

I also think it's important to consider the creator's intent, just to get your bearings and lend any insights weight. Otherwise, every off the wall fan theory and overwrought analysis becomes automatically valid. Sooner or later, that position (no matter how interesting or fun) becomes ridiculous.

and inglourious basterds is about nothing if not the power of the film. film itself is used to bring down one of the most reviled regimes in modern history. what is that if not a towering tribute to the power of cinema.

They died in a movie theater fire. That setting speaks more to Tarantino's love of the medium than as some grand statement about "the power of film."

[ledfloyd]

I also think it's important to consider the creator's intent, just to get your bearings and lend any insights weight. Otherwise, every off the wall fan theory and overwrought analysis becomes automatically valid. Sooner or later, that position (no matter how interesting or fun) becomes ridiculous.

i think any interpretation that can be supported by the text is legitimate.

[megladon8]

Irish, did genre films beat you as a child?

[Irish]

Irish, did genre films beat you as a child?

:lol: post of the week, Megladon.

[Grouchy]

His references aren't real life or real people, but characters and other movies. So I think it's a bit off the mark to ascribe greater aspirations to him, like social, cultural, or political subtexts.

This couldn't be more wrong. It's like you're refusing to see the themes in Tarantino films on purpose.

[Irish]

This couldn't be more wrong. It's like you're refusing to see the themes in Tarantino films on purpose.

Okay, educate me. Throw out one theme from one movie.

As for the other, that's not a new idea and I'm not the only one around who has picked up on it. Jules and Vincent don't play like real people. They're not supposed to. They're exaggerated for effect, hyper stylized characters and purposely artificial, because QT wants movie characters in his movie universe.

[Russ]

This couldn't be more wrong. It's like you're refusing to see the themes in Tarantino films on purpose.

I don't refute what you're saying, but in Irish's defense (not that he needs it) I've never gotten the impression that Tarantino's films are about theme first and homage second. To me, his films are sometimes borderline 'empty' because it seems as though he injects the thematic content after the fact. It's a highwire balancing act for sure, but I think his love of his cinematic influences sometimes hinders his creative growth as a filmmaker.

Having said that, I LOVE Tarantino's films.

And, to disagree with Irish, I do believe that Inglourious Basterds is the closest thing to a perfect marriage between the two.

[MadMan]

I love QT because he manages to combine a sense of intelligence with tons of entertainment, all while offering twists/ripoffs/homages to his favorite films. The last director to successfully twist genre and operate within such confines well is probably John Carpenter, although Wes Anderson also comes to mind. I'm sure there are many others I'm forgetting.

[Grouchy]

Okay, educate me. Throw out one theme from one movie.

As for the other, that's not a new idea and I'm not the only one around who has picked up on it. Jules and Vincent don't play like real people. They're not supposed to. They're exaggerated for effect, hyper stylized characters and purposely artificial, because QT wants movie characters in his movie universe.

Family roles in Kill Bill. The role of women in slasher cinema in Death Proof. Film used as weapon (propaganda) in Inglourious Basterds.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about his characters. I just don't think a film needs to be realistic in order to say something about "the real world".

[Irish]

I don't refute what you're saying, but in Irish's defense (not that he needs it) I've never gotten the impression that Tarantino's films are about theme first and homage second. To me, his films are sometimes borderline 'empty' because it seems as though he injects the thematic content after the fact. It's a highwire balancing act for sure, but I think his love of his cinematic influences sometimes hinders his creative growth as a filmmaker.

I got insecure after Grouchy's post and started Googling about themes and Tarantino movies, and dug up an old interview of his on NPR.

So your timing is good, because it aligns well, I think, with this:

Mr. TARANTINO: You know I love thinking about things subtextually. And I actually... Like, for instance, when I write I actually, I'm not very analytical about it. I don't ever deal with the subtext because I just know it's there so I don't have to deal with it. I just keep it about the scenario. I keep it on the surface - all my concerns. And one of the fun things is, is when I'm done with everything, like now, for instance.

Okay, now you get to be analytical about the process and now I can watch the movie and see all the different connection things and see all the things that are underneath the surface. But I don't want to deal with the underneath while I'm, you know, while I'm making it or while I'm writing it or when I'm making it. Because again, I don't want to hit these nails on the head too strongly.

So I think it's interesting that he pays no heed to subtext during any part of th creative process, but just believes it will be there afterwards.

(Right after saying this, he goes on about how King Kong is a metaphor for the black man in America, which I think is interesting but at the same time all kinds of nonsense.)

[Irish]

Family roles in Kill Bill. The role of women in slasher cinema in Death Proof. Film used as weapon (propaganda) in Inglourious Basterds.

I don't disagree with what you're saying about his characters. I just don't think a film needs to be realistic in order to say something about "the real world".

Those are interesting & fair points.

I haven't seen Kill Bill recently enough to comment on it, unfortunately.

If you're meaning that Death Proof is a twist on the "final girl" theory of horror movies, I think that's interesting and probably valid. But at the same time, that idea itself represents a huge chunk of the plot, so in my mind it's more "text" than "subtext." (That could be more of a semantic argument, but I'd really need to see this one again too in order to talk more about it.)

During my Googling, I came across two interpretations of Basterds -- one said that the final act represents the power of movies (or really, propaganda) to kill. The other laid out a case that the third act gave movies a chance to become heroic in and of themselves, as the nitrate fire effectively ended WWII in this universe.

What's interesting about that is they're a bit mutually exclusive, and can't quite exist at the same time, side by side. (So which one was more Tarantino's intention?).

I think it's neither, and while that third act is very "Tarantinoesque," it also doesn't represent the entire movie (which was one of my problems with the film overall; it's narratively fractured and tonally off).

It also struck me that you've got a little bit of contradiction going too, because maybe two of your three examples are, in essence, self referential as they're only about the movies, and make no attempt to comment on the human condition or the "real world."

[[ETM]]

[number8]

I'm on the camp of if you can read into it and can point out some evidence of it in the movie, then it's a 100% valid reading of the movie, regardless of how far-fetched it sounds or what the author's intention was.

[transmogrifier]

I'm on the camp of if you can read into it and can point out some evidence of it in the movie, then it's a 100% valid reading of the movie, regardless of how far-fetched it sounds or what the author's intention was.

Yep, pretty much. I avoid interviews with filmmakers as much as possible, because frankly, their intentions in making it mean absolutely nothing to me as an audience member. The film must work on its own.

[ledfloyd]

yeah, the artist's intent should show up in the film. if they say they intended it to be read one way and it isn't, it isn't and that's their fault. if there was something they didn't intend that turned up in the subtext, that's also on them, and just because they didn't intend it doesn't mean it isn't there.

also, the idea that fantastic scenarios like the ones tarantino plays with can't comment on the real world is absurd.

[Chac Mool]

One aspect of the "thematic" content in Tarantino's films that hasn't been touched on:

Whatever else may be happening in his movies -- and whether we're talking about the realistic ones or the more overt homages -- the man has a gift for creating realistic, believable, lived-in characters, even if they're ridiculous. There's the stuff of real humanity in the ruffians and ne'er-do-gooders from Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. The emotions that animate the characters from Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds are as real as any. And let's not even mention the melancholy, complex relationship between Jackie Brown and Max Cherry. These may not be themes in the traditional sense -- it's hard to argue about them over a beer -- but human interactions should certainly be considered when talking about whether Tarantino's movies are "empty" or not.

(I'm obviously of the opinion that they're as full of worth as any released in the past two decades.)

[Izzy Black]

I think it is a bit offbeat, because Tarantino doesn't write stories about people in the real world. He writes people-as-movie-characters that frequently inhabit spaces that could only exist in the movies (like the retro diner in Pulp Fiction, the bar in From Dusk til Dawn, the House of Blue Leaves in Kill Bill, and the movie theater in Basterds).

His references aren't real life or real people, but characters and other movies. So I think it's a bit off the mark to ascribe greater aspirations to him, like social, cultural, or political subtexts.

His work is patently fiction and certainly inspired in large part by fiction. But I don't think I need to tell you that creative fiction is one of the most common ways to express truth about people. I recall an interview Tarantino had with Jon Stewart back in the 90s where Tarantino defended his heavy reliance on pop culture by explaining that it's a shared language that we all have and that he wanted to capture how people really talk. That's people like you and me, real people, not movie people. His characters don't talk like movie people they talk like we do. They have the kind of conversations about mundane events in diners or on the way to work that we might have. That's the ingenuity of his genre deconstruction. It humanizes and makes relevant otherwise emotionally distant movie genre abstractions. It's what makes it feel possible and believable that, say, gangsters of traditional style genre films could be like you or me, as opposed to archetypal cookie-cutter images of dumb wiseguys with Italian accents and no charisma (even though those types influence him!). These kinds of characters are far too easy to judge and far too difficult to relate, but when they act like you and me, then character assessment, whether moral or otherwise, becomes a far more interesting matter.

Tarantino invokes this strategy time and time again with each of his films. It's the same kind of approach he has with Inglorious Basterds where he turns otherwise stereotypical unapproachable Nazi archetypes into accessible personalities. The consequence of which opportune occasions for meaningful character study and emotionally complex dramatic situations, often engendered in the form of immediate tonal contrasts; the deceptively charming personality of Landa that disguises a mass murderer underneath; the mundane banality of casual conversation in a car ride set against an intense execution scene. From such strong visceral tonal contrasts come distinct emotional reactions, the very backbone of Tarantino's art. What does it mean for a mass murderer to be charming? What does it say about characters who casually discuss Whoppers and Big Macs on their way to kill people? These questions sit beneath the surface of our passing thoughts, quietly, but there, and Tarantino means to provoke and bring them out in various lines of dialogue that engage German film history and talk of spiritual redemption.

I get the impression that you view "entertainment" as something of a dirty word (notice, I never said 'cheap,' you did). I think that creating something that's pure entertainment is just as difficult, if not more so, than trying to create art. And probably rarer. So for me, saying something is "entertaining," without any qualifiers, is high praise.

I don't view entertainment as a dirty word. In fact, I don't prefer much to qualify over terms like "art" and "entertainment," especially in the case of someone like Quentin Tarantino. I just sense your attempt to suck the substance out of Tarantino's putative brand of entertainment as a form of cheapening it, whether for better or worse.

PS: There isn't something deeply meaningful about Butch's hesitation. QT is making a joke and playing off a cultural fear of male rape, and giving Butch two chances to gain esteem in the audience's eyes (because he saves another male from what many would imagine as a fate worse than death, and because Marcellus gets some measure of comeuppance without Butch having to directly be the heavy. This helps later, because Butch murders Vincent in cold blood and we don't hate him for it).

Why avoid the depth when you don't have to? It's right there! You can have your cake and eat it too! Take Butch's encounter with the taxi driver earlier when she questions him about his feelings from killing another man with his bare hands. Here, we get Butch's ambivalence about being responsible for the life of another person. This general moral complacency is directly challenged and contrasted with a moment of reflection later when he ends up saving, of all people, the very man that wants him dead. I actually agree with critics that have said Tarantino doesn't seem to be demonstrating any political sensitivity for the topic of male rape and homosexuality (I've actually mostly only seen suggestions to the contrary, and which, ironically, positions your view deeper in the seat of subtextual analysis). I tend to read the text here straightforwardly and without the kind of subtext you sense. He simply couldn't let himself walk out of that pawnshop in good conscience as Marsellus is being sodomized in the basement. Whatever conflict stood between them was transformed when both of them were made victims and shared in each others trepidation as they sat tied up in a basement together, dreading the horror awaiting them. It's this reversal of the situation that we see all throughout the film, situations that constantly place characters in circumstances that seem to force self-reflection and moral review (and I certainly don't deny the humor in it, that's how irony works). Pulp Fiction is overt in its themes of redemption and personal responsibility. It overwhelms the text and not with much subtlety, although the best instances of it are the less obvious ones, the moments that are observed and shown rather than explicitly told. The entire film trades in moral themes. This isn't just a theme of Pulp Fiction. It can be observed all throughout Tarantino's work. It's no surprise either because revenge stories often do. I remember one interview when responding to criticism of violence and lack of substance in his films, Tarantino reminds us that Hamlet is at bottom a revenge story, and I can think of few other works of literature as ripe with moral themes as Shakespeare's masterwork of a man's moral indignation, torment, and gradual psychological descent into despair. That's not to say Tarantino is on par with Shakespeare, or even in the same football stadium, but that he's trying to work within the same model (and why he has expressed no intention of ever giving up genre filmmaking). There's nothing 'offbeat,' 'quirky,' 'off-the-wall,' or any other synonym you might want to throw out there in trying to talk about Tarantino and Pulp Fiction in terms of its moral questions and themes. It's about as close to consensus as you can get about the deeper virtues of Tarantino that's out there.

PPS: You seem to have been insulted by large chunks of my post. I apologize for any off-tone remarks, as this was not my intention.

Not at all. I may have came on a bit too strong myself (and again but hopefully not here).

[Henry Gale]

New international trailer. Might be even better than the last one, but definitely gorier (even that great blood on the white flowers shot). A much better sense of the dialogue here too.

[youtube]LT2hOAzCUFc[/youtube]

[Pop Trash]

Better...but I guess international audiences don't say "off the chain."

[Morris Schæffer]

Jonah Hill back in, but in a different role.

[Sven]

My biggest interest in this is the photography.

[Skitch]

Jonah Hill back in, but in a different role.

I wish he would be banished to the land of bad comedies and rom-coms forever.

[Derek]

My biggest interest in this is the photography.

I'll be interested to see how it's cut without Menke around anymore.