Django Unchained

[thepaulo]

http://www.shockya.com/news/2011/05/07/will-smith-to-take-the-lead-role-in-quentin-tarantinos-django-unchained/

Tarentino...Samuel L......Waltz.....and......Fresh Prince.

probably no Jazzy Jeff.

[Chigworthy]

I'm nervous that Will Smith is in QT's final film.

[Judge Smails]

Maybe

Django

Ate

Your

Movie

[jonyrotn]

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p284/freedreamr/BOJANGLES-LOGO.jpg

[disneyspy]

http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/0/07/Jango-CHRON.jpg

[PigShitIrish]

On the films wiki page, it said that Idris Elba was also up for the lead role along with Will Smith. I would have loved to see Stringer Bell get the part.

[thepaulo]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eUdM9vrCbow" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's unchained.

[realmenhatelife]

Will oscar be singing a Django Unchained Melody? aghee ghee ghee

[Furtherman]

Looks good, I just hope he doesn't use modern music - Cash, Brown, etc.... in the actual movie.

[razorboy]

Jamie's spurs will jingle Django jingle all the way to the Oscar, a geh geh geh.

Anyway, it looks like dog shit.

[realmenhatelife]

I'm actually not encouraged, either. I have faith, but I probably wouldn't be too into it if it wasn't his movie.

[TripleSkeet]

Looks good to me.

[ozzie]

Am I the only one who went out and saw this yesterday?

Btw, absolutely loved it.

[cougarjake13]

yesterday yeh Polly

I am goin this weekend

[thepaulo]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christmas-box-office-les-mis-406362

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/les-miz-18m-django-15m-give-box-office-christmas-goose-70721

Both Les Miz and Django had a very happy Christmas.

[jimmyolsenblues]

The movie is very very long.
Christopher Waltz is a joy and I could listen to him talk all day, probably the wait between Dr. King Schutz's lines, is the hardest point for me.
Jamie Foxx is ok...but Christopher Waltz is the movie for me.

[PapaBear]

I just got back, and I loved it. The only thing I can't figure out is, I don't recall seeing a foot fetish scene.

Edit: Never mind. I just read that there is no foot scene.

[sailor]

Surprised no one's brought up the animosity from spike lee.

[PapaBear]

Surprised no one's brought up the animosity from spike lee.
I don't think anyone cares. I get his stance on the subject, but he should probably watch the movie.

[ozzie]

I don't think anyone cares. I get his stance on the subject, but he should probably watch the movie.

I heard a few things discussed on the show after Ron saw it, and something they were reading on drudge about the "n word"... but other than that, I purposely avoided any reviews or potential spoilers.

Ronnie basically just said that if you are a QT fan, you'll love the movie. That's all I needed to hear. Not that I wasn't going to go anyway.

I have no idea what Spike said, nor do I care. I fucking loved the movie, and I'm ready to go see it again.

[fezident]

Saw it, and I didn't quite love it.
It IS too long.

Tarantino needs to start trimming his material a bit.
It started with Deathproof.
It continued with Inglorious.
And now, with Django, it's a real problem.
He treats every scene as if it's overly important. Something as simple as leaving the living room and heading on up to the bedroom on the 2nd floor takes far too much screen time. Things like that can (should) just be a quick cut. In this movie... it takes almost a full minute. And this movie is full of those kind of extended takes. It feels almost like a rough/first cut of a film.

The good scenes were good. The funny parts were funny. The violent parts were violent. But, man, the boring parts were boring.

It's definitely worth seeing, but I almost think it would be more enjoyable at home... where you can get up and take a break or eat or whatever.

[realmenhatelife]

I thought this movie was pretty terrible.



I'm not inclined to read what Spike Lee is mad about, but I thought the last death scene was pretty racist. And while a lot of the movie is racial rather than racist I thought it was pretty tasteless. Eventually the racist stuff started playing for laughs in my theater.


Ok, I get that this is an exploitation movie and that it was an intentional recreation of a bad, cheap movie. But that doesn't make me love it more for being successfully bad, plot thin, and contrived. Whats worse is that he's making another movie to round out his Historical Revenge Exploitation trilogy, which means it'll be probably another like 6 years before you even get a shot at him making a non silly movie. And judging by the weight gain and coke use he might not have those 6 years to spare.

[cougarjake13]

Jews and blacks so what's the third to round out the revenge trilogy

[realmenhatelife]

Jews and blacks so what's the third to round out the revenge trilogy

More blacks. It's called Killer Crow and it's about a black army unit in WWII killing the white soldiers and officers that screwed them over while trying to get to switzerland.

[epo]

I think this is Tarantino's most complete film to date. His growth as a filmmaker is quite remarkable.

[Pitdoc]

Saw it, and I didn't quite love it.
It IS too long.

Tarantino needs to start trimming his material a bit.
It started with Deathproof.
It continued with Inglorious.
And now, with Django, it's a real problem.
He treats every scene as if it's overly important. Something as simple as leaving the living room and heading on up to the bedroom on the 2nd floor takes far too much screen time. Things like that can (should) just be a quick cut. In this movie... it takes almost a full minute. And this movie is full of those kind of extended takes. It feels almost like a rough/first cut of a film.

The good scenes were good. The funny parts were funny. The violent parts were violent. But, man, the boring parts were boring.

It's definitely worth seeing, but I almost think it would be more enjoyable at home... where you can get up and take a break or eat or whatever.

The length might be due in part to his film editor dying last year.They say she reined in a lot of the length of his first movies, like Pulp F (which is a masterpiece of editing) .

Still, I loved the movie , especially Waltz.

[Fallon]

I loved it as well, Waltz is just fantastic and Sam Jackson was hilarious.

[fezident]

I'm an endlessly distracted by Waltz' acting.
I've never seen an actor (over)use his hands so much while he speaks. That "delicious milk" scene at the opening of Basterds looks like he's doing a silent film. Those hands are practically doing sign language. Same goes for the "streudel scene". Those hands are either needlessly punctuating his every word OR they're making busy work with the food & props.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lydYhl1982Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I only know him from the two QT movies, and... he actually seems quite limited. I liked his smarmy, hyper-polite, verbose, charming "evil" delivery in Basterds. But... then he played all the same notes in Django. Same performance.... down to the letter.

[NickyL0885]

I'm an endlessly distracted by Waltz' acting.
I've never seen an actor (over)use his hands so much while he speaks. That "delicious milk" scene at the opening of Basterds looks like he's doing a silent film. Those hands are practically doing sign language. Same goes for the "streudel scene". Those hands are either needlessly punctuating his every word OR they're making busy work with the food & props.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lydYhl1982Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I only know him from the two QT movies, and... he actually seems quite limited. I liked his smarmy, hyper-polite, verbose, charming "evil" delivery in Basterds. But... then he played all the same notes in Django. Same performance.... down to the letter.

I'd pay to hear that man narrate a book.

[epo]

I'd pay to hear that man narrate a book.

I'm with you, I don't see the Waltz hate at all.

[fezident]

I'd pay to hear that man narrate a book.

I think I'd actually PREFER that.

[thepaulo]

I'm with you, I don't see the Waltz hate at all.

He came out of nowhere and became a welcome new screen personality. He stole the film Carnage from Jodie Foster and Kate Winslet


http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0910607/

[PapaBear]

Alamo had a ridiculously funny short with Waltz before the movie. I loved it.

Edit: I didn't realize until now, it's been out for quite a while.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nwY4LuADupw?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[NickyL0885]

As far as Waltz goes, he was the best part of Basterds. The way he seamlessly transitioned between 4 different languages was amazing. He played his role so well. He was a dick, and he knew it.

[realmenhatelife]

Two questions for people that enjoyed this movie:

What do you make of Django wearing Candie's clothes at the end of the movie?




What would you say this movie is about? Like Inglorious Basterds is about the magic of movies, Pulp Fiction is about Greed, Res Dogs is about loyalty. What is Django about?

[booster11373]

Two questions for people that enjoyed this movie:

What do you make of Django wearing Candie's clothes at the end of the movie?




What would you say this movie is about? Like Inglorious Basterds is about the magic of movies, Pulp Fiction is about Greed, Res Dogs is about loyalty. What is Django about?

Love

[booster11373]

I loved the film my only critique would be the music cues/choices were weak with the exception of the Johnny Cash song and maybe the Croce song.

[thepaulo]

I loved the film my only critique would be the music cues/choices were weak with the exception of the Johnny Cash song and maybe the Croce song.

The Croce cue made me laugh out loud.

[realmenhatelife]

Love

I dont think the movie was overly concerned with love, that was just the macguffin.

[booster11373]

I dont think the movie was overly concerned with love, that was just the macguffin.

Well the only people Django needed revenge on were the Brittles for what the did before the movie starts

And he would have left Candieland standing if they walked out of there with Hildas and Eskimoe Joe

So Djangos love of Hilda motivated his action in my eyes

[realmenhatelife]

Well the only people Django needed revenge on were the Brittles for what the did before the movie starts

And he would have left Candieland standing if they walked out of there with Hildas and Eskimoe Joe

So Djangos love of Hilda motivated his action in my eyes


It's definately his motivation, but that motivation could have just been a bag of gold and you wouldn't made mostly the same movie. What's the theme? That's what I'm struggling with.




So this is very clearly a movie about revenge, but it's a revenge that's completely devoid of justice or conscience. I dont know what to make of that. Django is as self interested and exploitational as Candie. And he does wind up in Candies clothes at the end after killing Stephen who arguably was living his life by the same code that Django had to adopt to get back Hilde. Is that the takeaway, you reap what you sow? The movie doesn't strike me as that cynical and nihilistic, and it certainly celebrates Django. Hilde isn't horrified by him, there are no consequences so it's hard to imagine that's what we were supposed to get.

[thepaulo]

It's definately his motivation, but that motivation could have just been a bag of gold and you wouldn't made mostly the same movie. What's the theme? That's what I'm struggling with.




So this is very clearly a movie about revenge, but it's a revenge that's completely devoid of justice or conscience. I dont know what to make of that. Django is as self interested and exploitational as Candie. And he does wind up in Candies clothes at the end after killing Stephen who arguably was living his life by the same code that Django had to adopt to get back Hilde. Is that the takeaway, you reap what you sow? The movie doesn't strike me as that cynical and nihilistic, and it certainly celebrates Django. Hilde isn't horrified by him, there are no consequences so it's hard to imagine that's what we were supposed to get.

I don't think analysing the film this way gets to what it is about.

Both IB and DU are framed in worlds that support massive and unthinkable inhumanity.
The context of slavery is clearly central. Django is an iconic free black man who is FREE to right injustice. Injustice is everywhere. He does what has to to survive and attain his goal.
He is fighting a war and I don't think he killed one person who didn't have it coming. He even had to be schooled and prodded on exactly that point.
Love indeed was his core motivation like the Germanic legend of Siefried

[CountryBob]

I don't think analysing the film this way gets to what it is about.

Both IB and DU are framed in worlds that support massive and unthinkable inhumanity.
The context of slavery is clearly central. Django is an iconic free black man who is FREE to right injustice. Injustice is everywhere. He does what has to to survive and attain his goal.
He is fighting a war and I don't think he killed one person who didn't have it coming. He even had to be schooled and prodded on exactly that point.
Love indeed was his core motivation like the Germanic legend of Siefried

The god damn Germans aint got nothin to do with it!

[booster11373]

For me the point of Django wearing Candies clothes was just that he needed some new clothes and Candies probably fit him. Hildie was most likely wearing something of candies sister I didnt see it as a big deal except maybe to make Steven angrier.

[thepaulo]

The god damn Germans aint got nothin to do with it!

Au contraire, mon frere. The legend was quite specifically outlined in the film. It's fairly ironic for the German to be the hero since he was the arch villian last time.

[realmenhatelife]

I don't think analysing the film this way gets to what it is about.

Both IB and DU are framed in worlds that support massive and unthinkable inhumanity.
The context of slavery is clearly central. Django is an iconic free black man who is FREE to right injustice. Injustice is everywhere. He does what has to to survive and attain his goal.
He is fighting a war and I don't think he killed one person who didn't have it coming. He even had to be schooled and prodded on exactly that point.
Love indeed was his core motivation like the Germanic legend of Siefried

My response was first and foremost visceral, and I'm analyzing it to understand why did I dislike this movie so much.

Django creates as much injustice than he rights, if not more. I would say that he killed the man plowing the field in front of his son and I cant say that man had it coming. He was a criminal, but certainly one looking for a quiet, redeemed life. I cant say that Stephen had it coming, for as horrible as he was. I certainly dont think he deserved to get tortured, because if that character had an ounce of subtext he'd be tortured already. Wasn't Stephen atleast a tragic character? The only means of attaining his goal, to survive, was to sell out his own people and become the most hated thing you can be, the head house slave? Django does the same thing himself, posing as a slave trader, watching two slaves killed in front of him, facilitating one of their deaths when King tries to intervene. Maybe if Django was ever in peril of losing his soul to his pursuit I could appreciate the movie more as a Moby Dick of the south, but Django is cool with it any so is everyone else.

The movie seems to want to set up interesting questions about the lengths people will go and the danger it puts them in, or the roles people assume to survive, but it doesn't pull the trigger. Would you be happy if youre leaving the legacy of best not thing too much about it. I honestly believe there's a lot of apologist thinking going on in this movie, and down the road maybe people will revise their thinking about it.

For me the point of Django wearing Candies clothes was just that he needed some new clothes and Candies probably fit him. Hildie was most likely wearing something of candies sister I didnt see it as a big deal except maybe to make Steven angrier.

You have to admit that the main character of your movie donning the clothing of the main antagonist of your movie, especially when you're talking about a brutalized slave vs a brutal slave master it is, at the very least, provocative. If Luke Skywalker put on Darth Vaders helmet because it was raining, for example, you might find that to be a clumsy bit of writing.

[thepaulo]

My response was first and foremost visceral, and I'm analyzing it to understand why did I dislike this movie so much.

Django creates as much injustice than he rights, if not more. I would say that he killed the man plowing the field in front of his son and I cant say that man had it coming. He was a criminal, but certainly one looking for a quiet, redeemed life. I cant say that Stephen had it coming, for as horrible as he was. I certainly dont think he deserved to get tortured, because if that character had an ounce of subtext he'd be tortured already. Wasn't Stephen atleast a tragic character? The only means of attaining his goal, to survive, was to sell out his own people and become the most hated thing you can be, the head house slave? Django does the same thing himself, posing as a slave trader, watching two slaves killed in front of him, facilitating one of their deaths when King tries to intervene. Maybe if Django was ever in peril of losing his soul to his pursuit I could appreciate the movie more as a Moby Dick of the south, but Django is cool with it any so is everyone else.

The movie seems to want to set up interesting questions about the lengths people will go and the danger it puts them in, or the roles people assume to survive, but it doesn't pull the trigger. Would you be happy if youre leaving the legacy of best not thing too much about it. I honestly believe there's a lot of apologist thinking going on in this movie, and down the road maybe people will revise their thinking about it.



You have to admit that the main character of your movie donning the clothing of the main antagonist of your movie, especially when you're talking about a brutalized slave vs a brutal slave master it is, at the very least, provocative. If Luke Skywalker put on Darth Vaders helmet because it was raining, for example, you might find that to be a clumsy bit of writing.


I will say I am a little uncomfortable sitting in an audience of lots of African Americans enjoying it immensely. I must have white guilt
Stephen and Django are quite different. Django is playing a part for a short time as a way to free his wife. Most people would say he is justified in doing anything to that end. Stephen is totally and completely complicit in the slavery and brutality of his own people. He is no different than jews helping to gas their own people in the concentration camps which happened as well.

I find the movie to be the most entertaining of QT's movies while also being the most awkwardly controversial.

[realmenhatelife]

I will say I am a little uncomfortable sitting in an audience of lots of African Americans enjoying it immensely. I must have white guilt
Stephen and Django are quite different. Django is playing a part for a short time as a way to free his wife. Most people would say he is justified in doing anything to that end. Stephen is totally and completely complicit in the slavery and brutality of his own people. He is no different than jews helping to gas their own people in the concentration camps which happened as well.

I find the movie to be the most entertaining of QT's movies while also being the most awkwardly controversial.

I wasn't uncomfortable but once racism and violence started playing for laughs I thought "yeesh, maybe this isn't exactly turning out the way he intended."

Are Stephen and Django that different? Django would do anything to get Hilde, so wouldn't Django live at Candieland for the next 40 years acting like a mandingo fighting expert if that's what it took? The ultimate moral judgement is placed on Stephen's head when Stephen is the only object of Django's revenge that Django could relate to. Candie gets off light, he gets to die cleanly standing on a matter of his (fucked) principles. He gets an elegiac death scene, his boutineer weeping blood. Can you say Stephen is worse than Candie and can you say that Candie catches worse than Stephen?

This is a chaotic movie in the worst way, it plays like a first draft.

I'm not even getting into the butt fuckery that is the eye holes in the hoods and the QT's horrific, distracting acting scenes.

[thepaulo]

I wasn't uncomfortable but once racism and violence started playing for laughs I thought "yeesh, maybe this isn't exactly turning out the way he intended."

Are Stephen and Django that different? Django would do anything to get Hilde, so wouldn't Django live at Candieland for the next 40 years acting like a mandingo fighting expert if that's what it took? The ultimate moral judgement is placed on Stephen's head when Stephen is the only object of Django's revenge that Django could relate to. Candie gets off light, he gets to die cleanly standing on a matter of his (fucked) principles. He gets an elegiac death scene, his boutineer weeping blood. Can you say Stephen is worse than Candie and can you say that Candie catches worse than Stephen?

This is a chaotic movie in the worst way, it plays like a first draft.

I'm not even getting into the butt fuckery that is the eye holes in the hoods and the QT's horrific, distracting acting scenes.

OMG is QT's acting horrible but hey the whole movie is more entertaining than profound.
But it is profound in that it knows this is taboo subject matter and this approach allows people to confront it and talk about it rather than dismiss it and forget it.

[realmenhatelife]

OMG is QT's acting horrible but hey the whole movie is more entertaining than profound.
But it is profound in that it knows this is taboo subject matter and this approach allows people to confront it and talk about it rather than dismiss it and forget it.

I think that's being very generous with his intent.

[thepaulo]

I think that's being very generous with his intent.


Tarentino has been a mixed bag from the beginning.
He works both on a very high level and a very low level at the same time.
It can be frustrating and I've had my misgivings from the very beginning.
Still, I accept his real talent is to always uncover hidden niches in the american ethos (for lack of a better word).
He is definately essential. Is he perfect? No. Never has been and I doubt he ever will be.
He is playing a game because he has been allowed to play a game.
He is one of the few who can do whatever they want and he is taking advantage of that.
We can question what he's doing, as well we should, but the fact that we are questioning him is a good thing.
He doesn't have a real education aside from what he gave himself, but I understand his IQ is high.
I rank DU high because QT is playing a dangerous game and I think he wins.
It's a little thrilling to see him fuck with all of us, black and white.

[PapaBear]

Tarantino needs to start trimming his material a bit.
It started with Deathproof

I wasn't aware Deathproof came out before Jackie Brown. Or are you saying that Death Proof was the first one that should have been shorter for what it was, rather than just being a long movie?

[fezident]

I wasn't aware Deathproof came out before Jackie Brown. Or are you saying that Death Proof was the first one that should have been shorter for what it was, rather than just being a long movie?

Tarantino didn't write Jackie Brown (Rum Punch), and I therefore exclude it from conversations like this. Simply because his other films are so, I dunno, singular. They're so self-contained.
But I definitely think that Jackie Brown felt really sssslow.

EDIT:
But.. to answer your question... I think Death Proof was waaaay too long. It didn't have enough story to warrant that much dialog. The ending packed a whallop, and I left the theater feeling buzzed. But... those scenes in the bar with the texting and the radio contest and all that nonsense really sucked up a bit too much screen time. That movie should've been tighter. Perhaps, if the movie was shorter, and those same scenes were presented as DVD extras... maybe then they'd be of interest. But that movie, released as half of a double feature mind you, desperately needed a trim.

[thepaulo]

Tarantino didn't write Jackie Brown (Rum Punch), and I therefore exclude it from conversations like this. Simply because his other films are so, I dunno, singular. They're so self-contained.
But I definitely think that Jackie Brown felt really sssslow.

I always liked the quote by Roger Ebert about people who thought The Accidental Tourist was slow. I believe he reponded that, no, they were slow.

[fezident]

I always liked the quote by Roger Ebert about people who thought The Accidental Tourist was slow. I believe he reponded that, no, they were slow.

I don't quite agree with that quote.
I'm a film lover. I am an active participant in the movies I watch. I really enjoy the craft. Having said that... I see a difference between wishing a movie was "a bit tighter" and wishing a movie was "better".
Sometimes, a movie (or a piece of music) can be a tad too long. A bit too indulgent.

Some of my favorite movies are movies that other think are "boring". (There Will Be Blood, Doubt, The Master, Gus Van Sant's Gerry, Moon by Duncan Jones, etc etc)
A movie doesn't have to move along at a rocket pace in order for me to love it, but... the long quiet scenes definitely need to feel important... not indulgent.

Thoughts?

[thepaulo]

I don't quite agree with that quote.
I'm a film lover. I am an active participant in the movies I watch. I really enjoy the craft. Having said that... I see a difference between wishing a movie was "a bit tighter" and wishing a movie was "better".
Sometimes, a movie (or a piece of music) can be a tad too long. A bit too indulgent.

Some of my favorite movies are movies that other think are "boring". (There Will Be Blood, Doubt, The Master, Gus Van Sant's Gerry, Moon by Duncan Jones, etc etc)
A movie doesn't have to move along at a rocket pace in order for me to love it, but... the long quiet scenes definitely need to feel important... not indulgent.

Thoughts?

Jackie Brown definately can be included in that group if we were being generous. It certainly was QT being a little more serious and adult.
Kevin Smith's best film is probably Chasing Amy because it was the closest he came to abandoning his inherrent imaturity. I could say the same for QT.

[newport king]

Red State...but i know the K.Smith grouping you mean.

[newport king]

I didnt hate the movie, it had some low moments.
The masks with the posse scene that realmenhatelife touched on. And tupac being played during the shootout was a bit silly. Overall i thought it was good. I dont understand how its contreversial. If i was black this would probably be my favorite movie of all time.

[Fugitive]

You're right, it is his most complete movie to date. And that makes me queasy, because I'm pretty sure the reason is that - in spite of his screenwriting credit, he didn't write it.

We get distracted watching his stuff because of all the old movie references, the old movie stars taking another shot, the B-movie cinema zooms and cheap subtitles...but let's get to the meat of every movie - THE SCREENPLAY.

This movie had a traditional structure. It was coherent. It had the traditional three act format. It had "in context" laughs, not just cheap pop culture references.

Reservoir Dogs was coherent, but it was a cheapie - all on one set. A stage play, basically.

Pulp Fiction - he didn't even write the whole movie, he bought a big chunk of it and incorporated it into the film. And the screenplay was a mess structurally.

Jackie Brown - well, he could have written that. A lot of people could have.

His half of Grindhouse - fireworks on a scaffolding, that's all. And, as part of a "double feature," it wasn't too long to write, either.

Inglorious Basterds - should have been called annoying Brad Pitt Fake Southern Accent. But that at least distracted the viewer from how silly the whole thing was. Silly on bread with Nutella on top.

If Quentin wrote Django, he only wrote part of it, or had one or more script doctors work on it big-time. He's never shown he can do anything like this before, and the fact that this came out so soon after Inglorious is another clue - Quentin has never been a fast writer, even when writing his non-traditional, cut me some slack bullshit.

Anybody else have this reaction to it? It has his style, but...couldn't just about anyone write something with his flavor for a 2013 release...BETTER than he ever has?

--Fugitive

[realmenhatelife]

I still hate this movie. I was thinking more about it this weekend, and I guess it is about revenge. I couldn't reconcile that idea because it's such a regressive idea of revenge, not just in our own society, but historically in both literature and his own work. The tribal justice model of revenge has been denounced for it's eye for an eye futility since Aeschylus, but Tarintino has only been making movies about revenge for the last 10 years, 5 or 6 movies depending and atleast 2 more if you believe news sites. Django just doesn't fit.

Kill Bill is about the unsustainability of revenge. The first scene in the first part actually has a little shout out to Aeschylus' Eumenides, the drops of blood sew the seeds for future destruction, and in fact Kill Bill 3 is suposedly about Vernida Green's daughter going after The Bride. The movie resolves when The Bride replaces her hate with love, she has a greater understanding of Bill and she reclaims her daugher.

Death Proof is about sexual violence. There's lots of dominance and similuated rape. The female protagonists turn the tide on their aggressor and go after him, they usurp their gender roles and expose the false power dynamic. Kurt Russell has no real power over them and once they realize it they defeat him. They do this through unity, confidence and style.

The agent of revenge in Inglorious Basterds is art, specifically the cinema. The cinema is where Shoshonna finds love again and becomes the venue for her revenge. You have the nice little meta touch of the movie as weapon literally and figuratively because Tarintino rewrites history to kill hitler and in a really skillful flurish shows the parallel to propaganda, to normalize it.

Then you have Django. None of these other movies are just about a rampage, they have something more sophisticated to say about the agent of revenge than pure violence, until Django. Every bit of the movie debases the main character, who loses his humanity more and more as he gets closer and closer to Hilde. I understand it's his own trials of Sigrefried but I dont think that a man would be able to suspend every ounce of his humanity except for his love for Hilde. If the movie was honest with it's character she'd be horrified at what came to find her at Candyland, or she'd be killed and Django wouldn't care anymore because he's been consumed by his pragmatism and self interest. If this movie had any balls to be as nihilistic as it wants that's what would have happened.

Django doesn't do a redemptive thing in the movie. He does a lot of bad things for sure, and I think as an audience we're supposed to take his finding Hilde as his big redemptive moment "ah, now this was worth it" but it doesn't pay back the debt to me. And this is ultimately why the movie is racist. I'm not saying Tarintino is racist, and I dont think the movie is intentionally racist, but undeniably this movie cashes in on black rage and the history of slavery, really exploits those evocative images, and offers nothing back to the people it's exploiting. Like I said Django is debased both as inhuman and a clown, and he takes up the trappings of the people that enslaved him. That's where it gets racist. If we were meant to see what happens to Django as cautionary it would be a challenging commentary, but we're supposed to be happy that Django's character arc much more closely resembles Candy than Schultz with his unabashed self interest and dandy affectations. It's apropriate that at the end of the movie Django dons Candy's suit, which lord knows if I were Hilde I might have a problem with considering Candy almost definately raped and/or prostituted me.

So, that's why I had such a hard time resolving this as a revenge movie. It's so incredibly childish and regressive, Tarintino is a really awful racial tourist in Django.

[thepaulo]

I still hate this movie. I was thinking more about it this weekend, and I guess it is about revenge. I couldn't reconcile that idea because it's such a regressive idea of revenge, not just in our own society, but historically in both literature and his own work. The tribal justice model of revenge has been denounced for it's eye for an eye futility since Aeschylus, but Tarintino has only been making movies about revenge for the last 10 years, 5 or 6 movies depending and atleast 2 more if you believe news sites. Django just doesn't fit.

Kill Bill is about the unsustainability of revenge. The first scene in the first part actually has a little shout out to Aeschylus' Eumenides, the drops of blood sew the seeds for future destruction, and in fact Kill Bill 3 is suposedly about Vernida Green's daughter going after The Bride. The movie resolves when The Bride replaces her hate with love, she has a greater understanding of Bill and she reclaims her daugher.

Death Proof is about sexual violence. There's lots of dominance and similuated rape. The female protagonists turn the tide on their aggressor and go after him, they usurp their gender roles and expose the false power dynamic. Kurt Russell has no real power over them and once they realize it they defeat him. They do this through unity, confidence and style.

The agent of revenge in Inglorious Basterds is art, specifically the cinema. The cinema is where Shoshonna finds love again and becomes the venue for her revenge. You have the nice little meta touch of the movie as weapon literally and figuratively because Tarintino rewrites history to kill hitler and in a really skillful flurish shows the parallel to propaganda, to normalize it.

Then you have Django. None of these other movies are just about a rampage, they have something more sophisticated to say about the agent of revenge than pure violence, until Django. Every bit of the movie debases the main character, who loses his humanity more and more as he gets closer and closer to Hilde. I understand it's his own trials of Sigrefried but I dont think that a man would be able to suspend every ounce of his humanity except for his love for Hilde. If the movie was honest with it's character she'd be horrified at what came to find her at Candyland, or she'd be killed and Django wouldn't care anymore because he's been consumed by his pragmatism and self interest. If this movie had any balls to be as nihilistic as it wants that's what would have happened.

Django doesn't do a redemptive thing in the movie. He does a lot of bad things for sure, and I think as an audience we're supposed to take his finding Hilde as his big redemptive moment "ah, now this was worth it" but it doesn't pay back the debt to me. And this is ultimately why the movie is racist. I'm not saying Tarintino is racist, and I dont think the movie is intentionally racist, but undeniably this movie cashes in on black rage and the history of slavery, really exploits those evocative images, and offers nothing back to the people it's exploiting. Like I said Django is debased both as inhuman and a clown, and he takes up the trappings of the people that enslaved him. That's where it gets racist. If we were meant to see what happens to Django as cautionary it would be a challenging commentary, but we're supposed to be happy that Django's character arc much more closely resembles Candy than Schultz with his unabashed self interest and dandy affectations. It's apropriate that at the end of the movie Django dons Candy's suit, which lord knows if I were Hilde I might have a problem with considering Candy almost definately raped and/or prostituted me.

So, that's why I had such a hard time resolving this as a revenge movie. It's so incredibly childish and regressive, Tarintino is a really awful racial tourist in Django.

I'm not sure QT deserves this kind of deconstruction.
I consider him a genius but also acedemically underdeveloped. I believe as an artist
he is far more instinctual than intellectual.

That said, I think both IB and DU are attempts to broaden his thinking by using important
historical contexts. Slavery and anti-semitism are both extremely important subjects and
I believe the QT approach actually brings something new to the conversation exactly
because they are more free form and less rigorous.

DU is especially effective because it so completely focuses on the dehumanizing effects.
Both Django and Hilde have lost their humanity because of the abysmal treatment they
suffered. They are probably both psychopatheic at this point and I would completly understand if they were.

I think that is the point of both IB and DU. That barbaric acts engender barbaric acts.
No response can be too extreme. That is the nature of war. There should be no such
thing as a civilized war. There can only be no war.

[realmenhatelife]

I'm not sure QT deserves this kind of deconstruction.
I consider him a genius but also acedemically underdeveloped. I believe as an artist
he is far more instinctual than intellectual.

That said, I think both IB and DU are attempts to broaden his thinking by using important
historical contexts. Slavery and anti-semitism are both extremely important subjects and
I believe the QT approach actually brings something new to the conversation exactly
because they are more free form and less rigorous.

DU is especially effective because it so completely focuses on the dehumanizing effects.
Both Django and Hilde have lost their humanity because of the abysmal treatment they
suffered. They are probably both psychopatheic at this point and I would completly understand if they were.

I think that is the point of both IB and DU. That barbaric acts engender barbaric acts.
No response can be too extreme. That is the nature of war. There should be no such
thing as a civilized war. There can only be no war.

I respect instinct, and maverick, all that. But if you're looking at the arc of his career he started in a much more verbose, intellectual place and escalated those traits in his movies and then after Jackie Brown really snapped and started regressing. And I just as easily believe that he chose to move away from the early part of his career as he isn't sharp or hungry enough to make a really sharply plotted movie.

And he's not making movies about nostalgia, he's making movies nostalgically. Violence and nostalgia are pretty base, he mercifully doesn't overly sexualize or you'd really be hitting all the bases, but again he's making movies from this 12 year old ego so maybe that's why you fixate on some toes and that's about it.

I do see what IB does for a conversation about the arts and healing atrocity, I dont see what DU does for a conversation about race in America. I would if I felt that Django was an empowered character, or if the movie was a little harsher with its' audience. The movie panders to the audience, gets laughs on the back of racism and then never points that out to them. It's a bunch of good starts and no finishes, I can see the intelligence in the premise but not the execution.

And I dont agree that you come away from this movie believing that all war is atrocious, because at the end of the war Django doesn't have PTSD, Hilde doesn't have night terrors or claustrophobia. Their bliss is the reward of the war Django fought, war is glorious and right in DU.

[thepaulo]

I respect instinct, and maverick, all that. But if you're looking at the arc of his career he started in a much more verbose, intellectual place and escalated those traits in his movies and then after Jackie Brown really snapped and started regressing. And I just as easily believe that he chose to move away from the early part of his career as he isn't sharp or hungry enough to make a really sharply plotted movie.

And he's not making movies about nostalgia, he's making movies nostalgically. Violence and nostalgia are pretty base, he mercifully doesn't overly sexualize or you'd really be hitting all the bases, but again he's making movies from this 12 year old ego so maybe that's why you fixate on some toes and that's about it.

I do see what IB does for a conversation about the arts and healing atrocity, I dont see what DU does for a conversation about race in America. I would if I felt that Django was an empowered character, or if the movie was a little harsher with its' audience. The movie panders to the audience, gets laughs on the back of racism and then never points that out to them. It's a bunch of good starts and no finishes, I can see the intelligence in the premise but not the execution.

And I dont agree that you come away from this movie believing that all war is atrocious, because at the end of the war Django doesn't have PTSD, Hilde doesn't have night terrors or claustrophobia. Their bliss is the reward of the war Django fought, war is glorious and right in DU.

I don't think all trauma has to be PTSD. You will come out of it traumatize but everyone will be different. I think they are elated to have a chance to excape oppression and to have the opportunity to kill. They are damaged but in a way that makes them ready to
fight and take vengence. Vengence is an ugly emotion but we applaud it as an audience when we feel it is right and just. That doesn't mean these people are normal or their
actions are correct. What makes it worthy of discussion is that it doesn't avoid the ugliness of the white oppressor. That's why black audience's like it. It doesn't lie and
like most of the rest of the audience we root for Django despite the fact that he's turning into a psychopath.

[realmenhatelife]

I don't think all trauma has to be PTSD. You will come out of it traumatize but everyone will be different. I think they are elated to have a chance to excape oppression and to have the opportunity to kill. They are damaged but in a way that makes them ready to
fight and take vengence. Vengence is an ugly emotion but we applaud it as an audience when we feel it is right and just. That doesn't mean these people are normal or their
actions are correct. What makes it worthy of discussion is that it doesn't avoid the ugliness of the white oppressor. That's why black audience's like it. It doesn't lie and
like most of the rest of the audience we root for Django despite the fact that he's turning into a psychopath.

How about any trauma, or any sense that the ordeal they've gone through has changed them the way we know it's changed them. Django allows a slave to be mutilated by dogs, and relishes torturing another slave to death. That's the moment of exaltation in this movie, you're supposed to applaud Samuel L Jackson 'finally getting his.' I think this movie wades out into deep water and promptly drowns in it.

[thepaulo]

How about any trauma, or any sense that the ordeal they've gone through has changed them the way we know it's changed them. Django allows a slave to be mutilated by dogs, and relishes torturing another slave to death. That's the moment of exaltation in this movie, you're supposed to applaud Samuel L Jackson 'finally getting his.' I think this movie wades out into deep water and promptly drowns in it.

The slave being ripped apart is apparently so traumatic that it prompts The Waltz character Dr. Schultz to sacrifice his life. Stephen the Samuel L. Jackson character is a traitor to his own people. In war traitors are routinely killed. That he shoots out his knees was a simple nod to his phony limp. Django is something of a psychopath at this point having being seconds from having his nuts cut off so this torture seems mild by comparison. It seems a little late to chide QT for excessive violence. This is something he has always been guilty of. The KKK scene was a little ridiculous but then the whole movie made gushing blood frothy fun.

[jennysmurf]

The slave being ripped apart is apparently so traumatic that it prompts The Waltz character Dr. Schultz to sacrifice his life. Stephen the Samuel L. Jackson character is a traitor to his own people. In war traitors are routinely killed. That he shoots out his knees was a simple nod to his phony limp. Django is something of a psychopath at this point having being seconds from having his nuts cut off so this torture seems mild by comparison. It seems a little late to chide QT for excessive violence. This is something he has always been guilty of. The KKK scene was a little ridiculous but then the whole movie made gushing blood frothy fun.

I'm never going to watch this movie ever.

[deliciousV]

I'm never going to watch this movie ever.

you're missing out

[PapaBear]

you're missing out
She's a girl. They don't like anything good.

[jennysmurf]

you're missing out

She's a girl. They don't like anything good.

A big 'ol "whatever" to both of you. That's all kinds of violent nonsense right there.

[realmenhatelife]

The slave being ripped apart is apparently so traumatic that it prompts The Waltz character Dr. Schultz to sacrifice his life. Stephen the Samuel L. Jackson character is a traitor to his own people. In war traitors are routinely killed. That he shoots out his knees was a simple nod to his phony limp. Django is something of a psychopath at this point having being seconds from having his nuts cut off so this torture seems mild by comparison. It seems a little late to chide QT for excessive violence. This is something he has always been guilty of. The KKK scene was a little ridiculous but then the whole movie made gushing blood frothy fun.

That's my problem though, the white character gets to have the conscience, the black character gets to turn into an animal. The white villian gets shot through his boutineer, the black villian gets shot to pieces.

Is Django not a traitor when he stops Shultz from saving a runaway slave just so he can go free Hilde, when he puts on Candy's suit? When you make the value of human life this arbitrary how do you expect me to care about a character just because the camera is pointed at them? When you make a life valueless you make all life valueless.

Stephen and Django are the same type of person. A sociopathic pragmatist who will stop at nothing to acheive their own goals. So one goal was reobtain my wife and the other goal was stay alive, and I'm supposed to say one is more worthy than the other?

[sailor]

Not all entertainment needs to be didactic.

[realmenhatelife]

Not all entertainment needs to be didactic.

Thats true, but dont you think the subject matter invites it? And I'm holding QT to a more stringent standard because he's shown that he deserves it. With great power comes great responsibility.

[sailor]

Thats true, but dont you think the subject matter invites it? And I'm holding QT to a more stringent standard because he's shown that he deserves it. With great power comes great responsibility.

Btw, not having seen DU yet, I had a similar complaint with IB and the basterds being animals, so I don't think you can point at the next film and say it's racist.

[realmenhatelife]

Btw, not having seen DU yet, I had a similar complaint with IB and the basterds being animals, so I don't think you can point at the next film and say it's racist.

I only meant to say DU is racist, and it's really almost by accident. I dont hate it exclusively because of the racial problems I'm having with it.

[thepaulo]

That's my problem though, the white character gets to have the conscience, the black character gets to turn into an animal. The white villian gets shot through his boutineer, the black villian gets shot to pieces.

Is Django not a traitor when he stops Shultz from saving a runaway slave just so he can go free Hilde, when he puts on Candy's suit? When you make the value of human life this arbitrary how do you expect me to care about a character just because the camera is pointed at them? When you make a life valueless you make all life valueless.

Stephen and Django are the same type of person. A sociopathic pragmatist who will stop at nothing to acheive their own goals. So one goal was reobtain my wife and the other goal was stay alive, and I'm supposed to say one is more worthy than the other?

I agree to a degree but Django and Hilde tried to escape many times and were brutally treated because of it. It was like Sophie's Choice. Django's choice was impossible. Stephen had become comfortable with his relative power. If he ever desired to fight his oppression it was long replaced by the comforts of his position.