Django Unchained

[Babycakes]

Okay, I started this thread with every intention of seeing the movie that day, but between being sick and work, I finally got around to seeing it, and....it was alright. I give it a B-.

Some general observations in no particular order:

1. Schultz was the heart of the movie IMO, he had a more developed and complete arc than Django.

2. I'm wondering if I should be bothered that I'm not bothered by the use of the N-word in the movie. I didn't find it excessive or out of place. I found the amount of times and the context on point. Sue me. [/Kanye shrug]

3. The only truly horrifying scenes were the almost castration, the dogs vs slave, and the mandingo fight. I'm almost immune to blood and gore, but the mandingo fight had me squirming and looking away.

4. Kerry Washington/Hildy was underused and underdeveloped. I see why some people have complained about this, and wish they would be more vocal about the diminished role of women in it, than the N-word controversy.

5. It was draggy. I found myself checking the time a few times. QT needs a new editor. At the 45 minute mark I was ready for them to get to Candieland.

6. And speaking of Candie, Leo stole this movie. Honestly, I've never found him all that compelling, or particularly strong of an actor, but Calvin Candie was amazing. He was charming, evil, delusional, and crazy as a road lizard. I wouldn't mind an Oscar win for this role.

I guess I should also add, that I didn't care/mind that slavery was used as a backdrop for a tale of revenge/a spaghetti western. I just wanted to be entertained. I don't think that QT did this for a wank, or to indulge a "fetish for exploitation of black culture". I was entertained, for the most part and that was enough for me.

[Deleted]

Jan 6, 2013 4:11:28 GMT -4 Babycakes said:

5. It was draggy. I found myself checking the time a few times. QT needs a new editor. At the 45 minute mark I was ready for them to get to Candieland.

Well, considering it's the first of his movies not edited by Sally Menke, I'm not surprised there were issues there.

[chonies]

I liked the Schulz element, too. I don't know if it was the way he was written or if it was all Christoph Waltz, but his character was incredibly absorbing.

[Mouse]

Jan 3, 2013 23:53:53 GMT -4 bklynred said:

I was surprised b/c I've never heard the n word used so many times, period. In any setting. My friends don't use it, I don't hear it in music I listen to, so I wasn't prepared to hear it used so casually onscreen, even in a film with slavery at its heart. Tarentino doesn't personally offend me but I question some of his choices here, as a viewer. YMMV.

It fits the time period, and the n-word is mostly used by the bad guys in the film, who, of course, get their comeuppance in the end. I wasn't offended by it; I just thought it dragged in the middle and really could've used some editing.

[bklynred]

I did really enjoy Schulz in this. Christopher Waltz is great.

[sugarhigh]

I just finished watching the movie and I found it really entertaining. I laughed out loud quite a lot. I actually didn't think the gore was over-the-top and the violence wasn't shocking. I'm likely desensitized. lol And after seeing the movie myself, I think I agree with chonies take on why the n-word was used so much.

I'm interpreting the use of the word as part of the stylistic amplifiers, as a buffer to kill any possible romanticizing of slavery or the plantation system. For example, the dinner scene that was staged like an antebellum Downton Abbey: the 'niceness' could lull a viewer into the idea that slavery wasn't that bad, but the use of the word refocuses the entire system. There were multiple other scenes that stood on their own as condemnations of slavery, but the use of the word was a meta-reminder, maybe.

Now, I don't know if that was QT rationalization for it and based on his other movies, I tend to think it wasn't. But I came around to the view that the use of the n-word was to underscore how horrific slavery was for an audience that wouldn't believe being called "boy" was as humiliating as being called the n-word.

[GoldenFleece]

Jan 6, 2013 4:11:28 GMT -4 Babycakes said:

4. Kerry Washington/Hildy was underused and underdeveloped. I see why some people have complained about this, and wish they would be more vocal about the diminished role of women in it, than the N-word controversy.

During the media blitz for the movie, Kerry Washington has said she's never gotten to play the "damsel in distress" before because parts like that simply aren't offered to African-American actresses in Hollywood. So I think Hildy had the role she did to play into that whole "princess in the tower waiting to be rescued" effect, because usually Tarantino is not a director who has a problem giving female characters kickass things to do, unlike some of his male counterparts. The movie is sort of a Western and as a genre it's typically a sausage fest.

[chonies]

Jan 7, 2013 22:16:55 GMT -4 GoldenFleece said:

Jan 6, 2013 4:11:28 GMT -4 Babycakes said:

4. Kerry Washington/Hildy was underused and underdeveloped. I see why some people have complained about this, and wish they would be more vocal about the diminished role of women in it, than the N-word controversy.

During the media blitz for the movie, Kerry Washington has said she's never gotten to play the "damsel in distress" before because parts like that simply aren't offered to African-American actresses in Hollywood. So I think Hildy had the role she did to play into that whole "princess in the tower waiting to be rescued" effect, because usually Tarantino is not a director who has a problem giving female characters kickass things to do, unlike some of his male counterparts. The movie is sort of a Western and as a genre it's typically a sausage fest.

Interesting....I hadn't thought of it like that.

[baileydash]

The movie has its flaws. But I forgive almost all of them because FINALLY we a story about the past in which a black man is actually the hero of his own struggle.

Well done QT.

[robneville]

Jan 12, 2013 19:13:19 GMT -4 baileydash said:

FINALLY we a story about the past in which a black man is actually the hero of his own struggle.

Well done QT.

As much as I love Tarantino and I do like a lot of this film he's actually VERY late to this game. It's great that he's made a black man the hero of this western and current audiences don't usually see that,basically because current audiences don't get many westerns.

If modern audiences would check around a bit, say 20 years back they might come across black man Mario Van Peeble's fun, action packed, full black cast western POSSE. Black man John Singleton's ROSEWOOD ( not a western, but a period piece, not involving slavery but serious racial hatred ).Or maybe civil war set GLORY to see a whole bunch of black guys being the heros of their story. Or 1972's western BUCK AND THE PREACHER with Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte overcoming racist assholes with gritty 70's style violence. Or 1974's western BLAZING SADDLES with Cleavon Little overcoming racist assholes with a toll booth in the middle of nowhere. Or 1971's SKIN GAME with Lou Gossett Jr. overcoming racist assholes with his partner James Garner by conning them. ( a film along with Steve McQueen's revenge western NEVADA SMITH that Tarantino took a few bits and pieces in terms of the relationship between Django and Shultz)

DJANGO was a lot of fun and I'm glad Tarantino is around to make movies that get under people's skin and make them feel uncomfortable instead of all the safe, bland pablum people are feed these days. But in terms of FINALLY having a strong black hero sjankis630 is dead on about this being nothing but a straight up exploitation, slave revenge, 70's ultra violent throwback movie.

It's a fun one but nothing new or groundbreaking. And as much as I like Tranatino this is not a western masterpiece the way some critics have hyped it ( it may actually be closer to that in it's uncut full length ) but as it stands now it's nowhere near Leon's ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST or THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY.