Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[mfunk9786]

I was under the impression that Tarantino had always welcomed the Weinsteins into the editing process. Even when they agreed to break up Kill Bill into two films, they never officially gave Tarantino final cut. According to Harvey Weinstein, the only time they've ever given any director final cut, in writing, was last year for The Artist, and in that case, we're still talking about a film that was already finished before their involvement and looking for U.S. distribution.

Same with The Master, on which PTA had final cut, and the Weinsteins were distributing an already financed film.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

New stuff is coming quick now:

Long Playboy interview with Tarantino
Soundtrack info
New (final?) trailer
Tarantino: "I didn't want a three-hour movie either" (though he apparently didn't say how long it actually is)

[JMULL222]

I highly doubt ANY director has a contractual right to final cut that doesn't have a conditional running time limit attached.

[mfunk9786]

Does anyone has a SFW (in other words: not on their website) link to the Playboy interview?

[domino harvey]

Weinsteins get their way: the film is officially two hours and forty-five minutes long-- no doubt the 24 minutes which were part of the movie until this week will show up on the Blu

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

In light of what happened with Inglourious Basterds, I wouldn't be at all surprised if we just get a handful of alternate/extended scenes.

[mfunk9786]

Stories of post-production on "Django Unchained" have detailed a desperate battle to cut the film down to a 2 hour 45 minute running time, with some suggesting that Harvey Weinstein was pressuring Tarantino to edit the picture. The director totally denies the charge saying, "If he treated me that way, I wouldn't be working with him for twenty years."

He also suggests that he wants a shorter film too, but that it just takes some time to make it work, normally with a test screening involved. "I didn't want a three-hour movie, either. When you're cutting it down, at that moment in time, before you watch it with an audience, you know it's too long, but you can't imagine taking anything out. So then you watch it with an audience, and then all of a sudden -- 'Oh, wow, that is kind of boring now!' or 'No, this is not as suspenseful by the time we got to it as it needs to be.' But you can only go so far in the Avid room on your own. At some point, you have to watch it with an audience... And then you watch the movie and 15 minutes are gone by noon the next day!"

[Jeff]

DJANGO UNCHAINED: holy shit. brutally hilarious spaghetti comedy does for business what Basterds did for war. Best American film of 2012.

[Thomas Dukenfield]

I highly doubt ANY director has a contractual right to final cut that doesn't have a conditional running time limit attached.

Yeah, in Hollywood at least. Off the top of my head, Monte Hellman had contractual final cut if Two-Lane Blacktop was under two hours, and the same for Kenneth Lonergan's Margaret. Gilliam had final cut on Brazil as long as it was 2 hrs. 5 min or shorter. Kubrick may not have had a contractual running time limit with Warner Brothers despite final cut (Lyndon was 185 minutes and EWS 160), but I'm not sure.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The running time question aside, Kubrick's "final cut" privilege had other strings attached. For Eyes Wide Shut he was contractually obligated to deliver an R-rated film, and the same condition almost certainly applied to The Shining and Full Metal Jacket as well.

[Jeff]

More glowing tweets.

[med]

Just watched what was basically a three-hour homage to BLAZING SADDLES

Is this a bad thing?

[TheDudeAbides]

There are rumors floating around some of the film blogs (InContention, Bleeding Cool, etc.) that Tarantino screened his cut of Django Unchained for execs at the Weinstein company about two weeks back and that the film clocked in at 3h12. Apparently Harvey wasn't very happy with the running time and is insisting on a new shorter edit. There's some speculation that Tarantino is contractually obligated to bring the film in under a certain running time, so he may be forced to cut a significant amount of material.

It really upsets me when I hear things like this, I mean I know the Weinstein's are running a business and are of course trying to make money, but you when you fund a Tarantino film that you are going to get this certain type of film and style, that a lot of people love and will go to see just because of his track record and their love for his unique style. Let Tarantino do Tarantino, don't try to reign down and him and control him; it really bothers me when I hear about these non-creative producers forcing the artists to make changes to their work. I know people say the Weinstein's have done wonders before and have controlled final cut on Quentin's previous films, but for gosh sakes let the man do what he does best. Its one thing that Quentin might invite the Weinstein's into the editing process as it sounds like he respects their opinions, but if you change a Tarantino film too much you'll lose that unique essence that makes it "a Tarantino film".

Here's to hoping the bluray release comes with a directors cut

[mfunk9786]

The current cut is the director's cut. Again,

Stories of post-production on "Django Unchained" have detailed a desperate battle to cut the film down to a 2 hour 45 minute running time, with some suggesting that Harvey Weinstein was pressuring Tarantino to edit the picture. The director totally denies the charge saying, "If he treated me that way, I wouldn't be working with him for twenty years."

He also suggests that he wants a shorter film too, but that it just takes some time to make it work, normally with a test screening involved. "I didn't want a three-hour movie, either. When you're cutting it down, at that moment in time, before you watch it with an audience, you know it's too long, but you can't imagine taking anything out. So then you watch it with an audience, and then all of a sudden -- 'Oh, wow, that is kind of boring now!' or 'No, this is not as suspenseful by the time we got to it as it needs to be.' But you can only go so far in the Avid room on your own. At some point, you have to watch it with an audience... And then you watch the movie and 15 minutes are gone by noon the next day!"

Grow up, please.

[Zot!]

Grow up.

Hey funky, I understand that it pains you to listen to those lesser than you, but you could stand to be polite on occasion.

[mfunk9786]

Fixed

[TheDudeAbides]

hey all i'm trying to say is I took it to assume that the Weinstein's were really tightening the reigns on Tarantino, if he's welcoming their assistance or making these own choices out of his free will, that is another thing entirely. I took it to assume that they were forcing him to do things he didn't like and I guess on that assumption I was wrong. But it wouldn't be anywhere close to the first time that producers forced the director to make changes they didn't like because the director didn't have final cut. I attended a seminar in which George A Romero spoke and he said that on the set of The Dark Hour Tony Pierce-Roberts (the DP) disagreed with the way George wanted to light up a house and called the producers, who threatened to have George fired if he didn't do what Tony wanted... and that was after George had made his 3 massively successful 'dead' films. So it wouldn't have surprised me that hollywood producers were putting heavy restrictions on a filmmaker, even one with as much prestige as Tarantino

[Cold Bishop]

Listen, the Weinsteins sure as hell aren't models of artistic freedom: from most accounts, they have a way of railroading over directors and then browbeating them into playing nice, better than causing a scandal or risking the box-office (paging Martin Scorsese...).

With that said, this is much ado about nothing: Tarantino has always known the film needed to be 160 minutes. His films have always had to be brought in under 160. There's no way he wrote this screenplay without knowing he'd have to cut things out. The same thing happened with Inglorious Basterds, which lost two once-pivotal sections. This is how his films are made.

[matrixschmatrix]

I get the impression Tarantino's a kill your babies style screenwriter/filmmaker, at any rate- I remember him praising the Coens for their Director's Cut of Blood Simple that came in a minute shorter than the original. If he can cut something he thought vital out and still have the movie work, I'm guessing he's all the happier for it.

[rs98762001]

As usual with Tarantino there's a lot to admire here, including some wonderful performances from Foxx, Jackson, Waltz and even DiCaprio. There's also, for the first time since Jackie Brown, a genuine, mature complexity to the way he draws the various relationships between men and women, black and white. But - also as usual - he ultimately gets in the way of his own story. All the typical indulgences are here, including an excessive running time (the last half hour is some of the sloppiest filmmaking of his career), his gratuitous self-casting (although there's an amusing kicker to this that suggests it may be the last time he does this...or maybe I'm just being optimistic), and, worst of all, his overreliance on cartoonish violence and cheap laughs when it's unnecessary and only serves to take you out of the story he's carefully created. If only he wasn't so fucking hellbent on proving to everyone that he's the Tarantino they know and love (and that he himself knows and loves), he might actually make a unreservedly great film one day.

[mfunk9786]

I'm seeing this on Friday, can't wait to weigh in. I didn't realize that he cast himself - am I alone in thinking that while he's far from a technically skilled actor, he's always an amusing presence when he turns up in his films?

[hearthesilence]

I'm seeing this on Friday, can't wait to weigh in. I didn't realize that he cast himself - am I alone in thinking that while he's far from a technically skilled actor, he's always an amusing presence when he turns up in his films?

Outside of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, he doesn't really appear much in his own films, does he? I did think he was amusing in the former, but not much in the latter. Beyond that, I can't even remember him in anything else. He was the voice on an answering machine in Jackie Brown, I think an assassin in Kill Bill, etc., but this is what I'm reading on paper, I have no recollection of those moments and from the sound of it, they were very brief appearances.

[mfunk9786]

I was including stuff he's produced (From Dusk Till Dawn, Planet Terror, etc)

[knives]

I like him well enough as an actor (horrifying in From Dusk Till Dawn) though I place that 'talent' in the same spot I do Peter Bogdanovich.

[mfunk9786]

He's amusing as an energy/personality/presence (even in his brief Itchy & Scratchy appearance), I just don't know that I'd be upset to see him turn up in Django, but time will tell.