Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[Cold Bishop]

It's actually a role that no longer exists (Ace Woody).

[karmajuice]

Oy, I hate reading threads like this where everything collapses into the same argument over semantics which occurs in every other thread like this. It's goddamned tiresome.

I just dropped in to say that I liked the film, though I agree about the film having issues in its last act, and some of the musical choices were questionable. I actually quite liked the discussion over the hoods, and don't understand people who think it doesn't mesh with the tone of the film, which is more often than not comedic. It's hilarious, and it both ridicules and humanizes the mob.

Schultz is a remarkable character. Django is clearly the hero of the film, but Schultz is its moral compass (ironic, perhaps, given his trade).

[Drucker]

Well I enjoyed catching up and reading this thread, and a lot of people made some points I agree with, especially HistoryProf noting the similarities to O Brother Where Art Thou.

As I've mentioned, I find a lot of Tarantino's movies good, but there's usually a side-story/part in the middle that takes me out of the story. I think I can see now why this worked so much better than his other movies for me. Tarantino likes to spend a lot of time explaining back stories and giving characters motivation, and he likes to give the viewer every detail rather than a cursory overview. But I find that scenes like explaining the bathroom/drug deal/cop story in Reservoir Dogs and the father's watch story in Pulp Fiction to take me out of the story more than add to the character. I feel like in Django, Tarantino let's us live through these developments as they happen, and the character (Django) grows as the story happens.

I loved the film, loved how violent it was and thought it was pretty hysterical. The women running out of the house with their dresses on, Django's one-liners...the movie was very funny and didn't lag much at all (though yes, the last 25 minutes or so did have me checking the time once or twice).

[R0lf]

Tarantino takes a lot of risks on structurally odd narratives whose deepest lying subject is films the majority of his audience have never seen. Not only that, but unlike the two filmmakers above, his style has changed extensively. He went from a consistent visual style to one that's constantly shifting between different visual schemes.

I would also add to this that the ease and confidence at which he adopts new techniques and structure make it equally easy for the audience and critics to quickly take for granted just how far he develops with each new picture.

As a teenager in the 90s I saw Terminator 2 and Pulp Fiction repeatedly to the point that I don't care if I never see them again. When Kill Bill was released I remember friends complaining of how sick they are of Tarantino purely because of the viewer fatigue we had from Pulp Fiction. But Kill Bill defies the expectations you have from his previous movies. It throws out the majority of wordy dialogue and uses the previously episodic nature in a straightforward narrative with a sentimental family core. Again when Inglorious Basterds was sold to us as a men on a mission movie I expected more in the vein of Kill Bill but instead we were given a series of extremely drawn out dramatic vignettes (Incidentally - addressing the comment about the two stories for Inglorious Basterds being too disparate. This issue is specifically addressed within the movie by the long, completely deliberate, narrative, single take at the premiere where the camera follows Shosanna down the stairs, it wanders through the conversation in the foyer, pans up to Landa and then follows him down the stairs where he meets the basterds).

[Cold Bishop]

Doesn't work for me: I still sorely think IB needed that moment in the original screenplay, lasting only a few seconds, when the Basterd in the theater realizes the big face on the screen beat them to the punch.

I'm still digesting this film, but I will say three things: 1) It's a vast improvement over Inglorious Basterds, which I still feel was compiled of a lot of interesting ideas hinted-at, but unexplored. 2) This may be Tarantino's most classically structured film - beginning, middle, end, with little messing about in the way of shifting viewpoints and chronological jumbling (even though I still wonder if it would have worked better with the two missing sections from the screenplay - the failed runaway attempt as one self-contained flashback; the Scotty/Broomhilda plot aborted after Sacha Baron Cohen's departure). 3) If Tarantino is going to make one more truly great film, he needs to desperately abandon these rushed production schedules. He needs to start editing his screenplays further before the production stage, instead of relying completely on the editing room. He needs to take more time to edit his films when he gets to that stage (especially when with a new editor: it really seems that Fred Raskin doesn't have a real feel for the dialogue scenes). And, for god's sake, he needs to stick to his guns and use a chemical process (which he nonetheless constantly insists on/constantly blasts digital intermediates).

[mfunk9786]

If his editing process has brought him success, why change it?

[Cold Bishop]

Because his last two-films flirt dangerously close to sloppiness in their construction, and it's a problem that I've never felt he had prior to his ridiculous deadlines to make Cannes/Christmas. Say what you will about Kill Bill, but I feel he was absolutely right in not wanting to cut that film down any further: every piece belongs to the whole (except for the ridiculous "cliffhanger", but it's my understanding that he loses it for the "Whole Bloody Affair"). You can dispute the worth of that whole, but that's a different problem.

I think his recent trend, which he himself admits, of overwriting and then figuring it out in the editing room, while surely not in itself incorrect - many films and filmmakers do this - certainly doesn't suit him, especially as his "digressions" are characteristically what made his films unique. I look at what was cut out of his previous films, and there's nothing as drastic as losing the entire Boston chapter in Inglorious Basterds or the Scotty chapter and Ace Woody/Billy Crash material in this film. I feel like the Tarantino of just a few years back would have finessed most of the screenplay prior to shooting, like he did in throwing out an entire chapter in Kill Bill.

When you mix that with the various on-set setbacks and a new editor who, frankly, I don't think understands the rhythms of a Tarantino film, it's surprising the film is a good as it is.

And, as I mentioned, Tarantino has stated he hates the overly clean look of digital editing, and swore to do it au naturel for IB... something he abandoned in order to make both release dates. The same thing happened here. If just for this reason, it's clear that he's working quicker than he'd like to.

[mfunk9786]

I agree with you to a certain extent, but I don't know that you're in the majority in thinking that these last two films suffer from their edits. I think one of the things that a lot of people enjoy so much about Tarantino's films is that sloppiness - he certainly doesn't seem upset about it - I've heard him explain in recent interviews that finding the film in the editing room is how he likes to do things. I would have been curious to see what Django Unchained looked like as a two-parter, though it doesn't have a narrative that can be as easily "to be continued..." as Kill Bill to say the least, considering the main character's built-in predicament throughout the film until the denouement. It's not like he could get some tasty revenge, press pause, and then get some more. I don't disagree with you about him having to rush, but I also am glad that he films these ridiculously long scripts and then pieces the film together - I think some of our favorite moments from these last two films might not be there if he cut them down too much before "action."

[Cold Bishop]

I really don't think that sloppiness existed until Death Proof. That film was at least shaggy dog by design... with Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, I really think he's undermining the attention to detail and finely-tuned rhythms which to me has been as much a trademark to his work as the dialogue.

Like I said, finding the film from a mountain of footage in the editing room isn't wrong per se... but when you suddenly decide to take that approach AND suddenly decide to abbreviate the time spent in the editing room, it's a problem. He should be doing one or the other. I truthfully feel this sort of laxity is the very thing he complains about with his theory about directors losing it with age.

But you're right, he's not going to change things while it brings him success. People seem to interpret his ego as him being a director who doesn't care what anyone else thinks, but from what I can gather, quite to the contrary, he's very sensitive to his films' reception. I think the very reason he won't do something like Jackie Brown again is precisely because that film was received so lukewarmly. And I think the only reason he can be self-deprecating enough to call Death Proof his worst film is precisely because the response was so negative. For better or worse, these last two films will be his highest grossing yet, so why stop? A part of me feels another flop would be the best thing to happen to him, as he's not a director who should be settling for "good enough".

[mfunk9786]

I suppose that all depends on how you feel about the last few films - aside from Death Proof, some would argue that they've been as stronger than any in his career. I certainly think that Django Unchained, having seen it a few more times, is the best film he's made - so I'd feel strange agreeing that something needs to change. Let me ask you this, just because I'm curious - do you think your opinion of the film would be different had you not read the script first and expected certain scenes/exchanges to be in the final cut?

[Zot!]

I don't know. That ending still isn't right to me. Guess I'm in the minority.

I think it was terrible too, I'm not sure if we're alone, a lot of people have mentioned that the last 25 minutes were no good.

Spoiler

It would have been a lot stronger and honest film if they WERE forced to eat their hats at the end. The same way that slavery ended with a whimper rather than a resounding bang, and still carries repercussions today. Instead we again get the dumb wish-fulfillment revenge scenario that plagued IB, and carries no dramatic weight whatsoever.
Worst of all, if both the protagonists had a deathwish, and were incredibly skilled fighters, why didn't they just plan an armed raid to begin with?

There were some other logical inconguities, but I enjoyed it otherwise, and was pleased that QT backed off of his usual blathering and got on with it. I think he was working at a disadvantage, as the "revisionist" western genre had been already successfully executed by a number of strong movies (All the spaghetti westerns, McCabe and Mrs Miller, Heaven's Gate, and many others which all commented on the "golden age" westerns.) I think this might be the first time he's contributing to a genre rather than simply creating a pastiche. Though it's a probably a bit of both. There was also some shared themes and happenings with Manderlay of all things, though that was a lot more subversive.

[mfunk9786]

I think that Waltz's character explained very eloquently in the first act of the film why they couldn't just plan an armed raid.

[Zot!]

I think that Waltz's character explained very eloquently in the first act of the film why they couldn't just plan an armed raid.

Could you save me another $11 and inform me?
Presumably you just mean when he says it is too dangerous?

Spoiler

I fail to see how that is any less dangerous than starting a firefight unarmed, and with an enforcer's sawed-off shotgun pointed at Hilda. Furthermore, they came with the selfish intent of liberating a singular individual, not becoming the poster-children for forceful emancipation. Them finding their consciences is a bit far-fetched to me.

[mfunk9786]

Oh, sure! Wasn't trying to be cheeky, just figured you'd remember having just seen it.

Spoiler

Dr. Schultz character uses the analogy of going to a farm to buy a horse. The farmer says no, and you're out of luck. You can't just steal the horse and/or kill the farmer, because that makes you a horse thief, and they hang horse thieves. But if you went to the farm and made a spectacular offer that got the farmer's attention, you may be able to trick him into selling the horse by tempting him with the idea that you'd be coming back to buy his farm. In other words, he was making the point that simply abducting Broomhilda (in a blaze of gunfire or not) is worthless without a bill of sale from Calvin Candie, releasing her from his ownership. Django, even though things went south and he obviously will not have an easy time of being on the run, was able to get away with the bill of sale, and the paperwork that Schultz signed granting Broomhilda's freedom. If they just went in and started shooting, snatched Broomhilda and left, this wouldn't be the case. One can assume that in the slightly skewed fantasy universe of this film (sort of like how no one's ever brought in for questioning by police regarding out-in-the-open grisly murders committed in Kill Bill), Django and Broomhilda can make it far enough up north that simply showing their freedom papers would alleviate any issues they may encounter, as many slaves escaped to the north without having been granted their freedom at all.

As for your note regarding their 'selfish intent' - I'd call it a realistic intent more than a selfish one. Sure, it'd be nice to free all the slaves in the south in one fell swoop - but they realize their limitations in this situation - what they go to Candieland to do is dangerous enough.

[Zot!]

Spoiler

I think the plan is perfectly acceptable. What I find unrealistic is them throwing it away over a handshake. All of a sudden they become righteous avengers of all that is good. Two ruthless mercenaries suddenly care about social justice and are willing to die for an ideal. I wouldn't mind if they dispensed with reality altogether, but trying to say that killing ~50 men and women will allow them to escape, while a paperless slave will ensure their capture seems wrong

[knives]

Spoiler

I think that thing was more about ego then anything else. That said Dr. King changes drastically as a result of seeing the horrors of slavery first hand in such a disgusting way. His own arrogance mixed with his utter loathing of everything Candie stands for seems to have defined his decision.

[matrixschmatrix]

Spoiler

Yeah, it seemed fairly clear that Schultz's decision was borne of a combination of moral revulsion and personal distaste for Candie. It's not something he was planning to do, and I don't know that it is for him part of a larger crusade against the institution of slavery, he just thinks the guy is gross and can't bear to deal with him. I think it's also somewhat true that Candie is perfectly correct and that Schultz can't stand to have been beaten by the man- one wonders if his reaction would have been different if he'd known Sam Jackson's character was the one who outsmarted him.

As far as Broomhilda and Django getting away afterwards- I kind of think Django's not going to leave any witnesses, outside of slaves whom one assumes won't be saying shit. Moreover, a document of manumission is going to protect them once they actually do get up north, where the general desire to murder free black people was a bit less powerful. Without it, Broomhilda would be subject to capture under the Runaway Slave Act, I think.

[Zot!]

Spoiler

Okay, I'll buy that Schultz is a sore loser, and simply loses his temper and screws up the plan. It's a valid explanation. Django's ensuing bloodbath still reeks of toothless excess to me. It's neither cathartic or logical. I would have preferred he just turn into the Incredible Hulk and just torn the house down with his bare hands. I think Miike ended one of the Dead or Alive movies with the protagonist, with no motivation, turning into a triumphant winged phallus that proceeds to off the baddies in a hurry. It made more sense to me.

I should add that I liked DiCaprio to my own great surprise.

[karmajuice]

Also, while you call Schultz and Django ruthless mercenaries, they both exhibit a certain moral self-consciousness throughout the film. Schultz always emphasizes the fact that he's operating within the confines of the law, and bringing bad men to justice. The lengths he goes to when helping Django also speaks volumes, and at one point he voices his distaste of slavery. Django has trouble killing a wanted man in front of his son. Schultz's choice at the end is only partly a moral choice (and Django's actions are almost purely self-preservation in light of that choice), but I think there's a precedent for his decision clearly established within the film.

[Zot!]

I don't pretend that either of them lacks motivation. Just that they lack sufficient motivation. Also I don't find their day jobs, shooting "bad" people in the back, to be compellingly heroic.

[knives]

Why does their jobs have to be heroic?

[Zot!]

Why does their jobs have to be heroic?

Oh, I prefer them flawed, I don't like them heroic,

Spoiler

and that's exactly why the big finale doesn't mesh for me.

[knives]

I seriously do not understand what you mean. How is being a bounty hunter flawed at least in terms of the film's logic?

[mfunk9786]

I just don't find the idea of buying into most of the film and wanting to throw the ending away as garbage too compelling, considering the incredibly obvious fact that we're building up to exactly what we're given at the end. From the time that Dr. Schultz tells Django about the legend of Siegfried and Broomhilda, one should steel himself for Django's heroic moment in the sun, realism be damned. To turn on the film when that moment comes is like throwing popcorn at your TV when House correctly diagnoses a rare disease and saves his patient's life in the nick of time. It's what you were promised, and what you got. There's only so much bellyaching you can do about that sort of narrative consistency.

[Zot!]

I seriously do not understand what you mean. How is being a bounty hunter flawed at least in terms of the film's logic?

Spoiler

Being a bounty hunter is not flawed. Being a bounty hunter who embodies the righteous will of a subjugated people is flawed.

There's only so much bellyaching you can do about that sort of narrative consistency.

Sure, but if it was just narrative consistency that was off I would have somehow been compelled to forgive it. It was the emotional content that I thought was inconsistent.

Spoiler

A bittersweet finale would have been appropriate, rather than the blaze of glory that played to only the basest of desires for a shootout. I'll accept that the intertwined german legend insisted on heroics, but Django as a character couldn't deliver that. When I compare this to the relatively 'deep' family drama and complex maternal instinct that plays out in Kill Bill, it seems like a major step down