Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[rattlebag]

Interesting commercial, sorry, I mean interview for Channel 4 news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[stroszeck]

I watched that thing thinking the interviewer is Martin Bashir...maybe he attended the same school of "journalism"?

[arh66]

He is a serious journalist, unlike Bashir, and a very good one - odd to see him interviewing Tarantino, but he did well to keep his cool in front of that petulant display of adolescent foot-stamping from the director ('I am shutting your butt down' - well, no, he didn't).

[Black Hat]

I find Tarantino to be the most frustrating filmmaker, a cocktease of a director. Great ideas, flawed execution, but still entertaining.

Django Unchained is ripe with conflict, but what really are those conflicts? What is the point of the film? Or is it a veritable shlockfest of revenge, boy saves damsel in distress tale interspersed with clever dialogue, cool, but frankly tired set pieces?

Not sure if I care as I don't think it matters, but is that not an indictment of Tarantino?

I want to say that the third act wrecked the film. It having devolved into Tarantino's usual sadism, let me show you how cool my record collection sounds against elaborate set pieces of people getting killed, but if I'm sick of that it's probably my fault for going to see his films because that's who he is, what he does.

However, he perfectly pulls off something like

Spoiler

Forcing Django to make the choice to have the slave D'Artagnan fed to the dogs

and I can't let the guy off the hook. He consistently reminds me of being in high school or college having left a paper to the last minute, writing some parts brilliantly, but being too tired to put the same kind of effort necessary to make the entire paper great. I make that analogy from what he's said about how he works I think there's an element of 'yeah this part is good enough because that other bit I did was awesome' that prevails throughout his work.

For a guy who is as talented as he is when it comes to writing, casting and getting the most out of his actors (as usual for Tarantino everyone in Django was superb), there has to be one masterpiece in him. Personally, I think he'll only get there if he lets go of his ego or is it insecurity? Which come through the strongest with his musical montages and set pieces. There's a masterpiece there, but Django is certainly not it and if anything, is another step towards Tarantino becoming a caricature of himself which would be a great shame.

[Cold Bishop]

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?

I never took a glance at the screenplay until after I saw the film... precisely because it bared all the tell-tale signs of something gone wrong in the editing room.

[Black Hat]

That interview perfectly encapsulates all that's good and bad about Tarantino's career.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Interesting commercial, sorry, I mean interview for Channel 4 news - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That interview perfectly encapsulates all that's good and bad about Tarantino's career.

There is absolutely nothing good about that interview. Tarantino came in expecting a puff piece on his new film, and Krishnan Guru-Murthy thought he would challenge him a bit with some very dull, unprovocative questions that, oddly enough, Tarantino reacted to as if he were being grilled by a senate subcommittee. The guy is such an arrogant wanker: "I am responsible for people talking about slavery in America in a way they have not in thirty years" (since, what, White Dog? What exactly happened in 1982 that Tarantino gives a shit about? Did we have a reparations act that year that I'm not aware of?). I am so glad that Tarantino has become the de facto moderator of our nation's conversation on the legacy of slavery. He has lifted the scales from our eyes. Never mind the countless books and academic dialectic and political activism these past decades: no, Quentin Tarantino has brought the country back to a place where we must put aside our petty distractions, our muted fears, and seriously consider the consequences of the American slave trade. I'm also happy to hear him say that we have already dealt with the holocaust of Native Americans, because God knows, I don't want to rehash that business again!

The guy should just stop speaking in public about anything except film history. But, of course, then we wouldn't get to hear him use such delightful neologisms as "Auschwitzian" with such aplomb.

[triodelover]

He certainly doesn't help his "argument" with lines like:

Don’t ask me a question like that. I’m not gonna — I’m not biting. I refuse your question … I’m not your slave, and you’re not my master. You can’t make me dance to your tune. I’m not a monkey.

Sensitive guy, no?

Andrew O'Hehir is correct. Fair or not, that kind of petulant arrogance really isn't needed with Wayne "Natural Born Killer" LaPierre on the loose.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

That's a pretty hilarious Tarantino quote, actually. "I'm not your slave, and you're not my master." OK, coddled white director with a Cherokee hair follicle taking questions from an Indian British journalist.

Why would I want to live in a world where no one makes a fool of himself like that? I take it all back. Keep it up, QT.

[R0lf]

But it’s an extremely loaded question given the spat of shooting massacres in the US recently and Tarantino seems to be aware of the climate so did the right thing avoiding the question altogether.

I applaud his sensitivity.

[knives]

Also I imagine he's just tired of that question after hearing some variation of it over nearly the past two decades.

[JMULL222]

I love O'Hehir, but that's a moronic article. His liberal guilt really gets in the way of his perception sometime. So what's he saying, basically? That researchers and academics who have studied it their whole lives can't answer questions about media violence's relation to crime; but Tarantino should offer prepared statements regarding his by-proxy-unsubstantiated opinions during every interview none the less? Something tells me he just needed an article to file today and was straining for a topic.

[triodelover]

Also I imagine he's just tired of that question after hearing some variation of it over nearly the past two decades.

Isn't that too bad? Sorry, he doesn't get to be tired of it. He's the face of it in a time when it's going to be part of the national debate whether it deserves to be or not. He writes and directs the very films that are going to be central to the discussion. It's not time to be a primo don. It's time to accept some responsibility for his role in the conversation. If he doesn't want to be asked these questions, then don't make the films that provoke these questions, particularly in the wake of Newtown. Being an auteur isn't a free pass (and yes, I'm looking at you, Roman).

Sure, we should be discussing guns, and just guns. But reality is that we aren't going to get away with that. Everything will be on the table in this discussion if we are to get anything out of it. Tarantino knows that and he owes all of us who care to be part of the solution, in particular a part that can help demonstrate that looking anywhere else but the easy availability of guns is the answer. His petulant immature response does him no favors. He's not above the fray and nothing he has ever done places him there. But he apparently thinks he is beyond opprobrium and all that means is he's a petty little prick who shirks his responsibility and thinks his "art" gives him cover.

[mfunk9786]

We're seriously going to have this conversation here? This film has made well over $100m and none of those ticket buyers have gone out and copied it by taking human lives. Let's focus on reality if we can.

[R0lf]

Also I imagine he's just tired of that question after hearing some variation of it over nearly the past two decades.

Isn't that too bad? Sorry, he doesn't get to be tired of it. He's the face of it in a time when it's going to be part of the national debate whether it deserves to be or not. He writes and directs the very films that are going to be central to the discussion. It's not time to be a primo don. It's time to accept some responsibility for his role in the conversation. If he doesn't want to be asked these questions, then don't make the films that provoke these questions, particularly in the wake of Newtown. Being an auteur isn't a free pass (and yes, I'm looking at you, Roman).

Sure, we should be discussing guns, and just guns. But reality is that we aren't going to get away with that. Everything will be on the table in this discussion if we are to get anything out of it. Tarantino knows that and he owes all of us who care to be part of the solution, in particular a part that can help demonstrate that looking anywhere else but the easy availability of guns is the answer. His petulant immature response does him no favors. He's not above the fray and nothing he has ever done places him there. But he apparently thinks he is beyond opprobrium and all that means is he's a petty little prick who shirks his responsibility and thinks his "art" gives him cover.

But being dragged into a discussion over something that is completely (and obviously) separated from your authorial intent gives you the right to say - hey this isn't relevant to what we were discussing why don't we get back on topic?

The reporter clearly asked an irrelevant and incendiary question and you can't say that Tarantino has done something wrong for then pulling him up on it.

[Harbinger]

Don’t ask me a question like that. I’m not gonna — I’m not biting. I refuse your question … I’m not your slave, and you’re not my master. You can’t make me dance to your tune. I’m not a monkey.

Sensitive guy, no?

He lifted that straight from his first draft of Kill Bill IV. He was certainly pleased with himself after that, wasn't he.

[Forrest Taft]

Navajo Joe at #9? It's a pretty middling, forgettable western, especially considering the company it's keeping.

QT briefly discuss his love for Corbucci and Navajo Joe in the lates issue of Video Watchdog: "To me, Corbucci's greatest action stuff, in one movie from beginning to end, is in Navajo Joe. Burt Reynolds' fight scenes in that movie are a thing of beauty. They're just relentless[...]Also, Navajo Joe was, before The Wild Bunch, the most violent movie to ever have an American studio logo at the front. It was released by United Artists." The lates Video Watchdog is worth picking up. Tarantino has made a list of what he considers to be the 50 best sequels. Tim Lucas has interviewed him about the list, and the 20 page interview is a great read.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

Also I imagine he's just tired of that question after hearing some variation of it over nearly the past two decades.

I agree, but I'm also astonished that he hasn't learned how to evade that tired question with some level of finesse over twenty years of being asked versions of it repeatedly. In this case, Guru-Murthy asked, "But why are you so sure there's no link between enjoying movie violence and enjoying real violence?" That's forcing Tarantino into a position of expertise he doesn't have, and if he admits, "Well, Krishnan, I'm really not sure there is no link, nor am I sure there is a link, nor is anyone else sure one way or the other," then he might damn himself by suggesting at least the possibility of a link. It's a shitty, entrapping question as posed, but Tarantino needs to find some reasonable response to it, or else continue looking like an idiot, because as long as he makes the kinds of movies he makes, he's going to be pestered with this poorly (albeit excessively) researched, putative link between screen violence and real violence.

[Finch]

Fred Raskin interview

[mfunk9786]

Thanks for the link! I think that really clears up the implication that the film was edited together haphazardly without any consideration to telling a cohesive story - obviously a lot of thought went into the final product being what it is.

[Sonmi451]

I must chime in and say that I agree with the minority here, especially with what Black Hat and kingofthejungle have written. It almost goes without saying that this film is incredibly entertaining. But Tarantino can do that in his sleep. The problem lies in the fact that it is his standard formula exploitation flick with buckets of blood and cartoon violence about a revenge/love story set against a backdrop of slavery.

It certainly portrays the brutality, and, as Tarantino mentions in that interview, it gives African-Americans a Western hero to root for. Therein lies the problem of Django's exceptionalism, as other's have mentioned. I would actually go further than kingofthejungle and argue that the black hero at the center seems to confirm Calvin Candie's worldview. I would be curious to hear an argument to the contrary. Django's exceptionalism is perhaps the most prevalent theme in the film. If you look at Tarantino's portrayal of virtually every other slave in the film, they are utterly submissive and exist to illustrate how Django is truly one-in-ten-thousand (with the possible exception of Broomhilda). The fact that Django blithely assumes the label in the film's penulitimate scene seems to put the point to rest. So then, if we can assume that Tarantino indeed intended to portray Django as "that one exceptional nigga", what is he saying about the system of slavery or racism in general? What does it imply about the average (i.e. unexceptional) slave/oppressed minority?

[Anhedionisiac]

I'm not sure that I agree with that, Somni. My impression is that he assumes the mantle of the exceptional black man-in-ten-thousand, he's not born into it. He becomes an inspiration and perhaps even a legend by the end but that's the endgame of the journey he takes. When the film starts he's led a long life of being one of the many unfortunate victims of the slave system and it's thanks to the kindness afforded to him (not to mention training) by King Schultz that he becomes the proud black man he's always been deep down inside him. The implication is that, as extraordinary a character as he is, that legend lies inside every single one of his brothers. He's one in ten thousand because he's all of the ten thousand.

[Sonmi451]

Thats certainly a valid interpretation Anhedionisiac, though of course it would entail its own set of troubling implications regarding the benevolent white savior needed to lead the oppressed black man out of bondage and reach his full potential. That said, I think it is rather overtly implied in the film that Django is a "natural", that he is indeed an aberration and that, whether helped on his journey or not, he is a truly one-in-ten-thousand specimen. Now that interpretation might be tempered a bit by the fact that Django was playing a role for the majority of the film, so it could be argued that it was all an act. But I think his own affirmation at the end leads the audience to assume he is actually exceptional.

[knives]

Spoiler

Though your supposition doesn't hold up since the 'white savior' dies before Django can reach his full potential. Django only becomes unique and free once free also of the benevolent white man.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think I would argue that the purpose of Django's exceptionalism is to allow for the narrative to happen while still providing an answer to Candie's question of why the slaves don't just rise up and kill all the whites:

Spoiler

In effect, if the narrative is just a black man bootstrapping himself from slavery to murderous badass, there is an unfortunate implication that all those other slaves could have done the same, if only they weren't so stupid and lazy. As it is, it's fairly clear why so many were stuck in that position, because the system that keeps them firmly in place is very well outlined. Django can resist and overturn the system, not because any man could have if he simply bothered, but because Django is Siegfried, a man of superhuman ability who can do the impossible.

It's not that all the other black people we see are stupid (whatever Jackson's character is, he is certainly not that) or lazy (self evidently untrue) or cowardly, or anything along those lines, nor are they necessarily inherently submissive or servile; in the first scene, the other slaves who'd been chained to Django are obviously going to kill the slaver. While we do not get much of the perspective of the fieldhands, we see quite a lot of the mechanisms that keep them where they are- implicitly, those mechanisms are needed, because the people they are keeping in place are fully human and would break out if they had any real hope of succeeding. They don't, because the system is efficient. Django does, because he has the first few steps made possible externally, and because he's exceptional.

As I think I have said earlier, I would have liked to see the movie end with Django raising a mass uprising against the plantation, if only because that would have been that much more cathartic- but as a Siegfried, he is the hero and the champion of his people, and to me his exceptionalism works as a culmination of their strength, rather than a counterfoil to their weakness.