Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[knives]

I agree completely with you. While it is clear that Tarantino has chosen his side from the start in this very complex dialectic perhaps because the conclusion he drew is one too complex for a single film (and certainly there is several films of story here) and also more likely because he wanted to go with the ending people expect from him he just sort of stops in his quandry forcing a conclusion that sticks out like a sore thumb.

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The embargo must be up, since the trades have posted their reviews:

Variety
Screen
Hollywood Reporter (more detailed than the others -- in fact, I'd avoid this one if you're trying to stay spoiler-free)

[mfunk9786]

This movie is racist garbage. The "hero" of the movie is happy because he gets "to kill White people". Notice, he's not the bad guy. He's actually considered the good guy. And this movie is up for an Oscar? I know Quentin Tarantino doesn't put out movies unless they're morally repugnant, but I don't know why there isn't more outrage over this. The only actor speaking out is Leo DiCaprio who is mortified that people will think he is like his character, who admittedly is a White racist, but he's one of the bad guys as a racist should be. Imagine if the DiCaprio character was considered the good guy. There would be outrage and rightfully so. Yet, no one is protesting that the main character, the supposed good guy, exults in killing Whites. Even Jamie Foxx, the actor playing said racist, was bragging that his character gets to kill Whites while on Saturday Night Live.

[Matt]

We're still getting upset at "kill whitey" fantasies in 2012?

[cinemartin]

This is also the first I'm hearing of its Oscar nomination.

[Zot!]

The revenge fantasy for a discriminated against group was tiresome and cheap in Basterds, and I'm sorry that it's again utilized. I prefer my Tarantino protagonists as crass, opportunistic, and selfish, not delivering some sort of misguided moral judgment. I've yet to see the movie, and will withhold futher comment, maybe it's great.

[mfunk9786]

Yeah, I prefer my grisly revenge without historical catharsis that makes me want to jump up in my seat, fuck that.

It seems that appreciation for this film and Inglourious Basterds is split by the same line that sense of humor about absurdly violent historical fiction revenge fantasy is split by. These are impeccably well-made films, but if you can't get on-board for the concept in the first place, you're just not going to like them no matter what Tarantino does. There are moral issues here, of course; but it's the movies - if filmmakers can't be the ones to light these dangerous fuses, does that mean that no one should be allowed?

[hearthesilence]

When I saw Inglorious Basterds, I thought I was along for the ride, and I did enjoy most of it. But there are moments that were problematic, where I felt like I was supposed to cheer on the protagonists for topping the Nazis in terms of sadism.

[mfunk9786]

But the punctuation about these movies is that they're only movies, you see. We're not being screened actual footage of people doing horrible things to people who've done horrible things. They're complete fiction, designed to attempt to one-up the bad feelings brought on by these historical failures with the fantasy of the shoe being on the other foot without the need for tongue-clucking over whether that'd be morally okay if it actually happened. It didn't actually happen. We're decades past these things. If Tarantino made a film about Iraqui civilians tracking down and torturing George W. Bush, I'd be against it because, while it fits this mold in theory, it's a representation of something that could actually happen. These films are about things that could never happen by mere design of the concept of time.

[swo17]

Then we agree that when time travel is invented, these films will retroactively become irresponsible.

[Zot!]

I don't find the moral to be dangerous or cathartic, in fact it's impossibly well-tread and predictable. Bugs Bunny trounced plenty of heavilly caricatured Germans in his wartime cartoons. I much prefer QT's previous works' lack of moral judgment and general lack of compassion for ethics.

[Perkins Cobb]

At a Museum of Modern Art benefit on Monday night honoring Mr. Tarantino, Peter Bogdanovich introduced the filmmaker as “the single most influential director of his generation,” adding that “Django” “may be his best picture so far.”

It’s “the shortest long western since ‘Rio Bravo,’” he continued. “’Django’ runs two hours and 44 minutes and seems to last only half that length.”

Mr. Bogdanovich, the director of “Paper Moon” and “The Last Picture Show,” had seen it the night before, at a screening where he sat next to Mr. Tarantino. “I’m still shaking,” he said.

“His pictures,” he added, “grab you by your ascot and never let you go.”

Fixed.

[matrixschmatrix]

When I saw Inglorious Basterds, I thought I was along for the ride, and I did enjoy most of it. But there are moments that were problematic, where I felt like I was supposed to cheer on the protagonists for topping the Nazis in terms of sadism.

I thought it was unclear if you were supposed to cheer for them or be horrified by how easily you could be put in a deliberately similar place of sadism- it seems as though the impact of a lot of it depends on where you see it.

I think if the movies were outrightly celebrating sadism and torture when used against the correct targets, that would be extraordinarily problematic, but I think that Basterds (I can't speak to Django) was consciously walking a fine and quite uncomfortable line between simple fuck the Nazis retroactive revenge excitement and complex pushing the audience to identify with monsters- and in doing so, was following up on and heightening The Dirty Dozen, which had a similar tightrope.

[cdnchris]

Though I think there was discussion about this, I still don't completely buy we're supposed to feel great about cheering on these guys getting revenge on Nazis when there is an entire sequence highlighting Hitler and everyone else in a movie theater cheering on and laughing at a movie where Allied soldiers are being gunned down. Maybe it's there more to stir our emotions and piss us off that they would get so much glee out of such a thing, but I find it hard to believe Tarantino didn't see any parallels.

I agree pretty much with Matrix's bringing up of The Dirty Dozen in comparison.

[knives]

Yeah, I prefer my grisly revenge without historical catharsis that makes me want to jump up in my seat, fuck that.

I agree with that which is (part of) why I found Inglourious Basterds a terrible movie, but I think that this film deals with this issue much more complexly than a revenge fantasy and in fact Foxx's one moment of revenge is considered a minor mistake within the film. The movie, as Tarantino makes very clear, is more of a classical heroes journey in the vein of Siegfried.

[Zot!]

it would be interesting to consider IB a self-reflexive examination of violence, like Funny Games, but audience reaction seemed very much to miss this. I supposed James Bond plays with a similar alternative interpretation, but that depends on the intended audience, which I have to guess are not going to put this much thought into it.

[matrixschmatrix]

That was why I mentioned that your reaction depends a lot on where you see it- I myself was kind of grossed out when I watched it at the theater and the audience was whooping it up at every act of cruelty, but watching it at home the whole thing had a different effect. Honestly, though, it seems more reasonable to implicate the audiences enjoyment of violence when it's violence that real audiences enjoy- there's a weird finger wagging quality to the Haneke to me, which springs from the fact that nobody wants to see what he's going after them for wanting to see.

[mfunk9786]

it would be so boring and misguided to consider IB a self-reflexive examination of violence, like Funny Games, but audience reaction seemed very much to miss this.

Fixed

[Zot!]

it would be so boring and misguided to consider IB a self-reflexive examination of violence, like Funny Games, but audience reaction seemed very much to miss this.

Fixed

I think you're right actually, but you should raise your concerns with Chris and Matrix.

[knives]

Mfunk, why do you think it is boring to examine something that is clearly textual to the film. I think that one ultimately fails at that goal, but it does seem to be attempted and therefore is worth discussing. IB is a film about films, particularly how we absorb violence as propaganda which does relate everyone together de-villainizing the Germans as they are left as people. For numerous reasons I feel this fails within the film, but that doesn't mean even in the context of the film being a failure it isn't worth discussing.

[cdnchris]

I should probably clarify that even if the whole film is really just a revenge fantasy with nothing deeper I doubt it would really change my opinion of the film because I still think it's a blast, morals be damned. I still just find it hard to believe that the idea never crossed Tarantino's mind when he put that scene together.

[Mr Sausage]

Tarantino isn't celebrating violence, he's celebrating film style, in this case the excess and exuberance of exploitation films. I agree with Mfunk generally that Tarantino isn't recommending torture, ect. as good things. I think Tarantino is well aware of the problematic elements. He just doesn't think their being problematic makes them unenjoyable.

But mfunk is wrong in his approach to the relation of moral values and film. Completely wrong. He insists that movies, by virtue of not being real incidents, are above or outside of morality. This is false. One of the basic tenants of moral philosophy is that morals don't just extend to the realm of acts, but to the realm of ideas as well. Films are as much mediums of ideas as anything else, and are as much within the realm of morality for what they express as anything else that expresses ideas. The decision about what is moral, what is ethical, what is right, or just, is not limited to action alone, to those things which can happen or have happened. Indeed, if you've ever taken a class on ethics, a lot of what you do is decide if decisions made within contrived and usually impossible scenarios are ethical or not.

Morals and ethics are themselves conceptual, so to insist then that they ought not to be applied to other conceptual modes (ie. invented scenarios, ideas, ect.) is illogical.

Now, you can be excessively moralistic about films. That is one extreme. But it is no less misguided than the other extreme: treating film amorally.

So I agree with mfunk about Tarantino, but I don't share his reasons.

[mfunk9786]

I agree that it crossed his mind, but I don't think it's anywhere approaching Funny Games territory. As good of a film as Funny Games is (and that first experience of watching it really is something else), that subtext in Inglourious Basterds is way down deep in there, not at all what the intention of the film is or the reason for its existence. We're not supposed to walk away feeling guilty about enjoying the gallons of blood that were spilled, even in the third act. Now, if that squicks you out, that's one thing that might not be solvable, as I said before about Django Unchained. But if it doesn't, I wouldn't be too concerned about guilt. Because again! - this isn't something you're actively implicit with. It's pure fantasy, on the level of daydreaming about what you might do to your worst enemy were you a psychopath without any moral compass or compassion. It's meant as a release of historical tension, not a reversal of it that creates all new problems and weirdness and judgmental toe-tapping. It's... you know, just a movie.

EDIT: I'm with you, Sausage, when it comes to films that put living, real people (or groups) in harm's way, even in the form of a fantasy scenario, in order to solely exploit the id of the viewer. As I said, if Tarantino made a current-day revenge fantasy about, I'll give another U.S. government example, Tea Party voters hunting down President Obama - that's morally repugnant to me because of the actual stakes involved. But playing in a historical sandbox without real-life implications as a form of cinematic release is not only not problematic to me, it's delightful if done right (the way Tarantino has been able to pull it off twice in a row now).

[domino harvey]

It's... you know, just a movie.

Oh come on. Why are you going down this avenue on this board?

[mfunk9786]

See above: Django and Basterds are just movies. They're not rooted in any moral or historical truth beyond their vague times and places. They're, in every sense of the word, JUST MOVIES. When we're talking about 'true stories,' 'ripped from the headlines' films, or sticky situations involving representing hateful attitudes or stereotypes onscreen, that's not only a different ballpark - it's a different sport.