Django Unchained

[thainatos]

Saw Django Unchained yesterday. Hard to watch in some places. Haven't thought it through as much as I'd like, but I'm coming around to the idea that Tarantino has successfully satirized the perceived racial dichotomy of the USA in the way that he satirized portrayed-violence in Inglourious Basterds. I'm not sure I agree with some critics that the movie is "about" the US' slaving past. To me, it seemed more concerned with violence as entertainment(similar to Inglourious Basterds) and how we consider ourselves within races and racial roles today. The line that really stuck out to me is towards the middle of the movie, in a conversation between Django and Monsieur Candie. Candie mentions that Django's German friend looks sick watching a horrible act of violence, and Django replies, "I'm more accustomed to Americans than he is." Anyone else seen it? I'd be interested in hearing someone else thoughts. Do you think the film went too far with the gratuity and vulgarity? Do you think we're supposed to be entertained by it? Do you think anything less would even be remarked upon?

[melmer]

It's not out in the UK for a few weeks yet. I'll definatly be going to see it

[Argobot]

I am also really excited about seeing this movie. I'm not a diehard Tarantino fan, but I generally enjoy myself while watching his movies. Every review I've read has said that Christoph Waltz is as good in this movie as he was in Inglourious Basterds, so that's reason enough for me to see the movie. As far as the racial issues that this movie raises, I'm going to wait until I see it before I pass any judgement. I know that everyone jumped down Spike Lee's throat after he said he wouldn't see the movie, but there's a chance he has a valid point; I won't know until I actually watch it.

[theBobert]

I caught this a few days ago and it has to be one of my favourite films of the year. It has a way of navigating that fine line of being gut wrenchingly hard to watch one moment and utterly hilarious the next with out any of it feeling out of place. Plus, Christoph Waltz is just a joy to watch.

It's also got a pretty rockin' theme song to boot:

[Thrik]

That song alone now puts me 100% in the mood to watch this.

[Orv]

I wish I'd never come to realize the Tarantino Formula, because it has ruined all of his movies.

[Lu]

It's alright, I'll just google it.

[Gormongous]

I caught this a few days ago and it has to be one of my favourite films of the year. It has a way of navigating that fine line of being gut wrenchingly hard to watch one moment and utterly hilarious the next with out any of it feeling out of place. Plus, Christoph Waltz is just a joy to watch.

It's also got a pretty rockin' theme song to boot:

Aww, I'm so glad it's the song from the original Django movies. Anyone seen any of those? The weirdest/best for me is probably Django Kill... If You Live, Shoot! (rearrange punctuation to taste). It's no Keoma in terms of impenetrable eccentricity, but it's up there, for sure.

[Orv]

It's alright, I'll just google it.

The formula for every Tarantino movie goes as follows:

1. Introduce quirky but likeable characters. Characters may be despicable but likeable if it suits the narrative.

2. Have series of adventures with these characters. These may be in the form of A. Flashbacks or B. In media res.

3. Enter likeable characters into dangerous situation. Either do not make danger immediately apparent or downplay it.

4. Increase tension slowly.

5. Turn cards on protagonists.

6. Kill everyfuckingbody in a gunfight. Least of the likeable characters survives to finish the movie.

7. Be a smug motherfucker about how good your movie is despite it being the same as your last five movies.

On the bright side the soundtrack was really interesting and it seems Tarantino likes Christoph Waltz as much as I do so he should be in at least something every few years.

[gregbrown]

The formula for every Tarantino movie goes as follows:

etc.

I'd question how well his films meet that formula, but does anyone seriously watch Tarantino for the plot? For me, the appeal of his last two films have been entirely with how he wrestles with the themes involved and the way he can write a damn good scene.

[Orv]

It's mostly the last part that is a near-guarantee for Tarantino films. He loves kill everyone at the end of the movie, and it makes watching them so annoying, because he crafts such good characters just to murder them.

[Argobot]

It's mostly the last part that is a near-guarantee for Tarantino films. He loves kill everyone at the end of the movie, and it makes watching them so annoying, because he crafts such good characters just to murder them.

Or with last few films, he makes really good characters that you can't wait to see murdered/get their comeuppance. (I'm mostly thinking of Kurt Russell in Death Proof)

[thainatos]

For me, the appeal of his last two films have been entirely with how he wrestles with the themes involved and the way he can write a damn good scene.

Yar, he's pretty much nailed this violence-is-hilarious-and-entertaining-or-is-it-wink-wink coffin shut for the whole generation, I think, and made a fine carpenter. I'd like to see him do another film I can sit through more than once though--something in the vein of Jackie Brown or Kill Bill Pt. 2. With lots of Germans.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The formula for every Tarantino movie goes as follows:

1. Introduce quirky but likeable characters. Characters may be despicable but likeable if it suits the narrative.

2. Have series of adventures with these characters. These may be in the form of A. Flashbacks or B. In media res.

3. Enter likeable characters into dangerous situation. Either do not make danger immediately apparent or downplay it.

4. Increase tension slowly.

5. Turn cards on protagonists.

6. Kill everyfuckingbody in a gunfight. Least of the likeable characters survives to finish the movie.

7. Be a smug motherfucker about how good your movie is despite it being the same as your last five movies.

Can't say I'm remotely convinced by this.

1. Sure, he has "quirky" characters (I'm ignoring the likeable protagonists thing because that's every movie). He also has quirky dialogue. Seeing how lots of people have tried to emulate this and failed, I don't see how it fits into a "formula", though. It requires skill.

2. Doesn't every movie do something with their characters? Don't we want to see them having adventures?

3 and 4. I think I get what this trying to get at, but what you're actually describing is suspense. Hitchcock described the difference between shock and suspense, thusly:

There is a distinct difference between ‘suspense’ and ‘surprise’, and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let us suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, ‘Boom!’ There is an explosion. The public issurprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table, and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware that the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the décor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions this same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene.

The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: ‘You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There’s a bomb underneath you and it’s about to explode!’

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second case we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.

Tarantino has become great at creating suspense in his movies (especially in Inglourious Basterds). Again, this isn't a formula, it's a skill.

5. Once again, the protagonists in every movie always have the cards turned on them, don't they? If they didn't face obstacles, there wouldn't be much of a plot?

6. I really don't get this one. Maybe it's true for Reservoir Dogs, but I don't see it for the rest of his films.

In all, I don't see how any of this ruined his films for you :-/

[melmer]

I do question why channel 4 news went along to the movie press junket

If they want to have a serious discussion about violence in cinema invite him on to newsnight

[ThunderPeel2001]

Damn. I hated that. What an unnecessarily aggressive interview. The subtext was, "I think your movies lead to violence in real life". How can anyone defend themselves from such a ridiculous position? It's impossible!

Clearly Tarantino wasn't fully briefed on the angle of the interview. It's one thing to willingly go into something knowing you're going to be challenged, it's another thing entirely to be doing the promotional rounds, and have someone try and drag you into an impossible-to-resolve discussion for 8 mins. How incredibly unprofessional of Channel 4 News and Krishnan Guru-Murthy! There's lot of evidence that movie violence isn't directly related to real-life violence, and there's circumstantial evidence that it is. It's not up to Tarantino to list both sides!

Roger Ebert asked Tarantino about violence way back in 1994 (and even then Ebert remarks that it's an "unoriginal question"). Here's Tarantino's answer:

"It's just a movie and that's the way I feel. However, while I do not believe there is absolutely any correlation of people seeing a movie and going out and acting it out in real life, and as an example, people go, 'Well, what about the Borgias? There were no movies back then.' Well, even more important, what about Tokyo? It's the safest city I've ever been in, and they have the most violent cinema I've ever seen. However, how much society and the image we see go hand-in-hand, I don't know the answer to that. However, I do know that I'm a good person, yet I grew up watching 'The Wild Bunch' and 'Deliverance' on a double-feature when I was 11 years old."

I can't wait for Guru-Murthy's inevitable "explosive" interview with Dan Houser.

[Gormongous]

"Well, even more important, what about Tokyo? It's the safest city I've ever been in, and they have the most violent cinema I've ever seen."

The scary thing, he's saying that about Tokyo a year before the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. Still, Ebert's right to call it an "unoriginal question". As if one could reform the makers of violent films by suggesting their actions have dire consequences...

[SiN]

I can't wait for Guru-Murthy's inevitable "explosive" interview with Dan Houser.

The Housers are smarter than that.

[ThunderPeel2001]

The scary thing, he's saying that about Tokyo a year before the Aum Shinrikyo sarin attack. Still, Ebert's right to call it an "unoriginal question". As if one could reform the makers of violent films by suggesting their actions have dire consequences...

Attacking the makers is pointless. Even if I was going to try and tackle those who made violent movies, I'd start with the torture porn genre. Tarantino may make violent movies, but they're Citizen Kane compared to things like Human Centipede! He actually has characters, and a plot, and more often than not, a reason for the violence that isn't just shock value.

Ugh.

What's worse is that most of the papers seem to have taken Channel 4 news's side. I don't understand how anyone can watch that video and not think Guru-Murthy is trying to provoke Tarantino into doing exactly what he does.

[Luftmensch]

The way I felt about this movie was the way I feel reading any genre author I'm a fan of. I know what I'm getting into. It's not going to be completely new, but it'll have a hook, it'll be fun, and it'll be good. After that there's not much to expect. Honestly as far as cool editing and exciting action sequences, I almost thought the Die Hard trailer before the film was more creative. Almost.

One thing I liked about Django: This was the first time I can remember going to a movie and hearing the audience audibly gasp and cringe at the violence. It's pretty intense.

[chickenontheceiling]

anyone else notice the weird sort of not even a cameo for zoe bell? she squints into a stereoscope and smiles and then… nothing.

[ThunderPeel2001]

anyone else notice the weird sort of not even a cameo for zoe bell? she squints into a stereoscope and smiles and then… nothing.

Maybe she just did stunts on Django...? Or maybe her part was cut?

[Luftmensch]

She and Lady Gaga were both considered for the role of Candie's sister. I guess ultimately there wasn't really a place for either of them.

[chickenontheceiling]

She and Lady Gaga were both considered for the role of Candie's sister. I guess ultimately there wasn't really a place for either of them.

yeesh. the less popstars thinking they can act the better.