WILL TARANTINO FINALLY GET LEONARDO DICAPRIO?

DiCaprio is a little young for the part, though it could be changed without too much fuss.  It'd be an interesting challenge for him, and I for one would like to see it.

I wouldn't. He's too young and baby faced for this role. He doesn't have the acting chops to play a villain like Candie. And casting him would change the dynamic between Candie and the other characters.

What do you mean he doesn't have the acting chops?

It wouldn't change the fundamental dynamics of the relationships.  It would just make him younger.

And what does him having a baby-face have anything to do with the part?  Candie is not described as a tough guy.  He's actually kind of a pretentious fool.

Having trouble with Chud's posting system. I want to quote both of you, but the quotes don't appear.

@Fat Elvis, by chops I means chops. I don't think he's ever done anything to suggest he could play someone as loathsome as Candie.

@ Bailey, I think it would change the relationships. With Stephen, I saw the two as equals, who had a long history together. I know Stephen is supposed to be older than Candie, but I didn't think he was old enough to be his father. Candie is depicted as being the big boss man of the plantation, and I just don't think his character (as he's currently written) would work the same way if played by a younger actor. And as for DiCaprio being baby faced, again, this goes back to my original imaginings of the character being older. I just don't see DiCaprio holding court.

Idris Elba as Django sounds too good to ignore. Certainly more interesting than Will Smith in some ways, although I'm a fan of that particular bit of stunt casting (if you can call it stunt.). DiCaprio as the villain could work, especially if the fact that he is so young is a part of the character. There might be something interestingly contemptible in that.

/shrug  He's in his late thirties now.  Certainly old enough to be the guy running things back in the Old South.  It's not exactly how the part was written, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

Highlight to read mild spoiler...

And it doesn't change the dynamic between Calvin and Stephen.  The only reason Stephen has any power over Candie is because he raised him when Calvin was a boy.  He doesn't have to be old enough to be his father, but it doesn't hurt anything if he is.  They weren't contemporaries.

Oh wait, you guys are talking about the script specifically. I'm outta here.

Sorry, I didn't particularly think of that as a spoiler.  Just establishing how the characters would be set up with particular actors in each part.  I'll black it out... not trying to be the guy who spoils things.

Saying this as someone who doesn't take Tarantino all that seriously anymore if Elba is cast I am there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

/shrug  He's in his late thirties now.  Certainly old enough to be the guy running things back in the Old South.  It's not exactly how the part was written, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

 

Highlight to read mild spoiler...

 

 

True, but [spoilers]at one point it's said that the two have a unique relationship. They might play the roles of master and slave in public, but behind closed doors the two appear to be equals.[end spoilers]

Of course I have a particular image in mind for each of the characters in the script, so much of my objection is coming from a place of DiCaprio simply not jiving with the image in my head. I imagine the character looking something like this:

In the end, I just don't see him in this role.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

Saying this as someone who doesn't take Tarantino all that seriously anymore if Elba is cast I am there.

 

Sorry Johnny, can I get a little clarification on that comment?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

 

Sorry Johnny, can I get a little clarification on that comment?
 

 

I think what he's saying is that even though he's no longer a Tarantino fan, the prospect of seeing Elba in this is enough to get his butt in a theatre seat. Unless you mean why he feels Tarantino can't be taken seriously?

Not being a Tarantino fan now distresses and confuses me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaurenOrtega 

Not being a Tarantino fan now distresses and confuses me.

As it does me - yeah it was the "not taking Tarantino seriously anymore" I was looking for a little more info on.

The idea of someone becoming less enamoured of Quentin as the mans craft evolves and improves as it does with every new film he makes quite frankly just leaves me a bit bewildered.

t3cii-

I understand you have your perception of the characters, and they're as valid as any fan's.  But having equal footing in a relationship doesn't necessarily have anything to do with age.  It's not like Leo is 16.  He's pushing 40.

Wasn't a fan of Bastards at all. Thought Death Proof was a failure and loved Kill Bill.

I think the man is very talented but he indulges himself a little too much with his craft per say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

Wasn't a fan of Bastards at all. Thought Death Proof was a failure and loved Kill Bill.

 

I think the man is very talented but he indulges himself a little too much with his craft per say.

Well everyones more than entitled to their opinion.

Quick question - who are your favourite film-makers Johnny?

Currently Nolan, Weir, Eastwood, Neil Marshall to name a few.

I'm another person who is a little less ecstatic about Tarantino's recent work than most of his fans. I have enjoyed parts of his last two movies, but I'm getting weary of some of the excesses and deficiencies in his work. My two favourite movies of his are "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill, Vol. 2", in large part because I think there's a down-to-earth humanity and realism to the relationships between some of the characters in them that his more recent movies lack.

I enjoy his impeccably kinetic action set pieces and engrossingly tense scenes of colourful dialog as much as the next guy. I just think a little more heart is needed. "Inglourious Basterds" had some of that with the Shoshannah character and her arc, but everyone else just felt less like a real person and more like a caricature with really juicy dialog. I miss quirky, yet moving and believable relationships like Butch and Fabienne, Jackie and Max, or Bill and The Bride. I feel like the last two movies (especially "Death Proof") were hurt by not having those kinds of connections between people to make everything feel more significant. The closest we got recently was Shoshannah and Marcel, which was very underdeveloped by comparison. 

In all of his movies, there have been some rather preposterous events that weren't exactly 'realistic'. "Reservoir Dogs", "Pulp Fiction", and "Jackie Brown" are no exceptions, but I still think his work has become increasingly more implausible since those movies, making it less rewarding on an emotional level. His talent at staging action sequences and using dialog to generate suspense or eloquently convey some of his smart insights or opinions is as good as ever, but where's the romance?

I know, maybe it's silly to expect that in a Tarantino movie, but it's there in "Pulp Fiction", "Jackie Brown", and "Kill Bill" to give the movies more weight, and even "Reservoir Dogs" gains valuable emotional resonance because of the Keitel and Roth camaraderie. I want something more real and down-to-earth like his early efforts. I'm sure I'll enjoy at least parts of his new movie as I do with all of his movies, but I'm disappointed that he's going the "re-write history with some fantasy inspired by other movies" route again. It would be nice to see him doing something that feels more like it occurs in our world again, with people who aren't just flamboyant dialog-machines.

Amazement slowly waning.

I became a sorta Tarantino detractor around Kill Bill and Death Proof(and I really REALLY didn't like that one). Had knives out to cut Inglourious Basterds into pieces.

But I put them down, and ended up enjoying it. 

Can't wait to see what he has next in store. Django certainly sounds like it has a lot of promise.

You QT detractors need to get some better ammo. No romance in IB? There's romance all over it. A love of film. You might prefer a less textual thing or something more traditional but not me. I'll take wild artsy QT any day. No need for him to tread the same ground as PF or JB. As far as IB is concerned, there's passion all over every frame. I guess I can sorta get the indulgence argument behind dissing KB but I think it's a breezy 4-hour epic. Then again, I do enjoy DP quite a bit. It's an awesome grindhouse tribute.

I just dug up this old article while searching the site for a thread about "Faster, Pussycat! Kill Kill!". I think it expresses rather similar objections to mine about Tarantino's recent work, although not in the same words. Like Nick (at the time of writing that article), I do feel like a lot of Tarantino's post "Jackie Brown" work has been a bit "overcooked", although I prefer the expression "less down-to-earth". PZ, I get what you're saying, but despite the movie's admirably heartfelt passion for film, it still felt rather tedious and derivative to me. Much of it was this formula of an excess of passionate dialog, then a big explosion of violence. Yes, that describes a lot of his movies, but I still think the characters in his earlier movies were far more three-dimensional and the plots were more clever and surprising.

Again, "Kill Bill, Vol. 2" is an exception because I was really thrilled by the surprising amount of poignancy it had created between The Bride, Bill, and their daughter by the end. Reading Nick's criticism also left me wondering if Nick's feelings towards Tarantino's work have changed at all since then. I don't remember what he said about "Inglourious Basterds" after it was released (Devin's hyperbolic review is more fresh in my mind). If anyone remembers or if he would chime in about that, I'd appreciate it.

I don't understand people who want down to earth Tarantino.  It seems to me what they really want is a Tarantino who's less himself and a little more... I dunno.... Steven Soderbergh.

The reason the word "mature" gets thrown around is because these are people who simply see what makes Tarantino Tarantino as the juvenile indulgences of an obsessed geek, rather than one of the methods that chiefly defines him as an artist.  I've used these examples before, but it'd be akin to telling Roy Lichtenstein he should have painted more original compositions, or telling a DJ to make his own music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 

I don't understand people who want down to earth Tarantino.  It seems to me what they really want is a Tarantino who's less himself and a little more... I dunno.... Steven Soderbergh.

 

The reason the word "mature" gets thrown around is because these are people who simply see what makes Tarantino Tarantino as the juvenile indulgences of an obsessed geek, rather than one of the methods that chiefly defines him as an artist.  I've used these examples before, but it'd be akin to telling Roy Lichtenstein he should have painted more original compositions, or telling a DJ to make his own music.

Oftentimes these seem to be the same people that praise a film-maker like Scorsese while ignoring he's as big a film geek and wears his influences just as much on his sleeve as QT does (not pointing that at anyone here in particular)

The difference is that Scorsese made and still makes movies exploring all kinds of themes, whereas after Jackie Brown Tarantino's movie obsession became the defining quality of his work. By Grindhouse he'd become one of those movie loving directors making insular films aimed solely at other movie lovers about other movies. They became about the references, stylistic flourishes, genre deconstruction, reconstruction and commentary, with much less of the humanism and focus on characterisation of his first three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

The difference is that Scorsese made and still makes movies exploring all kinds of themes, whereas after Jackie Brown Tarantino's movie obsession became the defining quality of his work. By Grindhouse he'd become one of those movie loving directors making insular films aimed solely at other movie lovers about other movies. They became about the references, stylistic flourishes, genre deconstruction, reconstruction and commentary, with much less of the humanism and focus on characterisation of his first three.

If that's all you got from Inglourious Basterds I almost have to assume we saw different movies.

That's not even true (except for perhaps Death Proof) but I am trying to figure out how an artist following his obsessions and doing them as well as Tarantino has is a bad thing.  I mean, how many films do even one or two of those things you listed exceedingly well, let alone all of them?

And besides, Kill Bill explored not just revenge, but the end of a relationship in a very poignant, human way.

Inglourious Basterds offered a much broader take on the dichotomy found in large scale revenge that has both cathartic and corrosive elements.

And this doesn't even touch upon how his genre-play reveals the artist in ways that can apply to something other than his views on art.  All of his films, including Kill Bill, Death Proof, and IB paint a portrait of a world that is dark, dangerous, and at times absurd... but not without hope.  Tarantino time and time again reveals that there is a romantic, an optimist, and even a moralist behind his dark, "edgy", and violent comedy.

That someone would be more excited over a new Eastwood film than a Tarantino one just boggles my mind, frankly. Clint hasn't made a worthwhile film since MILLION DOLLAR BABY. Even if you perceive QT's last three films as letdowns, at least they're interesting and fullblooded.

I don't get QT hate or indifference either, but you gotta give Eastwood LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA. (I'd give him GRAN TORINO, too, but, hey,  I'm a fan)

Have to agree about Letters From Iwo Jima that film is a masterpiece.

Letters from Iwo Jima is okay.

Here's why I loved Inglourous Basterds: Tarantino was addressing a history of exploitation filmmaking that's worth talking about, and his style kind of got weaponized to take out the bad guys within the film.

While I liked Grindhouse, the kitsch of it got real old for me.