Django Unchained - Post-Release - Page 2

Saw it, loved it. The theater was surprisingly full for an 11 AM show, but it is the holidays I suppose. While the runtime didn't bother me, everything is so wonderfully paced and filled, as all QT's work, with delightfully memorable characters (the Aussie gang was a hoot), as much as I love me some QT revenge flick, I would not have been surprised if Schulz, Django and Broomhilde walked out of that final confrontation with Candie just fine, no shootout required. Almost like a big middle finger to the audience, because this movie sure as hell is unconventional. Like he was emphasizing the unchainedness not through violence, but tact and legal means; by no means fun and exciting, just may have worked in an odd way. Utterly glad we got the action we've come to know and love, but without Schulz there I guess I felt a little let down because he was absolutely wonderful. Great flick, can't wait to see this one live on and on into the Hollywood lexicon.

Yeah, this movie will do well.  We had a blizzard and a level 1 snow emergency yesterday in southwest Ohio, and the theater was full. 

Jeez, first Tarantino takes on Nazis, then slavery.  What next, the Spanish Inquisition?

Great movie, and if Waltz isn't at least nominated for an Oscar it's a shame.  I doubt he'd win, but he's too great not to acknowledge.  I think it's pretty clear that out of all the horrors he must have witnessed, the dog-kill pushed him over the edge.  His emotions overtook his calculating mind, which is what his last line implies.  Plus, it's kind of expected given the genre and all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wydren 

Jeez, first Tarantino takes on Nazis, then slavery.  What next, the Spanish Inquisition?

 

Nobody expects The Spanish Inquisition

Careful, now, if your bass is too high you could blow out your speakers

The lack of Menke's presence could be felt, I thought, as the movie felt a bit all over the place. That said, however, Tarantino's a director who's flaws I will endlessly revel in (except for you, Jackie Brown) and always makes for an overall enjoyable film experience. The guy really is the best director of our generation and I find it a privilege to get to experience his art in real-time.

Also, this movie made me coin the phrase #RightintheGoggins. I demand you run wild with it.

In what way was this movie "all over the place" or "unfocused"? I thought this was so much more focused than any of his other movies. The story always stayed right on point and never veered wildly into side-trips with characters I could have given a fuck about like say, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS or DEATH PROOF. For Tarantino this was positively streamlined story-wise.

This is a much tighter movie than TDKR.

In retrospect that probably wasn't the right phrase to use, so I'll say overlong instead.

Wish I could say the same about nooj's mom, Freeman. (SHE'S SO BAD.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

Django does not order around Stephen.  The scene he's talking about is just the two of them alone, in Djangos room where Django essentially pulls rank. 

Yeah, I'm talking about that scene.  He tells Stephen amongst other things to pour his water in the bowl for him.  Is that in the final movie?

No.  At least I don't remember it at all if it was. 

I'm kind of glad he removed all the rape stuff.  The movie was SOOOOO heavy as it was on the brutality... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

In what way was this movie "all over the place" or "unfocused"? I thought this was so much more focused than any of his other movies. The story always stayed right on point and never veered wildly into side-trips with characters I could have given a fuck about like say, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS or DEATH PROOF. For Tarantino this was positively streamlined story-wise.

YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP.  ALL OF MY SPECKS.  HAVE THEM!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

No.  At least I don't remember it at all if it was. 

 

I'm kind of glad he removed all the rape stuff.  The movie was SOOOOO heavy as it was on the brutality... 

Well, there you go.  That's definitely one scene he had in the cut that wasn't in the final.  That's a few minutes out of 15.  Definitely a better scene than that Australian shit.

The movie is only long because of the patented Tarantino monologues, and isn't that part of what people go to see his movies for? I mean, that skull indentation monologue that DiCaprio gives was so fucking insanely great I never wanted it to end. 

That monologue is made all the better when Waltz so thoroughly puts him in his place.  I think I came a little in my pants. 

I was wondering how Tarantino was going to monologue without the trappings of popular culture to fall back on, and god damn did he knock it out of the park.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun H 

The lack of Menke's presence could be felt, I thought, as the movie felt a bit all over the place.

I agree that the editing felt a little off, but it's too easy to blame the death of Menke.  You could just feel that there was a lot of excised footage.

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-1-django-trilogy

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-2-n-word

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-3-white-saviors

Read those links above guys. Especially the bit about Tarantino's absolute hatred of D.W. Griffith and the way he perverted his artform for outright evil.

This movie was a necessity. With every line, every use of the word nigger, it hit the audience over the head of the noxiousness and absolute sadism of the antebullem South. Every use of the word (and maybe my use of the word in the last sentence), made me wince a little, while being thankful for its use in a movie that contexualizes its pervesity and utilitarian use as a weapon of subjugation. A former slave Nat Turners a plantation house and burns it the fuck down in a major Hollywood movie. That is what I call a fucking cathartic moment and one long time coming.

I liked it, but I think it's my least favorite Tarantino movie.

Before anyone asks; yes, I'd put it below Death Proof. I kinda love Death Proof. I'd even slot Kill Bill vol 2 below Death Proof. I feel like that movie is a little bloated and could use a solid trim, as much as I love it.

I don't have any kind of excitement to revisit Django anytime soon, which I don't think I've ever felt after watching one of Tarantino's movies. There doesn't seem like there's very much to it, honestly. What are the themes of the movie? I'm not particularly sure. It feels more like an exercise then a film, and that's really surprising because every one of his movies has really felt like it's "about" something. Is this about the brutality of slavery? I hate to say it, but it often feels like the tone trivializes slavery, which is disappointing specifically because Tarantino managed to balance a unique tone (half wacky exploration about the language of film and the superiority of cultures engaged in war, half bittersweet remorse revenge fantasy) in Basterds. The story here feels too rote and I never really got completely invested in Django as his character, and especially not for Brunhilda, who comes off as a trophy or a prize rather than a character. It's not the actors faults; both Foxx and Washington are fine, they just feel underwritten to me. The most interesting characters are the white main characters; Waltz and DiCaprio. The most interesting black character is Jackson. That seems like a bit of a problem.

What's this movie about? Slavery? Freedom? Exploitation movies? Westerns? The south? None of it rings true. I get that it's a Black Superhero movie, and that's kind of great, and there are moments that had me cackling, moments I really loved. I loved the early stuff with Waltz and Foxx paired up and was really prepared to fall in love with the movie. I loved the typical meandering dialogue punctuated by violence. I know a lot of you guys hated that Django got captured and had to free himself, but that moment almost worked for me; as if Django had to take the silver-tongued tricks he learned from Schultz and free himself before he could really win. Also, the dynamite gag, while predictable as all hell, was worth it. I especially like the bittersweet goodbye Foxx gives Waltz before his revenge and felt like that was the right moment for it. Waltz's sacrifice doesn't make any sense, but he acts his hat off in that scene and really sells it, so whatever. 

So much of the movie feels tacked-on or thankless, though. Django doesn't grow as a character; he's freed and he's immediately an expert with a gun. Huh? They have a whole montage where it seems like Django could grow to become a bounty hunter, but other than that morality speech from Waltz, there isn't anything there. Django shoots the snowman bottle and he's already an expert marksmen. That entire sequence feels like it was there for Tarantino to reference The Great Silence. Same with the uninspiring Nero cameo. 

By the end, I was left wanting more from the movie, finding the whole experience somewhat lacking. It's just not as unique of a movie as I was hoping for, or used to from Tarantino. It felt much more like the type of movie he likes to reference rather than the type of movie he typically makes. 

You liked this less than Death Proof?  For cereal? 

The marksman thing was odd.  In the script it's treated as this big awesome reveal at the very end that Django is actually incredibly gifted as a gun fighter, and that's he's impossibly fast and accurate.  Like you mentioned he's impossibly fast and accurate almost immediately in this. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

You liked this less than Death Proof?  For cereal? 

 

Yes. Death Proof has subtext and feels like it's about something and is far more thoughtful than this movie. I think this movie wants to be thoughtful, but it far too often doesn't feel like it has a thought in its head. For a movie about slavery and revenge, that seems particularly problematic. 

I actually agree with quite a bit of Parker's well-thought-out post. And I also liked the movie, but it felt like middling Tarantino (which is admittedly more than most filmmakers can hope to ever achieve). It's certainly several steps down from Basterds. I know for sure this movie is lucky to have Waltz and DiCaprio. They're both incredible, and their performances help gloss over some of the film's deficiencies.

To say that this movie has less on its mind than DEATH PROOF is patently absurd and I feel confident that Tarantino himself would support this. 

The Candie skull indentation speech alone covers more cultural ground than the entirety of DEATH PROOF. 

And to Parker's point about Django being good at everything right out of the gate -- Candie's whole speech is about Django being the exceptional negro, which is Tarantino's way of subverting the racist, "magical negro" archetype perpetrated by cinema and literature basically since inception up until the present day. And that's just one layer to unpack in one scene.  

I mean, seriously, DEATH PROOF? 

I got no idea where to place this in the Tarantino hierarchy. That will take time, and I'm almost sure my opinion of this movie will change like two or three times anyways. It's of a piece with the rest and an intensely interesting film. I think Parker makes some of the more astute points I've heard about it, but I liked it much more than he did. 

And even though I really liked it, and can't wait to see it again, I also think I'll enjoy poking it with a stick a little. I found the Jackson character possibly a bit uncomplicated, maybe. I can't decide if the complete evil Uncle Tom-ness is spot-on or facile.

I LOVE Stephen.  I love that they have their little song and dance comedy routine between the two of them, but behind closed doors he's not just an equal, he's the advisor. 

Loved it a whole bunch, sluggish third act and all.  It's not a masterpiece like IB, but it's gloriously entertaining.  The acting was great across the board, but, man, I love Waltz.  He's just sensational here.  

Question to those who have read the script:  is there more to Amber Tamlyn's character than the literal window dressing one-second shot we see of her in the film?  

Who is she again?

I think that if anybody asks my opinion on Django Unchained, I'll just refer them to Parker's post and leave it at that.  Great piece man.

I just read this over at Badass.  I was wondering why his hand was bleeding in that scene, and I guess he legit cut himself with that saw.  Kudos to Leo for squeezing his fist and reaaaaally making it gush, and kudos for wiping his blood all over poor Washingtons face.  What a Brando in the making. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

To say that this movie has less on its mind than DEATH PROOF is patently absurd and I feel confident that Tarantino himself would support this. 

 

The Candie skull indentation speech alone covers more cultural ground than the entirety of DEATH PROOF. 

In what way? What "cultural ground" does that Candie skull speech cover that's not routine racist bad guy territory? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph P. Brenner 

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-1-django-trilogy

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-2-n-word

http://www.theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-3-white-saviors

Thank you for that.  Those are some excellent pieces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I just read this over at Badass.  I was wondering why his hand was bleeding in that scene, and I guess he legit cut himself with that saw.  Kudos to Leo for squeezing his fist and reaaaaally making it gush, and kudos for wiping his blood all over poor Washingtons face.  What a Brando in the making. 

I'm quite sure only the part where he actually cuts himself on the shot glass is real, and they decided to incorporate blood into the remainder of the scene because the take was so good.  No way was DiCaprio rubbing real blood all over Washington's face in a fugue of method acting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I was wondering why his hand was bleeding in that scene,

Me too.  Good to have that cleared up, and yeah, good on Leo for using it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael McGurn 


Hey man, I'm not sure if you've seen the theatrical cut yet but I'm trying to get an idea of what was in the 3 hour cut that you saw that didn't make the final cut. I'll list you the scenes that were in the script (and even trailers and soundtrack) and you can tell us if they were in the cut you saw:
The rape scene flashback?
Stephen showing Django to his room at Candyland and getting put in his place by Django?
Stephen interrogating Broomhilda in the kitchen about singing after she gets out of the hot box?
More Billy Crash scenes, including him interrogating the new slaves when they arrive at Candyland?
Extended torture scene in the barn with Stephen burning off Django's nipples?

I think most or all of the scenes you cite must have been in the 3 hour cut.  I'm particularly interested in knowing what got gutted of Goggins' character.  He surely had some centerpiece villain moment (prior to the aborted castration, of course) in some version of the film.

I have two other candidates, based on trailer footage.  They clearly filmed the scene in the script with Schultz and Big Daddy talking on the back porch while Django is exploring the grounds.  This is where we would have gotten to hear Don Johnson speak the line, "Dr. Schultz, five thousand dollar nigger, is practically my middle name."

There was also more to the scene with Calvin Candie and Stephen where the latter exposes the heroes' deception.  In the final cut there's sort of an awkward edit from Candie saying "Sonsabitches!" and our return to the dining room.  Originally the scene kept going with Candie pitching a fit and exclaiming that "We gonna have us a Candyland tar and feathering in this house!" (viewable in a trailer) before Stephen calms him down and convinces him that the best way to get back at the poseurs is to use their new leverage into forcing them to buy Broomhilda for the $12,000.  What I like about this scene is that Candie goes on to use Stephen's exact words in front of Django and Schultz, "Considering you two have ridden a whole lot of miles, went to a whole lot of trouble, and done spread a whole lot of bull..." which hammers home Stephen's role as the brains of the operation at Candyland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zak chase 

Was anyone else needlessly distracted by the masked female member of Candie's crew (Zoe Bell maybe?) who Tarantino's camera kept lingering over but who ultimately served no real purpose?

Yeah, it seemed like there was going to be more to her, and then BOOM, she's wiped out with the rest of that crew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

In what way? What "cultural ground" does that Candie skull speech cover that's not routine racist bad guy territory? 

Have you read the news man?  Pseudoscience to push a fringe political agenda is pretty topical.  Global warming, gun control, tax policy, welfare policy, education policy, marriage equality.  It's in the news every day.  It's not just a bad guy ranting and raving, it's a contextualization of what's wrong with society when the man pulling the strings in misinformed, confident, and malicious, and has his way while he's holding people hostage and bleeding from the wrist from pounding his hand on the table.  And no, I don't have proof that this is the intention of the film-maker, it just seems really obvious given the context of the rest of the movie, a context which is quite deep and focused.

That various posters here can't interpret the context of this film is not a detriment to the film nor the film-maker.  The film is about America, slavery, racism, freedom, friendship, and adventure.  It may be the only film except "Schindler's List" to really examine how racism can destroy a great country, and, more or less, the world.  "Crash" does not come close ... it is a garbage movie.  "Malcolm X" and "Glory" are great movies, and they cover much of the same territory, but except for a handful of scenes they don't express the urgency or depth of the problem.  There is a sickness going on, and only the "top men" have the chops to address it.  Lightning did not strike twice for the beard with "Amisatad", but here you go, this is what "Amistad" is about.  A lot of film-authors get disconnected from the world as they are surrounded by fame and wealth, and their work suffers.  Since QT was never "in" reality, he hasn't wandered off ... if anything, his movies have become more inflammatory and amazing .... Like Jesus off the cross, QT's triumphant re-birth from his life a bastard and a drop-out has saved the world of film, he suffers for our sins.

I doubt we'll see George Wilson spout similar nonsense in the "Great Gatsby" movie coming out, although I could be wrong.  Would you say that George Wilson is a "routine racist bad guy", or would you say he's an important character in one of the greatest American novels ever written?  Mr. Wilson's rap about eugenics gives an extra layer of context to the trouble with America in the 20s, the very bad time when we lost our way and our freedom was almost taken from us.  Remember ... "The Great Gatsby" ..... high school ... history class ..... remember?

EDITED for grammar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

In what way? What "cultural ground" does that Candie skull speech cover that's not routine racist bad guy territory? 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Candie's whole speech is about Django being the exceptional negro, which is Tarantino's way of subverting the racist, "magical negro" archetype perpetrated by cinema and literature basically since inception up until the present day. And that's just one layer to unpack in one scene.  

 

 

Here's what's on DEATH PROOF's mind: "VANISHING POINT is cool!" The end. 

Had the same thoughts about that mask bandit female.  I thought for sure the way the camera focused on her earlier that she would come into play later (Started thinking maybe Waltz's daughter) then poof she was gone with no explanation.  Was she Zoe Bell or was she another uncredited cameo? If they showed her feet I would have thought Uma, but no feet.  Loved the movie though. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I just read this over at Badass.  I was wondering why his hand was bleeding in that scene, and I guess he legit cut himself with that saw.  Kudos to Leo for squeezing his fist and reaaaaally making it gush, and kudos for wiping his blood all over poor Washingtons face.  What a Brando in the making. 

Couple this with the scene where Django is riding the horse bareback with holding its mane with one hand. Apparently he was supposed to just sit on the horse, before a stuntman came on for a wide shot. The horse just bolted and Foxx held onto it for dear life, while not showing it on his face whatsoever. That is badass. So many fantastic and amazing moments of acting in this movie.

Like most of his stuff, you have to unpack it and dig past the visceral, bloody stuff to really find the good meat. People are talking about Deathproof here. Not as quite as good as his other movies, but even there, he's preoccupied with taking the piss out of the stalker genre and showing its ugly, misogynistic, and finally pathetic side. Its funny that people get on Tarantino about being a bad influience on cinema. He's an intensely moral film-maker, intent on using it to show the awfulness of evil and the necessity of good. Basterds and Django just makes that obvious.

So about that third act. I get that its polarizing here, but I think it was pretty necessary. We needed to see Django escape and overcome on his own. Waltz was definitely fantastic, but he needed to be out of the picture or else Django would have been nothing but a side kick.

I'm not sure where I would rank this in Tarantino's filmography, but I will say that I think Death Proof is his worst, and it's still a great film and better than 99% of movies out there. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

Who is she again?

Amber Tamblyn was the woman who peeked out her bedroom window at Django when he rides into that first town with Schultz.  She was also JOAN OF ARCADIA!

I thought she was Big Daddy's daughter?

EDIT: VVV Make her the villain in the sequel. Set it in New Orleans. Have a riverboat and a high stakes card game and we've got another blockbuster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malphazio 

Had the same thoughts about that mask bandit female.  I thought for sure the way the camera focused on her earlier that she would come into play later (Started thinking maybe Waltz's daughter) then poof she was gone with no explanation.  Was she Zoe Bell or was she another uncredited cameo? If they showed her feet I would have thought Uma, but no feet.  Loved the movie though. 

Nah it was Zoe Bell, and there has to be an extended scene somewhere that had her featured more prominently in Django.  You don't just fucking show Zoe Bell with a goddamn ax and not do anything with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ali 

 

So about that third act. I get that its polarizing here, but I think it was pretty necessary. We needed to see Django escape and overcome on his own. Waltz was definitely fantastic, but he needed to be out of the picture or else Django would have been nothing but a side kick.

I totally get this, and as much as it pains me, I think only Dr King should have died in that sequence. If Candie is still around for Django to punish, the last chunk would have been an absolute fireball of audience satisfying vengeance. As it is, it's kinda 'I sure hope Django kills that old slave and that woman'.

Man, that DOES pain me.  Because it's a fine idea, but then you'd lose that sweet moment for Dr King.

Perhaps if Stephen was built up more as a threat.  But even that is a weird thing to say, because he WAS a true threat. 

Stephen is the true villain of the story, not Candie. Django facing down Stephen in the end is the proper conclusion. Candie was more Waltz's antagonist.