When all is said and done, “Django Unchained,” Quentin
Tarantino’s latest, is too long, too bloody and too indulgent. And where
Tarantino got away with rewriting history with his outrageous Inglorious Basterds, trying the same
trick doesn’t work here. Django is a slave turned bounty hunter, a black man
who gets to ‘kill white folks and they pay you for it.’ The film features a
couple of Oscar winners – Jamie Foxx in the title role, and Christoph Waltz,
who won for his role in Inglorious
Basterds. Here Waltz is again playing a similar character, only this time
he’s a German charmer who is the good guy. Dr. King Schultz (Waltz), a German
dentist turned bounty hunter in the pre-civil War Wild West, who abhors slavery
but doesn’t mind murder, purchases and then frees Django (Foxx) so Django can
help him catch some wanted men. This is a pretty complicated setup for two
characters that never come clearly into focus and a wandering, episodic
narrative that takes a long time to get anywhere. So for roughly two-thirds of
the movie, the cool-headed Schultz and stone-faced Django travel the country,
killing a bunch of people. Sure there’s lots of scenery and some gags, but
there are few surprises. That changes when the pair head to Mississippi to
rescue Django’s German-speaking wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). There they
encounter the despicable Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), an effete,
Francophile plantation owner and Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), the superficially
obsequious ‘house slave’ who dominates Candie’s household. And although Candie
is actually under Stephen’s grinning and jiving thumb, both men are hopelessly affected
by the crushing weight of slavery.
Foxx and Waltz are in fine form. And DiCaprio is incredibly
adept at being charming and evil at the same time. Unfortunately, there are way
too many instances of people getting shot, erupting with intentionally
fake-looking spurts of blood, and beaucoup uses of the N word. The partnership
of the Waltz and Foxx characters makes no sense. Sure, maybe at the beginning
when Schultz needs Django’s help, but they continue on together for no apparent
reason than this is supposed to be a buddy movie. The movie writer and director
Tarantino has created is a hit-and-miss affair, at times an amusing reimagining
of history, more often an over-indulgent, blood-spattered bore. 12/28/12
2 comments:
Thank you very much for your well-organized and thoughtful review of Django, I really enjoyed it very much.
I think going in to a Tarantino film, one must expect a healthy dose of indulgence intertwined with occasional non-linear storytelling. Some would consider this clever filmmaking, a typical example of Tarantino's unique and innovative vision. I suppose others might dismiss it as untreated ADHD. it's certainly not great all the time nor is it for everyone!
Regardless of what position we take on the issue though, the reality is that nothing Tarantino does makes the screen without an obsessive scrutiny and consideration. One may not agree with or be completely entertained by his vision, but it should be understood as ridiculously purposeful.
I believe on some levels that the aspect of the film that you describe as 'wandering, episodic narrative' is intended to be a bloody and brutal bonding that Tarantino uses to explain and justify the kind of loyalty that the two demonstrate for each other later in the 'Big House' of Candieland. While that arguably long montage may deliver Tarantino's message reasonably well for some, I can see how it may also be interpreted as simply an excuse to shoot in the beautiful and exotic locations of Jackson Hole, Durango, Lone Pine, and even the San Fernando Valley!
It also, without a doubt, satisfied Tarantino's desire to explode as many fake blood packets in as many parts of the country as possible. Having met Quentin, and been on the set, I can, in fact, confirm as much.
So, to put and end to my own wandering and episodic narrative of a comment, I would like to leave you with the following question: why is Django's quest to rescue his lovely wife Broomhilda from the most notorious plantation in the South so overlooked? Perhaps the splattering of blood and powerful characters overshadow the courageous and romantic mission of the eventually triumphant Django Freeman? Sentiment, it seems, is so easily overlooked.
Keep up you wonderful reviews!!!
Wow! What a thorough analysis of the movie. Nonetheless, I think that some of the excess that is typically Tarantino doesn't always work. Looking at it from the inside as you have, I think you see some of the subtleties where the average movie-goer gets overpowered by the outrageousness. And I did appreciate Django's romantic mission. For me, the sentiment wasn't overlooked, it was buried in everything else.
Post a Comment