Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[The Fanciful Norwegian]

The Chinese Film Bureau is still competing to be the world's biggest joke: after loads of domestic and international coverage about Django's mainland release--supposedly with only minor changes--the movie got pulled on its first day, after some theaters had already held midnight screenings and matinees. The official explanation is "technical issues," but if you believe that I've got a big wall I want to sell you. Another envelope-pushing film (White Deer Plain) was abruptly pulled last year, ostensibly for the same reason, and came out a couple of days after its original date. No word when or if Django will be (re-)issued.

Edit: Reportedly the mainland copies still included a glimpse of Jamie Foxx's penis and Kerry Washington's nipple. Not exactly sure how that could accidentally slip by.

[Adam]

Thats certainly a valid interpretation Anhedionisiac, though of course it would entail its own set of troubling implications regarding the benevolent white savior needed to lead the oppressed black man out of bondage and reach his full potential. That said, I think it is rather overtly implied in the film that Django is a "natural", that he is indeed an aberration and that, whether helped on his journey or not, he is a truly one-in-ten-thousand specimen. Now that interpretation might be tempered a bit by the fact that Django was playing a role for the majority of the film, so it could be argued that it was all an act. But I think his own affirmation at the end leads the audience to assume he is actually exceptional.

I'm sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with this. Given the enmeshed system of abuse and disempowerment in the South - ESPECIALLY in the decade leading up to slavery when the confederacy was really digging in their heels and passing laws forbidding blacks to read, etc etc, who else BUT a white mane could assist a slave into freedom and beyond? How did Frederick Douglass become the man we know? Because he had a mistress who felt for him and secretly taught him to read in defiance of the law - which gave him the tools to continue to learn and later teach other slaves to read via sunday services and then on into freedom. None of which would have been possible without the sympathy and kindness of Lady Auld.

When you have such an entrenched system of power that denies one group the slightest hint of freedom then someone has to assist from the ruling class to get the ball rolling. Django would not have become Django without his "savior" - just as Douglass would not have been Douglass without his kind mistress. That doesn't in the least detract from their remarkable characteristics as a person, it merely acknowledges the importance that one person could make in providing a sliver of freedom to an oppressed person and encouraging them to slip through to the other side. How anyone could mistake that reality as some kind of disenfranchisement or denial of agency is beyond me. Those who made it still had to persevere in ways we can't comprehend after getting a hand out of the deep pit of despair the system had contrived to keep them enchained.

Sorry for the delay, haven't checked in in a while. I find that argument, especially the bit that "someone has to assist from the ruling class to get the ball rolling", quite troubling. Now of course there are examples of members of the ruling class helping those of the oppressed class. In this context of American slavery, Lady Auld is one, William Garrison is another. But are you actually arguing that, by definition, an oppressed group must rely on the benevolence of the ruling group in order to break free of their oppression? If so, most of humanity - from wage slaves to child prostitutes to 99% of the developing world - would be doomed. Anecdotally we can come up with individual examples, but structurally speaking, the ruling class has never relinquished power voluntarily. Douglass said so himself.

It should be troubling.
But don't confuse a "class" with the activities of one member of the class. A class doesn't voluntarily relinquish power, certainly, but the aid of people is almost always essential for success. It can be a single person, I think. Whether that person needs to be a member of the "ruling class" is debatable, but it seems to me that it does need to be someone higher up the ladder than the people rising up.

I also wonder whether the state of slavery that existed can fully be comprehended by us. It's really hard to rise up when every example one knows of others trying it has led to the deaths of those rising up, and of other innocent people just to frighten them into submission. (This ties into a larger debate of current economic & social views, where may think that the only reason people are poor is due to their own laziness, without any comprehension of how being born and raised in that position does many things to make sure one stays there, although exceptions always exist.)

Regardless of that, once can see other examples (both Roosevelts, for example), where a highly placed member of the ruling class came to have views and a position where they could help people lower on the socio-economic ladder, and did so. It does put a lot on a "great person" view of history, which troubles me as well, but of course, in regards to this movie, the whole film (and most Hollywood films) is premised on there being a single exceptional person, or a small number of them. Perhaps an alternative example to discuss is The Seven Samurai (and others) where seven people (or one person, depending on the film), are needed to teach the larger community how to rise up or to defend themselves.

[mfunk9786]

Why design a snazzy steelbook if you're just going to put the bonus disc in a white envelope that you cram inside? Is it that hard to give the disc its own slot inside?

[chatterjees]

Why design a snazzy steelbook if you're just going to put the bonus disc in a white envelope that you cram inside? Is it that hard to give the disc its own slot inside?

I was going to pick that up at Target tonight after work! If you don't mind, what exactly is the trouble? Is it loose inside? I don't usually buy steelbooks, but was thinking about this one! If it doesn't look that good, I will go to Bestbuy to get their special packaging, but I think they don't include that 3rd disc though! Thanks.

[mfunk9786]

This is what it looks like when you open it:



Now, if I could find a clear swing tray to put inside, I'd keep it - but I can't. So I may just hawk this one and opt for the digipack they're selling at Best Buy, which is actually pretty snazzy, despite being DVD height. It does appear to have an exclusive bonus disc, but I can't read what the feature(s) actually are. I couldn't care less about the Comic Con interview on the Target one though, so it doesn't really matter (for me) anyway.

[swo17]

Bonus Djisc Unfastened

[mfunk9786]

The Stars of Django Unchained Unleashed From Your DVD Case So They Fall Out Every Damn Time

[chatterjees]

Finally picked up the Target one, after holding that Bestbuy one in hand! Yeah, it has the 3rd disc (apparently Walmart has an extra disc too), but that DVD size packaging is a big NO for me. Now, when I open my steel book, its feel so dumb on behalf of whoever designed the interior! There are sockets to hold a 3rd disc, looks like somebody was ordered to take those trey (or whatever you call them) off...oh God! But, I love this front cover art...I wish the the movie was as good as the poster though

[mfunk9786]

Care to, uh... elaborate on the... movie?

[domino harvey]

Given my scale on Tarantino slides all over the place, I was prepared for a lot of different reactions to the film, but I wasn't anticipating mediocrity. Like the last couple QT films, this screams for a rewrite that eager producers no doubt proved too chicken to provoke, with a lot of stupid, allegedly audience pleasing moments that fall flat-- especially when it comes to one character's suicidal act, a fundamentally illogical moment so over-calculated to pander that the film never recovers. The film even lacks the visual "panache" one can reliably expect from a QT flick, with everything given an ugly digital look (no idea if it was shot using film or not but it looks like video-graded shit). So what's good? Well, the uncharacteristically arch humor of the Klan meeting has a pleasant if slight comic kick, and Waltz is pleasing in his foppishness to a point. The film also intriguingly flirts with examining the roles of those black servants who more or less collaborated with their servitude, though QT ensures no moral quandaries emerge by making the chief example Snidely Whiplash-- look, I know one doesn't go to a film like this for nuance, but all even broaching this subject made me want was a different film than this that either had something to say about these things or some effectively novel spectacle to show me, preferably while not trying so hard to please. Tarantino has proved himself capable of the latter, at least-- Kill Bill's pastiche worked marvelously and seemed a genuine mix tape of Tarantino's influences and filmlover psyche, but his subsequent revisionist takes and subgenre appropriations have been varying degrees of lousy, and this one is the least inspiring. Yes, this is in a sense even worse than Death Proof, which at least provoked some form of response from me, even if it was repulsion. Django Unchained is just dull, and nearly three hours' worth.

[chatterjees]

Last night I watched Django Unchained, and honestly, I was utterly disappointed! May be I was expecting too much. I know there are lot of Western fans like I am, but truly do you guys think its a great film? I mean IMDb rating 8.6/10.
So I checked the rating for my top 3 Westerns there, and surprisingly I found -
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (8.2)
Once Upon a Time in the West (8.6)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (9)

Its funny how I never got bored by the length of above 3 film, but after an hour last night, I was praying "please don't drag anymore, please..."

I can easily rate Inglourious Basterds - 9/10, but this one from Quentin will only get 3/10 in my book! I wonder how did he manage to get the Oscar for the screenplay!!! That category should have gone to Wes, no doubt in my mind now!

I know I will be getting a lot of back lashing for whatever I said, but let me say one more thing - Jamie Foxx as Django? Seriously? The worst casting ever in the History of Cinema.
Funny that I bought the steelbook (I loved that cover art though) and I will probably keep it (not selling it for some unknown reason so far!).

My top 3 Western films (mentioned at the beginning) are also lengthy films! I know how boring those three films are to my friends and family (wife), but I always enjoyed watching them. Based on that strength of my character, I was also able to enjoy and appreciate Heaven's Gate I recently watched and easily placed the film in my top 10 Western film list. Django Unchained was no where near my top 50 list, I will put 50 classic westerns before that stupid QT film easily!
Yes, I have wasted my time watching it last night, and not sure when I will be watching it again!

BTW, bottom line here, its a western, as I love the genre, this film definitely qualifies to be a Western; What's CRIMINAL is the academy award went to QT for an utter rubbish screenplay and Django is a legendary character, QT must have been on high drugs to even think about f***ing around with that name! (I am not saying the Original Django was a great film, but that's how you make an OK Spaghetti Western. I heard he received a law suit from Morricone (not sure though, some sort of controversy may be), QT should have got a punch on face from Franco Nero...

[Dylan]

(no idea if it was shot using film or not but it looks like video-graded shit)

It was shot on film, and the grain was quite apparent to me in many scenes while viewing it in the theater.

[Brian C]

I know I will be getting a lot of back lashing for whatever I said, but let me say one more thing - Jamie Foxx as Django? Seriously? The worst casting ever in the History of Cinema.
Funny that I bought the steelbook (I loved that cover art though) and I will probably keep it (not selling it for some unknown reason so far!).

Time for mfunk to do his best Captain Hadley routine on the fresh fish here...

[matrixschmatrix]

QT should have got a punch on face from Franco Nero...

As Nero was in the film, he presumably had the opportunity.

[chatterjees]

QT should have got a punch on face from Franco Nero...

As Nero was in the film, he presumably had the opportunity.

Yeah, probably well paid to show his face... I still don't understand what was the whole point of that conversation between old and new Django, it was really lame! Could have done something better.

[Cold Bishop]

(no idea if it was shot using film or not but it looks like video-graded shit)

It was shot on film, and the grain was quite apparent to me in many scenes while viewing it in the theater.

I mentioned it earlier, but after Kill Bill, QT bemoaned using a digital intermediate and the way it ruined the look he wanted, vowing to never use them again. Which is one reason why it's so disheartening, here as in Inglorious Basterds, that he's been using such rushed production schedules, forcing himself to once again forgo a chemical process.

[mfunk9786]

I know I will be getting a lot of back lashing for whatever I said, but let me say one more thing - Jamie Foxx as Django? Seriously? The worst casting ever in the History of Cinema.
Funny that I bought the steelbook (I loved that cover art though) and I will probably keep it (not selling it for some unknown reason so far!).

Time for mfunk to do his best Captain Hadley routine on the fresh fish here...

Seeing this guy's review and Domino's next to one another speaks for itself, though the "video-graded shit" thing might be the most bizarre observation in either review

I will ask chatterjees: What about Foxx's casting wasn't right? Was it his sharp delivery of Tarantino's dialogue; his uncanny fit into the look of the part; him bringing his own horse to the shoot, on which he did quite a few of his own stunts? I'm curious as to who you'd have preferred, and what makes this qualify as remotely poor casting...

[chatterjees]

I know I will be getting a lot of back lashing for whatever I said, but let me say one more thing - Jamie Foxx as Django? Seriously? The worst casting ever in the History of Cinema.
Funny that I bought the steelbook (I loved that cover art though) and I will probably keep it (not selling it for some unknown reason so far!).

Time for mfunk to do his best Captain Hadley routine on the fresh fish here...

Seeing this guy's review and Domino's next to one another speaks for itself, though the "video-graded shit" thing might be the most bizarre observation in either review

I will ask chatterjees: What about Foxx's casting wasn't right? Was it his sharp delivery of Tarantino's dialogue; his uncanny fit into the look of the part; him bringing his own horse to the shoot, on which he did quite a few of his own stunts? I'm curious as to who you'd have preferred, and what makes this qualify as remotely poor casting...

Dear mfunk9786,

Let me give some intro first to my Western experience. Although I love watching International Art house films too much, War, Western and Noir are the 3 genres at the top of my faves. Any given day I can watch the shittiest of films belonging to those 3 categories. Original Django was an OK film in my book, never loved it too much, but always appreciated the presence of Nero as Django since the day I first watched the film almost 25 years ago. Now therefore, I am a person to whom the word Django means Nero!!!
So, first when the trailer for the new film hit the net, I was a bit disappointed by knowing Foxx will be playing Django (I guess u can relate to my feeling easily here). Foxx is a great actor, I had to doubt in mind that he will be doing justice to this legendary character. I was not able to go to the theater to watch the film, so I had to wait long for the BD release.
I intentionally didn't read any review or watch any clips before viewing the film (I usually prefer to do that to preserve the excitement). What I had in my mind that mostly I will be watching a remake, with a QT touch (I loved his last film, IB; the Genre: War was almost redefined by the film and QT's direction). My final rate for the film is 4/10, the reasons -
1. Poorly written script, honestly I can write better than that, well may be not!
2. Poor editing, camera work was OK, music could have been much better, I liked the use of Rap song in a scene (it was new),
3. Foxx: When he was introduced in the first 5 mins, I was really excited, he acted we as a slave at the beginning. There was a real seriousness in the Django character, fire in his eyes blah blah blah. Problem started when became free...Django turned into a comic character now, due the the script. There were still some moments, where he was good, but due to the story or the pace of the film the character was getting more an more lost. The dresses he were wearing or throw of dialogs was too bad in my opinion.
Moreover, presence of some well crafted characters (Dr. King Schultz, Calvin Candie, and Stephen) around Django was probably not a good idea. Finally as a result of all these, I totally lost my fave character in the film. I personally think a little better script and may be some other actor with a stronger presence (I don't know, may be Denzel?) could have helped the film.
It looks like you are a big fan of the film probably, and I respect that! I shared my opinion and didn't really think that I have to provide explanation of my views. Loving a character or film is good, but loving blindly is little childish. I love Clint Eastwood, but I understand the fact he is going for a World record as a direct to make the collection of the most worst films made in a decade!!! What can I do.

Hope u will have some mercy on the fresh fish here,

chatterjees.

[mfunk9786]

Luckily I'm speechless

[Brian C]

I'm assuming English isn't this guy's native language? Some of what he says might make sense (hope I qualified that strongly enough) if he could express himself in proper English.

[mfunk9786]

May be

[chatterjees]

You are right Brian C., English is not my first language, but I was not really paying much attention while writing the reply. I didn't think that I was participating in very carefully conducted English language class. Sorry for my weak English. I will be more careful in future. Wow...

[jindianajonz]

I'm assuming English isn't this guy's native language? Some of what he says might make sense (hope I qualified that strongly enough) if he could express himself in proper English.

While there are definitely some language hiccups, i think it's easy enough to understand what he is trying to say: Django (due to both the script and Foxx's acting) didn't have enough pressence in the film. Waltz, Jackson, and DiCaprio stole the show, even though according to the title it was Django's film. I can agree with that sentiment.

[mfunk9786]

Yeah, worst casting in cinema history = what you just said. Oh, damn the language barricades that keep us apart!!

[matrixschmatrix]

I actually liked Foxx more than I expected to- he's not an actor I usually like, and I think he was a detriment in the otherwise excellent Collateral, but his sense of irrepressible, cocky self confidence seemed to be exactly what Tarantino was going for here. Complaining that you don't like the character being performed isn't really the same thing as thinking the role was miscast, in any case.