Django Unchained (QTR)
- Thread starter JATX
- Start date
the 'white monsters' too were a varied lot. from candie's circles who excuse their institutionalized brutality through phrenology and other shit to the dog people in the cabin who could barely speak english and were threatened by the well spoken, well dressed Django on a horse.
QT is hardly without faults. i saw an interview recently where he embraced his filmmaking being described as hiphop, borrowing heavily from the past, in hommages that get distorted to serve his canvas. like hiphop, its not a perfect picture...nwa never pretended to be a sociological essay, but obviously it spoke a lot to where some black men in compton were coming from and wanted to listen to. would the winstons have like it? hiphop is ridiculously far from being a tidy, positive expression. you got all types of misogyny, black on black crime, materialism, etc etc. But it elicits strong reactions, stirs debate, and forces people to take stock of the soul of the country. QT's films have their moments where they do this too.
QT is hardly without faults. i saw an interview recently where he embraced his filmmaking being described as hiphop, borrowing heavily from the past, in hommages that get distorted to serve his canvas. like hiphop, its not a perfect picture...nwa never pretended to be a sociological essay, but obviously it spoke a lot to where some black men in compton were coming from and wanted to listen to. would the winstons have like it? hiphop is ridiculously far from being a tidy, positive expression. you got all types of misogyny, black on black crime, materialism, etc etc. But it elicits strong reactions, stirs debate, and forces people to take stock of the soul of the country. QT's films have their moments where they do this too.
tripledouble said:
for real tho, stax, i appreciate your takes, but i still think some of it is reaching at times and at other times chooses not to dig deep enough. jackson's shucking and jivin is coupled with his sherlock holmes impression in the study, where he is obviously more astute than dicaprio. this has to be taken as a whole. gross caricature? maybe. you dont think blacks acted one way in front of whites under slavery and acted different outside of that public eye? (shit, this still happens). the voice, the shuffling, even the deference was ALL out the window when jackson and leo parlayed in the study. the house negro who "buys in" is a classic stereotypical plantation figure, not always grasped by whites, but hated and reviled by african americans. QT and SJ presented this well and left a lot of room for discussion and analysis of that type of relationship. the willingness of the slave to emotionally invest in the master's game whether through opportunism or some stockholm syndrome shit.
I dont think this really has to be explained.
for real tho, stax, i appreciate your takes, but i still think some of it is reaching at times and at other times chooses not to dig deep enough. jackson's shucking and jivin is coupled with his sherlock holmes impression in the study, where he is obviously more astute than dicaprio. this has to be taken as a whole. gross caricature? maybe. you dont think blacks acted one way in front of whites under slavery and acted different outside of that public eye? (shit, this still happens). the voice, the shuffling, even the deference was ALL out the window when jackson and leo parlayed in the study. the house negro who "buys in" is a classic stereotypical plantation figure, not always grasped by whites, but hated and reviled by african americans. QT and SJ presented this well and left a lot of room for discussion and analysis of that type of relationship. the willingness of the slave to emotionally invest in the master's game whether through opportunism or some stockholm syndrome shit.
I dont think this really has to be explained.
1. pulp fiction
2. reservoir dogs
3. jackie brown
4. kill bill
5. django unchained
6 death proof
and i'd put true romance and crimson tide above the kill bill's if they 'counted'. four rooms at the bottom.
2. reservoir dogs
3. jackie brown
4. kill bill
5. django unchained
6 death proof
and i'd put true romance and crimson tide above the kill bill's if they 'counted'. four rooms at the bottom.
one question I've got though, when Schultz shoots Candie, why doesn't the dude with the shotty aimed at Django and Broomhilda react, until Samuel L's character starts screaming? The delay between Schultz's gun firing and shotgun dude turning around seems too significant.
Was Candie expected to shoot Schultz when he was insisting on the handshake, thus the sound of a gun firing was assumed to be his?
Was Candie expected to shoot Schultz when he was insisting on the handshake, thus the sound of a gun firing was assumed to be his?
I too think Stax is reading way too much into the movie, and at times getting out of hand IMHO.
Here's my take one specific scene Stax mentioned.
After being freed by Schultz he has the discussion with Django. The first thing he says is that he wants to free his wife. This isn't Schultz's idea, it comes from Django setting the stage for the rest of the movie. Stax wants to read scenes like this as blacks being dependent upon whites when to me it shows that it was Django's plan all along, hence he is the agent of change in the movie not Schultz.
Django then says his wife's name is Broomhilda, which leads Schultz to go over the German myth. To me, this is part of Schultz's role in the movie. He is a foil to give deeper meaning and understanding to the story. By re-telling the German myth he is trying to say that Django's mission is a noble and romantic one, and foreshadows the trials and tribulations he has go to through to get his wife back, i.e. slay the dragon, walk through hell fire, etc. Schultz then agrees to help Django on this quest, which shows that Schultz is the supporting character and Django is the lead. Django then sets about building his character into the gunfighter and savior that he becomes at the end, once again showing that it is Django leading the story, not Schutz/whites. Stax wants to take this scene as QT bringing up Hitler because Hitler loved Wagner. Is Apocalypse Now a nod to Hitler too, because they play Flight of the Valkyries during the helicopter scene and Coppolla is a movie buff as well? There are Looney Tunes cartoons where they hum the song as well. To me the myth is giving meaning to Django's story. I don't think it's got anything to do with Nazis.
Here's my take one specific scene Stax mentioned.
After being freed by Schultz he has the discussion with Django. The first thing he says is that he wants to free his wife. This isn't Schultz's idea, it comes from Django setting the stage for the rest of the movie. Stax wants to read scenes like this as blacks being dependent upon whites when to me it shows that it was Django's plan all along, hence he is the agent of change in the movie not Schultz.
Django then says his wife's name is Broomhilda, which leads Schultz to go over the German myth. To me, this is part of Schultz's role in the movie. He is a foil to give deeper meaning and understanding to the story. By re-telling the German myth he is trying to say that Django's mission is a noble and romantic one, and foreshadows the trials and tribulations he has go to through to get his wife back, i.e. slay the dragon, walk through hell fire, etc. Schultz then agrees to help Django on this quest, which shows that Schultz is the supporting character and Django is the lead. Django then sets about building his character into the gunfighter and savior that he becomes at the end, once again showing that it is Django leading the story, not Schutz/whites. Stax wants to take this scene as QT bringing up Hitler because Hitler loved Wagner. Is Apocalypse Now a nod to Hitler too, because they play Flight of the Valkyries during the helicopter scene and Coppolla is a movie buff as well? There are Looney Tunes cartoons where they hum the song as well. To me the myth is giving meaning to Django's story. I don't think it's got anything to do with Nazis.
Ehhh Im not really personally offended - although he goes beyond bad taste in IB and DU as ive argued above -and is annoyingly and overly self involved and heavy handed in a lot of his work. The inability to deliver a great and exciting flick that can stand on its own without being an endless sequence of smug references and puerile jokes does annoy the hell out of me with all the acclaim he receives. I am amazed at what QT is able to get away with without causing outrage in many. I still find it incredible how little resistance he encounters.
I have a theory about this now - the longer ive been able to digest the movie. Quentin Tarantino doesnt really have a voice that is truly his own - so far all of his movies have been rip offs or adaptations - notable exception: pulp fiction. Even reservoir dogs which is almost a remake of an obscure hongkong actioner called City on fire from 87 - its basically a remake of that with ad libs tacked on. Jackie brown is his best film imo - based on elmore leonard obviously.
So anyway - not being able to find truly original subject matter hes the perennial sampler of other movies. But having failed to register with audiences and critics with death proof he seems to have concluded he needs an extra element of outrageous scandal to really get those numbers and remain 'relevant'. Enter the inflammatory staging of stories in racially charged and historically controversial areas like jews - ww2 and blacks - slavery. He goes all out and for maximum effect there and gets away with it. Why? Because first of all - like someone argues in one of the articles bassie posted - no matter how hard he tries - hes always going to be a white guy speaking to a white audience. In essence.
White audiences find relief in being able to laugh at his scandalous and irreverent treatment of subjects that are notoriously touchy and make them uncomfortable for fear of offense and guilt, such as ww2 and slavery - so QT goes all in and is applauded for that - finally we can all laugh at this stuff! Those who dont share this relief and are offended find it hard to object - because who wants to be the touchy jew or black raising arguments of insensitivity and offense - because everyone is having so much fun- at the expense of caricatures. Also his jokey treatment makes it hard to go against him seriously because, hey, hes only joking, right? Dont be a spoilsport. Dont be that sour old jew crying anti semite or grumpy black guy saying Racism! Disrespect! And this is exactly what happens to his detractors like spike lee.
So hes the exploiter, the referencer, the bringer of relief and grotesque clown you cant win an argument with. And also - hes a success which is very hard to argue with. The main problem is his movies are boring and unoriginal pastiches, and by making grotesque scandal a trademark - hes become just as bad as those guys that made offensive racially charged exploitation fare in the 60's and 70's. The only question remaining is how far he can take it and what touchy area to wade in to next. Sexism? White slavery? The sex trade? Female prison soft core rape fantasies? Japanese ww2 suicide type steez? The attack on pearl harbour? Darkest africa voodoo sex mondo bizarro fare? Theres plenty of stuff still out there he can scandalize and fill with references to obscure cult joints only those in the know will really get.
Posting from my phone so excuse typos and associative rambling...
I have a theory about this now - the longer ive been able to digest the movie. Quentin Tarantino doesnt really have a voice that is truly his own - so far all of his movies have been rip offs or adaptations - notable exception: pulp fiction. Even reservoir dogs which is almost a remake of an obscure hongkong actioner called City on fire from 87 - its basically a remake of that with ad libs tacked on. Jackie brown is his best film imo - based on elmore leonard obviously.
So anyway - not being able to find truly original subject matter hes the perennial sampler of other movies. But having failed to register with audiences and critics with death proof he seems to have concluded he needs an extra element of outrageous scandal to really get those numbers and remain 'relevant'. Enter the inflammatory staging of stories in racially charged and historically controversial areas like jews - ww2 and blacks - slavery. He goes all out and for maximum effect there and gets away with it. Why? Because first of all - like someone argues in one of the articles bassie posted - no matter how hard he tries - hes always going to be a white guy speaking to a white audience. In essence.
White audiences find relief in being able to laugh at his scandalous and irreverent treatment of subjects that are notoriously touchy and make them uncomfortable for fear of offense and guilt, such as ww2 and slavery - so QT goes all in and is applauded for that - finally we can all laugh at this stuff! Those who dont share this relief and are offended find it hard to object - because who wants to be the touchy jew or black raising arguments of insensitivity and offense - because everyone is having so much fun- at the expense of caricatures. Also his jokey treatment makes it hard to go against him seriously because, hey, hes only joking, right? Dont be a spoilsport. Dont be that sour old jew crying anti semite or grumpy black guy saying Racism! Disrespect! And this is exactly what happens to his detractors like spike lee.
So hes the exploiter, the referencer, the bringer of relief and grotesque clown you cant win an argument with. And also - hes a success which is very hard to argue with. The main problem is his movies are boring and unoriginal pastiches, and by making grotesque scandal a trademark - hes become just as bad as those guys that made offensive racially charged exploitation fare in the 60's and 70's. The only question remaining is how far he can take it and what touchy area to wade in to next. Sexism? White slavery? The sex trade? Female prison soft core rape fantasies? Japanese ww2 suicide type steez? The attack on pearl harbour? Darkest africa voodoo sex mondo bizarro fare? Theres plenty of stuff still out there he can scandalize and fill with references to obscure cult joints only those in the know will really get.
Posting from my phone so excuse typos and associative rambling...
havent seen the movie and far from interested in seeing this, but in a sorta related note this happened on the weekend here:
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/518587/scary-ordeal-for-halifax-movie-goers-man-yells-curses-at-audience/
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/518587/scary-ordeal-for-halifax-movie-goers-man-yells-curses-at-audience/
@Motown67 yes flight of the valkyries is definitely evoking fascism in apoc now if you ask me - a fascist callous pompous attack on the Vietnamese by out of control us military. Imo coppola is definitely making a statement in those terms there - basically equating the Us war machine with a form of fascism, definitely. Apocalypse now is an anti war movie and an attack on militarism and dehumanization I absolutely believe that. Its a great great film and much more original than any of qts work - i love the way he took heart of darkness and ported it to vietnam. Still posting from the phone - ill go in and clean these posts up later if I can still be bothered.
dj_cityboy said:havent seen the movie and far from interested in seeing this, but in a sorta related note this happened on the weekend here:
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/518587/scary-ordeal-for-halifax-movie-goers-man-yells-curses-at-audience/
Ok i admit it this was me. What? YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL FOR SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON SOULSTRUT!
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/518587/scary-ordeal-for-halifax-movie-goers-man-yells-curses-at-audience/
Ok i admit it this was me. What? YOU ARE ALL GOING TO HELL FOR SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON SOULSTRUT!
im still not sure where youre getting that slavery is turned into a laughing matter in DU. a couple obvious instances (bags on the head), but overall, no
it's not that slavery itself was laughed at.
but a humorous movie was made about it.
and some people aren't really feeling that.
but a humorous movie was made about it.
and some people aren't really feeling that.
Staxwax, you make some valid points, but I'll have to disagree with you vis a vis he has to fill up his movies with references, stealing scenes etc to make them good. A very small percentage of people who see his films are aware of this. I missed a majority of the German film references in IB and still thought it was excellent.
Like his voice or not, it is what he's known for and the reason people like him (or dislike him.)
Your assesment of Death Proof is off by miles. There are plenty of interviews that have QT admitting to how much of a mistake Death Proof was. Coupled with Planet Terror it's a good movie (the whole grindhouse thing) and I really liked what RR and QT were trying to do. I really liked the fake trailers, too .Do you think if Death Proof would've been a success QT would have started making a bunch of "low budget" slasher flicks? I don't think so. It was something he tried, and he readily admits it was a failure.
I may be biased, though, as far as my taste in movies is concerned. I thought Killer Joe was fantastic and i haven't seen The Master.
Like his voice or not, it is what he's known for and the reason people like him (or dislike him.)
Your assesment of Death Proof is off by miles. There are plenty of interviews that have QT admitting to how much of a mistake Death Proof was. Coupled with Planet Terror it's a good movie (the whole grindhouse thing) and I really liked what RR and QT were trying to do. I really liked the fake trailers, too .Do you think if Death Proof would've been a success QT would have started making a bunch of "low budget" slasher flicks? I don't think so. It was something he tried, and he readily admits it was a failure.
I may be biased, though, as far as my taste in movies is concerned. I thought Killer Joe was fantastic and i haven't seen The Master.
tripledouble said:im still not sure where youre getting that slavery is turned into a laughing matter in DU. a couple obvious instances (bags on the head), but overall, no
The first time I saw Django I went with my 12 yr old niece who is black amongst others. She didn't come away laughing at slavery or thinking that it was a joke. She actually thought the exact opposite and asked all kinds of questions about the people with scars on their backs, the whipping, the face masks, etc.. Does that mean she outsmarted the white man and didn't fall for his tricks?
The first time I saw Django I went with my 12 yr old niece who is black amongst others. She didn't come away laughing at slavery or thinking that it was a joke. She actually thought the exact opposite and asked all kinds of questions about the people with scars on their backs, the whipping, the face masks, etc.. Does that mean she outsmarted the white man and didn't fall for his tricks?
