This western which was apparently based on the 1966 DJANGO movie by Frank Nero, had an all-star cast as would be expected in any Quentin Tarantino movie. Jamie Foxx played Django who was a slave turned bounty hunter thanks to the humanitarian efforts and forward mind-set of Dr. King Schultz played by the over-articulate Christoph Waltz. The first scene hit the audience with bold type set which informed us that the year was 1858 (2 years before the Civil War)...inferring that most of the audience wouldn't know that that date was 2 years before the Civil War. Whatever. Anyway, Dr. King was quickly introduced as he rode his horse-drawn wagon with a large wiggling tooth atop the wagon. OK. Details here. The tooth had 3 roots. I am sure I am the only one that noticed that the molar only had 3 roots, but come on. Throw that 4th root on there! I guess 3 roots would be an oral surgeon's dream. Back to the story. The violence began quickly and continued throughout the movie. Yes, this was expected. Some of the violence, however, was so unrealistic that it wasn't as bothersome as I thought it would be. Spaghetti Western fit it perfectly as so much of the blood spurting looked like gooey noodles strewn about. The most troubling aspect of the movie regarding violence were the scenes which dealt with brutality to slaves. Eye Coverage here. 
Given all the blood and guts, the movie also was funny. Even slapstick silly in parts. One of the funniest scenes featured Jonah Hill in the KKK. I give credit to anyone who can take such a deplorable group of people and what they stood for and make them into bumbling idiots and funny. Funny also came into play with the music choices. I am not a music aficionado. So for me to notice Rap, 70's, and Beethoven all intertwined, it had to stand out in a very bizarre way. My son assured me that that is a QT signature on a movie. OK.
Now the negatives and there generally are always a few in any movie, but this one had some pretty powerful negatives. The N-word being dropped 7 million times (ok, I'm exaggerating) just got to be too much for me. It was offensive. Yes, that was probably the way they talked back then, but WOW! It kept hitting me over the head. I can't imagine how someone who was African American felt in the audience. Then the brutal treatment and violence that occurred was really too much for me as well. I lost out on a good 5+ minutes of the movie due to Eye Coverage. The positive about the Eye Coverage was that there was generally fair warning that I needed to do so. Thanks, QT. The duration of the movie was 165 minutes...that's 2 hours and 45 minutes. I felt like there were actually 3 different endings and perhaps one couldn't be agreed upon so they melded all three of them into the film. Next time, pick one and cut 45 minutes.This is NOT a movie for everyone. It was an interesting story with great acting. It was extremely violent, graphic, and harsh. But it was also funny. This well-directed and wonderfully acted movie is definitely for the QT fans out there. If you are at all offended by language and brutally horrific violence, pick a fun Rom Com instead.
8 REELS for QT Fans
2 REELS for those of us who prefer the non-violent movies.
You know, I've never fully understood the complaint by people that QT is too violent. I never consider him violent, and if I am comparing his use of violence to anything, it's more likely I'd compare it to, well, a spaghetti western violence, or even Looney Tunes, level of violence. Yes, he can be, but it's never violence alone, and it's generally violence that's pumped up by dialogue. Have you seen his movies, more than once? 'Cause if you watch them once, and keep your eyes covered, than yeah, they can be violent, but take "Pulp Fiction" for instance, supposedly notoriously violent, yet, if you watch the movie, not only is their far less violence, than say your average James Bond or "Die Hard" movie, but there's hardly any violence at all. Even in something like "Kill Bill Vol. 1", Uma Thurman's fighting the crazy 88s, sword fighting 88 people, and it's shot, in a long shot, in black and white, in shadow, most of it. The violence, is the important thing in his movies. If that scene was written by Shakespeare it would read, "They fight, the Crazy 88s, fall". I haven't seen Django, so I can't comment on that, but considering all his other films, you might want to watch them again, and closely. The more you watch them, the less violence they actually have.
ReplyDeleteviolence is the "least important thing..." forgot the critical word there.
DeleteDavid, thanks for commenting! I've taken your comment to heart about not understanding people taking QT as a violent filmmaker. Yes, I agree with your "spaghetti" western comparison. I believe I even stated the blood spurting looked like gooey sauce covered spaghetti (or something to that effect). I will admit that when I tried to watch other QT movies in the past, it was during a time in my life that all I wanted was a happy escapism. His movies didn't fit the bill. I didn't get past the superficial violence of it. Now, my son seems to understand Mr. Tarantino much better than I do. I think that there might be a difference in the gender. That's not to say it's completely a male/female thing, but I think there would be a dominance in the male factor. However, after lengthy discussions with many people this afternoon about your e-mail, I will try to watch another QT movie for comparison's sake. Back to DJANGO...the blood spurting truly didn't bother me as much as the whipping and branding of the slaves. I think that is because it truly happened in the past. That, I take to heart. Perhaps I take it to heart when it shouldn't be. But I do. I understand it's just a movie, but I like a movie that I can relate to and have an impact upon me that is not disturbing. That being said, I liked the movie (DJANGO) much more than I thought I would. Cut out a few scenes for me and I would have appreciated it more. I think QT has a quirky sense of humor and creativity that is outside the box. Very cool. Quirky and cool are a great combination. I just can't escape the violence. And that is just my perspective and opinion. Keep the comments coming! I love the conversation it stimulates!
ReplyDeleteYou know, has had some of the same complaints from women, per se. My mother's never cared for him either, not necessarily about the violence, more about, the emotional response to certain parts of his films. She's like the Travolta and Thurman part for instance, but not much of the rest of the film. (Although ironically "Inglourious Basterds" is the only WWII film she's ever like) And there was, especially in his early work, there was this sense, of male chauvinism undercurrent in his films, although in hindsight, it hasn't held up with his recent films. Both "Kill Bill"s, and "Death Proof", are mostly female leads, who win in the end. (Oh, and in "Jackie Brown", almost forgot about that one) QT has many themes in his work, but he loves movies first of all, and he loves scene-licking characters who have great iconic dialogue. You're not the only one complaining about "Django...", Spike Lee's already been very critical of using the time period, to tell an exaggerated genre tale like this, and that includes how he's combining the realism of the era, with the spaghetti western/rescue story. Yeah, try watching, I'd start with "Pulp Fiction" again, and pay attention to not only, how much/little violence there is, (especially shot-by-shot), but how unimportant it is, in the film. It might surprise you, on his films, 2nd, 3rd time around, how it isn't as graphic, (Usually), and how it works, in the movies.
DeleteI'm sure we have Pulp Fiction (I live with two avid QT fans!) and will take a look. One positive that I can come up with already is that I won't have to bribe anyone to watch it with me...my son and husband will willingly view it! (They wouldn't go see Les Mis!)
ReplyDeleteI'll let you know what I think and again, thanks for your comments!
Pam
LOL. I've heard good things about "Les Mis...", including from you, although I'll be honest, I don't particularly care for Andrew Lloyd Webber, so I'm skeptical going in, but maybe.
DeleteOn my blog, I posted a Canon of Film entry blog on "Pulp Fiction" awhile back. I'll give you the link here. It might help; it goes a bit into Tarantinoian film theory.
http://davidbaruffi.blogspot.com/2011/11/canon-of-film-pulp-fiction.html
If you're not a fan of musicals or of Les Mis, I'd skip it! It's long and it's a bit of an operatic musical in that there is very little dialogue. These were my two main complaints of the film, but that being said, they adapted it well to the screen! It told the story in a more concise way that I think the play did.
ReplyDeleteI'll take a look at the link you provided. Thanks, David!
Pam
Your welcome. I'll still see "Les Mis..." eventually. I try not to skip important films, and it definitely looks important. I like musicals fine by the way, I've never cared for Andrew Lloyd Webber. Didn't care for "Cats", never liked his "The Phantom of the Opera", and really couldn't stand "Jesus Christ Superstar". That was the last movie that I couldn't physically finish. I got an hour and seven minutes through, and I finally said, I'm done. So, I'm skeptical of Webber, but I love musicals.
Delete