Quentin Tarantino's Western movie "Django Unchained"

would watch Josh in Chicago's Beckett/Tarantino mashup play

"Now, gentlemen, would you care to watch me open this door?"

"That door?"

"Yes, this particular door."

"You're going to open it?"

"Yes, that is what I said."

"Then open the door."

"I just wanted to assure myself that you in fact did not object to me opening said door before I did so."

i thought this kind of thing rly dragged waltz down in this one

It's a shame the two directors I'd be most interested to see shoot someone else's script (Tarantino and Malick) are the least likely to do so.

Just incoherent, indulgent, dumb

Tarantino's films are often arguably indulgent and dumb, Django certainly not excepted, but incoherent?!

http://justinstruggles.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/django-deconstructed/

That's exactly why, Josh, Waltz looked like a bad actor to me.

It's a shame the two directors I'd be most interested to see shoot someone else's script (Tarantino and Malick) are the least likely to do so.

― ryan, Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:42 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i always sorta thought this was why jackie brown was so great, b/c he lifted so much of it directly from leonard w/ only a few tarantino flourishes

Incoherent in that it really had no plot or message, motivations were largely muddy, the pacing was waaaaaay off (see: everything after the mansion, the "Blazing Saddles" klan raid digression, etc.). It had no real sense of time or geography (Texas to Tennessee to Mississippi?). All sorts of shit was off.

Also, felt a little bad for Walton Goggins, who gets cast as a racist for like the fifth time.

I find it kind of hard to believe you've seen Tarantino films before but went into one looking for a message, or non-affected dialogue. Was it a "one last chance" sort of thing?

Plot, motivations, these are fine, "pacing" is always a red herring - what would you want in the way of a sense of time and geography, one of those red dotted line on the map kind of things? I don't know how long it took them to get from one place to another, but why would I care?

No, I pretty much love all his other movies, even "Death Proof." This was not a "one last chance" but a first time all the things people complain about really rang true, with very little left over to justify to indulgences. I mean, I can go on and on. Why were there Australians in rural Mississippi, especially then? Why would Candie cart around this skull, passed around for decades, just to saw it apart for this one impulsive dramatic point? Was Sam Jackson's character pretending to have a limp? Was he pretending to be stupid for the benefit of Candie, or were the two in on it? To what end? Why would Waltz's character go through all that trouble just to get those three bounties? All it did was throw off what little plot there was ... or, to the contrary, provide what little plot/motivation/momentum it had. So many of the scenes, more than most so in Tarantino flicks, seemed like the movie was built around them rather than supporting a story, but a Picaresque this was not. It just random stuff happening for random reasons, with only the most facile of emotional cores. Basically, it was like "Basterds," except everything that movie did right this one did wrong.

Per the geography, it doesn't matter how they got from point a to point c, but why? Just criss-crossing the south at random?

Wasn't looking for a message, per se, but all his other movies (or maybe just the recent ones, "Kill Bill" and beyond) at least offered a modicum of wit in their PoMo pastiche approach. This one was totally witless and full of itself. I could go on, but I have to walk my kid to school.

Basically, this whole movie flunked the "but why would I care?" test.

well, I'm sorry

It's not your fault!

It had no real sense of time or geography (Texas to Tennessee to Mississippi?)

Without getting into the other complaints (I loved the movie, but got tired of talking about it), the geography was hilarious and deliberate. It was an imaginary South, only remotely connected to any actual map. The line about plantations in Gatlinburg, e.g., was one of his Tennessee in-jokes (Gatlinburg is in mountains and probably 100 miles from anywhere you could conceivably have a plantation). He was playing off of the Hollywood South, using it the way Hollywood always has, but subverting it.

Okay fair point all I hear is static every time that Tarantino is actually on screen - maybe he thought that the terrible accent would make up for his howling lack of acting skills.

The skull thing is affected, for sure, but Candie is fond of affectations, as Waltz is fond of Huck Finn-style over-elaborate plans (the stand-off in the bar at the start).

I don't know to what extent Sam Jackson has been living a lie - to Candie, to the staff, to outsiders - it's no less a lie than the rest of his routine, and made for a great reveal.

Sorry if all this stuff is redundant to some of you, but I really did just finally get around to seeing this, and I was surprised by how much I disliked it, and why.

I'm not sure I buy the geographical in-joke explanation, but I'll accept it, though I wish Tarantino would have done something actually funny or clever with it.

With the Australian thing, it really underscores how Tarantino's self-indulgence can fuck things up. He's said in interviews that the two Aussies had a backstory that he had to cut out ... so why not cut them out entirely, since all they add is ten more minutes of running time? See also: the brief fight on the road to Candieland, the Klan stuff, etc. It adds nothing to story, and is not really entertaining enough to warrant its existence. OK, the Klan stuff was funny, but it was indeed funnier in "Blazing Saddles;" surprised Tarantino didn't throw in a scene with them all farting around the fire.

Would have been awesome (and thematically more interesting, too) if Sam Jackson had flashed his free papers at the end and revealed he's been the brains behind the operation all along.

So much more. There was just enough screen time from Candie's sister that I wished she had no screen time. I liked the Huck Finn plans/playfulness, but wish that element was a little more in focus (Tarantino I think could make a great "Huck Finn" movie!). Waltz's moral evolution was completely undeveloped; Django's transformation from vulnerable but vengeful to over-styled quipper was BS; Django's wife seemed like some sort of missed opportunity ...

The stuff with fetishization of violence and/or slavery is a tricky one, since this is nowhere near as amoral, trashy, offensive or whatever as some of the stuff Tarantino is referencing. If anything, the movie didn't earn its violence, since there was only the most facile of emotional drivers at work. I really liked "Inglorious Basterds," but probably would have hated that one, too, had it only been Brad Pitt and his merry band of violent doofuses. In that case, all the stuff with Shosanna, and the movie theater, and the literal re-writing of history, I felt lent it an intelligence and emotional core that this one lacked.

I should stress, though, that this was much preferable to what Rodriguez would have surely done with the same material, but besting "Machete" is a modest achievement.

Is the brief fight the one where Waltz has to get off the coach and have a word with Django? That seemed fairly solidly in service to the story - Waltz is getting concerned at his softness and Django's hardness.

We may have to disagree on Rodriguez, I haven't seen Machete but nothing else I've seen by him has been as dull as Death Proof.

Admittedly we probably didn't need both the scene with him punching a horse pulling someone off his horse, and the one where he stares down the other slave - but a lot of my enjoyment of Tarantino for me is that if I'm comfortable in the film and enjoying the affectations then sure, why not, may as well have another scene.

Yeah, I was thinking of the first fight, where he pulls the guy off.

I love the dullness of Death Proof. One of my favorite surprises in any film, ever, is the way the movie gradually (I hope intentionally) morphs from fake 70s grit, replete with scratches and splotches on the stock, to the contemporary. When that car chase at the end spills out onto the highway, amid all those modern-day mini-vans and other mundane vehicles, I thought it was a hilarious twist.

BTW, all these extraneous scenes would be less of a problem if the movie did not run an otherwise inexplicable 165 minutes, ten longer than "Basterds," which was also probably too long.

You've got a kind of weird take on the Samuel Jackson character. He's not the brains behind the operation, or in on it w/ Leo. He's a slave who has amassed a certain level of respect and influence in the family but he's not like the secret guy in charge.

I don't have a take on him at all. I'm just saying there's enough ambiguity at work that I can't tell if it's intentional, sloppy or just nothing anyone even considered. Surely his "public" demeanor around Leo is different than his private demeanor in the library, when they are framed as equals (though of course they are not). He's even introduced as an analog to Django ("you two will hate each other"), after Django has explicitly stated black slavers (him, in guise) is the only thing worse than the head house slave (Sam Jackson). But I wish I knew what Sam Jackson's character got out of his "certain level of respect and influence." When Leo is shot, he cries out in anguish, which I considered BS, given his established demeanor. Why would he care why Waltz was there or whether he wanted to buy Broomhilda? Why at the end does he cast away his cane and stand up straight? Why does he seem to have a tremor when he's talking around other white people, but sits stone still when he speaks in private with Leo? Again, just kind of sloppy and ambiguous. That's why I suggested it would have been a nice twist, and thematically consistent, given what Tarantino had told/showed us, if he had turned out to be in charge.

basically, he reminded me a little of Phil Hartman as Ronald Reagan.

what a weird way of reading the movie

I don't think it's sloppy and ambiguous personally - I think all those things you see as inconsistent are being used to portray a complex character who codeswaps between conversations + power dynamics (the way he talks to brunhila is different than how he talks to leo is different than how he talks to django etc). I think he stymied Waltz's plan bc he was looking out for Leo's interests - he obviously feels closely related to the plantation family.

yeah... Josh i think you may have misread this movie tbh

I didn't misread shit because there's not much to misread. The house slave is such a tried and true movie trope that sam's admittedly subtle deviations are distractions. At least to me.anyway, it's just 1 aspect of many.

This movie might have worked better as a two parter, like Kill Bill, the first part bloody bounty hunter adventures, the second part at the plantation.

like, I totally understand the power dynamic. but Sam Jackson in front of the guests acts totally different than he does alone with Leo. not just his attitude, but his entire demeanor, the way he literally and figuratively carries himself.

I think that maybe because it's strictly Sam Jackson, and Tarantino wrote the part for him, so needed to give him more to do. but I feel that the character is under conceived, another wasted opportunity.

serves me right for having expectations that Tarantino would dig at least a millimeter beneath the surface these characters.

like, I totally understand the power dynamic. but Sam Jackson in front of the guests acts totally different than he does alone with Leo. not just his attitude, but his entire demeanor, the way he literally and figuratively carries himself.

then it doesn't sound like you totally understand the power dynamic

they have a relationship where jackson is allowed to be less formal with leo in private, but is still expected to put up the front of the lowly slave in front of others, so that leo doesn't look less powerful

i had plenty of problems with this movie but jackson's character wasn't one of them

it wasn't just that he was less defferential in private, he was downright Machiavellian. didn't have a problem with him, didn't misunderstand him. But I think he's just yet another aspect of the film that seems poorly thought out, a missed opportunity to subvert or offer a new twist on familiar tropes. the film once it both ways, historical fealty or realism on 1 hand, comical exaggeration or Subversion on the other. the result was that I just couldn't take any of it remotely seriously.

Like, the context of this conversation: geography all screwy? Oh, that's just Quentin messing with us, playing off Hollywood cliches about the south. But Sam Jackson's character? That's just the way it was, man.

the film once it both ways, historical fealty or realism on 1 hand, comical exaggeration or Subversion on the other.

i do agree that this stylistic wishy-washiness was the big shortcoming of the movie

but SLJ in Leo's chair with a cognac was certainly a new twist, no?

That's what I mean! Leo walks in on him, and he's sitting by the fire, with a glass of cognac, not trembling, totally in control, even aggressively so. Stone cold.

"Thank you, Steven. You're welcome."

And by "framed as equals," I meant that literally. The two, set aside from one another, sitting in chairs by the fire, scheming, SLJ in control of the conversation, Leo listening intently and respectfully. It may be an example of Tarantino's eye for the iconic getting the best of him, it may not be. But it is conspicuous.

The stuff with fetishization of violence and/or slavery is a tricky one, since this is nowhere near as amoral, trashy, offensive or whatever as some of the stuff Tarantino is referencing.

i thought the way the violence was played was one of the better parts of the movie, that tarantino was able to pull off switching between cartoonish/pulpy/action movie violence whenever the 'bad guys' were the targets and really visceral, stomach-churning "realistic" violence (the mandingo fighting scene etc). sometimes in adjacent scenes no less.

Josh's interpretation is pretty much how Sam Jackson read the character! The "Dick Cheney of Candieland."

Wow, I had no idea. But me, OTM:

You're playing a slave we haven't much seen on screen — someone who's not a victim and is, in fact, kind of the bad guy. Was that hard for you?

I don't think there's any question Stephen is one of the most despised Negroes in cinematic history. He's unapologetically menacing. He's the power behind the throne. He's the Dick Cheney of Candieland. But I also understand his position. He doesn't want to upset the apple cart. On the plantation, he can function like a free man. But he goes 75 miles away and he's just an ordinary slave.

Some of the power of the character just comes from the way he looks — a paunchy, hobbled old man with an old face. Not your usual Samuel Jackson character.

(Laughs.) No, it's not. At least, I hope it's not. Quentin and I wanted to give Stephen a certain look — we wanted him to appear like the most ancient slave in the place. Which he is. But we also wanted him to seem strong and smart. He looks feeble, but there's also something else there.

From the LATimes.

I'm just saying there's enough ambiguity at work that I can't tell if it's intentional

why wouldn't it be? would it even matter if it wasn't? the ambiguity is there either way

the movie effectively does show stephen in charge, it would've been shitty storytelling for him to whip out some free papers (???) at the end for who knows what reason. you complain so much about character motivation, but what would motivate him to do that?

Why would he care why Waltz was there or whether he wanted to buy Broomhilda? Why at the end does he cast away his cane and stand up straight? Why does he seem to have a tremor when he's talking around other white people, but sits stone still when he speaks in private with Leo? Again, just kind of sloppy and ambiguous.

what the... dude are you a robot or something

the part of this movie that sticks in my craw most -- not as a flaw, necessarily, just the thing that i think of most when i think of it at all -- is candie's rumination on "why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?"

an actual calvin candie would absolutely know the answer: because the lives of slaves were heavily policed. being on a slave patrol was a compulsory public duty for white men in southern states. there is enough evidence to suggest this relationship between state, owner and slave is the "insurrection" and "well-regulated militia" described by the 2nd amendment. slave uprisings were a regular enough historical occurrence to be popularly feared; keeping everybody in line was a constant public effort.

there is a strange idea still at work in american historical imagination that slaves must have been somewhat brainwashed or heavily ideologically indoctrinated into the idea of being slaves; a multi-generational anti-self-esteem effort or something. after all, who would put up with being a slave otherwise? (modern people really have a tough time imagining themselves being stuck in a subordinate position). the idea goes hand-in-hand with confederate apologetics that slavery was relatively "peaceful". the truth is that the south was something closer to an open-air prison camp, with every white person acting as warden.

for tarantino's story of individual heroism and revenge to work, the "mystery" of slave passivity is has to be kept alive as well. it wasn't really a mystery.

it's not really a mystery? i mean the movie goes pretty far in showing fucked up the entire system was to "keep everyone in line" - even Schultz, the first hero of the story, makes a mockery of the fact that he's a legalized murderer and corpse seller in this world

uh... p sure "tarantino's story" makes abundantly clear why a slave wouldn't slit his master's throat and why candie's theory is self-serving and abhorrent in the extreme. dude lays it out while desecrating the man's mortal remains

sorry there weren't subtitles explaining "while many white slaveowners actually believed this shit, it should be obvious by now that the game was rigged for a thousand miles in very direction."

"sorry there weren't subtitles" lol fuck off

xposting That's interesting, and an unintentional comparison to (speaking of) Australia, which was also largely a self-policed open-air prison camp. There was a point when people back in the UK would apparently commit petty crimes on purpose so as to be reunited with family in self-directed prison colony Sydney, which beat a crap life back home. Perhaps not a coincidence that Australian citizens eventually put an end to their status as criminal repository.

the movie effectively does show stephen in charge, it would've been shitty storytelling for him to whip out some free papers (???) at the end for who knows what reason. you complain so much about character motivation, but what would motivate him to do that?

I'll play this game, because it's a fun exercise and it's always entertaining to watch some of you get disproportionately aggravated.

There are several parallels between Django and Steven, some made explicit through the contrivances of the film. The fact that black slaver (which Django is pretending to be) and head house slave (which Steven is) are both underlined as the two worst kinds of black people, or the fact that upon meeting one other DiCaprio senses enough immediate tension to outright state "you two will hate each other" or whatever. But I think had Steven been revealed to be a freed slave it would have added an impactful irony to the story. Django and Steven would both have been freed slaves convinced it was in their best interest to remain under the respective care of a white master - Waltz and DiCaprio, respectfully, both at least temporarily their masters by choice. Django would be provided a freedom of movement with Waltz as his escort, Steven gets the be the brains behind the power, as long as he's on the plantation; that would be his motivation, as a freed slave, to essentially remain in the employ of DiCaprio. Except that when Django loses his master (Waltz) he ends up more powerful, able to exact his revenge the way he sees fit, with no check and none of Waltz's games. But when Steven loses his explicit, outright legal master, when DiCaprio is gunned down, he suddenly realizes what a lie he's been telling himself, because legally free or no, he suddenly loses his power and is reduced to just another slave. Heck, it could have even ended with Steven blowing his own head off as a final expression of what little power over himself he still has.

Anyway, this is what happens in my "Django: Remixed" cut, which will be out in 2033.

I liked the movie, but I also really dig your take, Josh.