Quentin Tarantino's Western movie "Django Unchained"

thought this was okay - which is a bit of a disappointment. some serious structural and pacing problems, nonsensical plot machinations/character motivations. the racial politics of it didn't bother me.

I was surprised at how relatively inert and devoid of tension it was. Even with the foregone conclusion that Django's gonna kill everyone and get his wife back at the end, there were long stretches in the last hour or so where it just felt like nothing was at stake and there were no surprises. what did surprise me is how sloppily constructed the movie gets once Django+Schultz hatch their nonsensical plan to get Hildy out of Candieland. What is the point of Schultz' proposed subterfuge? If they have $12K to spend on a "mandingo" that they don't really want anyway, why don't they just offer Candie that $12K for Hildy outright? That's a shitload of money - why would Candie refuse, or even care why they want her? Similarly, after he figures it out, why does Steven care why they want to buy Hildy, what difference does it make? Why does Candie fly into an apopleptic/near murderous rage when their subterfuge is uncovered? He's a businessman, who gives a shit why these guys want to give him $12k? Up to that point Django hasn't done anything to deliberately antagonize either Steven or Candie (well, I guess Django's very existence is an irritant to Steven), the rage seems to come totally out of nowhere. And then Candie pulls out a skull he's had forever and decides to saw it apart for... what, exactly? Don't get me wrong I like jokes about phrenology as much as the next guy but all of this stuff just felt forced and unearned, what was supposed to be tension-building seemed completely contrived and then okay sure a shootout followed by an EXTRA shootout eh whatever.

There are innumerable ways this movie could have been made better, which still I suppose makes it better than the average unsalvageable flick. But that's no excuse.

There's a more convincing emotional core to Kill Bill, especially seeing the films separately, as they were released, when certain revelations in 2 nestled nicely with stuff introduced in part 1. And I still think Basterds' reflexive juxtaposition of our desire for revenge and revenge as as entertainment and how it's conveyed in propaganda and cinema/fiction, set in the context of a real historical atrocity, was sophisticated and shrewd. I wish he pulled off something that subversive and smart with Django, which is just narratively lazy and stupid and completely unconcerned with much more than style. Though who knows, maybe all the character development was left on the cutting room floor when it should have been there in place of the second shootout or the silly Klan rally and basically the whole final 20 minutes or so.

agreed on all points. I think this was also the first film he's made that was so straightforward and linear and, as a result, kind of boring. there were no cutaways or flashbacks or delayed reveals that added anything at all to the story.

I felt like the scenes that worked best and were the most effective were the scene introducing Candie and the runaway slave scene, and most of what came after (which was a lot!) felt rote.

maybe we can put all this down to the death of Sally Menke

Uh, they were never going to give him $12k iirc correctly, they were going to fake him with the big money and then buy Hildy for a lot less as a passing whim, then the letter from their lawyer would never appear.

That's right, iirc correctly. Correctness is a very important concept to me. Obviously.

none of that is stated. and they clearly had the money on them (and plenty more besides) so why not just pay up

that whole deal implies that Schultz would have to tell Django that a) his wife isn't worth that much money and b) let's try this harebrained, much riskier scheme instead, in the interest of saving a few thousand dollars

I don't think you've entirely got the economics right there - $12k is a lot of money, enough to make a big difference to a young couple who have nothing else in the world. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they have enough more than that to the point where they could just throw it away.

I mean, I'm not claiming that the scheme isn't overelaborate, but the money doesn't strike me as the problem.

when Candie's dude takes Schultz' billfold and removes the $12K there is clearly a lot more left in his billfold

and it's not "throwing it away" it would mean the safe and legal purchase of his wife's freedom!

All your wacky money is the same it's probably 12k and a hundred 1s.

It's throwing it away if you can get her for less. Also not convinced that Django would be shocked at the idea that his wife has some sort of monetary value attached.

but getting her for less requires this ridiculous and (ostensibly dangerous) ruse. and it's not that Django would be shocked that his wife costs money, I'm saying that he probably wouldn't care about getting her for the cheapest price possible - it's clear he wants her no matter what the cost. but that all of this is even a question is a result of poor scripting/characterization, none of this stuff is addressed, even obliquely.

iirc schultz did not feel that candie would have dealt with them in any fashion if they did not get his attention

$12K for a random slave wouldn't get his attention? Schulz's assumption is baseless.

or at least we aren't provided with anything that supports it

i dont disagree, but this was definitely his contention

the movie would have worked out much better with an extended middle section of django kicking ass and learning more about kicking ass then storming candieland or w/e, but i guess QT needed a reason to have a big slow quiet scene with all his leading characters.

There is so much in this movie left unstated that I suspect there was never an intention of stating it, which is a facet of its laziness.

I mean, you could also ask, of all the reprehensible men Schultz has met or killed, why was Candie the one he would not shake hands with, just to get it over with and get the fuck out of there? And why was he particularly worth killing, knowing it sealed his doom and possibly fucked up Django's chances as well? No reason, or left unexplained/unexplored/undeveloped. You have to make so many assumptions of character motivation that you basically assume yourself right into a different movie that was not made.

he was made as hell and he wasn't gonna take it any more

I read a persuasive argument (maybe via a link itt, I forget) that Schultz's illogical - indeed suicidal - decision to shoot Candie is symbolic of white guilt. Here's this guy who's spent years constantly playing the system and manipulating bigots to get what he wants. Although he's sympathetic to black people it's not about helping them or wanting to change the system but getting away with it and getting paid. But then he develops this genuine friendship with Django that starts to make him feel like that his previous attitude is no longer morally acceptable. The clincher is watching the slave torn apart by dogs while Schultz maintains his pretence, which represents what you imagine he's been doing his whole career - letting slaves live or die based on the demands of the job at hand. So when he's in a situation where he could continue getting away with it, he just can't because his disgust with the system (embodied in Candie) and with himself for not confronting it, becomes overwhelming. I don't think that requires a great leap - in fact it makes sense of the character.

xp The Hertzberg blog is hilarious. For such a wise, elegant writer he just sounds like some cranky guy venting about a movie he hated on the street outside the theatre.

"A mounted, heavily armed African-American couple, one of whom who had just gone on a spectacular killing spree, would not have gotten very far in eighteen-fifties Mississippi."

Sure, but apart from that it's 100% realistic.

thats how i read it too DL

i also enjoyed the inversion of expectations where the movie primes you to think django is gonna lose his cool, but it's schultz who couldn't help himself - and he fucks over django and hildy in the process of getting his satisfaction. white man's just gotta be the center of attention

Yeah, it's white guilt. And it's pretty smart as well, seeing as his white guilt isn't actually helping the black people, but furthering their suffering, and it's still about Schultz himself, and him not compromising. It's not lazy filmmaking, it's asking you to think for yourself a bit, instead of being spoonfed everything.

But I don't remember scenes preparing us for Schultz's moral illumination.

he can't sleep for visions of the slave being torn apart iirc

doesn't shake django as much cuz this is just his life

i think shakey's right about a bunch of stuff tho; i thought it was p devoid of tension too.

I didn't have an issue with Schulz shooting Candie. It made less sense for Candie to needle him about the handshake tbh

yeah sry that was a deceptive "tho"

why does Candie get so angry about the ruse? why does he insist on shaking hands? what's with the skull? why does he care that they really want to buy Hildy and not Eskimo Joe - shouldn't he be glad that he's parting with a female house slave that's causing him nothing but trouble, instead of one of his prize fighters?

someone somewhere raised your same objection to the $12k "getting his attention" plan and for some reason qt like called him up and gave this strange interview about it i don't remember coming out of with any more confidence than i'd gone in.

What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain?

Also, the stuff with Schultz being mad because of D'Artagnan and the misuse of Dumas is great as well. In a way, he is not mad because of the suffering of black people, but because slavery is a disgrace to white culture. He is really a spot on picture of the white idealist.

I did appreciate that everybody in this movie has terrible teeth

fwiw

I can't remember Waltz's performance without wincing.

misuse of Dumas is great as well. In a way, he is not mad because of the suffering of black people, but because slavery is a disgrace to white culture.

Dumas is white culture now eh

agree with Alfred that Waltz's schtick was better the first time around. ridiculous that they gave him an Oscar but then that's the Academy for ya

well, it reassures me to remember that the Academy likes to validate work at his level.

xp I figured he didn't like being tricked or the idea of making Django happy.

why should he care if Django's happy or not? as far as Candie's concerned, Django isn't even a person

Dumas was one quarter black, but that is not really the point. His novels are quite clearly a part of the western, white canon...

you seem to have missed the point of King pointing out that Dumas was black to Candie

But I don't remember scenes preparing us for Schultz's moral illumination.

This. I mean, obviously the slave getting torn apart did not, er, sit well with Schultz, but surely he had seen - or even perpetrated - evils of that nature over the course of his many months traversing the United States killing bad or bad enough people with extreme prejudice. In other words, fooey on this:

Also:

But then he develops this genuine friendship with Django

Does he? Why the fuck would he? Django is dull as dirt and one-dimensional. It's simply a contrivance of the film. Again, you can infer and assume your way through this mess, but what's on the screen barely supports your butt for 2 and a half hours.

It's not lazy filmmaking, it's asking you to think for yourself a bit, instead of being spoonfed everything.

Because thinking is the last thing this movie is asking you to do. It's forcing you to think for it.

you seem to have missed the point of King pointing out that Dumas was black to Candie

This was just a pale (so to speak) echo of Dennis Hopper insultingly delving into the racial background of Italians in "True Romance."

x-post

Another time where we get to the limits of Schultz tolerance. He thinks a quarter of black blood contaminates, apparantly. And it only means (to Schultz) that white culture is so much better, since it is able to absorb all this problematic blackness. Like, no one thought The Three Musketeers or The Count of Monte Christo wasn't canonical parts of the western canon anyway...

You could say that Candie with his rage shows the limits of the southern slaver mentality: ie he is actually not able to just consider Django a non-person, he has to hate him to defend to himself the system he has built up.

If people work WITH the film instead of against it, we can actually get somewhere with what it is about, instead of just finding imaginary 'flaws'.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound angry, but I am quite tired of that whole thing where everyone is pointing out 'mistakes' and 'flaws' in films, instead of what they did right. I love that old marvel no-prize thing, where people actually was trying to find interesting solutions for things, instead of just pointing fingers. Sorry, and of ranting.

And it only means (to Schultz) that white culture is so much better, since it is able to absorb all this problematic blackness.

this is so not supported by what's shown on-screen

Schultz has no problem conflating Django with Siegried for ex. where are you getting that he thinks blackness is a "problem". And pretty much nobody in the world would have considered Dumas white at the time, the "one drop" bullshit having been very well established at that point. Django would have called Dumas a black man if he saw him.

There are a thousand ways to justify this and that in the film, but the film itself makes very little effort to support such theories and motivations, which I think is a failure of storytelling, a pretty major "flaw." And the only reason I at least have a bee in my bonnet is that I am sure Tarantino knows better, because he can certainly do better, and has done so, repeatedly. He's too pervasive for me to consider a favorite director, per se, but I've really loved everything he did before this. There is so much downright dumb, distracting stuff in here - the klan rally, the Aussies - that it makes the important stuff that's missing - motivations, character development - seem all the more glaring in its absence.