Django Unchained

So a couple months ago I believe I posted in the "Bad Movies" thread that a white guy directing and writing a blaxploitation movie could be nothing other than unfortunate. But after I gave a week or so for my gut reaction to settle down, I began to think maybe it wouldn't be so bad, y'know? Quentin Tarantino might be suffering a sharp decline in quality, but he's always at least sincere and enthusiastic. The cast was all well-respected and decorated actors. Not only that, but the majority of the cast was black! Which is very rare unless you've got a Madea or a "Think Like a Man" on your hands.

What I forgot in my naive optimism is that this is Quentin Tarantino. Who's going to be making a tongue-in-cheek splatter faux B-movie about slavery.

Yeahhhh, why did I ever think this was going to go well?

The biggest problem in this movie, the thing that made my skin crawl, was that... well, I'll call it "Niggersploitation". Why? The whole film feels like fetishization of slavery and the oppressive race dynamics of the Antebellum South. Every line of dialogue uses the word "nigger" at least twice. And it might just be me, but I could swear the black characters refer to each other as "nigga" on more than one occasion. Which is a bit surreal, and feels a little like pandering to what Hollywood calls the "urban audience."

And yes, I know. It's the Antebellum South. People said "nigger". But.... just go and see the movie and you'll see what I mean. Have you ever met that one White Guy? Y'know, the one who uses the word "nigger" every chance he gets, every time he feels he can get away with it? So when you're just chillin' among white people he'll find every opportunity he can to use "nigger" to replace every noun, verb, adverb, adjective, pronoun, he feels like he can? Maybe I just know shitty people. But I digress. Imagine if that guy got the opportunity to write a script for a piece taking place in the Antebellum South. Yeah.... pretty much like that.

This also goes hand-in-hand with Tarantino's depictions of racial violence. Yes. Awful atrocities were committed thanks to the racial power dynamics of slavery. But the images of racial violence are presented in the trademark Tarantino indulgent, over-the-top fashion. This, coupled with Tarantino's past track record of excessive violence (not missing here) and the fact that these images are starkly juxtaposed with humor as well as the typical Tarantino style of reckless lack of depth make it all seem to show a desire to titillate and excite the audience rather than show the gritty realism of the Old South. Shit, the main plantation featured in the movie (Candyland) trains the slaves as gladiators and prostitutes!

On top of all this uncomfortableness, it's just.... really not a very good movie. It's way too long (clocking in at almost three hours) and there's wayyyyyy too much fat that needed to be cut and the plot is often needlessly convoluted and the titular character is absolutely boring (a main character driven by vengeance, Tarantino is really expanding his horizons ). This is only heightened by the fact that Jamie Foxx is completely sleepwalking through this movie, and even further heightened by the fact that everyone else around him turn in such stronger performances. The scenes in Candyland, where Foxx is surrounded by Waltz, DiCaprio, and Jackson, Django just disappears completely as too much attention is drawn by the charisma of the three other actors. Samuel L. Jackson is basically playing Uncle Ruckus and he somehow manages to be more interesting and likeable as a character than the guy with his goddamn name in the title!

As for the love interest, played by Kerry Washington, there's really nothing to say. The only chemistry the two have is that they're both frightfully dull, which I guess makes them a match made in heaven.

And I believe that defines this movie (racial aspects aside), too much boring. Could this movie have been good? Yes, yes it could. But the entire affair is far too self-indulgent and bloated. Which is a shame, because, like I said, Waltz, DiCaprio, and Jackson really did try for this one.

I haven't seen it (and from the reviews I've read, I likely won't be going to see it), but Tarantino's got an ego the size of a small planet, and I seriously doubt the movie was ever meant to be a serious look at what slavery was really like. Just another excuse for more over-the-top violence and the usual crap.

And call me old-fashioned, but when I was young, I used the 'n' word once, and my mother washed my mouth out with soap, then sat me down and explained to me why it was a bad word that was demeaning to black people. I can't even write the word out-it makes me feel guilty. I know the word was in common usage, but I also know far too many people who use it for shock value, or because that's honestly how they view blacks.

Quote :

he'll find every opportunity he can to use "nigger" to replace every noun, verb, adverb, adjective, pronoun

So, kinda like the smurfs?

I'm sorry, I have nothing more productive to add; I don't watch Tarantino movies. Except, uh, Candyland? For real?

Quote :

he'll find every opportunity he can to use "nigger" to replace every noun, verb, adverb, adjective, pronoun

Oh ick. I do not know anyone like that personally, I have been around 'em once or twice. I am always sure to avoid dumbasses like that when I can.

Quote :

Except, uh, Candyland? For real?

Well, DiCaprio's role, the plantation owner, is named Calvin Candy. Which I guess just means Tarantino was tickled by the idea of a plantation called Candyland.

Quote :

Just another excuse for more over-the-top violence and the usual crap.

Which would be fine. I liked Pulp Fiction. It's just that Tarantino is playing with real, historic atrocities that's distasteful.

Didn't he do the same thing with Inglorious Basterds where he completely rewrote the end of World War 2 (Hitler being bombed)?

I am under the impression that his latest films are merely wish fulfillment for modern views of unacceptable intolerance. Wanna see nazis being slaughtered? Inglorious Basterds. Wanna see slave owners being massacred? Django Unchained. Wanna see sexists getting their asses handed to them? Or homophobes being lynched? . . . I'll have to get back to you on those last ones.

Aggie wrote:

Didn't he do the same thing with Inglorious Basterds where he completely rewrote the end of World War 2 (Hitler being bombed)?

IDK, that might've been fine and dandy had I cared about the Basterds in question half as much as I cared about Shoshanna? As far as I'm concerned there was one half of a good movie there; Shoshanna's plotline felt really well-drawn and interesting as an alternate-history storyline. Then the entire other half of the movie was like 'HEER R THE BASTERDS BRAD PITT CAN'T SPEAK ITALIAN HURR RHURR' and I lost interest. And how much I enjoyed Christopher Guest's performance depended entirely on which plotline he was confined to. Why was he nominated for an Oscar for this again?

Aggie wrote:

Wanna see sexists getting their asses handed to them? Or homophobes being lynched? . . . I'll have to get back to you on those last ones.

You could make cases for parts of Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction respectively. But those were made back when Tarrantino was still trying so maybe you can't compare them to his more recent work.

Quote :

What I forgot in my naive optimism is that this is Quentin Tarantino. Who's going to be making a tongue-in-cheek splatter faux B-movie about slavery.

Yeahhhh, why did I ever think this was going to go well?

All I could think was, "Fffffffffffffffffffuck".

Movie Bob's take on it was interesting.

I finally went to see it today, and hate to break it to y'all, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and understood it as a legitimately good movie. It's revisionist history and in no way fetishizing. It feels the same as 1970s blaxploitation films except with 80x more effect. If any of you have seen Mandingo, Drum, Legend of Nigger Charley or anything (Roots??) of the sort, you'd understand the historical significance of them. People don't make those films because we eat the fuck up films with minstrels and mammies and they gotta have sass yet be happy about slavery! The Help, anyone? So although this was made by a nerdy white guy, he does know his shit and apparently well enough to get actors like Jamie Foxx to come play. It's not as if these actors don't know what they're doing.

He -spoiler- got into this because killing white people for pay? Sounds great.

DiCaprios role deconstructs the genteel southern stereotype (Gone With The Wind).

Candyland is supposed to be ironic.

It just reminds me of how films like this don't get made very often because people like to think that removing the violence, the racism, the otherwise awfulness from history means that we as a people are past it. It's always white people getting offended. The significance of the term nigger is the old slavery, racism, etc argument but eliminate or whitewash the history with and the injustice becomes nonexistent. Does anybody give a shit about nazi movies? No, because its white on white. But show white people beating on blacks and blacks getting their deserved revenge? That movie is racist!! White people tend to take it personally because they're not racist, that they're being blamed for the faults of their ancestors when encountered with a scenario like this.

I mean, if inappropriate language and really gratuitous violence isn't your thing, don't see it

But on the basis of it being Roots with Revenge? Not inappropriate, but yeah grindhouse, crazy violent, blaxploitation, spaghetti western (why didnt an escaped slave do this in a movie before)?

Disco Stu wrote:

People don't make those films because we eat the fuck up films with minstrels and mammies and they gotta have sass yet be happy about slavery! The Help, anyone?

Huh? I don't remember them being happy about slavery in The Help (if that's what you meant).

Lurv wrote:

Disco Stu wrote:

People don't make those films because we eat the fuck up films with minstrels and mammies and they gotta have sass yet be happy about slavery! The Help, anyone?

Huh? I don't remember them being happy about slavery in The Help (if that's what you meant).

What I mean is, black stereotypes in film. Of course they're not happy. People make do with situations. But again stereotypical portrayals

Stu: What'd you think of Inglorious Bastards (spelling it right because fuck you Quent)? I'm trying to decide if Django is, uh, worth watching, and if it's too much in the vein of Bastards (i.e. an alternate-history bloodbath that feels like it was written by a problematic [if incredibly witty] high-school student) I'm pretty sure I just won't bother.

I can see how someone would think that he is like a high school kid and personally I didn't like Inglorious Basterds. The pacing felt weird and Hitler is an easy target. I find Nazi movies are done to death- although my favorite riffing of Hitler is done by Mel Brooks. If you don't like gratuitous, over-the-top violence, it isn't something you're going to like. If you can agree with Tarantino's choices in this movie, I think it would be worthwhile to see.

I do like his films, although my favorites are Pulp Fiction, Death Proof (grindhouse), and the Kill Bill series (Kurosawa). This one is pretty up there. To be honest, I personally didnt think I would like it because of a LOT of people were offended (white guilt? I don't know) but I did enjoy it quite a bit. Take what I say with a grain of salt and if you're genuinely curious and can either drop ten bucks/or whatever free means and a few hours Then by all means give it a shot.

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set. I did, however, think the violence and the gore was a bit excessive.

Lady Anne wrote:

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set. I did, however, think the violence and the gore was a bit excessive.

Complaining about violence and gore in a Quentin Tarantino movie is like complaining about violence in the NFL. It proves my long held suspicion that you are legitimately retarded.

Really, what else do you expect going into a QT movie? Especially one about a former slave turned bounty hunter fighting to get his wife back from a sadistic plantation owner? This is the man who directed Reservoir Dogs, not the creator of the Smurfs.

The smurfs would be right up his alley. Disadvantaged, hunted for food, narrowly escaping a gruesome fate time and again... and then, revenge.

Quote :

It's always white people getting offended.

Sauce.

I suppose it comes down to how you interpret the violence within the context of the rest of Quentin Tarantino's movies. Because Tarantino does over-the-top, lurid violence that's designed to titillate and excite the viewer, and I don't really see why he would stop here.

And I think it would be a problem if Inglorious Basterds was similar, though I haven't seen it so I can't say.

Disco Stu wrote:

(mini-review)

Hm. Thanks for this. I'll probably wait until it's out of theaters and give it a whirl.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

I suppose it comes down to how you interpret the violence within the context of the rest of Quentin Tarantino's movies. Because Tarantino does over-the-top, lurid violence that's designed to titillate and excite the viewer, and I don't really see why he would stop here.

And I think it would be a problem if Inglorious Basterds was similar, though I haven't seen it so I can't say.

Inglorious Bastards was an incredibly engaging film about a jewish woman on the run buried under piles and piles of Tarrantino-style self-indulgence and Brad Pitt. Literally the least interesting parts of that movie were the Bastards themselves. As I see it, when he can reconcile his self-indulgence and and general schlockiness with the subject matter he's working with, he's brilliant (See: Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and, to a lesser extent, Kill Bill). It's just that that's not always the case, and certainly wasn't in Inglorious Bastards. At least to me.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

This is the man who directed Reservoir Dogs,

God, remember when his entire filmography was that excellent? It was a simpler time.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set. I did, however, think the violence and the gore was a bit excessive.

Complaining about violence and gore in a Quentin Tarantino movie is like complaining about violence in the NFL. It proves my long held suspicion that you are legitimately retarded.

Really, what else do you expect going into a QT movie? Especially one about a former slave turned bounty hunter fighting to get his wife back from a sadistic plantation owner? This is the man who directed Reservoir Dogs, not the creator of the Smurfs.

That was a critique, not a complaint. The amount of blood shed didn't always seem consistent with the injuries--sometimes it was too much, and sometimes it wasn't enough.

Now I'm waiting for the Sues to come out of the woodwork, and for the inevitable slashfics.

So the themed dolls for the Django movie have now been pulled from shelves...I still can't believe that there were dolls made at all, meaning that someone somewhere thought this was a good idea....

“Django” Dolls, Pulled from Stores, Sell for Thousands on Black Market

Quote :

The action figures made for Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” were pulled from stores in the last couple of weeks. Some people found them offensive, an uproar occurred, and the “Django” dolls became history. Or not.

Now it seems that whatever dolls were made by NECA are selling well, like hotcakes, on Ebay and other internet sites– even though NECA has removed them from their website as well. The most popular is Broomhilda, the character of a slave girl played by Kerry Washington. It’s hard to say why, but the Broomhilda action figure is selling for upwards of a thousand dollars to collectors.

The dolls shouldn’t have been made; they were inherently racist and there were dozens of complaints. But pulling them off store shelves created a collector’s market overnight. Some sites are offering the full set of 8 figures for anywhere between $8,000 and $15,000. It remains to be seen who will pay those prices, but collectors obviously think someone will.

The dolls, 8 inches tall, represent characters played by Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson and James Remar. The figures for the five men come in sets ranging in the thousands of dollars. But the Kerry Washington figure — if it can be found– is often advertised at a price equal to the total of the others. It’s hard to say whether or not that’s a compliment as critics have derided the dolls for commercializing slavery.

It’s unclear how many dolls were manufactured, although one site suggests that only 1,000 sets made it to stores.

Meanwhile “Django Unchained” has become Quentin Tarantino’s most successful film to date with over $130 million box office office sales so far. It’s also the biggest movie for the The Weinstein Company, whose other $100 million-plus hits have been Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” and the Oscar winning “King’s Speech.”

Lady Anne wrote:

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set.

This, has anyone read a book from that era? There are so many terms for blacks thrown around that the N word is almost nice. I've never really liked any of Tarantino’s films, so I can't say what the movie is really like.

Owlish wrote:

So the themed dolls for the Django movie have now been pulled from shelves...I still can't believe that there were dolls made at all, meaning that someone somewhere thought this was a good idea....

“Django” Dolls, Pulled from Stores, Sell for Thousands on Black Market

Quote :

The action figures made for Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” were pulled from stores in the last couple of weeks. Some people found them offensive, an uproar occurred, and the “Django” dolls became history. Or not.

Now it seems that whatever dolls were made by NECA are selling well, like hotcakes, on Ebay and other internet sites– even though NECA has removed them from their website as well. The most popular is Broomhilda, the character of a slave girl played by Kerry Washington. It’s hard to say why, but the Broomhilda action figure is selling for upwards of a thousand dollars to collectors.

The dolls shouldn’t have been made; they were inherently racist and there were dozens of complaints. But pulling them off store shelves created a collector’s market overnight. Some sites are offering the full set of 8 figures for anywhere between $8,000 and $15,000. It remains to be seen who will pay those prices, but collectors obviously think someone will.

The dolls, 8 inches tall, represent characters played by Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kerry Washington, Samuel L. Jackson and James Remar. The figures for the five men come in sets ranging in the thousands of dollars. But the Kerry Washington figure — if it can be found– is often advertised at a price equal to the total of the others. It’s hard to say whether or not that’s a compliment as critics have derided the dolls for commercializing slavery.

It’s unclear how many dolls were manufactured, although one site suggests that only 1,000 sets made it to stores.

Meanwhile “Django Unchained” has become Quentin Tarantino’s most successful film to date with over $130 million box office office sales so far. It’s also the biggest movie for the The Weinstein Company, whose other $100 million-plus hits have been Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds” and the Oscar winning “King’s Speech.”

Clearly an unbiased article that takes an impartial look at the facts of the situation and doesn't at all rush to an asinine conclusion in order to assuage their white guilt.

But seriously, are we supposed to pretend that none of this (by this I mean the action figures, the movie, and slavery in general) didn't happen? There was a movie that involved slaves and slavery, and their were action figures (they aren't fucking dolls, this is important ) made of the characters of the movies.

What is the problem?

Lady Anne wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set. I did, however, think the violence and the gore was a bit excessive.

Complaining about violence and gore in a Quentin Tarantino movie is like complaining about violence in the NFL. It proves my long held suspicion that you are legitimately retarded.

Really, what else do you expect going into a QT movie? Especially one about a former slave turned bounty hunter fighting to get his wife back from a sadistic plantation owner? This is the man who directed Reservoir Dogs, not the creator of the Smurfs.

That was a critique, not a complaint. The amount of blood shed didn't always seem consistent with the injuries--sometimes it was too much, and sometimes it wasn't enough.

Now I'm waiting for the Sues to come out of the woodwork, and for the inevitable slashfics.

Not to disrespect you, Anne, but I'd say the chances are greater of Jay Cutler being named Super Bowl 48 MVP than of "Django" producing any Suefics. Tarantino's way too gory for your average Suethor.