When I go to the cinema to watch a Quentin Tarantino
movie I know what to expect from it. He has developed very strong symbols of
identity that are present in every single movie he has directed and that has
many other has followed (Robert Rodríguez, for instance). But what do we expect
from a Tarantino movie?
We expect violence: irrational, exaggerated and bloody
violence. We have that in Django, plenty of it, actually. The sequence in the
hall of Candieland is Tarantino at his best (I can’t help finding resemblances
with Kill Bill’s sequence with the
Crazy 88 and Gogo Yubari).
We also expect catchy and witty lines in the dialogues
that sometimes borders on the absurd. We also have that in Django. The
shaking-hands argument between Calvin Candie and Dr. King Shultz demonstrates
it, as well as the several sequences in which Dr. Schultz ends up the problems
with his bounty hunter side, that clearly shows some kind of irony about
classic Westerns. Though my favorite dialogue is the one during the funny Ku
Kux Klan scene (Tarantino couldn’t make it seem more ridiculous).
Finally, we expect characters to remember, as well as
great acting too. Christoph Waltz is magnificent and it is incredible the
empathy we can feel for his character (especially if we take into account the
hideous colonel Hans Landa he played in Inglorious
Bastards). But if there is a role we have to remark is the one that Samuel
L. Jackson plays as Stephen, a double-faced butler black outside, white inside.
The problem with this movie is that there’s too much
Django in Django Unchained. I found
it a more conventional and less transgressor movie that the ones before it. Tarantino’s
seal blurs gradually and, by the half of the movie, Django is already doing all the talking of the film.
Probably, the classic tale that lies beneath (lady who needs to be saved by the
brave knight) that happens to end
happily is so not Tarantino that makes the movie predictable and boring.
Nevertheless, the photography, that is awesome (as
always), and the soundtrack (it includes Ennio Morricone, making another wink
to classic Westerns), that matches every scene, offsets the bad acting of
DiCaprio and Foxx as well as the dull story. The pitty is that, though Tarantino
makes Django a nigger in a thousand,
he lets him be the only trouble maker.
Though Tarantino uses the word more than any one person can count in his films, I don't know if you made it clear enough that the line "a nigger in a thousand" is in the film. It also seemed particularly rough when you used "double faced butler, black on the outside, white on the inside."
ResponderEliminarI think that if you are going to use these statements, it might be best to back them up with scenes from the film. Not saying they should be ignored, because by all means they are sprinkled throughou the film to engage, or perhaps enrage, the viewer.
When you quote the movie, you really need to use quotation marks in order to separate what you are emphasizing from what what said in the film. Right now it is confusing. On top of that, even though Tarantino used the n-word gratuitously in his film, I'm not sure you can. (For a checklist for when you can say the n-word, please see http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/n-word-faq.php )
ResponderEliminarI have to say though I liked some of your sections and didn't like others. I liked the first two paragraphs and whenever you compared "Django" to past Westerns. You seemed insightful. What I got bored with was when you told me how you felt without backing it up with parts from the movie. For example when you describe Christoph Waltz's character, you only say the viewer empathizes with him but you don't explain why to those readers who haven't seen the film yet.
So really I guess what separated what I liked from your review from what I didn't like were just the examples. When you used them I thought it was great and when you didn't I was confused.