Django blurs Tarantino (Revisited)

The expectations on Tarantino are always high. His movies have always certain symbols of identity very powerful and present in all of his masterpieces from Reservoir Dogs to Inglorious Basterds (and that many others have followed, as Robert Rodríguez).

The thing about Django is that it’s probably the less tarantinian movie of all his cinematography. However, it’s easy to find many of those identity symbols of his style.

For instance, in Tarantino’s movies blood and violence are absolutely mandatory. And Django has it –plenty, actually- Irrational and exaggerated, as always. Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill more violent sequences should be green on envy.

Catchy and witty lines in the dialogues -bordering on the absurd- are also expected. Django have them. The shaking-hands argument between Calvin Candie and Dr. King Shultz demonstrates it, as well as the several sequences with Dr. Schultz playing the bounty hunter (ironical wink on classic Westerns). Though the dialogue during the funny Ku Kux Klan scene will make everyone burst in laughter.

Characters to remember as well as great acting are also a must. In Django, it’s Waltz who shines with his hilarious lines and the empathy we feel for him (especially, taking into account the hideous colonel Hans Landa he played in Inglorious Basterds). Also, DiCaprio takes a turn in his career to be the villain and, surprisingly, he does it quiet well.

The problem is the story: too lineal, too easy, too predictable… what ends up being too boring (as well as too long). The end is expected, though spectacular. And that’s not Tarantino.

Probably, Django is the main problem here. Foxx overacts Django in many sequences. He looks pretentious (wait for the blue custom) and it’s difficult to classify him as the classical Tarantino hero looking for revenge, much more authentic (Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, for instance).

In some sequences, Tarantino’s voice is lost in behalf of Django’s. After all, the entire Western and slavery background is a vague excuse for the hackneyed story of the damsel in distress (Broomhilda) that Django and Schultz want to save from Candy. Actually, the whole movie is an excuse for that.

Nevertheless, the magnificent photography and a powerful soundtrack (including Ennio Morricone and rap) are still in, as well as Tarantino himself, with his longest cameo ever. But Tarantino is no longer “the –only- trouble maker”. Django is now. Because Django is in town.

Django blurs Tarantino

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.