Django Unchained

Started by MacGuffin, March 27, 2011, 10:14:40 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

matt35mm

Now I'm wondering why P liked this but hated INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. They just don't seem that different, except that IB feels tighter and DU feels looser.

ElPandaRoyal

It seems it all comes down to what you think the experience offers you in the end. For me, Django Unchained was different enough from Inglourious Basterds to validate its existence. Yes, there are similarities, which in some cases make it all the more interesting. I think that by having a german actor who previously played a hateful Nazi now appearing as a slave savior QT is making a big balls statement comparing slavery no the Holocaust, slave owners to Nazis. With his last two movies, he's been trying to make us look at History from a different perspective and I love that. You don't, there's nothing more I can say about it. I don't give him a pass because he is Tarantino, I give it because his movie was a riot. Whenever he makes one I don't appreciate, I'll be the first to admit it, just like after I loved every Nolan movie to that point, and when The Dark Knight came out I had no problem admitting it was shit.
Si

jenkins

what about the cinematic grammar? is the cinematic grammar much different between ib and du?

i think the cinematic grammar is much different between ib and du. by accident this is a kind of huge topic -- i'd be interested in reading a long piece that talks about the development of qt's cinematic grammar in a way that isolates it from the grammar he buckets from the well, what seems to be a personal voice and what seems to be a community voice, and how those interact, etc.

i don't think the same moviemaker who made reservoir dogs made du, no way. that's obvious. but i also have suspicions that there are meaningful disparities between ib and du. in an overall sense they're two movies about historical revenge fantasies. but smaller patterns exist.

wilder

Quote from: trashculturemutantjunkie on January 26, 2013, 01:20:56 PM
what about the cinematic grammar? is the cinematic grammar much different between ib and du?

i think the cinematic grammar is much different between ib and du. by accident this is a kind of huge topic -- i'd be interested in reading a long piece that talks about the development of qt's cinematic grammar in a way that isolates it from the grammar he buckets from the well, what seems to be a personal voice and what seems to be a community voice, and how those interact, etc.

i don't think the same moviemaker who made reservoir dogs made du, no way. that's obvious. but i also have suspicions that there are meaningful disparities between ib and du. in an overall sense they're two movies about historical revenge fantasies. but smaller patterns exist.

Do it start the thread.

jenkins

thread, more like life project. i'd at least need to be able to screencap. so i'll keep it under my hat and maybe let's do it after home release.

Jeremy Blackman

Inglorious has show-stopping setpieces. Several strands of plot. Overall a very mixed-up approach. Django is slavishly focused on one plot, and intensely linear.

ElPandaRoyal

I just remembered something I felt while watching this. Just a curiosity, really.

Near the end of the movie, when Django comes back to rescue Broomhilda, there's a shot from inside the room she's in where we can see him slowly riding his horse outside. Did anyone else think of There Will Be Blood for a second, considering how the shot is framed and whatnot?
Si

Drenk

Yes, I thought of There Will Be Blood (that shot scared me the first time I saw TWBB), and I think Tarantino thinks of PTA.
Ascension.

Frederico Fellini

Quote from: ElPandaRoyal on February 01, 2013, 04:14:48 AM
I just remembered something I felt while watching this. Just a curiosity, really.

Near the end of the movie, when Django comes back to rescue Broomhilda, there's a shot from inside the room she's in where we can see him slowly riding his horse outside. Did anyone else think of There Will Be Blood for a second, considering how the shot is framed and whatnot?


Yes!... It's just like the shot when Daniel goes to talk to Bandy and the grandson tells him that Bandy's not there. There were other moments that reminded me of TWBB too. Like when Django is walking through the field and Bacalov's "La corsa (2nd version)"  plays.  QT said that TWBB inspired him to take it to the next level with "Basterds", I think their friendship also plays a role into it.
We fought against the day and we won... WE WON.

Cinema is something you do for a billion years... or not at all.

squints

Quote from: Freddie on February 01, 2013, 09:06:41 AM
QT said that TWBB inspired him to take it to the next level with "Basterds"

PSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAW  :yabbse-undecided:
"The myth by no means finds its adequate objectification in the spoken word. The structure of the scenes and the visible imagery reveal a deeper wisdom than the poet himself is able to put into words and concepts" – Friedrich Nietzsche

Alexandro

To me this film was an experience akin to Kill Bill 2, because it suffers from the same problem: it just goes on and on and end ups becoming tiring.

Beyond the any criticism one may have on the "ideas" Tarantino may be juggling with here, the film has some great moments that only a filmmaker like him could achieve. However, those moments are almost diluted because it's all so overwritten.

SPOILERS

The first hour or so was where I mainly found the problems. Scenes are so much longer than needed, dialogues over explain and repeat everything, sequences seem to appear capriciously and jokes tend to not be that funny. There is A LOT of stuff in this part of the movie that could just go and it all would be better. Dr Schultz is an extremely talky character, and every time he started with one of his long clever monologues I kept thinking how much more interesting it would be if he were silent and only spoke so much when it was necessary, keeping in with the film's subject of playing a character to survive. Did he really HAD to explain Django his line of work in that bar, drinking a beer, while waiting on a sheriff? Was the Broomhilda story really necessary? The Klan scene?

Thankfully, once they enter the Mandingo fighting part of the story it all feels vital and on point. Even in the microcosmos of Candyland, the whole slavery operation is shown at it's most cruel and stupid, and DiCaprio really injects a lot of energy to this film with his performance. The bit when he talks about nigger love literally cracked me up just by looking at his mannerisms and faces. I don't think he's ever been this loose in anything, or this funny. Also, Sam Jackson has the sad and disturbing role of the piece. All the elements fit together so well here, and up to the point where they cut the deal and buy Broomhilda. Even Waltz manages to find a core to his character and gives probably the best emotional reward of the film. Tellingly, he speaks very little at this moment.

Obviously for everyone else in the world but Tarantino, the film should end with a shoot out right after hell breaks loose in this sequence. But no. Not Tarantino. He has to keep talking and talking through his characters for almost 25 more minutes, and with a terrible cameo in a sequence that truly makes no sense being there whatsoever. And he needs his hero well groomed for the climax. It's all very dumb, and all the joy that I felt for the previous hour was threatened because of this, one of the worst sins of cinema: having a climax, then going back to whatever, and having a second climax...This is the same problem that Kill Bill 2 had. I will contextualize this to my own experience: i love Kill bill 1, i believe is one of those perfect films. It just flows from one sequence to the next so effortlessly, and ends with an awesome classic cliffhanger. But Kill Bill 2, over the years I have tried several times to enjoy it, and it just doesn't do it for me. I admire it, but I get bored by it. It keeps going forever, with characters talking and having long conversations and then ends up in what I'm pretty confident in calling it an anti climax. Those last 25 minutes here are just superflous. I just can't come up with any good enough reason for their existence.

That said, when the film works, it works very well. Tarantino is wise to make the last confrontation between the two main black characters, and early on he has the fantastic moment when Django whips the guy who whipped Broomhilda before. That is the kind of stuff the movie should have been about, because after that Django's process is pretty muddled, and usually feels like secondary to whatever Schultz is doing.

Overall, it's an ambitious popcorn film with great moments, many awesome performances and is enjoyable, but it's too long and not that fun, so it's not the masterpiece I was expecting. It's linear and that should make it a light affair, and I miss the Tarantino of Kill Bill 1, who could just string together one spectacular action sequence after another.

We can compare this to IB but I don't see it. That one is a much more complex, fun and surprising film. This one is a little too indulgent. I've seen it twice and I don't know if I would see it again. Nevertheless, is not some bore fest as I've read, is pretty ballsy, and I would recommend it...


modage

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

ElPandaRoyal

Yes, I definitely agree with the final 25 minutes being too much. I wrote a few posts ago why I think Tarantino chose to not end the movie at the shootout, but I still don't think it's effective.

However, the first hour I think was spot on. I loved the pace, dialog, humor and overall acting. I think the Broomhilda story worked quite well, and the Klan was a touch of genius, the whole bit about them not being able to see through those masks was not only funny but a great metaphor for racism.
Si

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: Alexandro on February 03, 2013, 01:11:06 AM
SPOILERS

The first hour or so was where I mainly found the problems. Scenes are so much longer than needed, dialogues over explain and repeat everything, sequences seem to appear capriciously and jokes tend to not be that funny. There is A LOT of stuff in this part of the movie that could just go and it all would be better. Dr Schultz is an extremely talky character, and every time he started with one of his long clever monologues I kept thinking how much more interesting it would be if he were silent and only spoke so much when it was necessary, keeping in with the film's subject of playing a character to survive. Did he really HAD to explain Django his line of work in that bar, drinking a beer, while waiting on a sheriff? Was the Broomhilda story really necessary? The Klan scene?

I thought it's stuff like this is what makes Tarantino Tarantino? Not trying to imply he has to be boring, but that he circles his violence with effects of everyday life. More to the point, he loves to dabble in a story's cultural formalities and tendencies before he rips off the violent undertones possible and goes nuts. For me, all his films are extended marches through everyday life for the characters and how violence is possible in the quickest and most unlikely ways.

Now, mind you, since he has gone historical, Tarantino has been focusing more on the norms of meet and greets and how people present themselves. Inglorious Basterds is very repetitive with introductions of all sorts between very different characters. In Django Unchained, it's extending out how the German is a performer with presenting himself in numerous situations. Still, even though part of me thinks he was doing this in both films because he isn't as culturally flexible with the story like he was with the story and characters in Pulp Fiction, I appreciate the dedication to seeing tone through since it set a precedent for how the violence would be portrayed. If Tarantino is only showing the standard story details to get to his violent moments, he's just emulating the genre films he says is transforming. 

My disagreement with Tarantino is based in how interesting all of it is to me. But if Tarantino got rid of these things, he would be disregardful in more senses and a lot more boring.