Django Unchained

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • wkhanna
    Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
    • Jan 2006
    • 5673

    Django Unchained

    So Sir George......

    Finally a Western finds its way out of Hollywood. Last one I remember was 3:10 to Yuma, in which I felt Russell Crowe did an outstanding job.

    My guess, though I do not presume to know all, is you may not be the biggest fan of Quentin Tatantino. I feel he is a cinematic genius, but I seldom find myself in the majority. Nonetheless, his newest film, “Django Unchained” is in theaters now & one I will be looking forward to seeing once it is released in digital form. It does sport quite the respectable cast IMHO.

    Just curious as to your thoughts on this film knowing your love of a well-made classic Western.
    _


    Bill

    Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
    ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

    FinleyAudio
  • George Bellefontaine
    Moderator Emeritus
    • Jan 2001
    • 7637

    #2
    Yeah, Bill, not a big fan of Tarantino, but from what I've read and the trailers I've seen, I actually am looking forward to this western. And with Leo and Jamie, I don't see how I can go wrong.

    BTW, Bill, Appaloosa was out after 3:10 To Yuma, and also the remake of True Grit, so Hollywood just may be looking at the western a bit more closely lately, and perhaps moreso if Django is a big hit, which I suspect it will be.
    My Homepage!

    Comment

    • wkhanna
      Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
      • Jan 2006
      • 5673

      #3
      Forgive my poor reccollection.
      I forgot about 'True Grit', which I truely adored.
      And 'Appaloosa' was totally off my radar.
      Do you recommend it as a rental?
      _


      Bill

      Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
      ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

      FinleyAudio

      Comment

      • PewterTA
        Moderator
        • Nov 2004
        • 2901

        #4
        It's pretty much filmed in the exact same way as all the Tarantino films and is ultra violent. So just a heads up on that.
        Digital Audio makes me Happy.
        -Dan

        Comment

        • Chris D
          Moderator Emeritus
          • Dec 2000
          • 16877

          #5
          Nooooooooo... big surprise!

          [/sarcasm]

          CHRIS

          Well, we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
          - Pleasantville

          Comment

          • George Bellefontaine
            Moderator Emeritus
            • Jan 2001
            • 7637

            #6
            Originally posted by wkhanna
            Forgive my poor reccollection.
            I forgot about 'True Grit', which I truely adored.
            And 'Appaloosa' was totally off my radar.
            Do you recommend it as a rental?
            I actually own Appaloosa and have watched it several times. It stands up well to repeat viewings. It stars Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen. They are lawmen for hire. It's not an all out action flick, but rather more of a character-driven one that takes the time to explore the relationship between two true friends. I highly recommend it, Bill.
            My Homepage!

            Comment

            • madmac
              Moderator Emeritus
              • Aug 2010
              • 3122

              #7
              I watched "Inglorious Bastards" again the other day and really enjoyed it. In the second viewing, I found it more humorous than in the first viewing. However, the ending is incredibly violent and made me somewhat uncomfortable post Newtown massacre!!.
              Dan Madden :T

              Comment

              • wkhanna
                Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                • Jan 2006
                • 5673

                #8
                Originally posted by George Bellefontaine
                I actually own Appaloosa and have watched it several times. .......... I highly recommend it, Bill.
                Oh my dear friend, my memory is so fleeting these days.....

                My review of Appaloosa
                _


                Bill

                Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                FinleyAudio

                Comment

                • George Bellefontaine
                  Moderator Emeritus
                  • Jan 2001
                  • 7637

                  #9
                  Originally posted by wkhanna
                  Oh my dear friend, my memory is so fleeting these days.....

                  My review of Appaloosa
                  And that was a darn good reveiew, Bill. My memory is worse than yours. I don't even recall reading that particular posting. Could it be OLD AGE ??? :lol:
                  My Homepage!

                  Comment

                  • Ovation
                    Super Senior Member
                    • Sep 2004
                    • 2202

                    #10
                    I'm a HUGE Tarantino fan, so I will definitely be seeing this at the cinema and adding it to my collection. Read a quite interesting piece about it in the NY Times recently. A quite thoughtful analysis of how the film, much like Inglourious Basterds before it, deliberately twists history but in a way that makes one think about the conventions of both history and film genres that portray it.

                    Comment

                    • Chris D
                      Moderator Emeritus
                      • Dec 2000
                      • 16877

                      #11
                      Rented it. Didn't like it. I'm not a Tarantino fan, but I definitely appreciate some of his films. I had maybe 5 distinct reasons to hate Inglorious Basterds, but actually ended up liking it for some reason. But I just didn't like Django. I appreciated aspects of it, like the nods to a modern day Spaghetti Western (including inclusion of Marconi) and connections to the other Django movies.

                      But... not only do I have a problem with many Tarantino films, I've gotten fairly tired of a few of their aspects. Foremost, everybody knows that Tarantino is ultra-violent, and that's no surprise. But this trademark has grown to not just be a facet of the film, it has become a major story point or even a character in Tarantino's films. I can't think of the last Tarantino film that hasn't had multiple mega-shootout bloodbath scenes in it.

                      As such, I think this movie could be very accurately described as "just the latest Tarantino film, just set in the Old West/South". Several of the shootout scenes, I found myself thinking, "haven't I seen this exact scene before in Kill Bill/Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs/etc etc?" And listening to the music score, although I appreciated the allusion to Spaghetti Westerns, I felt I had heard the same music from Kill Bill and maybe others.

                      To me, it just wasn't fresh or different enough to break out of the Tarantino mold and get good, where I guess I thought Inglorious Basterds did enough. Perhaps I'm just too tired of Tarantino and his standard stuff, that he does in part to be "edgy", but over time just becomes easily gratuitous and now cliche. And how the heck can a pistol in one scene shoot a neat little red hole in a man's chest without any mess, then later the same scene shoot a man with a 5' gushing blood splatter like it just exploded a beach ball filled with blood?

                      I didn't think it deserved 90% of the Academy Award nominations it got. Only :2: out of :5: in my book.
                      CHRIS

                      Well, we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
                      - Pleasantville

                      Comment

                      • madmac
                        Moderator Emeritus
                        • Aug 2010
                        • 3122

                        #12
                        Agreed !!!..... 2/5 stars for that film.
                        Dan Madden :T

                        Comment

                        • mjb
                          Super Senior Member
                          • Mar 2005
                          • 1483

                          #13
                          Well, i enjoyed it loads, enough even to buy the blue ray and watch it again... Great story, well put together, and total entertainment - and you get to see (albeit very briefly) Kerry Washington naked! It's almost worth buying for that alone!
                          - Mike

                          Main System:
                          B&W 802D, HTM2D, SCMS
                          Classé SSP-800, CA-2200, CA-5100

                          Comment

                          • wkhanna
                            Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                            • Jan 2006
                            • 5673

                            #14
                            Who better than Tarrintino to show the true brutality of slavery? Not just in a metaphorical sense, but in dirty truth that few have had the guts to face & present. His genius is to do it via a cliché’.

                            This film is stunning, spectacular, sometimes over the top & flirting with mockery & at other times blood curdling in its depiction of man’s potential for dispensing evil upon his own kind. The gamete of emotions is like a roller-coaster ride with this film, at times having you laughing with tears & at others provoking tears of sorrow & remorse.

                            Intriguing to me was how this anti-hero showed next to no empathy to those who shared the V same chains he once wore. Was it an act, played with great inner struggle, only to gain respect & trust from those who enslaved? Or was it his true lack of respect for anyone who would not fight back when given the opportunity?

                            A masterwork, IMHO, with acting that matches the grand scale of the story told.

                            Six out of Five Stars in my book.
                            _


                            Bill

                            Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                            ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                            FinleyAudio

                            Comment

                            • Chris D
                              Moderator Emeritus
                              • Dec 2000
                              • 16877

                              #15
                              Well, just my own opinion, but I respectfully don't buy that Tarantino was showing the true brutal truth of slavery, any more than Inglorious Basterds showed the true gritty struggle of the Nazi resistance. I think Tarantino himself would readily admit that his movies are nowhere close to being based on truth. I do think that Tarantino believes he "exposes the inherent violence of society through film metaphors" or something, although as a side note, I don't really buy into that either.

                              But I don't think that showing a black gunslinger bounty hunter, shooting up roomfuls of people with blood splattering everywhere, has anything to do with showing the true horrible nature of slavery. No matter how far someone goes into ultra-gore and gratuitous violence, I don't think it will ever capture the essence of slavery. Was "Hostel" a brave indictment on slavery because it was ultra-violent? Or "Halloween"? Although slavery often manifests products of violence, (but not really gunfighting) that's not the true nature of slavery. I think really showing the true nature of slavery requires not just tongue-in-cheek ultra violence, but a serious exploration into the dominance and oppression of the human spirit, through de-humanization and a long-term denial of will. Slavery is not "I'm going to shoot you in the head and make 5 gallons of blood splatter all over the wall".

                              As such, I think something like "Roots" or even "The Color Purple" (which wasn't necessarily about systemized slavery) go FAR, FAR beyond anything Tarantino dares to do, in exploring the true nature of slavery. What's next--will Tarantino re-make this and all his other films into a toddler having the same gory mega-shootouts in a day care center, and will everyone marvel about how he "exposes the true nature of being a child", or "the true inner nature of the human family?"

                              Is Tarantino really "brave" and "groundbreaking" anymore with his use of ultra-gun violence, and occasional ultra-sword violence? It seems like it's actually becoming a crutch for him, to go and hide behind the violence as a storytelling tool instead of trying to use other elements. It's a cop-out to say that EVERYTHING in life boils down to extreme violence.
                              CHRIS

                              Well, we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
                              - Pleasantville

                              Comment

                              • wkhanna
                                Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                                • Jan 2006
                                • 5673

                                #16
                                Originally posted by Chris D
                                Well, just my own opinion, but I respectfully don't buy that Tarantino was showing the true brutal truth of slavery, any more than Inglorious Basterds showed the true gritty struggle of the Nazi resistance. I think Tarantino himself would readily admit that his movies are nowhere close to being based on truth.
                                I totally agree that this story line has no foundation in truth. However the treatment of the slaves in the film displays no discontinuity to historical accounts.

                                Originally posted by Chris
                                I do think that Tarantino believes he "exposes the inherent violence of society through film metaphors" or something, although as a side note, I don't really buy into that either.
                                I feel the way he can combine & intertwine multiple genres almost seamlessly within his films is a significant part of the story he is telling as a whole. Such references comment directly to social attitudes, values & popular culture as they can be related to the film.

                                Originally posted by Chris
                                But I don't think that showing a black gunslinger bounty hunter, shooting up roomfuls of people with blood splattering everywhere, has anything to do with showing the true horrible nature of slavery.
                                Agreed. Those particular scenes you are referring to have no bearing on the subject of slavery or its depiction. However, there are many other scenes that do.

                                Originally posted by Chris
                                No matter how far someone goes into ultra-gore and gratuitous violence, I don't think it will ever capture the essence of slavery. Was "Hostel" a brave indictment on slavery because it was ultra-violent? Or "Halloween"? Although slavery often manifests products of violence, (but not really gunfighting) that's not the true nature of slavery.

                                Again, Agreed.
                                And again, the scenes you are referring to have no bearing on the subject. But there are so many other scenes which do. I am not going to fill this post full of 'spoilers'. But there many other scenes in the film which depict both dehumanizing treatment & physical abuse directed at slaves.

                                Originally posted by Chris
                                I think really showing the true nature of slavery requires not just tongue-in-cheek ultra violence, but a serious exploration into the dominance and oppression of the human spirit, through de-humanization and a long-term denial of will. Slavery is not "I'm going to shoot you in the head and make 5 gallons of blood splatter all over the wall". As such, I think something like "Roots" or even "The Color Purple" (which wasn't necessarily about systemized slavery) go FAR, FAR beyond anything Tarantino dares to do, in exploring the true nature of slavery. What's next--will Tarantino re-make this and all his other films into a toddler having the same gory mega-shootouts in a day care center, and will everyone marvel about how he "exposes the true nature of being a child", or "the true inner nature of the human family?"
                                The film transitions from multiple genres at a furious pace. For me, it is working on multiples levels, often at the V same time. If you get hung up on just one or two then I could see how you might interpret this as 'tongue-in-cheek'. I do not believe there was ever any intent to create a serious exploration on slavery by the film. It's depiction, at times in a brutal & realistic manner was only part of the story.

                                Originally posted by Chris
                                Is Tarantino really "brave" and "groundbreaking" anymore with his use of ultra-gun violence, and occasional ultra-sword violence? It seems like it's actually becoming a crutch for him, to go and hide behind the violence as a storytelling tool instead of trying to use other elements. It's a cop-out to say that EVERYTHING in life boils down to extreme violence.
                                Again, the specific 'gun violence' with exploding packets of catsup & slow-mo projectiles you are referring to is more a homage paid to the greats like Peckinpah, Kurosawa & John Huston. If all Tarantino is trying to say is, "Everything in life boils down to violence", then every film he has ever made is saying the exact same thing, over & over. I truly doubt this is the case. While there is no denying a certain amount blood & guts is a Tarantino trademark, there is much more to his entire life work than a simplistic, single message. For me, there is much, much more to this film on so many different levels.

                                JMHO, YMMV
                                Last edited by wkhanna; 23 July 2013, 14:56 Tuesday. Reason: sepllnig
                                _


                                Bill

                                Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                                ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                                FinleyAudio

                                Comment

                                • Ovation
                                  Super Senior Member
                                  • Sep 2004
                                  • 2202

                                  #17
                                  Tarantino's take on two historical periods in his recent films are not intended as historical re-creation (as opposed to, say, Lincoln) and it is clearly evident (so no need to go over particulars). What some critics have argued (and I find this line of thought compelling with Inglorious Basterds--haven't had a chance to watch Django yet) is that Tarantino is offering a cathartic re-imagining of history from the point of view of the oppressed (Jews and blacks, respectively). It offers the kind of experience each group wishes (in the aggregate--there will always be exceptions) they could have actually had--vengeance on their oppressors. At the same time, though perhaps not intentional on Tarantino's part, these films offer the viewers an opportunity to examine some well-established and rarely questioned tropes about vengeance and violence in general. Why is it we are drawn to films like this (there are so many, in so many genres, that to deny this fact would be foolhardy)? Can a vicarious cathartic experience effectively substitute for a real cathartic moment, at least for anyone who was not in a position to actually do something in the particular situation presented on screen? Should we feel somewhat ashamed to get caught up in the moment by filmmakers who manipulate sound and visuals to get us to cheer (outwardly or not) for things we would find reprehensible in real life or should we be grateful for the harmless outlet for feelings that might otherwise build up and explode tragically in real life?

                                  Obviously, these questions go beyond Tarantino's work, but he seems to have a particular talent for evoking such questions. And these are quite apart from considering his work on an aesthetic level.

                                  Just my two cents.

                                  Comment

                                  • wkhanna
                                    Grumpy Old Super Moderator Emeritus
                                    • Jan 2006
                                    • 5673

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Ovation
                                    Tarantino's take on two historical periods in his recent films are not intended as historical re-creation (as opposed to, say, Lincoln) and it is clearly evident (so no need to go over particulars).
                                    Re-stating the obvious, but just to be absolutely clear, I was never suggesting there was any historical merit to the film. Only that the depiction of the treatment of slaves was shown in sometimes unabridged reality. Intentional fatal loosing of dogs & bare fisted death matches staged solely for entertainment not withstanding.

                                    Originally posted by Ovation
                                    What some critics have argued (and I find this line of thought compelling with Inglorious Basterds--haven't had a chance to watch Django yet) is that Tarantino is offering a cathartic re-imagining of history from the point of view of the oppressed (Jews and blacks, respectively). It offers the kind of experience each group wishes (in the aggregate--there will always be exceptions) they could have actually had--vengeance on their oppressors.
                                    It is widely known revenge is a common theme in all his films, but I find it difficult to side with above proposition.

                                    Originally posted by Ovation
                                    At the same time, though perhaps not intentional on Tarantino's part, these films offer the viewers an opportunity to examine some well-established and rarely questioned tropes about vengeance and violence in general. Why is it we are drawn to films like this (there are so many, in so many genres, that to deny this fact would be foolhardy)? Can a vicarious cathartic experience effectively substitute for a real cathartic moment, at least for anyone who was not in a position to actually do something in the particular situation presented on screen? Should we feel somewhat ashamed to get caught up in the moment by filmmakers who manipulate sound and visuals to get us to cheer (outwardly or not) for things we would find reprehensible in real life or should we be grateful for the harmless outlet for feelings that might otherwise build up and explode tragically in real life?
                                    Interesting, but then why would not the same be considered true of some single shooter video games?

                                    Originally posted by Ovation
                                    Obviously, these questions go beyond Tarantino's work, but he seems to have a particular talent for evoking such questions. And these are quite apart from considering his work on an aesthetic level.

                                    Just my two cents.
                                    Quite the rascal, is he not?

                                    For any other QT fanboys out there, a link to some wacky bio facts.

                                    And a quote from an interview shown in the same link:

                                    [on "Inglourious Basterds" (2009) being the modern strategic history of al-Qaeda] - Yes. ... Now, I've seen people who have seen the movie like three or four times and it never quite sinks into them. But that was never something that I necessarily set out to do. I wasn't trying to make a terrorist Iraq commentary with the film. It was just what made sense for the characters to do at that time. Yes they're strapping bombs on themselves. ... And they're walking into a theater crowded with evil civilians and they are prepared to blow it up. ... Even the character, Landa, the Jew hunter, the Nazi character in the film - he even makes a reference to it. He goes your mission - some would call it a terrorist plot - is kaput. ... It was funny. Again, I wasn't trying to necessarily make a political point in there. It literally was just the next step in the story as far as I was concerned. However, once I did it, the irony was not lost on me at all. But you know, that was one of the things that I actually thought that - it was one of the things that when I was all done. Because I think there are a lot of things like that - not about that issue, but there's a lot of things in this movie that are not used to seeing in other World War II movies. I thought that was one of the aspects that would actually make the movie not just seem like a World War II movie that it's like here and you're looking at it in the eyes of the past. I wanted the film sort of the way "Bonnie and Clyde" worked when it came out. It was an old genre took place in the '30s, but it was actually telling you something about the time today. And that was what I was trying to do with this in this genre.
                                    Last edited by wkhanna; 23 July 2013, 18:54 Tuesday. Reason: added missing words. It alot latley, sure why? Must getting old?
                                    _


                                    Bill

                                    Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
                                    ....just an "ON" switch, Please!

                                    FinleyAudio

                                    Comment

                                    • aud19
                                      Twin Moderator Emeritus
                                      • Aug 2003
                                      • 16706

                                      #19
                                      I haven't seen this yet (it's in the que) but Chris, from your comments it seems to me that you're getting caught up in Tarantino's trademark "stylistic" violence. It's merely his style of painting the picture, it's not the painting subject.

                                      I can certainly understand why some might be put off by it but if you can't see past it, you're missing out on the true value of the work and all the scrumptious underlying stories and themes IMO. It's surface observation.
                                      Jason

                                      Comment

                                      • Ovation
                                        Super Senior Member
                                        • Sep 2004
                                        • 2202

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by wkhanna


                                        It is widely known revenge is a common theme in all his films, but I find it difficult to side with above proposition.
                                        I will try to track down the articles as I've not done justice to the idea (they were print, not online, so I might be out of luck).



                                        Interesting, but then why would not the same be considered true of some single shooter video games?
                                        The argument has been made about such games as well. I'm not familiar enough with them to offer a comment, though.


                                        Quite the rascal, is he not?

                                        For any other QT fanboys out there, a link to some wacky bio facts.

                                        And a quote from an interview shown in the same link:

                                        [on "Inglourious Basterds" (2009) being the modern strategic history of al-Qaeda] - Yes. ... Now, I've seen people who have seen the movie like three or four times and it never quite sinks into them. But that was never something that I necessarily set out to do. I wasn't trying to make a terrorist Iraq commentary with the film. It was just what made sense for the characters to do at that time. Yes they're strapping bombs on themselves. ... And they're walking into a theater crowded with evil civilians and they are prepared to blow it up. ... Even the character, Landa, the Jew hunter, the Nazi character in the film - he even makes a reference to it. He goes your mission - some would call it a terrorist plot - is kaput. ... It was funny. Again, I wasn't trying to necessarily make a political point in there. It literally was just the next step in the story as far as I was concerned. However, once I did it, the irony was not lost on me at all. But you know, that was one of the things that I actually thought that - it was one of the things that when I was all done. Because I think there are a lot of things like that - not about that issue, but there's a lot of things in this movie that are not used to seeing in other World War II movies. I thought that was one of the aspects that would actually make the movie not just seem like a World War II movie that it's like here and you're looking at it in the eyes of the past. I wanted the film sort of the way "Bonnie and Clyde" worked when it came out. It was an old genre took place in the '30s, but it was actually telling you something about the time today. And that was what I was trying to do with this in this genre.
                                        The Bonnie and Clyde comparison, in terms of using the past to make a statement about today, is an apt one (this is apart from relative quality of each film--that's an entirely different discussion). Gotta run, but like this thread.

                                        Comment

                                        • Chris D
                                          Moderator Emeritus
                                          • Dec 2000
                                          • 16877

                                          #21
                                          As I think about it, some of it may be me being "Tarantino'd out". As I watched this movie, many scenes just had me saying, "haven't we seen this before?" As I mentioned in my review, I kept seeing scenes and elements taken out of Tarantino's other films, re-done in a Southern setting, sometimes with a slavery aspect, sometimes with a bounty hunter aspect. I don't ever find myself watching a Spielberg film, and thinking, "gee, this feels just like other Spielberg movies, only set in ____. Yup, there's the usual ____ scene he puts every 30 minutes in every film he makes." Or Scorsese, Coppola, or Zimeckis. A director's "flavor" is one thing, such as Hitchcock's constant suspense, or even Bay's tendency to "over-expose" the film, where you can tell who made the film by the feel of it. But geez... perhaps I need to space out Tarantino film watching, if he's going to continually and increasingly rely on the same identical devices as his ESSENTIAL elements to tell a story, far beyond a "style".
                                          CHRIS

                                          Well, we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
                                          - Pleasantville

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          😀
                                          😂
                                          🥰
                                          😘
                                          🤢
                                          😎
                                          😞
                                          😡
                                          👍
                                          👎
                                          Searching...Please wait.
                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                          An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                          There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                          Search Result for "|||"