PHROM PHILLY, WITH LOVE!

Subscribe below -

Gimme your email address and i'll send you presents..

Saturday 19 January 2013

REVIEW - DJANGO UNCHAINED

I think Westerns are great. & the journey of the Western has been long and interesting. Arguably its birth was with the 1903 film The Great Train Robbery, it then passed John Ford's phenomenal Stagecoach in 1939, went through Leone's magnificent Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s, and landed in contemporary cinema with films like Cowboys and Aliens. Yep, gone are the days when the Western was a great genre, and Clint Eastwood was less racist. One man, though, has always kept the genre close, shielded it from the apparent Alien attack: Quentin Tarantino. Growing up infatuated with Leone's framing and storytelling, QT learnt his trade in the back catalogues of a video store. Graduating through his filmography, it was clear to see his influences - you might even argue Kill Bill is his blending of Kurosawa and Leone (I'll save that one for another time). Still, it feels his entire body of work has been building to this film. If he can pull of this Western, he will have made it in his own eyes, as much as ours. Which is probably why the script took ~3 years to write.

*by a 3 year old

The story of Django Unchained is inspired by his chained predecessor: Django, made in 1966 and starring Franco Nero - who makes a brief cameo discussing the silent "D." Other than the appearance of Nero, there's little repetition from previous films of the genre. There's only 1 Johnny Cash song, for christ's sake! The film is undeniably Tarantino's. We open in the Antebellum South, following a posse of recently purchased slaves on route to their new plantation when up rolls Dr. Schultz (Chris Waltz), a German "dentist" who is looking to acquire Django's (Jamie Foxy) services. Dispatching the two white escorts with his wit, dialogue and fast draw, the two ride off together to the nearest watering hole for a pint and a business discussion.

"shooting from the hip"

Django's cunning eye reveals that Schultz is, in fact, a bounty hunter and not a travelling dentist. He offers Django his freedom and $75 for that same cunning eye to identify the Brittle Brothers, who Schultz will then shoot. "Kill white people and they pay you for it" quips Django, "What's not to like?" The two enter into an agreement and begin what feels like the trimmings of a buddy movie. Cowboys are lone rangers, these bounty hunters are more like BFFs & here QT's writing really comes to the forefront. So much so that you begin to ignore the stunning scenery they ride through, in favour of the snappy dialogue performed admirably by both actors. There are even some particularly well framed shots, that cut from wide angle to close up and vice versa (CRASH ZOOMS), that simply pass over the viewer because the film is so well balanced between the audio and visual. Speaking of which - the soundtrack is typically blazé and pop-ish (John Legend's contribution is excellent). QT even manages to slip a Rick Ross number in there, but does it look out of place? Hell no. Not in this Western.

you can't jus' WALTZ ina town an' shoot somebuddy

Django's super cool nature comes unravelled when he sees those who have wronged him in the past. For you see, even ex-slaves have subtext in Tarantino's Western. Django's real desire is to be reunited from his estranged wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington DC) - and Schultz, as a responsible whitey, agrees to help his free negro pal find her after a winter's worth of hunting; as this Django fella is proving himself quite the natural. The two grow close and soon Schultz paternal relation to Django wears thin, as the freed man becomes something of a revelation in his newfound liberty. The search for Broomhilda leads them to one name: Calvin Candy (Leonardo Da Vinci). Monsieur Candy is a particularly suave and ruthless plantation owner, the owner of young Broomhilda and a big name in the "Mandingo" business: also known as Nigger fighting. The two hatch a plan and make their way to Candyland. If the first half of the film had your curiosity, the second will grab your attention.

Sandy Joyner

The majority of the white folk are presented in a hilariously caricatured Blazing Saddles-esque fashion: "WHAT'S A NIGGER DOING ON A HORSE?" is a frequent line. Samuel L. Jackson also gives one of the best performances of his career as Steven, the head slave of Monsieur Candy. Deep-seated race relations are treated in Django Unchained like never before. It's OK to laugh as Steven suggests burning the pillow cases after Django has slept on them. But with the comedy, comes the brutality. Whips and early forms of KKK militarism are also shown in garish honesty. Although again, not without their hint of "Tarantino." In one of the best sequences of the film, members of a hate mob discuss the negative aspects of wearing white hoods with eye holes - none of them can see! The ironic hint to their reduced awareness, or blindness, is clear - Tarantino is criticising racial hatred in his own way. And it works.

and then they kissed?

Spike Lee recently hit out at Django Unchained: "American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It was a holocaust. My ancestors are slaves. Stolen from Africa. I will honor them." He couldn't be more wrong (in fact, Spike Lee has been a bit of a dick recently). In the same month Lincoln is released, the subject matter is being presented in two very different ways - but I know which one I'd rather watch. Tarantino isn't dishonouring the history of African Americans, hell no. He's celebrating the liberation of black people in his own unique, gory, hilarious, fan-boy way. In a running joke across the film - the "D" in "Django" is silent; the rest of the film is anything but.


45/50 STATES

p.s. QT's cameos are phenomenal

2 comments:

  1. Nah; He's not "celebrating the liberation of black people in his own unique, gory, hilarious, fan-boy way". The slavery storyline is a backdrop, make no mistake, Tarantino isn't stupid enough to 'celebrate' anything he has no business of celebrating, that would just be patronising and quiet frankly I don't think its that deep. What he's doing, and the reason the poor man is so pissed at the media for calling him up on it despite it being his trademark since day dawn, is a revenge movie. Flat out, revenge flick. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know if we watched the same film but there was no 'liberation' of black people whatsoever, this wasn't THE HELP or AMISTAD with guns and whips - this was a certified, bad-ass story about an angry man who also happened to be a black man in a time where slavery was around, who wanted his wife back. He was pissed and he wanted his wife back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are reading the film completely out of context. Calling it a "flat out revenge flick" is completely off the mark and reduces the film to its story arc - "nothing more" you say? To ignore the slavery and the racial dissonance is to ignore the reason for the entire film's context in the first place, which seems an incredibly odd reading.

      They aren't calling him up on the story arc of Django Unchained either, you're missing the point. Spike Lee, among others, is hitting out at QT's caricatured interpretation of Antebellum USA. They feel his derivation of a quasi-spaghetti western is offensive to those whose ancestors were slaves. (Watch Blazing Saddles and other Westerns that do the same with comedy.) Which, again, is narrow-minded. His own impression is just as valid as any other. And of course it's a film about liberation - it's called Django UNCHAINED and set a year before the civil war! His passage into the "White" man's world and increased status throughout the film is arguably more of the focus than the motivation for the character.

      Perhaps you fell asleep during the film? Or passed out reading my review? As not once do I compare it to any blockbuster (Help, Amistad or Lincoln) dealing with the issue in a more "traditional" way.

      Thanks for reading.

      Delete