Django Unchained 4 Stars (of four)
In Django Unchained, the newest film by Quentin Tarantino, it has finally happened. Tarantino is finally unleashed with total abandon. I'll get to that in a minute, but first, a quick summary. For those of you who don't know, the film starts two years before the Civil War. Dr. Shultz (played by the amazing Christoph Waltz-the guy who played the main Nazi in Tarantino's last film Inglorius Basterds) is a bounty hunter who stops a pair of slave traders in Texas looking for a slave Django (played by Jaime Foxx). Schultz is looking for a bounty on a group of men who were overseers at a plantation where Django was a slave. Schultz gets Django to help him because Django can identify the three men. Once they kill the three men, they form a partnership to become a bounty hunting team. Django also asks that they find and free his wife, who was sold away to another plantation owned by Calvin Candy (Leonardo DiCaprio, playing one of the slimiest bastards ever committed to film). Yadda, yadda, yadda, great violence ensues to a bloody denoument. I won't give away the ending, but it is quite good.
Now, much has been made of Tarantino's penchant for doing homages to other film genres, specifically older ones that really aren't done anymore. Django Unchained, as has been ballyhooed a lot in the press, is no exception. It is a loving tribute to the revenge flick and the spaghetti western in the vein of For A Few Dollars More, Once Upon A Time In The West and Hang 'Em High, or the more recent, more nihilistic westerns like The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Wild Bunch or Pat Garrett and Billy The Kid with a touch of the blaxploitation westerns like Take A Hard Ride, Posse, or Boss N----r (probably closest to what Tarantino was trying to get). This is not the John Wayne western, but rather the Clint Eastwood western or the Fred Williamson/Jim Brown blaxploitation western that were cynical, revisionistic and much more realistic as far as attitudes in the west are concerned. The action is tense, exciting, and very violent. As usual, Tarantino's writing is crisp and his dialogue realistic. While the dialogue is a tad modern in its vernacular and slang, this is not a realistic depiction of historical fact, so it does not detract. A lot has been made of its depictions of the violence and cruelty in slavery, and this movie does not shy away from that. The big issue I have with this is that many people, including the actors themselves, view the movie as documentary rather than just telling a violent fictional story set in a place and time of reprehensible values. I don't know if this is contrition for being involved in an extremely bloody movie to deflect criticism, or jjustification to end on an extremely bloody note. In either case, I find this attitude a tad hypocritical, and the backpedalling that has been made by all involved (other than Tarantino himself) in the context of Newtown ridiculous. Own up to the fact that you made something very violent and that you are playing to the masses, not that you are making something that has some kind of greater historical or cultural value.
A note about Tarantino. I actually agree with him and his recent statements on his irritation for being blamed for every violent action that occurs. Despite what most people think, Tarantino's movies are quite restrained as far as the violence goes. Up until this flick, he has subscribed to the Alfred Hitchcock school of less is more. Despite what you think you may have seen in most Tarantino flicks, they are not very gratuitous with what is shown in the final product. However, it is the implication of what is happening on the screen which is more disturbing to people, it is something they have never seen before. Therefore, your brain fills in the rest. Freeze-frame almost every Tarantino film (outside of the House of Blue Leaves sequence in Kill Bill), you really do not see a lot of violence. It is what you think happened which is far more horrible than anything he shows. But in this film, he ends all pretense as to restraint. This is a VERY bloody movie, and definitely not for all tastes. But if you are up for a rip-roaring, bloody good time, this is a great movie, another worthy installment in a great series of films by a master filmmaker.
One last thing. While waiting to go in, I saw at least two kids who could not have been over 13 go into this film. How are they getting in? Please do not take your children to see this film. It is really not for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment