Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

[Bean]

I'm honestly stupefied by that response.

[with_one_voice]

I trust filmy will elaborate once he has regained his composure.

[Hatshepsutely]

I'm honestly stupefied by that response.

Same here. Though I suppose some people likely had had a similar response to Pulp Fiction and Marcellus Wallace's rape scene when that film first came out.

Tarantino fucks with people's comfort zones and preconceptions.

[makemeameteor]

Same here. Though I suppose some people likely had had a similar response to Pulp Fiction and Marcellus Wallace's rape scene when that film first came out.

Tarantino fucks with people's comfort zones and preconceptions.

This. It's not like this is the first film where Tarantino has blurred the lines between the over-the-top ultraviolence and disturbingly real content. The rape scene in Pulp Fiction, not to mention the shot of adrenaline to Mia's chest, are two prime examples of that. The dismembering of d'Artagnan by dogs works for me because it takes a break from the comical violence that precedes it and introduces Candie as a real threat -- he's not like one of the other fools Django and Schultz have mowed down so far. I mean, look at the church shootout in Kill Bill. That shit is terrifying, and it largely happens off screen. Up until this point, we've seen the Bride take down Vernita Green and O-ren Ishii in, more or less, over-the-top comical fashion. And we've only really been told Bill is an even bigger threat. This establishes him as a true force of evil for the Bride to go against. The shootout after Candie and Schultz's deaths is basically a Wild West version of the Bride vs. The Crazy 88. And that fight is much, much more graphic than the one here.

Anyways, I liked this, though I think it really lost a lot once DiCaprio and Waltz exited.

[Elessar]

Same here. Though I suppose some people likely had had a similar response to Pulp Fiction and Marcellus Wallace's rape scene when that film first came out.

Tarantino fucks with people's comfort zones and preconceptions.

Yeah, that one actually freaked me out quite a bit on my first viewing.

[Hatshepsutely]

Part of what knocked the wind out of me regarding Wallace's rape scene is that I was so used to sexualized/fetishized/brutal violence being depicted against women in film, that it was an absolute SHOCK to see it done to a male, let alone such an archetypical alpha male. That left me reeling.

[Stéphane]

Part of what knocked the wind out of me regarding Wallace's rape scene is that I was so used to sexualized/fetishized/brutal violence being depicted against women in film, that it was an absolute SHOCK to see it done to a male, let alone such an archetypical alpha male. That left me reeling.

Deliverance reference? Burt Reynolds was a badass.

[RRA]

I disagree with Spike Lee and Travis Smiley and respect their opinions, but do they realize some people will just disregard their opinions automatically by the fact that they admit not having seen said movie they're criticizing?

I'm reminded of LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST when the religious right went to war against a movie they never saw.

[Moviefreak]

Part of what knocked the wind out of me regarding Wallace's rape scene is that I was so used to sexualized/fetishized/brutal violence being depicted against women in film, that it was an absolute SHOCK to see it done to a male, let alone such an archetypical alpha male. That left me reeling.

Yes, I re-watched Pulp Fiction a few days ago and I was thinking that exact same thing. It's not even that Wallace is a man, but the fact that he's the alpha-male, crime boss and something like that happens to him really is a brilliant twist on what we typically see in these kinds of films. I wasn't old enough to remember that reaction when the film was released, but I bet people were completely shocked when it happens.

I'm also kind of surprised by some peoples reactions to this film. I would think that so many years since Reservoir Dogs, most people would already know what to expect from a Tarantino film as far as violence is concerned.

[Aurelius]

This. It's not like this is the first film where Tarantino has blurred the lines between the over-the-top ultraviolence and disturbingly real content. The rape scene in Pulp Fiction, not to mention the shot of adrenaline to Mia's chest, are two prime examples of that. The dismembering of d'Artagnan by dogs works for me because it takes a break from the comical violence that precedes it and introduces Candie as a real threat -- he's not like one of the other fools Django and Schultz have mowed down so far. I mean, look at the church shootout in Kill Bill. That shit is terrifying, and it largely happens off screen. Up until this point, we've seen the Bride take down Vernita Green and O-ren Ishii in, more or less, over-the-top comical fashion. And we've only really been told Bill is an even bigger threat. This establishes him as a true force of evil for the Bride to go against. The shootout after Candie and Schultz's deaths is basically a Wild West version of the Bride vs. The Crazy 88. And that fight is much, much more graphic than the one here.

Anyways, I liked this, though I think it really lost a lot once DiCaprio and Waltz exited.

Everything in this.

And again, most of the d'Artagnan scene happens off screen as well. We never see any actual flesh ripped apart by dog teeth or anything, most of it is suggestion.

[kupo]

I'm also kind of surprised by some peoples reactions to this film. I would think that so many years since Reservoir Dogs, most people would already know what to expect from a Tarantino film as far as violence is concerned.

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but...I largely did know what to expect with Tarantino. Or, I suppose it would be more accurate to say, I knew what I would possibly encounter with Tarantino.

But it was the specific context here that I found...disappointing (admittedly, my reaction doesn't seem to be nearly as severe as filmy's). I know very well that Tarantino's engagement with and implementation of violence is often juvenile and exploitative. You'd have to be living under a rock as a cinephile to not know that. But, again, I saw IB as a significant evolution of this trend for him. That is a film that posits itself as a revenge fantasy, but at its climax thoroughly complicates that notion.

DU, on the other hand, regrettably moves in reverse: some of its early depictions of violence seem fraught with moral complication, but after Schultz is murdered, the film suddenly decides it *will* be a glorious bloodbath in which you can sit back and bask in Django's badass fury. My problem, as I said earlier in this thread, is not with the more realistic depictions of violence. It's pretty much solely everything that happens post Schultz and Candie dying. The film totally backs down and becomes a lot more spineless after that moment. And again (I'm sort of a broken record in this thread, sorry), I guess this kind of works if you're reading the film as some sort of mythic parable, because then you must raze the whole institution and everything tied to it. But I just find that...not that interesting.

The Mother Jones article Bean posted provides probably the most articulate and interesting defense of this type of reading I've yet come across, as it goes into some fascinating specifics about how Tarantino tried to frame the whole nefarious institution as the true antagonist. But I think the finale could have been handled much differently and more maturely for even a reading like this. The last act of this film just left a really, really sour taste in my mouth.

[haqyunus]

I agree with about what to expect from QT by now and that the ending was problematic, as I said earlier.

But filmy left midway? Did he even reach the end where some of us have our issues with the movie? I am eagerly waiting for his response.

[McTeague]

I walked out of this. Like just now. My friends are still in the theater, LOL. And I know this is such a knee-jerk ridiculous reaction, but I'm basically at the point where I am so cynical that I think anyone who could like is an idiot but it's no surprise that it will play well. Like I have never felt so strongly about a movie. It's VILE. And it's making me now rethink all of his previous movies.

[Moviefreak]

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but...I largely did know what to expect with Tarantino. Or, I suppose it would be more accurate to say, I knew what I would possibly encounter with Tarantino.

But it was the specific context here that I found...disappointing (admittedly, my reaction doesn't seem to be nearly as severe as filmy's). I know very well that Tarantino's engagement with and implementation of violence is often juvenile and exploitative. You'd have to be living under a rock as a cinephile to not know that. But, again, I saw IB as a significant evolution of this trend for him. That is a film that posits itself as a revenge fantasy, but at its climax thoroughly complicates that notion.

DU, on the other hand, regrettably moves in reverse: some of its early depictions of violence seem fraught with moral complication, but after Schultz is murdered, the film suddenly decides it *will* be a glorious bloodbath in which you can sit back and bask in Django's badass fury. My problem, as I said earlier in this thread, is not with the more realistic depictions of violence. It's pretty much solely everything that happens post Schultz and Candie dying. The film totally backs down and becomes a lot more spineless after that moment. And again (I'm sort of a broken record in this thread, sorry), I guess this kind of works if you're reading the film as some sort of mythic parable, because then you must raze the whole institution and everything tied to it. But I just find that...not that interesting.

The Mother Jones article Bean posted provides probably the most articulate and interesting defense of this type of reading I've yet come across, as it goes into some fascinating specifics about how Tarantino tried to frame the whole nefarious institution as the true antagonist. But I think the finale could have been handled much differently and more maturely for even a reading like this. The last act of this film just left a really, really sour taste in my mouth.

This is how I saw the film as well. I really do think that Tarantino was trying to create an American myth of sorts here, with Django as the hero who saves his lady love and avenges all the wrong-doings that were down to the both of them.

[Aurelius]

Well, the parallel with the Siegfried and Brunnhilde legend is literally spelled out (although Siegfried doesn't raze anything in the end).

[kupo]

Well, the parallel with the Siegfried and Brunnhilde legend is literally spelled out (although Siegfried doesn't raze anything in the end).

This is definitely true, and I *do* think that it's a perfectly valid way to read the film. I just ultimately don't find it as interesting, I suppose, on a personal level. And even given this, I still think the ending is...problematic, both narratively and thematically.

Regardless, I don't want to sound too harsh on the film. Overall, I think it's pretty solid and I'd probably give it a B, and it will get some personal nominations from me.

[Hatshepsutely]

Yes, I re-watched Pulp Fiction a few days ago and I was thinking that exact same thing. It's not even that Wallace is a man, but the fact that he's the alpha-male, crime boss and something like that happens to him really is a brilliant twist on what we typically see in these kinds of films. I wasn't old enough to remember that reaction when the film was released, but I bet people were completely shocked when it happens.

I'm also kind of surprised by some peoples reactions to this film. I would think that so many years since Reservoir Dogs, most people would already know what to expect from a Tarantino film as far as violence is concerned.

I could write an entire essay on Reservoir Dogs, and how the film is a deconstruction of how violence is so intimately (and negatively) connected to masculine identity. I agree with what Keitel said about the film; that all violent acts were essentially the characters perpetrating it upon themselves; physically, emotionally, psychologically.

In other news, has this been posted? Ebert's thoughts on Django: http://bit.ly/UxgElB (IDK why it is published under Emerson's name; Ebert tweeted that it was his own essay and that he would have given the film four stars.)

[ldw]

Well, I can only speak to my own experience, but...I largely did know what to expect with Tarantino. Or, I suppose it would be more accurate to say, I knew what I would possibly encounter with Tarantino.

But it was the specific context here that I found...disappointing (admittedly, my reaction doesn't seem to be nearly as severe as filmy's). I know very well that Tarantino's engagement with and implementation of violence is often juvenile and exploitative. You'd have to be living under a rock as a cinephile to not know that. But, again, I saw IB as a significant evolution of this trend for him. That is a film that posits itself as a revenge fantasy, but at its climax thoroughly complicates that notion.

DU, on the other hand, regrettably moves in reverse: some of its early depictions of violence seem fraught with moral complication, but after Schultz is murdered, the film suddenly decides it *will* be a glorious bloodbath in which you can sit back and bask in Django's badass fury. My problem, as I said earlier in this thread, is not with the more realistic depictions of violence. It's pretty much solely everything that happens post Schultz and Candie dying. The film totally backs down and becomes a lot more spineless after that moment. And again (I'm sort of a broken record in this thread, sorry), I guess this kind of works if you're reading the film as some sort of mythic parable, because then you must raze the whole institution and everything tied to it. But I just find that...not that interesting.

The Mother Jones article Bean posted provides probably the most articulate and interesting defense of this type of reading I've yet come across, as it goes into some fascinating specifics about how Tarantino tried to frame the whole nefarious institution as the true antagonist. But I think the finale could have been handled much differently and more maturely for even a reading like this. The last act of this film just left a really, really sour taste in my mouth.

Persons here, including myself, have gone into specifics on this. I am kicking myself for editing the one post where I brought up Django in comparison to Josey Wales and Ethan Edwards. I instead switched to just the names of the actors and threw in Gary Cooper. This had become a heated conversation among other friends and did not want to go down that road.

[kupo]

Persons here, including myself, have gone into specifics on this. I am kicking myself for editing the one post where I brought up Django in comparison to Josey Wales and Ethan Edwards. I instead switched to just the names of the actors and threw in Gary Cooper. This had become a heated conversation among other friends and did not want to go down that road.

Don't worry, I think your posts have been an equally elegant defense of just such a type of reading. The Mother Jones article is just the most interesting that I think I've seen "in print," yet.

[forizzer69]

I walked out of this. Like just now. My friends are still in the theater, LOL. And I know this is such a knee-jerk ridiculous reaction, but I'm basically at the point where I am so cynical that I think anyone who could like is an idiot but it's no surprise that it will play well. Like I have never felt so strongly about a movie. It's VILE. And it's making me now rethink all of his previous movies.

Yeah, this isn't for the sensitive, and you seem like a very delicate soul.