Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Rating: ★★★
Django Unchained is a morally reprehensible but unfortunately very well made exploitation movie. I didn’t want to like it- the idea of watching a former slave murder people in a Wild West setting as comedic ‘entertainment’ did not appeal to me in the slightest- but Tarantino certainly proves that he knows how to direct a movie. In all fairness, the film is a lot more serious in tone than I thought it might be, and begins being almost respectful in regards to the subject matter. But as soon as a group of certain white supremacists have a conversation about their costumes- something that we are supposed to find funny- it was obvious to me that once again Tarantino is just using a very real, very pertinent and very controversial issue in order to make money and garnish as much attention as he possibly can, by being provocative just for the sake of it. Like an attention seeking child.
 |
| Dr Schultz teaches Django how to become a bounty hunter |
And it’s a shame really. Django Unchained doesn’t benefit in the slightest from having a slavery theme. The entire movie could have been exactly the same without the slavery elements, and would have been better for it. Tarantino could have made a simple throwback spaghetti western with the same characters, plot and sequences and it would have been thoroughly enjoyable. But it wasn’t, and the reason why is because slavery isn’t funny, it isn’t a joke, and unfortunately people are still being killed because of their skin colour.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t talk about, or make movies about racism. In fact, I think that it needs to be dealt with head on, but in a manner that is serious and respectful. Watching a group of white supremacists talk about how uncomfortable their costumes are isn’t a joke. It’s meant to be, and I get that we should ‘laugh at them’ because of how ridiculous they are. But sadly, people are still being murdered by that particular group of people, and I can’t imagine that many black Americans would find it appropriate to revel in humour based around a group of people who, to this day, want to wipe them from the face of the earth.
 |
| Django will do anything to get his wife back: anything... |
It seems that the critics have ignored this, and, regardless of these issues, jumped on the Tarantino bandwagon, as they normally do. Everyone loved Inglorious Basterds, even though that too was repulsive and ethically unscrupulous. It seems that certain ‘targets’ are acceptable to watch being brutally massacred, and Tarantino easily gets you on side so that you relish each and every death, as much as he clearly does.
Django Unchainedis about a slave called Django (Foxx), who is bought by a German bounty hunter posing as a dentist called Dr Schultz (Waltz) and is given his freedom. Django is desperate to find his wife Broomhilda (Washington) and so sets out to buy her back from slaver Calvin Candie (DiCaprio). Along the way they encounter various characters, including Candie’s Uncle Tom-esque house slave Stephen (Jackson), who isn’t going to make saving Broomhilda an easy task.
 |
| House slave Samuel isn't going to let Django pull the wool over his eyes... |
As much as it pains me to reiterate, Django Unchained is a very well made film, and Tarantino directs it masterfully. There are some good scenes, especially the in first half, which is serious and slow, but the sensationalism that trivialises a very serious issue cannot be ignored, and as soon as a certain group of racists enter into the movie, it all begins to become too uncomfortable to enjoy, for me at least. I don’t think it’s pleasurable to see a black slave being devoured by dogs. I wasn’t laughing. I also wasn’t laughing when Django begins his roaring rampage of revenge on all the ‘deserved’ white people. We are rooting for him to kill every single character (which he does) and I found this ‘Hollywood justice’ unpalatable, just like in Inglorious Basterds. Of course slavery is grotesque- but does that mean that we should feel elated when Django kills everyone involved in slavery? Do two wrongs really make a right? I think that the entire movie is a piece of cinema that people could watch just to be able to say ‘I’m not a racist- I saw Django Unchained and laughed when he killed all the evil white people’. It’s a sort of catharsis for white Americans and no one else- and certain groups of people could use the movie to hide behind: instead of actually taking something away from.
 |
| Django will kill anyone who gets in his way... |
The acting is excellent (except for Tarantino himself who plays an Australian slaver terribly), and this is exactly what you would expect from a stellar cast. Jackson and DiCaprio give the best performances, stealing the show by being completely and intentionally hateful. Foxx is likeable as Django, but doesn’t do much else other than frown and scowl. Washington doesn’t really get much screen time, but she’s very good as the emotional hostage. Waltz repeats his shtick from Inglorious Basterds, and is once again annoying and obnoxious, even though this time he isn’t meant to be. Tarantino’s own pretention is shown most clearly in this character, because he uses Dr Schultz to show off his ‘advanced’ scriptwriting techniques. Dr Schultz uses overly complicated long winded sentences to prove to the audience that as a writer/director Tarantino is more than just a B-Movie film maker. But to me, it just proved that he knows what a dictionary is and how to look up pretentious synonyms.
 |
| Calvin Candie is a phrenologist who believes that there is a scientific reason for slavery. |
The plot, though starting out slowly, very quickly becomes ‘Tarantino-esque’ as it transforms into a pretentious, violent, over the top action shoot out. The gun fights are intentionally a splatter-fest, but are oddly boring, mainly because we’ve seen scenes like this so many times before. This ‘jokey’ style of violence also once again cheapens the very serious issues that the movie raises, because including comparative shots of Broomhilda being whipped with people’s knee caps exploding is odd and distasteful.
 |
| Will Django be able to save his wife? |
The best thing, by far, about Django Unchained, is the soundtrack. There are some great songs in this movie, and they actually help to keep the film interesting when it begins to go on for much longer than it should. There is a certain point where the film should end, but it just continues to keep going for a further twenty five minutes: proof that like some other directors, Tarantino can do whatever he wants because he has gone mad with power. It is overly long, overly indulgent, just like so many other films have been recently.
What Django Unchained proves is that Tarantino doesn’t need to be shocking to make a decent movie: but he chooses to be. He clearly feels that he must maintain his reputation as one of the most sensational film makers of all time, and to be honest he will continue to do so, as long as the critics keep applauding his repugnant and immoral movies. Just because a film is well made and well directed, does not mean it is good. And yes, I gave it three stars, but trust me when I say I feel guilty about it. I don’t like the subject matter or much of the content, but I can’t berate it for its success as an actual film.
 |
| Django and Dr Schutz always keep their eye on the prize- but will they find it? |
Django Unchained, much like Inglorious Basterds (which, by the way, I hated) is exploitative in the worst possible way, and what annoys me is that it doesn’t have to be. If the only way to gain critical praise and box office success is to be immorally insensitive, then what does that say about the future of cinema?
.jpeg)
0 Yorumlar