Django Unchained--Tarintino's new project

[Ayelbourne]

Nightowl1701 wrote:

---

One shocking fact I learned today about the film: In the scene where DiCaprio saws open the skull of his old family servant (supposedly to show the genetic inferiority of the black man), I was left wondering why his left hand was bleeding all over the place. Turns out he actually DID accidentally cut his own hand open with the saw (it wasn't in the script), and he just went with it in a paroxysm of method acting that so impressed QT he used that take in the film (yes, Kerry Washington got an unexpected faceful of REAL Leo blood).

I had a feeling the blood was real and that DiCaprio just went with it. What tipped me off was that they didn't show how he'd injured his hand.

Great movie, overall. Dragged a bit in the middle, but apart from that I enjoyed it quite a lot.
Loved how Samuel L. Jackson channeled Tuco there at the end. You just can't beat the ending of The Good the Bad an the Ugly.

[Mr. Adventure]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

^Tarantino always cameos in his movies. There would have been something lacking had he not. Also, I think there's meant to be humor in that scene. We're supposed to recognize him, and realize he's doing a ridiculous accent. Someone that doesn't know Tarantino wouldn't think twice about it, but a fan would recognize it and laugh.

I was thinking about that scene a little and maybe it's overplayed to show that Django sees these guys in a different light than at the beginning of the picture. Now that he's been free he sees these guys for the clowns they are. (Maybe? Just a thought anyway...)

[Admiral_Young]

I finally saw "Django Unchained" last week and thought it was brilliant. I will say that I adore the original script more, and thus looking forward to the comic (issue one was pretty awesome) but this was terrific. There were some magnificent performances in this film, particularly from Foxx, Waltz, DiCaprio (Leo didn't get a nom, I was sure he would finally win his Oscar), and Sam Jackson. Kerry Washington was great as Broomhilda. The soundtrack is probably my favourite since "Kill Bill". I will be buying the Blu-Ray for sure and am looking forward to what QT does after this...maybe "Killer Crows" if he doesn't change his mind to finish off his "Revenge Trilogy".

[DarKush]

gblews wrote:

---

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

Schultz helps Django free himself from slavery and hone the skils that would help Django stay free himself and save his wife's life. Schultz, who hates the evil that is slavery and therefore slaveowners, proves it by killing one knowing full well he will likely die for what he has done. He essentially died for his ideals.

I don't think there is much reason to wonder about how Django feels about white men at the beginning of the movie and no reason to qestion or doubt his feelings about at least one white man at the end of the movie. Understand, I'm not saying Django's view of white people/men changed by the end of the movie, but he finds out in the end that he does have the capacity to care for a white man. That, to me, represents "some" growth at least.

I take issue with your description of a field slave being the lowest of the low. Even within the context of the film, Django mentions black slavers as being the lowest of the low. That being said, I think it does matter how Django would feel about white men at the beginning of the film, as opposed to how he might feel about white men at the end, or Schultz at least, if you contend that that represented growth for his character.

We did see Django and Schultz become friends over the course of the film. But there was nothing in the film that showed us that Django didn't have that capacity beforehand to establish friendships with whites. Granted, I doubted that occurred but I can't say that it didn't. Django was distrustful of whites and vengeful against those that had done him, Broomhilda, or Schultz harm, but outside of that we didn't get much about his thoughts about white males.

[DarKush]

Roger Wilco wrote:

---

So, I just watched the movie, and while I loved the first ~2 hours, I really have a problem with the ending. Am I missing some deeper metaphorical message or what or was it supposed to be a fairy tale or something? It felt really kind of out of touch with the rest of the movie, almost like a dream sequence. Imo the movie should have either ended with Schultz shaking Candie's hand and walking out of there with Django and Broomhilda or with all three of them dead right there after Schultz shoots Candie.

It made absolutely no sense for Django to be "punished" the way he was, without even any supervision by some of Candyland's overseers. An "uppity" black guy who causes the death of a very prominent white man and numerous other white guys in Mississippi in 1858 just being sold to some mining company like that is absurd. And yes, there was this speech by Stephen, but that made no sense either; castrating Django would've just been the start of his punishment.

Very strange. I'm just not sure wether the ending was shit or I'm just missing some nuance Tarantino was going for there.

You would think that Django would've been ripped apart after the shoot out at Candyland, but I think that Stephen's speech was very important. To me, I saw Stephen as a manipulator, of both Candies. It's a very subversive idea, or thought on my part perhaps, but I saw Stephen in many ways running the plantation. Despite his slave status, Stephen took a lot of liberties that you-at least-I wouldn't have expected a slave, even a house slave, to do.

He hid behind some clownish, servile behavior and his old age, but right off the bat he was challenging Candie, he was bossing the overseers, he's the one that tipped Candie off to the plan (and remember how he was casually sitting in a parlor chair, drinking a brandy), and he's the one that planted the idea in Candie's sister's mind to sell Django off.

So even though I have mixed feelings about Django not taking out Candie instead of Schultz, his final confrontation with Stephen made sense to me because he was sort of the mastermind behind Candyland, IMO. Stephen had taken the lemons he was given due to birth and status and subverted them to gain a position of power and influence at Candyland. Of course, "rising" through the ranks in a slave system made him just as monstrous as Candie and other white slave owners. Nor did it really shield him from all the realities of being a slave. It is notable that Stephen telling Candie what's really going on was done behind closed doors, in keeping with the racial customs and reinforcing the idea of white supremacy. And if Candie wanted to shut Stephen down at any time, he could, so Stephen trod carefully.

I agree with those who felt that ending was the right way to go. I could've seen the film ending with Django's capture and the audience could all imagine the horrors that would occur next with Django and Broomhilda. But it wouldn't have been as satisfying or cathartic if we didn't see Django get his full revenge or accomplish his goal of freeing Broomhilda. I also agree with the idea that the ending helped Django come fully into his own. We got to see him doing things solo for once, setting up and executing a plan without Schultz, and I think that's one of the things that helped establish Django as a man/hero in his own right, without someone holding his hand or guiding him.

[gblews]

DarKush wrote:

---

I take issue with your description of a field slave being the lowest of the low. Even within the context of the film, Django mentions black slavers as being the lowest of the low. That being said, I think it does matter how Django would feel about white men at the beginning of the film, as opposed to how he might feel about white men at the end, or Schultz at least, if you contend that that represented growth for his character.

We did see Django and Schultz become friends over the course of the film. But there was nothing in the film that showed us that Django didn't have that capacity beforehand to establish friendships with whites. Granted, I doubted that occurred but I can't say that it didn't. Django was distrustful of whites and vengeful against those that had done him, Broomhilda, or Schultz harm, but outside of that we didn't get much about his thoughts about white males.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on all of these issues.

[Servo]

gblews wrote:

---

No, we didn't her Django state that he he (now) loved a white man but that scene where he kissed his hand and touched Schultz' body, I think, said it all. Django was a slave, a field slave, the lowliest of the low. His presumed contempt and mistrust for white people, men in particular, needs no explanation or much illustration.

The real truth of Django's feelings for Schultz comes in that scene, not from Django's actions, but from his choice of words; "Auf wiedersehen". Very poignant after we'd just heard Schultz explain it's literal meaning ("Til we meet again") to Candie.

[FPAlpha]

Damn.. that's all i can say about Django Unchained.

A short while ago today i saw it and i honestly can't remember when nearly 3 hours flew by so fast (even with the 15 minute intermission which i haven't experienced in a long time at the movies), not even with the Lord of the Rings movies where i was gripped by the story and visuals but still was aware of the time it took to tell the story.

Django is so chock full of Tarantino style.. it's glorious and brilliant and may be the best movie he made in his life and most of his movies are grouped so tight near the top spot that it's hard to choose.
This one had it all.. funny, gore, action, gripping dialogue, drama and outstanding actors led by a man who knew exactly what he wanted.

I nearly blacked out twice during the movie from laughing so hard.. first one was the Ku Klux Klan scene and then the big shootout near the end which was so over the top it was just amazing and hilarious.

Music choices are genius as always with Tarantino movies and Waltz definitely deserved his Golden Globe for his performance here.

Unfortunately i saw it in the german synchronized version so i can't wait for the Blu Ray to see/hear it in the english original.

Another masterpiece by Tarantino who cements his top spot as the "cool movies" director (and i fell nearly out of the chair when his cameo character was killed.. you know what i mean ).

[Servo]

The Klan scene was hilarious. Felt like something straight out of Blazing Saddles.

[Timelord_Victorious]

FPAlpha wrote:

---

Damn.. that's all i can say about Django Unchained.

A short while ago today i saw it and i honestly can't remember when nearly 3 hours flew by so fast (even with the 15 minute intermission which i haven't experienced in a long time at the movies), not even with the Lord of the Rings movies where i was gripped by the story and visuals but still was aware of the time it took to tell the story.

Django is so chock full of Tarantino style.. it's glorious and brilliant and may be the best movie he made in his life and most of his movies are grouped so tight near the top spot that it's hard to choose.
This one had it all.. funny, gore, action, gripping dialogue, drama and outstanding actors led by a man who knew exactly what he wanted.

I nearly blacked out twice during the movie from laughing so hard.. first one was the Ku Klux Klan scene and then the big shootout near the end which was so over the top it was just amazing and hilarious.

Music choices are genius as always with Tarantino movies and Waltz definitely deserved his Golden Globe for his performance here.

Unfortunately i saw it in the german synchronized version so i can't wait for the Blu Ray to see/hear it in the english original.

Another masterpiece by Tarantino who cements his top spot as the "cool movies" director (and i fell nearly out of the chair when his cameo character was killed.. you know what i mean ).

Not yet sure if it gets top spot but it was great.
How did the whole "we are speaking German as a plot point" work when everyone is speaking German all the time? I was lucky enough to watch it inthe original version.

[FPAlpha]

Timelord_Victorious wrote:

---

Not yet sure if it gets top spot but it was great.
How did the whole "we are speaking German as a plot point" work when everyone is speaking German all the time? I was lucky enough to watch it inthe original version.

Yeah well.. this part fell flat. When it was clear they were speaking German i concentrated on the lip movements and indeed they did. The company didn't go to any length to try to make this something else and it would be pointless.. they did the best they could and ignored it. It's often enough that some english wordplay doesn't work in the german version for obvious reasons.. sometimes the studio tries to translate it (and fails to grasp the humor) and sometimes they come up with a fitting german substitute.. Good Morning Vietnam is an excelllent example of brilliant german dubbing and one of the rare dubbed movies where i like the german version nearly as much as the original.

Unfortunately most of my guys don't watch movies in the original english at the theatre so i was stuck seeing Django in German.. still great but i'm itching for the Blu Ray release to see it in the original language (and i'm pre-ordering and if need be pay full price because the movie is worth it).

[Timelord_Victorious]

Yeah, difficult to retain the experience in fully dubbed German.
They could have used an obscure 19th century German dialect hardly any Germans today still understand and subtitle those scenes.

[ThunderAeroI]

The biggest question I have to which there probably has no answer is this:

Were Shultz and crew ever going to leave the plantation alive even if he shook Candies hand? I figured Candie had a hidden gun like we knew Shultz had but I wasn't and still am not sure how that event would have transpired. Probably the same regardless.

Then I have the same compliant as everyone else about how Django was treated once captured at the end of the third act. My gut is telling me he would have never made it out from underneath that book shelf and his wife would be trash regardless.

I did enjoy the movie and I didn't see any implied racism in it, perhaps the only 'bad' thing is that we can laugh at what the KKK really was....but that scene was funny.

[Rush Limborg]

I actually found delightfully amusing the tongue-in-cheek nod to Birth Of A Nation, with the full dramatic orchestra as the Klan first ride down (too bad it wasn't "Ride of the Valkeries"...)--followed immediately by the side-splittingly hilarious "planning" sequence (which, as has been pointed out, feels straight out of Blazing)!

[Captaindemotion]

Oh, I so loved this film, probably like no other QT movie since Dogs (when I first saw Pulp, I was actually a little disappointed by it). At turns brutal, funny, chilling, uplifting and moving. Never dull. Not a bad performance. At times, I nearly wet myself laughing (the Klansman and their hoods, Stephen's response when told Django would be sleeping in the big house), at times I was appalled by the cruelty onscreen (not by the depiction, but by the knowledge that things like this happened to real people).

I'm a Western fan anyway and just loved the soundtrack and the big vistas. The dialogue was top-notch as always but I think this may have been Quentin's finest outing as a director (not necessarily his best movie, just that his directing seemed even more capable than before).

I saw it last night, still the first month of the year, but it has to be a contender for movie of 2013.