Django Unchained

Oscars watch: Tarantino's masters it again with a re-creation of a classic western, which also happens to be the fourth film nominated for Best Picture.

Quentin Tarantino is a fascinating filmmaker. But my film history lecturer didn’t seem to think so – he briefly mentioned his dislike for him in one of his lectures during my undergrad studies – and I never knew why. He never went into it. My film history lecturer was one of those guys who really admired the earlier pioneers in filmmaking, like Truffaut, Goddard and Welles – much like Tarantino does. Oddly enough, one of the films we had to watch for the subject was 1966’s Django (I wonder what my old lecturer thinks of Django Unchained). I quite enjoyed Django. And I was really drawn to its star, Franco Nero, a rugged Italian with a wide, handsome face and charming blue eyes. And, of course, he makes a brief, “friendly appearance”, as it states in the opening credits, in Tarantino’s spin on the western classic. Nero shares a scene with Jamie Foxx’s Django, where he asks him how to spell his name: “The ‘D’ is silent” Foxx delivers. “I know,” responds Nero. And I must say, at his old age, Franco Nero is still ruggedly handsome.

However, Tarantino’s film is not a remake of the original spaghetti western, which was about a drifter, dragging a coffin, who comes across a feuding town. Rather, this 2012 version is a “borrowing” of sorts – borrowing the name, the filmic style, and the theme song of the 1966 film – where Tarantino has respectfully re-created an old tale for a new generation.

In the American south, a couple of years before the civil war, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German dentist turned bounty hunter, buys the freedom of an African-American slave named Django (Foxx), who can help him identify three brothers who are wanted for murder. After completing their mission, Schultz offers to help Django rebuild his life as a free man, and asks him to be his partner in a bounty hunting spree. They travel across America, killing the most wanted criminals, and hoping, that by the end of their journey, they will reach Mississippi, where Django believes his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), has been sent to, as they were separated as punishment for attempting to escape from their former owners. They learn that Broomhilda is working for a charismatic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo Di Caprio), who proudly calls his estate, Candieland. Thus, Schultz and Django pose as potential business buyers to try and win Candie’s attention and save Broomhilda.

This is certainly an enjoyable film. I’ve enjoyed all of Tarantino’s films, but this film is not one of his best. Simply, this is an overly lengthy film with mesmerizing characters and plenty of violence – a signature Tarantino film. Tarantino mentioned in an interview with Craig Ferguson that he intended to make this film into a mini-series made for television (the decision to make it into a feature film instead was influenced by fellow filmmaker, Luc Besson), and I must say, it felt that way. Tarantino is great storyteller – he knows how to make a story flow really well, even with the abundance of characters, which can be tricky – he’s one of those gifted filmmakers who can hold your attention for two hours or so. But there are some moments in Django Unchained where it felt cluttered and disjointed, particularly towards the end, where I felt that the ultimate climax of the story wasn’t as clever as I expected it to be. And Tarantino is very good at constructing a clever ending. Perhaps a mini-series or two-parter films (like what he did with Kill Bill) would have been a rather interesting approach.  

I consider Tarantino’s previous film, Inglorious Basterds, a film which also dabbles with history, as one of his better films – I’d argue that Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are his best. With Basterds, I felt Tarantino upped his game again, as I wasn’t too crazy about the Kill Bill films, but Django Unchained doesn’t amount to the ingenuity of Basterds, nonetheless it is equally entertaining. Re-casting Academy Award winner, Christoph Waltz, who, again, gives a brilliant performance, is a great element in this film, as he plays such an admirable figure to the helpless Django, a stark contrast from his role as the evil Col. Hans Landa in Basterds. The casting of Leonardo DiCaprio as the villain is another positive for this film, as well as for DiCaprio, who has yet to play a villain in his prosperous career, and, he indeed, fits the wicked and beguiling mould of Calvin Candie. As well as Tarantino regular, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie’s entrusted slave, Stephen, who, in a way, is like a member of the Candie family, as he has also tended to Calvin’s father and grandfather. Jackson sports bolding, rimmed white hair and aging make-up to play the old and ailing Stephen, a strangely conniving character who knows his place as a black man in Mississippi. Furthermore, I thought Don Johnson was impressive, who has a brief and humorous role as Big Daddy, a wealthy southerner and leader of the KKK.

Tarantino is certainly a very intelligent and passionate filmmaker, and it’s always exciting when he has a new film, whether it’s really good or moderately good, his films are innovative and they always have audiences talking. Tarantino has had ongoing criticism for the excessive violent content in his films, as well as his repetitive use of the N word, not only in Django Unchained, which is arguably appropriate due to the film’s subject matter, but in his other films. The media have plagued it as Tarantino’s “obsession” or “love affair” with violence. Indeed, this classy filmmaker has a knack for violent content, but many filmmakers have a niche – eg. Wes Craven and horror films, George A. Romero and zombie films, or, to go the other way, the Farrelly brothers and toilet humour – and it’s quite irritating when an artist like Tarantino is blamed for the world’s problems, like violent behaviour (most notably the shooting massacres that occurred in America in the past year).

It’s always bothered me that my old film history lecturer wasn’t a Tarantino fan. And, yes, we all have our own opinions, but I never asked him why, and I’m sure he has a valid reason for it. My guess is that Tarantino does have the tendency to borrow material from other films, which can be seen as un-pioneering, but I see it as paying homage from one filmmaker to another.  I admire Tarantino, not only for his innovativeness, but also for his energy. It’s not cockiness. It’s passion. A passion for such a wonderful art form that is filmmaking.