Skip to main content

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.


Django Unchained
(2012)

(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic principles and subject matter that, paradoxically, he wants to have fun with but also treat with gravity.


Because, despite addressing its subject more directly, Django Unchained is about as serious-minded a commentary on slavery as Basterds is on the Holocaust. Tarantino is really just feeding the period trappings through his cool filter, coming out with dazzling shootouts and delirious mind games and, yes, distinctive dialogue to suit his “southern”. He’s as smart as ever in knowing how to elicit a response to different forms of violence, such that a brutal, casually-refereed Mandingo fight and a slave savaged by Candy’s dogs repulse, while Django’s gunfight in Candy’s mansion is a giddy, enthralling spectacle of crimson jets and spinning bodies.


But there’s something slightly wearying about the whole thing. Maybe it’s the lack of engagement with the titular character, or the clash between the director’s glibness and his subject matter, but too often I felt I was being led down a well-worn path with nothing of any substance to provide nourishment. Not that I shouldn’t know better by now; perhaps, ultimately, it is his stock-in-trade that left me disappointed. The characters, with a couple of exceptions, just don’t sparkle. And the “Look at me!” daring of making a film against the backdrop of slavery, because there’s no depth to it, once again singles out Quentin as the kid in class provoking teacher by making fart noises. It’s entertaining if you’re his classmate… up to a point.


At its core, the director has come up with an effective revenge western; a freed slave teams up with a bounty hunter, taking revenge on his persecutors and setting off to rescue with his wife. But he is either unable or unwilling to ruthlessly prune his material, such that Django is much too long, repetitive and features dramatic lulls that only the sterling work of the cast can see it through. It’s also front-loaded.


The first 50 minutes are enthralling, perfectly-paced, five-star material, as bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) frees Django (Jamie Foxx) and joins forces with him to hunt down the Brittle Brothers. The dialogue is witty, and Schultz is a classic Tarantino scene-stealer (his introductions, including his horse’s name, are particularly winning). And the retribution Django visits is cathartic and enervating. Tarantino also pulls off some sublime visuals (the spray of blood on cotton plants is stunning). But even here, there is a concern that the material is not quite honed enough. Schultz and Django have a marvellously effective showdown in a town, where Schultz talks them out of certain death by flourishing a “Wanted” poster. When he does exactly the same thing at Don Johnson’s ranch, there is a sense of diminishing returns.


I wouldn’t quite say that the air is sucked out of the film during its mid-section, where Schultz and Django pose as businessmen procuring Mandingo fighters (slaves who fight to the death in boxing matches) in order to infiltrate Calvin Candie’s (Leonard DiCaprio) property and save Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), but the momentum is diffused. This isn’t about gunfights (with Tarantino they used to be merely a punctuation rather than the star attraction). Rather, there’s a failure of narrative tension. Django is repeatedly shown staring down his would-be masters or wrestling with whether or not to start firing. For some reason, the stakes aren’t raised, perhaps because Tarantino himself repeatedly gives way; it beggars belief that, in the situation he has created, one of Candie’s men wouldn’t shoot Django in the back, offended at his talking back or insults (whatever Candie has instructed about showing good manners).


So it’s some relief that, after an hour of dawdling, the fireworks, both verbal and visual, begin. There are some strong moments during the second act. The Mandingo scene is effectively horrific, if not as tightly wrought as it could be (throwing in the Franco Nero exchange with Django only goes to illustrate how off Tarantino’s priorities are) and Samuel L Jackson’s unsettling performance as Stephen, Candie’s senior house slave, is outstanding. With Schultz, he’s the only character Tarantino completely nails, and represents a much-needed reminder of how good Jackson can be. It’s Stephen, far more shrewd and observant than his owner, who identifies the dangerous game being played by Django and Schultz.


What follows is the film’s "classic" Tarantino scene. You know, one where somebody gives an unnerving speech, winding the tension up to maximum before a surprising (and violent) release is provided. As well written as it is, Candie’s phrenological account of why the white race is mentally superior cannot match the quiet, taunting monologue Dennis Hopper gives in True Romance (which also includes a racial theme, designed to provoke). The difference comes in the tension built up by Tony Scott’s editing, the cadence of Hoppper’s delivery, and the cheerful but menacing cuts to Christopher Walken listening. DiCaprio is fine as Candie, but either he doesn’t quite seize the role and run with it for all its worth, or it just isn’t quite there in the script. Or maybe it’s down to the editing (this was Tarantino’s first without Sally Menke, who died in 2010).


I can’t fault the pay-off, however. The bloodbath that ensues sees the director breaking out his inner-Peckinpah rather than his Leone, but the slight concern over the trajectory of all this is justified when, rather than resolving his narrative, Tarantino opts to unnecessarily extend it.


The mistreatment of Django fails to instill the necessaries to justify bloating the running time for further payback. Worse, still allowing him to live lends the proceedings the cheesiest of Bond villain motivations (the earlier deal with Candie also seemed like a point where he would take the opportunity to rid himself of them; that he does not is curious, and not merely based on profit since he already had their money). It just becomes silly, and it’s the sort of thing Tarantino would previously have studiously avoided. I was put in mind of Sir Percival’s double-back at the end of Excalibur, which has the unfortunate effect of undermining the climax as a whole.  Not only are we cursed with a Tarantino cameo (he’s been eating the pies, hasn’t he?), but one where he invites further ridicule for his thespian skills by attempting (I think) an Australian accent. Rather than building to a much-awaited showdown, Django canters along to a technically excellent but rather uninvolving climax. The crucial problem is that all the cathartic violence was expended in the first third of the film. So you’re left merely with lurid repetition. There absence of structural inventiveness, previously a prerequisite, further emphasises the bloated nature of the final stages.


There’s a moment during the final shoot out that is illustrative of where Quentin is at. Django shoots a (naked) man in the genitals during one shoot-out, and a couple of minutes later does the same to another cast member in another firefight. How cool is that?! The man has no restraint, no one to say "Rein it in a bit there, Quentin". In the second instance one could argue it is thematically relevant (even if the whole genital mutilation subplot is blandly uninspired), but he just couldn’t wait.


Similarly, near the beginning, one of the Speck brothers is trapped beneath his horse. Django and Schultz leave him to his fate at the hands of the released slaves. The most effective place to cut would have been his cries of protest as they advance on him. Instead, Tarantino can’t control himself and gives audiences the “money shot”.


Another scene during the first third has the director poke fun at some inept Klansmen who are unable to see through their headwear. As an idea, it’s solid, and you can see how it could be mined for laughs. But like so much here, the delivery is curiously flat.


The plaudits of an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor for Waltz were over-generous. Waltz is magnificent, and he has the best part in the film, but he could do this in his sleep. It’s a gift of a role that stands head and shoulders above the surrounding film and characters (Jackson excepted). Schultz is a very clear “type”; the Obi Wan who leads the hero on his journey. But he’s also the Han Solo, much more interesting than the presumed lead character.


Will Smith turned down Django , saying “Django wasn’t the lead, so I was like, I need to be the lead. The other character was the lead!” Whether Will really needs to be the lead is something between him and his ego, but he’s absolutely right about the imbalance Tarantino has created. This also sits slightly uncomfortably in thematic terms; the white director, much commented upon for previous form with the “N-word” picks a setting and period where he can pepper it into his script with impunity. And he requires his black hero to be empowered by a white saviour figure, deferring to his better judgement. I’m not sure if Smith’s charisma could have overcome this hurdle, but Foxx is kind of just “okay” as Django. He needs to be great, iconically Eastwood great, and because he isn't, all the Quentin "So cool" shit in the last moments is goofy and slightly embarrassing.


Another problem is, he used to seize on semi-known or out-of-favour actors and relight their star power with great roles. Here, he gets a bunch of semi-recognisable faces and gives them each a couple of lines, relying on the audience recognition rather than the strength of character beats. Yes, Bruce Dern makes a big impression in about a minute of screen time, and it’s nice to see Breaking Away's Dennis Christopher in a fairly significant role. But no one makes a mark outside of the quartet of leads. Kerry Washington effectively plays the MacGuffin, and has exactly as much substance to her role as that implies. As a result, any notions of an emotional through line between Django and his wife go unserviced.


It’s illustrative that the likes of Kevin Costner, Kurt Russell, Sacha Baron Cohen, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Kenneth Williams all dropped out (most citing scheduling conflicts), some of those roles disappearing too. James Remar plays two parts, one of which is the Costner/Russell earmarked Butch. But Butch is no more memorable than Goggins’ Billy Crash. You remember Crash because Goggins plays him, not because he’s a strong character. Compare that to Shane Black ,who makes no-name actors playing one-scene heavies indelible, and something has gone seriously askew in Quentin’s world.


The eclectic soundtrack is typical Tarantino; often inspired, occasionally ill-advised. At least he’s finally made a film where his magpie tendencies towards Ennio Morricone find a natural home.


Django Unchained, overblown and undisciplined as it is, nevertheless provides fitful blasts of the director at his best. Perhaps he should return to the crime genre. It might provide a purer distillation of his sensibility, since his current riffs and repetitions have lost their lustre. Or maybe he just needs someone he trusts leaning over his shoulder and telling him when another draft is needed, and when to cut.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for