Tarantino's Unabashed Indulgence in Django Unchained

Oh Jamie Foxx, you're sooo cool... (sarcasm)

Django Unchained  WAS my most anticipated movie of 2012. Quentin Tarantino has directed some of my favorite movies (Kill Bill Vol.1 and 2, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and written some of my favorite screenplays (see above), and yes, all of his work is indulgent. He is a lover of homage, and part of the fun of his films is being able to feel how much fun he had making them. A Tarantino film is always a unique experience.

Django Unchained is definitely unique- no other filmmaker would be able to get away with making and distributing this film in wide release.

Django is a western that takes place in the South, and the hero is a slave named Django. He is not a terribly believable or likeable character. He comes off as modern-day cocky Jamie Foxx, trying his best to look cool and be tough. Jamie Foxx plays Jamie Foxx thinking he’s the hero in an “important” action film. This made me really not like Jamie Foxx, if you can tell.

Django is rescued and subsequently freed by a German bounty hunter named Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz (in a distant second for his best Tarantino role). Django has a wife that coincidentally speaks German, and is conveniently named Broomhilda Von Shaft. After a successful partnership and growing mutual respect, Schultz agrees to help Django find her. During the winter months, the duo meet or murder many'a white folk with bounties on their heads, and they set out to find Broomhilda at the spring thaw.

Here is where the movie takes a turn for the worse. Django and Schultz hatch an elaborate to buy Broomhilda from her current owner Calvin Candie (as played by Leonardo DiCaprio). For some reason, they think they should to pretend to be willing to pay “a ridiculous sum” for an expensive mandingo fighter. When they are at "Candyland" looking at the fighters, they can negotiate to purchase Broomhilda for a fair price in a seemingly casual side deal. Then presumably, they will cancel their bid for the mandingo fighter, and leave with a fairly priced Broomhilda. Why not just save time and energy and just purchase Broomhilda at a ridiculous sum relative to her? I have no idea. Maybe they really are just that cheap. Anyway, this deception does get them in trouble, and action scenes ensue.

Django runs 2 hours and 45 minutes long, but the time flies by. For better or worse, it is action-packed and full of wacky racist characters. It has its moments of levity to be sure, and between these moments of levity are gruesome scenes of horrifying racism. It’s an odd mix. Tarantino has always had very dark humor in his films, but Django takes this to a new level. For me, I found it hard to chuckle at Schultz’s wit when a slave was torn apart by dogs minutes earlier. Slightly distracting, and more on this later.

Haha they can't see through their masks!/ OH MY GOD

Tarantino’s most recent films: Kill Bill, Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, and Django Unchained have been revenge fantasies. I’m not sure what’s going on there, but I’m guessing it is just because revenge can be really satisfying to watch sometimes. So what makes Django not nearly as much fun and far less satisfying than the others?

1. Characters. Well first of all, as I mentioned before, Django/ Jamie Foxx isn’t really likeable. We see that he loves his wife as well as Schultz, but we don’t really see any positive qualities beyond this. He takes naturally to murder, even quipping at one point “Kill white folks and get paid for it? What’s not to like?” I understand where he is coming from, as he has been abused by white people all his life, but it’s not really an endearing attitude toward humanity. Maybe a different actor could have made it endearing, but Jamie Foxx does not.

Furthermore, when he plays a black slaver to earn Candie’s trust, it is his most convincing performance in the film. He watches atrocity after atrocity be inflicted on black slaves and he doesn’t bat an eye. He throws a man and his horse to the ground when they say something racist to him- granted I like horses, so I’m a little sensitive to horse violence- but this was too far! He just doesn’t seem to be a good guy.

His wife is the typical damsel in distress, and an annoyingly weak character. She doesn’t have many lines, but in her little bit of screen time she does manage to ruin Schultz and Django’s plan. We root for Django and Broomhilda because the people they are revenging against are so evil, not because we really care about their characters.

Kind of all she does in 2 in a half hours. Go feminism.

We do kind of care about Schultz, but his character goes down the tubes too. His plan to rescue Broomhilda seems completely idiotic and unnecessary. When the plan goes wrong, he reacts in a completely idiotic and unnecessary way, (**SPOILER AHEAD**) which causes himself to be killed, Django captured and Broomhilda not to be freed. So he also becomes a really annoyingly brash and stupid character.

I do want to give some props to Leonardo DiCaprio (Calvin Candie) and Don Johnson (Big Daddy) and the great Samuel L. Jackson (Stephen) for the amazing acting that led to some awesomely hateable villains. Best part of the film to be sure. See the film for villains, if nothing else.

Is it the the goatee, the cigarette or the hammer that gives the evil away?

2. The Music. THE MUSIC IS SOOOO ANNOYING. There is so much music, and so many different genres. It becomes horribly distracting by the end. We have to watch Django/Jamie Foxx shooting people to his own rap song.

Sidebar: I think this movie really suffered from the Jamie Foxx-Quentin Tarantino friendship. Jamie Foxx got to look as cool and invulnerable as he wanted, and Quentin went unchecked with horrible distracting music and meaningless references. Good collaborations have checks and balances you guys!

3. It gets to the point of too disturbing and too light to be that disturbing. We see a man ripped apart by dogs. We see two slaves forced to fight to the death. Now, all of Tarantino’s films have disturbing elements to them, but these scenes trump watching a car accident or a shooting. They are gruesome scenes, and maybe there are just some things that I’m not desensitized to seeing on screen yet, but it was too gruesome to be fully enjoyable. Well then again, I have enjoyed some really gruesome movies.. so hmm, let me rephrase: the gap between the high points of pure comedy and the low points of pure horror was immense, and this made the tone too inconsistent and confusing.

Not surprisingly, Django has created quite a bit controversy. Personally, I’m not sure whether to applaud it or shake my head. We hear the N-word countless times in the film, and I suppose that I appreciate the fact that Tarantino tried to stay authentic. He doesn’t shy away from the horrors of slavery, but he does seem to use it for shock value, and that is probably worse. I’ve heard the film regarded as being a product of white man’s guilt. I’ve heard it criticized for making the white man out to be the devil. It’s been called racist for the brutality against black people. It’s been called racist for the brutality against countless white racist hillbillies.

(Actually, I kind of understand that criticism, because if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone had the idea for a film about a white man seeking revenge on racist black people, that film REALLY would have never gotten made... in 2012. We do have Birth of a Nation, but I hope we as a nation can surpass that insanity)

America: We don't know what is racist unless it is Birth of a Nation obvious.

The ethics of this film could be and probably will be, argued about for years to come. Django earns some extra points from me there. Discussion is the best!

So I will give it this, Django Unchained is an interesting movie, or at least it brings up interesting issues. I’m happy I saw it, though I was ultimately very disappointed. It is by far my least favorite Tarantino flick, but that’s not saying much in itself because I fully loved all of his other films (besides Death Proof that took some time, and I could only bring myself to like it).

Worth seeing, kind of interesting, kind of annoying. I’d give it 2.5/5 stars.

If you want a second opinion, here is an interesting article that completely disagrees with me:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/django-unchained-movie-of-year_b_2458521.html

The Very Belated 2012 Celebrity Halloween Costume Post

2012 was a very disappointing year in celebrity Halloween costumes. Where was the creativity? I'll take funny too. Any awesome detail even? Nope.

Anyway, here's the best of the worst year in Halloween costumes:

1. Hilary Duff in Dia de los Muertos garb- Kind of a unique idea, and she commits! I like the hair, the makeup...yeah. I don't have too much to say here, just one of my favorites from a lame year.

2. Deryk Wibley and gf ( I guess?)- Dressing up as your ex, then making your current gf dress up as the ex's current fiance... That would normally be kind of a dick move, but when your ex is the ridiculous Avril Lavigne and her current fiance is Chad Kroeger of Nickelback, this is acceptable. And hilarious.

3. Emanuelle Chiquri's Random (?) Friend- Unicorns are adorable. I might be one next Halloween if I give up on being an X-men woman, possibly Storm. I like wigs.

4. Lauren Conrad as Mary Poppins- wholesome, adorable and surprisingly uncommon. She even managed to skank it up a very tiny bit. I approve.












Basically everyone else you have of in Hollywood was something boring, half-assed or unpleasantly confusing. There were a few exceptionally bad costumes. For example, Chris Brown and his posse were members of Taliban  Funny, funny joke. You so clever and edgy? I CAN'T with that. Alessandra Ambrosio dressed up as a sexy soldier too closely resembling a Nazi  I do not feel the need to post pictures of these instances. But even the queen of Halloween herself, Heidi Klum, had a not-awesome costume. She is usually so all-out at her Halloween parties that even when the costume idea isn't that cool, the costume itself is INCREDIBLY cool. Here is this year's misstep:

Why do you do this to me Heidi Klum? It looks... cheap. Egyptian goddess is such a great starting point! WTF is up with those wings? Did her children help her cut them? Either way, I am offended. She even had an extra few months after she cancelled her Halloween party to class it up, nope. No changes. She better make up for this with the best costume ever Halloween 2013! I want to forgive. Example of a model dressing up as Cleopatra done right:

Kinda cool right? Tsk tsk Heidi.

Lincoln Is... Better Than The Average Award Show Fodder

Being an American history drama about American hero Abraham Lincoln, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day Lewis, it is no surprise that Lincoln has 12 nominations in the 2012 Academy Awards. The film was tailor-made to be an award show behemoth! However, the Academy is comprised of mostly elderly white males, therefore, the Academy is comprised of Lincoln’s  prime demographic. The award shows of today are hardly indicators of true film excellence, instead they indicators of a film’s appeal to elderly white males. That being said, if the Academy chooses to bestow Lincoln some prestigious accolades, I won’t be entirely disappointed. There is some greatness in this film.

The film takes places over two months, focusing on Lincoln’s efforts to pass the 13th Amendment which would abolish slavery. He is facing a bitterly divided Congress and passage of any bill would be difficult, but this issue divides even his own party. He is forced to walk a political tightrope, and this makes for an interesting tale of political drama.

The acting is superb. Daniel Day Lewis is surprisingly convincing as one of the most famous figures in American history. I know it’s DDL, so perhaps I should not have been so surprised, but Abraham Lincoln would naturally be a daunting task. He’s not even American, but he does a great Lincoln. The other standout for me performance-wise was Lee Pace as the outspoken Democrat and Confederate sympathizer Congressman Wood. It is not a likable character, and he doesn’t have that much screen-time, but he commits so hard. His time on the Congress floor is visually compelling and very charismatic- it is really fun to watch him play the villain.

The visuals are also pretty impressive. I’m no history major, so just based on looks and not necessarily historical accuracy, the sets and costumes are incredible.

The acting and the story are the strength of this film, and for me, this was enough to overcome the many annoying weaknesses. Spielberg has a history of making his characters superhuman forces of benevolence, and Lincoln is no exception. In this film, the Civil War was simply good versus evil. Of course slavery was evil, but the Civil War wasn’t just about slavery. It was about a fundamental change in the economy of the South. Southerners weren’t simply a group of racists looking for an outlet to exact their hatred, they were afraid of the change that an end to slavery would mean. There is no complexity to the issue in Lincoln, half of the country was made up of evil racists. Abraham Lincoln was an angel, most characters even seem to treat him as such. Everything he says is “wise”. He isn’t a human character, and he fighting for good in a good versus evil story. It is not deep. There are no issues to work through. For me, the best of films do stay in your thoughts and challenge you after you leave the theater. Lincoln is not one of these films.

Yes, Lincoln is the stereotypical modern award-winning film, but it has value. It is deserving of awards in some areas, and I didn’t hate it. It is well-made, entertaining to watch and definitely easier to watch than most of the universally acclaimed historical dramas. As always, keep expectations low and you might just enjoy it. I’d give it... 3 out of 5 stars. Not bad!