My Thoughts on: Django Unchained

As I sat in the second from the back row in the theatre playing 'Django Unchained', I was thinking more about George Orwell's 'Nineteen Eighty Four', where the crowd laughs and cheers at the on-screen decapitations and other various de-limbings of the opposing forces.  There were two middle aged women sitting diagonally behind me that both amused and disturbed me over the course of the film.

I pictured them sitting there on inflatable tubes, wobbling about while stuffing their flabby faces with bagged ice creams and buttered popcorn, their rolls of lard careening over the edges of the spongy seats, and cackling like old magpies, morally corrupted by an industrial world.

The violence in Django Unchained is gratuitous, sadistic and boring.  So is the rest of the film.  The scenes in which either of the protagonists, Django and Dr Schultz, inflicted brutal violence onto any other character, the women cheered, clapped and laughed heartily.  The gore flew in buckets with blood curdling screams of agony; a scene in which Django shatters the kneecaps of Stephen, the corrupt and hypocritical 'head-house nigger' played by Samuel L Jackson, and he cries out very convincingly, they clapped and cheered like vultures waiting for their prey to die, totally approving of the character's actions.  The rest of the audience had similar reactions.

The scene in which Django blows away a seemingly endless stream of henchmen, gallows of blood splashing over the screen, bodies piling on the floor like sandbags leaking out blood rather than sand, the women laughed and cheered.

If there is any point to be taken from this movie, it is 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'  Django will do whatever it takes to claim his wife back from the slavers.  This is shown most dramatically in the scene where Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) offers Django and Schultz the chance to save a slave's life by buying him for a sizable sum, otherwise he will be torn apart by 'the dogs.'  Although the anti-slavist (that's a word now) conscience of Schultz gets the better of him, Django resists in order to stay in character.  A necessary sacrifice, he believes, to acquire his wife.

Any scene where the protagonists are injured or tortured, the ladies would wimper and sudder, as if feeling the character's pain themselves.  This proves that they believed the torturous punishment to the so called 'bad guys' is fair and justifiable.  This extremely black and white way of viewing the world points to a state of mind becoming increasingly rigid and fascist.  The morals of mainstream society are so easily decided by the mass media.  It's not hard to see how people like Hitler did what they did.

Django Unchained is a pointless and dull movie.  I went and saw it because I usually enjoy Tarentino's work.  If he made this film to see how stupid and manipulable people are, then in that one way, he succeeded.  But I think it sucks.

The characters are flat and lifeless; Christoph Waltz who is brilliantly hateable and bursting with charisma in 'Inglorious Basterds' just doesn't inspire.  He is just going through the motions of 'acting.'  It's the same with Jamie Fox playing Django, a strong, silent but wounded type that just couldn't convince me.  The whole movie was unconvincing and convoluted.  The only character played halfway decently is Calvin Candie by DiCaprio, but only when compared to the others.  When you've been wading through shit for hours, a bit of piss doesn't seem so bad.

The dialogue, the centrepoint of a Tarentino film, is also dull and uninspired.  I just couldn't be convinced by the bounty hunter/conman Dr Schultz talking his way out of potentially lethal situations.  There is no chemistry between the characters, and no clever wit.   

The film is self conscious about the A-list celebrities cast.  When DiCaprio is first introduced it dramatically zooms in on his face, as if the audience have been fucking holding their breaths for him to appear, which they probably have.  I could practically smell the vaginal sauce leaking out of the middle aged ladies diagonally behind me

And then with Samuel L Jackson, I could actually hear the booming voice of a crowd announcer in my head, 'And heeere's Samuel L Jackson!' and the audience cheers enthusiastically.

Torentino is a sold out basterd, now adding to the media pollution coming to a screen near you.  It's not as if these people were cast sheerly for their acting ability, but because they are names that sell tickets.

The plot goes on and on and on; it seems as if the writers of this story had no idea when it should end, and even why they were writing in the first place (much like this article).  The scenes don't feel unified with one another, and there is no sense of progression or pace (much like this article).  I was wishing it was over about an hour into it (much li...)

Is there anything I like about this movie?  The music is very good overall.  The short segments where the music, landscape and filmography are left to tell the story are the strongest.  The filming locations are breathtaking and very authentic.  Although some of the music is too close to 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' to be not just influenced but derisive, overall it is well written and fitting.  I believe one of the songs is actually a cover of an Ennio Morricone, who made those classic western whistlers which have become synonymous with westerns in pop culture.  

What annoys me most about this whole thing is that the movie seemed like a quickly thrown together Hollywood cash in by a film maker that has done some great work in the mainstream.  The audience's reactions added to my agitation, and that it could have been any pile of crap they were watching on screen.  As long as it has names like Tarentino and DiCaprio involved, they'll clap and cheer along much like the brainwashed citizens of Orwell's Oceania.