ARTICLE – FILM REVIEW
Django Unchained (2012)
For as long as I can remember, I have been a fan of cinema, from the Japanese monster movies to the classic westerns that ruled our television sets on the weekends. To be honest, I can’t put my finger on a single aspect of the film that caused my addiction, nor do I think it is necessary, yet I still watch. Like most film buffs, I have been profoundly disappointed over the last few decades, Finding it harder and harder to find good films. The art of storytelling has been replaced with explosions and clichés. However, this year, a few exceptions were made in the industry. Several directors boldly returned to the industry’s roots, reminding us why we loved movies and providing us with the type of films we love. Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained (2012) fits both of these categories.
Tarantino surprised me with this film. However, we knew it was a Quentin Tarantino movie because of some of the signature elements we find in his films, like the zany character dialogue, racial slurs, and vintage blood spatter. No one does blood like Tarantino. Django had a different feel to it. Instead of focusing on Tarantino’s craft and signature, Tarantino concentrated on the film genre. Django Unchained was a “spaghetti western” and is the finest tradition of the genre.
“Spaghetti Westerns are a distinctive subgenre of Western films that emerged from Italy in the 1960s, characterized by their unique visual style, memorable music, morally complex characters, and a more cynical portrayal of the American West. These films have left an enduring legacy, influencing filmmakers and audiences worldwide.”
Tarantino skillfully crafted a homage that spanned over a decade. It began with adopting the title from the Sergio Corbucci film Django (1966). In this film, we find a young, formidable Franco Nero, whose iron gaze and quick draw transferred over to the reprise of his role portrayed by Jamie Foxx. With the casting of Jamie Foxx, we see an African American in the gunslinger archetype, which expands their roles in spaghetti westerns. Something that has only been done once before with Jim Brown’s portrayal of Pike in the 1975 spaghetti western entitled Take a Hard Ride, directed by Antonio Margheriti.
Quentin Tarantino also wrote the screenplay for this film, which follows the story of a former slave, Django, portrayed by Jamie Foxx, who turned bounty hunter. Who dispensed justice across the country with the assistance of Dr. King Shultz, portrayed by Christoph Waltz. The two set out to free Django’s wife from her captors so she and Django can live out the rest of their lives free. In this film, Tarantino depicted the horrible institution of slavery for precisely what it was: immoral and inhumane—bold strokes in the sense that we live in a society that refuses to face its history. The last time we got a glimpse of slavery was with the television miniseries Roots (1977), written by Alex Haley. We got a shocking glimpse of the treatment in the Richard Fleischer classic Mandingo (1975). This film, incidentally, introduced us to the slavery fight circuit. The Mandingo fighting concept was a center point to the rouse used to free Django’s wife, Broomhilda, portrayed by Kerry Washington.
The acting Django Unchained was superb. Christoph Waltz, who played a German dentist turned bounty hunter, won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. Waltz brought an interesting dynamic to the film. Dr. King Shultz appeared to be a somewhat callus man regarding being a bounty hunter. Yet, he seemed genuinely appalled by the entire institution of slavery, to the point that his disgust costs his character’s life. Also, in the character, Dr. King Shultz treats Django as a man instead of a slave. This behavior is demonstrated when he takes the time to tell Django about the history behind Django’s wife’s name. During this time, Shultz also assisted Django in freeing his wife. He stated he felt a sense of responsibility for Django since he was the one who set him free—a quality rare in men, certainly uncharacteristic for men of the time in question.
Leonardo DiCaprio portrayed a compelling plantation owner named Calvin Candie. Calvin Candie was the owner of Django’s wife, Broomhilda. Though Mr. Candie enjoyed the finer things in life, he didn’t seem to be educated in many things outside his immediate world. This conclusion was made clear in two occasions that stood out to me. The first was when Dr. Shultz used a relatively common French word, and Mr. Candie referred to Dr. Shultz to explain its meaning. The second occasion occurred while they were in the study. Dr Shultz pondered whether Dumas would have approved of Mr. Candies’ action concerning one of his slaves. Though Calvin Candie seemed sure of himself, he surrounded himself with people who he controlled. He sought their counsel—especially in the case of the house slave Stephen, portrayed by veteran character actor Samuel L. Jackson.
Samuel L. Jackson’s portrayal of Stephen serves as a reminder of why he is a legend in Hollywood. Other than the profanity used by the character, this is not a role we are used of seeing Mr. Jackson play. We are not accustomed to seeing Mr. Jackson bowing down to someone or being controlled in any regard, for that matter. Although there have been roles where Mr. Jackson has been a bit more passive, there is something different from this role. Then, we see Stephen (Jackson) persuade Mr. Candie to join him in the kitchen because there is a problem. However, it cuts to the study where Stephen sits with his legs crossed, sipping brandy. This demeanor is how I’m used to seeing Mr. Jackson. In this scene, Stephen informs Candie of the plot of pursuing Broomhilda. After this, things become rather engaging for the remainder of the movie.
Now, for the overall opinion of the movie, I found it entertaining. It included some of the greatest living stars who once starred in Westerns, including the original Django in one Franco Nero. This film had an excellent mixture of old and new acting talent. It was everything you expect from a Western. We have the hero, his sidekick or partner, the villain(s), and the damsel in distress. Let’s remember there’s plenty of blood. If anyone has seen a Quentin Tarantino film, you can expect at least one blood bath. Actually, good blood splatters throughout, then to cap with a huge bloodbath. It capped off with a few decent explosions. While this movie, we had a good explosion during the KKK raid and a great explosion at the end of the film. Since we are talking about explosions, discussing the sound for the next few moments only fits.
The sound was great in this movie; let’s talk about a few examples. The first example is the gunfire. It is impressive that sound effects were pretty close to sound made, firing the caliber of weapons used in the film. Too many times in modern films, we find that gunfire tends to sound the same. Actually, most weapons of certain calibers have a distinctive sound. You can almost tell what type of weapon is fired by the rate of fire and sound. We also found the whip sounds were pretty close based on the actors’ movements. For example, while Django is whipping one of the Shaffer brothers, the whips are small and quick, but for dramatic effect, the actor’s movements are slowed, and the whip sounds are proportionate. That was another area in the film where I took note of the sound. When Dr. Shultz was scraping the foam off the tops of the drafts.
The lighting of this film was bright. There was only time I can think of when the lighting was dark. It was the scene where Django was hanging upside down in the barn. Even then, the background was good, and you made out everything in the frame. I figured this was used on purpose or, in better words, to make a point. Tarantino wanted everything in the film out in the open. We could no longer hide behind the shadows of shame. It was time, time to see things for how they truly were: gruesome. I applaud him for addressing this issue so openly. I applaud him for doing so with dignity and honor. This was demonstrated during the whipping scenes. However, some of the horrors are seen in the film. For example, the gentleman getting mauled by the dogs. This had to be shown, or else his statement wouldn’t have been demonstrated effectively. This brings us to the editing portion.
The editing was done well. The audience was stirred exactly in the direction Mr. Tarantino wanted us to go. Earlier, I mentioned dignity and honor. Nowhere in this film do we see an African–American being punished with a whip. Let me clarify a few things. Yes, there are two scenes where the actress Kerry Washington is tied to the appearance of being whipped, but at no time do you see the whip touching her. You heard the sound and saw her scream. These scenes could have been easily shot differently, as displayed in the scene of Django beating the Shaffer brothers. Even in that scene, you can see that the tip doesn’t actually make contact with the actor. I bring this up only because I feel Tarantino was saying haven’t we seen slaves beat enough in films? But that’s just my thoughts.
In researching for this paper, I watched twelve films of the assigned period. I also watched every film I mentioned in this paper. I did this to assess the film to the best of my knowledge accurately. How do this film and the others compare to Plan 9 from Outer Space? By watching the films, we can see if the director is creative; he can get his point across regardless of the budget. Now, it helped when there were quality actors involved in the projects. If your actors are horrible, it doesn’t matter how well the script is written; the product will be junk. I am thankful for watching Plan 9 from Outer Space; it tells me I might have a shot at getting a script looked at by Hollywood.
Mangus Khan 