Unless you've been living under a social media imposed rock for the past month or so, you're aware that there is a little bit of controversy surrounding Quentin Tarantino's movie "Django" Unchained". Spike Lee is allegedly refusing to see the movie, calling it "disrespectful", though one could argue you cannot make such a statement WITHOUT seeing the movie. But whatever; Spike Lee hasn't had a creative blockbuster ever ("Malcolm X" was based on the autobiography, so there wasn't much to create, and "4 Little Girls" was a documentary) and, in my opinion, has declined in relevance since "Do the Right Thing" where he was criticized, largely, for the same trend of which he accuses Tarantino - making Black people look bad. Ummm. Let's not forget "Girl 6" and "School Daze".
Thank you, Spike Lee, for the important ways you've turned stereotypes into positive images.
So, with the pretext of Lee's cinematic influence dismissed, let us proceed with a discussion of the actual movie at hand - "Django: Unchained". Overall, the movie is a revenge fantasy, akin to "Kill Bill", where you cannot help but root for the protagonist despite the inordinate amount of (typical Tarantino) violence and gratuitous use of the word "nigger". I mean, it's an antebellum western with a slavery backdrop; for once, Tarantino's use of the word makes sense and, while the word sometimes needlessly finds its way into virtually every scene, you would only obsess over it if you're simple minded and narrowly focused.
Django's (Foxx) vengeance stems from the fact that after he and his wife, Hildie (Washington), tried to escape a plantation, they were beaten, branded, and sold separately to different owners - not unusual circumstances given the historical context. As Django is transported to his new "home", Dr. King Schultz (a dentist turned bounty hunter, BRILLIANTLY played by Waltz) interrupts the journey and purchases Django so that he may help him find a trio of hideous overseers wanted for murder. From there, the two embark on quests only a western can appreciate and we get to see the evolution of their relationship and, eventually, a shift in the dynamic between leader and he who is being led. For, you see, crazy people would say something like, "Oh, there is always a White man coming to the rescue of a Black man! Why does it always have to be that way?" Well, dumb person, to you I say, this is a SLAVERY INSPIRED WESTERN and unless you're chronicling Nat Turner or Denmark Vesey rebellions, the plot line is going to be pretty predictable to a certain extent. However, what Tarantino does is flip that dynamic of the "Black man dependent on the White man" on its head in a way so damn subtle you have to appreciate its genius.
And it took me seeing the movie twice to pick up on it. And I like to think I'm pretty observant!
Now that you know what to look for, you'll know that moment, too.
The genre of the spaghetti western, which is Italian inspired, is paraphrased (by Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt LOL) as such:
"In this seminal film the hero enters a town that is ruled by two outlaw gangs and ordinary social relations are non-existent. He betrays and plays the gangs against one another in order to make money. Then he uses his cunning and inordinate weapons skill to assist a family threatened by both gangs. He is disclosed and severely beaten, but in the end he again uses cunning and inordinate weapons skills to defeat the remaining gang. The interaction in this story between a mode of cunning and irony (the tricks, deceits, unexpected actions and sarcasms of the hero) on the one hand, and a mode of pathos (terror and brutality against defenseless people and against the hero after he has been revealed) on the other, was aspired to and sometimes attained by the imitations that soon flooded the cinemas. Just as seminal and imitated was...music that expresses a similar duality between quirky and unusual sounds and instruments on the one hand and sacral dramatizing for the big confrontation scenes, on the other."
So, we already have the outline of what is going to happen and the Wiki description essentially matches "Django" to a tee and the movie helps illustrate how the label of "hero" changes during the movie. Clearly, Schultz is the initial hero, ushering Django into a world of freedom through the "killing White men and getting paid for it" and explaining that the entire institution of slavery bothers him but he will use it to his advantage to earn some cash and free Django. But somewhere around the middle of this three hour tome, it is Django's cunning and weapons skill that assist the family (his wife) being threatened by gangs (the Candie employees). There is all the requisite spaghetti western brutality and sarcasm in this movie and, to top off the perfection, the soundtrack is ALSO quirky and unusual going from haunting and originally composed sacral sounds in the opening to Tupac to John Legend and everything in between.
There was even some song from the 50s, maybe, since my 72 year old aunt was singing along.
All in all, Tarantino was comprehensively true to the genre, but in order to better appreciate the movie, you have to understand the genre so I would encourage everyone to do some research on the spaghetti western and THEN go see Django.
But beyond talk of genre, the n-word, and violence, the cast was chosen PERFECTLY!!! Waltz is the perfect Schultz - do you hear me? The PERFECT Schultz! He stole every single scene he was in and did so easily. He came off as entirely unassuming, consistently level headed, always having a nuanced, non-American view of relationships, slavery, and his duty to help his fellow man. And every time he said the word "deputies" I cracked up! You could not help but almost weep for him in the dining room scene as you could hear the urgency in his voice, the desperation in his delivery, and see his pain. And it was all immediately juxtaposed with the fiery yet steely resolve of Foxx's Django - as they were sitting next to each other. As Schultz weakened, perhaps, Django strengthened - a complete departure from the beginning of the movie. The student assumes the role of teacher, partially, en route from auction to Candieland and, fully, in the dining room sequences - and the transition is beautifully and seamlessly made.
Well played, Tarantino, well played.
Leonardo DiCaprio is easily the best actor of our (30 something) generation. He is to Calvin Candie what Danny Glover was to Mister (in The Color Purple) and what Colm Wilkinson is to Jean Valjean (from Les Miserables). He was just that phenomenal! He is simultaneously insecure, debonaire, calculating, and oblivious - at the same damn time! He flirts with traditions of southern incest and transitions immediately to intuitive businessman and sheltered plantation boy filled with the hubris of racially bestowed privilege. It's exhilarating to watch, particularly when the worst of his Candie eventually meets what can be argued is the best of Schultz. You are ultimately repulsed by Candie's actions, as a slave owner, but absolutely must appreciate DiCaprio's skill at evoking such a visceral response.
Kudos, Leonardo. I'm still not watching "Titanic", though. But I did like "Shutter Island".
Samuel L. Jackson, who plays the scheming, self-loathing, Uncle Tom character of Stephen, is also spot on. As a slave who has been on the plantation for 76 years, he has seen everything (well, clearly he has not seen kneecaps blown off, but let me not spoil too much!) and has ascended to head slave. In his role, he clearly abuses his authority as his allegiance to himself manifests itself through allegiance to DiCaprio's Candie ("When you sick, massa, WE'SE sick!"). Stephen hates anyone who is sure of themselves in a way that threatens his own servitude, and he hates them even more when he has to make a room for them at Candieland. What is brilliant about the character, and Jackson's performance, is the multifaceted relationship Stephen has with Candie. Stephen is old and ornery, irreverant and flippant - but to a point. Once Candie puts his foot down - in public, I might add - Stephen falls back into his "Yassuh" position and does what he is told. That is, until he needs to have a pow wow with Candie in the library and, in those private moments, he calls Candie - his owner, remember - by his first name, Calvin, and talks to him as if he is talking to his brother or best friend - or, perhaps more brilliantly, his child. In that moment you see just how much power Stephen actually has because he is able to give and take it away from Candie at will. For, you see, it is only those with the most power who can hand it over to others.
Fuckin brilliant, Tarantino!
The only actor with whom I was not extraordinarily impressed (*exhale* I feel kinda bad about this) is Jaime Foxx. He was good, don't get me wrong. But, as my friend TW says, "It's easy to be a 10 in a room full of 2s" and Foxx has kept his room full of 2s around him constantly (with the exception of "Ray"). "Django", however, was a cast full of 10s and, in that room, Foxx dropped to, like, a 7 - and that is being generous. He does "steely, revenge filled husband" well, but Don Cheadle could have done much better. Denzel (happy birthday, Denzel!!!) would have rocked it, even at 60. Foxx was fine, I mean he didn't mess it up but he didn't make the movie better, necessarily, although his exchanges with Goggins (Shane from "The Shield") were priceless. And, also, the blue outfit provided me with joyous laughter. But I would have laughed if it were on Cheadle or Washington. Jaime's body was nice, though. And his Frederick Douglass haircut was spectacular - again, though, that's a piece that would have been spectacular on any other Black actor.
Idris Elba. He could have played Django. Yep. I think he should have.
Even Don Johnson, as Big Daddy, was hilarious. All I can say is - #hilariousklanscenerealness.
All in all, folks, "Django: Unchained" is a movie more than worth seeing; it's a movie everyone SHOULD see, in my opinion.
If you're tired of slaves always losing, see "Django".
If you wished Kunta Kinte had run up on his master and busted his head to the white meat, you should definitely see "Django".
If you wished you could have shot every Rosewood racist as Don Cheadle hid in a coffin with his dead mother, then you should definitely see "Django".
If, however, you are caught up in your own fake revolutionary rhetoric that forces you to focus on narrow scopes of the film without seeing it then, well, you should see "Les Mis" or "The Hobbit". Or "Lincoln".
Or maybe you'll feel more comfortable watching the new Oxygen show about Shawty Lo and his 10 babymamas because, of course, that edifies Black people poetically.
Have a stadium full of several gawtdamn seats at a time, please.
For those of you that may not have seen the trailer, check it out below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUdM9vrCbow
No comments:
Post a Comment