pagesofjulia

Django Unchained is the latest from Quentin Tarantino, who wrote the screen play and also acts and directs. I am a fan of Tarantino, and was anxious to see this one in the theatre. We’re not necessarily a family that goes to movies very often at all; but for the second time in about ten days (following Lincoln), we did make it out for this one.

First, a quick plot synopsis. Django is a slave at the beginning of the movie, who is purchased by a former dentist turned bounty hunter, the German Dr. Schultz. Dr. Schultz wants Django to help him identify three brothers with a price on their heads; he frees Django in exchange for his help, as he doesn’t approve of the peculiar institution. The two men get along, and Django tells Dr. Schultz about his wife, Broomhilda, still in slavery in an unknown location. Dr. Schultz is taken by the idea of this slave woman with the German name: Django tells him she was taught to speak German, too, by her first mistress. They agree to work together to raise funds and then ride south to find Broomhilda and buy her freedom, too. When they go to do so, they find her at a plantation know as Candieland, owned by the depraved and very wealthy Mr. Candie. The plot is to not let him know which slave they’re really after; so they pretend that they’re interested in buying a Mandingo fighter: a slave trained to fight other slaves to the death. (Slate says there is no historical evidence of this practice.) Then they’ll casually slip Broomhilda’s purchase in on the way out, predicated upon Dr. Schultz’s appreciation of hearing his native tongue spoken after so many years in the States.

But this is Tarantino, so all does not go according to plan. Also because this is Tarantino, there is a great deal of bloodshed. Much of what I see on the internet about this movie involves warnings about all the gore; which warnings are appropriate, but I guess I would think that, if you were familiar with Tarantino, then his name on this film would be enough to warn you.

Django‘s treatment of slavery is raw, cringe-worthy, and (I think) pretty fair and realistic. The n-word is slathered on generously; but this is historically accurate. I have a medium-to-high tolerance for on-screen violence, but there were two scenes that I looked away from. It’s not pretty stuff, kids; but neither was slavery. On the other hand (and, again, as we expect from Tarantino), there is some bizarrely effective comedy, at the Klan’s expense (IMDB points out that reference to the Klan is anachronistic, FYI). And here’s a bonus: as my father observed, there are no female victims in this movie. Broomhilda is enslaved, but not otherwise victimized. It would have been so easy – and historically plausible – to have her raped; but Tarantino refrained, and we all appreciated that.

This movie strikes me as a historically faithful portrayal of the ugliness of slavery, even while Candie’s depraved playground of violence perhaps leans towards the fantastic end of such things. But there are elements of film genres other than historical drama: this is very much a western, for one thing, with the classic spaghetti-western music playing in several key scenes. (There is also some more modern, decidedly anachronistic music in other scenes. I didn’t find it too jarring, although I did notice it.) And – I keep using this phrase – in classic Tarantino fashion, it’s a fairy tale, too. Django’s ability to ride a horse (bareback, no less) and use a gun seemed highly improbable to me, but I went along with it. I may be biased, because True Romance is my favorite Tarantino flick of all time (he wrote but did not direct), but I was favorably reminded of that film in some of its fairy-tale qualities.

In a few words, Django Unchained is everything we should expect from Tarantino: blood and gore, twisted humor, clever dialogue, fairy-tale endings, and more blood. Also, the acting is excellent. If you like Tarantino (meaning: if you can handle the violence), DO see this movie.

---

Filed under: musings | Tagged: movies | 12 Comments »

You may recall that I listened to the audio version of Sebastian Junger’s The Perfect Storm a few months back, and loved it. I think it was my father who mentioned that the movie was quite good; and I’ve been meaning to see it. I was actually a little sleep-deprived when Husband found it the other night and put it on, a little late; I was worried that I would find myself nodding off (often a problem with movie-watching for me). But no such danger with this film.

The movie was made in 2000, based on the book of 1997. An all-start cast bodes well: George Clooney, John C. Reilly, and oh my goodness, Mark Wahlberg, for whom I have a real weakness. Also William Fichtner, whom I knew by face but not by name. I’ll go light on the plot summary (you can see my book review for that) and instead concentrate on the impact of the movie and its relationship to the book.

I had no trouble staying awake to watch this movie with clenched fists and jaw, because it is ceaselessly suspenseful, dramatic, action-packed. My adrenaline pumped as I watched men and women fight for their lives; and having read the book and thus knowing (in a general sense, movies not always being entirely faithful to the book) what happens did not relieve my nerves at all. In this way it was true to the book, which is also edge-of-the-seat thrilling. For that matter, the book takes forays into various supportive details: boat design, the physics of wave dynamics, meteorology, the history of Gloucester, Mass. as a fishing village, etc. I don’t recall that I ever felt bored or impatient with these digressions; they supported the story and were interesting in themselves. But (and perhaps this is obvious, as it’s a Hollywood film) the movie never went there. The movie cuts out some of the action and lots of the details, and this supports its different goal. Where the book is both awesome and scientific, the film is all high-energy drama. They’re both great, but a little different.

I found the emotional impact of the movie to be significant. I asked Husband about his feelings while we watched, and he didn’t seem to understand the question; we could speculate about the traditional gender role responses to questions about feelings, or we could assume that he would have been more emotionally affected if he’d also read the book, but I don’t need to parse that issue here. *I* felt that the scenes of homecoming, leave-taking, and mourning were greatly moving.

The greatest strengths of the movie were some of the greatest strengths of the book: emotional impact, thrilling action, consideration of the awe-inspiring power of natural forces. I’m not sure that this is always true of movies and books that are both effective, so I wanted to make that observation. A further strength of the movie was visual effect: giant waves and lives hanging in the balance make for some impressive images. Not to mention, the handsome cast allows for some sweet shots as well:

And although I haven’t pictured her here, Diane Lane makes a lovely Christina (Bobby/Mark Wahlberg’s girlfriend), and their relationship is every bit as sweet and endearing onscreen as on the page. I give full marks to all the cast. This was a very enjoyable and riveting movie to watch. I did miss some of what the book gave me that the movie didn’t, but I think the film did as much as a film can do with a book, and utilized the format’s strengths (like stunning images) to best advantage. Great stuff.

And in closing, I would like to point out that it is always a pleasure to watch Mark Wahlberg do anything.

---

Filed under: musings | Tagged: movies | 1 Comment »