An Objective View of Django Unchained

          Recently I have been working on an extraordinary production of Seussical the Musical. This has cut down time for sleep and writing on my beloved blog. Unfortunately, that is in the past, but luckily I am back to blogging. With that said, during the initial dress rehearsals I received an email of one of my reader's (let's call him... Evan) issues with Django Unchained, which was probably my favorite movie of 2012. I have decided to write an objective view on this film, ignoring the fact that I am madly in love with Tarantino's style and personality. First let me copy and paste his message:

****SPOILER ALERT****

DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT IF YOU DO NOT WANT MAJOR PLOT POINTS TO BE REVEALED.

"Ok, my problem with the movie is……………….

I really don’t believe the christoph waltz character would act that way in the scene where he kills dicaprio. He’s a man of reason and cunning and the only reason that scene (a very badly written scene about “shaking hands”) is in there is to set up a big final act of revenge…………..but…………….the final act of revenge could have been done by keeping waltz and dicaprio alive too – that would have been harder to write. 

That’s much more plausible actually anyway – foxx and waltz leave and regroup and come back. Instead Jamie foxx has to come back single-handed and kill 1,000 people.

it’s written like “character a will kill character b in a cool way and then character b will be killed and then character c will come back and kill everyone no matter how improbable”

That is the last 3^rd of the movie and it really ruins the first 2/3rds which I liked ………………except…………even in the first 2/3rds, the film doesn’t seem like the west really, it isn’t exactly believable, it’s more like people playing dress up. It looks more like the west that you would have seen in tv shows rather than reality……………it doesn’t really address any of the issues about slavery which would be ok but it starts to do it a little and then glosses right over them…………..

The first 2/3rds are still fun though…………….the last 3^rd is just dumbed down

When Quentin tarantino was young he made 2 movies where every bullet mattered ……….reservoir dogs and pulp fiction…………the violence got under your skin…………….now he just makes movies where a lot of guys get shot L"

          To start off, I think Quentin did a great job writing this story. I love the concept of an ex-slave-turned-bounty-hunter seeking revenge after finally getting his wife back, with entertaining characters in between. In Quentin's Oscar acceptance speech, although arrogant, he was right that it is to him that we owe the gratitude of the lively characters, with the actors embellishing his brilliant creations. On the contrary, the inciting incident that began the third act of the movie -- Candie's rigid Southern policy about shaking hands before leaving -- appeared far-fetched and consequently confusing. Everyone who I talk to about this (which is quite a few people believe it or not) agrees that they found that part to be awkward and untidy. In regards to "Evan's" comment about every bullet mattering, I think that was appropriate in those respective movies. However, I, as well as Quentin (who has a comic book series in the works), think of Django as an epic, so I think the big finish was naturally fitting for the wild story. Yes, he killed all those people single-handedly -- well, double-handedly since he held two guns at times -- but why shouldn't he? Essentially Django is a superhero, after all.

          Now for a comment on Dr. Schultz. Although he is a "man of reason," he is shown to be a bit mad for his time in the very beginning of the movie. If you don't buy that, then consider Candyland and its effects. Besides Broomhilda, basically all of the slaves there seem to be perfectly happy with spending the rest of their lives there. Candie is out of his mind, and Sam Jackson's character, Stephen, talks back to his master. I believe that Dr. Schultz had lost a good part of his mind (and if you cracked open his skull, you would probably see the damage ☺) by the time he was going to leave. Candie had brought Schultz to his breaking point. If you read the screenplay, which I highly recommend as I plan to read it soon, then go to page 130 (http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf). You will see that the handshake situation is not as ridiculous as it may have seemed on the screen. In writing it really isn't so ridiculous at all, really.

          As for the slavery issues, I think it was touched upon just the right amount. It could be argued that the efforts came up a bit short, but I think the hot box was strong enough to be the only major demonstration. As for the flow of the movie, I thought Django's quick flashbacks of Broomhilda were patchy and less than heartfelt. I understand that these were meant to make us feel for Django and his wife. However, Washington's and Foxx's performances in both the scene of Broomhilda getting the runaway "r" ironed into her face and them reuniting were so powerful and moving that I did not even have to care about their relationship until their reunion.

          Despite its flaws, the third act of Django Unchained does not ruin the first two acts; it simply elongates the length of the movie and the satisfaction felt afterwards. Tarantino fan or not, this film is for everyone who enjoys a good time, and it has turned many of my friends (who aren't obsessed with movies) on to Quentin's other work. Also, on the one-in-seven-billion chance that Quentin Tarantino is reading this right now, I absolutely LOVE Django Unchained and everything about it. This entry was simply an objective view to analyse the details that conflict many Django viewers.