>ever put on film. for those of you who sat in the theater
>with a furious erection counting N-words and crying, you
>missed the movie. unlike most films/tv portrayals of this
>subject matter, django unchained has absolutely zero sympathy
>whatsoever for the slave-owning south. rather than celebrate
>the grandeur of the plantations, it recognizes them as the
>killing fields they were. rather than portray southerners of
>that time as well-mannered but morally misguided, it
>recognizes them as the murderering, raping, torturing,
>slovenly (and later treasonous) aristocracy they were. these
>are people who, like thomas jefferson and other founding
>fathers, saw fit to enslave their own children. no amount of
>redemption is justified, and there's none to be found in
>django unchained. in short, this is the first film i've seen
>that accurately portrays the confederate south as-- in a
>history littered with slavery and genocide-- quite possibly
>the most morally corrupt society that has ever existed.
>
>and let's just get this inconvenient truth out of the way: no
>other white writer/director would've had the guts to make this
>film. and no black writer/director would've been allowed to
>make this film (they'd have been ushered out of the pitch room
>by security). in that respect, hollywood owes QT a debt of
>gratitude for making a film that literally no one else could
>have or would have made.
>
>like the equally brilliant inglorious basterds, django
>unchained takes one of the great injustices of recent history
>and weaves in a revenge fantasy worthy of its villains. but
>it also succeeds spectacularly as a western (the landscape
>imagery and quiet scenes between foxx and waltz are as good as
>they come) and blaxploitation flick (likewise for the music
>and violence). the genres are woven and blended with
>masterful skill.
>
>some people found the music jarring; those people are wrong.
>there are a million westerns with country music, a million
>blaxploitations with soul music. if you're adamant about
>seeing the same things done in every movie, go watch one of
>those. but what's the quote about if you break the rules,
>break them beautifully? that's exactly what QT does here.
>morricone and bacalov for the purists, rick ross, john legend,
>and anthony hamilton for those who like to see boundaries
>pushed. i loved, LOVED tupac (featuring django!) in the big
>shootout scene. i was furious at the use of johnny cash's
>"ain't no grave," a song i've been diligently saving for my
>own western.
>
>the dialogue absolutely crackles. again, while the
>simple-minded among you count N-words, i count rhetorical
>punches landed, which were many and often. the bumbling klan
>scene was a diversion that from an editing standpoint was
>probably best left in a director's cut, but because it was
>both absolutely hilarious and a necessary addition to any
>anti-love letter to the confederate south, we'll allow it.
>waltz's character, in particular though, is a walking poetic
>monologue machine, from his laying out of options for the
>slaves being transported along with django ("if there are any
>astronomy aficionados among you..."), to his incredible
>explanation for murder to a town of people with guns on him
>("marshal, you owe me $200..."). i have to assume that the
>charges of racism against QT are based on the high-quality--
>from a rhetorical and linguitic standpoint-- of the dialogue
>coming from his racist characters. no doubt, he paints these
>characters with a master's brush and the racism flows out of
>their mouths like honey. but honestly, you guys are idiots.
>no racist would make this film or anything close to it. this
>isn't a film that glorifies the racism of the confederate
>south, it holds up a blinding light to it. then shoots it in
>the face. understand the difference. i am curious about
>people's complaints of inappropriate laughter in certain
>scenes (which i'm guessing says more about the people laughing
>than the film, but still i'm curious). which ones,
>specifically? i missed it.
>
>as for the performances, the chemistry between foxx and waltz
>is fire. i wish foxx had played it a little less low-key at
>times, as i thought it left django's character a bit lifeless,
>though i absolutely bought him as a gun-slinging cowboy. i'm
>curious what will smith would've done with the role, though i
>can see why he passed; the risk to the smith brand here
>would've been immense. no oscar nod is worth risking willow's
>next album. but really, this is a film carried by its
>supporting actors, the men django meets along his journey. in
>a just world, don johnson, leonardo dicaprio, and sam jackson
>would all be up for oscars. as it is, i think we'll have to
>settle for leo's first, in what for him is a career-defining
>performance. his calvin candie is every bit as charismatic
>and seething with quiet evil as waltz's villain in
>inglourious. the scene where he's explaining the intricate
>"differences" between the negro skull and the white skull is
>spectacular, showcasing the best of both leo and QT's skills
>and revealing the pure psychosis of 19th century racism (which
>necessarily had to be extreme to justify the scale and scope
>of the society they had built) in a way that most portrayals
>of slavery don't come close to. johnson and jackson have
>scenes and dialogue with similar effect. but the leo for
>supporting actor train boards here.
>
>my issues with the film are minor. kerry washington is
>basically a macguffin, not given much to do, aside from a
>brief scene with waltz. though i think the scene where waltz
>tells django the german legend of broomhilda is really
>effective at establishing her value to the story. the QT
>cameo is ridiculous, of course. it was distracting, at best,
>at a point in the film that was... let's say, not the ideal
>point to get yanked out of it. if it came earlier, maybe it
>gets a pass. lastly, QT painted himself into a corner after
>the big shootout. no way they "punish" django like that and
>basically ignore his wife. i didn't buy it, but it was a
>necessary evil to set up the big finish.
>
>flaws and all though, the story is engaging, the dialogue
>poetry, the imagery unforgettable, the filmmaking bold and
>innovative. this should be the frontrunner for best picture.
>should. it obviously will do nothing of the sort, as the
>subject matter and people's reactions to it are far too
>polarizing. this is only the feel-good movie of the year if
>you believe that the confederate south was a literal hell on
>earth that should have, morally speaking, been burned to the
>ground as candyland was, and that every traitor in a gray
>uniform who defended that society should have, legally
>speaking, been hung (though to be clear, i applaud lincoln's
>otherworldly compassion and restraint in doing none of these
>things; i might not be here otherwise, nor would the united
>states of america).
>
>though the revenge fantasy is just as sweet as inglourious,
>the bravery required of the filmmaking here surpasses it.
>almost no one anywhere defends nazis. you can shoot hitler
>all day with impunity. the confederate flag, on the other
>hand, still flies-- legally protected from desecration in five
>states-- all over america. with django unchained, tarantino
>carefully unfurls that flag, holds it up high for public view,
>then takes a long, satisfying piss all over it.

Uma Thurman Kill Bill eyebrow raise