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.