Adam Clarke was originally released under the title “If You Live, Shoot”
Ex-dentist turned bounty hunter, Dr. Schultz (Christophe Waltz), acquires a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx) to help track down the latest names on his list. Schultz finds this “slavery malarkey” incredibly distasteful, so Django becomes a free man as soon as they get their men. Django shows himself to be a natural in the bounty game, so Schultz suggests they become partners. When the ex-slave-turned-gunslinger reveals that his wife, Hildy (Kerry Washington), remains a slave, Schultz promises to help track her down and free her.
Django Unchained continues the proud tradition of films like Django The Bastard, which trade on the name of Sergio Corbucci’s cult favourite Django despite having little or no connection to it. But just as some of those unofficial sequels equalled or bettered Corbucci’s classic spaghetti western, Django Unchained is perfect slick, violent entertainment. It’s also too long (by at least twenty minutes) and gets kind of boring before it ends. But even these weaknesses show how well Quentin Tarantino knows the genre he’s working in, since many classic spaghetti westerns have the same problems (The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, for instance) and lose steam in the climax.
As is often the case with spaghetti westerns, Unchained has a simple revenge plot, which proves a relief after the messy, self-indulgent nonsense of Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. This film also has no trace of Eli Roth, for which this bro-dude-weary critic is most grateful.
Django Unchained takes a page from Death Rides A Horse by pairing up a well-traveled gunslinger with a quiet apprentice out for revenge. In Death Rides a Horse that relationship allowed Lee Van Cleef to shine in the role of the aging gunman while keeping the hopelessly bland John Phillip Law from embarrassing himself in the acting department. Law may be the hero of Death Rides A Horse, but Van Cleef walked away with the film. Sure enough, Jamie Foxx is a decent hero, but he’s upstaged by Christophe Waltz at virtually every opportunity. Waltz’s genteel, mannered, moral and slightly foppish Schultz is a worthy addition to the pantheon of quirkier heroes in this genre. Even though this is Django’s story, the film suffers when Schultz isn’t on-screen.
When Django Unchained gets it right — which is more often than not — it’s fantastic. Tarantino has always known when to steal, so his appropriation of the theme from Corbucci’s Django (which sounds as if it was sung by George Takei) is no surprise. Tarantino also makes great use of Ennio Morricone’s amazing score for Citta Violenta throughout his film. Of all the actors who make surprise appearances (Hey, it’s Luke Duke Tom Wopat, you guys!) Franco Nero has a quiet little scene where his original Django meets Foxx’s Django. Just as the new and old exchange looks in the scene, Tarantino blends his influences with considerable success.
Django Unchained isn’t the best film I’ve seen this past year — that’d still be Argo — but it’s certainly the most entertaining film of 2012.
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Since you like this one and Argo, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on whether films owe any debt to historical reality?. I guess what I’m really asking is; does ‘based on a true story’ actually mean anything? ever?
And, how is Inglorious Basterds anything other than a revenge fantasy?
mch lv,
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:10 pm
I don’t deny that Basterds is a revenge fantasy. My complaint, as made here, is that it’s messy, tedious and–even by QT standards–overindulgent. I don’t think a film like Django Unchained owes debt to reality in the slightest. The spaghetti western genre had more in common with comic books and Yojimbo than they did with reality, Tarantino’s film followed suit.
As for Argo, the key word here is “based”. I’ve always viewed films based on a true story as “Pseudo-historicals”. They all play fast and loose with the truth, but I’ve never expected anything else from the cinema.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:24 pm
I love you, Adam, but I can’t get on board this “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly runs out of steam by the ending” stuff. I’m also extremely wary of this film. We’ll see how it works out.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:44 pm
That love is mutual, Mort, but I find the extended version(s) of Ugly too long. It’s one of those few cases where you’re better off seeing an edited version than the director’s cut.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Hey guys, here’s a fairly lengthy, but interesting interview Tarantino did with a Harvard slavery scholar for The Root. He makes some interesting points about his portrayal of slavery both the real historical atrocity (which in the film–torture, mandingo fights, etc.–are rightfully shown with much less cartoon-ish violence than the spaghetti western scenes) and the portrayal of slavery and related racial violence in other films like “Birth of a Nation”–portrayal of portrayals if you will.
http://theroot.com/views/tarantino-unchained-part-1-django-trilogy
And for the record, while I liked Argo, I liked Django a lot more and thought Tarantino’s perversion of history was not only more watchable than Affleck’s, but how Tarantino handled the cartoon-ish violence of spaghetti westerns vs. the more grisly violence (and comic absurdity of evil, which is in Basterds too) of slavery and racism ended up probably doing more justice to the historical material than Affleck’s playing fast and loose for dramatic effect.
And while I am on the record, I think I liked Basterds better than Django, probably because it is a bit tighter and has a lot more gut-wrenching suspense. Django didn’t ever really bore me, but it let me off the edge of my seat a few times when Basterds was more relentless with the dramatic irony.