'Django Unchained' - Movie Review

          What does one attempt after he rewrites the script of World War II and leaves Hitler riddled with vengeful Jewish bullets? Well, if you are screenwriter, director, producer and cameo actor Quentin Tarantino you head back to America and tell a similarly outrageous tale of 19th century slavery.

If you want "responsible" you'll want to wait until the much anticipated Lincoln reaches Australian shores later this week. I'm sure the less brazen Steven Spielberg will deliver those goods. So to all you grumpy historians who spend your days lulling around on tenure and picking apart journal articles as if they are blackheads, cover your eyes and sit tight for a Lincoln review. But if you want excitement, unshackled depravity and a salute to your Dad's beloved spaghetti westerns then check out Django Unchained. 

"All my movies are achingly personal." - Tarantino.

By now we all know what to expect from Tarantino: blood soaked walls, bodies flying through the air like ballerinas, Samuel L. Jackson's liberal use of the term "motherfucker", non linear plot structures, a musical storm, and a German (Chistoph Waltz - who is actually Austrian). 

Dr. J? Or... Django?

Django (Jamie Foxx) is the hero of this swashbuckling tale. He bursts onto the screen as a shackled (Dr. J doppelganger -->) slave, but after a terrifically long and old school opening credits sequence he is rescued from this life by a German dentist, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). It turns out that Schultz hasn't practiced dentistry in five years and instead is trying his hand at bounty hunting. This all leads to a run-around-the-south tale of bounty hunting - until Django decides to set out on his quest to save his wife from the sadistic and charismatic hands of Monsieur Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). What ensues is a tasty script and a whole bunch of "motherfuckers" shooting each other with sexy pistols. 

Yet one can't leave a discussion on the plot without discussing the fact that Tarantino has finally broken the streak and gone for a linear structure. There's no multiple perspectives, no time jumps, no chapters, no flashback trails (well actually there's short and snappy flashbacks) - there's none of the tricks which have made Tarantino such an elusive storyteller. 

They probably had just watched Tarantino's scene...

Let's say someone asked if you'd be keen to watch a big budget revenge movie - what would you say?

I'd probably pass it up in search of something a bit more spellbinding. Tarantino knows this, and so in his infinite wisdom, where he works in archetypes and reaffirms his life long allegiance to spaghetti westerns, Tarantino has created a revenge film which pushes the barrier and sustains our attention. And unlike other revenge flicks, Django is meaningful. I've got three examples of how this is so...

- Firstly, Django gives righteous vengeance to a slave - when has that been done? It wasn't that long ago when this would've been unfathomable, and definitely unfilmable. 

- Secondly, the morality in this movie, when you get past the torture and bloodshed, is... sweet. The filmmaker took on the job of representing and reflecting on one of the darkest and most shameful periods in American history. Some will say he makes slavery a laughing matter, others, such as filmmaker Spike Lee, wont watch it because it's "insulting", but slavery is cast in an appropriate light. And with characters such as Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), stereotypes are blown up and in a roundabout way we are left asking questions. That's brave. 

Here in Australia we couldn't even get our Prime Minister (John Howard) to accept the horrific treatment of Aboriginals. Instead our fearful PM told us that we shouldn't reflect in that kind of manner because it takes away from our achievements.

- Thirdly, depth and meaning is created between the lovable German and his black sidekick. Here we venture into modern day, colourless brothership... and even sacrificial love. For argument's sake, take that scene when Stephen is exposing Django's plan to Candie - Stephen can't for the life of him work out why Schultz is going along with Django's plan to save Broomhilda. 

"I want to do movies that deal with America's horrible past with slavery... but do them like spaghetti westerns, not like big issue movies. I want to do them like they're genre films, but they deal with everything that America has never dealt with because it's ashamed of it, and other countries don't really deal with because they don't feel they have the right to." - Tarantino.

Before I get carried away and crown Django, let me point out one glaring issue - it goes for 2 hours and 45 minutes. Yes, we are entertained by an unchained filmmaker, but it still ought to be a 2 hour film. I like that Tarantino lets scenes run longer than most filmmakers would be comfortable with, but the story still doesn't fit a movie of this length. Maybe Tarantino caught the Life of Pi, Hobbit and Les Miserable bug? 

Wait! there's another glaring issue - Tarantino's acting. Why does he keep doing this? Watch out for the most obnoxious Aussie accent since Steve Irwin. 

Apart from the director's off kilter cameo, though, the acting is something to remember. Can we go ahead and say that Christoph Waltz is in his element when Tarantino's calling the shots? In The Green Hornet and The Three Musketeers Waltz appears to mail in one dimensional and cliche performances. And folks, Hans Landa is resurrected in Django, as the wit, mischievous humility, line delivery and diction is back in a big way. So keep your eyes pealed for a similarly brilliant start in Django, as Dr. Schultz frees some slaves, kills a small-town sheriff and pussy whips a US Marshall. In fact, if Waltz is guilty of anything in Django it's that he outshines his sidekick, Jamie Foxx.

Now, when I say that Waltz outshines Foxx I don't mean to dismiss Foxx's performance altogether. He has a physical presence as Django, but he just isn't a gun-slinging hero. At least not with that angelic voice! For example, take that scene where Django unleashes on the Brittle boys - Foxx has the physical presence for it, but as soon as he opens his mouth it all falls apart. The scene is meant to come to a crescendo in Django's one-liner, "You die well, boy", but instead it falls flat. See, whereas Leonardo DiCaprio completely embodied the sadistic slave owner, Foxx is never as convincing and always seems to be a dollar short. 

The Good Guys always get the majestic shots.

When asked by The Sydney Morning Herald how he goes about playing someone as despicable and evil as John J. Candie, Leonardo responds, "Look at some of the greatest roles that people have played, the ones people talk about - Orson Welles in Citizen Kane or Jake LaMotta [Robert De Niro] in Raging Bull. These are not very likeable characters and you don't need to become that guy - you just need to understand the part of their psyche that explains what motivates them."  

When Tarantino decided on DiCaprio to play the wildly charismatic antagonist, he dubbed the character, "The Boy Emperor". Baby face DiCaprio brings this chilling character to life with immense southern charm, quirky arrogance and a look which could make a flower wilt. Leo is helped along by a surprisingly strong performance from Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie's helpful and equally evil black servant. It appears Jackson, like Waltz, is also in his element when playing a showman under Tarantino. But this parrot mimicking servant is sure to rustle some feathers as he enjoys calling his fellow African-Americans "niggers", "motherfuckers" and "bitches". In fact, when Stephen isn't sitting on the shoulder of Candie, he's giving everyone the kind of eye popping, "nigger hating" look you'd expect from a crusty old white gent from the time.

The flower has wilted!

The 'nigger on a horse' look.

Django Unchained will give middle America nightmares, but is that a bad thing? Tarantino continues to use his winning formula of dark humor and grotesque violence to shock audiences and make us laugh at otherwise serious subjects. Nothing demonstrates this mixture better than the hilarious KKK scene, where Don Johnson, Jonah Hill and their band of merry racists squabble over their white-bagged fashion choice well into the night. 

The film didn't reach the heights of Inglourious Basterds, partly because of it's long winded linear structure, which leaves audiences wanting Tarantino's nonlinear array of tricks. Yet like his previous film, Tarantino shows that he can still bring history to life in a way which most other filmmakers would never even dream of.

8/10