This past weekend, I went to see the Oscar-nominated Best Picture from writer-director Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained. Set shortly before the Civil War, it's the story of a freed slave hunting for his wife, whom he finds in the custody of a loathsome slave owner.
Some people have referred to the film as "Inglourious Basterds of slavery," and I found that to be an incredibly accurate characterization. In fact, though I thought it was an alright movie, I found it so derivative of that earlier film that I'm not sure there's really a need to see one if you've seen the other.
In the plus column, there are some very good performances in the film. Jamie Foxx is an entertaining lead. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a wild turn as the wicked slave owner. Samuel Jackson slips into another wild hairdo and inspires even more hatred than DiCaprio. And there's solid work from Kerry Washington, Walter Goggins, James Remar, and more.
But Christoph Waltz really steals the show as the bounty hunter helping Django on his hunt. He's hilariously dry, and as civil as he is brutal. He has been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for this role, and it's not hard to see why; the movie is at its best when he's on the screen. But the problem is, he's played this character before. Exactly, in Inglourious Basterds. Obviously, he's been transposed here from the villain to a hero, but Quentin Tarantino wrote exactly the same character and cast exactly the same actor. I'm left unsure whether to praise the performance or criticize the self-plagiarism.
I tend toward the latter, because Django is in many ways a lesser version of the same film Tarantino recently made. It's overly long, but Basterds at least juggled multiple storylines to somewhat justify the length. It's deliriously violent, but it's easy to anticipate where all the big gags are going to come.
And yet, there's still something fun about watching the movie -- most of the time, at least. There are some new inspirations here that do help. Tarantino lifts a lot of stylistic camera work from spaghetti westerns and uses them entertaining ways. He's much more careful about letting scenes go on too long, and is perhaps more clever with his dialogue than usual.
Still, I'm not really sure I buy Django Unchained as an Oscar nominee. I think Tarantino is the beneficiary of the Academy's new nomination procedures, which requires 5% of voters to list a film as their #1 favorite to secure a nomination. I can see 1 in 20 voters with enough passion for Tarantino, even if this isn't his best (or, to be fair, his worst) work. I give Django Unchained a B-.
1 comment:
The last few Tarantino films have left me NOT wanting for more. He used to tell interesting stories that incorporated violence in a fun and/or original way. (I still think Pulp Fiction is his best work.)
But now his movies are no longer violent films: they are films ABOUT violence, dressed up in various garbs (WWII for Basterds, the Old West for Django, and so on). Violence purely for violence's sake.
And frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
FKL
Post a Comment