Like him or loathe him, Quentin Tarantino is a filmmaker who gets audiences talking. His films have always been controversial, from Reservoir Dogs (1992) and it’s similarities with Ringo Lam’s City On Fire (1987), to his latter works such as Kill Bill vol.1 and 2 (2003-2004) and Inglorious Bastards (2009) have attracted much debate.
It has to be said that he has faced some truly unfair criticism over the years. These culls have been aimed at his use of violence in films, an over enthusiastic use of dialogue and his personal comments during interviews. But why are these issues? Violence has been represented in film since the very early years of its inception. What is it then that makes Tarantino’s take on it so different. I believe this comes from the way violence forms out of his scenes. Casual conversations can lead to bloodbaths in the world of Tarantino. At the tip of a hat, violence can rear its ugly head and this visibly unnerves some people. Compare this to another director, Alfred Hitchcock for example was known for his use of suspense. In a suspense film we are warned of the possibility of unwanted violent action, in fact, it is the time between the revelation of an event and its conclusion (the moments of tension) that is referred to in terms of suspense.
In fact if you look at one of Hitchcock’s most controversial scenes of violence from the film Psycho (1960), in the shower scene, the character of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) is cleansing herself after deciding to give the money back that she had previously stolen. However, it is this moment of redeemed calm that the violent outburst of killer Norman Bates comes into play. Here, like the violence in a Tarantino film was sudden and for lack of a better word, violent. It violates the comfort of the visual spectacle, taking the viewer out of the story and into a sub film, a film within a film, a self contained action that seems forced into the progressive narrative.
Besides, no one is forced to view these works. Of the people who complain of his works they have no need to view them. Yet to digress, the subject of this review is Django Unchained (2012), not Quentin Tarantino as a filmmaker.
Django Unchained is a western in the style of Italian spaghetti westerns. Its serious, brooding and suffers from violent outbursts. But the story is steeped in a violent past. Concerning a protagonist who is a freed former slave seeking revenge against those who once tortured him. Another concern of his is the rescue of his wife who has been sold to another plantation.
Its subject is large in scale and is still a sensitive issue in America to this day. Django in many ways works as a revenge fantasy striking out against the real horrors of the time. Django is a sort of avatar for the audience entering into the time of the pre-civil war American south. He has seen, as we see, the horrors of this place and suffers from its violent outbursts. With this he seeks revenge against a group of people the audience hate (southern plantation owning slavers).
In many ways its similar to how Inglourious Bastards (2009) was a fantasy for Jewish people lashing out against Nazi oppression, Django fills this same void in the avenue of an entertainment spectacle. The violence here is both oppressive and freeing justice, to put it simply, it is a basic attempt to play out serious issues as a sort of morality story (Django good guy, slavers bad guys) and it never gets any fervour than that.
There are hints of more of course, Dr King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) as Django’s mentor and bounty hunter teacher hints at more depth. As a former dentist and his understanding of the English language show that he has had some sort of classical education. He is also latter offended when hearing at a slave plantation the works of Beethoven on a harp, so we know he has an understanding of classical music. But we never find out why or how he came to America, or how he went from being a dentist to becoming a bounty hunter. These pieces of information on there own hint at a complete character but alone are relatively vague and unnecessary. Compare this to in Pulp Fiction (1994) when Jules relates a phrase he said early in the film to a robber he has at gun point and himself in terms of the path of a righteous man. This in a way helps to bring the film full circle and relates a phrase he use to say because he thought it was cool, to him now contextualising this information in relation to himself and his situation.
It’s the loose ends in Django that derives the film from its possible emotional impact. The film is quite distorted at times. Some scenes have little correlation to the overreaching narrative. Scenes are set up to seemingly add depth to characters however they are left with no follow up. One scene has Dr Schultz discussing the importance of fulfilling a bounty no matter what your emotional disposition may tell you. In the process Django kills a man on a small farm at distance, however, after the gunfire’s a small boy runs to the laying body. Never again is this idea of hesitation discussed again or even put into the action of a scene.
Characters and story arcs are dropped or feel at times as though left undeveloped. One of the defining aspects of the film is the relationship between Django and Schultz, although there is never really any development between the two of them. When they meet, Schultz frees Django and they become friends, but from there nothing really progresses between them. This distinct lack of growth stands out as in road trip/ adventure films when new characters meet; there is usually some sort of bond formed. This in latter scenes develops between scenes where the characters help one another or slowly begin to gain each other’s trust (or lose said trust). In this they make a switch from being strangers to friends, which, in the audiences minds strengthens their bond to them.
Like the characters, the audience also travels upon these journeys, and as we are voyeurs in this situation we associate ourselves with the characters on screen. But if there is a lack of situations where characters (as I have previously stated) can strengthen their bond it limits how relatable characters can be to the audience.
Another problem that was frustrating was the fact that once Django found his wife; he discovered that she had been previously trying to escape before he came to her plantation. Nevertheless, in a latter gunfight his wife has the opportunity to escape when she is left alone in a room, but instead she chooses to stand still waiting to be rescued. This goes aggressively against what we have previously heard about here. More than that, it has belittled a possibly interesting and courageous female character into the damsel in distress stereotype.
Loose threads like this are really scattered all over the film. Schultz’s character is a former dentist, a German man in America, and an educated man at that. At one point in a plantation he is offended when he hears Ludwig Van Beethoven’s Für Elise being played on a harp – so we know he has an understanding of classical music. But how, how has this educated German man ended up in the south, as a bounty hunter? It is not as though he is poor and financial limits caused an ill disposition, he appears to choose to do so. Why? Well, the film provides no answers.
To be entirely fair, there are enjoyable points and sequences in Django Unchained. But the biggest problem remains that none of the overreaching narrative really joins together and in the end, it feels as though the script needed a bit more redrafting before production. Points needed connecting or cutting. Without this organisation really a film will just seem to be a bit of a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment