Quentin Tarantino’s brash pop-Western “Django Unchained” runs on the same saturated patterns of violence and convoluted chutzpa-choreography that has become a spectacle of the aging auteurs’ obsessions, part extravagant melodrama and part something else desperate to be serious and absurd and socially relevant. Some of it, almost none of it, comes together in a way that serves both short-term entertainment value and as a source for long-term serious conversations. As a revisionist Western set out to spin new heroes and tackle old foes, to unsettle the indelible battlefields of the not so distant past while genre bending like only he can, Tarantino makes “Django” as appealing as it is charged with possibility, yet it is also inherently flawed; the trouble with so much ambition is the inevitable failure to marry fantastical imaginings with factual happenstance and make it entertaining. Driven by caricatures and disjointed by sketchy archetypes that you might believe but don’t trust, the narrative is forced through a meat grinder of exceedingly more gruesome and brutal scenarios that leave you breathless, mired in brutal and unforgiving carnage. If not for the particular flavors of the filmmaker’s elaborate conversations that stitch together his fragmented narrative, “Django” might not work at all, though living up to the possibility of the concept, which sounds like the perfect territory never fully happens. It ends up being textbook Tarantino theatrics, hardly more than his usual penchant for bedraggled morality tales, the sort of bop-prosody that fans soak up in cotton ball doses while others take away in granular appreciation. Tarantino makes no excuses, implied or necessary, secretly relishing the war torn landscape of popular opinion that produces the nonsense-infused hot air required to propel his fierce pomposity.
I have to come to terms with the fact that I’ve lost the flavor for Quentin Tarantino’s films. It has been a long time since I felt excited by the news of his latest release and even longer since a screening left me entertained. Despite the overwhelming fans, followers and sycophants that clamor for whatever he does and embrace however he does it, I long for the films he used to make when he was less interested in educating his audience and more inspired to entertain them. “Django” has all the trappings of a Tarantino film, the colorful characters and punctuated lingo flavoring quick wit and snappy shot lists, but shot for shot he’s always about making a point of things, of justifying every tortured scene that goes on and on far too long. He used to put his characters into believable worlds at intersections of conflict and action we could understand, focusing on issues and ideas in dialogue and decisions rather than formulas and strategies wrapped up in social satire and political parody. Now he’s no longer interested in the wraps, he’d rather put it all out in the open and make you understand he’s in control, he can do whatever he wants.
This insistence on bigger themes and more important social consequences is what drives his films, so much so that there’s hardly any room for fun. It’s hard to enjoy blood soaked everything, no matter how much you think you like it, at some point when it becomes personal you’ll never look at it the same way again. Perhaps it makes sense, somehow; what if he sees himself as a Truman Copote of the cinema, marrying fact and fiction to make his films serious and more respected, a new kind of big screen blockbuster thinking person’s film? Is “Django” the creative non-fiction equivalent of “In Cold Blood?” If Tarantino has gotten off track there is a chance he could return. Maybe what he needs is a tornado to whirl into town and stir things up. Maybe he needs someone to come along like Aronofsky with a film like The Wrestler and what it did for Mickey Rourke, or what Scott Cooper did for Jeff Bridges with Crazy Heart. A detour maybe, a lot of what used to make his films great by not trying so hard. Maybe the mix would resuscitate his dilapidated redundancy. Then again, as far as the many are concerned, his bastardized western “Django Unchained” is simply another entry in his ouvriers of blood soaked Spaghetti Pulp Americana, loved for oozing wrongness, merchandise for mass indifference.
Most of what is wrong with “Django” is packaging, the stuff we can trace back to Kill Bills and the snowball of seriousness that’s taken out just about everything else. There appears to be some deep seated need to turn his films into meaningful, socially responsible and historically critical examinations instead of sticking to his shoot em’ up successes. All this planning and determination however, feels more like we’re expected to get it and like it and take it home, think about the message Tarantino is making and then thank him for the pleasure of his brilliance. That’s an awful lot to expect from someone who just wants to escape for 2.5 hours. What made his earlier films great is how he wove this stuff in, made it part of the tapestry not the plastic wrap on the outside with all that plastic sound slipping and sliding around. That Tarantino is absent here, a long gone echo of effortlessness and subtlety we haven’t felt since “Jackie Brown“. Faint recollections of the director’s earliest talent lives and breathes here and there but not enough to keep it from succumbing to heavy-handed manipulations of expendable outcomes that fail on impact.
“Django” meanders because Tarantino meanders. Every bloody exclamation point and every mangled adjective drives this film beyond all measurable tolerance, abandoning the audience along the way in considerable emotional confusion. Violence is no longer an action in response to a situation but the situation itself, stripped of meaning except to serve pornographic machinations where sex parts are replaced with smoking gun barrels and lingerie is lost to the blunt imaginings of blood spattered cotton. If not for Tarantino’s lengthy, self-congratulatory commentary on the publicity tour and after, we might not know the great lengths he went to teach us something. Too bad he thinks so highly of himself.
What’s even more troubling than a movie that gets away with everything for the sake of nothing, is how serious so many people, critics and others have responded to it with unfettered glowing reviews, accolades and award show posturing. It feels like the uncomfortable response and pitiful excuse to load praise for that which bothers and cannot be resolved, for that which demands a response but for fear of losing the mainstream popularity contest, real criticism gets lost in the shuffle. Aggregators contribute to this effect, pushing negatives down below the stars and tomatoes and percentage points. In the face of any real discussion about “Django” is the overwhelming landslide of award show accolades, press doling out praise and a flood of internet buzz trying to get the picture of success just right. You end up feeling like you have to go along with the masses or you look funny or sound like you don’t know what you’re talking about. “Django” is not the “crap masterpiece” David Denby of the New Yorker would like you to embrace, for you simply cannot have it both ways. Similarly, it is not the right tool with which to approach historical injustices and turn a profit in the process. When James Rocci declares “Django” a 5-star success on the merits of its ability to, “..create a discussion of both pop and politics”, it is particularly disturbing that these days we must first wade through gallons of blood and the dismembered body politic in order to get down to the caverns of our most battered discontent. Perhaps Rodrigo Perez captured the sentiment best in his review for the Indiewire blog The Playlist when he wrote, “..[Django].. is not particularly funny or moving..though it might just entertain the shit out of the less discerning.”
At this stage, an overwhelming amount has already been written about the movie and diving into the plot and what not would be pointless. It is safe to summarize that plot, the stuff that is happening goes on far too long and without any relevant purpose to story or important character development. The only change that takes place in these characters is when they die and how. If you are able to live in the moments alone and discard them one by one, take a breath and then let them all go as the credits scroll, perhaps this -is- the movie for you. For the rest and the weary, tired of sensationalized excessiveness and unnecessary carnage, there are many other films considerably more entertaining and vastly less offending.
Sometimes less is more and subtlety delivers the greatest satisfaction in the art and imaginations of the movies we bring into our lives. We have the power of choice and the freedom of action to choose that which entertains and that which offers us a chance to educate ourselves without losing our morality in the process. All I can say is that I long for the Tarantino of years gone by, the refined master of moments that felt so effortless and real and part of each and every one of us that he got us around to thinking by our own devices, however scattered or incomplete. We laughed and tensed up because of the ride, not the message and meaning of it all or his sense of well placed intentions. Sometimes movies have a job to do and that is to take us away from so much manipulated truth and advertising in our lives, however good for us, almost always too much for us. We’re not that broken that we need our escapist films to fix us in the process of thrilling us with something someone else wants us to believe about our personal experiences.
Related articles
- Django Unchained (thefunhousejournal.blogspot.com)
- Collected Writings on Django Unchained (the guardian)
- Movie – Review: Django Unchained (fernbyfilms.com)
- Spike Lee refuses to see Django “..disrespectful..” (laist.com)
Above the Line 
How could you possible? You just don’t get it, you shouldn’t even try to write about Mr. T., obvious your biased and are just gonna badmouth him. What makes you think this way when he was ACADEMY NOMINAED? Maybe you write poetic and all and that’s cool but I just don’t like your review. At all.
[transferred from email]
Hey Franklyn, why not post here? Thanks for sending this one but please post your comments directly on the blog.
Again, and thanks for posting but I think my review is detailed enough to make my arguments. I mean we can disagree to disagree or whatever, but biased or not I’ve gone to great lengths to support my criticism. Lets go on, what in particular do you disagree with? Award shows are no real measure of greatness, only popularity and ticket saleability.
Take a breath dude, not everyone agrees with the Academy….
If you’ve ever read any of Rory’s other review, you’ll soon pick up that he’s probably the least biased blogger on the internet – his pieces are always insightful, well reasoned and intelligent….. unlike your comment. Considering that Rory did say at the outset that he enjoyed Tarantino’s work until he became to obsessed with shock and awe, I think your argument (if one can even call it that) is invalid.
Thanks Rod! Well put. Appreciate the support and clarity. I just hope the commenter returns so we can continue the conversation. Like I’ve said here and elsewhere, many times – I enjoy the debate of opposing opinions and welcome them wholeheartedly.
I’m mixed on this one. I mean you make good points and its true, Django is longer than it could or needs to be. Lots of the middle is the weakest link. I heard Will Smith was going to do it but he wanted to be the star (sounds like someone made that up) but when the doctor is the main guy. Who can you believe in hollywood hype? I like Leo all his films except that bad makeup job of making him old in that gangster movie – did the gunslinger do that one? I think you’re going to get a lot of people mad at you. atleast anyone that reads this.
that movie was J.Edgar and it blows
Hi’ya Mack Dandy, yes – that was Eastwood’s J.Edgar. I wrote a review for Warner Bros. when I was a member of their Blu-ray Elite program and you check it out here->https://rorydean.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/j-edgar-2011-blu-ray/
I think you’ll find quite a different take, though it does have some problems. Thx for stopping by
[transferred from email]
Hey Noel thanks for sending this one but please post your comments directly on the blog.
Wow, thanks I think for cutting me down to size. I never stray from folks being critical of my critical-ness of movies, I actually welcome it and look forward to discussing it if you will. As far as my review, I stand by it and would be happy to go line-by-line or whatever, point-by-point. Yes, it suffers from editing problems for sure but really the whole thing is a train wreck of excessiveness, tedious brutality that goes on and on as though T is either lost his confidence or he’s desperately trying to shock his audience into submission. Either way, I’m gonna stick with my guns (sorry the pun).
Had heard a little about Smith. Not surprising.
Yes, J.Edgar my review https://rorydean.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/j-edgar-2011-blu-ray/
Terrific review, Rory, once again. Actually, I think it’s more an indictment on Tarantino’s career post-Kill Bill than a singular review, but I digress! I do agree with a lot of your points vis a vis Django Unchained, to the point that I can’t argue about anything you say, really. What I will say, though, is that I think I’m okay with Tarantino’s current exploration of his “Shock and awe” style, but like you, I am starting to yearn for the day when he returns to making films that are less pop-culture infused for mass consumption, and more about story.
Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and yes even Jackie Brown (probably my least favorite Tarantino flick after Deathproof) are solid, quality storyies first, with style and flair being the secondary concern. It’s probably more a difference in taste that you don’t enjoy his current work, but I’m actually kinda enjoying it. I do think a lot of flack for this kind of pulp film experiment has come from the side of folks who don’t ….. appreciate – if that’s the right term….. the genre he’s stealing from, but an argument could also be made that excess for the sake of excess eventually becomes redundant.
Personally, I thought it was a highly entertaining – if overly long – film that elicited more than a few shocks from my viewing, but I concede there’s more hutzpah in the marketing and propaganda surroundning it than in the film itself.
Also look forward to your thoughts and returns. I have yet to write that article – the indictment that is – because it’s funny, about the time I thought I was done with this review a couple of days ago – after which time I made a few handfuls of changes to post – I was thinking the very same thing, I need to write an overview of his career!
Ha! That being said, the general consensus does seem to agree, that the film is too long, tires in many places mid-run, rambles a bit and loses itself in T’s own self indulgent egotism, and ultimately arrives at ‘it was a raucous affair. I know the weight of my disappointment in his choices since the good ol’ days is driving my reviews since, and I do think there is at least a couple of articles about the mass appeal of mass-made films in me, so I’ll leave it at the dagger of my mind plunged deep between the shoulder blades of Tarantino the filmmaker and Tarantino the culturally relevant and hope in the bleeding something changes – and soon!
Agreed on those previous films and yes, Jackie Brown has about as much wrong with it as it does going for it…definitely where I see his departure into pop-culture fandom..I definitely want to let the thing simmer and take a look after the froth fades and the dust settles. Who knows, I might ease into a lesser degree of disdain..
I’ll stick a backlink to this review in my own, matey!! Look forward to your eventual Tarantino Rant in due course!!
Pingback: » Movie Review – Django Unchained Fernby Films
Hi Rory! Some great points you’ve made, though I do tend to disagree and I’ll try to be as coherent as possible about why I do.
First, I feel that Tarantino’s later works are more contextual and complex in nature, as opposed to the relatively straightforward narratives of a heist or an Elmore Leonard novel. Hence they seemingly try to educate more than they entertain. Social consequences become impossible to exclude, when dealing with the sensitivity of the historical background involved. Escapism in that case, have to take the back seat, though it cannot be completely ignored. Otherwise, this simply cannot be a Tarantino flick, would it?
I reckon that to compare Tarantino’s newer films to pre-Jackie Brown works would be inherently unfair. Django and Basterds are part of a trilogy of historical revenge epics, for which subtlety doesn’t always work. Brutal and unforgiving is the nature of vengeance. Sure, violence can be done in an inferred, less ultraviolent fashion a la Hitchcock, but then it wouldn’t really be a revenge epic. Lady Snowblood, which Kill Bill takes inspiration from, is exploitative and shocking in nature. The genre is meant to be over the top, and I think there is always a place for that in cinema.
Story does need to come before guts and glory. But to say that the plot is without relevant purpose to story or character development seems to be a little hyperbole. In fact, it is impressive to see that the development of the characters is not hindered by the size of the ensemble in most Tarantino films. Each character matures with their conflicting emotions (for unexpected consequences) and obligations (for vengeance, in the case of his latter works). Each story arc is an event that plays a purpose to the story, coming together to the satisfying finale. That is even though I have to admit that Basterds does it better than Django does.
Hope I didn’t ramble, or misunderstand any of what you said! Looking forward to your response.
Hi Jade — sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Thanks muchly for the thoughtful and articulate response. Your points are well taken and your arguments are thought out. I think it is safe to say that we are going differ greatly, though hopefully agreeing to disagree 🙂
Oh, and I should probably acknowledge my diploma from the school of hyperbole and rhetoric, the result of which I lose myself, frequently, if not predictably in impressionistic tones.
I appreciate what you’re saying about his latter films seeming more complex, and certainly plumbing the depths of the Holocaust and the atrocities Civil War era injustices to fuel his revenge fantasies is markedly greater territory than the collective landscapes of the character driven situational “verse dramas” of his youth. At the same time, such constructs are not in and of themselves the product of exhausting research developed over a long period with a staff of historical experts and therefore, as in all of Tarantino’s films serves only a loose framework of intertexualized timber with which to corral his bloody operas of excesses and gratuitousness. I would not say that the former or latter is any less or more challenging or necessarily fulfilling based on the density of the subject matter any more than I would take the assurances or explanations from the filmmaker to qualify or quantify the experience of his film. My belief is that the experience of a film must come from the gut, irrespective of all else, at least for the moment, the true gauge of effectiveness. Regardless of what we are supposed to learn or if in fact simply take the opportunity to escape, I think what is most problematic for “Django” is how much it relies on this purposefulness to serve both education and entertainment. Perhaps the greatest failure of “Django” is that it often accomplishes neither.
I accept the differences in the early/latter films are better served in a conversation elsewhere, and agree that we’re really talking apples and oranges, even though I know people who love pretty much everything Tarantino does and see a clear, natural progression from where he started to where he is today. I’m not saying that “Djano” is wrong or justified because it is or is not in the fashion of the revenge epic genre, or that it suffers the most from lack of subtlety and refinement, more that the excessiveness and gratuitousness is beyond all reasonable and necessary measure to the point that it desensitizes the viewer, ultimately undermining the education angle and making it particularly imbalanced. Of course, for every ultra-violent, over-the-top film like “Django”, “Kill Bills”, “Lady Snowblood”, etc., there are just as many stylized, calculated and measured revenge stories like “Get Carter – original & remake”, “V for Vendetta”, “Death Wish” and even “Dirty Harry”. His influences and inspirations are clear and valid, just as their place in society is guaranteed.
What I meant about plot and story, even character development is that all films are telling a story and how that story is told is through plot – the stuff that happens – and character development is part of the process because ultimately we are telling a story about people. Films about places and concepts are better left to documentaries, really. Tarantino’s tedious and convoluted scenes in his latter films are frequently too long, often jumbled and unnecessarily gratuitous and this slows down the plot, gets in the way of the story and prolongs the agony of violence. Obviously for those who find these dalliances not only rewarding but entertaining, this is moot.
I think what is at the core of my criticism is that Tarantino, like James Cameron and JJ. Abrams and other incredibly successful filmmakers, is often allowed too much latitude in his imaginings and this robs him of the objectivity of his youth, where he might think more about the particulars and less about how cool they look in his head.
Thanks for chatting, looks like that ramble was a’ ramblin’
No worries about the delay. Happy to chat any time. And well, I’d admit that all these comes from a hugeee Tarantino fan. 😉
I reckon an audience member can freely interpret a film’s purpose though it may not necessarily coincide with the filmmaker’s intention. In this case, where Django ‘fails’ only stands under the assumption that it does rely on “purposefulness to serve both education and entertainment”. Yet Django Unchained is no Lincoln. It is neither trying to educate its audience, nor is it trying to be realistic. Quentin is creating a work of entertainment-fiction from his imagination, and history is but a backdrop for his story to take place against.
The highly stylised nature of his every film, Tarantino-esque as most call it, is a clear indication that realism is never one of his concerns. This puts it in a completely different category from films like V for Vendetta. He is entertaining the audience, not educating. In this case, unlike a biopic, the exhaustive research is unnecessary for Quentin to tell his story.
The complete reinterpretation of history along with the motif of aesthetic violence serve as pure escapism. History, no matter its brutality, cannot be changed and can only happen differently in an alternate universe that can only exist in fiction. Excessive carnage can be seen as gratuitous, but sudden acts of violence also make a huge impact, similarly to how blood is used in films like Scorsese’s Taxi Driver. The entertainment however is never in the bloodshed, but the wit of the exchanges and the strength the characters like The Bride or Django find in their journey. To say that Django doesn’t accomplish entertainment is perhaps but a personal view, which many including myself would disagree with!
Having said that, criticism can only challenge films to be better, and I think your criticism is valid. I was watching Duncan Jones’ commentary on his debut Moon the other day, and was most impressed with every cautious detail that went into each element and choice. Filmmakers often peak at the very beginning when having to work within limits in view of things like debut concerns or budget constraints. It’d certainly be interesting to see a more restrained work from Quentin, just as he did with Jackie Brown, or as Steven Soderbergh is doing with his recent ventures. 🙂
I think I’ll always care about Tarantino and approach his every next film with a deep and longing respect, knowing he has it in him to be effortless, no matter how far he has strayed or become obsessed with being a respected and culturally relevant filmmaker. It’s inevitable, no matter how long you make one kind of movie you’re going to be drawn to breaking the Jello mold, proving the other side you’ve got it in ya’. Spike Lee directed 22 projects of short films, documentaries, TV movies and features before he got swayed to break away and for better or for worse, made Summer of Sam. Clint Eastwood acted in 29 productions including TV movies, a long running TV series and feature films before the director’s chair beguiled him (thankfully) and in 1971 he directed Play Misty For Me. There’s nothing inherently wrong with change or failure as long as it’s constructive. Sadly what happens with big egos and powerful filmmakers is there’s no one in the room any more to be honest, to say hey, wait a minute – what are you doing, and more importantly why?
I agree wholeheartedly, once a film leaves the filmmaker’s bosom it must go its own way, be whatever it is to the viewer individually, personally, without explanation or excuse or commentary. In this era of blogs and criticism and aggregators and Youtube videos with DVD commentary, sometimes that first gut response gets glazed over, we want to believe or justify our reaction so we find these external things to hold onto. I’ve never been swayed by what a filmmaker says about their film, I might appreciate it or believe it, but the proof for me is always that first romance. We are nothing if not true to our guts reaction and I always try and start there.
Agreed again, definitely no Lincoln or for that matter tied to any service to truth or the authenticity of history, but nevertheless bound to be judged for involving such a delicate and bruised past that remains ever present and ever the source of contempt and controversy for the way it is portrayed or postured. I would nevertheless recommend that you watch and read some of his interviews. I think you might be surprised just how important history and reality is to Tarantino and the purposefulness of Django.
I would argue that the Tarantino-esqueness was in fact founded in realism when he started, I mean he was mired in it, his characters were snapshot portraits of everyday people living truthfully in extraordinary circumstances, saying and doing things we either want to do but can’t or do too much of and shouldn’t it. Sure, he made grand and eloquent orchestrated violence seem not only appropriate but necessary, but this remains my biggest complaint of the new Tarantino – where he used to care about getting the moments right, the importance of how they made us feel, he is now more interested in what they mean and how they should matter contextually and socio-politically. It’s like he’s drunk on the spotlight and now that he has this new sense of seriousness he feels a burning passion to prove he matters and his branded melodrama is more than entertaining.
Yes, I really do like “Moon”. Sadly, Source Code I hated – greatly. Check my review if you’re interested: https://rorydean.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/source-code-2011/
Thanks again for chatting, See ya around, cheers0
Pingback: Django-DITION: Liberals Are The Kind of People That… | Eradica
Curious the link you left on my article about Quentin Tarantino’s brash pop-Western “Django Unchained”.
You succeeded in drawing my attention but I was hoping for more than just a hook. I’m approaching the material from the perspective of a film critic where you appear to be more interested in agitprop sensationalism. Sure, there are plenty of intersecting avenues but I don’t think we’re treading in the same stagnant waters or have the same stretch of dry land on the horizon. I’m interested in shimmying under blanket opinions that get lost in the obvious – that ‘all Americans’ are obtuse automatons staggering in the darkness of their own heartfelt prejudices – however true that might be – and elicit my own deep discussions.
I’d rather examine Tarantino the genre filmmaker, the cine Pop star with his drunk obsessions of excessiveness and blatant self-aggrandizing than the edutainer or the sociopolitical matinee agitator. Sure, maybe he’s got a point, maybe he’s really interested in histrionics and important themes and consequences but that’s a little grand for a video store savant better adept at blood spattered cotton fields than correcting decades of injustices, fixing wrongs and righting rights. I think he’s desperate and he’s scared that his particular brand of entertainment isn’t achieving the kind of relevancy that keeps him up at night and consequently he’s blindly throwing everything at the screne to see what sticks.
Maybe it’s the dashboard Jesus of the lazy masses that wobbles indifferent to the world going by the Chevy station wagons of their lives that really bothers you. That’s not to say I don’t agree with you and those productive conclusions…only we’re looking at the same thing with different goals.
In an extraordinary promotional interview yesterday, the 49 year-old “erupted” after being asked on his views on violent films and why he enjoyed making them.
Right, the interview you’re referring to is http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/9794854/Quentin-Tarantino-in-furious-rant-over-Django-Unchained-violence-questions.html
Like I’ve been writing, Tarantino’s trouble is his obsession with being ‘meaningful’ and ‘relevant’. He’s lost sight of making films to entertain and muddied them up with his schoolroom soapbox derby. I’ll be glad when someone reminds him he’s a genre filmmaker – liken to Justin Beiber. He’s producing a product for mass consumption. Consequently, he’s got to lighten up, man!
Pingback: » Movie Review – Smoke (1995) (Mini Review) Fernby Films
“Returning to Kill Bill V1. for a moment, as I think my review speaks for my undying dislike of post Jackie Brown Tarrantino. Casting aside the popularity of the twin-films and the search for something positive – it would appear that these films were responsible in part of the resurrection of Uma Thurman and David Carradine’s respective careers at the time, much in the fashion that Pulp Fiction saved John Travolta. All in all this film simply isn’t my cup of tea, preferring instead the banter and boisterous exchange between well thought out characters in interesting stories where dialogue is first and action is relegated to its proper place – as un under garment to make the supple more supple and the benign a short guest of passing intentions.” WOW what the hell are you saying 🙂
I like that idea…Most of what is wrong with “Django” is packaging, the stuff we can trace back to Kill Bills and the snowball of seriousness that’s taken out just about everything else
In response to your comparison on my blog:
http://eradica.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/django-dition-liberals-are-the-kind-of-people-that/
… there is no longer a fleeting remnant in Murka of even a trite, Dashboard Jesus devotion. Nor a Chevy mentality.
Which is why a Django can even exist.
To sum up your review, Tarantino is now capable of making only one “type” of product: The Whitesploitation Movie.
He is now a repetitious caricature of the very Holywood emptiness he originally desired to render obsolete..
I could have sworn up and down that I responded to your comment here. Hmmmm. Interesting. I know I have been away but really, August 2013. Now I know something is remiss. At any rate, I’m a big fan of opposing views and personal differences, both in terms of movies and filmmakers – including visitors to my blog. Agreeing to disagree is the foundation upon which any credible and meaningful debate should be founded. That being said, disagreeing without substantial dialogue ends up floating in the ether of unchecked and unlettered aggression and as a great poet and philosopher once said, ‘…this aggression, man, won’t stand…” But seriously, I think you missed something in your line-by-line condemnation — but we’re on the same page. For reasons unbeknownst then or at the time of this responding, you’ve taken the low road to discounting ‘murka’ as you call it when in fact the dashboard religiosity and Chevy station wagon mentality is a direct source of fertilizer for why exploitation without serious consideration is so very dangerous to your cause and all causes fueling the pop culture fiefdom. AND YES, to a greater or lesser degree, Tarantino has been emasculated by his own brazen disregard for the power of his pen to be articulate and sensational without jeopardizing the mass appeal of his products. Obviously this is a charged and lengthy oration on the merits and missteps of an important auteur that requires further thoughts – here or elsewhere. Thanks for visiting, hope you consider returning.
Pingback: » Movie Review – The Grindhouse Features Fernby Films
Pingback: » Movie Review – GI Joe: Retaliation Fernby Films
Pingback: Game of Thrones | Above the Line