Originally Posted by Pennglock
"His understanding of film is beyond the comprehension of a few elite."
Are you serious with this? Tarantino is a purveyor of b-movies, kung fu flicks and spaghetti westerns. He has turned that mix into some entertaining popcorn movies in the case of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I will also give him credit knowing how to build a scene with tension...
but in movies like Django, Bastards, and Death Proof he's just running amok, indulging all kinds of unfortunate instincts.
What is apparently "good dialogue" to most of you sounds to me like QT having conversations with himself. Or rather, conversations he imagines himself having.
Just as a piece of moviemaking, Django is pretty weak offering. The plot meanders, goes on for a half hour after the climax, and cant really decide who should be the protagonist.
Whatever. I could forgive a dud spaghetti western grindhouse romp. Where QT enters the realm of filth is in using slavery and the Holocaust as backdrops for his revenge fantasies. The stuff he puts in here is beyond camp and the tongue in cheek blaxploitation of the seventies. How many shots of lash scars are in this movie? QT is obviously trying to elicit a real emotional reaction from the audience...
for the purpose of setting up a campy kill crazy rampage. Does that bug anyone else? One of the more terrible injustices of modern history is being used as a lazy plot device standing in for character development so audiences can get a guilt free thrill when the hero massacres the bad guys.
Even that cheap trick wouldnt be so bad, but there is sadistic streak that goes so far over the top here. We have a slave that gets torn apart by dogs, a naked negress taken out of a hot box in a plantations Front Yard, a mandingo fight to the death finished by a hammer to the skull, and Leo's monologue about negro phrenology. Im not even talking about more uses of the n-word than any other film in history. There is whole lot of very uncomfortable nastiness with no other purpose than advancing a revenge yarn.
Django kind of simultaneously opens up old wounds and yet cheapens the tragedy by going so far over the top with the unrealistic villainy.
I guess I really cant figure out what kind of film Django is trying to be. Its too sadistic to be camp, and too campy to be any kind of real provocation. My best guess is that QT genuinely has the conscience of a (possibly psychopathic) 15 year old and this is his sincere commentary.