HOM:

Giving you something to read on the toilet since 2009.

"The mistake lies in seeing debate and discussion as secondary to the recovery of meaning. Rather, we should see them as primary: art and literature do not exist to be understood or appreciated, but to be discussed and argued over, to function as a focus for social dialogue. The discourse of literary or art criticism is not to recover meaning, but to create and contest it. Our primal scene should not be the solitary figure in the dark of the cinema but the group of friends arguing afterwards in the pub."
-Don Fowler (1996) "Even Better Than The Real Thing"

Friday, February 1, 2013

Django - Nell

If you ever needed proof that Quentin Tarantino can put on a show (or that he can’t really act), Django Unchained is it. ‘Intense’ doesn’t come close. It’s less a movie, and more like entering the circus for three hours (not helped by the fact it was so hot in the cinema it resembled the temperature of a circus tent at the end of a very long week). Visually arresting, loud, brash, emotionally draining – Django Unchained is an assault on the senses. A depiction of an abhorrent moment in history, and a comedy. Who else but Tarantino?

I think it’s probably fair to say that most fans won’t be disappointed. This is 70% spaghetti western, 15% history lesson, 10% comic book, 5% hip hop. Exactly. However, it is also a movie, and a subject matter, that has been given the Hollywood treatment. Which means there are no great surprises (actually I am struggling to recall any), the pressure never lets up, and it is very glossy (OK so they gave some very pretty actors bad teeth but I think a historian might have something to say about almost everything else). And of course, it has caused plenty of controversy.

If anyone else were to attempt a film about slavery it would be a serious drama. Painful, gritty, challenging, probably unwatchable. Although Tarantino doesn’t shy away from some of the realities of the subject matter, and there are some truly gruesome scenes which I won’t ever forget, there is a certain detachment from the true pain of it – a Tarantino sheen - and consequently the really hard questions aren’t ever quite asked. As you would expect there’s a lot of violence, but it barely touches on the emotional or psychological trauma. Perhaps this is because the world in which Django’s story takes place is hugely stylised, and that exaggeration removes the final bite of reality.

As a piece of film making this movie is immense in almost every imaginable sense. The characters border on caricatures – for example Leo plays ‘Monsieur Candie’ the proprietor of Candyland, complete with eccentric outfit, long cigarette and a mad glint in his eye – it’s almost the evil Mad Hatter. All the leads pull it off – Christoph Waltz in particular stood out for me – and the exaggerated characterisation fits the style of the film. However, their two dimensional depiction means you never achieve a real engagement with them, you don’t get inside their heads. The most affecting and memorable moments are the horrible acts of violence against minor characters and not our heroes story. Consequently the brutal world which they inhabit is always kept at arms’ length, and the unbearable is made watchable. To me, that rings a little of cheating.

The soundtrack is huge. It’s in your face, overbearing and very entertaining - a mash up of traditional Western riffs and a bit of hip hop (used cleverly at times – unless I’m reading too deep, it acknowledges social changes and contemporary cultural interpretations which are not spoken in the script). The production design is also remarkable - the sheer intensity of colour throughout is impressive and I think I can remember every costume, when does that happen? This all adds enormously to the sense of drama and recalling the film now (at 3am and maybe 10 hours and several glasses of wine after I saw it), it feels like stepping back into the madhouse. That’s not the wine talking - this film is just so....BIG. And I can’t remember the cinema feeling like that for some time.

That isn’t to say there isn’t a serious side to the movie and some of the best moments for me are when Tarantino challenges the audience; using the characters to lead you to a point where you suddenly realise you are uncomfortable; making you question what it’s OK to laugh at; pointing out the indelible footprint of this era on contemporary America...He is also adept at making characters that endorse the status quo appear crushingly stupid, so blinded by their meaningless positions of power, almost deranged in their condoning of slavery - although at times that makes them comical, which again (inappropriately?) lifts the mood on a very, very heavy subject matter. Perhaps one of the most interesting questions he asks of us is in the role played by a barely recognisable Samuel L. Jackson, I don’t want to give away too much, but his part in Django’s story touches on some challenging, and timeless, human characteristics. Ultimately though, these issues are acknowledged and not addressed - but then the spaghetti western is hardly known for its delicacy in dealing with debates on human rights, the shadow of history or the brutal truth of human nature...

I want to say that I really loved this film, and on one level I did. As a piece of film making I think it is pretty incredible – the cast are brilliant, the direction is spot on, it’s genuinely laugh out loud funny, it is truly an ‘experience’. Whether this is an acceptable way in which to make a film about slavery, well, that’s an entirely different question - one which is sparking a lot of debate – and as the power of the cinema experience fades it seems there are elements that I am increasingly uneasy with. One thing I would say is that I think Quentin Tarantino may be the only director out there who could have got away with it.
 

No comments:

Post a Comment