Quentin Tarantino's 'Django Unchained'

[Kingofthehill78]

Remember, Candie didn't want to sell any of his fighters. It was only because of the ridiculous price he even considered it. So selling one random slave girl he could care less about for $12,000, is a much better deal than losing one of his prize fighters.

But it was still giving them what they wanted...They were already prepared to give up $12,000 anyways for the plan. It seemed to me that candie was really upset about being deceived . I thought he was going to do something else to upset their plan. Not dive into it.

 

[Biojex]

But it was still giving them what they wanted...They were already prepared to give up $12,000 anyways for the plan. To me I thought candie was upset about being deceived and going to do something else to upset their plan. Not dive into it.

They weren't going to give Candie $12,000. Remember Schultz set up the whole "we'll return in 5 days" con. They were going to buy Hildie for the average slave rate, say they'll be back with the physician/lawyer to examine the mandingo fighter and buy him then. But the con was...they were never going to come back. Once they had Hildie, they'd be gone.

So Candie caught them and made them pay the $12,000 for what they really came for. Which was Hildie. So he got the money he was originally, never going to get

 

[Kingofthehill78]

They weren't going to give Candie $12,000. Remember Schultz set up the whole "we'll return in 5 days" con. They were going to buy Hildie for the average slave rate, say they'll be back with the physician/lawyer to examine the mandingo fighter and buy him then. But the con was...they were never going to come back. Once they had Hildie, they'd be gone.

So Candie caught them and made them pay the $12,000 for what they really came for. Which was Hildie. So he got the money he was originally, never going to get

The money doesnt matter though. He just wanted the wife back. That's what mattered. It could be $20k...They could always get more money. The reason they didn't just outright ask candie for her is because they were afraid that candie wouldn't sell her just for spite. Remember Shultz says that story about how if you need a cow or steer ( I forget what animal) not to ask how much because they will say its not for sale. He says to ask about something else and then later on mention that you could use a cow. So it doesn't put the seller off to selling you it.

 

[Biojex]

I don't think the money matters though. I think he just wanted the wife back. That's what mattered. It could be $20k...They could always get more money. The reason they didn't just outright ask candie for her is because they were afraid that candie wouldn't sell her just for spite.

My point wasn't about the amount of money. I don't know what you refering to in your first two sentences.

And no, because they knew he wouldn't pay them any mind if they just walked up and asked Candie for such a minor sale.

Schultz made this clear during his "horse salesman" speech to Django.

Edit: I see you added more.

I seem to remember the salesman speech was along the lines of, if you offer to buy the horse the farmer wont be interested, but if you offer to buy the farm he would be.

 

[Kingofthehill78]

My point wasn't about the amount of money. I don't know what you refering to in your first two sentences.

And no, because they knew he wouldn't pay them any mind if they just walked up and asked Candie for such a minor sale.

Schultz made this clear during his "horse salesman" speech to Django.

Edit: I see you added more.

I seem to remember the salesman speech was along the lines of, if you offer to buy the horse the farmer wont be interested, but if you offer to buy the farm he would be.

I understand but the point I was making is that candie is upset that they tried to deceive him. So he does exactly what they want. It might have been more money but in the end it's what they wanted. I figured candie would have done something else to teach them a lesson like hurt hilde or refuse to sell her or anything else. Not sell her for a lot of money. He already had a ton of money. I thought him giving them what they wanted was not really revenge.

 

[Biojex]

Though I feel it was more about winning than revenge, I'm sure there was an element of revenge to it. In which case, he DID think he was getting his revenge. He forced them to give him money he was never going to get. He had his superiority complex in high gear which he reinforced by insisting on a handshake.

 

[CelticPredator]

I thought it had a great beginning, an amazing end, but a terribly drawn out, uneven middle. Weird.

 

[Pennyworth]

I enjoyed most everything about this film...wonderfully done.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Here is QT defending exactly this plot point. He's saying that Schultz will never do things the easy way. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/quentin-tarantino-django-unchained_n_2340987.html

As for QT "ripping off" other films... I have a love/hate relationship with QT - he comes off as a pompous jerk a lot of the time, look at his recent "digital is crap" statements. He worked in a video store, never went to college - but makes some of the most brilliant, yet entertaining films ever. I fully expect one day he'll be up there with Kubrick and other directors held in high esteem for their "art."

He fully admits that his films reference other films - they are almost a fictional, narrative criticism of other films and whole genres of films. His movies aren't about gangsters, or WWII guerrilla fighters or cowboys - they are about movies. But he pays homage and deconstructs other films at the same time. And not only deconstructing a genre, but also re-constructing it and making what could be seen as dated, relevant for a current audience.

 

[CriterionCollector]

I get what you're saying, Darklord, but Tarantino will never be in the same league as Kubrick, Scorsese, etc. He's not that talented.
He's a very good filmmaker, but as far as contemporary directors go he's a notch below Fincher and PT Anderson.
The only thing Tarantino has ever made a statement about in his films is that the exploitation films people consider trash have some worth.
As a matter of fact as far a filmmaking is concerned, I'd put him at about the same level as John Waters, since like Waters, Tarantino's movies are as much about himself as they are about the actual film.

 

[Gates70]

I get what you're saying, Darklord, but Tarantino will never be in the same league as Kubrick, Scorsese, etc. He's not that talented.
He's a very good filmmaker, but as far as contemporary directors go he's a notch below Fincher and PT Anderson.
The only thing Tarantino has ever made a statement about in his films is that the exploitation films people consider trash have some worth.
As a matter of fact as far a filmmaking is concerned, I'd put him at about the same level as John Waters, since like Waters, Tarantino's movies are as much about himself as they are about the actual film.

It's all a matter of opinion. I only like one PT Anderson movie that I can remember (Boogie Nights) and I like pretty much all of QT's films give or take one

 

[CriterionCollector]

Of course it's all opinion, but the idea of Tarantino saying anything profound about cinema is giving him a bit too much credit. He does have things to say about film in his movies, but let's be real, he's not the second coming of Jean-Luc Godard.

 

[Gates70]

Of course it's all opinion, but the idea of Tarantino saying anything profound about cinema is giving him a bit too much credit. He does have things to say about film in his movies, but let's be real, he's not the second coming of Jean-Luc Godard.

I don't like QT as a person but I really like his movies. PT Anderson hasn't really done anything to write home about IMO, so I can't even begin to compare the two.

 

[CriterionCollector]

I wouldn't compare PT Anderson and Tarantino save to say that Anderson is light years ahead of Tarantino as a filmmaker IMO.
Anderson can even be cannonized as an "auteur", despite my hesitation to bring up that term. Anderson's films all have a central theme running through them and that's typically the dynamics of a pseudo-family, especially the relationship between father and son(sans Punch-Drunk Love).
Tarantino just makes entertaining movies. The kind my Uncle refers to a "check your brain at the door" movies. Tarantino doesn't really have much to say in his films. They're pure entertainment, which is not to say they don't have any worth.
I would give Tarantino a lot more credit if he was a risk taker, but he doesn't do that. Like when I said Tarantino's films are just as much about him as they are about the movies. He works with a formula that he knows will keep him hip and edgy. Work in some violence, interesting set pieces, great dialogue and he'll get two thumbs up. The only thing that makes him edgy is that he transfers that formula into different genres using his vast knowledge of exploitation cinema and puts his stamp on it for the new generation.
Pulp Fiction=Gangster Film
Jackie Brown=Blaxpolitation
Kill Bill=Martial Arts Exploitation
Inglorious Bastards=WW2 Spaghetti Films
Django Unchained=Spaghetti Westerns
One of my main criticisms is he exploits the idea that most people have never seen a lot of the films he draws from. Your average movie goer doesn't know he took Uma Thurman's yellow jumpsuit from game of death. But he gets away with it because he throws in little hipster wink and nods to those in the know by dropping film references like naming characters Sergio Corbucci.

 

[occulum]

yes thats been Tarantino's formula from the start. And he's always been the first to point it out. ...

 

[Darklord Dave]

I wouldn't compare PT Anderson and Tarantino save to say that Anderson is light years ahead of Tarantino as a filmmaker IMO.
Anderson can even be cannonized as an "auteur", despite my hesitation to bring up that term. Anderson's films all have a central theme running through them and that's typically the dynamics of a pseudo-family, especially the relationship between father and son(sans Punch-Drunk Love).
Tarantino just makes entertaining movies. The kind my Uncle refers to a "check your brain at the door" movies. Tarantino doesn't really have much to say in his films. They're pure entertainment, which is not to say they don't have any worth.
I would give Tarantino a lot more credit if he was a risk taker, but he doesn't do that. Like when I said Tarantino's films are just as much about him as they are about the movies. He works with a formula that he knows will keep him hip and edgy. Work in some violence, interesting set pieces, great dialogue and he'll get two thumbs up. The only thing that makes him edgy is that he transfers that formula into different genres using his vast knowledge of exploitation cinema and puts his stamp on it for the new generation.
Pulp Fiction=Gangster Film
Jackie Brown=Blaxpolitation
Kill Bill=Martial Arts Exploitation
Inglorious Bastards=WW2 Spaghetti Films
Django Unchained=Spaghetti Westerns
One of my main criticisms is he exploits the idea that most people have never seen a lot of the films he draws from. Your average movie goer doesn't know he took Uma Thurman's yellow jumpsuit from game of death. But he gets away with it because he throws in little hipster wink and nods to those in the know by dropping film references like naming characters Sergio Corbucci.

See, you're saying that your opinion is better than someone elses'. I can certainly justify why QT will be thought of as a great artist and those that some might claim are great artists today will diminish over time, such as PT and Wes Anderson. But I'm not going to say that your opinion is wrong because you value those filmmakers over Tarantino.

 

[CriterionCollector]

I'm not saying my opinion is any better than anyone else's. I'm just trying to voice my reasons of why I'm not that fond of him.
The only issue I have with what you wrote is that QT will not be considered an artist greater than PT Anderson. I don't see anything considered artistic in his movies. You're obviously going to have a different opinion on that. I think Tarantino is going to be considered in the vein of Don Siegel and Robert Aldrich, a very good pulp filmmaker. Anderson, at least PT, and Fincher's output will have a bit more lasting impact. I'm not saying that they're going to be Ingmar Bergman, but...

 

[GodzillaSpawn]

I wouldn't compare PT Anderson and Tarantino save to say that Anderson is light years ahead of Tarantino as a filmmaker IMO.
Anderson can even be cannonized as an "auteur", despite my hesitation to bring up that term. Anderson's films all have a central theme running through them and that's typically the dynamics of a pseudo-family, especially the relationship between father and son(sans Punch-Drunk Love).
Tarantino just makes entertaining movies. The kind my Uncle refers to a "check your brain at the door" movies. Tarantino doesn't really have much to say in his films. They're pure entertainment, which is not to say they don't have any worth.
I would give Tarantino a lot more credit if he was a risk taker, but he doesn't do that. Like when I said Tarantino's films are just as much about him as they are about the movies. He works with a formula that he knows will keep him hip and edgy. Work in some violence, interesting set pieces, great dialogue and he'll get two thumbs up. The only thing that makes him edgy is that he transfers that formula into different genres using his vast knowledge of exploitation cinema and puts his stamp on it for the new generation.
Pulp Fiction=Gangster Film
Jackie Brown=Blaxpolitation
Kill Bill=Martial Arts Exploitation
Inglorious Bastards=WW2 Spaghetti Films
Django Unchained=Spaghetti Westerns
One of my main criticisms is he exploits the idea that most people have never seen a lot of the films he draws from. Your average movie goer doesn't know he took Uma Thurman's yellow jumpsuit from game of death. But he gets away with it because he throws in little hipster wink and nods to those in the know by dropping film references like naming characters Sergio Corbucci.

Cant say I agree. Michael Bay is a director who I would say makes films where it's known to leave your brain at the door and, if you can even enjoy it, to simply enjoy just for entertainment purposes. I do believe Tarantino is an artist with his filmmaking. It may not be the most traditional but I think there is plenty to love about his films, but it lies in the details moreso than the Scorsese films (since you named him, which is not a good comparison since the intended styles are so different). I have no issue with him "taking" the yellow jumpsuit from GoD. In fact, I love that he did. And it's even cooler that most of the general public didn't know that, or understood the Shaw Bros. logo in the beginning, or had any clue who Gordon Liu or Sonny Chiba were before-hand. Or that the original Django was in the new one. To me, he makes modern-day, cult films and I love him for that. His films are purposefully over the top, but he succeeds. The action, the characters, the dialogue all have a certain feel around them that is unmistakably purposeful. I think his films have rather strong writing, very creative dialogue, and rewatch value. The way his scenes are shot and the atmosphere of his films are fantastic. He continually chooses the perfect actors and cast members that make all his characters memorable. The musicians he brings in always give his films killer soundtracks. That isn't by accident. He has a particular stye, yes, and in a traditional sense may not be in the league of some, but to me he knows how to make great movies and even everyone in them looks like they are having fun being involved. And it shows. I give the guy alot of credit because he is out to make films fun (yet still be very good critically) rather than the typical, careful and overly cautious Oscar winners.

 

[CelticPredator]

Red Letter Media continues to be right about everything.

https://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-django-unchained-and-2012-re-cap/

 

[Darklord Dave]

Cant say I agree. Michael Bay is a director who I would say makes films where it's known to leave your brain at the door and, if you can even enjoy it, to simply enjoy just for entertainment purposes. I do believe Tarantino is an artist with his filmmaking. It may not be the most traditional but I think there is plenty to love about his films, but it lies in the details moreso than the Scorsese films (since you named him, which is not a good comparison since the intended styles are so different). I have no issue with him "taking" the yellow jumpsuit from GoD. In fact, I love that he did. And it's even cooler that most of the general public didn't know that, or understood the Shaw Bros. logo in the beginning, or had any clue who Gordon Liu or Sonny Chiba were before-hand. Or that the original Django was in the new one. To me, he makes modern-day, cult films and I love him for that. His films are purposefully over the top, but he succeeds. The action, the characters, the dialogue all have a certain feel around them that is unmistakably purposeful. I think his films have rather strong writing, very creative dialogue, and rewatch value. The way his scenes are shot and the atmosphere of his films are fantastic. He continually chooses the perfect actors and cast members that make all his characters memorable. The musicians he brings in always give his films killer soundtracks. That isn't by accident. He has a particular stye, yes, and in a traditional sense may not be in the league of some, but to me he knows how to make great movies and even everyone in them looks like they are having fun being involved. And it shows. I give the guy alot of credit because he is out to make films fun (yet still be very good critically) rather than the typical, careful and overly cautious Oscar winners.

I actually don't think he sets out to make "fun" films like Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer do. I think he's looking to critique film by creating a new narrative by deconstructing old ones. In doing so he makes something greater than even the original works. The referential stuff is there as part of that, but just referencing other films is NOT the be-all-and-end all of what he's doing. That's why I think the comparison to Kubrick is extremely apt - Kubrick was also about deconstructing genres, forcing us to look at them in new ways.