Oscarwatch: Django Unchained
Jan. 11th, 2013 09:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apocalypsosAll right, I'm going to divvy this up into pros and cons.
The good:
1. The one thing that Tarantino does very reliably is extract incredible performances from his actors. The acting in "Django Unchained" is wonderful all around. It's both understandable why Christoph Waltz was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and a bit of a shock that Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson weren't nominated as well. (Then again, that would have done a number on the Best Supporting Actor category, and I think the votes would have canceled each other out.) I'm not sure that Jamie Foxx would have had a chance in the Best Actor category, as I think the supporting actors do just a smidge better (and the Best Actor nominees I've seen so far did a bit better), but I really wish he would have been nominated. He earned one, and even if he hadn't won he did great work.
2. Solely as an action movie (in other words, slavery aside), it's very well done indeed. Tarantino's style is one that I'm wishy-washy on, because I feel like when it's done well, it's brilliant, but it takes a deft hand and an editing eye and Tarantino has gotten to the point in his career where both have been really tarnished by his ego. If he can get it in check, I really do think that he'll win that Best Film Oscar he wants so much. Stylistically, he's asking for one.
THAT SAID. He needs to keep it in check, and he's losing touch with it, so.
3. If the blood splashes had been in any other movie, I would have found them hilarious.
4. Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington have amazing chemistry and I really need more movies where they're husband and wife.
The bad:
1. I need Tarantino to step away from the controversial historical subjects. I liked "Inglourious Basterds" even though I had a few moments where I would have preferred different directing choices. But if it were just that the movie were uncomfortable, it would be one thing. It focuses on slavery. It's going to be uncomfortable any way you watch it. But there's a sense of whimsy to the storytelling that's more than the usual amount of uncomfortable for a movie about slavery. The blood splashes and the song choices and some of the camera angles ... it would be really cool if it were a typical action story. It's not. It's a story heavily dependent of slavery, and as such it gives the movie a sense of humor that jarred me right of the story at times.
What I would love is for Tarantino to go back to modern crime movies, as I think that's how he's going to get his Best Picture Oscar, but I doubt he'd want to hear it.
2. Relatedly, after over two hours of characters saying the N-word over and over and OVER again, it started to lose its strength to my ears. It should never be said so often that I just stop wincing every time I hear it.
Somewhere in the middle of the movie, I wondered if Tarantino specifically chose to do a movie focused on slavery just so his characters could drop the N-word so very many times. That the thought even occurred to me disgusts me and pissed me off. Creative license is one thing, but when part of your creative license means dropping the N-word even MORE than people back then could have realistically done so (seriously, there were other words black people were called other than the N-word over and over again), that just ... I can't.
3. Someone get him an editor. A *real* editor. One who will stand up to him and say, "No, you can't have this needless anecdote from this supporting character, or this too-long scene of side characters giving uncomfortable KKK-related comic relief."
4. Also, Jesus, someone make him STOP ACTING.
The good:
1. The one thing that Tarantino does very reliably is extract incredible performances from his actors. The acting in "Django Unchained" is wonderful all around. It's both understandable why Christoph Waltz was nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and a bit of a shock that Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson weren't nominated as well. (Then again, that would have done a number on the Best Supporting Actor category, and I think the votes would have canceled each other out.) I'm not sure that Jamie Foxx would have had a chance in the Best Actor category, as I think the supporting actors do just a smidge better (and the Best Actor nominees I've seen so far did a bit better), but I really wish he would have been nominated. He earned one, and even if he hadn't won he did great work.
2. Solely as an action movie (in other words, slavery aside), it's very well done indeed. Tarantino's style is one that I'm wishy-washy on, because I feel like when it's done well, it's brilliant, but it takes a deft hand and an editing eye and Tarantino has gotten to the point in his career where both have been really tarnished by his ego. If he can get it in check, I really do think that he'll win that Best Film Oscar he wants so much. Stylistically, he's asking for one.
THAT SAID. He needs to keep it in check, and he's losing touch with it, so.
3. If the blood splashes had been in any other movie, I would have found them hilarious.
4. Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington have amazing chemistry and I really need more movies where they're husband and wife.
The bad:
1. I need Tarantino to step away from the controversial historical subjects. I liked "Inglourious Basterds" even though I had a few moments where I would have preferred different directing choices. But if it were just that the movie were uncomfortable, it would be one thing. It focuses on slavery. It's going to be uncomfortable any way you watch it. But there's a sense of whimsy to the storytelling that's more than the usual amount of uncomfortable for a movie about slavery. The blood splashes and the song choices and some of the camera angles ... it would be really cool if it were a typical action story. It's not. It's a story heavily dependent of slavery, and as such it gives the movie a sense of humor that jarred me right of the story at times.
What I would love is for Tarantino to go back to modern crime movies, as I think that's how he's going to get his Best Picture Oscar, but I doubt he'd want to hear it.
2. Relatedly, after over two hours of characters saying the N-word over and over and OVER again, it started to lose its strength to my ears. It should never be said so often that I just stop wincing every time I hear it.
Somewhere in the middle of the movie, I wondered if Tarantino specifically chose to do a movie focused on slavery just so his characters could drop the N-word so very many times. That the thought even occurred to me disgusts me and pissed me off. Creative license is one thing, but when part of your creative license means dropping the N-word even MORE than people back then could have realistically done so (seriously, there were other words black people were called other than the N-word over and over again), that just ... I can't.
3. Someone get him an editor. A *real* editor. One who will stand up to him and say, "No, you can't have this needless anecdote from this supporting character, or this too-long scene of side characters giving uncomfortable KKK-related comic relief."
4. Also, Jesus, someone make him STOP ACTING.
