Django Unchained - A Tribute To Christoph Waltz

Maybe it’s just me, but the Django movie did come across as a bit of a ‘favouritismo’ towards Cristoph Waltz. Yes, a director has his favourites, but to weave a whole movie around him – needs something really special. It is true that Bergman might not have made the Wild Strawberries, if not for Victor Sjöström; drawing a comparison here – could Inglorious Basterds pack the punch it did without the Nazi charlatan Clolonel Hans Landa? And would Django really be possible without the straight talking, manipulator Schultz? Even the Academy (which I’m not a big fan of) awarded him an Oscar for his role in Django, maybe as an aftermath of Inglourious Basterds, but if anyone deserved it, it was him. Django was supposedly the main character in the movie (which was also named after him, maybe to argue for the fact that it was not Christoph who was lead), but it was Dr. Schultz who was the mainstay, he almost made Django look like a sidekick, which he was in the first half of the movie, before coming of his own. Moving on to the movie, what can I say about the stupid, ignorant, white man bashing – only and only Tarantino is capable of such comical bloodshed, pleasing to the eyes, yet gory. There’s something quite biblical in the way his action shots pan out, they stay with you, years after you’ve watched the movie. Certainly, Quentin Tarantino has been a virtuoso in the genre of the much neglected and snubbed B-grade Hollywood movies which rely on catchy and hard hitting dialogues and revolve around movie making styles taken from all around the world, from Asian martial arts to western hotdog wars and bi polar gang wars. A true postmodern director, he is.

Django Unchained doesn’t need a re-screening (it runs for a whooping 165 minutes) to get the fact straight. It is totally and unabashedly digressive to the American white race who had been for years on end patronizing the slave trade. It will hit them hard who still garner affection for the age of slavery and have a persisting racial mentality. Tarantino’s flamboyance in handling the story makes it pleasant in spite of the abundant bloodshed and gore and free flow of crude language. It is comical and ferociously brutal along with other movies under Tarantino’s belt like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Inglourious Bastards, but has a hint of ethical seriousness, unlike the rest, it questions outright – the morality of the racist white man. Coming back to Cristoph Waltz, his Oscar winning role consists of a charming, big hearted bounty hunter, who obviously hates the slave trade and when he meets Django, becomes his ally and mentor. Django is played ably by Jamie Foxx, who becomes the bounty hunter’s sidekick and partner. The hero’s first appearance ironically is one where he’s bound in chains being flocked through a night forest by two white men, this is where Schultz, that is Cristoph Waltz’s character rescues him on the pretext that he has important information about three fugitives he is looking for. Over time as the movie progresses the role of a white gunslinger and a black sidekick of the 50s is reversed as the storyline shifts from the bounty work to search for Broomhilda, Django’s object of love who was whipped and sold when she and Django tried to run away from their plantation. Django and Schultz’s search for her and the other fugitives leads them to Candyland, a Mississippi estate whose owner is Calvin Candie played brilliantly by Leonardo Di Caprio, whose almost indecent flair gives a whole new perception to the arrogant white American. He is assisted in the daily affairs of the estate by an uncle Tom named Stephen, played by Samuel L. Jackson – whose servility has gradually mutated into monsterity. 

The plot is by Tarantino’s standards weaker and linear. It lacks the fast pace of a Pulp Fiction but yet manages to hold on to the imagination of the audience. There are two things that aid this fact – one,  the fascinating evolution in the personality of the slave called Django, and two, whenever Schultz gets ready to pitch another of his straight talks, you just sit tight and listen. In the end, the whole mockery, bloodshed and (anti) fundamentalism boils down to the story of good pitted against a stronger evil and his ultimate victory. Although the movie cannot surpass the quality of say, a Reservoir Dogs, when put in the same frame, but it is arguably more radical and loud in its approach.

Waltz and Tarantino is one of those dream pairings critics fifty years down the line will be talking about!

And here goes...

There are two kinds of people on earth. One – who watch cinema to get away from reality, and two- who watch cinema to get a hold of reality. To be honest, it does not matter which group you belong to, because in the end all of us have one thing in common – we, each one of us, have some time in our life, been inspired by a cinema. And that cinema goes to a great extent in defining us. Yes, the capitalists have taken over and the world of Hollywood and main-lined cinema is devouring all other alternate outbursts, but I am a believer. I believe Cinema is a medium, an art that cannot be commercialized and industrialized to the full extent. The same technological hierarchy that is bringing everything under one roof – is also providing us with cheaper platforms (social media) and also cheaper equipment to shoot and produce films. Previously cinema needed the backing of rich production houses, which was the case especially in countries like India and America, but now things are different and the new age avant-gardes’ are looking upbeat. I can vaguely judge what the postmodern situation looks like, or will look like in the near future, but there is certainly a resurgence of sorts. Especially with directors like the Coen Brothers, David Lynch, our very own Mr. Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Danny Boyle, etc. (notice how it’s all Hollywood) ruling the roost. Apart from this outbreak of postmodernists in Hollywood there are other directors all over the world who have taken the baton from the Godards, Truffauts, Antonionis and Bunuels.

Another noticeable element in the world of cinema is how slowly and quietly the order is rapidly changing – from the European and American auteurs showing the way in the 1930s - 1990s, the onus has come on the Asian giants to take the medium forward. Cinema produced in Iran, Turkey, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, etc. are evolving into something never seen before. There can be various reasons for this phenomenon – ranging from social struggle (which is almost non-existent now in the greater European countries) to political turmoil. Countries in the middle-east and some in Asia are yet to see the honest form of democracy, equality and liberty. It is in this scenario that I would like to use my very little knowledge of cinema to analyse and debate issues pertaining to an art that is as old as life itself.     

Note: Don’t mind my overuse and re-use of the word ‘cinema’, the thing is, I’m a bit old-school and other words for cinema like movie, film, etc. do not even vaguely go to the extent of defining the medium that is cinema. It is a world in itself.

Another thing I’d like to bring to your notice is that this is my personal blog, and if you get offended, which you will by all means, I beg your pardon. I’m a bit of an egocentric, narcissist, bad mouth you see. On your part, do not hold back, you are free to shower your choicest blessings. I have a thing for debates.

And oh, welcome to my blog, folks.