DJANGO UNCHAINED - Anamorphic is Tarantino's preference - how DP Robert Richardson shot masterpiece 'spaghetti southern'

[markm]

Did you just make this up or are you so misinformed and brainwashed that you actually believe this? Either way, I don't think this is the right forum for your extremist ideas.

Also, Tarantino is spelled with only one R.

 

No I'm not making anything up. Why do you think I am brainwashed?  You've totally lost me?  Why do you think I am stating ideas and what ideas are they?

 

You're posts dont make any sense. Maybe its a cultural thing. Perhaps youd be better sticking to American politics.

 

Spelling mistakes?

[markm]

JG

You obviously have your own political beliefs and I have mine so  lets agree to disagree on the EU.

 

AXEL

You are not understanding what I am saying about gay marriage or much else for that matter. So our conversations are more talking at each other than proper debate.

 

So I will say adieu and goodbye to you comrades.

[Andrew Reid]

Do you realise how good value the British passport is? All these beautiful countries on our doorstep and the EU giving us free travel without a visa. The European Union also saves us a fortune in import tax when buying from within Europe and importing to the UK. Sure there are downsides. What relationship doesn't have those? But if right wing politicians had their way I'd not be living in Berlin that's for sure. UKIP is really just the same old xenophobia with a fancy 'independence' dress on.

 

Happy for political discussions but the anti-EU rant has nothing to do with the thread topic and the violence debate so no more please.

[markm]

Andrew

 

UKIP WANT TO keep the EU as a trade organisation. The UK pays far more in than it gets out. Indeed if the UK said it was leaving the EU would still trade with us and in fact it might put a stop to their dictatorship plans and leave us all with a nice trade organisation.

 

Right thats it goodnight.

[Bruno]

You're posts dont make any sense. Maybe its a cultural thing. Perhaps youd be better sticking to American politics.

I am European,I've lived in 4 different countries so far, including the UK and the US. In this post I've spoke against the conservative storytelling of mainstream American cinema, which you seem to like so much, so yeah, you're either the only person who's right in this entire discussion, since no one else seems to agree with you, or you're the one not making any sense.

[Andrew Reid]

Full screenplay for Django Unchained http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf

[Germy1979]

Well.. This thread took a 180. Lol..

Probably one of the funniest scenes ever.

"- & he's gonna come out here with that ball bat a' his.. & he's gonna beat-your-ass ta death with it."

As a kid who's favorite movie of all time at 7 years old was Die Hard, i had no desire to go out into the world guns blazin'. I can't pin point when things got to the point they are now, but i don't remember mass shootings at the level they've reached these days. Or violence that just astounds your ass.. I'm sure there was violence, but the drugs had to be worse in the 60's. they were isolated it seems to serial killers.

I see a lot of kids with too much time on their hands. They stay in the house, and don't take care of themselves.. Don't have to work No parents around, because it cost so much just to live, both parents have to work just to get by. There's no seed planted to take responsibility for themselves and the doctors are throwing depression pills out like candy to bypass it.

Cinema becomes a catalyst for stuff like this when it becomes a by-product of far too much easy way out.

[Sean Cunningham]

oooh very nicely said VFX.  I knew you had it in you describing real world hypocrisy.  So next time don't get all conservative about a mere word such as ''Nigga'' when you know the context at hand, especially considering the fact that you live in Austin, Texas - the ''Dirty South'' where THE WORD is beyond flexible with today's generation both black and caucasian in everyday use.  

 

Emphasizing the word explicitly written as ''Nigger'' such as in Tarantino's films has its own justifications huh?  Both from a comedic and academic understanding?

 

You are a friggin' idiot.  I wasn't getting conservative, something I'm not. That's just an ignorant assumption based on where I live (or I should say, the State, because I live in a liberal, media conscious city that actually plays an important role in world music and film, unlike yourself).  My reaction was based on common sense.  Time and place.  I'd expect even a child to understand that, propagandist.

[markm]

Full screenplay for Django Unchained http://twcguilds.com/assets/screenplay/django/screenplay.pdf

Andrew read the screenplay today all 170 plus pages. Lots of fancy pants writing.  He paints the entire white race except one sad fat person (Scottie) and Dr Schultz (German) as ignorant and evil and the black race as human. If this was reversed there is no doubt the film would be banned. This reinforces a growing prevelant idea white midlle aged western men are racist ultra right wing that can and should be killed off.

Yes we know slavery existed and we know there were some awful people but I think some balance. Under what pretext does he get away with using the N word so frequently? Because if he is trying to send a message to the world or to make a statement then this is plain wrong on so many levels.

 

As a story I would say this is his best to date with a straight narrative that has a few good moments. However its to long and has moments of long dialogue that go on and on. It doesn't really go anywhere fast. So a little boring until the action sequences  that have some nice plot points.

 

I like the idea of bringing back spaghetti westerns with todays film making knowledge But I would prefer to see someone like Spielberg handle such sensitive material as this and not have it sensationalised in the tarantino manner. By all means have a spaghetti western style but for this subject matter balance is crucial unless of course you dont care who you hurt or at what cost.

 

NEW EDIT Because I felt I needed to add a little more Remember guys this is just my opinion.

 

Tarantino may have won an oscar for his writing But in my opinion the film was two stories in one. First was the Bennets plantation which has a beginning middle and end then onto the Candie plantation at around page 50 That tells a similar story all over again. He should really have picked on or the other and gone with that. The dialogue is well overwritten and its easy to see how this would attract actors who want to see their face onscreen for long periods of time. In order to do this he has tried to immitate shakespeare as a modern contemporary. He is NOT. To me this is entirely for the actors benefit I believe many violence thrill seekers would be put off if it was shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote words for the stage and to set the scene obviously different arenas for a start. Shakespeare uses words that convey inner thoughts and not throwaway putdowns and clever repeats and plants.

Why Tarantino won an oscar for his writing and not his film making which is cutting edge even if it just plays to those who love violence Sadism torture set in a way they can justify and excuse their love of it.

[Andrew Reid]

Man... this guy.

 

That 'fancy pants writing' won an Oscar.

 

So what if most of the white people in the film are racist. That's the story. It's his creative license to do it this way.

 

Regardless, the issue of slavery is impossible to deal with without showing the brutality white people carried out in the name of business. You'd be ignoring a whole chunk of history if you DIDN'T show it.

 

What you're forgetting is that Samuel L Jackson's character in this is a black guy, who happens to be one of the worst racists in it!!

 

The biggest supporting role in the film, if not the lead role, is Dr Schultz - a white guy - and his character is an icon of fairness and principals.

 

The wrongdoing of the racist characters in this film ACTUALLY HAPPENED in history. It isn't painting 'the entire white race' as ignorant and evil at all, because the 'entire white race' didn't run the slave trade. A very small sub-section of it did. Seems you don't understand that!? Read a history text book and you'll read far more extreme race wars than Tarantino depicts here.

 

It is a massive and powerful statement this film makes against racism.

 

And don't forget that slavery isn't just about race - it's a class war waged by the rich on the poor and it still happens today.

[Julian]

Regardless, the issue of slavery is impossible to deal with without showing the brutality white people carried out in the name of business. You'd be ignoring a whole chunk of history if you DIDN'T show it.

 

What you're forgetting is that Samuel L Jackson's character in this is a black guy, who happens to be one of the worst racists in it!

 

Both these things I really liked about the movie. Of course I knew about slavery, but I have never seen it depicted in such a confronting way. It was gruesome to see at some points (and no, i'm not talking about gore).

 

Tarantino's way of presenting it in a form of 'entertainment' is perfect in my opinion. It made it bearable to watch, it made it appeal to a big public.

 

I left the theatre with mixed feelings. Not about Tarantino, the violence, or the movie. I love the movie. I couldn't care less for this whole debate about violence. But watching this specific piece of history made me feel a bit uncomfortable.

 

It did that even though the movie is spectacular, very funny at points and over the top most of the time (like Tarantino's movies are supposed to be). And that's exactly what I applaud.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes it made me feel a bit uncomfortable too, realising that a good part of our advanced western civilisation is built on suffering and human sacrifice.

 

I felt the film was holding up a bit of a mirror to the audience. I didn't feel guilty for the slave trade but I felt guilty having been born into a privileged country and a privileged society relative to the people who had to suffer to build such a thing in the first place.

 

We're still abusing the poor today in order to get our iPhones made cheaper.

 

This kind of shit never ends.

 

Django really brings that home to roost. Whilst the upper class imperialists in the film are chinking the Chinaware and having a jolly good old time, the slaves are out in the fields dying and suffering so that the English can put sugar in their tea back home.

That's history.

 

If anything Tarantino's portrayal of history is 100% HONEST. Brutally honest. That is why I liked it.

[Julian]

Good point on the reference to the present. It just doesn't make us feel that uncomfortable now because it's so far away from us. In 100 years the next Tarantino can make a film about this day of age and make people feel the same like we do now... It never ends indeed.

[Leang]

You are a friggin' idiot.  I wasn't getting conservative, something I'm not. That's just an ignorant assumption based on where I live (or I should say, the State, because I live in a liberal, media conscious city that actually plays an important role in world music and film, unlike yourself).  My reaction was based on common sense.  Time and place.  I'd expect even a child to understand that, propagandist.

 

Why don't you try talking about the actual topic.

[markm]

made me feel a bit uncomfortable too, realising that a good part of our advanced western civilisation is built on suffering and human sacrifice.

 

I felt the film was holding up a bit of a mirror to the audience. I didn't feel guilty for the slave trade but I felt guilty having been born into a privileged country and a privileged society relative to the people who had to suffer to build such a thing in the first place.

 

We're still abusing the poor today in order to get our iPhones made cheaper.

 

This kind of shit never ends.

 

Django really brings that home to roost. Whilst the upper class imperialists in the film are chinking the Chinaware and having a jolly good old time, the slaves are out in the fields dying and suffering so that the English can put sugar in their tea back home.

That's history.

 

If anything Tarantino's portrayal of history is 100% HONEST. Brutally honest. That is why I liked it.

 

This is exactly what I mean and why films about this time should be handled with care. It's Historically innacurate.

 

For example Mandingo fighting never actually happened. But you think it was 100% accurate.

 

Hear what Tarantino has to say himself from about 4mins 30 on.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFh-EssMC1M

 

 

There is nothing factually correct about Django unchained. It's a commercial vehicle for Tarantino.

 

Taken from Wikeapedia

Wilberforce and his team were rewarded with victory. By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the Atlantic slave trade was carried in the House of Commons.^[5] The debate lasted ten hours and the House voted in favour of the Bill. The Bill received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807

 Britain continued to press other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties: the 1810 Anglo-Portuguese treaty whereby Portugal agreed to restrict its trade into its colonies; the 1813 Anglo-Swedish treaty whereby Sweden outlawed its slave trade; the 1814 Treaty of Paris 1814 whereby France agreed with Britain that the slave trade was "repugnant to the principles of natural justice" and agreed to abolish the slave trade in five years; the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty whereby the Netherlands outlawed its slave trade; and the 1817 Anglo-Spanish treaty that Spain agreed to suppress its trade by 1820.

 

 By 1783, an anti-slavery movement to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire had begun among the British public.

In 1808, after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, the Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely. It is possible that, when slave ships were in danger of being captured by the Royal Navy, some captains may have ordered the slaves to be thrown into the sea to reduce the fines they had to pay. Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.^[5][6]

Notwithstanding what had been done to suppress the trade, further measures were soon discovered to be necessary, and in 1823, the Anti-Slavery Society was founded. Members included Joseph Sturge, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce, Henry Brougham, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight.^[7]

During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica known as the Baptist War broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by Baptist minister Samuel Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831 rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833.

A successor organisation to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed in London in 1839, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries. Its official name was the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.^[8] The world's oldest international human rights organisation, it continues today as Anti-Slavery International.^[9]

[markm]

I'm not saying the British were all good and the Americans were all bad What I'm saying is historically and factually Tarantino's version of events are unbalanced. Not only does he lead us to believe its a good reminder of what happened He also thows in extreme violence to cement the rotten evilness he is happy to let many believe as factual..

[Axel]

Yes we know slavery existed and we know there were some awful people but I think some balance.

 

Tax-financed TV stations - as they still exist in my country - are required by law to fulfill an educational mission. To control their independence (which sounds self-contradictory in a way) the content is supervised by a commitee of agents from political parties, the churches, the labor unions, whatever. The term for what they guarantee is 'balance'. 

 

Now, I am all for balance, but not so within i.e. one documentary feature. Why? Because bringing every statement to the level of common sense is against plurality of thoughts, of opinions, of weltanschauung. That's exactly what happens in the EU, a big leveling of ideas,

egalitarianism instead of freedom.

 

Nonetheless I do find the public TV better than private TV, much better.

 

But cinema doesn't work that way. 

 

I like the idea of bringing back spaghetti westerns with todays film making knowledge But I would prefer to see someone like Spielberg handle such sensitive material as this and not have it sensationalised in the tarantino manner.

 

I am not against The Color Purple or Amistad. But I wouldn't like to see all controversial material, sensitive as it always is, turned into mainstream Hollywood movies. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n26iGdm354I

[Andrew Reid]

I'm not saying the British were all good and the Americans were all bad What I'm saying is historically and factually Tarantino's version of events are unbalanced. Not only does he lead us to believe its a good reminder of what happened He also thows in extreme violence to cement the rotten evilness he is happy to let many believe as factual..

 

Again... It's his creative license.

 

Vampires don't exist Mark but you're making a Vampire film!

 

It is what makes us filmmakers... creating our own stories. Why chastise Tarantino for doing the same?

[Xiong]

This is so stupid. Let the man make his films, this is not the place to talk about the primal evils of human society. Why push so hard, what do you achieve? Nothing but self ego boosting on a forum. Sure, let it be your pedestal to set up a soup box on your views on society, but these things are subjective and varies person to person. Im not going to say your wrong Mark, but not allowing an artist to paint his canvas to what he see's fit is wrong. Tarantino's been run through the mud and put up as a poster boy that I think he's just had enough of it. Wouldn't you? I dont even think Tarantino's very violent, but it impacts so much because of how he uses it, like a great directer should. A great example of this is the ear scene from Reservoir Dogs, it doesnt show the actual act of the cut, but not showing it amplifies our own imaginations of what happens. The way Mr. Blonde dance so carelessly and and gleefully adding the way to victim squirms makes us as the viewer feel very uncomfortable, I'd say that says alot about us.

 

But the million dollar question is: Why push so hard? Do you feel vilified for your opinions by the community? If so I am sorry, and im sure the rest of us dont want to imply that. Lets just agree to disagree, I think thats fair. Best way when arguing over the internet, alot less stress and head aches ;)

[markm]

Again... It's his creative license.

 

Vampires don't exist Mark but you're making a Vampire film!

 

It is what makes us filmmakers... creating our own stories. Why chastise Tarantino for doing the same?

You answered your own question when you said

If anything Tarantino's portrayal of history is 100% HONEST. Brutally honest. That is why I liked it.

The wrongdoing of the racist characters in this film ACTUALLY HAPPENED in history.

I felt the film was holding up a bit of a mirror to the audience.

 

If you think that then what do the many cultures around the world think of it.

 

Artistic licence also comes with Artistic integrety Responsibilty.

 

If its a fictional film FINE leave out very senstive history still in the minds of many today and one that seemingly pretends to hold a mirror up to a race.

Look lets be honest here. The film uses slavery as a way to hide behind and justify a love of violence for violence sake.

Many love violence IE Wrestling boxing. If there was a fight round the back at school. If there is a car crash everyone cranes there neck to have a close look.

We ALL have a violent side. How we deal with that is what makes us better or worse human beings. Many of us are great copiers and let others teach us and there can be no doubt films and TV do this. Why on earth people say there is no link between screen violence and real violence is beyond me. Of course there bloody well is that is so obvious. But then we are violent if we dont learn it there we learn it from somewhere else. Or some will seek it out.

it's not right or fair to blame film and TV for violence nasty behaviour However Film and TV can give out some wonderful guide book on how thugs can behave or weapons like a clockwork orange and baseball bats.The craze with chinese death stars and Nunchakus. Its been a great source of inspiration to many criminal types.

Since Gladiator and the use of dogs every thug has cottoned onto this and now the streets are full of illegal pitbull crossbreeds that many 20 something gang members use as protection or a weapon or even to fight. Thats not to say films are wrong to do this as people copy ideas but it does highlight the fact films do influence society.

 

I believe film can be an outlet for violence Football is really just two sides fighting. Thats why supporters get so carried away.

In the past Heroes have been strong virtuous brave. But in recent times in order to bring something new to the table there has been a lot of scraping the bottom of the barrel.The twisting of good and bad and a redefining of morals.

Its about giving people a new experience to make money at the box office. New ideas and a way to justify there own tendencies. But at what cost. In the you can have it all society we now have some want all the greedy selfish lazy nasty arrogant parts of themselves to be accepted. Tarantino plays to that.

The truth is this was no reflection of us and no bearing on historical accuracy. Plenty of dialogue rich lines for actors to showboat and get screen time of course this is done to attract actors. Indeed Django unchained epitomises the you can have it all society from the ground up.

 

Some people think this is groundbreaking Masterful without realising its irresponsible violence that adds to a bankrupt decaying society throwing morals and right and wrong away in. This so called progression will come back and bite us all VERY HARD.

 

Poor old Tarantino has been put under a lot of pressure for his work and I'm sure he is just trying to do his best. However I don't think even he is aware of how and why he should think about what he writes. After all it wouldnt take much for him to add a moral template and carry on. We all have to learn and it really surprises me at just how stupid and easily fooled people really are.