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

[markm]

Andrew

 

Yes I am making a Vampire film that has some really nasty bad guys and extreme violence.

 

But it is a film about good and evil that doesn't blur the lines of right and wrong and it doesnt deal with emotionally morally charged historical events and twist them into something new. If you hold a mirror up you will doubtless see nothing.

[Axel]

Andrew

 

Yes I am making a Vampire film that has some really nasty bad guys and extreme violence.

 

But it is a film about good and evil that doesn't blur the lines of right and wrong and it doesnt deal with emotionally morally charged historical events and twist them into something new. If you hold a mirror up you will doubtless see nothing.

 

The last line was witty.

 

You remember the witches' lines of Shakespeares Macbeth? Fair is foul, and foul is fair ...

 

We are a violent species, there is no doubt about that. Culture taught us to sublimate our aggressive impulses so that we don't kill each other permanently and society becomes civilzed. Violence is no invention of art. It's hereditary, it's our nature. 

 

What if Spielberg directed all films that contained violence? Surely every fascination for this dark side within us would be perfectly neutralized (in the films, not in our souls). And the amok running maniacs, the psychopathic rapists, the murderous thieves for drug money or the mafia killers, bereft of the wrong role models, would stop their wrongdoing?

 

No more terrorism, no more war against people, no more holocausts, no more 'racial' oppression ('race' actually always belongs between quotation marks, because scientifically human races don't exist)?

 

But vampire movies need to be stopped as well. Why? Because they feed this fascination for the 'evil' in us. Unnecessarily. Wrong. 

 

And a lot of other genres would need serious script supervision. To an extent, I believe, that would make cinema completely unattractive. Cinema is about light and shadow. It's about the lights that go down, sitting in the darkness, deliver yourself to a kind of giant dream. Now, as we all learned, dreams are not free of censorship, but their mark is the power of subversion. They tell a truth that is beyond our civilized self. And if they don't, they lie.

[Bruno]

But it is a film about good and evil that doesn't blur the lines of right and wrong and it doesnt deal with emotionally morally charged historical events and twist them into something new.

Well maybe it should!!!

[markm]

Well maybe it should!!!

 

Axel, Bruno

 

Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

[Axel]

Axel, Bruno

 

Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

 

What he did instead:

 

He put a not-so-young black woman in the role of the heiress (Jackie Brown), quite a statement.

He shows violence against women, but he regularly gives them very interesting characters, he is almost kind of a feminist.

He reactivates actors, who get a chance to begin their careers anew (Travolta, Jackson in Pulp Fiction), showing that the coolness of their former image was a fake.

He is cynical in that sense of the word: He doesn't take bullshit. He writes long dialogues in which our common bullshit is remorselessly analyzed. Very often bullshitty films (on the 'right' and safe side) are the targets of his bullets.

He makes a black slave a western hero. Unheard of. When Amistad ran, my fellow projectionist, who is good at imitating voices, dubbed Anthony Hopkins' heroic speech (through the projection window, you can't hear the film). It was very funny. Later we saw the film with sound. We laughed even more (the audience was not amused!), because he had seen far too many films to be in the wrong about the content. Well meant bullshit.

[markm]

We are a violent species, there is no doubt about that. Culture taught us to sublimate our aggressive impulses so that we don't kill each other permanently and society becomes civilzed. Violence is no invention of art. It's hereditary, it's our nature. 

No its a part of our nature that is neccesary for our survival. Control though has to be taught. Part of control is the teaching of morals. We learn what is acceptable through our society.

What if Spielberg directed all films that contained violence? Surely every fascination for this dark side within us would be perfectly neutralized (in the films, not in our souls). And the amok running maniacs, the psychopathic rapists, the murderous thieves for drug money or the mafia killers, bereft of the wrong role models, would stop their wrongdoing?

Of course it wouldn't stop twisted individuals. But twisted individuals are often taught through life to be that way. You would advocate the teaching through film we should all be taught twisted morals are fun.

No more terrorism, no more war against people, no more holocausts, no more 'racial' oppression ('race' actually always belongs between quotation marks, because scientifically human races don't exist)?

 

But vampire movies need to be stopped as well. Why? Because they feed this fascination for the 'evil' in us. Unnecessarily. Wrong. 

No it doesn't. Vampires are one of many bad guy monsters out there. What it should do is pit good against evil in conflict with good triumphing. and bad guys getting their come uppance.

And a lot of other genres would need serious script supervision. To an extent, I believe, that would make cinema completely unattractive. Cinema is about light and shadow. It's about the lights that go down, sitting in the darkness, deliver yourself to a kind of giant dream. Now, as we all learned, dreams are not free of censorship, but their mark is the power of subversion. They tell a truth that is beyond our civilized self. And if they don't, they lie.

here is nothing wrong with violence within the framework of a good and evil conflict. The problems begin when the hero is a sadist torturer who is seen to be a role model. When those with violent and criminal ways win against those who are good.

 

Society is full of people who bully sadistic and love criminality who love these types of heros.

[markm]

What he did instead:

 

He put a not-so-young black woman in the role of the heiress (Jackie Brown), quite a statement.

He shows violence against women, but he regularly gives them very interesting characters, he is almost kind of a feminist.

He reactivates actors, who get a chance to begin their careers anew (Travolta, Jackson in Pulp Fiction), showing that the coolness of their former image was a fake.

He is cynical in that sense of the word: He doesn't take bullshit. He writes long dialogues in which our common bullshit is remorselessly analyzed. Very often bullshitty films (on the 'right' and safe side) are the targets of his bullets.

He makes a black slave a western hero. Unheard of. When Amistad ran, my fellow projectionist, who is good at imitating voices, dubbed Anthony Hopkins' heroic speech (through the projection window, you can't hear the film). It was very funny. Later we saw the film with sound. We laughed even more (the audience was not amused!), because he had seen far too many films to be in the wrong about the content. Well meant bullshit.

Not what I asked though was it?

 

Okay I'll try again

 

Axel, Bruno

 

Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

[Bruno]

Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

 

Nothing Tarantino ever did would lead me to expect such a film from him. That's an absurd question.

 

Tarantino's film morals are perfectly acceptable, as far as I know none of his films are supposed to be a documentary, none of his films is supposed to portray actual facts, they're fiction pieces taking place in a world that could be ours, but it's not. They are far from realistic or factual, but somehow you still can't understand it, and I can't understand you still going on about it when you haven't even seen the bloody film, how daft is that???

 

You keep talking crap on a thread about Django's cinematography when you haven't even seen the film, wtf!!!

 

No it doesn't. Vampires are one of many bad guy monsters out there.

 

Are they? So if a perfectly good person gets bit and turns into a vampire, they're suddenly evil?
I'm being very repetitive here, and tired of it, but there's no such thing as good and evil, the lines ARE blurred, nothing's that basic in real life, and when art is that basic, it's dull and boring, and IMO, not really worth being called art at all.

[markm]

Bruno

 

One minute you are condeming censorship the next you are agreeing with it.

 

I have been saying blurring right and wrong is absurd and now you twist it to make me out to be absurd.

 

This is not about Django by the way Its about how Tarantino uses characters to turn heroes into sadistic monsters and in particular I'm thinking of Inglourious Basterds and Brad pits character..

 

its pretty clear to all that your argument is with me and this is personal. GROW UP

[Bruno]

One minute you are condeming censorship the next you are agreeing with it.

 

I'm not agreeing with censorship, and I'm also not reading a camera forum because of your craving for it or your moral ramblings, but maybe that's just me.

 

I have been saying blurring right and wrong is absurd and now you twist it to make me out to be absurd.

 

It is absurd not to see those lines are constantly blurred.

I don't need to twist anything to make you look absurd, you've been doing a pretty good job at it yourself!

 

This is not about Django by the way Its about how Tarantino uses characters to turn heroes into sadistic monsters and in particular I'm thinking of Inglourious Basterds and Brad pits character..

 

He was no different than Dexter, he had his own moral code, he didn't go out scalping just anyone, he did it out of revenge, and in the context it was satisfactory to the audience. That was a parallel world where we got to get some revenge against the nazis for once, it's movie escapism, not historical inaccuracy.

 

its pretty clear to all that your argument is with me and this is personal. GROW UP

 

Of course my argument is with you, you're the one talking crap here, who else would I be arguing with?

 

Over and out.

[Axel]

This is not about Django by the way Its about how Tarantino uses characters to turn heroes into sadistic monsters and in particular I'm thinking of Inglourious Basterds and Brad pits character..

 

In this particular instance, there is a small group of jewish resistance fighters, who answer the evil that befell their world with a kind of desperate cruelty. The scale of this evil is hard to understand for a civilized human being (perhaps Basterds should be viewed after Schindlers List), but yet it was banal reality. In real WW2, the real anti-nazi-rebels weren't kind either. They 'behaved' like terrorists (and were followed as such by the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo), and they made 'prisoners' only if they could get informations from them, no matter the means.

 

I want to point out by this, that there is indeed a kind of 'balance' in this treatment of the circumstances. It goes without saying that Tarantino likes to depict exaggerated violence for it's own sake. I am not a real fan of his films. But as I see it he doesn't deserve to be called irresponsible for what he does. Political correctness and moral lectures belong elsewhere, not in art and definitely not in cinema.

 

Did you see the excellent documentary 'The Gatekeepers'? It is about the Schin Bet, the israeli secret service for internal affairs. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uc8U89IcSo

 

The real Schin Bet directors talk very openly about bending morals. Innocents were killed, captives were brutally slain (tortured before), because the agents couldn't stand the prospect of hearing them defended in court.

 

What is so fantastic about this doc: They are very respectable, civilized human beings, well educated and able to reflect on their roles. What is right, what is wrong? Spielberg made his perhaps most 'grown up' film with Munich, dealing with similar topics. Good and bad never come in the expected package, you can't derive a moral for everybody out of real events.

 

BTW: In Gatekeepers is something to admire for the more technically interested forum members. There are three-dimensional Ken-Burns-effects that really take your breath away. The famous photos of photographer Alex Levac of the arrest of the hijackers of "bus 300" turned into bullet-time scenes. What these sequences (there are a lot of them) say: These were real events once. We can flesh out the faded B&W photos and reconstruct the scene. Very impressing.

[Leang]

https://vimeo.com/57786264

[markm]

I'm not agreeing with censorship, and I'm also not reading a camera forum because of your craving for it or your moral ramblings, but maybe that's just me.

 

 

It is absurd not to see those lines are constantly blurred.

I don't need to twist anything to make you look absurd, you've been doing a pretty good job at it yourself!

 

 

He was no different than Dexter, he had his own moral code, he didn't go out scalping just anyone, he did it out of revenge, and in the context it was satisfactory to the audience. That was a parallel world where we got to get some revenge against the nazis for once, it's movie escapism, not historical inaccuracy.

 

 

Of course my argument is with you, you're the one talking crap here, who else would I be arguing with?

 

Over and out.

 

You dont think a film using a character like Ted Bundy as the hero should be allowed? or have you changed your mind. IE Censorship.

 As for the rest you know Bruno you lost any sane rational argument when you resorted to putdowns and twisting my words. I'd appreciate it if you would stop this and try to post only when you have something to say that adds to the discussion.

[Axel]

Yeah, Leang, that was something!

The first minute reminded me of a scene in a Tarantino film, where they talk about 'Like a virgin' and what Madonna might have been referring to ...

[markm]

Axel

 

Yes untold unbelievable cruelty in the real world. Good post.

[markm]

Leang. Quite a powerful film within a moral framework and a clever ending.

[Bruno]

You dont think a film using a character like Ted Bundy as the hero should be allowed? or have you changed your mind. IE Censorship.

 As for the rest you know Bruno you lost any sane rational argument when you resorted to putdowns and twisting my words.

 

That wasn't your question. Your question was regarding an hypothetical Tarantino film with Ted Bundy as a hero, to which I responded.

Nothing I said implies I'm up for censorship in any situation, if that's the story some filmmaker wants to tell, let him go for it, it's up to him, not you or me to decide against it.

 

So who's twisting what here?

 

I'd appreciate it if you would stop this and try to post only when you have something to say that adds to the discussion.

 

Like you had a lot to say regarding Django's anamorphic cinematography... seriously.

[markm]

Bruno

 

Okay then so you think it is perfectly acceptable for Tarantino to make a film showing Ted bundy as the hero?

[Bruno]

Yes, that's what freedom means, if that's what he wants, of course he's got all the right to do it, it's just a film.

It doesn't mean I'd defend or agree with it, and it certainly doesn't mean I'd become a serial killer for watching it.

[Axel]

Bruno

 

Okay then so you think it is perfectly acceptable for Tarantino to make a film showing Ted bundy as the hero?

 

I wasn't adressed, but I answer anyway. There really are some sick and despicable characters in the Tarantino universe. They are more sick and cruel than one can tolerate, that's for sure. But characters. They fit into the cinematic wax works chamber of horrors and heighten the impact of the film. The easiest way to start filmmaking used to be making gory horror movies, because the rules of the genre were so well-defined and you got away (even economically, if only in the video shops, where Tarantino worked as a boy, if I remember correctly) with a bunch of cliches and really bad filmmaking. You can watch 200 Troma-movies for free on youtube, they give you an idea.

 

A movie character doesn't have to believable. He is more like the crocodile in a punch & judy show. That's what Tarantino films are: Good shows. Everything is completely artificial. 

 

Crocodiles for adults of course need to look a bit more 'convincing' than for five-year-olds. Perhaps they look like boss Matsumoto:

 

who is paedophile and is instantly killed by the girl. O-ren however is not just a victim who revenges the murder of her family, she turns into another crocodile, one that's more interesting than the usual movie villain.

 

All these plot constructions are easy to look through, they are all deliberate arrangements. Tarantino is a talented writer, perhaps he can be called a master. But I don't see him as a genius. A genius has more depth. Hitchcock for example had a real abyss in him. Psycho is no genre movie at all (though it influenced a lot of genre movies), it practically makes a Ted Bundy type of character the hero. Not only for the eerie effect, it's clear that the world in Psycho is itself evil. Watch the end: When all down-to-earth characters are hushed by the psychiatrists' plain explanation, mothers grinning skull is superimposed over Bates' face. 

 

Someone made a Ted Bundy movie, and it was nowhere politically correct or 'balanced'. But it didn't cause people to identify with a psychopathic killer. 

 

A film can't spoil our moral. Nor can it make us better men. Some may be more attracted by the crocodile, but whose fault would this be?