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

[markm]

Axel

 

The nature of story telling is for the audience to live through the main character To empathise and to feel what he feels. We start and finish the journey sharing his pain and his thoughts. We root for him when the chips are down and we invest our time and ourselves into that. We feel satisfied and we feel uplifted by the end or in his good deeds or we should do if the writing is good.

 

What you and Bruno are suggesting is sickening. My thoughts are you really don't understand what you are saying and just want to score points.

 

Tarantino blurs the lines what you are advocating is freedom to all out glorify the most depraved and sick people as heroes and role models. Without exception.

 

God help us all if you get your way.

[Bruno]

What you and Bruno are suggesting is sickening.

 

So you find artistic freedom sickening, you think art should be censored and tamed according to your own moral values.

That's not sickening at all.

 

My thoughts are you really don't understand what you are saying and just want to score points.

 

You got us, game over!

 

God help us all if you get your way.

 

Judging by the big sign saying DJANGO UNCHAINED in most local cinemas, we already did! :)

[Bruno]

Tarantino blurs the lines

 

As any good artist should.

 

what you are advocating is freedom to all out glorify the most depraved and sick people as heroes and role models. Without exception.

 

Being in favor of artistic freedom is not the same as glorifying depraved art, why are you twisting things?

[markm]

So you find artistic freedom sickening, you think art should be censored and tamed according to your own moral values.

That's not sickening at all.

 

There are laws in this country that protect us from the depraved end of the scale that you would be happy with.

You got us, game over!

 

 

Judging by the big sign saying DJANGO UNCHAINED in most local cinemas, we already did! :)

You are confusing two issues. This was not about Django it was about the right to show whatever you want.

 

You believe anything can be shown under the licence of artistic expression. Without exception.

[markm]

As any good artist should.

 

 

Being in favor of artistic freedom is not the same as glorifying depraved art, why are you twisting things?

Where did I say you want to glorify depraved art? You are the one twisting things not me.

[Bruno]

You believe anything can be shown under the licence of artistic expression. Without exception.

 

There you go again... where do you know me from to make such an assumption and even finishing with "without exception"?

When have I even mentioned "anything can be shown"?

 

I'm talking about artistic freedom to CREATE!

 

Distribution channels such as TV channels, cinemas, art galleries have their say in whether or not and when to show such creative works.

 

If you wouldn't like to see Cannibal Holocaust on BBC at 4pm (and I know I wouldn't), then your problem should be with the BBC, not the artists.

 

Setting rules and laws in our society as to when, where and how to show strong contents is one thing, censoring and forbidding artists from producing them in the first place is something completely different, and totally unacceptable.

 

I'll stop feeding you now, have a great life.

[Axel]

You believe anything can be shown under the licence of artistic expression. Without exception.

 

Come on. On a primitive level, all borders possible have been crossed long ago. Snuff movies. Illegal for good reasons, not interesting for most. We know already that humans are capable of creating hell, this is no news. 

 

There are more subtle taboos. Our societies age. There are ever more old ones suffering from dementia. How are we going to treat them in the future? How do we treat them NOW? I am not talking about statistics, you don't lose your emotions when you get Alzheimer. Root for a demented old human being? Globalization makes the european (or, for that matter, the western) way of life obsolete. What are we to do? Build walls around our borders to protect ourselves from the biggest migration period in history? Become third world without resistance? It's like the downfall of the roman empire, it was not the destruction of the city of Rome, it was an inevitable process of losing influence. All our projects and hopes for the future go down the drain. Computers and automatization take away our work. The futurists in the beginning of the 20th century said the roboters would some day free us from stupid drudgery and let us work for noble missions. Can we be transformed? 

 

Problems as these, with more questions than answers, could be treated in films. For the sake of such controversial themes, I fight censorship. 

[markm]

Axel

 

So you think snuff movies should be illegal? This is puzzling on the one hand you don't want any censorship and on the other you do? Which is it.

 

Bruno

 

Yes you're talking about artistic freedom to create..... Anything or do you think snuff movies should be censored too?

[Axel]

Don't be silly. A snuff movie is made to capture a real murder. How can this be legal? Or justifiable?

Do you remember my credo from some hundred pages back? My freedom ends where yours begins.

And it is your freedom to express your views on violence and a missing moral compass in many films. I have to accept that.

[markm]

Don't be silly. A snuff movie is made to capture a real murder. How can this be legal? Or justifiable?

Do you remember my credo from some hundred pages back? My freedom ends where yours begins.

And it is your freedom to express your views on violence and a missing moral compass in many films. I have to accept that.

Right so you do believe in censorship? Yes or no.

[markm]

If a murderer made a snuff film and got put in prison would you allow that film to be shown or would you censor it. Its a simple question.

[markm]

Axel Censorship is of course a neccesary tool. Your cry for freedom from censorship and artistic licence to create what you want is what you use to bash me with so you dont have to confront the moral issues.

 

Leang's film was very well done and still used extreme violence and included depraved characters and their conversation was quite chilling. We didn't know much about the two characters and not asked to follow either as a main character. The pedophile gets shot and although not something we do as a society we can empathise with morally wrong charactr getting his come uppance the guy that shot him may very well be a bad guy who obviously has a sense of right and wrong He may even turn out to be a tortured anti hero.

 

However he didn't as a hero scalp all the victims nor torture and maim while playing the good and just main hero character.

 

Recent times a few British and American soldiers tortured innocent civilans to death. They are dealt with by the courts. This is not something to consider as right and those guys were fighting for our freedoms But there is a moral code that is there they must abide by. Unless there is some moral reasons we can understand IE Like the soldier reacted after the insurgent come out of a crowd and blew his mate up and he reacted in the moment But we do not make heroes out of soldiers who torture maim and kill in a fun way. That is a reflection of our society as it stands today.

 

I'm sure many war crimes are commited and go unpunished but when they are found out they are prosecuted.

A film maker may show war crimes being commited but the main hero character must be a moral person and not in a religious sense but a way we know is right. You just cant have a hero that an audience roots for and by nature of the hero main character sees the film through their eyes and empathises with as a character that commits war crimes and a sadist torturer.

 

There is a clear line here that film makers naturally adhere to. Tarantino though blurs those lines.

 

Of course when you watch you see the main character doing bad Getting away with it then getting the rewards You think OH WOW this is different This is new. This is exciting. The man is a genius. He is not He is blurring the lines. We as a society take for granted our laws and rules, Not all do. We break our moral values at the risk of our own freedom. Let alone the encouragemnt of this being copied in real life just as many violent acts from films are copied. And although violent acts will happen without film and at a worse level. IE Gaddafi's golden gun. Film still has a responsibilty not to teach new tricks that break moral codes.

 

It's really not worth it.

 

Why have I bothered to write all this. WELL. My hope is others may realise that writers do have a responsibility and  films will be made with a moral framework and recognised as video nasties when they're not. At the very least know what you are doing and why.

[Andrew Reid]

If a murderer made a snuff film and got put in prison would you allow that film to be shown or would you censor it. Its a simple question.

 

It's a stupid question and you know it Mark. I suggest you look again at the definition of censorship and murder.

 

You're suggesting it is censorship to ban snuff movies and the showing of such films.

 

It is not censorship at all - a real murder is criminal activity.

 

Are you saying the police are trying to 'censor' criminals or 'prevent murders'?

 

You can be anti-censorship of the arts and movies as well as being anti-murder.

[markm]

Axel suggested snuff movies Not me. I just used his example. You might notice censorship defination says Morally questionable

 

There was a movie released called snuff That was at one time thought to have a real death in it.

 

Anyway part of the defination of censorship from wikeapedia.

 

• Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in most jurisdictions in the world.^[3][4]
• Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information.
• Political censorship occurs when governments hold back information from their citizens. This is often done to exert control over the populace and prevent free expression that might foment rebellion.
• Religious censorship is the means by which any material considered objectionable by a certain faith is removed. This often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less prevalent ones. Alternatively, one religion may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their faith.
• Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,^[5][6] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure.^[7]

[Axel]

Excuse us, all you serious tech buffs, for entering this thread, which was started as a discussion of anamorphic film in modern cinema. Though it is exhausting and time consuming, I enjoy this kind of debate, because that's what moral is about: Evaluating what's right and wrong under certain circumstances, finding out (if only for oneself) what is the greater evil, limiting freedom or tolerating dangerous or even destructive ideas.

 

Axel suggested snuff movies Not me. I just used his example. You might notice censorship defination says Morally questionable

 

There was a movie released called snuff That was at one time thought to have a real death in it.

 

If someone gets killed for the sole reason to sell a film that thrills the sick customers, it is clear that the killer will be sentenced for murder in the first degree. Which is defined as a killing/manslaughter/homicide with the most low and condemnable motif. I think nobody disagrees, that his deed is wrong, if the word is to mean anything.

 

Now that the victim is dead anyway, why not allow the film to be published? Easy to answer, even with basic civil law: The victim didn't approve it, she/he presumably and with ample certainty would not have wanted it to be published. To hurt personal rights, even of the deceased, is prohibited by law.

 

That the film cannot be published has nothing to do with censorship.

 

I just learned, that probably a genuine snuff movie was never made, because they are easy to fake. So if there is no murder, no victim, can the film be published? This question is academic, because it won't be published anyway, but sold secretly to a customer who needs to be quiet about it. The whole point of the fake is, that the customer must believe it's real, therefore the seller must be a murderer or his accomplice. The public would most probably never learn about the existence of the film. Therefore no innocent outsider gets harmed, it's just a sick deception between sick people, who can't sink any lower anyway.

 

Not a candidate for censorship.

 

One famous film shows the intricacies of the problem: A Clockwork Orange. It's director Stanley Kubrick often stated, that he didn't believe art to be able to trigger crimes. Clearly A Clockwork Orange does not glorify violence in a strict sense. But the moral compass seems to have lost it's magnetic pole. The film raises quite a few moral questions but is so brutally honest not to give easy answers. Kubrick himself became so frightened by his own film, that he ultimately banned it for the UK, where he lived. 

 

Thoughts (and fiction) can be dangerous, there is no arguing about that. But who decides where the limits are? Who has moral unfallibility?

[Leang]

[Sean Cunningham]

Really, eight pages of this shite?

 

 

 

Axel

 

The nature of story telling is for the audience to live through the main character To empathise and to feel what he feels. We start and finish the journey sharing his pain and his thoughts. We root for him when the chips are down and we invest our time and ourselves into that. We feel satisfied and we feel uplifted by the end or in his good deeds or we should do if the writing is good.

 

What you and Bruno are suggesting is sickening. My thoughts are you really don't understand what you are saying and just want to score points.

 

Tarantino blurs the lines what you are advocating is freedom to all out glorify the most depraved and sick people as heroes and role models. Without exception.

 

God help us all if you get your way.

 

Eight pages and you still haven't learned the difference between "hero" and "antihero".  

 

Sad.

[soupkitchen]

I came on here to see what people thought of the way the film looked and all I got was pages of argument based on textbook ideas.

 

My 2 cents. The film was insanely dull, yet still his best film since Pulp Fiction. Why do Americans fall down swooning every time Tarantino makes another long indulgent piece of crap. Robert Richardson top lights too much for my taste and aesthetically the film was pretty bland. For me it was a reminder of how beautifully composed the films he was referencing were, and how as a director I don't think he has the chops to do more than emulate better directors.

 

Leang that is an awesome picture btw.

 

Cheers,

 

Toby