Django Unchained (2012) 5/5: A modern day classic

Django Unchained is a modern classic and it is one of the best westerns I have ever seen. These idealistic superlatives are necessary for the film to be praised as a current release but on a more realistic level the film fulfills all the requirements to merit this praise no matter how hollow it may sound. It is a classic and time will prove it and people must stop thinking that all the great movies were already made in some sort of warped golden age. All of this cannot be addressed in this current review but when one considers the history of the western film genre it is easy to see where this film deserves to be placed among the stars. This is probably the first western that actually empowers a black man by placing him in the lead role as the star gunfighter it  is also the first western to tackle the issue of slavery which was a feature of this period but conveniently ignored in previous western films. Other westerns tended to focus on the civil war and its after math, the struggle for the farmers on the prairie to settle in the west due to the lawlessness that was prevalent and the duels between the whites and the Indians that settled in America long before the arrival of the puritan pilgrims. This is the first to tackle the issue of slavery head on by allowing you to see the west through the eyes of a black bounty hunter named Django (Jamie Foxx) who is determined to be reunited with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Django is aided to do this the bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who offers to  free him from his bondage in chattel slavery on the terms that he helps him to catch a group of the outlaw Brittle brothers on the run. After this task, where Django gains his freedom,  and several others are accomplished Django sets out with Schultz  to the Candie plantation where his wife is held by Calvin Candie (Leonardo Dicaprio) whose hobbies include Mandingo fighting. On the Candie plantation we encounter his main house slave, Stephen (Samuel Jackson), who suspects the two travelling bounty hunters who arrived on the pretext of buying Mandingo fighters when in fact they wish to purchase Broom Hilda.

  The supporting performances in this film are so strong that at least one will be nominated for the academy award and will win if there is any justice.

Positives

This film takes place in 1858, two years before the civil war, and covers much of the southern United States including Texas, Tennessee and Mississippi. This year is important because this is the best way to become accustomed to the culture of slavery, its decadence and decline. After the civil war one would only hear in the westerns about what happened in the past or the legacy of racism that began with slavery. In this film we are thrown into the culture of slavery and the use of the word nigger is almost a matter of fact and is simply a part of daily life. It does highlight that the use of the word nigger is here to stay particular with us poor black folks who have adapted it for our own use. This is one of the legacies of slavery. This is not the first feature on slave life in America however it is one of the few that empowers a black man to take control of his destiny once given the opportunity in the corrupt era of slavery and all of this was before the civil war where the great Abraham Lincoln becomes the hero of the blacks in America. This film also goes ahead to show us the legacy of the house slave vs. the domestic slave duel which has existed until the present day.  The House Slave is traditionally represented by the integrationists championed by people like Martin Luther King Jr and Barack Obama who merely champion the principles of bonding with our white brethren and so emphasize that we must prove ourselves by acting like them. This group tends to excuse the damaging effects of slavery since they enjoyed a lot of the benefits being members of the white masters’ household. They have been desperate to prove themselves worthy of the white man ever since the end of slavery and so emphasize that they should live together. The field slave tends to represent the separatist group represented by the likes of Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey who advocated that there was no place for the black man in the white man’s world particularly if he wishes to stand on his own two feet. The field hand was usually the one brutalized by slavery and is more likely to rebel against the whites. There is still a need to revolt because there are many whites who still believe that they are superior to blacks and other ethnic groups despite the many attempts of the integrationists to kiss ass. The ruling class of America is still largely represented by whites whereas blacks are largely relegated to petty bourgeois status which includes the high income group of entertainers and sports personalities (still relying on their physicality to enjoy some form of status with the whites. The more they rely on their physicality the less chance they have of seizing control and so they merely become embroiled in the propaganda of the ruling class. Blacks must seek to control the means of production as opposed to merely relying on wages for not matter how high they are it is still a form of servitude).  This film highlights the origins between these two black groups with more depth than most films of the past.  In this film the field hand actually comes out on top whereas traditionally, in films such as Gone with the Wind (1939), the house slave was deemed more respectable for presentation on screen.  The House Slave played by Samuel L. Jackson represents the opposite of Mammie played by Hattie Macdaniel in Gone with the Wind who was on the side of the white protagonists that were championed as paragons of virtue. In this film the white master represented by Calvin Candie does not represent the paragon of virtue. It would be ironic if Jackson could win the supporting actor academy award as Macdaniel did in 1939. This is a superb performance by him and he is played by Jackson as a simpering uncle tom with parkinsons, or so it seems at first, but gradually you get to realize the influence he has over Candie and the plantation and you become aware of it towards the end. There are times when his tremors give way to an upright man who does not need the use of his cane which probably suggests that he was fooling his masters all along in order to move up the ranks in the domestic household.

The film expertly uses the strong supporting characters to represent the various transitions required for Django to become truly unchained by the end. At first we encounter Schultz played by Christoph Waltz who gives Django his freedom and trains him in the art of gun fighting and being a bounty hunter. He even teaches him how to read.  He takes him through his paces and helps him to rescue Broomhilda however more is required particularly as he encounters Calvin Candie, expertly played by Dicaprio in one of his best performances. Schultz meets his match here and he contrasts with Candie because he empowers Django and begins to take a more enlightened view of slavery whereas the brutality of candie towards his slaves is based on the rights towards his property that was legally purchased. Schultz is not accustomed to its brutality particularly the images of a slave being fed to the dogs. Of all the strong supporting cast in this film Dicaprio should be nominated and, if possible, win the academy award. His character represents a significant turning point in the film with the help of Jackson’s house slave. He truly epitomizes the decadence of the slave society prior to the civil war and here the slave masters are not portrayed as gentlemen and their ladies fair and beautiful. The decadence is all around and Quentin Tarantino accurately portrays this through the character of Calvin Candie.  Jackson’s character represents the outcome of the last transition in this film and is dealt with accordingly for it is here that the duel between house slave and field slave comes to a head and all is revealed in the final act. Jamie Foxx is not overshadowed by these other actors and holds his own and delivers a strong performance, probably his best since 2004 because he truly portrays the growth in his character; the cool and suave black gunslinger. Before there the blacks of north displayed their illustrious wares after the civil war Django of the south rode on a horse. 

There are some humorous moments in the film particularly regarding the bags on the head of a white militia which is a precursor to the Ku Klux Clan. Some of the moments of humour are laugh out loud based on how shocking the reality is.

Tarantino deserves applause for this effort because he has been consistent in portraying strong black protagonists particularly in Pulp Fiction (1994) and  Jackie Brown (1997). His partnership with Samuel Jackson has consistently borne fruit and Django Unchained is another effective collaboration between the two.

The spaghetti styled western is effectively brought to life here in a most vivid way. It reminded me of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly directed by Sergio Leone. I am sure there are other influences utilized by Tarantino however it reminded me of the style in the Sergio Leone films but with much more graphic detail. The treatment handed out to the slaves sometimes seems to be colourful however it merely grounds the context within the period of slavery. The physical brutalization in the form of whips, branding and castration is certainly more effective than the use of the word nigger. This is why in the old spaghetti films the main objective of the protagonists was treasure of some sort in the form of gold but in this film Django’s objective is to be reunited with his wife who he married while he was a slave before being forcibly separated.  That is his treasure although he does end the film fairly well off in terms of money and freedom papers intact for he and his wife.  This is why context is important. This film is a modern classic because it is the first western to focus exclusively on slavery which was clearly a feature of the gunslinging west but conveniently ignored in past western films so as to portray the white protagonists in a positive light. Unforgiven (1992) was one of the first revisionist westerns where the white protagonist would have a black partner.  William Munny (Clint Eastwood) and the black man Ned  (Morgan Freeman) go out on an their final adventure to claim a reward and just like this film it has a shootout that is part cathartic. This occurred after the civil war however and did not take it as far as this current release.   Django Unchained tackles slavery head on with a fictional twist and a sort of revisionist history so as to empower the black protagonist, Django, at the centre. As the first western film to do this it must be considered a modern classic. 

 I did not mind the violence because it was gratuitous as well as cathartic although it can be seen as excessive and bordering on the absurd. This highly stylized level of violence does serve its purpose and many people will remember the lash of the whip. It becomes ingrained in your mind as the film progresses and you realize that it is a matter of fact. In Glory when the slave, or former slave, played by Denzel Washington revealed the scars caused by whiplashes it was shocking then but in Django it is brought down to earth as a common feature of life in the south. It is hardly remarkable. The use of the word nigger is not offensive for it is  also a matter of fact and Spike Lee needs to shut his mouth. In the older films that dealt with racism when a white man said the word nigger it was truly shocking whereas here the reality is brought home and it is clear to see why nigger has become a part of the American lexicon. The word is nothing to marvel at  for the people who are offended are those who believe that we should move beyond our history. There are other terms like Big Daddy, Southern hospitality etc that are part of people’s everyday lives much like the violence. This film serves as a reminder of how Americans have historically used violence to achieve their ends and a classic example is slavery. These slave masters and their henchmen used violence as a matter of fact to keep the slaves in order. The recent shootings in Connecticut have nothing to do with gun control but the historical use of violence in America to subdue people since it is the only way to keep in check democracy gone wild. The slave era was one of tyranny and oppression. In the past it was a matter of fact whereas in 2012 a little man decides to use violence to make a point and bestow his judgment on people in a grand lordly fashion. This film will unsettle the petty bourgeois groups that spike lee belongs to because it is supposed to. It is a period in America now where they are trying to trumpet democracy while using military conflict to subdue the rest of the world. Like all great empires America has not been able to escape the use of force as a means of imposition. There is no democracy in American foreign affairs; it is a fantastic illusion given credence by bloated personalities such as Barack Obama. This film highlights expertly that throughout the progress of America violence is instrumental in degrading the oppressed classes of America. Spike Lee should know better because he seems to hope that slavery must be emotionalized and dramatized and make people teary eyed but that is not what makes us cry in the real world when we speak of these horrors; we have to be shocked before we can cry. When Schultz winces every time he recalls the dogs that fed on the flesh of the runaway slave featured in this film it is a reminder for us all. Django tells Candie that Schultz is just not used to the brutality in America that is all.

This film has all the beautiful scenery of other westerns but the violence is the grounding element here.

The soundtrack is superb.

Negatives

The primary negative is that some of the humorous moments are based on caricatures such as the militia that acted as a precursor to the ku Klux klan. It does not really stick. The violence can be a bit too bloody particularly in the shootouts. It oftentimes borders on the absurd.

Tarantino is not seeking to dramatize slavery in anyway and so he seeks to shock you at every turn in order to make the film stick as it progresses. It serves its purpose however because the story is well told and everything becomes a matter of fact and you realize that this is the world they live in.

There are some tongue in cheek moments where the actors wink at the camera and bring their real live selves into play. The final shot with Jamie foxx and his horse is similar to the actors of the theatre that give thanks for the attendance by the audience. Tarantino cameo as a Australian man did not really work as he gets blown away literally. It could have been a bit more grounded but who am I to complain. You get the sense that it is a spaghetti western in the form of pop art and so as it is not based on fact why worry about a cameo here and there and a tune by Rick Ross that actually works this time around in capturing the mood of the wild west.