As recent film release, “Django Unchanined” opened up before
me I experienced all of the trusted hallmarks of an epic Tarentino film: a 1970’s
aesthetic, realness and depth of field; a hyper graphic depiction of death and
dismemberment; an ironic humorous digression to humanize the villains; a
nitty-gritty 1970’s stlye in your face language; morbidity served up as undeniable
humor; the distinctly rich, soulful flavor of blacksploitation a la carte; astute
attention to detail and an iron-clad plot with surprises galore… But what I did
not expect was an eloquently developed proof that the assumptions of racial
superiority used to justify slavery and racism are utterly bankrupt. As such Django did the job that its
contemporary film, “Lincoln” did not complete!
This begs an argument regarding what exactly is the role of an
historical drama? Is it acceptable to
merely present a dramatisation of the facts as they are, typically, only
loosely known or conjectured or does the director have a larger role to
interpret the facts while telling a story and bring it full circle to the
present? Most importantly is Django an
historic drama at all? I will let the
viewer answer this question but I will interject that unlike Lincoln, the
character Django and his story are not historically verifiable. In my opinion the genre in which I would comfortably
place Django is that of an Historical Fiction.
But based solely on the treatment of the subject of slavery,
an historically verifiable condition they have in common I will continue to
compare these two films if only because they had the fortune of coming out at
the same time. Some would say do not
tamper with history, after all it is what it is. Others would say that since most historical dramas
are nearly as much fictional interpretation as fact it is impossible and
therefore unacceptable to ignore the affective domain which defines our
humanity. Lincoln views and tells the
story of slavery from the perspective of a white man but Django is a story whose
reality emanates closer to the perspective of a black man. Whilst sitting in the theater I closely watched
the reactions of the audience which was shocked in various ways, some were
clearly distressed but others refreshed that this version of Hollywood slave
reality was not cleaned up to suit its viewing audiences… it was realness at
its best!
The entire climate of Lincoln but mostly the tired debate
between pampered, vain, potbellied, privileged white men in tight breeches
nearly popping the satin buttons of their waistcoats, making sordid deals in
brothels, back rooms and parlours whilst hundreds of thousands of slaves
suffered the most degrading and inhuman existence in history took a back seat
to the dynamic, larger than life, albeit, fictitious Django. The power and attraction of this gunslinging,
sassy, buttkicking, ex-slave who in a few days seemed to accomplish what Nat
Turner and John Brown combined could not do also made me realize that the two
films were also truly worlds apart thematically but this in the scheme of
things did not absolve either of them from unequivocally exposing the true
nature of slavery and leaving its audience with the clear message that the
racist principles upon which it was then justified are utterly bankrupt! Slavery is the kind of horror that demands
this absolute clarification.
Now the two films were both period pieces that would have
occurred only a year or two apart but in juxtaposition, Lincoln appeared to
sympathize more with the romantic view of the racial superiority of whites
treating the ratification of Emancipation under the 13th Amendment
as a mixed bag of guilt and punishment for the rebel south which, many will
argue is more closely aligned with the actual intent and sentiment of the times. Django juxtaposed the depraved and psychopathic
realities of slavery with the surreal and demonic indifference of whites to its
horror, floating in a displaced state of religious and political fantasy, intoxicated
by the chemical fumes of a reprehensible cloud of lies… the real irony is that Spielberg,
as the household name for horror, so sadly missed the mark… What is the lesson? That no longer can any story involving
slavery in America avoid portrayal of the true horror of that evil institution. There is no blithe, immaculate, or even
politically correct way to portray what was one of the truly most barbaric
practises in human history, that of African and Black American enslavement! Cleaning slavery up to make it marketable for
white audiences is a thing of the past! We are all grown up, we have moved
forward as people, Black Americans do not blame or hate whites living today for
the deeds of their ancestors and hopefully whites do not see Black Americans
the way their ancestors did; it is time to put our adult hats on and see
slavery as it truly was so that we can all move on…
The second point of distinction was the overall power and
social relevance of the role of the Hero, Django. Detractors may attempt to draw a parallel to
the larger than life blacksploitation heroes of the 1960’s and 1970’s such as
Shaft and Dolomite. Django is undoubtedly
the Shaft of the early twenty-first century.
The character Django was not
based on any true persons story it is an artifice of Hollywood. The existence of Mandingo fighting was
probably a reality in the south although it would be difficult to verify since
it would have been an underground affair treated as cock or dog fighting
leaving no physical records of cash transactions and without any posters or
tickets. We can safely credit Tarentino
or some other 1970’s blackspoitation film aesthete with the coining of the term,
“Mandingo Fighting”, since there is similarly no historical record in existence
where that name was used to identify the alleged fighting matches between
strong, “black bucks” in the south.
Conclusion: It was not the
intention of Quentin Tarantino to create a drama based on any historically
verifiable character so the genre should be treated as fictional entertainment… Django is not real, he is not live he is not Memorex;
he is made of the illusionary dream-stuff of Hollywood! But is Django a positive black male role
model? Does he personify a core group of
wholesome, uplifting and positive human characteristics that not only young
black males but all young males can use as a healthy prototype? Does the nature of his character real or
fictitious represent qualities that can assist young men in successfully
defining and asserting themselves as working parts of the socioeconomic
structure in America? I will leave it to
the viewer to answer these questions… this leads to my third point.
Django is not a real character at all, he never
existed. Even if he did the viewer is
charged with their own evaluation of the quality of a film based on whether or
not and to what degree or not they were ultimately entertained. In my opinion Django is an entertainment
overload. It is funny, witty,
horrifying, emotional and charged with that kind of nonstop action and good old
fashioned acting skill that makes you forget you are actually watching a movie
and not experiencing it firsthand…
Jamie Fox was the Heroic Legend Django, the slave from which
the film drew its breath, it is his story.
His relationship with the older Christopher Waltz, who portrayed Dr.
King Shultz, doctor turned bounty hunter, was one of father and son; it
personifies the real collaboration between white abolitionists and slaves and
proclaims emancipation as a victory to the tireless efforts of both races. Jamie and Christopher worked so well together
and owned their roles so naturally at times I forgot it was really a movie. Leonardo DiCaprio is the consummate, charismatic villain equally
appealing as he is sinister, who portrays the role of Calvin Candie a wealthy, immaculately
well-mannered and influential Mississippi Plantation owner. Samuel L. Jackson masterfully portrays
Stephen, a loyal, dyed-in-the wool second generation head house slave who is
more like a father to Calvin Candie his role is equally villainous as the slave
of Candie who carries out his masters dirty day to day slave business.
As a critic it is not my intent, or style to provide a
synopsis of any film, I prefer to leave it up to the viewer’s personal
experience, my purpose is to magnify the distinguishing hallmarks of a film, if
ever I find there are none to distinguish then I will not write a review. Lincoln was a distinguished film but in
comparison it’s cold, clinical rendition of one of the most emotional events in
the history of America was eclipsed by Django.
Django, although an historical
fiction nails the ever difficult subject of slavery on the head! The acting in Django is superb; it is filled
with what will become classic performances to future generations of movie
lovers. I do strongly suggest that you
go to see the movie Django Unchained at the theater were you can enjoy its full
cinematic beauty. After you have seen it
you decide whether it measured up to your expectations and standards for
entertainment!
David Vollin
No comments:
Post a Comment