Watch: First Bits Of Footage From "Django Unchained"

19 Comments

• | Reply

• writer | June 6, 2012 12:11 PMReply

  Has anyone seen the original film and read Taratino's script?

• Jake | June 6, 2012 3:14 AMReply

  Spaghetti Western, the best ones, were beautifully choreographed and full of grand, meticulous compositions. Hardly gritty. You just have no idea what you're talking about.

• Tambay | June 6, 2012 9:03 AM

  Maybe we all define gritty differently. I don't think "grand, meticulous compositions" and grittiness are mutually exclusive. If Sergio Leone made "Django Unchained" I don't think his would look quite like this. I think of the "Man With No Name" trilogy, and the grittiness to me comes in various forms - from the outfits, to the often weathered, beaten faces of the actors (the men looked like Men - men who'd lived), the coarseness of the images, the not-so saturated color scheme, and more. There was just a "dirtiness" and ugliness to those films, and others within the genre, that I loved, and that I don't see in these few seconds. Granted, it's just a few seconds, and I haven't seen the whole film. So going solely on this little bit of footage, and all the still images we've seen thus far, this looks more like multicolored cotton candy to me. But this is Tarantino's film.

• Charles Judson | June 6, 2012 8:27 AM

  Curtis, I don't think Jake implied that there were no gritty Spaghetti Westerns, only that not all Spaghetti Westerns were gritty, or could be described as only gritty. What's in this clip so far looks like it's truly borrowing from Spaghetti Westerns, even including a villain that looks like he'll be a spiritual cinematic ancestor to Henry Fonda's Frank from ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST. On a meta level, even the casting of DiCaprio as the villain, a role he doesn't play often, if at all, fits. And I think grand can be applied, even in the dymthologizing. Westerns were a huge business in American film and it's a genre that arguably lasted longer than any of the others, including musicals and gangsters. However, it's the Spaghetti Westerns that not only still influence filmmakers more, they have do have more iconic moments that people who have never even seen the films know about. Modern action films are still borrowing those elements. Even directors like John Woo, whose own scenes have been called grand by some critics, have taken more from Spaghetti Westerns and Musicals than they ever did more straight Westerns.

• Curtis | June 6, 2012 7:44 AM

  Spaghetti westerns were originally characterized by their low budgets and minimalist cinematography, and deliberately avoiding (even "demythologizing") many of the conventions of earlier Westerns - or the grandiosity you're referring to.
  
  It's all in your film history books. Read one. And even if what you said was in any way accurate, to suggest that gritty spaghetti westerns ("the best ones" or not) don't exist or are somehow an anomaly is just plain incorrect.

• misha | June 5, 2012 9:33 PMReply

  Looking exactly as I expected. In other words, so not the film that Tarantino thinks will show how "fucked up America was."

• CareyCarey | June 6, 2012 3:15 PM

  "LOL Sorry Charles but surely you recognize the irony of wanting a substantial discussion about a film being penned by a director who cares little about substance" ~Misha. My heart grows fonder... you've pinned the tail on the donkey. Even though we're on different sides of the fence on this one, that's (in my opinion) the most pertinent comment of the day.

• CareyCarey | June 6, 2012 2:56 PM

  "I don't think these discussions really lead to much of anything. However, unlike a discussing Marvel movie, there is a lot more riding on a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED" ~ Charles Judson. Charles, I understand your need for deep layed discussions, so I totally get what you are saying -- I am there. However, on the other hand, I disagree (I am calling slippery slope) with your above assessment. First and foremost, from whoms point of reference are you making that claim? Who exactly are being affected -- culturally, psychologically and socially -- upon viewing DJANGO UNCHAINED? I am suggesting there is no way of getting beyond one's own impressions to arrive at some larger, objective truth. There are no rules to art and you shouldn't speak for someone else, only the infinite variety of subjective experience. Substance and cultural significance only bears meaningful weight within the mind of the individual. In essence, it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different significance. If we, as free thinking individuals, can't understand that truth, and/or wrap our arms around that basic fundamental element of human behavior, are we reduced to nothing more than closed minded contrarians with agendas and gripes that distort the earnest work of others to suit our personal prejudices, likes and dislike? To that point, there are those who steers far away from the intellectual pontification that "critical" film watchers give to describe the works of others and defend their personal film choices. As another commenter said "It's called taste for a reason--my flavor ain't always your flavor--and I'm not about to sit up here and defend why I like salty and not sweet" and what I receive from my entertainment sources. Now don't get me wrong, it's true that when you control a man's thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will find his "proper place" and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special benefit. However, having said all the above, in short, I do not adhere to the notion that films shape and mold the thinking and decision making of most humans, nor society as a whole. I just refuse to give films that much weight and responsibility. Last, is Tarantino's film a "spaghetti western"? In the minds of many... it sure is! Are some spaghetti westerns low budget productions? Yep. Can some be described as "gritty"? Yes sir. Yep. Are some grandiose and over the top? Yes, some are. How would one describe Eli Wallach's character in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly? Heck, who can give a definitive description of all of Sergio Leone's films? And check this --> DJANGO, Sergio Corbucci (1966)
  Violence is a trademark of the genre [Spaghetti Westerns]. Corbucci upped the anti with ears bitten off priests and citizens slaughtered with a machine gun, but the skilled pistolero with the army coat and the coffin are what makes this a cult favorite. Folks, just enjoy the movie for what it is and let everyone fill-up their own cup.

• misha | June 6, 2012 2:29 PM

  Jackie Brown is actually one of my favorite Tarantino films and the one with the most substance, I think. But Django is supposedly a message film...a film that's going to show us "how fucked up America was." Yet, are you not already sabotaging that goal by trivializing some of the most damaging/serious aspects of slavery? From that clip, images and the script itself, Leo's Calvin Candie is presented as a mere caricature, not unlike many of Tarantino's characters and not someone the audience will likely take seriously and thus, challenge their view on the subject. But that's the problem (or not?) with most of Tarantino films. The majority watch them to be entertained, not to be enlightened. Hence, the style over substance critique.

• Charles Judson | June 6, 2012 1:56 PM

  From James Whale (FRANKENSTEIN) to Hitchcock to Douglas Sirk (IMITATION OF LIFE), the list of directors who were initially tagged as stylists without substance is extensive. Now people write books dissecting their films. Then there are people like Martin Scorsese who borrow extensively from film history to craft and design their films, no different than Tarantino does. Unlike Scorsese, you're more likely to have seen Foxy Brown than Children of Paradise, so the references are much more stark, just as it's not as obvious to see John Woo's love of movie musicals reflected in HARDBOILED. From Jules arc in PULP FICTION, to how he never shied away from Jackie Brown's age or race and its role in JACKIE BROWN, to the nuance approach to both motherhood and the affects of revenge hinted by Beatrice's cathartic cry at the end of KILL BILL vol 2, I see more substance in Tarantino's work than many give him credit for. I'm not saying his films are perfect, but I do find most, not all but most, knocks against him as being only a stylist only surface deep.

• misha | June 6, 2012 1:29 PM

  LOL Sorry Charles but surely you recognize the irony of wanting a substantial discussion about a film being penned by a director who cares little about substance? But thus far, we've had several substantive discussions about this film, particularly when Tamby posted his review of the script. And lots of pertinent concerns/questions were born out of said discussion. For instance, why is Kerry Washington's Broomhilda reduced to being an exposed/abused damsel in distress? Why does she share so little in common with Tarantino's other female characters, most of whom are strong, kickass types...women who are afforded some dignity? And that brings me to another point. The "grittiness" of/R rating for this film likely has alot to do with the use of the n-word and gratuitous violence, especially against the exposed/naked Broomhilda. Of course we aren't going to see that on Entertainment Tonight but it doesn't exactly speak to Django Unchained being a film of substance.

• Charles Judson | June 6, 2012 12:51 PM

  I'm just saying wait till there's more. What you see here was chosen because it's going on Entertainment Tonight. It's naturally going to be aimed at a general mass audience so the clips will be a bit different than if it was a clip, or the Red Band trailer, being shared with film blogs or Tarantino fan sites. Note how much DiCaprio is in that preview preview. As I said, you may ultimately be right, but it's difficult to extrapolate out from a few images and a few seconds of film what the tone of a film will be. I just think we can have richer conversations digging into something a little more substantial when it comes a long, instead of trying to anticipate what we're going to get from such small slivers. It's great for DJANGO's marketing, and for a conversation about movie marketing, which can useful for filmmakers in general, But, much like the "what does the change in color on Iron Man's breast plate mean" discussions, I don't think these discussions really lead to much of anything. However, unlike a discussing Marvel movie, there is a lot more riding culturally, psychologically and social on a movie like DJANGO UNCHAINED.

• misha | June 6, 2012 12:08 PM

  @Charles, you can't take my comments seriously? Ok. Now please explain to me how the visual/tone of that short clip is any different than Tarantino's other films, which all turned out to be style over substance. As I said when I first saw the still images, Jamie and Co. look like they're playing dress up and even moreso in that clip. Also, let us not forget the black woman/slave in the background of one of those stills, donning a big ass bow in her head. A still from a scene that I'm sure takes place at Calvin Candie's plantation, "Candyland." Oh yes, it is my comment, not Tarantino's description, that is difficult to take seriously.

• Charles Judson | June 6, 2012 2:58 AM

  Misha, you may ultimately be right about DJANGO UNCHAINED. However, it's hard to take a comment like this seriously when it's based off less than 10 seconds of footage from a likely to be rated R film that aired on Entertainment Tonight at 7pm hour. What exactly were you expecting to see? Black men marched to an auction block in chains? Black women being selected for breeding? Entertainment Tonight is about selling people the stars and glitz of Hollywood, so they can in turn sell advertising. It's not about the stories. I'm not saying don't speak up, I'm not saying don't break down what you're given. I'm just thinking we should wait till they give us a little more meat to chew on and not just some gristle and fat.

• CareyCarey | June 5, 2012 10:05 PM

  @Misha, pssst... over here... youtu.be/QV6qflI1Jsg

• Ted | June 5, 2012 8:00 PMReply

  I don't know why Tarantino thinks showing us how fucked up America was in the past makes us uncomfortable. These historical and far-away-land "injustice films" actually comfort us. It allows us to stand outside and judge and tell ourselves confidently how much better we are and how we would never be like that. If you want to make audiences uncomfortable, show how fucked up American is now. Go even further, show how the very audience members watching are complicit in the injustices around us everyday, whether actively or passively. That's how you make people uncomfortable. But Tarantino isn't a skilled enough filmmaker to make that kind of movie. I like Tarantino films has much as the next guy, but his work is pure pop art - I doubt he has the skill necessary to make a movie that would challenge the viewer in any emotional of intellectual way. His films are just button-pushing, glorious fun. However entertaining Inglourious Basterds may have been, it trivialized the Holocaust into jokey pop entertainment. Now he is going to do that with slavery. I actually find it really annoying that he goes and trivializes and then has the gall of wanting credit for touching on "big issues."

• keef | June 5, 2012 11:50 PM

  you and the next guy are idiots! that white guilt is somthing else aint it!!

• misha | June 5, 2012 9:40 PM

  LOL The Tarantino fanboys already making their presence known. Fact is, Ted has pointed out exactly why this won't be the film Tarantino has described.

• WOW | June 5, 2012 9:10 PM

  "I actually find it really annoying that he goes and trivializes and then has the gall of wanting credit for touching on "big issues". And yet you, Ted, pay your money? So what does that say about YOU?! Oh... that's right... you're like the rest of the millions who enjoy pure jokey pop art and glorious fun -- while you're slumming - huh. If in your spare time teddie, you desire deep sensual tearjerker movies which moves you in an awe inspiring intellectual way, get off the fence, stay off Tarantino's jock, shut your mouth and precede to your local library or turn on PBS.