- 1,535
- 1,423
I thought this movie was awesome...
In fact, I'm planning on goin back to see it again
In fact, I'm planning on goin back to see it again
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another thing I found odd...
That's just me trying to nitpick though.Django didn't know what "positive" meant when Shultz was taking aim on the final Brittle brother, but on the way to Candyland he said that he was "intriguing" Calvin Candie. I supposed he could have improved his vocabulary during the winter, but it was a little weird to me.
I also had no idea that Walton Goggins was in this. It made me happy to see that Tarantino has taken notice of his talent and seeing him play such a despicable character makes me want to see him become more of a villain and less of an anti-hero in the new season of Justified.
Has anybody's parents seen this movie? I'm wondering how the older than 35 crowd has or will like this film.
its simply to show the character's uniqueness for the times. based on what we know about american history and slavery the character shouldn't be able to read at all. that's why the scene where he not only spells his name, but knows the D is silent carries a lot of weight.
good info.Hmmm...fair enough.its simply to show the character's uniqueness for the times. based on what we know about american history and slavery the character shouldn't be able to read at all. that's why the scene where he not only spells his name, but knows the D is silent carries a lot of weight.
The scene where he spells his name also holds significance because the guy he's talking to was Django in the film from '66...hence the "I know..." line
Django has a shape up, must've been a clause in Jamie Fox's contract.
Django has a shape up, must've been a clause in Jamie Fox's contract.
as an NTer, it's the first thing I noticed
as an NTer, it's the first thing I noticed
Had meThe KKK scene with the masks was the funniest scene in the movie by far.
Did he say, "I had no idea it would be emotional or powerful"?... or was it just "I had no idea it would be THAT emotional and powerful"? Out of context it sounds odd, but it seems like you're just jumping to conclusions.http://www.bet.com/shows/dont-sleep.html
Don't sleep episode with Jamie and QT
Interesting Jamie said during the scene where Kerry got whipped on set people cried and QT teared up and then he said "I had no idea". How does a guy write this type of content and not think it would be this emotional and powerful. Honestly after this interview its clear QT had no idea or care to be held responsible for what he put on screen. Also QT says " If you don't like it don't watch it, its just a movie" He also didn't admit that the he used the N word too much. He says "I did my thang" I can't rock with this dude. Sorry. I actually went into the movie excited and with an open mind. But after seeing the movie and his interviews I can't rock with him.
On why a slavery movie now..QT: I never, ever relate or touch base with Quentin when I'm writing my pieces -- people can say to a fault. I follow the characters wherever they want to go.
The most I have anything to say in the matter maybe happens in the first half of the story, because I have to plan it out a little bit, build the road a touch, but I don't try to figure out much more as far as the story is concerned from the second half on. Because I know by that time -- and you're trying to predetermine something before you're actually writing -- by the time I'm actually writing, I've gotten to half of the story.
Now everything's different. I'm now those people. I've learned more about them. I am them. They are going their own way. And I might have some places I want them to go. Usually they take their time about getting there. But sometimes they get there. And if they don't want to go there, if they want to go their own way, that's them telling me it's bulls--t. So I follow their way. For better or for worse.
So the characters really dictate and really decide. All my characters are coming from me. I don't think twice about my female characters or my male characters, my black characters or my white characters. And when I come into it, it really is to clean up plotting.
QT: Gosh, I don't know. Look, when I was doing this, I didn't know anything else was coming out. Frankly, nothing could have me more excited, from an American storytelling perspective and an American healing perspective, that maybe there is something in the air.
on Birth of a NationBut eight years ago -- one of the producers on the film is Reggie Hudlin -- we got into a conversation about a movie about slavery, and he didn't like it. I actually hadn't seen the movie, and I was interested to hear why he didn't like it. And he was dissecting it -- why he didn't think, ultimately, it was as empowering as the film hoped to be.
And so he's talking, and I'm, hmm, he's making a kind of interesting case. And then he had kind of a, almost a closing Johnnie Cochran-finishing-up-the-summation line that knocked me out -- absolutely knocked me out. He goes, "Look, this is a movie obviously made with the best intentions, yet at the end of the day for black folks watching it, it's not half as empowering as The Legend of ****** Charley."
HLG: And what did you say when he said that?
QT: I said, I have nothing to say to that. It was 100 percent right. I got exactly what he meant. It was a diamond bullet of reality. I understood exactly what he meant. I took it in, and then I said, I have to make that movie one day.
HLG: So you're riffing on The Legend of ****** Charley. You're signifying on it.
QT: Yes, exactly ... The thing is, that actually is an empowering movie. And it wants to be a good movie, but they had no money. Nevertheless, it stands alone.
on the N-wordQT: I think it gave rebirth to the Klan and all the blood that that was spilled throughout -- until the early '60s, practically. I think that both Rev. Thomas Dixon Jr. and D.W. Griffith, if they were held by Nuremberg Laws, they would be guilty of war crimes for making that movie because of what they created there.
I've read about its making. I've read the book that just got published on Rev. Dixon a little bit ago, American Racist[/i], which was a very disturbing book -- more disturbing because I hated him forever, and the book made me actually understand him a little bit, when it is much easier to think of him as a monster. That's not pleasant -- things aren't as easy, unfortunately, when you dive into things with a microscope.
Personally, I find [the criticism] ridiculous. Because it would be one thing if people are out there saying, "You use it much more excessively in this movie than it was used in 1858 in Mississippi." Well, nobody's saying that. And if you're not saying that, you're simply saying I should be lying. I should be watering it down. I should be making it more easy to digest.
No, I don't want it to be easy to digest. I want it to be a big, gigantic boulder, a jagged pill and you have no water.
on the difference between being historically accurate and the style of the genreI think America is one of the only countries that has not been forced, sometimes by the rest of the world, to look their own past sins completely in the face. And it's only by looking them in the face that you can possibly work past them. And it's not a case where the Turks don't want to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust, but the Armenians do. Nobody wants to acknowledge it here.
HLG: Well, however you want to depict the horrors of slavery, slavery itself was 10,000 times worse.
QT: That almost became our slogan. It's like, look, the stuff that we show is really harsh, and it's supposed to be harsh, but it was [actually] a lot worse.
on the white savior narrativeIt was interesting, because on one hand I'm telling a historical story, and when it comes to nuts and bolts of the slave trade, I had to be real and had to tell it the right way. But when it comes to more thematic things and operatic view, I could actually have fun with stylization -- because it is taking parts from a spaghetti Western. And I am taking the story of a slave narrative and blowing it up to folkloric proportions and to operatic proportions that are worthy of high opera.
QT: I'll buy that. But you know, one of the tropes of Westerns and telling a story like this is you have an experienced gunfighter who meets the young cowpoke who has some mission that he has to accomplish, and it's the old, experienced gunfighter who teaches him the tricks of the trade: teaches him how to draw his gun, teaches him how to kill.
on Schultz's deathQT: It's the only time in the movie [that] a white man has addressed him, aside from Schultz, who has not even mentioned his color and treats him with respect. Not even just respect -- he treats him as a professional. It's obvious they have become a true team. They are both invited to come inside and partake of the man's birthday cake.
HLG: You did that, not to say something about the sheriff, but to say something about Django's maturity.
QT: Three months were wrapped into one exchange. And you see now that he's a professional. And he's invited inside. He doesn't wait outside with the horses. And that's one of those really important things.
on editing and different versions of scenesQT: Right. Well, you know, there are a few different reasons, and I don't want to spill it all out because I'm hoping that the audience will come up with some of their own of why Schultz does what he does. I actually think one of the definite reasons, though, is he had to put on this facade in dealing with this inhuman depravity that he's witnessing. Now that he's on the other side of it, it's all raining down on him.
The entire interview is excellent and can be found hereQT: Nothing that was too graphic. But there were versions of the movie, getting to the version that we have now, where both the Mandingo fighting [male slaves fighting to the death for sport] and the dog scene [were] even worse ... even more violent. I can handle rougher stuff than most people. I can handle more viscera than most. So to me it was OK.
But you know, you make your movie and you get it to a certain point where we've seen it ourselves enough -- now we have to see it with an audience. And this movie has to work -- all my movies have to work this way -- but this one kind of even more so had to work on a bunch of different levels.
The comedy had to be able to work, the horrific serious scenes have to work, I have to be able to get you to laugh a sequence after that to bring you back from [the horrific scene]. We have to be at the right place in the story where the big suspense scene at the dinner table happens so that will pay off.
It's sad that this movie is the best representation of black love in a major motion picture.
It's sad that this movie is the best representation of black love in a major motion picture.
There are many crappy, sappy movies about black love. I'm mad this dude went to see a Quentin Tarantino movie expecting a romantic comedy. Such foolishness.