by Bryan Renfro

     So I remember hearing a few years back, shorty after viewing "Inglourious Basterds" and being misled by it's infuriating ad campaign, that Quentin Tarantino's next movie would be what he was calling... "a Southern". Basically, a Western that takes place in the South. And I remember thinking that's an interesting idea. Since Tarantino had never done a Western. Ok... so "Kill Bill: Volume 2" is essentially a Western. Then we'll say - he had never done a period-piece, costume drama kind of Western. And knowing he was a huge fan of the genre, it would be really interesting to see what he did with the opportunity to take his bloody action figures and play in that sandbox.

     So cut to this past week, when I finally got a chance to see "Django Unchained". He did in fact make "a Southern" - and he did not disappoint in bloodying his toys. All in all, I had a great time watching "Django Unchained". It's a well-made and entertaining Western, with Tarantino's fingerprints all over it! He put his usual pop culture-laden, 70's-obsessed spin on a genre that really should have made that difficult to do. (But truthfully, the World War 2 era should have been easily as difficult to cram that style into, and that certainly didn't stop him with his last outing.) But this time, he mixes genes as he's prone to do, by adding a touch of Blacksploitation to the well-worn Western mythos. And it's laid on thick enough at times, the movie borders on becoming "Shaft goes to the Old West". With his cool theme song blaring and the larger then life fonts whip-cracking across the screen, it has moments that are almost campy. But it's Tarantino-camp through and through. And to me it skates the line, but always stays within the realm of fun. And most of that campiness takes place outside of the story itself. Only in the viewers consciousness do we hear the tie-in music, do we see the on-screen titles, do we recognize the cameos and regular cast of characters that have come to make-up "a Tarantino movie". On-screen they stick primary to the plot and don't stop to wink at the camera too much. Save an odd showboating trick with a horse later in the movie that I felt was going a little too far, the rest plays out like a somewhat traditional Western. And a damn good one to boot!

     "Django Unchained" tells the story of a somewhat freed slave and an unconventional bounty hunter that partner up to cash in on the inordinate number of outlaws roaming the southern United States. And all with the promise of eventually tracking down Django's missing wife and rescuing her. Jamie Foxx plays the title role (the D is silent, by the way) and plays it well. Having seen him chew scenery at times in previous roles, I was worried going in about what he might do. But Foxx keeps it under control and plays an engaging hero. Not only believable in the action scenes, but also delivering in the more dramatic moments. Proving once again, that he can do some impressive acting as he deals with the injustice of the racist world he was born into.

     Now Christoph Waltz on the other hand, was a performance I was not at all concerned about going in. From his previous performances I expected Waltz to handle this role like a master... and he does. Never a moment of disappointment from his quirky bounty hunter Dr. Schultz. As solid of a performance as you can get. But in that same vein, no surprising moments either. He plays Dr. Schultz possibly too much as I expected. I guess I would have liked to see him forge some new ground in this performance, but truthfully, he plays this bounty hunter very close to his previous character of Col. Hans Landa in "Inglourious Basterds".  Arguably too close. His speech and mannerisms are very similar to his previous "Jew hunter" role, with the only variance being -  now he's a good guy. Well... the waters get pretty muddy in most Westerns, but for all practical purposes, he's a hero in this story. But saying he deliverers a performance on par with the role that won him an Oscar just a few years ago it's really much of a knock. It is still a terrific performance, just one I saw coming.

     What I didn't see coming however was the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio. I guess you can't argue that he has talent, considering his multiple Oscar nominations and fact that he has elevated himself from a fledging actor taking sitcom jobs to being the first call on every A-list project in Hollywood... and all before he's even hit 40. But most of the time, especially in the last decade or so, I felt like I knew what DiCaprio was bringing to the table. I'd seen his other performances and usually with every new big-budget project he joined, I knew what card he was going to play. But in "Django Unchained" that is not the case. Maybe it was something sparked by the chemistry between DiCaprio and Tarantino? Or maybe it was the fact that he wasn't playing the lead in this story? (Something he hasn't done in about 15 years!) Whatever it was, DiCaprio slides into the role of Calvin Candie with the ease of a seasoned veteran and brings us a fresh and surprisingly fun performance that truthfully... I didn't know he had in him. All the buzz going around about how he was snubbed by the Oscar nominations is true. (The Academy instead opted to nominate the previously mentioned Christoph Waltz for "Best Supporting Actor". Their focus on the more traditional Waltz performance likely bumped DiCaprio out of the running.) In my opinion DiCaprio easily deserved that nomination. And between the two, I think he even deserved it over the fine performance of Christoph Waltz. Because what DiCaprio does in this role is just short of brilliance. While in previous roles he had settled into a safe and sometimes boring lead character... in "Django Unchained" he opens up like a blossoming flower to reveal this new persona that is amusing and intoxicating. And he does what is most amazing when playing villainous character... he makes you to start to like him. Even when you know that he's evil! Even when you see him doing despicable things! DiCaprio plays the character with such charm and ease that you start to get lured in. Like the opulence of his Candyland plantation, Calvin Candie himself also possesses such lush behavior that he starts to suck you in... and you begin to forget you are supposed to dislike him. Now THAT is the makings of a good antagonist.

     And while Kerry Washington does deliver as solid performance as Broomhilda, Django's wife. The other main role to round out this cast really isn't her character. She becomes more of the goal. The vision to Django's quest. No, the fourth tent pole raising this tale is none other then Samuel L. Jackson himself. A staple of Tarantino's work, here Jackson much like DiCaprio gives us something we haven't seen in recent years. But while DiCaprio's role is pleasant and welcoming on the surface, Jackson's performance of Stephen is one of annoyance and ugliness. Representing everything that is cliche about the infamous "house slave" role, Stephen has none of the charm and niceties the rest of the Candie household possesses. Jackson becomes something we haven't seen in a long time - unlikable. Samuel L. Jackson is one of the more charismatic men working in Hollywood. Even in his lesser movies (of which there are many, but hey, what do you expect when you make as many films a year as he does?), Jackson is almost always likable. Even if the role itself calls for his character to be ambiguous or challenging, Jackson usually emerges as the victor. Always fun and enjoyable. But not here. Stephen is an unlikable character from the moment we meet him. He is argumentative, shifty and grating. But as it turns out... necessary. Not only is Stephen's character necessary to make the plot work as written. But by the end... in a film filled with vile and horrible human beings, it's arguable whether Jackson's character is the worst of them all. Not that he's enjoyable in this role, but I will give Jackson credit for not shying away from such an unpleasant individual.

     What's great about "Django Unchained" is it actually works on so may levels. It works as a Western, but it also manages to be funny along the way. There are some surprisingly hilarious moments worked into this movie. And yet, they usually aren't so over-the-top that they seem out of character. Plus is still manages to deliver solid action along the way, that all culminates in a bad-ass, six-shooter finale that ought to make John Woo jealous. And of course, we get the bloodbath we have also come to expect from Tarantino. Well... here he does not disappoint his fans. But in this movie in particular, I feel it is very fitting. The old West (or South as the case may be) was a violent place and time. And to me, the slightly exaggerated goriness is trying to reference the more realistically bloody films of Sam Peckinpah then the whitewashed cowboy picture show of the Saturday matinees. Once again, a little realism goes a long way. It may seem extreme at some moments, but I think he's trying to make a point. And maybe the hyper-realism of the violence adds weight to the already serious situation the characters face on a daily basis.

     But of all the praise I will heap on Tarantino as a director, what I wish he would come to terms with is... he is NOT a good actor. And that his little cameos are more of a distraction from the film then the cute wink to the audience they are meant to be. Hitchcock had sense enough to keep his joke cameos to a few seconds and with no dialog. He knew better then to stand there trading lines with his lead (with a horrible accent, no less). Quentin, please take a lesson from "The Master of Suspense" - and keep your cameos short and wordless.

     But what I think I found most interesting about this movie is that sort of follows the same grand arc that "Inglourious Basterds" did. Which is, oddly enough, Quentin Tarantino righting the wrongs of history. In these last two films he's strayed from his previous themes of heists gone wrong and well-deserved revenge to slyly delve into basic human rights and the atrocities of humanity... all mixed with a cool rockin' soundtrack. But seriously, it's fascinating that he went from these glimpses of day-to-day life on the lower end of the crime world to a much broader scale of tweaking the details of a known genre and then examining the outcome of the grandiose issues at work. Last time out, he went on a global scale. Looking at the horrors of war and just what would have happened if "The Allies" had not only won the war, but won it with a very specific and personal ass-kicking! And in the process of telling that story, Tarantino went so far in doing it that he rewrote history. Creating a completely alternate timeline just so that get could get the justice that he felt his heroes deserved.

     In "Django Unchained", the director doesn't so much rewrite history as much as rewrites the traditional Hollywood Western. Tarantino could have just just as easily told a standard cowboy tale, if all he was looking to do was crossover into that genre. Even the multiple "Django" movies of the past were about a white hero saving the day. But by making the protagonist black, you not only open the story up to an entire new perspective on slavery and the injustice of the time, but in the process you give Django power. And power in a time when most were powerless. So you now have these new opportunities to introduce your main character and watch how every member of the cast deals with what he represents. Whether it's the small town white people that have never seen a black man riding a horse before to the group of slaves looking angrily at a freed black man. This movie offers so many new perspectives to see not only how white people regard and treat people of color. But also how much tension and self-preservation comes into play even within the black community. Tarantino could have just gone the conventional route and put his own kitschy spin on a basic hero story. But instead he willfully coupled that with an amazing window into race relations, that not only holds a mirror up to the way things were - but also the way they are today.

     So what has happened to the Tarantino we used to know?? Is he now only concerned with righting the wrongs of society through film? And all this heady pontificating from a former pulp genera director makes me wonder... can Tarantino go back to the way he was? Or has he grown so much as a filmmaker in these last 20 years that those simple crime dramas are something he has surpassed and can't go back to? Can he make "Kill Bill 3" and just make it a stylishly bloody action flick? Or will there have to be more to it then that? I think the answer is 'yes', he can still do that type of thing. I think he is still such a geek for all the old genre stuff that he grew up on, that there will always be a way for him to come back to that and to tell a more simple character study without all the massive themes and overtones being thrown around. I think the more appropriate question is... 'Will he want to return to those movies?' That I suppose, we shall see.