Quentin Tarantino - Django Unchained

haven't seen his interview but he did a great job in boogie nights, a pretty good job in Three Kings, a great job in I Heart Huckabees...like him or not, he can be a very good actor within his limited range (although he seems to have lost his "purity" lately and gotten a bit too full of himself imo)

  On 1/10/2013 at 5:04 AM, lumpenprol said:

haven't seen his interview but he did a great job in boogie nights, a pretty good job in Three Kings, a great job in I Heart Huckabees...like him or not, he can be a very good actor within his limited range (although he seems to have lost his "purity" lately and gotten a bit too full of himself imo)

from wiki:

  Quote

Wahlberg had been in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth. By age 13, Wahlberg had developed an addiction to cocaine and other substances.^[8][9] At fifteen, he harassed a group of black school children on a field trip by throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets.^[10] At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious (while calling him "Vietnam fucking shit"). He also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving him permanently blind in one eye.^[11][12]

For these crimes, Wahlberg was charged with attempted murder, pleaded guilty to assault, and was sentenced to two years in state prison at Boston's Deer Island House of Correction, of which he served 45 days.^[11][13] In another incident, the 21-year-old Wahlberg fractured the jaw of a neighbor in an unprovoked attack.^[14] Commenting in 2006 on his past crimes, Wahlberg has stated: "I did a lot of things that I regret, and I have certainly paid for my mistakes." He said the right thing to do would be to try to find the blinded man and make amends, and admitted he has not done so, but added that he was no longer burdened by guilt: "You have to go and ask for forgiveness and it wasn't until I really started doing good and doing right by other people, as well as myself, that I really started to feel that guilt go away. So I don't have a problem going to sleep at night. I feel good when I wake up in the morning."^[15]

After going to prison for assault, he decided to improve his behavior. According to Wahlberg, "As soon as I began that life of crime, there was always a voice in my head telling me I was going to end up in jail. Three of my brothers had done time. My sister went to prison so many times I lost count. Finally I was there, locked up with the kind of guys I'd always wanted to be like. Now I'd earned my stripes and I was just like them, and I realized it wasn't what I wanted at all. I'd ended up in the worst place I could possibly imagine and I never wanted to go back. First of all, I had to learn to stay on the straight and narrow." Wahlberg first relied on the guidance of his parish priest to turn his back on crime. He told his street gang that he was leaving them and had "some serious fights" with them over it. The actor commented in 2009: "I've made a lot of mistakes in my life and I've done bad things, but I never blamed my upbringing for that. I never behaved like a victim so that I would have a convenient reason for victimizing others. Everything I did wrong was my own fault. I was taught the difference between right and wrong at an early age. I take full responsibility."^[16]

for some reason what bothered me most about the interview was his weird latent catholic conversion where he refused to talk about the attractiveness of other female actors (because he is married) and claimed he never masturbates (which if it isn't a lie it's absurd). The interview is just really cringe worthy for so many reasons, in part because he's there to promote a really shitty comedy, Ted.

edit: oh and apparently he helped produce Boardwalk empire and whenever he would refer to Buscemi he said over 3 separate times 'he is one of the greatest living actors' as if someone told him that once and he was just repeating it, when Howard inquired Whalberg seemed to have no actual context or understanding about Buscemi's acting career. He now seems to fancy himself a hotshot hollywood producer. From the interview though he just seemed like an investor who likes to get producer credit simply because he's dumb as a bag of rocks and has absolutely no clue about the world around him. He was perfectly cast in Boogie nights because the character was supposed to be a naive person with a very low level of self awareness, much like the man himself.

Just watched it again and I am in agreement with Smettingham on this for the most part. I don't think it sucks, but the editing, pacing, music choices really hurt any kind of cohesion to give the film atmosphere. Doing things poorly like having an actor play two roles as a throwback to cheap budget westerns that couldn't afford more actors is just unnecessary in context. The concept is very cool, I just wish he would have looked more closely at his favorite film, The Good Bad and Ugly. Delivered something less mix-mashy with his music choices/styles and trimmed the fat.

I just saw it for the first time. While i thought it had better tonal cohesion than Inglorious Basterds i think overall it was a little more style over substance than that movie was. I enjoyed this movie more as an experience it was more pure pleasure and easier to digest but it was still filled with jarring wtf moments that totally took me out of the movie. The amount of blood was pretty hilarious.
I still liked QT better when you can feel less his literary devices cranking away before you get sucked into a scene.

awesome interview http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12704

yeah that is a great interview, highly enjoyable. At this point QT is like a KEvin Smith, his monologues and stories/interviewers are more interesting than his artistic output.

upon further reflection I'm very thankful for Django Unchained's existence. I'm glad someone made a movie like that. I just don't know if It's a very good or well written movie. Still very enjoyable though if that makes any sense.

Agree with most of your points from the last page Smetty. Except i think Waltz just being such a good actor and magnetic presence saved the movie from being a lot more boring. You're right that the script was inherently problematic, even the best actors on the planet couldn't have made that better. Even though i'm not sensitive to the word nigger, I was surprised by how inappropriately used it was in the movie. I trusted before going into it that it wasn't done for shock value but a lot of the times it seemed like it was.

the name is Marky Mark ladies...

[youtubehd]-eSN8Cwit_s[/youtubehd]

  On 1/10/2013 at 8:18 AM, compson said:

having an actor play two roles as a throwback to cheap budget westerns that couldn't afford more actors

ah so that is why harry from dexter plays 2 roles. I didnt spot that homage.

  On 1/10/2013 at 10:58 AM, Awepittance said:

At this point QT is like a KEvin Smith, his monologues and stories/interviewers are more interesting than his artistic output.

 

 

No.

  On 1/10/2013 at 5:18 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

from wiki:

 

 

  Quote

Wahlberg had been in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth. By age 13, Wahlberg had developed an addiction to cocaine and other substances.^[8][9] At fifteen, he harassed a group of black school children on a field trip by throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets.^[10] At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious (while calling him "Vietnam fucking shit"). He also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving him permanently blind in one eye.^[11][12]

 

Boston is really full of Wahlbergs. Its like the "thing" to be a raging white pugilist asshole

  On 1/11/2013 at 2:45 AM, marf said:

  On 1/10/2013 at 5:18 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

from wiki:

 

 

  Quote

Wahlberg had been in trouble 20–25 times with the Boston Police Department in his youth. By age 13, Wahlberg had developed an addiction to cocaine and other substances.^[8][9] At fifteen, he harassed a group of black school children on a field trip by throwing rocks and shouting racial epithets.^[10] At 16, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man on the street and, using a large wooden stick, knocked him unconscious (while calling him "Vietnam fucking shit"). He also attacked another Vietnamese man, leaving him permanently blind in one eye.^[11][12]

 

Boston is really full of Wahlbergs. Its like the "thing" to be a raging white pugilist asshole

It's a white trash Irish-American thing very specific to Massachusetts, not just Boston. At least the ones from Boston can claim to be urban. If they knew what that meant.

But all things considered, Marky Mark can do more comedies and I will watch them because if he can't out-act his innate mookishness, he might as well own it to great comedic effect!

  On 1/11/2013 at 1:17 AM, Candiru said:

  On 1/10/2013 at 10:58 AM, Awepittance said:

At this point QT is like a KEvin Smith, his monologues and stories/interviewers are more interesting than his artistic output.

 

 

 

No.

No to what part? Are you a big fan of QT's recent output compared to his previous work? Or are you saying that Kevin Smith is a talented filmmaker

  On 1/10/2013 at 5:53 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

  On 1/10/2013 at 8:18 AM, compson said:

having an actor play two roles as a throwback to cheap budget westerns that couldn't afford more actors

 

ah so that is why harry from dexter plays 2 roles. I didnt spot that homage.

seems like a very half-assed and silly 'homage' to me. He should spend more time just making sure his film and script is solid rather than doing unnecessary jarring 'homages' like the MISSISSIPPI scrolling font that took like 30 seconds for it to pan across the screen, i mean jesus christ that shit needs to go. The only thing it adds to the movie is gimmick, but it takes you out of the movie more than absorbs you, which if i can say so is sort of the whole point of a good movie, to absorb you and keep you absorbed.

There are plenty of homages in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and JAckie Brown but rarely do they ever completely pull you out of the movie unlike Kill Bill, Basterds and Django.

I really hope he doesnt do a WW2 movie to try and connect both of his last films 'together' like he claims, DJango already feels like a big time thematic rehash of Inglorious. I'd be very much more interested in something even at the low quality level of Deathproof at this point, as long it's a totally new idea of his. I still don't think he's mastered a realistic period piece movie yet, the costumes and sets look pretty good but there is a missing ingredient i can't put my finger on. EVen as influenced as he was by Barry Lyndon in Inglorious, the movie doesn't rise to the same level of actually feeling as if you're in a different time period, it still feels like a movie.

I agree with Candiru. I think his films are generally classics we'll be watching in 40-50 years. Absolutely would never say the same about Kevin Smith.

The thing about Smith is that he's really the best comparison to Tarantino IN TERMS OF SURFACE LEVEL

But that's a very shallow view, when you actually watch the movies Tarantino is in an entirely different league artistically and intellectually

IMO

Haven't seen Django yet but that's mostly because I hate going to theaters.

Regarding the Wahlberg thing... strange how many "actors" have ridiculous sociopathic addicted beginnings. Crazy ass people, huh?

I thought this one was tarantino back to form. The music, the dialogues, the shots.

I liked the barry lyndon references, or rather ode.

Apart from the ending. That first moment qt entered the screen like an actor himself felt like a huge middle finger. After watching two hours of skinny, hairy men from the old west, some guy enters the picture like he just travelled back from the future wearing the posture of modern obesity. Wtf

Also liked the half in the bag red letter media review btw.

if you read what i said i wasn't comparing their level of filmmaking with one another, i was comparing their ability to tell stories as actually much more entertaining and interesting than their level of artistic output for the last decade. They are genuinely intellectual and extroverted people, which in a lot of ways works to their detriment when making films, but not for just telling stories to an audience

  On 1/11/2013 at 5:25 AM, goDel said:

Also liked the half in the bag red letter media review btw.

they were far too forgiving of the movie i thought but i liked it too.

  On 1/11/2013 at 5:24 AM, vamos scorcho said:

Haven't seen Django yet but that's mostly because I hate going to theaters.

hint: screener DVD quality leak

The hobbit review was brilliant though!

They Are at their best at talking trash. ;D

The scrolling mississippi text was indeed crappy, but the shot under it, and following, completely made it good again. The walking slaves in two directions. Really liked that visually

I think you can split QT's career into two parts. Before Kill Bill and after. The second half of his career has been all about making films with as much technique and virtuosity as possible but kind of transcending the exploitation genre with scenes of real power that catch you off guard next to all of the silliness and fun. Inglourious Basterds hit me this way. Does it hang together as a film, a piece of storytelling? I'm not sure, but those scenes are the work of a real maestro on the level of Hitchcock. Pulp Fiction had the best of both worlds, style marries substance with awesome results. Jackie Brown has much less flash than any of his other films, but it shows that he can make a comparatively low-key film focused on more realistic characters really well. But after all the criticisms that he steals from countless B movies, an original voice and perspective rises to the top. He contributes things nobody else does, and this is what we all ask for in our filmmakers I think.

i agree with you about dividing his career into those different eras, and i also think that he continues to bring a unique vision to every film he makes especially when they transcend the B-movie exploitation films he's homaging. I guess i just prefer to be immersed in a film for as long as possible, instead of being continually thrown out of it by unnecessary obvious homages and stylistic choices. I remember being riveted during the opening 30-45 minutes of Kill Bill, like thinking to myself 'wow, what a comeback after so long of not making any movies' and then as soon as it turns into a kung fu movie homage, the homage being more enforced than the power of the story telling i lost interest almost completely. I remember being sort of undecided during the japanese sushi restaurant scene and waiting for it to evolve into something compelling but it just never did and sort of petered out with a really bland sword fight as the end cap. I think he has the uncanny ability to put on screen exactly what's inside his head, but along the way he lost the ability to just tell a good story that sucks you in the whole way through

  On 1/11/2013 at 5:20 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 1/11/2013 at 1:17 AM, Candiru said:

  On 1/10/2013 at 10:58 AM, Awepittance said:

At this point QT is like a KEvin Smith, his monologues and stories/interviewers are more interesting than his artistic output.

 

 

 

No.

 

No to what part? Are you a big fan of QT's recent output compared to his previous work? Or are you saying that Kevin Smith is a talented filmmaker

 

 

  On 1/10/2013 at 5:53 PM, Jimmy McMessageboard said:

  On 1/10/2013 at 8:18 AM, compson said:

having an actor play two roles as a throwback to cheap budget westerns that couldn't afford more actors

 

ah so that is why harry from dexter plays 2 roles. I didnt spot that homage.

 

 

 

seems like a very half-assed and silly 'homage' to me. He should spend more time just making sure his film and script is solid rather than doing unnecessary jarring 'homages' like the MISSISSIPPI scrolling font that took like 30 seconds for it to pan across the screen, i mean jesus christ that shit needs to go. The only thing it adds to the movie is gimmick, but it takes you out of the movie more than absorbs you, which if i can say so is sort of the whole point of a good movie, to absorb you and keep you absorbed.

There are plenty of homages in Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and JAckie Brown but rarely do they ever completely pull you out of the movie unlike Kill Bill, Basterds and Django.

 

I really hope he doesnt do a WW2 movie to try and connect both of his last films 'together' like he claims, DJango already feels like a big time thematic rehash of Inglorious. I'd be very much more interested in something even at the low quality level of Deathproof at this point, as long it's a totally new idea of his. I still don't think he's mastered a realistic period piece movie yet, the costumes and sets look pretty good but there is a missing ingredient i can't put my finger on. EVen as influenced as he was by Barry Lyndon in Inglorious, the movie doesn't rise to the same level of actually feeling as if you're in a different time period, it still feels like a movie.

 

agree on all points, well said. applying this "hip hop" aesthetic to every aspect of the production, while conceptually cool, has been executed by him excessively. so there will be some very iconic shot of jamie foxx cowboy shadow or horse riding into orange sunset etc... cool stuff but without remaining within that aesthetic the result is disjointed. In Inglorious they switched languages a few times, but it was done with a purpose of adding some sort of change in situation between the characters... If its applied to distant reasonings that derived out of circumstance not reason, then thats taking it a bit far.

Tarantino flipped his lid a bit on a Channel 4 interview. Think he's getting seriously pissed with being repeatedly asked about whether there's a link between film violence and actual violence.

http://www.channel4.com/news/tarantino-uncut-when-quentin-met-krishnan-transcript

i could see why he would be pissed, journalists have been going after him for the last 20 years on this issue. He should be used to the questions by now though, he still lets himself get pretty riled up most of the time it happens. On Fresh Air with Terry Gross (npr) he was rather friendly until she asked him about Sandy Hook and how if it makes him think differently about the violence in Django and his entire attitude changed, and she asked ' you seem a little annoyed right now are you?' and he responded 'yeah im pretty annoyed' Not very often to hear that on an npr interview haha

cocaine

he is responsible for people talking about slavery in a way they haven't for thirty years? wtf? wtf is he talking about?

slavery as exploitation splatter film? i guess..am I the only one here that doesn't find this idea revolutionary? I mean, Ive dreamed about fucking up slave owners and nazis since I first heard about them.

I love how QT gets inundated with these violence questions but Michael Mann and Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer and all that shit get a free pass.