Django Unchained

Shocking, I know, but even as much of a cinephile as I am, Django is only the second Tarantino film I've seen. It's been on my radar since well before it came out, and it took me a disturbingly long time to get to the theater, but I’m relieved, thrilled that I was able to catch it on the big screen, and that I was able to see it before the Oscars. We all know that presence gained after the Oscars is crap. 
 

Not many filmmakers take the obvious risks (or the equally obvious drugs) that Tarantino does, which is why there are so few films like his. Even rarer are the filmmakers that inspire new genres. Django Unchained is the second in what is rumored to be a trilogy-in-progress, a series of films in a new vein of 'revisionist history' - a radical twist of What Could Have Been that goes beyond historical fiction (Lincoln) or science fiction (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter), painting stories of heroes doing what we wish we had done, or been able to do. Tarantino started his journey with Inglorious Basterds, and now he ups the body count with Django Unchained.

I love me a contemporary western, especially one that employed a friend of mine. Maybe I was a little biased, but I was also fairly apprehensive. I'm not a fan of blood, guts, and violence, so I'm also not exactly Tarantino's target audience. Accepting that for what it is, and the fact that a Tarantino picture is just that, I was ready. And I freaking loved it. 

When was the last time something like this came to cinemas? Something that doesn't take the western genre quite so seriously - with references to spaghetti westerns of the 1970s through use of graphic font (I'm talking about the credits here, and any on screen text), music, and camera work. One of the things I really like about Tarantino, really respect, is his reverence for film. Whether it's a stylistic choice in an ode to a genre or choreography that references a landmark Italian film, Tarantino is a filmmaker who loves movies. While he's often criticized for the violence in his movies, the absurdity of it might even be viewed as artistically as the use of a red scarf to represent blood, or some of the other creative options often explored by stage productions. At least, I'm choosing to view it this way, so that I might be able to enjoy the amazing performances and writing that the movie has to offer. 

Right off the bat, after the credits roll, Christoph Waltz steals the show. His phenomenal voice, his accent, his entire presence is captivating, riveting as Dr. King Schultz, dentist-turned-bounty-hunter. His sense of humor, his character's unique manner of speaking - it's brilliant.  He's a perfect complement for the intense Jamie Foxx as Django. Bearded, bitter, and brooding, Django is purchased by Schultz, who disdains slavery, but needs Django's help to pursue the next bounty. The two make a good team; Schultz proposes that he help Django rescue his wife from the smarmy, wretched hands of the owner of the fourth-largest cotton plantation in the south, a 'Monsieur' Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). 

DiCaprio is great - for the first time, I'm not thinking about how much I despise him as an actor, just that Calvin Candie is atrocious, every bit as horrible as you want to imagine plantation owners to be. Despicable. Who's worse is house-slave Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), whose power and proximity to Monsieur Candie makes him closer to a white man than a slave. I liked not being able to instantly recognize Jackson, makeup and prosthetics allowing him to escape his iconic identity and truly absorb a new role. Can we go back to talking about how awesome Christolph Waltz is?

The only thing I didn’t love about the movie was its length. I wondered, about two-thirds of the way through the movie, where it was going and how it was going to end. I desperately wanted Django to have his victory; I wasn’t sure I could handle any other possible outcomes.  To know the film continued for another hour – what could possibly fill the time? Yet, entertaining is what Tarantino does best, and the final scenes are tremendously rewarding. It’s no wonder the film has garnered so much praise already. I’m sure it will continue to gain popularity as newcomers to the Tarantino oeuvre discover it.

If you can stomach the violence, I would highly recommend Django Unchained. To create a new legend, a new hero, out of the ashes of cultural shame, Tarantino has taken a great risk, for which he has also had much abuse. I hope he feels the product is reward enough for his trouble – though I still think he may have a Best Original Screenplay Oscar in his future. I hope you still have the chance to catch it in the theater – though I imagine Django Unchained will make for epic viewing, no matter the size of the screen.

Take This Waltz

In the middle of the movie, this phrase came to me: Sarah Polley is a visionary director. I've never seen her work before, but somehow, I know.

I remember seeing the trailers for Take This Waltz, and it looked like hearts-on-your-sleeve indie material. It looked like a less miserable Blue Valentine (which I also haven't seen yet, but which is a Michelle Williams film, and is supposed to be a genuine representation of a less-than-ideal marriage). The casting of Seth Rogen seemed odd, but based on the trailer, it worked, so when I came across the movie to stream on Netflix, it was like a date with destiny.

Having made a splash with her first project, Away From Her, Polley returned to the indie cinema circle to direct her profoundly moving and original screenplay Take This Waltz. It's rather unique in its perspective on marital unhappiness, in that you are equally uncertain (as the characters) as to "the right thing to do." Michelle Williams, arguably the most successful Dawson's Creek alum, completely shines as Margot, a young writer married to Lou (a rather mature Seth Rogen), who is working on a chicken cookbook. In the midst of a hot Canadian summer, Margot unexpectedly meets her new neighbor Daniel (Luke where-have-you-been-all-my-life Kirby) and finds an entirely different, comfortable, confident, sexy as hell, happy side of herself. She and Daniel become friends, but Margot struggles with the deeply felt commitment to her husband. Maybe in thirty years, she tells Daniel, I can kiss you. But what makes this movie interesting is the trajectory of the story, the fact that it doesn't end when, where, or how you think it's going to. At least - not for me.

The film is beautifully shot, in Canada, and using a luscious palette, with some truly exquisite framing. The art direction is incredible, so detailed and colorful, it's easy to want to live in this world, with these characters, and their emotions. Even Sarah Silverman, as Margot's sister-in-law Geraldine, manages to really shed her comedic persona and embrace the gravitas the film requires. Evidently I like Silverman in more than Wreck-It Ralph; she's pretty great here, too. But again, it's Williams whose inner torment holds the film together, and whose performance helps me to understand how so much can go unnoticed between two people... how everything at home may seem fine, and if you didn't know what was going on in Margot's head and heart - you couldn't tell.

The only challenge is trying to wrangle a moral or a lesson out of the film. I can't do it. I don't know if the grass is always greener on the other side, or if one choice really is better. I want to believe there is an answer, and movies usually do that for you, let you believe in happily ever after. This one - not so much. It's not a film to look to for guidance or reassurance, but it is an immensely moving work of art.


Notes:
- Much of the cast, including writer/director Sarah Polley, had roles on the very successful Canadian series Slings and Arrows, about life and work at the New Burbage Theatre Festival. Rachel McAdams also appeared on the show.
- Did you know Seth Rogen is Canadian? That means that only Sarah Silverman and Michelle Williams are American cast members. But Williams was born in Montana, and that's practically Canada, right? (JK!)
- If you really want to see an actor famous for his comedy do a dramatic turn, see Paul Rudd in The Shape of Things. Everyone who knows me knows how I feel about this movie. What other comedy actors have done brilliant dramatic turns? Leave it in the comments! (Robin Williams doesn't count; he's done enough drama to be a crossover actor. Also, I loathed Patch Adams.)

The Giant Mechanical Man

Some people spent their evening watching the Super Bowl. I spent my evening remembering the roots of this blog - wanting to provide commentary on lesser-known or older films, things that don't have commercials running.

I saw the trailer for The Giant Mechanical Man some months ago, on IMDB.com (like you do), and thought it looked different, and full of heart. Written and directed by Lee Kirk, the film stars Kirk's wife, Jenna Fisher (Pam from The Office) and familiar face Chris Messina (Ruby Sparks, Julie and Julia among his credits). It's Kirk's first full-length film, though, and it kinda feels like it: almost, but not quite there yet.

Janice and Tim are two thirty-something strangers in the city, somewhat aimless, lost souls, whose well-meaning friends and family clearly don't understand. Tim gives the film its title, painting himself gray and silver, walking on stilts, and becoming a sidewalk fixture in pantomime. But it's not enough to sustain himself and his relationship, so when his girlfriend leaves, he decides to buckle down and get a job. Janice is forced to move in with her sister Jill (played by Malin Ackerman) when she is fired from the temp agency, but Jill and her husband have their own agenda. Trying to help, they operate under the misguided notion that pushing Janice into a relationship with a self-help guru (a curiously cast Topher Grace) will help Janice find a sense of direction. Tim and Janice cross paths en route to finding what they need when they both land jobs at the Fillmore Zoo.

What the film gets right, what it does best, is to identify what the characters need, and what they find in each other. Instead of wandering the city looking for love, or even divine purpose, it turns out they're looking for is one person: "Just one person to make you feel special, and valid, and like you belong." Jim and Pam get that. I mean, Tim and Janice.

Lee Kirk's done a great job with Tim and Janice; they're solid, genuine people with good hearts, disillusioned with this capitalist, ridiculous world. The problem is with the rest of the script - unless it was a stylistic choice that I dislike - and the complete emptiness of everything that isn't "Tim & Janice." I realize some of the dialogue between Jill, her husband, Doug, and Janice is intentionally vapid, but the sheer transparency of it neared condescension. Surely those characters could be granted some integrity of their own.

It is different, and if you like an indie romance, you might want to stop and have a look at The Giant Mechanical Man.