posted
I've been following this since Cumberbatch got cast. A friend and I even tried to visit the set but ended up at "The Butler" instead.
I'm excited to finally get a trailer. So far, it looks pretty good. I hope it does well because "Academy Award winner Chiwetel Ejiofor" is a thing I would love to see at the beginning of every commercial he's ever in.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how Steve McQueen got this cast. I mean he's made a couple of very good movies (in my opinion) with Hunger and Shame but this is a massive cast. I don't understand but I am pleased: I fully expect it to be good.
posted
It looks REALLY good. With that cast too, wow.
I enjoyed Django, but I didn't really like how some of the characters were portrayed, especially Django. He went from having a white best friend to killing people just BECAUSE they were white, and it didn't make much sense to me.
Pitt's character seems like (from the trailer at least) he may be a sympathetic character to Ejiofor's.
And is it just me or does it seem like Paul Giamatti is getting a ton of villain roles lately? I like nice Paul Giamatti.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Obama
unregistered
posted
Actually, I'm pretty sure he wasn't killing people for being white, or he wouldn't, as you noted, have had a white best friend.
What he did do was mercilessly gun down slave owners, or those who were employed to help keep the slaves enslaved. I enjoyed the movie, especially when it involved Django putting boot to ass when it came to slavers.
Or, as Dave Chapelle put it,
" Apparently, shooting a slave master is only funny to me and Neal; if I could, I'd do it every episode!"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It looks REALLY good. With that cast too, wow.
I enjoyed Django, but I didn't really like how some of the characters were portrayed, especially Django. He went from having a white best friend to killing people just BECAUSE they were white, and it didn't make much sense to me.
Pitt's character seems like (from the trailer at least) he may be a sympathetic character to Ejiofor's.
And is it just me or does it seem like Paul Giamatti is getting a ton of villain roles lately? I like nice Paul Giamatti.
That's a puzzling perspective to me. It was clear to me, when I first saw the film, that once the gloves were off Django (and so would Schultz, given the chance) kill anyone associated with slavery, especially after they all took part in the whole 'send Hilde back to the rape-cabin' and 'send Django to the mine to be slowly worked to death' angle.
But, copping to my own bias here, I'm something of a John Brown fan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Nice cast. Chiweletel should have been the lead in Django.
If he were as good an actor as Jamie Foxx, he might have been. But he's not. He was alright in Serenity, meaning the fanboys love him, but he's a one-note player. Not a lot of depth that I've ever seen.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I enjoyed Django, but I didn't really like how some of the characters were portrayed, especially Django. He went from having a white best friend to killing people just BECAUSE they were white, and it didn't make much sense to me.
In the sense that you seriously didn't understand that the people he was killing were, according to the logic of this story, culpable in his eyes for the atrocities of slavery? Because everyone he kills at the end of the movie is an employee or owner of Candyland (with the slight exception of Jackson, who is the head house slave, and equally culpable).
You saw that as internally inconsistent? Or are you applying some external standard to the story?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nice cast. Chiweletel should have been the lead in Django.
If he were as good an actor as Jamie Foxx, he might have been. But he's not. He was alright in Serenity, meaning the fanboys love him, but he's a one-note player. Not a lot of depth that I've ever seen.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I enjoyed Django, but I didn't really like how some of the characters were portrayed, especially Django. He went from having a white best friend to killing people just BECAUSE they were white, and it didn't make much sense to me.
In the sense that you seriously didn't understand that the people he was killing were, according to the logic of this story, culpable in his eyes for the atrocities of slavery? Because everyone he kills at the end of the movie is an employee or owner of Candyland (with the slight exception of Jackson, who is the head house slave, and equally culpable).
You saw that as internally inconsistent? Or are you applying some external standard to the story?
A little of both actually. It mostly had to do with the men that were taking him to the mines. Those characters were transporting him and a few others, but once they found out he was actually a free man and heard Django's story they agreed to let him go and help him. Django just up and killed them once he was free. It just seemed inconsistent, especially since his German buddy had freed him from some slave owners at the beginning and didn't free him until he had given him a hand with the brothers.
Externally because of Foxx's statements prior to the movie release about being able to kill all the white people. He could have said slavers or slave owners, but the word he chose made it sound like there was no difference between the two.
I understood him killing those at Candyland. The men who freed him so he could go BACK to Candyland, not so much.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A little of both actually. It mostly had to do with the men that were taking him to the mines. Those characters were transporting him and a few others, but once they found out he was actually a free man and heard Django's story they agreed to let him go and help him. Django just up and killed them once he was free. It just seemed inconsistent, especially since his German buddy had freed him from some slave owners at the beginning and didn't free him until he had given him a hand with the brothers.
...you didn't miss the part where they were transporting two (three?) other black men as slaves to be put to slow death by toil in the mines, did you? It was hardly their first such trip, either. They were slavers, directly profiting from human slavery, and were 'hands-on' in the practice so to speak. I have to admit, I'm baffled that anyone would find killing them problematic since they never expressed even a hint of regret or reluctance, and the only reason they freed him was because they were promised a great deal of very easy money.
Anyway, as a practical matter Django could hardly take them with him to Candyland-his story wouldn't hold up to a second's scrutiny once they had anything but his convenient handbill and word to go on. When he got there, Django would be a rebellious slave with quite a lot of white blood on his hands who tried-repeatedly-to 'steal' another slave away. What do you think would have happened to him then?
As for comparisons to Schultz, there are a few differences. One, when Django met him Schultz wasn't, y'know, transporting slaves. He treated Django with dignity and friendliness. He made a deal with Django that he (Schultz) showed every sign of keeping, and then was willing to risk (and lose) his life to help this slave he hadn't met before save his wife from slavery too.
As for the 'kill all the white people', well your response to what was clearly a joke says as much about you (as does mine about me) as it does about Foxx and the film.
-------------
I guess ultimately, overall, I don't get the disapproval of killing the transporters. They were slavers. I can't think of much I would disapprove of doing to them in the process of freeing their captives, which Django also did.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Nice cast. Chiweletel should have been the lead in Django.
If he were as good an actor as Jamie Foxx, he might have been. But he's not. He was alright in Serenity, meaning the fanboys love him, but he's a one-note player. Not a lot of depth that I've ever seen.
Couldn't disagree more. He always delivers a nuanced and appropriate proformance which enhances whichever movie he is in.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A little of both actually. It mostly had to do with the men that were taking him to the mines. Those characters were transporting him and a few others, but once they found out he was actually a free man and heard Django's story they agreed to let him go and help him. Django just up and killed them once he was free. It just seemed inconsistent, especially since his German buddy had freed him from some slave owners at the beginning and didn't free him until he had given him a hand with the brothers.
...you didn't miss the part where they were transporting two (three?) other black men as slaves to be put to slow death by toil in the mines, did you? It was hardly their first such trip, either. They were slavers, directly profiting from human slavery, and were 'hands-on' in the practice so to speak. I have to admit, I'm baffled that anyone would find killing them problematic since they never expressed even a hint of regret or reluctance, and the only reason they freed him was because they were promised a great deal of very easy money.
Anyway, as a practical matter Django could hardly take them with him to Candyland-his story wouldn't hold up to a second's scrutiny once they had anything but his convenient handbill and word to go on. When he got there, Django would be a rebellious slave with quite a lot of white blood on his hands who tried-repeatedly-to 'steal' another slave away. What do you think would have happened to him then?
As for comparisons to Schultz, there are a few differences. One, when Django met him Schultz wasn't, y'know, transporting slaves. He treated Django with dignity and friendliness. He made a deal with Django that he (Schultz) showed every sign of keeping, and then was willing to risk (and lose) his life to help this slave he hadn't met before save his wife from slavery too.
As for the 'kill all the white people', well your response to what was clearly a joke says as much about you (as does mine about me) as it does about Foxx and the film.
-------------
I guess ultimately, overall, I don't get the disapproval of killing the transporters. They were slavers. I can't think of much I would disapprove of doing to them in the process of freeing their captives, which Django also did.
We don't know if they were slavers. We know that they were transporting Django and three others to the mines. There were thousands of white indentured servants back then. For all we know they could have been indentured servants to Candyland, and saw Django as an opportunity to free themselves.
Context is important, and the film didn't give us any when dealing with these three characters.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We don't know if they were slavers. We know that they were transporting Django and three others to the mines. There were thousands of white indentured servants back then. For all we know they could have been indentured servants to Candyland, and saw Django as an opportunity to free themselves.
Context is important, and the film didn't give us any when dealing with these three characters.
Is there any reason to assume that those three men (Australians by the sound of them) were anything other than just individual employees of a slave mine? You're right, it's certainly possible that they were in fact not there and doing that job of their own volition at all but had been compelled to do so but...
Geeze, man, it really feels like you're trying to find a reason why it was wrong to do that. Again, what was Django supposed to do even supposing it was objectionable to kill them? He couldn't take them with him. He couldn't leave them behind able to raise the alarm. He also wanted to free the other slaves being transported. I've seen the film three times now (twice in theaters, once on DVD) and nothing about them said they were conscientious men reluctant to participate in the machinery of slavery. Quite the opposite. I can say with certainty, though, that they gave no sign other than interest in the money that they were happy about the prospect of Django's offer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
