Quentin unchained...

So I debated whether or not to write something about Django Unchained. I had considered writing about the movie before I had seen it, because what I was planning on writing didn't have so much to do with the movie itself, but the reaction to it. However, because of laziness, and also because of a certain uneasiness with writing about movies that I haven’t seen, I decided to hold off.

Well I saw Django Unchained over the weekend, and while I’m still digesting the film, I think I’m at least comfortable writing a post about it.

Let me begin by saying that while Spike Lee is an intelligent man (or seemingly so), a creative filmmaker, and an undisputed maven in black cinema (an American cinema in general), I question his criticism of Django before even seeing the film. I can’t say that no one will find this movie racist (I personally did not, but more on that later), because it is subjective, after all, and that means that what I took away from it is not necessarily what someone else will take away from it. But I can’t help but accuse Spike Lee of bias, as he has a history of criticizing Quentin Tarantino (don’t get me wrong, I’m no Tarantino apologist) for being a racist; so the context of a white filmmaker – especially Quentin Tarantino – making a glib film about slavery naturally would rub him the wrong way. But as a filmmaker – especially a filmmaker that deals with racial issues – should at least give Tarantino a chance to make his argument before completely debasing the film, and calling it racist.

That being said, had Spike Lee seen the film, he still might have come to the same conclusion. And to be fair, I’ll agree with Spike Lee in saying that Tarantino’s use of the “N” word in his movies seems more about his potential desire for using a controversial word freely than to create authenticity in his characters and movies. In my reality – and my reality in no way reflects anybody else’s – people don’t just throw around the “N” word, whether that be in the company of black people or not. The “N” word is a taboo word, and just because a white person is friendly or comfortable with an individual or group of black people, doesn't mean that the word becomes standard nomenclature. In the black community it could be different, and I understand that, but I think Lee’s criticism is more of Tarantino’s white characters’ flippant use of the word, rather than his black characters.

Sorry, I trailed off a bit there. So while I understand Lee’s issues with Tarantino’s use of the “N” word, and the “N” word was used A LOT – I repeat A LOT – in Django Unchained, the use actually seemed very apropos to the film, and actually added a certain authenticity that Tarantino sometimes lacks in his historic pieces. If you read my blog, you might have stumbled upon a piece where I talk about the “N” word, so you know that I’m no fan; but as I said, it’s use in Django Unchained, while very liberal, actually seemed quite realistic. The use of the word itself, I hope at least, didn't solely create the impression in some people’s minds that this movie, or Tarantino himself, is racist.

Now to the film itself. I personally did not find the film racist. It is true that a filmmaker ought to be sensitive when addressing a topic such as slavery; but Quentin Tarantino is not a sensitive filmmaker, so while should doesn't equate to is, that doesn't mean he was being racist with his insensitivity. The film, similar to his efforts in Inglorious Basterds, is essentially a revenge movie where Tarantino rewrites history to make oppressed people beat their oppressors. While people may question why Tarantino made the movie, if I was to venture a guess I would say that it’s because he’s a filmmaker who is interested in the idea of oppression and social injustice, and therefore wanted to make a bloody farce based upon what would happen if history were fair.

That’s my take on the movie, but I’m interested in knowing what others thought of the movie. Did you find it racist? Did you think there was a point in Tarantino making the movie? Is it fair for Spike Lee to disavow the movie without ever seeing it?

An Unexpected[ly long] Journey...

I saw The Hobbit last night, and I have to say I was underwhelmed. Now, I should preface my review here by saying that I missed the last 30 minutes of the movie, because the lights came on and movie shut off, and we were forced to evacuate due to a fire alarm. However, I can honestly say that I wasn’t that disappointed about having to head home.

I guess I should start by saying that the movie is not bad. It just lacked something; something that made the Lord of the Rings so exciting to watch. It might have been a mistake for Peter Jackson to try and stretch a small adventure book (smaller than any of the Lord of the Rings books) into three movies. I’m not sure what his motivation for doing so was, but if the goal was to include every last detail of the book (even the minutiae), then he accomplished that. There were just too many scenes where we watched the characters running, or looking out over the scenery. Some of that stuff is good, but too is much is, well…too much.

There were some exciting parts, and the actors for the most part did a good job. However, the development of the dwarves was a bit thin, even for Thorin, the main character. The first 20 minutes of the movie is spent telling the back story; most of which seemed superfluous to the story. We needed the main points, and then wanted to jump into the movie. The Lord of the Rings did a great job of this with the Galadriel voiceover, and explained everything in about 3 minutes.

It’s possible that the final 20 minutes of the movie really brought everything together for the first movie. Or, it’s possible that once the three movies have been released that the whole story will be a cinematic masterpiece. But, as of now, it seems that this movie was incredibly overwrought, like Jackson was simply trying to rehash his success in making Lord of the Rings, by remaking the movie with a different plot. And to the plot specifically; The Hobbit was a much lighter romp than the Lord of the Rings, but Jackson brought none of the light adventure that was possible, and instead tried to make the dwarves quest as being similar in significance and scope to that of the characters in the Lord of the Rings – which is isn’t.

Overall score: B-

Yeah, but is it really like that?

Let me say from the outset that I am a Spike Lee fan. I enjoy every movie of his that I’ve seen (which I think is probably every single one), even if I find his messages a bit heavy-handed. His characters are riveting, even if his stories are somewhat chaotic and hard to follow. His movies are all so personal, and therefore it adds a certain sense of realism (maybe the only sense of realism) to an otherwise completely fictional world.

With that being said, I do have some issues with Spike Lee’s directing style, his characters, and his movies. As I said before, I find his directing to be very heavy-handed. What do you I mean by this? I mean that he consistently uses the same actors, the same character types, and the same settings to beat his audience over the head with his message. This has changed somewhat in Spike’s later career as he’s broadened his cast, his stylization, and his focus to more than just a one-dimensional beat down, letting you know that racism still exists in this country.

It’s understandable why Spike Lee directed his early movies the way he did. For one, he grew up in Fort Greene in the 1960s and 70s; and though this neighborhood may be a contemporary haven for members of the old Brooklyn middle class and yuppy artists, the neighborhood was hit with the same waves of crime and drugs in the 70s and 80s that embroiled the rest of big apple. So Spike probably grew up with some Snuffy’s rolling around the neighborhood, and he definitely had to deal with the likes of Sal, the disgruntled pizza shop owner that Lee’s characters worked for in Do the Right Thing. So his reason for making the movies and characters the way they are is understandable, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right.

Social commentary is certainly made more poignantly with one dimensional characters than with complex, multi-layered individuals. With one dimensional it’s easy to understand who the character is supposed to represent, and doesn’t cloud the overall message with trying to figure out who this character is in the grand scheme of the film. However, one dimensional characters also do not accurately represent the complexity within all of us that is deeply than simply an overtly stated belief. All people are not anything all of the time. Criminals can be kind, drug users can be logical, racists can be thoughtful, players can be trustworthy. It’s important to remember this when we’re pigeonholing people; that though people may openly display seemingly one dimensional characteristics, there is a whole lot going on within that person that we’re completely unaware of.

As a movie watcher, and not someone in the movie industry, my criticism of Spike Lee maybe be somewhat quaint or simple minded, but I think his movie create much too simplistic ill-concieved perceptions of the world around us, especially for people that live in major cities, and especially for people that live in Brooklyn. It’s true that racism still exists, and it’s true that people sometimes (unfortunately) conform to stereotypes instead of create them, but that doesn’t mean that every white cop in Brooklyn wants to bust in the head of a young black man, or that every Jewish club owner is a scheming “shylock” trying to screw over his employees, or that every Korean grocer is hateful and suspicious toward their black patrons.

Spike Lee’s creation of a fantasy world where all black men and women in whatever neighborhood he’s portraying not only get along, but all know one another, is simply a distortion of the depth and nuance that exists within everyone racial or cultural community, and creates the illusion that a) the world is against black people (especially young black men) and that b) there is no way to fight back against it, because the outside forces are too strong to overcome.

As I finished writing this post I realized two major errors that I've made. The first is that I’m criticizing Spike Lee movies that (for the most part) were made around 20 years ago. His perspective has changed a lot, his characters have changed a lot, and his movies have changed a lot. I give him credit for that. The second major error is that while I might want Spike Lee to create a more realistic setting, maybe that’s not what he was trying to do. His intention was not to show reality as it exists, in fact. His intention might have been to instead show reality as it is seem by a specific person or group of people. Therefore, to understand what he was trying to say, you can’t judge against the world we see around us in the neighborhoods we occupy, but instead we have to look within ourselves and interpret the world through our own filtered experiences.

Nostalgia...

I will state from the outset that I'm a big Woody Allen fan. I haven't seen all of his movies, or even a majority of them, but I still connect with them for some reason. Maybe it's the uneasiness with which he (or his "characters") seem to move through life. Or maybe it's the obscure references he's constantly making throughout his films that I find amusing, and even a little educational (I usually am looking them up throughout the movie).
I saw Midnight in Paris last night and I found the movie to be a refreshingly non-Woody Allen Woody Allen movie. It wasn't that the typical Woody Allen movie elements weren't there - they were. The archetypal setting, the city worship, the complex one-dimensional characters (not impossible?), and of course the beautiful women.
The movie starts with about three minutes of shots from around the city of Paris, letting us all know the setting. It's a classic Woody Allen tool to denote his love of the city, and indicate to the audience exactly where we're at.
The only issue I had with the movie was that I felt Owen Wilson was miscast. I don't think he did a bad job; in fact, I think he did a very good job. The problem is that his persona and personality are not right for the part of the character (basically Woody Allen). He's too laid back, too funny, too cheery. Woody's characters are dry, nebbish, neurotic and misanthropic. It just doesn't fit. There are elements of the character that Owen Wilson seems to be well suited, but overall I don't think he delivers the Woody Allen neurosis. But I don't blame him; again, I think he was miscast.
The nice thing about this movie is that while the plot is fairly simple; it explores very realistic emotions that we all feel within ourselves about our place in the world, as well as our place in our relationships. There were moments in the movie when I was frustrated that the Wilson's character did not realize certain things that were happening, because I could imagine myself in the very same situation, and HAVE realized what was happening, and therefore been very upset. But it also delves into the surrealistic world of anachronism and nostalgia, and let's not only the main character, but other characters in the film as well, explore their world beyond the scope of their place and time. This makes the movie fun and quirky, but in the end also let's us in on the point of the entire film.
Recommendation: See the movie. You don't have to be a Woody Allen buff to like it, but even if you are you'll still enjoy elements of the movie that are quintessentially Woody Allen, albeit somewhat muted.