I was browsing the forums on Mubi, as I often do when I noticed a thread asking the question whether Les Miserables or Lincoln would win best picture. My first reaction was "oh god please don't tell me it's between those two". I feel like we're back in election season and I have red or blue as my only options and people will just laugh at my longing for a third party like I'm some eccentric crackpot.
I'll be honest I haven't seen Les Miserables, or rather I haven't seen this version of it. I vocally disliked The King's Speech so I can't say I'm all that excited about Mr. Hooper's follow up. The fact that it's a remake of a remake of a play that was based on a book, etc. doesn't drum up much enthusiasm for me. I've enjoyed some incarnations of the story but rarely have I said "I'd love to see this made today with an all star cast as a musical". Well sorry if I start looking at this film like Rob Marshall's god awful film Nine, which was also based on a musical based on a film that was perfect to begin with. I don't think a single person appeared in that film who hadn't won an Oscar, but no matter how great the cast and even crew you couldn't wipe the stale stench of horse shit from the screen.
When the Academy nominations are announced I'll probably see Les Miserables, because if it get's nominated I'll have to, you know this is a weakness of mine. Until then, to hell with the film.
Now let's talk about Lincoln. I didn't blog about it when I saw it, but let me tell you something, ugh. Yeah that's my one word review of the film, "ugh". Boring, overly long, and far too bloated with infuriating Spielberg cheese that seemed more infuriating than insulting. I mean that random black soldier finishing the Gettysburg address? I was lost by that moment and the film never got me back. Perhaps a sweeping film of Lincoln's life would have been great, or just one focusing on the end of the war and the assassination, however the politics of an amendment passing might seem like an interesting special on the History channel but it doesn't make for a great movie no matter how many heavyweight actors you cast.
If I were to rate Lincoln, which I will on my next film journal I'd probably give it two stars (or 4/10). I may just reduce this rating because to hell with this film. There were things I liked, mainly Tommy Lee Jones because that man should be on currency. Other than that I could have done without the entire picture, I would have rather spent those 4 hours sleeping or watching another movie that deals with slavery in a much, much, much, much, much more badass way.
THE FILM OF THE YEAR
DJANGO UNCHAINED!!!!!!!!
Yeah you read that right, Tarrantino is back and god damn is it satisfying. He was having me worried, as much as Inglorious Basterds was a satisfying film I didn't think it was quite the redemptive masterpiece I needed after the boring talk fest known as Death Proof. I was worried that the man who occasionally dabbled in nostalgic throwbacks might be inept at an outright period picture. Well I was wrong.
See Tarantino knows a lot about violence. I'm not saying he was a violent man, or he was beaten senseless throughout life, I'm saying he knows what violence works and how to use it to his advantage. He knows that Jews killing nazis in WWII is awesome, because everyone hates nazis, and who better to get some vengeance than the poster boys for his hate? Well if there's anything people enjoy more than seeing Jews kill nazis its slaves kill white people down south.
This might seem a racial thing, a move designed for black people but oh no. I did a report on Nat Turner not because I had to but because I thought he was a revolutionary bad ass. Turns out Nat was a bit delusional and thought god spoke to him in a field and told him to kill those white people, so who knows about him, but he did kill a lot of white people. Tarantino takes something of a Italian western archetype (Django is far more Leone than Ford), and makes him a former slave. Rather than a runaway, he is given his freedom by a European, who takes him along in his business in killing.
Now I don't want to spoil all of the fun, but when Django performs his first job as a bounty hunter it is damn satisfying. The script is damn brilliant, including an absolutely hilarious exchange about white hoods and eye holes. Whereas I felt some of Tarantino's last two films might have felt like he was using his actors as a mouthpiece for himself, here everything seems natural, as it did in Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction.
Spielberg might be terrified of saying "nigger" even in a film about the abolition of slavery, as if ignoring that word can make it go away, but Tarantino knows this is 1858 in the South, that's what people referred to all black people regardless of social status. He perhaps rightfully was criticized for using the word so freely in Pulp Fiction, but here it fits, just as it did in Roots. It also makes things so much sweeter when Django finally lets loose.
I can't really call this his "Western" because well it's not really a Western in the traditional sense. Hence why Dr. Schultz says they'll refer to Django one day as "The fastest gun in the South". It's specifically a southern film about a slave who is that "one in ten thousand". The supporting cast is damn excellent as well and I can't imagine Leonardo DiCaprio ever having more fun with a role.
No comments:
Post a Comment