Tarantino’s Django

by Steve Grant

I recently went and saw Questin Tarantino’s new movie, Django Unchained.  Jamie Fox is released from captivity to help a bounty hunter find some men.  Django is good on a horse and with guns.  He learns from this man and they attempt to save Django’s wife from Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, the owner of his slave wife.

This movie shows a situation where evil plantation owners and outlaws are getting what they deserve.  Django and the other bounty hunter execute men left and right.  Those in the audience cant help but cheer for what they are witnessing.

This movie was similar to Inglorious Bastards in the way it pleases with violence.  People love to see Nazi’s getting scalped or beat to death by baseball bats the same way they enjoy watching slavery mongrels getting what they ultimately deserve.

Is it ok to enjoy this type of violence?  I don’t know about that, but I do know Django was another fast shooting dialogue flashing piece of Tarantino artwork.

6 Responses

  1. Lynna at |

    I saw that a few weeks back. It was a great movie. Full of action and yes, a little gory sometimes, but I thought it was a great flick!

    Reply
  2. Tim Green at |

    Though I’ll watch anything Tarantino puts out (for the sort of sick humor, if anything), I’m often a bit disturbed by continual gratuitous violence. Of course, our society is a scene of continual violence. I don’t suppose one can call real-world violence “gratuitious.” Was Newtown violence “gratuitious”? The word doesn’t fit the real world. It fits the presentation or representation of violence. Television news or movies can show “gratuitious” violence in the sense that they have control of how much they show and for what purpose. Should the media show clips of those who jumped from the Twin Towers? They have generally chosen not to, though one can find them on the Internet, I’m sure. A mass killer’s violence is “gratuitous” in the sense of “unwarranted” or “excessive,” but the word “gratuitous” implies that they might be an acceptable level of mass killing, in this case. Tarantino could, theoretically, provide a moderate or justifiable level of violence; anything beyond that theoretical level becomes “gratuitous.” (Sorry for this long free-association disquisition).

    Reply
  3. Steve at |

    I think that we have conditioned ourselves, whether intentionally or not, by watching these types of images. It is the same way we have got used to the war being continuous by watching great movies such as Saving Private Ryan or The Dirty Dozen. It makes it easier for people to accept war as a necessary evil

    Reply
  4. Kiva N at |

    It was difficult for me to watch all the violence in this movie. Maybe I have a soft heart, but I did not find any kind of humor in the bloody scenes. I did, however, love the story line and the other comedy placed at other parts of the movie.

    Reply
  5. smarlow2 at |

    My boyfriend and I saw this movie and we both really liked it. Yes, it was bloody and violent, but it was done with a lot of humor, too. Jamie Foxx was sensational in his role.

    Reply
  6. Mark Anthony Raymond at |

    Steve,

    I don’t know if it is “ok” to watch this type of violence but it does put it in perspective of what had actually happened instead of skimming over the truth. A lot of times in history we leave out certain truths because we realize in the future that it wasn’t exactly the “right” thing to do or perhaps it is too gratuitous. My question to you is: Is it “ok” to leave certain truths out and lie or should we be truthful?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar