SPOILER ALERT: this will reveal key components of Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained. If you have yet to see the movie, I highly suggest you stop reading.
I mean it. Stop.
…I bet when you were a kid you flipped to the back of all your picture books too – you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I’m a big Quentin Tarantino fan. Even as I write this, I can practically hear my grandmother’s disapproving tsk from all the way across the Atlantic Ocean – but hey, that’s a Tarantino film for you. Tarantino will go where other directors fear to tread, and when he ‘goes there’ he goes there – and he won’t pull his punches either. I’ve always had this feeling that many of Tarantino’s most iconic scenes originated with the sentence, “Hey, wouldn’t it be cool if…?” and then he just goes does it like his big bad self.
I was re-watching Django Unchained the other day, and in classic Tarantino style, it breaks all the rules. Historical accuracy? Forget it. Political Correctness? Don’t make me laugh. Breathtaking cinematography and total bad-assery? You know it! But while I admire Tarantino’s audacity as a director, he sometimes takes things a bit too far for my taste. In this case, I’m referring to the last twenty minutes or so of Django Unchained.
It’s not the presence of the violence I had an issue with (it is a Tarantino film, after all), but the inanity of it. The whole sequence has no more carnage than the infamous “Crazy 88” fight scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 yet it seems uninspired in comparison – trite, even. After Shultz (Christopher Waltz) dies and Django (Jamie Foxx) is captured, the movie seems to unravel. But why? Well, that’s because the story line we were actually following has already ended. Yup. You heard me right. You can name the movie after Django, you can give Jamie Foxx all the coolest outfits and the most screen time, and heck – you can even give Christopher Waltz an academy award for Best Supporting Actor, but in the end, it's the endearing dentist-gone-bounty-hunter that claims the role of main character. Don’t believe me? All you have to do is take a look at the traditional aspects of character arc.
The Three (Or Four) Act Structure isn’t cinematic law, but it does compose a large percentage of the storylines we know and love. Whatever you call it – ‘The Hero’s Journey’, ‘The Basic Film Paradigm’, etc. – the essentials are the same: the main character’s ordinary world is established, an inciting incident calls that character to adventure, conflict is encountered, the stakes are raised, and once a crisis decision is made, the climax is reached and some form of resolution occurs. There’s some variation here and there, but in general, this is the natural progression of storytelling.
Now, try to apply this paradigm to Django Unchained operating under the assumption that Django is the main character. Doesn’t really work, does it? As a character, Django remains completely static. Very early on, the film establishes Django’s two goals to be ‘rescue and revenge.’ He is determined to free his wife, Broomhilda, and as far as Django is concerned, nothing save for death is going to get in his way. Django experiences no crisis decision because within the parameters of his established character, Broomhilda is paramount – no sacrifice is too great if it means getting closer to the objective.
Try the same exercise again, but this time with the assumption that King Shultz is the main character. The film establishes his ordinary world as a bounty hunter, and he simply conducts business as unusual until he hears about Django’s search for Broomhilda. With this, he is called to action for, as Shultz puts it, "When a German meets a real-life Siegfried, it's kind of a big deal." Throughout the course of the film, he struggles with moral conundrums as he pursues what he believes to be the right thing. Shultz’s story climaxes with his crisis decision (which, I might add, was a brilliant performance on both the part of Christopher Waltz and Leonardo DeCaprio) to forfeit his life and put an end to the atrocities of Candyland. Once Shultz dies, the central message of the film has been successfully conveyed and all that remains is some gratuitous violence. The subsequent blood bath seemed to prolong the movie unnecessarily.
It would seem that Waltz’s character is so wonderfully developed and well crafted that Django becomes one dimensional in comparison. The thing is, Tarantino is too good of a director and too good of a writer to accidentally switch the protagonists of his main plot and subplot. I’m pretty sure Tarantino knew exactly what he was doing with Django Unchained. He wanted to create a straight-up revenge film, but knew such a premise wouldn’t be rich enough to engage his audience, so he incorporated the character of Shultz to give the story dimension. Consequently, the movie’s conclusion is not so much the resolution of a storyline as it is twenty minutes of pure Tarantino indulgence
But, hey, that’s a Tarantino film for you.
Comments