If you’re looking for a historically accurate and precise representation of the events occurring in America during the slave trade... look elsewhere. However, if you’re looking for a break from the soppy and whimpering fabrication that has become the film industry, Django Unchained offers a certain brutal thunder that implements incessant displays of blood and gore whilst it also comes with a certain seriousness that evokes a political thought about conventional film making. This comes as it comments on the false history we often learn from films. In a similar fashion to Inglorious Basterds (whose title was taken from a 1978 war picture), Django Unchained takes Frances Nero’s 1966 western Django and flips it into a powerhouse of blood-spilling as it comments on history and culture and, more importantly, the conventional representations of these two constructs by the media.
Tarantino presents the story of how a slave, Django (played by Jamie Foxx) is purchased in a peculiar fashion by a German, Dr King Shultz (Christoph Waltz) who does not believe in slavery and therefore offers Django an opportunity to become a partner in his bounty hunting business. This leads them to Mr Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a ruthless plantation owner and also master of Django’s wife in Candyland, a name which also brings up a whimsical side to the film and dares the audience to question its historical accuracy. Django, the fastest marksman in the land, leaves no ammunition to fester as he takes on masses of Candie’s workers in order to rescue his wife.
This is arguably one of Tarantino’s best creations (in tandem with Inglorious Basterds) as he gives all film fans a wakeup call by occasionally reminding us that films are not made to be historically precise – they are, after all, FILMS.