Lincoln, Django, and the Academy… Slavery is so en vogue

I will be among the many to point out that, this year, we have 2 well nominated films this year that examine the issue of slavery, directed by two men who have previously, and also with great accolade, directed films about the holocaust. If Schindler's List came out the same year that Inglourious Basterds was released,  there would have been endless articles contrasting Spielberg’s, devastatingly heartbreaking historic tale with Tarantino’s fantastic story of revenge .. but this year, we turn our eyes and the page to the mid 1800’s, and 3 battles: North vs. South, freeing the slaves, and I think, the Best Supporting Actor Oscar.  But I’m getting ahead of myself.  

What Lincoln offers us is historical and political perspective and insight into process, which keeps you rapt despite an ending written centuries ago.  Daniel Day Lewis is unrecognizable, and at this point in my Oscar movie viewing, unrivaled in his performance.  He anchors a compelling tale of a crusade for justice and ideals, the crafty business of politics, the violence necessary to end a violent trade, and the growing pains of a nation. And Lincoln offers, too, all that a great film needs to be great – a supporting cast who more than held their own (yes, we really like you), well timed score, beautiful sets and costumes, thoughtful cinematography, and a great crescendo – again, when we know the ending. 

But what Lincoln does not offer us is a full look at the movement that brought us to said ending. Slavery does not end by Lincoln alone… or by his Republican Party… And summarizing the “Negro involvement” with one conversation with Mary Todd Lincoln’s servant, or by their presence in the House Chamber seems a bit too clean, as does the limited depiction of violence that ended the war. The movie, to me, offers a somewhat sterile representation of the time.

   

Enter Django. Nothing sterile here… for every finely pressed coat Lincoln offers, Django offers 100 coats covered in blood…. and the fantasy that a “Negro” could change the course of history in a hail of bullets.  This is, after all, Tarantino’s world, and, as in Inglourious Basterds, we’re just living in it for a while. Of course, this does little to present a true look at history (except maybe the horrors of slavery). But, perhaps it’s a history we wish we had. One based on the theory that someone like Tommy Lee Jones’ character in Lincoln could have taken his loathing for slavery on the road to exact a quick and thorough justice. If only. Armed with a bromance for the ages, Foxx and Waltz disrupt the world order while Tarantino’s script makes a mockery of the commonly held racist views of the time.    It’s visceral, often difficult to watch, but Django’s  payoff is huge, no majority vote required.

In the end, Lincoln was the superior film overall, despite my knick-picking, and I fully expect it to clean “House” at the Oscars.  

But to my final point.. and the final battle – The Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Django vs. Lincoln. Waltz vs. Jones. They’re 1 and 1, ladies. In my estimation, the Academy is considering some than just the performances as they consider their vote. Perhaps, they too, are considering their favorite version of history.