Will be interesting to see what category the studio puts him in for. He could easily go in the Best Actor category. Keep in mind that Leo will also be competing for Best Supporting Actor. On NYE I watched Inglourious Basterds (for which Waltz won Best Supporting) again and Waltz is even better in Django Unchained.
Answering my own question: http://www.hitfix.com/in-contention/christoph-waltz-elevated-to-the-best-actor-race-for-django-unchained The Best Actor field is already sufficiently crowded -- with a couple of nominees seemingly glued in place -- that you wouldn't envy any newcomer to the race. Yet The Weinstein Company, which is hardly short of a serious contender in the category, is reportedly sufficiently high on Christoph Waltz in the still-unseen "Django Unchained" to campaign him in the lead category. Gold Derby's Tom O'Neil quotes an unspecified "insider" as saying Waltz's performance as a dentist-cum-bounty-hunter, who joins Jamie Foxx's title character in a rescue mission, "towers over the whole movie." That's the kind of claim many had assumed would be made for Leonardo DiCaprio's villainous supporting turn. Is Waltz really the film's MVP -- just as he was, to Oscar-winning effect, in Quentin Tarantino's last effort -- or is he being elevated to declutter DiCaprio's Best Supporting Actor campaign? Either way, it's a bold move, considering he'll now be competing for Best Actor traction with Foxx, who was previously presumed to be the film's sole play, if not a particularly threatening one, in the category. Is Foxx's performance a non-factor for awards, or will they be competing with each other for votes? It's a long time since a major film ran a campaign for two Best Actor candidates -- indeed, no film has managed a double nod in the category since "Amadeus" in 1984. Interestingly enough, the Weinsteins had the opportunity to take this very approach with another of their 2012 hopefuls. Many would argue that "The Master" is a two-lead film, yet the company has opted to split the difference by campaigning Joaquin Phoenix for Best Actor and Philip Seymour Hoffman in supporting -- a tactic that could well wind up snaring gold for both actors. The Weinstein Company is canny about such matters, so they wouldn't be promoting Waltz if they thought a lead campaign was detrimental to his chances: if he and DiCaprio each have a lot to chew on, after all, a dual supporting campaign wouldn't be in either man's best interests. The question now, of course, is whether Waltz can really unseat any of the presumed frontrunners in the lead category. The Weinsteins are already aiming to get both Phoenix -- likely to be a force in the year-end critics' awards -- and "Silver Linings Playbook" star Bradley Cooper into the top five. With Daniel Day-Lewis, John Hawkes and Denzel Washington currently riding high, Anthony Hopkins lurking just outside the top tier, and Hugh Jackman's potentially forceful Jean Valjean yet to be unveiled, can the company really muscle three of their guys into the field? On-paper instinct says no, but then again, "Django Unchained" as a whole is no more than an on-paper Oscar prospect right now. It may not turn out to be an awards player at all, or it may please critics and audiences enough to emerge as a late-breaking spoiler in more categories than just Best Actor. Given Tarantino's Academy strike rate, there's no way of guessing until we actually lay eyes on the thing. Either way, as someone who believes Waltz's turn in "Inglourious Basterds" actually deserved a crack at the Best Actor Oscar in 2009, it's nice to see him playing with the big boys.
Interesting. He deserves an award for sure in my opinion, though I can't see anybody beating out Dan Day Lewis, who was masterful as Lincoln, for lead actor. That is why I hope they put him in the Supporting role. Jamie Foxx was great too though, it'd be interesting if he snared the award out from everybody.
I'd be shocked if Jamie Foxx gets a nomination. He was really good, but not in the same league as Waltz and DiCaprio.
Bingo. I was going to say that. Django was the main character and did great, but the others were a few steps above.
Very interesting cultural commentary by Grantland regarding the racial tension of this movie. http://www.grantland.com/blog/holly...the-n-word-and-how-we-talk-about-race-in-2013
I just saw this film over the weekend. There were a fair number of black people at Django. I perhaps would not have noticed that, except for the subject matter the linked article discusses. Having been firmly brought up never to use the N word, I found it jarring to hear/see it used so often by white people, and related to that the fact that while King is obviously a good guy and is Django's friend, the only other white person, and he was a bit part, who did not exhibit some sort of animosity toward Django or other blacks in the film was that Sheriff briefly shown in that scene I assume was in Colorado. Now of course the whole rest of the film was set in the pre-Civil War south, so that was the context, but still... Hard not to hate the whites in the film, even as a white person, and aside again from King, who after all was also cast as a foreigner, and not an American. I don't know - is it realistic that EVERY person would have been viscerally and overtly racist in the south? Perhaps. But that kind of presentation brings to mind the old take from Philosophy that if every one is guilty, then no one is, which of course I don't think was intended to be the message of the film at all. Of course the obvious answer to that is not everyone was racist - only the white people. Except, again, for King - so the message is all white people in the American south were evil? I guess it might well be, and I would not necessarily argue that it is not, but there are some limitations to how far you can take that. But that's not hte main point i wanted to address. Django incorporates a lot of humor into the film. The writer you linked referred to a specific scene where audience members nervously laughed at the scene where dynamite was thrown into the cart containing the enslaved/imprisoned men being taken to the mine. I think Django as a film played with the phenomenon of of creating a frisson over violence and barabarity, but then doing so in a way that makes one also question why one should have felt that way. A History of Violence is a film that did similar things. Imo HoV did a better job of that than Django, if the object was to make us question our primitive, even subconscious, attraction to violence, and revenge and related feelings. But Django did a fairly good job. In the case in question, we were softened up for seeing humor in violence and barbarity all along. As I said, King is a good guy, right? Is it a good thing for him to have found humor in killing people, even if authorized to kill as a bounty hunter by the state? Or the frankly quite humorous scene with the bags and the gang out to kill King and Django? That humor did not change that these were racist vigilantes, virtually antecedents of Ku Klux Klan lynch mobs. Not much humor in that. I did not laugh myself at the scene with the dynamite tossed into the cart, but of course anyone who did would or should have realized as soon as the laugh came out that there were men there who were innocent, and to be pitied, not laughed at. Sometimes you can learn lessons of that sort better when you are forced to confront your own barbarity, your own subconsciousness, and related dynamics.
The best part about the dynamite scene is that Alfred Nobel didn't even invent dynamite until 1867!!! lol Tarantino, you fucking HACK!!! lol check your facts!!!
Common anachronism. From "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" (blew the bridge during Civil War) to "LOST" (the Black Rock....loaded with dynamite... set sail in 1867)
That's not all! That scene where they are supposed to be at a plantation in Chattanooga, Tennessee? What was with all that Spanish Moss hanging from the trees? That shit doesn't grow anywhere in Tennessee! FUCKIN HACK, QUENTIN TARANTINO!!! Shit! GET YOUR FAUNA RIGHT!!!! lol. fukkin hack
It was also a huge goof how the landscape after Django was being taken to the mine was quite hilly and nothing like any landscape in Mississippi.
Good Movie, Waltz and DiCaprio stole the show. I love the Tarantino cameo. Spoiler .................. Does anyone think there will be a sequel? I know a lot of scene were cut, but I am specifically referring to the women with the red bandana over her face. It seems like she will be an important part of another movie. She also had the view master thing with the picture of the two kids (one black one white) playing.
More than likely it is a story line that was cut. The actress is Zoe Bell. She is a stuntwoman and was featured in Death Proof. My guess is that it will be part of the deleted scenes on the DVD.
I was wondering during the movie at times, should I be laughing at some of this? Because it's a sensitive topic but lines were there to make you laugh and enjoy it. Oh well, that's a thought process for another day. It was a really good movie. I saw it was 3 hours and was worried, but at no point did I think this was dragging. Supposedly the scene where Leo was bleeding was real blood and he went through all his lines anyways. I know this isn't popular opinion, but I think Reservoir Dogs is my favorite one.
Saw this last week. My friends and I were dying when we heard this song come on, never expected it: [YOUTUBE]_k3cjffziKQ[/YOUTUBE] Incredible movie.
This movie was off the charts phenomenal. Everything about it, from the flow of the movie to the acting to the soundtrack, was just top-notch. I can't possibly see any movie in 2013 being better than this one. If you were to take a sip of beer every time the word "nigger" was said in this you'd probably drink the equivalent of a 12-pack. Think I may go see it again and test out that drinking game
