Django Unchained Controversy

[Althusser]

Put all the stormfront nazis defending the white race from behind a computer screen aside for a moment.

Spike Lee came out against Tarantino's film saying it's racist and disrespectful to his ancestors (without even seeing the film) Katt Williams as well.

Spike Lee's take on Django Unchained (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/spike-lee-goes-after-django-unchained/)

Katt Williams take on Django Unchained (http://www.sohh.com/2012/12/katt_williams_scorches_django_controvers.html)

First off, I think the movie was fantastic. Best movie I've seen in a while. Tarantino has been my favorite director ever since I discovered Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Django Unchained is fighting with Pulp Fiction for first place as my favorite Tarantino film (it was that good)

My take on the whole "Spike Lee thing" is as follows. He didn't have much to say about Inglourious Basterds being disrespectful to jews. For someone who hasn't seen the film, he sure does have a strong opinion.

http://images.jordansdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/spike-lee-jordan-xx8-knicks.jpg

Maybe the high and mighty Spike Lee should take off the Knicks attire and stop supporting people who get paid millions to throw a ball around while doing nothing to help their underprivileged brothers where they grew up. Because that's actually disrespectful... talk about disrespectful to your ancestors. Until I see these NBA dudes strike for something other than higher pay, I'm not rooting.

[Fire]

I've not seen the movie either. I would need to see it.

Also as a white person, privileged could blind and color my perspective on it.

The Lone Ranger movie on the other hand. Jesus, Johnny Depp, what were you thinking?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Spike Lee came out against Tarantino's film saying it's racist and disrespectful to his ancestors (without even seeing the film) Katt Williams as well.

Spike Lee's take on Django Unchained (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/spike-lee-goes-after-django-unchained/)

Katt Williams take on Django Unchained (http://www.sohh.com/2012/12/katt_williams_scorches_django_controvers.html)

First off, I think the movie was fantastic. Best movie I've seen in a while. Tarantino has been my favorite director ever since I discovered Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, and Django Unchained is fighting with Pulp Fiction for first place as my favorite Tarantino film (it was that good)
I haven't seen the movie either but I generally enjoy Tarintino's movies - for the novelty and cleaverness if nothing else. Beyond just an enjoyment level, Tarintino's strength in exciting and affecting presentation can also be a weakness as pastiche and bombastic cinemeatic impact on the audience takes a subbordinate role to substance in his movies IMO. So he tends to push the audience's buttons and I think that goes into his focus on brutal revenge tales as well as his (over)use of the n-word and recent incorporation of historical wounds as the backdrop for revenge stories.

I enjoyed "Kill Bill" quite a bit and I thought it was the best example of his synergenic homages to past cinema genres, and a revenge story that was both simple and pulp, but also interesting and more nuanced than most. I didn't like "Inglorious Bastards" though parts were intesting to watch. I felt like the historical backdrop was distracting and troubling and that it really was a choice made for pure "exploitation" purposes rather than anything particular about that historical time period - in other words that a revenge tale about the NAZIs was more about setting a tale in a genre (war-movies) and possibly worse, for the reason of creating a "morality neutral zone" where since the NAZIs are so evil that really sadistic revenge can be enacted on them without tunring-off the audience.

I worry that slavery was chosen for simmilar "button-pushing/inherent drama" reasons in "D'Jango" and if so I do find that pretty distasteful - and a missed opportunity to push some deeper buttons.


My take on the whole "Spike Lee thing" is as follows. He didn't have much to say about Inglourious Basterds being disrespectful to jews. For someone who hasn't seen the film, he sure does have a strong opinion.Well Spike Lee does have strong opinions on a number of things. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that Lee was promted by the media - firstly because he is the unofficial official "Black Voice" of Hollywood and so whenever a political issue involving black people and Hollywood, reporters are bound to press Spike Lee on the issue. Seconldy, the media has tried to push a "Lee vs. Tarintino" thing because Lee has criticized Scorcesse and Tarintino for liberally using the n-word in their movies. The media pressed Tarintino to comment on if he thought Lee would criticize this movie (before Spike made any comments) and so obviously the media is also playing a little game of stirring up some racial controversy to make their reports more interesting. I think Spike Lee basically said that he wasn't interested in seeing the movie because the concept sounded offensive to him. So he was asked and he gave his views -- hardly someone going out on a campaign against a movie they haven't seen. So in short, I honestly don't see what the big deal is -- I felt the same way about that Gellenhal Teacher movie and so I didn't see it and I told people it sounded offensive... I'm just not famous, so no reporters happened to ask.:lol:



Maybe the high and mighty Spike Lee should take off the Knicks attire and stop supporting people who get paid millions to throw a ball around while doing nothing to help their underprivileged brothers where they grew up. Because that's actually disrespectful... talk about disrespectful to your ancestors. Until I see these NBA dudes strike for something other than higher pay, I'm not rooting.I really don't see how any of this has anything to do with the movie or his comments about it. In fact it echoes a lot of the crude racist arguments on right-wing radio about "black elietes" in sports and the media - i.e. rich black people who are always somehow undeserving of their wealth and position while rich white people are angelic "job-creators".

[Rugged Collectivist]

I haven't seen it yet but I don't know how it could be offensive. I actually loved Inglorious Basterds. Than again I'm not black or Jewish so maybe there's another element to these movies that I can't fully understand.

Speaking of internet Nazis, now I wonder what they think of it :laugh:


I really don't see how any of this has anything to do with the movie or his comments about it. In fact it echoes a lot of the crude racist arguments on right-wing radio about "black elietes" in sports and the media - i.e. rich black people who are always somehow undeserving of their wealth and position while rich white people are angelic "job-creators".

Yeah but I don't think a communist would characterize rich white people in that way.

[hetz]

Tarantino sucks, so I'm not going to watch this one. Because all his other films sucked.
Inglorious basterds is one of the most disgusting movies I've ever seen, a parody of anti-fascist film, a travesty actually. I couldn't even finish it.

[Leo]

Spike Lee dissing Django Unchained has got nothing to do with the film itself. Spike Lee simple doesn't like Tarantino dating back to Jackie Brown, and likes being on the spot and the center of attention - an adequate combination for someone famous to make extremely negative remarks about a movie he hasn't watched.

Not that I think Tarantino is a wonderful director. The Reservoir Dogs was a good, original film but I didn't actually like Pulp Fiction that much. Kill Bill had its moments but for the most part wasn't even as good as Pulp Fiction, let alone the Reservoir Dogs. It lacked something. I found some scenes in the Inglorious Basterds to be genuinely funny, others to be extremely well made, and the acting was excellent but all in all it wasn't really a good movie either.

Django Unchained looks promising though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah but I don't think a communist would characterize rich white people in that way.No, but I don't think we should support these kinds of sentiments heard pro-athletes or entertainers either.

Sure many athetes are well paid, but that's not the reason the right-wing and sports radio obess over their paychecks and "bad behavior". Athletes and Entertainers like this are essentially petty-bourgois: they are highly skilled and are contracted for their labor. Their money is not "ruining the game" just as highly-paid actors are not "ruining hollywood" - it's the often partially public-subsidized billionaire owners who are fucking over fans, the several large entertainment corporations whose competition has pushed out nearly all space for original voices in mainstream film or music that makes big-budget movies stale.

But the way the conversation goes is always against well-paid non-owners, not the much more wealthy owners, that are the problem. It's populist-anger slight-of-hand. And it's much worse when it comes to powerful female or black celebrity professionals because there is an underlying attitude that their power or wealth is illegitmate and "wasted". Women "become too bossy (or another b-word)" and these (black)athletes today have no class, so showy, so "upity", no respect.

On top of all that is the anti-union underlying argument. It's not just that money is ruining the game, goes the argument, but the greedy player's union that is forcing these teams to pay such outrageous saleries!

This argument and attitude goes beyond just the specific sports or film guilds, but can impact wider consiousness. If you are insecure about striking and everytime you want to watch sports you also have to hear yahoos calling in to complain about the "greedy players, and the greedy union" then that might have a dampening effect.

[Pirate Utopian]

It doesnt come out here in the Netherlands until january 17th. I love Tarantino, I love spaghetti westerns, I can't wait to see it.

Spike Lee has directed some good movies, also a lot of crap. For every Do the Right Thing he did a She Hate Me.

I'm not even sure what the problem is. Is it just the use of the word "nigger"? That's how they talked. I dont think you can say the movie is racist because it has racist characters say racist things, otherwise how can you even write such characters then?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not even sure what the problem is. Is it just the use of the word "nigger"? That's how they talked. I dont think you can say the movie is racist because it has racist characters say racist things, otherwise how can you even write such characters then?

No, I don't think there is really an issue with historical use of the word. Lee criticized Scorcesse and Tarintino for having white characters causually use the term in contemporary stories. I like Tarintino's movies for the most part - or, like I said, I at least enjoy the experience - but I think this is a fair criticism. In Scorceese movies, it's mostly used in a soret of textural way: these guys are crude, probably do have racist ideas, and this is how people talk. Tarintino goes beyond realism and uses the word stylistically - since his dialogue is so stylalized anyway. I get the impression that he uses the word in his scripts in a sort of "It's cool, I'm down with black people and black people are down with me, so it's OK" way.

[Pirate Utopian]

Django Unchained isn't set in contemporary times so the criticism falls flat in this case.

As for Tarantino using it because it's stylistic; maybe, the "dead nigger storage" bit from Pulp Fiction springs to mind. But Spike Lee's making a fuzz over this specific movie and in this case the use does make sense because in that time and place the word was used commonly.

Spike Lee can overreact a lot btw, I remember he went after Clint Eastwood for not including black soldiers in his movie Flags of Our Fathers. Also Lee doesn't really have a good trackrecord when it comes to portraying Jewish characters.

[Fire]

I enjoyed "Kill Bill" quite a bit and I thought it was the best example of his synergenic homages to past cinema genres, and a revenge story that was both simple and pulp, but also interesting and more nuanced than most. I didn't like "Inglorious Bastards" though parts were intesting to watch. I felt like the historical backdrop was distracting and troubling and that it really was a choice made for pure "exploitation" purposes rather than anything particular about that historical time period - in other words that a revenge tale about the NAZIs was more about setting a tale in a genre (war-movies) and possibly worse, for the reason of creating a "morality neutral zone" where since the NAZIs are so evil that really sadistic revenge can be enacted on them without tunring-off the audience.

I worry that slavery was chosen for simmilar "button-pushing/inherent drama" reasons in "D'Jango" and if so I do find that pretty distasteful - and a missed opportunity to push some deeper buttons.

Well Spike Lee does have strong opinions on a number of things. But I think it's also important to keep in mind that Lee was promted by the media - firstly because he is the unofficial official "Black Voice" of Hollywood and so whenever a political issue involving black people and Hollywood, reporters are bound to press Spike Lee on the issue. Seconldy, the media has tried to push a "Lee vs. Tarintino" thing because Lee has criticized Scorcesse and Tarintino for liberally using the n-word in their movies. The media pressed Tarintino to comment on if he thought Lee would criticize this movie (before Spike made any comments) and so obviously the media is also playing a little game of stirring up some racial controversy to make their reports more interesting. I think Spike Lee basically said that he wasn't interested in seeing the movie because the concept sounded offensive to him. So he was asked and he gave his views -- hardly someone going out on a campaign against a movie they haven't seen. So in short, I honestly don't see what the big deal is -- I felt the same way about that Gellenhal Teacher movie and so I didn't see it and I told people it sounded offensive... I'm just not famous, so no reporters happened to ask.:lol:


It sounds like the media is trying to create drama for the sake of creating drama, so that they can report on said drama.

[Raúl Duke]

Well, since he allegedly didn't see the movie I'm reminded of one of Mao's wise sayings:

"No investigation no right to speak"

I actually am quite interested in seeing the movie in some time in the future.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I'm gonna see it later.

[NormalG]

Many similirities between a movie like Django, Comedy Centrals Key & Peele and Dave Chappelle until he decided to stop. Django in dramatic style trivializes the historical oppressive system of slavery by numbing the audience with laughter. It cannot be compared to Spielbergs Amistad in that respect.

[Althusser]

I really don't see how any of this has anything to do with the movie or his comments about it. In fact it echoes a lot of the crude racist arguments on right-wing radio about "black elietes" in sports and the media - i.e. rich black people who are always somehow undeserving of their wealth and position while rich white people are angelic "job-creators".

All I'm saying is that it is hypocritical for Lee to make these comments because he follows people that don't use their position and their "reach" to make a difference. Most people in the spotlight black/white don't do this, but for Spike to make the comments if a bit hypocritical. I'll admit the connection might be a bit weak though. It just always gets on my nerves when people with fame don't use that position for leftizmm!! So I might have went off on a tangent.

I don't give a shit about Jay-Z and his involvement with the Nets because he's not making these statements and pretending to be this big revolutionary defender of his ancestors.

I get what you mean about the media race-baiting though. I didn't take that into account.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Many similirities between a movie like Django, Comedy Centrals Key & Peele and Dave Chappelle until he decided to stop. Django in dramatic style trivializes the historical oppressive system of slavery by numbing the audience with laughter. It cannot be compared to Spielbergs Amistad in that respect.

I agree except Spielberg's historical films are worse. Saving Private Ryan made me throw up nearly with its vulgar romanticism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Django Unchained isn't set in contemporary times so the criticism falls flat in this case.Just to clairify, Lee made this comment in the past - he isn't criticizing Tarantino's use of the term in this movie as far as I know (though it has come up in other mainstream newspaper reviews I read). He's criticizing the concept of this movie on the basis that it makes light of slavery I think he basically gave his reason for not seeing it as: slavery was not a spaghetti western, it was real life.


“I cant speak on it ’cause I’m not gonna see it,” he said. “All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me…I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else.” Lee also tweeted (https://twitter.com/SpikeLee/statuses/282611091777941504?tw_i=282611091777941504&tw_e=details&tw_p=tweetembed): “American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them.”


I think that's a perfectly rational reason for not wanting to see something. I think it's a potentially offensive premise, but it won't stop me because I think the director makes entertaining and enjoyable movies - I like pulp and his movies are kinda film nerd-topia for people with video-store clerk taste in film. I'm also curious as to see where he will go with it (and that's sort of the profit-motive liked of controversy anyway - once I bought the ticket or bought the sci-fi book with the awesome trippy cover, it doesn't matter if I'm offended, astounded or bored).


As for Tarantino using it because it's stylistic; maybe, the "dead nigger storage" bit from Pulp Fiction springs to mind. But Spike Lee's making a fuzz over this specific movie and in this case the use does make sense because in that time and place the word was used commonly.Yeah that definitely comes to mind and that he played the role himself so we could be offended by his acting as well.

It's subjective but it seems like it's a kind of Hollywood naturalism in Scorsese movies - which is still a stylistic choice but the aim is a stylized realism. I think Tarantino is less interested in realism than the reel so his characters use the term to shock or punctuate which I think is a shallow use of such a charged word. His movies are self-referential and designed to provoke the audience a bit so I can't help but see the use of the n-word in this context.

I don't think Tarantino is racist at all; in fact I think he's probably fairly liberal and I recently read that he called what the prison system and war on drugs has done to black people in the US today is like modern slavery - which would be a pretty amazing statement from anyone in the US right now--Spike Lee should have said that! The old Spike Lee probably would have. I think it comes from a place of just ignorance (or "privilege" for the trendies) he thinks, "I'm not racist, I grew up and I've always been around black people, I love black culture, so what's the big deal? I have this provocative tool I can poke the audience with, so I'll use it". If that's at all true, I just disagree with that viewpoint and think it feeds into a lot of the "post-racial" myths.


Spike Lee can overreact a lot btw, I remember he went after Clint Eastwood for not including black soldiers in his movie Flags of Our Fathers. Also Lee doesn't really have a good trackrecord when it comes to portraying Jewish characters.Spike Lee has made some really good movies and said a lot of dumb things over the years - I just don't think this is one of them. I don't know exactly what his politics are but he seems pretty firmly liberal to me with maybe a perspective of black professional success = black advancement. A lot of the politically wacky things I've read from him seem to flow from that viewpoint. Maybe this is part of the reason that stories of animosity between him and Tarantino are compelling: two slightly eccentric "indie" directors who have track records of saying outlandish things.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Tarantino sucks, so I'm not going to watch this one. Because all his other films sucked.
Inglorious basterds is one of the most disgusting movies I've ever seen, a parody of anti-fascist film, a travesty actually. I couldn't even finish it. It looked stupid because anti-fascist films usually are.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I dislike Tarantino and his films because to me he fetishizes brutal violence as an end in itself. Then, he tries to wrap it in a veneer of legitimacy with pretentious pseudo-philosophical dialogue. I don't know if the term "torture porn" would be appropriate here for his "style" of violence, but I think it's close.

[brigadista]

Tarantino's films lately are very uneven -

Personally I am waiting for Steve Mc Queens film 12 Years a slave.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Katt Williams is a total idiot, and his "critique" is appropriately idiotic.

Spike Lee is entitled to his opinion I guess. I think he's something of a fool himself though.

As for Tarantino, I hate his overenthusiastic nerd personality. His films just aren't that good. He appropriates stuff from films he likes and re-packages them, some of which are particularly obvious (like "Kill Bill", or perhaps even worse "Resevoir Dogs"). That's not to say that he isn't somewhat talented...if I made a movie that just cobbled together all the movies I liked, it would probably suck and be unwatchable. I can't really speak all that highly of someone who just watched "Sex and Fury" and "Thriller: A Cruel Picture" too many times and decided to make a movie, though.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

A friend of mine wrote an excellent review (http://theactivist.org/blog/quentin-tarantino-commits-black-revolution-in-django-unchained-a-film-review) of the movie. Some highlights (spoilers):


Django imposes on the viewer are far more radical, if not revolutionary, role for whites in race-laden films. In Django, all whites are implicated as guilty, aiders and abettors to the peculiar institution of chattel slavery and white supremacy. Even the co-protagonist Schultz; a German dentist turned bounty hunter, played by Christoper Waltz, is not awarded innocence as he continues to do business with the virulently racist plantation owner, Calvin Candy, played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Calvin is the antithesis of Schultz’ open-minedly naïve character, exemplified by his vicious destruction of his own human property by a grueling death in the maws of ravenous hounds, let alone his participation in the fictional bloodsport of Mandingo fighting. Nevertheless, Schultz’s acquiescence to Calvin’s cruelty is only vindicated by committing an act of honorable suicide, killing Calvin in the presence of his gun-wielding bodyguard. Django is a revolutionary film in this context because all whites; racist, tolerant, rich, working class, poor, man and woman, are all implicated in the evil machinations of a white supremacist world. Quentin Tarantino does not give any space for white innocence because such innocence doesn’t exist in Quentin’s realistic portrayal of antebellum America.

If you haven’t already figured it out, there are no white saviors in Django Unchained, blacks are their own saviors. Django first kills the poor white slavehands; who, under Calvin’s command, unleashed bloodthirsty hounds on a black male slave; dancing in jubilee as the slave is mauled alive, rejoicing in their illusion of self-value over the valueless in a race-drunk America. Django then greets the returning funeral procession, killing the white male overseer; a white working class male, who is sexually and physically threatened by Django throughout the latter half of the film. An interesting scene takes place before Django’s path of vengeance where the overseer attempts to castrate Django before being interrupted by the house slave; only to walk away after a tauntingly playful stroke to Django’s male organ. Unexpectedly, Django kills the unsuspecting sister of Calvin Candy; her powerlessness as a white woman, in a world dominated by white men, gains her no special privilege for her attempt to sell him off to a convict labor mining company earns her male equality in the form of a cold bullet. Even private property, the sacred haven of whiteness and class privilege, is given its poetic end as Django razes it with a coolness a Communist cannot even match. Django: Unchained is guilty as charged as a near-three hour film of pure Black Revolution.

[Ostrinski]

Katt Williams is in an unwell mental state as of late so anything he says can be both disregarded and forgiven.

[Althusser]

A friend of mine wrote an excellent review (http://theactivist.org/blog/quentin-tarantino-commits-black-revolution-in-django-unchained-a-film-review) of the movie. Some highlights (spoilers):


Yeah, when I walked out of the theater I heard a woman say something like "They didn't all deserve to be killed. It was messed up."

I thought to myself, what the fuck? I never laughed harder when Django... (SPOILER) shot Candie's sister and made her fly back.That was the shit. Also, anyone who participated in slavery in any way deserves brutalization. Throw Tatantino some nazis or some slavers and he'll do his thing. Kill them all brutally, while I stuff popcorn in my mouth in between applause and laughter.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Many similirities between a movie like Django, Comedy Centrals Key & Peele and Dave Chappelle until he decided to stop. Django in dramatic style trivializes the historical oppressive system of slavery by numbing the audience with laughter. It cannot be compared to Spielbergs Amistad in that respect.

It had it's funny moments, but the moments that were intended to show the horrors of slavery were extremely visceral and disgusting. The comedy bits in no way took anything away from them.

I think you aren't giving the audience enough credit. No one is going to think "Look at Django's stupid outfit! See, slavery isn't that bad. People had fun"

[Os Cangaceiros]

A friend of mine wrote an excellent review (http://theactivist.org/blog/quentin-tarantino-commits-black-revolution-in-django-unchained-a-film-review) of the movie. Some highlights (spoilers):

While I'm not sure that "innocence" is the right word for it, I don't think that thinking that all whites in antebellum south during that period were directly culpable for slavery is realistic...Nat Turner's group did not kill poor whites, for example.

[Althusser]

I think you aren't giving the audience enough credit. No one is going to think "Look at Django's stupid outfit! See, slavery isn't that bad. People had fun"

Exactly. The scenes that showed how brutal slavery is weren't comical at all. During the flashback when Django is pleading with the Brittle Bro dude about whipping him instead of his wife, and then seeing her get whipped made me choke up. It riles you up for the moment Django walks up and dishes out the pain.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Exactly. The scenes that showed how brutal slavery is weren't comical at all. During the flashback when Django is pleading with the Brittle Bro dude about whipping him instead of his wife, and then seeing her get whipped made me choke up. It riles you up for the moment Django walks up and dishes out the pain.

Yeah. The part that really got me was when Candy forced the slave to rip the other slaves eyes out. My stomach dropped. I thought that was even worse than the dog part.

The part you mentioned was pretty bad too. At least those bastards got what they deserved. I especially liked when he whipped the shit out of that one dude. Oh the irony.


While I'm not sure that "innocence" is the right word for it, I don't think that thinking that all whites in antebellum south during that period were directly culpable for slavery is realistic...Nat Turner's group did not kill poor whites, for example.

Yeah. I don't think it was fair to blame Dr. Schultz. He did the best he could considering the circumstance, and he could hardly be considered an accessory to the crime of slavery, though he did benefit from it. Almost every other white person in the movie was a giant bastard so I can't really defend them.

[Goblin]

Fuck Spike Lee! He complains about everything!

[Althusser]

Schultz's innocence: Woah, woah. If it wasn't for Schultz, Django would be on a plantation away from his wife. Most of the film Schultz was helping Django, a free man, get his wife back. Schultz is fucking absolved. Period.

[brigadista]

Fuck Spike Lee! He complains about everything!

he has also made some amazing films and usually doesnt complain about nothing -

he deserves a lot of respect if for nothing else for when the levees broke

i havent seen django unchained but find the prospect of that film quite grim - i have read conflicting reviews but im not commenting on it until i see it

[Luís Henrique]

Tarantino is one of these things that make North Korea look good.

Luís Henrique

[Decommissioner]

I'm not that biggest tarantino fan, I find his dialogue very grating at times, but I enjoyed this movie a lot. The dialogue fit the characters and it kept me engaged throughout its entirety, which is rare for movies that go over the standard run time.

[Rafiq]

Those who are keen in dismissing Spike Lee, who are keen in categorizing him as unable to articulate the "point" of the movie, are themselves unable to articulate Lee's criticism. Spike Lee doesn't strike me as an intellectual of sorts, but if you look past what may at first glance appear to be a meaningless attack, a cry for attention and so on, there is great truth in his criticism. Like Inglorious Bastards before it, the visually soothing bloodbath simply lacks the capability of substituting the problematic nature of both of these films: Their cartoonish portrayal of previously existing, actual events which were horrific beyond verbal expression is nothing short of disrespectful. To add insult to injury, they'd cast an exceedingly attractive man, DiCaprio, to play as the slaver. It reminds me of the Baader-Meinoff complex, no matter how villainous or insane the characters were portrayed, they shined with glamour (It's not a bad thing regarding BM complex). The simplistic and almost comedic portrayal of slavery is something I'm disappointed, disappointed that only from Spike Lee we hear outcry. Even if it was a movie of great quality (as was inglorious bastards, a film I enjoyed) it still fails to express into film the real horrors of slavery. This black and white formulation of events actually does nothing but disrespect the victims. Portraying the Nazis (or slavers) as simply "the bad guys" gives them space to be glorified, i.e. SS halloween outfits, and so on. No, part of the real horror of slavery was the fact that slavers were not simply "bad guys", they had a real existing interest and the worst of the slavers, the worst of the masters were those who were kind to their slaves. Modern Liberalism, as a matter of fact, has been incapable of addressing slavery in the United States on an intellectual level. I want to see a movie where a slaver is portrayed as a 'nice, decent guy' who treats his slaves well, who is later brutally murdered by the protagonists. Those are protagonists I could admire and cheer for! But when Liberalist (I don't mean 'Liberal" in the American vulgar sense, i.e. Democrats or whatever. This should be clear to everyone by now) ideology only prepares it's viewers for confronting the cruel slave owners, it's no wonder why people, when confronted with the fact that some slavers actually tried to present themselves as "nice guys" start waving confederate flags.

[The Jay]

Spike Lee doesn't strike me as an intellectual of sorts, but if you look past what may at first glance appear to be a meaningless attack, a cry for attention and so on, there is great truth in his criticism.

That is very much what it is: a meaningless attack.


Like Inglorious Bastards before it, the visually soothing bloodbath simply lacks the capability of substituting the problematic nature of both of these films: Their cartoonish portrayal of previously existing, actual events which were horrific beyond verbal expression is nothing short of disrespectful.

Just what did you find cartoonish? Was the hotbox cartoonish? How about the whippings, bloodsport, dogs, chained marches, mutilation, rape, ect? None of that was cartoonish. It was visceral and should be shown more. Just laying a blanket statement of 'cartoonish' ignores all of the very accurate portrayals that went on. Those things were not joked about.


To add insult to injury, they'd cast an exceedingly attractive man, DiCaprio, to play as the slaver.

That is the dumbest criticism I have ever heard. Were all of the slave owners 'too pretty'? No.


The simplistic and almost comedic portrayal of slavery is something I'm disappointed, disappointed that only from Spike Lee we hear outcry.

I don't think that you were in the right theater if you think that they made slavery funny.


Even if it was a movie of great quality (as was inglorious bastards, a film I enjoyed) it still fails to express into film the real horrors of slavery.

It wasn't an exposition of slavery, or a documentary on the treatment of the slaves.


No, part of the real horror of slavery was the fact that slavers were not simply "bad guys", they had a real existing interest

The movie showed this if you bothered to look. I will not go through scene by scene and point it out to you.


and the worst of the slavers, the worst of the masters were those who were kind to their slaves.

That is the dumbest thing that I have ever read.


Modern Liberalism, as a matter of fact, has been incapable of addressing slavery in the United States on an intellectual level. I want to see a movie where a slaver is portrayed as a 'nice, decent guy' who treats his slaves well, who is later brutally murdered by the protagonists. Those are protagonists I could admire and cheer for! But when Liberalist (I don't mean 'Liberal" in the American vulgar sense, i.e. Democrats or whatever. This should be clear to everyone by now) ideology only prepares it's viewers for confronting the cruel slave owners, it's no wonder why people, when confronted with the fact that some slavers actually tried to present themselves as "nice guys" start waving confederate flags.

Make the movie yourself then. Have fun.

[Ostrinski]

Tarantino is one of these things that make North Korea look good.

Luís HenriqueAnd North Korean film no less.

[Rafiq]

That is very much what it is: a meaningless attack.



Just what did you find cartoonish? Was the hotbox cartoonish? How about the whippings, bloodsport, dogs, chained marches, mutilation, rape, ect? None of that was cartoonish. It was visceral and should be shown more. Just laying a blanket statement of 'cartoonish' ignores all of the very accurate portrayals that went on. Those things were not joked about.



That is the dumbest criticism I have ever heard. Were all of the slave owners 'too pretty'? No.



I don't think that you were in the right theater if you think that they made slavery funny.

I feel like I'm wasting my time here... Your simplistic interpretation of my post is something I feel embarrassed for, yeah, I literally feel embarrassed for you. They didn't make the "direct act" of slavery funny, yes there were scenes that were meant to emotionally provoke the audience. I guess you don't know what I mean by cartoonish. Don't fucking sit here and attempt to deny it was cartoonish and simplistic, don't sit here and tell me that DiCaprio wasn't glamorized and portrayed as charming and so on. I'm just naming a couple examples here and you make it as if that's all. I can't summarize the entire fucking movie in a single post, no one has time for that. It is a dynamic and reoccurring tendency and ideology does not express itself through films by characters holding up signs that read "Slavery is funny! Ha ha ha ha" and so on. Jesus christ...


It wasn't an exposition of slavery, or a documentary on the treatment of the slaves.


It was a movie concerning slavery, and that should be enough. As if the director didn't think the audience would have the impression of slavery's reality through the film. It's a subject you don't fuck with, if they're going to make a movie about something like slavery, especially something that bourgeois ideology is unable to properly confront, they better portray it properly, as opposed to making antagonists iconic, witty and almost "likeable" similar to, I don't fucking know, your typical action-comedy villain. Movies that have this black and white, "good vs. evil" structure leave room to "like" the villian, because the antagonist is there, we don't need to be convinced he's "bad", he just is objectively and therefore it's not hard to think of him as "badass" or whatever.


The movie showed this if you bothered to look. I will not go through scene by scene and point it out to you.


All of the slavers were gruesome and cruel. Of course all "bad guys" in movies have an interest, that wasn't my point. Slave masters in the south actually had a real existing class interest, or a real existing personal interest, beyond simply pleasuring themselves by brutalizing slaves.


That is the dumbest thing that I have ever read.


Is it? Think about it before you embarrass yourself. The worst of the slavers were kind to their slaves because they attempted to put a veil on the real horror that was slavery, they attempted to "humanize" the act, to make slavery "humane", and in doing so they contributed more to the process and relationship that was slavery than a gruesome or brutal slave owner ever could.

To quote Zizek: The worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it.


Make the movie yourself then. Have fun.


What the fuck? This is the most imbecilic thing I've read all day. I can't believe I'm reading this. We're not allowed to criticize, or even fucking make an analysis that doesn't praise the fucking film if we don't have the necessary skills or equipment to "make it" ourselves. Jesus fuck.

[Althusser]

No, part of the real horror of slavery was the fact that slavers were not simply "bad guys", they had a real existing interest

Well sure, but did the movie really have to go into the economic reasons why slavery was beneficial to the masters?


and the worst of the slavers, the worst of the masters were those who were kind to their slaves.

Woah. A slave master is a slave master, but this doesn't make sense.

[Rafiq]

Well sure, but did the movie really have to go into the economic reasons why slavery was beneficial to the masters?

No, but it could have done a better job of portraying the actually-existing horrors of slavery, rather than resorting to your standard American superhero movie's rhetoric. Utilizing something as horrific as slavery as a means of transmitting this "good guy - bad guy" story is absolutely disrespectful and offensive.


Woah. A slave master is a slave master, but this doesn't make sense.


See above

[Althusser]

See above

I did. You said that slave masters who are good to their slaves are worse than abusive ones. I don't understand. Is it because the lack of abuse meant the slaves were less likely to rise up or something?

It's like saying a fascist dictatorship is better than a bourgeois democracy.

[NormalG]

I did. You said that slave masters who are good to their slaves are worse than abusive ones. I don't understand. Is it because the lack of abuse meant the slaves were less likely to rise up or something?

It's like saying a fascist dictatorship is better than a bourgeois democracy.

A wolf is preferable to a wolf in sheeps clothing

[hetz]

Django is a revolutionary film in this context because all whites; racist, tolerant, rich, working class, poor, man and woman, are all implicated in the evil machinations of a white supremacist world. Quentin Tarantino does not give any space for white innocence because such innocence doesn’t exist in Quentin’s realistic portrayal of antebellum America.
The movie is revolutionary because all whites in it are bad and racist?
What bullshit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The movie is revolutionary because all whites in it are bad and racist?
What bullshit.

I would guess that that is not the argument: rather because it looks at "guilt" for slavery more generally than just "evil slaveowners" it's more revolutionary than most movies on the topic. The liberal depiction of the Civil War tries to gloss over racism and it generally tries to portray ending slavery as the forward-thinking benevolence of Lincoln; in these movies the Confederates and the Slave-owners are shown as over-the-top saddists while there may be bigots in the north, but "american progress and ideals" will change that if good men speak up... or some bullshit. If the movie presents the "evil" as more general and systematic than a few "bad, evil, and greedy" slaveowners, then it is probably a more interesting take than most.

So I get the sense that the reviewer is saying it's not a romanticized or easy view of the conflict which makes it more interesting than most movies on that count.

[Questionable]

Whatever you think about the final product, I don't think Tarantino is your typical Hollywood suit trying to make a buck out of tragedy. In an interview with NPR he stated that the reason he produces movies with historical victims as the protagonists is because he's trying to create something of a cathartic effect. He said that with Inglorious Basterds, rather than casting Jews as helpless victims of Nazism as they usually are, he wanted to give power to the group by casting them as over-the-top action heroes.

Is it the right approach? I have no idea, but I sure as fuck loved seeing the racists get destroyed by Django at the end.

[Yazman]

Spike Lee came out against Tarantino's film saying it's racist and disrespectful to his ancestors (without even seeing the film)What's that? He said it's racist and disrespectful without even having seen the film? My response: I respect & like Spike Lee, but he can, quite frankly, fuck off until he's seen it.

[bcbm]

A friend of mine wrote an excellent review (http://theactivist.org/blog/quentin-tarantino-commits-black-revolution-in-django-unchained-a-film-review) of the movie. Some highlights (spoilers):


If you haven’t already figured it out, there are no white saviors in Django Unchained, blacks are their own saviors.

there is some disagreement about this, i think. from 'django unchained: tarantino's movie seems tame compared with the blaxploitation westerns (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/12/django_unchained_tarantino_s_movie_seems_tame_comp ared_with_the_blaxploitation.html):'


In Tarantino’s movie, by contrast, Django tries and fails to escape and is only liberated, and empowered, by the benevolent bounty hunter Dr. Schultz.


Like Django Unchained, the trilogy offers slaves a chance to slip from their chains and enact a measure of revenge for their bondage. In The Legend of Nigger Charley, three runaway slaves—Charley, Tobey, and Joshua (Don Pedro Colley)—miraculously manage to fend off the sheriff and his posse who chase them from the plantation after they murder their slaveholder and make their escape. The central plot line of The Soul of Nigger Charley revolves around Charley and Tobey enlisting the help of other ex-slaves to fight against Col. Blanchard and Gen. Hook, men who have vowed to restore the Confederacy to its glory days. “We ain’t never gonna be free so long as black people are slaves,” Charley says to his hesitant compatriots.

Such racial solidarity is noticeably absent from Django Unchained. Django (Jamie Foxx) possesses a focused drive to find and free his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). He takes out a few slavers along the way, but his efforts to save his wife often run counter to the interests of the blacks around him. In order to deceive Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), Broomhilda’s new owner, Django must play the part of an expert in “Mandingo fighting”—fights in which slave owners pitted their strongest slaves against one another in fights to the death. (Mandingo fighting was the subject of another blaxploitation film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_HTlALVc3c); it is unclear whether this was actually a common practice during slavery.) Django must prove that he can be just as ruthless toward slaves as the slave owners themselves, and in one of the movie’s most difficult scenes to watch, he refuses to let his companion, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), buy one of Candie’s runaway fighters to save him from death. Django thus encourages Candie to deal with the slave as he sees fit; he looks on dispassionately as the slave is ripped to shreds by dogs.

the whole article is worth reading i think. i haven't seen the movie so i don't have much to say.


What's that? He said it's racist and disrespectful without even having seen the film? My response: I respect & like Spike Lee, but he can, quite frankly, fuck off until he's seen it.

i dont know why people get this foaming at the mouth angry over stuff like this

[Ismail]

WSWS put out a review of it: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/05/djan-j05.html

[Questionable]

WSWS put out a review of it: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/01/05/djan-j05.html

With all due respect this review is pretty awful. This guy keeps complaining that slavery wasn't linked to capitalism in the movie. What the fuck was he expecting? A film adaption of Capital? His main complaints seem to be that it wasn't harsh enough on capitalism.

He also seems to hate violent movies, which makes him predisposed to dislike Django Unchained anyway.

Also, in regards to the convoluted nature of the plan to rescue Broomhilda, Tarantino did an interview on that. It was purposely convoluted because Schultz as a character loves being clever and in control, and even if they could have simply walked in and bought Broomhilda, he wanted to do the complicated plan just to show that he could. I can't find the interview on NPR, maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about and can post it?

Also he got pissed off and shot Candie because that man was a disgusting slaver and Schultz couldn't stand slavery, so being forced to shake his hand was the ultimate insult. It's like being made to shake Hitler's hand.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

With all due respect this review is pretty awful. This guy keeps complaining that slavery wasn't linked to capitalism in the movie. What the fuck was he expecting? A film adaption of Capital? His main complaints seem to be that it wasn't harsh enough on capitalism.
Well, Walsh takes film very seriously, and his treatment of some films doesn't always hold under scrutiny. But I think you missed the central point of his review. Walsh's main complaint is that Tarantino's film may be passing off the extreme violence and bombastic aspects as a substitute for a genuine exploration of social problems, not that it wasn't "harsh enough" on capitalism. In fact, he only makes a reference to capitalism and Marx in a single paragraph. And though I haven't seen Django Unchained yet, the elements of Tarantino's "style" that Walsh points out here--namely ultra-violence, revenge, pretentious and silly dialogue, endless shout-outs to the trashy "pulp" films of his own day, his anti-intellectual treatment of the subject matter, the domination of intuition--are pretty consistently done in his other films (except for maybe Jackie Brown, which I haven't seen).

From what I've seen in his other films, Tarantino seems to see violence and domination as the fallback explanation of every human action, perhaps even our very nature, whether it be slavery or the Second World War. To someone like me, who has seen enough of this in films already, it is all the more frustrating to imagine the director reveling in this, sneering at you from behind the camera. After all, Tarantino is no fool; he knows exactly what he's doing. He is all too content to go along with bourgeois culture in the worst way, with Inglorious Basterds being the final proof of this for me.

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that Tarantino has some Kantian obligation to make socially aware films. He is free to make whatever he wants. And ultra-violence is not anathema to film, and can have very effective artistic uses. "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" is one of these, and was actually recommended by a reviewer at the WSWS for its criticism of Margaret Thatcher's administration (I only thought it was okay). My main problem with Tarantino is that he continually tries to appeal to his audience on the basis that his films are gruesome and ultra-violent. He glorifies precisely what Trotsky called capitalism's "undigested barbarism", which would likely come "gushing out from the throat" in the event of a social crisis. Classical fascism successfully exploited this to its own advantage in Trotsky's day. But in doing this, it needs to be pointed out that Tarantino is hardly different from many of his fellow directors, though unlike Tarantino they may try to cover their products with scoops of vanilla ice cream here and there to sweeten the bowl.

[Questionable]

Well, Walsh takes film very seriously, and his treatment of some films doesn't always hold under scrutiny. But I think you missed the central point of his review. Walsh's main complaint is that Tarantino's film may be passing off the extreme violence and bombastic aspects as a substitute for a genuine exploration of social problems, not that it wasn't "harsh enough" on capitalism. In fact, he only makes a reference to capitalism and Marx in a single paragraph. And though I haven't seen Django Unchained yet, the elements of Tarantino's "style" that Walsh points out here--namely ultra-violence, revenge, pretentious and silly dialogue, endless shout-outs to the trashy "pulp" films of his own day, his anti-intellectual treatment of the subject matter, the domination of intuition--are pretty consistently done in his other films (except for maybe Jackie Brown, which I haven't seen).

From what I've seen in his other films, Tarantino seems to see violence and domination as the fallback explanation of every human action, perhaps even our very nature, whether it be slavery or the Second World War. To someone like me, who has seen enough of this in films already, it is all the more frustrating to imagine the director reveling in this, sneering at you from behind the camera. After all, Tarantino is no fool; he knows exactly what he's doing. He is all too content to go along with bourgeois culture in the worst way, with Inglorious Basterds being the final proof of this for me.

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that Tarantino has some Kantian obligation to make socially aware films. He is free to make whatever he wants. And ultra-violence is not anathema to film, and can have very effective artistic uses. "The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover" is one of these, and was actually recommended by a reviewer at the WSWS for its criticism of Margaret Thatcher's administration (I only thought it was okay). My main problem with Tarantino is that he continually tries to appeal to his audience on the basis that his films are gruesome and ultra-violent. He glorifies precisely what Trotsky called capitalism's "undigested barbarism", which would likely come "gushing out from the throat" in the event of a social crisis. Classical fascism successfully exploited this to its own advantage in Trotsky's day. But in doing this, it needs to be pointed out that Tarantino is hardly different from many of his fellow directors, though unlike Tarantino they may try to cover their products with scoops of vanilla ice cream here and there to sweeten the bowl.

It just seems like this argument and the one in the review rely on blaming Tarantino for purposely trying to distort the knowledge of historical events, when I really doubt that's his intention. One can argue that his way of viewing society is erroneous, but I don't buy what you're suggesting, that Tarantino was sitting behind his camera laughing at his unsuspecting proletarian audience as he made fun of slavery.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It just seems like this argument and the one in the review rely on blaming Tarantino for purposely trying to distort the knowledge of historical events, when I really doubt that's his intention. One can argue that his way of viewing society is erroneous, but I don't buy what you're suggesting, that Tarantino was sitting behind his camera laughing at his unsuspecting proletarian audience as he made fun of slavery.
Well, that may be Walsh's central view (doubtful to me, as his past reviews of Tarantino's films indicate) but it isn't mine. In fact, I didn't mention the issue of historical accuracy in my last post. And of course, it's not likely that Tarantino is actually laughing at his audience from behind the camera. As I explicitly stated, that was only in my imagination. Now that I think of it, I may have been referring to the self-referential aspects of his films, which do personally irritate me. And since when did this abstract audience have to be proletarian? I never said nor implied such a thing. After all, there are theatergoers in the other classes too, last I checked.

It seems like you only seized upon one specific remark of mine, out of context no less, to make your case here. If you're looking to refute my entire post in this fashion, that will not work. My main problem with Tarantino's films was not historical accuracy, it was (in short) their tendency to embrace and glorify the most rapacious elements of bourgeois culture. Please either respond adequately to what I said, or not at all.

[Questionable]

Well, that may be Walsh's central view (doubtful to me, as his past reviews of Tarantino's films indicate) but it isn't mine. In fact, I didn't mention the issue of historical accuracy in my last post. And of course, it's not likely that Tarantino is actually laughing at his audience from behind the camera. As I explicitly stated, that was only in my imagination. Now that I think of it, I may have been referring to the self-referential aspects of his films, which do personally irritate me. And since when did this abstract audience have to be proletarian? I never said nor implied such a thing. After all, there are theatergoers in the other classes too, last I checked.

It seems like you only seized upon one specific remark of mine, out of context no less, to make your case here. If you're looking to refute my entire post in this fashion, that will not work. My main problem with Tarantino's films was not historical accuracy, it was (in short) their tendency to embrace and glorify the most rapacious elements of bourgeois culture. Please either respond adequately to what I said, or not at all.

No thanks. I'm satisfied with my viewpoint as it is. I was mostly concerned with this part of your post:


From what I've seen in his other films, Tarantino seems to see violence and domination as the fallback explanation of every human action, perhaps even our very nature, whether it be slavery or the Second World War. To someone like me, who has seen enough of this in films already, it is all the more frustrating to imagine the director reveling in this, sneering at you from behind the camera. After all, Tarantino is no fool; he knows exactly what he's doing. He is all too content to go along with bourgeois culture in the worst way, with Inglorious Basterds being the final proof of this for me.

Which heavily suggested that you believed Tarantino to be some kind of puppet master making movies about violence and domination being human nature as bourgeois culture says it is, which I don't believe is accurate based on what Tarantino has said about his own films and the views he's trying to put across with them.

[bcbm]

From what I've seen in his other films, Tarantino seems to see violence and domination as the fallback explanation of every human action, perhaps even our very nature, whether it be slavery or the Second World War. . .

My main problem with Tarantino is that he continually tries to appeal to his audience on the basis that his films are gruesome and ultra-violent. He glorifies precisely what Trotsky called capitalism's "undigested barbarism", which would likely come "gushing out from the throat" in the event of a social crisis. Classical fascism successfully exploited this to its own advantage in Trotsky's day. But in doing this, it needs to be pointed out that Tarantino is hardly different from many of his fellow directors, though unlike Tarantino they may try to cover their products with scoops of vanilla ice cream here and there to sweeten the bowl.

he is an a-list director but he is not trying to make 'art' in the traditional fim sense so much as what are basically neo-exploitation films. the point is to create, with a much larger budget and talent, films alluding to a specific style of film in the 70s and 80s that was all about over the top, well, everything, but especially heavy dose of ridiculous violence. i doubt anyone would critique the films he is imitating in this way so i don't think it makes a lot of sense to apply to him

[The Machine]

http://qkme.me/3sgrbw

edit: goddamn i suck at computers can a mod help me out?

[Jimmie Higgins]

he is an a-list director but he is not trying to make 'art' in the traditional fim sense so much as what are basically neo-exploitation films. the point is to create, with a much larger budget and talent, films alluding to a specific style of film in the 70s and 80s that was all about over the top, well, everything, but especially heavy dose of ridiculous violence. i doubt anyone would critique the films he is imitating in this way so i don't think it makes a lot of sense to apply to him

These movies are still "critiqueable" and are pretty interesting when viewed while keeping the social context of the 1970s in mind (though generally the politics of the actual film are bad, but even with generally petty-bourgoise politics the larger social context still makes it interesting). But yeah, none of them are trying to make a comment about history for the most part - even when set in other time periods. Mostly they are trying to capitalize on sensationalism and controversy - and back in the 1970s there were much more open bleeding wounds and fears regarding society and social change and so seeing a fantasy of black revenge in the context of revolutionary black groups and urban riots by blacks and massive social change in dynamics for black workers is a bit different than seeing that same explosiveness relayed to us now in our own time where a lot of that anger may still be there, but the conflicts are more covered up.

Also regarding this movie specifically, I read an interview with Sam Jackson where he said that Tarintino's view of history is not human history, but movies; the view of the history of movie styles and subjects. I think it's a bit off to argue that Tarintino was intentionally misleading the audience or even trying to make any argument about the historical civil war, I think he probably thought: "I'd love to do a Spagetti-Western, but those movies are always about old disgruntled ex-Confederates, what if it was a ex-slave, not an ex-confederate, that would be rad!"


http://qkme.me/3sgrbw

edit: goddamn i suck at computers can a mod help me out?
What are you trying to post?

[The Machine]

What are you trying to post?

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sgrbw/

[Sasha]

Unpacking Django Unchained (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/07/unpacking-django-unchained)

Posted by Paul Constant (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/paul-constant/Author?oid=17693) on Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Over at 4th Letter (http://4thletter.net/2013/01/django-unchained-coded-language-man-made-laws/), David Brothers is writing daily posts about Django Unchained (http://4thletter.net/2013/01/expect-me/) all week long. Django is a complicated movie about maybe the most complicated subject in America, and it's good to see Brothers, who can be an incredibly incisive blogger, digging deep into it. (If you're looking for a takedown, you'll have to go somewhere else; Brothers is plainly a fan of the movie.)
I knew Brothers and Django were going to be a great fit when I read this passage from the first post (http://4thletter.net/2013/01/django-unchained-coded-language-man-made-laws/), which was published yesterday:

Jimmy’s just one of the slurs in Django Unchained. Crow, black, nigger, pony, and so on… it’s fascinating. It’s easy to forget that racism isn’t as simple as somebody hating someone else over the color of their skin. It’s bigger than that. It’s a system. Language is just the first line of attack.
I've never read it explained quite that clearly, or quite that concisely. Today's post is right here (http://4thletter.net/2013/01/django-unchained-if-they-had-my-sense-they-would-not-serve-any-master-in-the-world/). Brothers promises five more essays, each posted every day at 9 am. I'm really looking forward to reading all these.



indeed quite interesting

[Prof. Oblivion]

All I'm saying is that it is hypocritical for Lee to make these comments because he follows people that don't use their position and their "reach" to make a difference. Most people in the spotlight black/white don't do this, but for Spike to make the comments if a bit hypocritical. I'll admit the connection might be a bit weak though. It just always gets on my nerves when people with fame don't use that position for leftizmm!! So I might have went off on a tangent.

I don't give a shit about Jay-Z and his involvement with the Nets because he's not making these statements and pretending to be this big revolutionary defender of his ancestors.

I get what you mean about the media race-baiting though. I didn't take that into account.

Neither are most of the basketball players you just made that comment about...

[bcbm]

These movies are still "critiqueable" and are pretty interesting when viewed while keeping the social context of the 1970s in mind

for sure, i just meant i don't see anyone coming at it from a 'why this isnt a serious film and its violence is not artistic' sort of way, though i guess even if they did i would disagree there is certainly some form of 'art' in some of the exploitative violence flicks

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This post is addressed to both Questionable and bcbm. As it is long, I will place it in spoiler tags.

Bcbm asserts at one point that he doubts “anyone” would critique the exploitation genre like I do, so applying it to Tarantino makes no sense. Next, Questionable argues that I do not take into account “what Tarantino has said about his own films…[and what] he’s trying to put across in them.” So, the counter-arguments used here can be expressed thus: Since I don’t “get” the “point” of what Tarantino is trying to do in his films, in judging his films I am applying an arbitrary criteria. Let’s examine both parts of this position in detail.

The first part infers that if Tarantino’s films are placed in the context of a neo-exploitation genre (albeit with a higher budget), then they will make sense in some way, allowing them to be enjoyed more. This is certainly true, but I will argue that this is an insufficient condition, because context by itself cannot eliminate a film’s perceived flaws. For instance, viewing Aaron Seltzer’s films as send-ups of others would not necessarily make it more funny or even watchable. A film must primarily be evaluated on its own terms, strictly as a first step. So context or intentions are relevant, but they cannot be used here as a blank check to justify anything a film does. I am fully aware of what Tarantino has been trying to do here, but this is not 1970 or 1980, it is 2013, and he does not deserve a pass simply because he’s imitating these past films. Nor am I obliged to look at his films the same way he does. To me, saying that I must is an appeal to false authority, since I don’t always regard directors or artists to always be the best interpreters of their work. Tarantino does not have the final word on his own work.

The second part deals with my own “criteria” in judging a particular film. My opponents do not at all address the actual aspects of Tarantino’s filmmaking that I disliked (violence, pretentious dialogue, etc.) but instead turn to the “you just don’t get it” argument. Instead, there is an implicit understanding that Tarantino’s films are not meant to be taken that seriously, hence why my criticism has no place. Why exactly shouldn’t film be taken seriously? And again, why does Tarantino’s brand of violence deserve a pass? Simply looking at the form of his films and what he is imitating does not at all do justice to their content, nor does it help make the films comprehensible. With this limited scope of analysis, it does us no good in wondering why Tarantino chose the historical subjects that he did, why the justification of torture and brutal violence in his films lines up so perfectly with the ethos of US imperialism, why the appeal of the exploitation genre has lasted this long, or the significance of film violence and its numerous forms in bourgeois culture or how it may affect its audience. It is as if capitalist society and culture do not factor in this at all; a far more dynamic analysis is required. Films should not be viewed as “just” films.

In conclusion, I cannot help but view the arguments of my opponents as evasions of the real issue, which is that Tarantino’s films, and film violence in general must be politically and socially examined as a part of bourgeois culture, and how it may assist or affect the ruling ideas of society. Naturally that is not all we should do, but I think we’d be doing ourselves a disservice if we left this issue unexamined. As for Tarantino himself, he does not show the slightest concern for these issues. He does not believe that violence in films or real life have anything to do with each other (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/quentin-tarantino-newtown-violence-disrespectful_n_2408903.html), and views filmmaking itself as nothing more than the art of “faking it”. I feel that such lazy conceptions and reasoning is perhaps a part of what I am arguing against. But that is just speculation.

@Questionable: I’d like to say that I found your analogy to be rather poor. Since I said Tarantino “goes along” with bourgeois culture, I don’t see how it makes sense to say that I portrayed him as a “puppet master”. After all, you can have sound presence of mind and still be content to “go with the flow,” or conform. But that is beside the point. In an interview as early as 2010, Tarantino indicated his awareness (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6975563/Quentin-Tarantino-violence-is-the-best-way-to-control-an-audience.html) of how violence can be used on an audience as a psychological technique. He is no puppet master, but he is certainly no innocent.

[Questionable]

@Questionable: I’d like to say that I found your analogy to be rather poor. Since I said Tarantino “goes along” with bourgeois culture, I don’t see how it makes sense to say that I portrayed him as a “puppet master”. After all, you can have sound presence of mind and still be content to “go with the flow,” or conform. But that is beside the point. In an interview as early as 2010, Tarantino indicated his awareness of how violence can be used on an audience as a psychological technique. He is no puppet master, but he is certainly no innocent.

That's a pretty big step to take, to say that because Tarantino stated he likes violent action movies this means that he's trying to convince the audience that violence is human nature.

If you're not trying to construct a conspiracy theory here, then maybe you should phrase what you're trying to say in a different manner. When you complain about Tarantino "sneering at us from behind the camera" because he's teaching us all that violence is human nature, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to take away from your post.

[Althusser]

Neither are most of the basketball players you just made that comment about...

This is true. I resent all people with fame who don't use it to spread leftism (Jay-Z and the NBA players all included)

What I don't like more, is people who act all high and mighty and socially conscious, make irresponsible statements for attention, and basically worship the Knicks.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

That's a pretty big step to take, to say that because Tarantino stated he likes violent action movies this means that he's trying to convince the audience that violence is human nature.

If you're not trying to construct a conspiracy theory here, then maybe you should phrase what you're trying to say in a different manner. When you complain about Tarantino "sneering at us from behind the camera" because he's teaching us all that violence is human nature, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to take away from your post.
I already acknowledged in an earlier post, after my initial one, that Tarantino sneering at us was only in my imagination. In fact, I said that in the initial post, too. I never believed that he was actually doing this. I was only detailing what was going through my mind on a personal level as I watch his films, something which I believe was clear from my original paragraph. I am not alleging any sort of conspiracy.

Since it was in my imagination, it also doesn't necessarily mean that Tarantino actually holds such views on human nature, though from what he's actually said in his interviews about violence and film, I don't think I'm entirely wrong. And again, what Tarantino says about his films should certainly be considered, but his statements are absolutely not the final word on the matter, nor should they be. The point of critiquing Tarantino's films (and others' films) is to analyze certain themes, like violence and revenge, and observe how they are marketed in bourgeois society, and, on a deeper level, the forms that they take in the minds of the people who live in that society. I don't think this is something Marxists should take lightly. Analysis and understanding are part of the method, not shielding directors from social criticism. We all can enjoy certain films despite their flaws, but that does not oblige us to be any less critical of them.

[RadioRaheem84]

That is very much what it is: a meaningless attack.



Just what did you find cartoonish? Was the hotbox cartoonish? How about the whippings, bloodsport, dogs, chained marches, mutilation, rape, ect? None of that was cartoonish. It was visceral and should be shown more. Just laying a blanket statement of 'cartoonish' ignores all of the very accurate portrayals that went on. Those things were not joked about.



That is the dumbest criticism I have ever heard. Were all of the slave owners 'too pretty'? No.



I don't think that you were in the right theater if you think that they made slavery funny.



It wasn't an exposition of slavery, or a documentary on the treatment of the slaves.



The movie showed this if you bothered to look. I will not go through scene by scene and point it out to you.



That is the dumbest thing that I have ever read.



Make the movie yourself then. Have fun.

Talk about FANBOY! Talk about projecting too. You should save the "make your own movie", "where is your movie", talk to the IMDB boards, not on revleft. I never understood that notion, that you cannot critique a movie because you yourself have not secured millions of dollars and a distribution deal and made your own film. It's such a childish thing to say.

QT is a talented filmmaker but one that has over reached his abilities. His self praising at the end of IB was over the top for me as even he should've known that IB was a big mess with no real direction. It was hit or miss scenes of brilliance (like the beginning) and then utter nonsense.
It wasn't cartoonish but it was certainly vulgar campy kitsch.

Spike Lee on the other hand is a brilliant director who has the right opinion about QT albeit a bit presumptious since he hasn't seen the movie yet. Movies like Malcolm X and Do the Right Thing are amazing. Clockers, He Got Game, Mo Better Blues, Bamboozled, 25th Hour. C'mon, all great films.

Tarantino had three; Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. True Romance too if you count his writing nods. The rest after Kill Bill Vol 1 were terrible. KB V2 awful, Deathproof why bother? Inglorious Basterds a complete mess and Django Unchained a good but not great film.

[Questionable]

Since it was in my imagination, it also doesn't necessarily mean that Tarantino actually holds such views on human nature, though from what he's actually said in his interviews about violence and film, I don't think I'm entirely wrong. And again, what Tarantino says about his films should certainly be considered, but his statements are absolutely not the final word on the matter, nor should they be. The point of critiquing Tarantino's films (and others' films) is to analyze certain themes, like violence and revenge, and observe how they are marketed in bourgeois society, and, on a deeper level, the forms that they take in the minds of the people who live in that society. I don't think this is something Marxists should take lightly. Analysis and understanding are part of the method, not shielding directors from social criticism. We all can enjoy certain films despite their flaws, but that does not oblige us to be any less critical of them.

I never said we should not analyze films or shield directors from social criticism, I just don't think your analysis of Tarantino's films trying to teach people that violence is human nature is correct based on what he's said in interviews and other places.

Although I have to admit I find analyzing art problematic because of its heavily subjective nature. Not to say that there aren't objective class influences on art, but it cannot be denied that is also a large subjective element, and that's why films like Django Unchained end up like rorschach tests, because some people will appreciate Tarantino's attempt to empower historical victims, while others will be offended at a perceived attempt to make light of slavery. And this attempt to identify the objective elements of arts by Marxists often ends up resulting in smug self-assurance in some people. People will write these high-sounding analyses of popular films, and then when people disagree, they're condemned as stupid and blind to the "real message" of the movie. This is why goals such as seeing the "forms they take in the minds of people who live in that society" come off as presumptuous at times, because it implies the existence of a "correct answer" in art, and people who believe they've found the "correct answer" will sneer at different interpretations for being less enlightened.. I'm not accusing you of this, but I've seen it happen.

[RadioRaheem84]

Finally finished Django. It took me two days because it was really long and not interesting enough to keep me watching the entire time so I cut the viewing into two days. I have to say it's a good movie but just that; a good movie. It was nothing special and seriously nothing to win a best pic nod at the Oscars. I mean what was the Academy thinking? At least it's better structured than Inglorious, makes more sense, but overall the movie a complete farce. It's campy kitsch to the highest order, historically ignorant and rather offensive at some points. If Spike Lee was angry over the N-word being used in Pulp Fiction he should contiue his boycott and not watch this movie!
The contrived forced dialoge was over the top ridiculous especially from the Schultz guy. The only saving grace in this movie was Sam Jackson who was brilliant but Waltz was literally just borrowing from his earlier role and Cpt. Landa.

I am seriously at a loss here. Are people prasing this film because a lot of the movies out there these days suck so a move like Django gets near universal praise and recognition? Is it that the quality of movies has gotten so bad that movies like Django seem like Oscar gold? Why wasn't the Chilean movie NO with Gael Garcia Bernal nominated for Best Pic? It was for best foreign languange but so was Amour another foreign language and best picture nominee. That movie was way more tense, interesting and relevant.

Seriously just what am I missing to see the sheer brilliance of Django? Maybe I came in with high expectations but I didn't leave thinking it was a horrible film, just did not see the hype, did not see the brilliance in it and I sure as hell did not see old QT like I kept hearing from people. It did not remotely seem like he harkened back to the days of Pulp Fiction at all. It was more stylized camp like Kill Bill and Inglorious.

[Geiseric]

I like the way you die white boy. BOOM.
Django was awesome, all of the actors killed it. In terms of dramatic prestige or whatever it probably wasn't on the level of friggen Laurence Olivier, but Quenten has his own style, which he's sticking with, and this one was done MUCH better than Inglorious Basterds, which I also saw in theatres haha. The special effects were over the top, but overall, I thoroughly enjoyed it, I think 20 years from now people will still be watching it.

[Pirate Utopian]

This was a great movie, that finale was awesome.

Slavery is not mocked in this movie. It was portrayed as a horrific and every single slaveholders got a comeuppance.

[Leo]

Just watched it, by far the best Tarantino film ever. Also a great Western film, though of course its set in the South.

Also, it is ridiculous to claim that this film mocked slavery. This is the most serious film Tarantino has ever made and slavery was indeed portrayed as horrific, and every single slaveholder did get what was coming to them.

As for its language, I'd say anything less would be portraying the slaveholders as nicer than they were. What were they supposed to say, "Mr. Slave, I'd be thrilled if you could please fight this gentleman to death for me"?

Granted it wasn't a masterpiece, but I agree it's a film which will be watched twenty years from now. If Tarantino can't top it, this is the one he'll be remembered with.

[brigadista]

seen it now- not about slavery -its shaft in the south except shaft never was schooled by a white man :D:D

[Futility Personified]

Awesome film. Some of it was utterly hard to watch, but perfectly establishes how vile Candie is. Maybe Dr Schultz is a bit more leading than Django, dunno how that runs on emancipation lines, but as a piece of cinema it was brilliant.

[bcbm]

django unchained's white abolitionist vision (http://hnn.us/articles/django-unchaineds-white-abolitionist-vision)