***Although the following post is about Django Unchained, I made sure to make it as spoiler-free as I could. If you do choose to leave comments that could be interpreted as spoilers, please leave spoiler tags before you do so***
1. “War is hell, but that’s not the half of it, because war is also mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love. War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead.â€
This take on the popular “war is hell†cliche is from Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, a semi-autobiographical and metafictional account of the Vietnam War, and one of my three or four favorite books. Basically, something as random, arbitrary, and complicated as being in the middle of a war is too, well, complicated to be reduced down to one adjective.
After reading dozens of historical texts and memoirs, sifting through several documentaries, and watching movies such as Roots and Django Unchanined and Amistad, I think the same type of quote could be made about slavery in the United States. Perhaps different adjectives would be used, but it’s not possible to distill a description of that time down to a single word.
I mean, anyone with a brain and/or a Black grandparent should know that Django is not an exact representation of the antebellum period. But, one historically accurate thing it does show is that the relationships between slaves and slaveowners were complicated as well.
For instance, there’s a 20 minute stretch in the movie where you witness each of the following:
A slave who, with the way she was dressed and with the way she was treated, was clearly (slaveowner) Calvin Candie’s girlfriend.
A slave who, because he attempted to escape, is sentenced to a very brutal death.
A house slave who is clearly the second most powerful person on the entire plantation.
While each were slaves, each character had a completely different relationship with their owner, and each probably had a different personal relationship with the concept of slavery. Shit was just…complicated. While the “girlfriend” and the house slave both had vastly more freedoms than the average slave, neither was actually free. (The situation with the girlfriend was especially bizarre. I mean, yea, she’s his girlfriend—and, from the looks of things, he treated her like a, well, girlfriend—but could she actually say “no?” Isn’t this—sex without consent—rape?)
With that being said, it’s irresponsible to neglect to mention that while certain movies and texts may show that certain slaves may have had a more, for lack of a better term, “benevolent†relationship with their masters, the majority of slaves were not treated with any sort of human kindness or compassion. Maybe it wasn’t “hell,†but for many, it was even worse.
2. I think Django Unchained is quintessential Tarantino. His movies are frequently homages—to spaghetti westerns, blaxploitation flicks, etc,—and mishmashes of different genres, but Django is almost an homage to himself.
Basically, if you like Tarantino movies, you will probably like Django. If you don’t, you probably won’t.
3. I think Django is my fourth-favorite Tarantino movie. (Kill Bill 1 and 2, and Inglorious Basterds would be the others) I didn’t love it—I thought it was a bit too long—but I did like it very much.
4. I think one of the many possible reasons why people who aren’t Tarantino fans aren’t Tarantino fans has to do with the fact that typical Tarantino movies frequently shift tonally in a way that can seem a bit too inappropriate. For instance, if you’re going to see, I don’t know, Precious or something, you go into the movie knowing how to expect to feel. You may laugh at the absurdity of a certain situation, but a scene designed to make you guffaw in a movie like that would just seem out of place.
Tarantino movies don’t follow that same script. And, despite the fact that I am a huge fan of his work, I can see how someone would be put off by a movie that depicts the brutality of slavery in one scene and has a slapstick scene involving the Ku Klux Klan (more on this in a sec) in the same 15 minute span.
5. I didn’t think the Klan scene was that funny. I think you can make a good joke about anything, so me not thinking it was funny had nothing to do with the attempt. It made me chuckle a little, but, I don’t know, it was more The Hangover funny—humor where you’re supposed to laugh at something because it’s supposed to be funny, not because it actually is—than actually funny.
6. I think many (if not most) of the people upset by the ubiquity of nigga and nigger in Django are upset because they feel like they’re supposed to be upset by it, not because the word actually offended them. It reminds me of the conversation surrounding Gywneth Paltrow’s “niggas in Paris†tweet last year. Despite the thousands of articles, blogs, tweets, and status message threads about it—and yes, I was guilty of making a contribution as well—I doubt many of us were actually that mad about it.
It’s almost as if we’re playing “pretend†mad so White people won’t get too comfortable. It’s kind of like how a dad gets pretend mad at a child for peeing in the front yard. He doesn’t want the kid to do again, so he’s appropriately upset and makes sure the kid sees that he is. But, he’s not losing any sleep over it, and probably thinks it’s more funny than anything else.
7. I think I’ve reached a point where hearing “n-word†bothers me more than “nigger†does. (I think Sam Jackson agrees with me)
8. I think one of the most jarring things about Django was seeing slavery in “color.†As I mentioned earlier, whether through Roots or some other movies and/documentaries, most of us have seen that time period on screen in some fashion. But, while Roots (and Amistad) definitely was graphic, there’s a difference between the relatively grainy film used in something made in the 70s (and the documentary-esque feel of Amistad) and the type of picture you get with the high definition cameras used today. Django is, in many ways, the most colorful depiction of slavery any of us have ever seen.
9. I think the movie was a bit tamer than I expected it to be. Rapes and castrations are implied instead of shown, and for all I heard and read about the violence and the brutality, the violence actually seen on screen was so over the top that it bordered on camp.
Now, I’m sure some of those who have seen the movie may disagree about the campyness of the violence, specifically in regards to a scene involving dogs and another scene involving two Mandingos fighting to the death. But, both of those scenes were edited in a way that even though you definitely knew what was happening, you couldn’t really see it. (I wonder if Tarantino intended to do that or if he was instructed to by Miramax.)
Still, there were a few scenes that were particularly hard to watch, and each involved Kerry Washington’s character. Without giving away too much, she’s put through a gauntlet of dignity-erasing horrors that make you want to cringe, cry, and, well, kill.
10. I think a conversation I had a couple weeks ago shows why, despite its flaws and despite the fact that it’s not a completely accurate account of the antebellum period, a movie like Django is necessary. (Well, at least more necessary than unnecessary)
Once a week for the past four or five years, I play basketball at a local high school. It’s a regular group of 20 to 30 guys who vary in age and skill level, and many weeks I’m the only Black guy.
This particular pick up game has been going on for decades, and one of the traditions is that the guys who come gather in the coaches’ office afterwards to kick back and drink beers. (The person who’s supposed to buy the beers revolves every week. And, if you’ve gone too long without bringing a case, you will get clowned and eventually uninvited)
Anyway, Django happened to be one of the topics of conversation during one of these kick back sessions. It stayed superficial for a couple minutes—most of the discussion was just about who had seen the movie and whether they liked it—before seguing into a conversation about Tarantino movies in general.
Admittedly, I was happy that we’d left that subject. As much as I enjoy talking about the type of topics a Django conversation might touch on, I don’t want to have those conversations everywhere and with everyone. And, honestly, part of the reason why I wasn’t looking forward to a deeper Django discussion is that I generally like and enjoy being around those guys, and I didn’t want someone to express an opinion or viewpoint that would make me start to think differently about them. Perhaps that’s “wrong†in some way, but I just didn’t and still don’t see the need in introducing that dynamic there. When it comes to reliably fun pick-up basketball, ignorance is bliss.
A few minutes later, though, Django was brought up again. A guy sitting right next to me on the couch had a few questions about the movie—things he wasn’t particularly sure about—and, well, when else are you going to have the opportunity to ask a very smart Black guy about some of these things?
Now, for a moment I considered doing the “I can’t answer for all Black people†thing with perhaps a little “I’m offended that you’d even ask me that†mixed in. But, his questions (more on that in a sec) let me know he was both genuinely curious and genuinely ignorant, and with that realization came another one:
There are people—millions of people (millions of Americans!)—who literally know nothing about slavery other than it was kind of bad and it ended some time ago. And, while Django isn’t Roots, a movie created by a person as culturally relevant as Tarantino will at least spark conversations that some people would have never had.
One of the questions had to do with Sam Jackson’s character. Basically, he assumed that Jackson’s character wasn’t a slave. I corrected him. And, since he had no concept of the difference between house slaves and field slaves, I gave him a quick explanation.
Now, is it every Black person’s duty to go around educating White people about slavery and race? No. I have many hats but “African-American History Tour Guide†isn’t one of them. At the same time, as frustrating as it is that an educated man would know so little about American history that he’d even conjure that question, asking the question is better than the subject never even crossing his mind.
And, you can never go wrong when educating and/or reminding people that while some of the shit in Django didn’t happen, some—the hot boxes, the branding, the whippings, the rapes, the murders, the sell and purchase of humans, the intentional splittings of families, etc—did.
—Damon Young (aka “The Champ”)
I loved this movie and have seen it three times. And preordered it. And that’s all I have to say about that.
*Also, that last sentence has nothing to do with the previous paragraphs.*
thanks, forrest
Django was a necessary movies. I hope in the future, it is the type of movie played in history class. Not as a historical representation, but as a means to introduce the more brutal yet unexpected side of slavery
-
I highly favor that a) Calvin had a hot black slave as his girl, b) had a old ass Uncle Tom as his overseerer when he’s not home, c) had his own posse but treated them as less than some of his slaves, and d) that interaction between Blacks and Whites were shown throughout the movie, indicating that there wasn’t only negative treatment, there were signs of respect and engagment.
-
Last thing I’ll say is I hate manufactored hate. Any Black person questioning why the word NI-GG-ER is used excessively in a movie about slavery needs to be swiftly kicked in the head. I’m so tired of Black people have such a huge stick up their ass about this. What’s done is done, and no matter how much you want White America to feel uneasy about the past….they still don’t give a shyte.
I see you’ve figured out how to separate paragraphs. I was wondering how to do it.
Took a bit of experimenting but yea it’s easy to do
Last thing I’ll say is I hate manufactored hate. Any Black person questioning why the word NI-GG-ER is used excessively in a movie about slavery needs to be swiftly kicked in the head. I’m so tired of Black people have such a huge stick up their ass about this. What’s done is done, and no matter how much you want White America to feel uneasy about the past….they still don’t give a shyte.
This.
Because people get mad when others don’t know their history, then get mad at a movie like Django for using NI-GG-ER like the word hadn’t been used to demean Blacks for 300+ years. Why give the next generation a filtered look at history you feel they should learn?
Because you can’t stop stupid people from being stupid.
-
It is not Quentin’s fault that quite a number of Black people and White people are complete idiots who CHOOSE not to learn their history, who CHOOSE to only use tv and movies and historical contexts, and who CHOOSE to only work with limited information and then paint it as the whole truth. It is not his fault nor his responsibility.
-
White men did not refer to Blacks back then as “you, sir, young man” etc, ergo why would the movie do anything differently than give you a taste of the truth?
I think it’s because everyone in this society wants to be so PC, that they do it at the worst possible convenience. Sometimes, the situation doesn’t call for PC. But that’s just me…
Well that’s why we have people who think outside the box. It is our responsibility to make the world feel as uncomfortable as possible until they get their shyte together.
love this ~*~
I think the movie Sankofa does it even better than Django.
I’ll look it up. Did you enjoy it?
I’ll just say that Sankofa is very hard to watch, but it is pretty good. If you need something that’s in-your-face slavery horror, Sankofa is definitely the movie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108041/
shongo was that guy…….
Thank you so, so much for saying this. There’s no way to accurate depict slavery and somehow respect Black people. Slavery is disrespect, period, and pretending otherwise renders people into weak-minded babies.
People need to understand that when someone tells a story, no one gave two shytes about their feelings or how it would be recieved, they only want to convey the story.
Huge Tarantino fan and I agree that in the context of the movie the use of the word makes sense but I don’t think its manufactured hate to dislike the use of the word by white people or be uncomfortable hearing a bunch of white people continually and excessively use it. Personally the first time I heard the word I was 5 and a little white boy was calling me it repeatedly and in a derogatory manner. I get that now black people have ownership over the word etc but when someone can still use that word to demean you based on your race. Idk. I might not entirely ever be comfortable with it being used in certain situations and I can see how other black people could take offense.
I can never ignore the fact that the word has a lot of negative history attached to it. But the issue in the end is not the word itself, but how the word is used and when the word is used. For this movie, the word was necessary and to ignore that fact is manufactored hate, because people make it more about their feelings than the reality of the situation. That’s the part I hate period. I don’t get this idea where people truly believe their feelings should dictate what should and should not exist, as if one person, or a handful of people have absolute moral authority on the entire world. It’s already bad enough a government can decide a person’s basic rights, so should I or anyone else have to tolerate a bunch of sensitive crybabies who actually think they can tell us whether a movie we want to see should actually exist?
I agree -the issue is when and how the word is used. Like slavery the word has a complicated history that is very subjective. That is the reality of the situation. I also don’t think this argument is about freedom of speech, it is more so about the appropriateness of the film. For me, in this movie the use of the word made sense and I don’t think anyone should say people shouldn’t see the movie based on their own sensitivity but I also think that someone shouldn’t discredit others sensitivity to the word by calling them crybabies. And if certain people want to boycott it then they are well within their rights. My point is this, the use of the word and this whole movie in general shows how non black and white the history of race in this country is. To each their own but based on my and other black people’s history, I‘m just saying I don’t think their objectives are manufactured or should just be dismissed.
I can respect people’s opinions if they are uncomfortable with something. But when they talk as if something should simply not exist due to the fact that they are uncomfortable with it, then I have a major issue with it. Things exist for a reason, and we have choices to acknowledge them but to discredit them simply because one’s sensitivity level is not intune is ridiculous. That’s all I’m saying.
Excellent point, Todd and Rewind.
Asyiah! Lovely pic
Awww thanks hon! <3
I hope in the future, it is the type of movie played in history class.
-
this would have to be a senior-level advanced ap history class. wouldn’t feel comfortable showing this to the general school population
I’d preface this by saying that I a) am a white male, and b) really hate the N-word, and would really like to see it’s eradication (although understandably I’m in an awkward position to tell a black person who the word has been used against to quit using the word in an attempt to soften or reclaim its use, but I digress…). People have defended the use of the word in the movie because of it’s probable historical accuracy. However, Tarantino’s use of it in Django (along with a knowledge of Tarantino’s previous use of it) seems superfluous because the whole movie ignores historical accuracy, so why is the use of the N-word as authentic language so important?
I think people are saying that the use of the word is not necessary but justified given the historical context. It is a movie about slavery and because of that the word can be included. I think some people still have problems with the word in this film for various reasons. As a director Tarantino probably uses the word more than any other film maker today regardless of the historical setting. The fact that he is white also makes some people question how appropriate it is that he made this film. Also the frequency of the use of the word in this film bothers some. It’s complicated.
I agree!
I can’t agree anymore with this. The only thing I question is can you really blame white America or, to be more accurate, white slave owners and their descendants for not giving a shit? I personally don’t feel bad at all for slavery in America because my ancestors were not in America during the time of slavery. Does that make me a bad person? I feel many white Americans get generalized into a group that they may not necessarily fit in. Slavery is still terrible and QT does a fantastic job of showing that. And we sure as hell can’t just try to sit here, hundreds of years later and just “laugh it off” and just forget about it like someone would be lead to believe if they didn’t completely understand the meaning of QT’s film. I would argue that the comedy in Django was almost necessary, especially for the more sensitive people. It helped lighten up the terribly dark film.
“A slave who, with the way she was dressed and with the way she was treated, was clearly (slaveowner) Calvin Candie’s girlfriend.”
How does one who is enslaved consent to be the “girlfriend” of the one who enslaves them? Could she have said, ‘no, I will not have sex with you’? She was the victim of rape, she was not his girlfriend.
If she walks around with a smile on her face and strutting her stuff like a runway model, then she’s no victim of rape. At least the way she was portrayed in the movie.
Sounds like she was trying to make the best of a horrible situation. But, my question remains; could she have said no to him? If not then she was a victim of rape.
I think you’re reading way too hard into it. Did you see the movie?
-
I’m only asking because if you did, you’d see why I typed what I typed. I agree with you in the traditional sense that it would be hard to see a slave woman being happy with being her master’s girlfriend when she has no choice in the matter…but this is a movie.And as the movie shows, things ARE NOT WHAT YOU THINK, they can be way different from what we think things should be.
I saw the movie and still agree with Val.
Ok. I guess. I choose not to think that deeply about a role that wasn’t fleshed out. It is left to interpretation I guess.
I saw the movie and I imagine that the girlfriend did at the very least accept her role. Im the movie you get that she feels entitled or like she is important and better than the other slaves. I dont think that she felt like she was doing something that she didnt want to do as much as she probably felt like she was doing something that wasnt nearly as bad or degrading as the other slaves. She was treated as good in the movie as a slave could have been treated. When it comes to movies like this you have to give into the actual time period and way of thinking. Girlfriend was probably happy every night she got to sleep in the big house.
I havent seen the movie and I agree with Val as well.
If she walks around with a smile on her face and strutting her stuff like a runway model, then she’s no victim of rape. At least the way she was portrayed in the movie.
Could be Stockholm syndrome…
Could be. It’s a movie, left open to anyone’s interpretation.
Yeah, she seemed like she was on “team protect Big Daddy” so that she wouldn’t lose the benefits she was getting. Kind of like a pimp’s main girl. She isn’t free, but she isn’t really trying to be, either.
To use pimp lexicon: A bottom b**** is still a b****, isn’t she. Her life is only slightly less crap than the rest. Just slightly.
Not making any argument that she is less of a prostitute/ slave in a technical sense. I think the more controversial point is whether or not she is complicit in her own enslavement, accepting of it, and maybe even protective of it.
“If she walks around with a smile on her face and strutting her stuff like a runway model, then she’s no victim of rape. At least the way she was portrayed in the movie”.
And thus the problem that happens when idiots co-sign the poor history skills of the other idiot, Quenton Tarantino. Really sad. But I guess that if you can co-sign being insulted 110 times with the “n-word”, you’ll accept anything.
SMDH at ALL of these stupid comments.
And BTW, nigger/nigga was NOT in common usage by Black people of the times when dealing with white people of the times. It was considered much to much of an insult to be used by Blacks. I mean really?? Are Black people really this brain-dead now? SAD.
hmmm ask Sally Hemmings. and Queen.
as Champ mentioned, slavery was complicated – as were some of the relationships between some slave owners and their/others’ slaves.
So, you actually believe that Sally Hemmings was Jefferson’s lover? Really? When did she give consent? Wait, she had no rights since she wasn’t even considered human, by Jefferson no less, so how could she give consent?
-
Slavery was simple, those that were enslaved had no rights, they were not considered human. Revisionist slavery may be complicated but not the real slavery.
I believe that she *could* have consented, emotionally. Not saying that she actually did, but I don’t think it’s impossible. Slavery was complicated. By law, it was whites on one side, blacks on the other, but human psychology doesn’t always fall in line with rules.
“By law, it was whites on one side, blacks on the other, but human psychology doesn’t always fall in line with rules.”
–
nodding head
exactly. and who really knows?? i certainly wasnt there and couldnt say one way or the other.
Well damns you on the right level.
That was a bad example since Sally Hemmings was a child when the relationship started.
bad example?? i was being facetious.
Yeah, Sally and Thomas Jefferson may have been in some form of love. The fact that he literally owned her made the relationship inappropriate. She was property who happened to have deep feelings for someone who could destroy her at a whim.Oddly, enough most white women of this time period didn’t seem to realize that they themselves were de facto property. Whomever said slavery was a perculiar institution nailed that ish.
agreed. i think to use the term “girlfriend” would be a bit much – even if Sally “consented” to her affair with TJ.
but i mention her (and Halle Berry’s character Queen) because she’s one of the more (in)famous slaveowners “lovers”. there is some reason to believe that there may have been genuine feelings between the 2 – but all we can do is speculate at this point.
Black men and women were property of white women just as much as we were of white men, sorry. I know that men don’t like to think of themselves as having been subjugated by women, but it happened for many over 400 years. Don’t try to make it better by turning slave owners and their co-signing families into victims.
The thing is that during slavery, those kind of relationships weren’t unusual. Even slaves falling for their masters and clearly attesting to their love (and even going to far as to live as man and wife with their masters post-emancipation) is unheard of. Saying that something is rape doesn’t negate the presence of a relationship. Sadly, to this day, husbands do rape their wives.
_
I say all of that to say that people are complicated, and last I checked, slavery involved people.
“Saying that something is rape doesn’t negate the presence of a relationship. Sadly, to this day, husbands do rape their wives.”
-
indeed. slavery is complicated. people are complicated. relationships are complicated. to scoff at the notion that a slave could willingly be the lover of a slave owner seems unfounded.
Val, she got confortable with her situation and she knew she was better off than others around her.
Has anyone read Wench by Dolen Perkins-Valdez? I think she explores the complexities of this by using as a base, the true story of slave masters taking their slave “girlfriends” to a real life country club type spa for “vacation”. It is all very messy and fascinating.
I read this! Very complex indeed.
*adds to goodreads to-read list*
thanks!
“She was the victim of rape, she was not his girlfriend.”
-
perhaps both were true.
A girlfriend is someone he could take out in public on his arm to church on Sunday… No way in h-e-l-l that was happening with her Sapphire-esque character.
She was a straight up sex slave. Comeonson…
Indeed. Nothing more, nothing less than a sex slave.
Yes, no way, shape or form did I see ‘girlfriend’ as the label.
THANK YOU VAL!!! That “girlfriend” sh*t was starting to p*ss me off!
they’re called negro bed wenches…..if someone offered to come free them she would’ve fought tooth and nail to protect that way of life. you have negroes like that to this day
I haven’t seen Django, but the universal reaction I’ve heard is ‘if this was a true story, it never would have been made.’* When it comes to true stories, Hollywood LOVES white savior movies. Maybe QT just outed the BS in Hollywood.
I’m more irritated by the likes of Trinidad James than QT. when it comes to n*gga usage.
Finally, I shouldn’t been posting under the influence of Nyquil. My screen’s in low-def now…
*semi-related – Denzel would have gotten that Oscar had Malcolm X been a fictional character.
There was no White savior moment in this movie and I’m real proud of this. You get the sense that in return, Django saves Schultz by asking him to help save Broomhilda. (no this doesn’t ruin the movie for you).
-
This is perhaps only because it is a Taratino movie, and he never uses the White savior method in his movies.
But it takes a white man to free him so he can save his wife. How is that not white Savior? He is dependent on someone else. It’s just glossy and slick. Tis why I love Guy Johnson’s book Standing at the Scratch line because the main character is a free Black man who kills a whole lotta white people on his own…of course that’ll never be a movie…
I thought Standing on the Scratch Line was a very good read. King’s mental state could lead to hours of discussions of black men and their mental health. I still haven’t read the sequel yet.
THIS IS MY FAVORITE BOOK OF ALL TIME. I’m so glad I’m not the only person who read it. Agreed re it’s depiction of black men. The sequel wasn’t as good.
Yeah, Standing at the Scratch line is my favorite book.
By White Savior, I interpret that the Black person needs the White person thorougly while the White person does not need the Black person at all and is only using them as an advantage. So while the relationship between Django & Schultz initially started that way, it did not end that way.
-
That’s my opinion though.
Shultz NEEDED Django to take down the Ellis brothers, plus Django got Revenge AGAINST them for Whipping Broomhilda and having a role in their being sold separately; gotta remember the StoryLINE people
Yea but that was the first 30 minutes and the intro to get people interested in the movie. The rest of the 2 hours was about rescuing Broomhilda.
True, which is also why Shultzand Django had their agreement in the saloon after shooting the fraud sheriff. Shultz Agreed to help save Btoomhilda after they collected the Ellis Bros.’ bounty.
Rewind, you’e brainwashed for real.
“I’m more irritated by the likes of Trinidad James than QT. when it comes to n*gga usage.”
-
This! When I first heard his song I thought it was a parody exposing the overuse of the word in hip hop songs. No such luck.
Word. Sadly, Trinidad James is THAT dumb. *smh*
I really want to say Trinidad James is a parody of himself. lol. He is like a mixture of Jerome from Martin, Lil John and Flavor Flav. lol.
Trinidad James is a very good example of what is wrong with rap music today.
Actually Trinidad James is not dumb at all. He’s in the same group of people as David Banner (who is extremely smart), Lil Wayne (who was an A student in elementary school and in college), and 2 Chainz (who apparently graduated a 4 year college, in just 3 years, with a 4.0 GPA).
-
Basically, he’s smart. He just enjoys making ratchet music.
I wouldn’t throw David Banner, especially after his 1st record in that pile. Yeah, he made lots of dumb party records, but he did a lot of introspective tracks as well. Cadillacs on 22s is a much more complicated song that the title implies. On the flip side, Trinidad James has to show me something to show some level of intelligence on even a Li’l Wayne level, not to say a deep intellectual one.
I can’t give Wayne points for being a good student in elementary school lol
+10000000
I think everyone felt the same way.
*semi-related – Denzel would have gotten that Oscar had Malcolm X been a fictional character.
–
never considered this. interesting point
There are people—millions of people (millions of Americans!)—who literally know nothing about slavery other than it was kind of bad and it ended some time ago.
Thing about history is, unless you take the subject in college, or are genuinely interested, you’re primarily following the school’s cirriculum. They may touch on the subject, but its heavily edited, unless you go and look up the information yourself or have a teacher that’s passionate enough to actually stray out of cirriculum.
Me personally, I had no idea about how deep the horrors of slavery were until my 10th grade history teacher went on a small diatribe when (most of) the class was messing around.
And it’s not just limited to slavery, there are a lot of chapters in history that were edited out for time purposes and/or better light, like the story on the Native Americans or the history of Africa. Hell even the Korean War gets a once over, at best…
It doesn’t matter what country you go to, the history is edited to erase the horrors of the past. But information, like money, is something you earn. So if you take the context that most people only care about history when it is taught to them as kids, then treat it like money: kids love money when it is free, until they have to grow up and earn it themselves. All of a sudden, it is not so fun anymore.
-
Same thing with history. When you are forced to learn it, you could careless, but when you get older and have to find it on your own, all of a sudden it is a big deal.
~ It doesn’t matter what country you go to, the history is edited to erase the horrors of the past.
.
with all due respect, i disagree. perhaps you may have experienced NYC public schools lengthy focus on the subject of Holocaust. in comparison, subjects like slavery are discussed as a lead up to the Civil War, not studied as subjects unto themselves or contextualized as part of the greater fabric of American history. then you get to the genocide of Native Americans, or rather, you never get to this. you get Thanksgiving and Manhattan being bought for $24 in trinkets, and pretty much nothing else.
.
this imbalance in the curriculum illustrates the power that political and economic influence can wield over society as a whole. Jews use their power to promote their agenda while simultaneously making a critical discussion of Jews a taboo. very powerful, and frightening, to my mind. but also a path to empowerment through assimilation that is American at its core, because it is built upon earning power and control over industries that shape the public discourse.
I respectfully disagree. Go to Japan and they altered information about WWII and the atrocities they committed in China. Go to Germany, and regardless of how reformed the country is, all the information regarding the Nazis, WWI, WWII, & the treatment of Jews has been altered. Go to Australia and the information regarding the genocide of the Aboriginal people and the hardships Australians put them through up until 50 years ago has been greatly mistreated.
-
All powerful governments and people know the simplest of rules: knowledge is power and only those in power should know the truth. Omit the truth to the mass public and they will never be none the wiser.
oop, i was unclear. i am not saying that history has not been revised or edited to erase the horrors of the past. i am saying that history can be rewritten once you have the money, power, and strategic alliances to include your own version of events.
.
i do believe that individuals also have the power to rewrite history, and in doing so can change the discourse at large. the question, as i see it, is does the public want to engage in the conversation. this one is more difficult because conversations can be frustrating when it is difficult to determine what to do with the information one has acquired.
.
as much as i disdain and distrust government, i choose to believe that one person can change the world.
“oop, i was unclear. i am not saying that history has not been revised or edited to erase the horrors of the past. i am saying that history can be rewritten once you have the money, power, and strategic alliances to include your own version of events.”
—
“the winners write the textbooks, the losers write the songs” (or something like that)
This true, anyone can rewrite history under the right conditions and never be questioned about it.
Wow Esa, that’s deep…and very, very accurate.
The fact that we put our Japanese citizens in internment (concentration) campus…blew my mind when I finally learned of it…in my 30s!!
We who?
America.
i was talking to t-lee about something similar on twitter – there are certain parts of history that just arent taught in school and often we dont find out until we are adults. its sad really.
It says a lot about the educational institutions open for the children of the public…
the history taught to American kids is done in such a wide-scope that most institutions don’t care or bother with getting into the murkiness of who we are. It really should start at an earlier time in a kids education but we don’t want to take away from the precious standardized testing preperation.
i have never seen public education as a place where children are taught to think critically, but rather as a system of domestication, socialization, and memorization of the propaganda that keeps the powers-that-be in control.
.
by the time i was in fourth grade i was over it but it didn’t matter. i had to figure out how to both play along and subvert the system in order to get to where i needed to go.
.
but this is me. i have authority issues and i try to channel them in order to bomb the system from the inside out. however, i believe every child has an intuitive understanding of truth until adults force feed them lies as fact. we can foster critical thinking if we think critically ourselves, which is to question everything, particularly that which is taken as “status quo” and paraded as “truth.”
I agree. I teach adults and have seen for myself the effects of this type of socialization. And my friends usually dub me weird, anti-American, or a conspiracy theorist. I’m not a revolutionist or rebel here but I do my own outside research. Read about Gandhi and ask yourself why he’s so glorified anyway? He wasn’t as awesome as people here make him out to be.
i love revolutionaries and surround myself with them whenever i can. America was built on revolution and that’s why the framers of the Constitution made the second amendment the right to bear arms so that the populace could overthrow the federal government if it wanted to do so.
.
that is so #@$^%#&$ sick, it blows my mind. forget how it has been misinterpreted, just the fact that the people who created the government didn’t trust the government and created a clause to empower people to liberate themselves is revolution in its purest form.
I love me some revolutionaries too! But I doubt I am among those men and women LOL.I just believe in researching and learning.
there are many roles to be played. it takes time to understand one’s skill set and how to apply it to the cause. i know that i am not on the front lines in that respect. i’m the one setting forth to rewrite history in support of their work ~*~
.
as a researcher and someone committed to learning, you too have a role. and should you wish to embrace it, it will reveal itself to you ..
America was built on revolution and that’s why the framers of the Constitution made the second amendment the right to bear arms so that the populace could overthrow the federal government if it wanted to do so.
.
that is so #@$^%#&$ sick, it blows my mind.
-
Well, I’ll be…
-
It makes sense when you think about it, but it came as a minor surprise (OK, it was semi-mind boggling). It could be because of the fact that, as you mentioned, it’s been beat up and abused due to misinterpretation.
-
Same thing with the freedom of the press; before companies started buying up newspapers and certain parties used certain papers to get into their back pocket, the press was given freedom to keep the government in check as well…
freedom of the press is a beautiful American myth. it is not that it does not exist, but that for the most part, we are dealing with the Wizard of Oz, so to speak.
.
i would also like to add into the mix :: many book publishers do not fact check. they have immunity clauses written into every single contract so that is the author is liable for lies or libel, the publisher is not. thus, what we take as “fact” because it exists in a book may be no more story than any fiction published, only it is marketed as “history” or “current events” or “biography/memoir” or “science.”
.
#butdamnilovemesomebooks
Outside of the Army Air Corps bombing Tulsa in 1921 this is one of the major blights on our history that doesn’t get talked about enough.
“blew my mind when I finally learned of it…in my 30s!”
that’s sad. not because you learned about it..in your 30s…
but that the educational system set up, didn’t allow you to even know that in a cursory basis…
i know my own experience is an aberration, because i actually..like history…but i always wondered, if a social studies/history class has a book, and has a coursework…but the school year finishes too soon…what happens to that remainder of history, that hasn’t been covered?
for example, i’m in my early XXs. when we had social studies, at least in the public school system, we would typically end around… “Glasnost”. Even in high school. so i think the folks i graduated with, unless they followed news, would not know about Kosovo situation.
hopefully, future public school social studies/history coursework will be able to cover each topic, to a level where it gets the student interested in learning more for themselves.
yea but .. Kosovo was a lie perpetrated by the US government and the media to punish Slobodan Milosevic for acting independently of the UN. he died while awaiting trial at the Hague with not a shred of evidence against him. how fortunate he died before the US complicity in a war fought for reasons we will never know was uncovered.
.
i agree that it is incumbent upon us to do the work for ourselves. i would say “don’t believe anything you read” including this. we have to go beyond other people’s interpretations of “truth” in order to discover our own.
I believe the Bosnian Genocide (not saying you don’t lol), but I don’t believe in the US’s altruism in Kosovo that some media outlets portray (if not all). And, from the few Kosovars and Montenigrins I know, they don’t buy it either.
i hear you. we can respectfully disagree on this point because, sadly, the truth will never be told. i was working with a Serb intensely for years and decided to investigate the matter on my own. what i learned, besides i need to refrain from New Yorker style exposes on subjects far beyond my grasp, is that there are so many sides to these political quagmires that the best thing we can do is question the information and agenda of the people presenting it to us.
and I know that Kosovo and Bosnia aren’t the same country, but some people make it seem like what happened in Bosnia is what led to the altruistic campaign in Kosovo. we know the US only gets involved whenever it feels like it and for reasons we aren’t sure of.
The Kosovars who fled to European countries to escape death under Milosevic’s rule would less than politely disagree with you on it all being “a lie”. A lot of things happened there way before US ever got involved. In Europe the US’s involvement is not considered that great; if it is even discussed at all.
I have talked about Milosevic with Serbs, who vehemently believe he did nothing wrong, and with Kosovars, who believe he is nothing short of the devil incarnate. There isn’t one truth shared by everyone, but to simply call it all a lie is simplifying it too much.
Let’s not blame public schools here.
I went to a public school and learned about Japanese internment…
But that is because I did my homework and actually read the material.
A lot of people who rage against the machine aka public school education, didn’t put forth much effort. Also, there is a library in (almost) every school and town… publicly available.
perhaps, with all due respect, a better word than “blame” is “shared responsibility” ? while it is easy to put the onus on the child to self-educate, it helps to come from a home that makes education its first priority.
i, too, went to public schools and fully nerded out, but many times in my journey i came upon questionable source materials and teachers who enforced rote memorization as a means to measuring “intelligence.”
.
the failures of the public school system are multi-determined, and deeply rooted in systemic racism, classism, and the American trend towards anti-intellectualism. there is also the matter of the massive discrepancy in the quality of public school education, at least in NYC. property taxes support these schools that teach to the test, and the test results garner more state support, thus creating a way to ensure poor neighborhood never get a come up, while bougie neighborhoods flourish.
lol! @ SweetSass… I was one of those students that read the book on my own too. I loved reading.
good post, Champ. you captured most of my feelings about Django in your post.
as i mentioned on twitter earlier this evening while watching the Golden Globes, i can see why people dont approve of Django – and many of the backlash cite fair criticisms. but i thoroughly enjoyed it and am happy to have supported it.
Django is not a movie that was made to capture the entirety of American chattel slavery. it wasn’t made to be THE slave story (a la Roots or Amistad). it is A story, ONE story, about LOVE. and its told in a manner in which a slave gets revenge – ALL FOR HIS WOMAN. history tells us that Black slaves don’t win. even after being freed, Blacks still lost. it could be argued that Blacks still arent really winning. so for me, i appreciate that QT told a story where the Black slave wins, the Black slave retaliates (without being tortured to death), the Black slave is the punisher, the Black slave saves his woman. of course the movie isn’t historically accurate – a Black slave personal victory isnt historical!!!
and im OK with that. because regardless of the lens with which QT portrayed this story, his story includes one of redemption and love. and i am here for Black love and redemption all day.
What I don’t understand is why people can’t seperate fiction from non-fiction. Slavery did happen, but that doesn’t mean people can’t make up stories while using that historical context…just as it has been done MANY TIMES BEFORE.
-
People need to quit getting emotional over time periods they weren’t even alive to experience, let alone have a valid opinion about. Whatever we think today means nothing compared to the people who actually experienced it. I think it is just a tiring conversation. I’m glad QT had the balls to toy with such a subject matter, very few can.
“Slavery did happen, but that doesn’t mean people can’t make up stories while using that historical context…just as it has been done MANY TIMES BEFORE.”
exactly!
-
“I’m glad QT had the balls to toy with such a subject matter, very few can.”
agreed! i’m not of the school of thought that there are certain topics that are off limit to creative license. i enjoy my share of altered reality.
Exactly, as do I. I refuse to engage in the school of “My Feelings and My Feelings Only”, because I find people who think like that absolutely childish and honestly really stupid. There’s a difference between crossing the line and looking at the line. This movie looks at the line and even kicks some dirt on it, but it never gets to a point of saying “F U Black people”, or otherwise I doubt Jamie, Kerry, Sam, and any other Black person on set would have agreed to work.
“Django is not a movie that was made to capture the entirety of American chattel slavery. it wasn’t made to be THE slave story (a la Roots or Amistad). it is A story, ONE story, about LOVE. and its told in a manner in which a slave gets revenge – ALL FOR HIS WOMAN.”
–
i agree. it’s more of a revenge/love story set in a certain period than a story about slavery
I never understood any of the complaints about Django Unchained (which is my favorite Taratino movie). From the absurdity of complaining about the use of “n*gger”…in a movie set during the period of slavery (WTF!!!), to the complaints of strong violence…in a movie made by Quentin f*ckin Taratino. But what irked me the most, how people are overeacting to the use of the word “n*gger”, so much so, that motherf*ckers are actually counting how many times it was used (I think the official number is 99). But whatever, I loved the movie. It’s in my Top 10 of all time.
Meanwhile, the “Grandad’s Fight” episode on The Boondocks had over 100+ “n*ggas.” Or was that “The S-Word”…?
I haven’t had the opportunity to see it yet, but I’m with you TUK…the “outrage” over the use of n*gger in the movie is ridiculous to me. Black people most certainly were not being addressed as “Mr. & Mrs” during that time frame so….really? People are upset that n*gger was used during a slavery period movie?? And it’s racist because a White man made the movie? Ok.
The use of “nig.ger” was completely appropriate to the context of the movie. People seem to confuse ignorance (the mispronunciation of actual words that just meant black) with malice (the use of the word to denigrate black people). It was a noun like “dog” or “cat.” It’s not like white people in the south just made the word up to make the slaves who couldn’t understand they’re language feel less than human. (I’m pretty sure that’s what the whips and nooses were for.) It’s just what people with black skin were called until they decided they didn’t want to be called that anymore. All of this “outrage” is bullshit. If Spike Lee or John Singleton or even Ice Cube directed this movie no one would be crying foul.
I will say this: What bugs me is that there will be an uproar over a movie like a Django, but ten movies that look like or are “Soul Plane” will get made and nobody will bat an eyelash.
Right? Plus, “we” get offended when we hear the use of the n-word in the historically accurate way, but think it’s cool when we hear it used in Soul Plane cinema. I thought that the use of the n-word in Django was very effective in making the speakers of it look backwards and foolish.
this is my question to the masses…
~~
it feel so huck finn-esque
^TEN THOUSAND SNAPS TO THIS
Huck Finn was some of the most racist, disturbing garbage I’ve ever read, flagrantly using the n-word, but its seen as an American Classic. Puh-lease. Django is not nearly as bad, yet its receiving so much flack.
This is a perfect case of when being politically correct fails everyone.
this is my question to the masses…
~~
it feels so huck finn-esque
“Plus, “we†get offended when we hear the use of the n-word in the historically accurate way, but think it’s cool when we hear it used in Soul Plane cinema.”
I used to hate when my non-black prof’s would say “N-word” during the lecture. I also hate when reporters say “N-word” when quoting someone on the news. I’m an adult and I understand the context of the situation so please just say the word.
uh yeah…if you have no problem with your college professors using nigger/nigga, you probably have alot of other problems going on, mentally. I promise you, if those same professors regularly used slurs for jewish people, they would be tossed out on their ear – as they should be. Black people, really? WOW.
Soul Plane = 2 hours better spent holding a straw for Lindsey Lohan while she snorts.
WORD! Ain’t that the God Damn TRUTH!
I will say this: What bugs me is that there will be an uproar over a movie like a Django, but ten movies that look like or are “Soul Plane†will get made and nobody will bat an eyelash.
—
eh, you can’t say that. people are still batting eyelashes about soul plane, and that was made like 10 years ago
*raises hand in guilt*
-
True. I mention it only as a contrast to Django. Outside of a few jokes regarding how bad it was, most times it’s like those kind of movies are expected of us, because it’s supposed to be “lighthearted.”
-
But I’m done…
Champ, I dont know if you guys will see this but after a certain amount of comments…the comments section is all messed up. All the comments run together or they are overlapping one another, the screen background color changes from gray to black…its a total mess. I think Rewind mentioned that he had the same issue when you guys first converted to the new format. I don’t know if anyone else is experiencing this problem. Is there a setting or something I need to fix on my end? I am using Mozilla Firefox as my browser. THANKS
I’m still getting it damn near everytime I post. I have to keep refreshing the page, and I can’t respond to every post because they begin to overlap.
Anyway Breezy, I’m still going to laugh at your pain. Now go see the damn movie!
I enjoyed the movie, even down to the details about Brunhilde’s story. My own ancestors were owned by immigrant Europeans (Irish) in Mississippi and one of my ancestors was given a name from Irish folklore, Saint Patrick. So I didn’t think it far-fetched that a black woman was given a German folkloric name and taught to speak German.
…
Regarding how to explain slavery to blissfully ignorant people, I find it effective to simply call it “owning people.” If a people-owner is morally depraved (or even of just average morality), guess what kind of things happen when the “owned” try to run away, are accused of discussing killing the owner in order to be free, happen to be attractive women who do not have the right to say no, are worth a couple of thousand and the owner needs to make some quick cash? Anyone who can remain blissfully ignorant about how real that ish can get lacks imagination or is brain dead.
…
Now how do Stephens come to be? Well just like in modern day people-owning, e.g., prostitution, one of the owned is going to try to improve their station in life by selling out all of the other owned folks by being the owner’s top ace boon coon (non pun intended), stool pigeon, spy, etc. And as long as master is prosperous and protected, so is the top stool pigeon.
Yea but they end up the mosted hated out of the group, which is why no one came to save his ass in the end. Just like Django needed to play a slave that needs to be hated by other slaves to get close to Calvin, and the slaves in the wagon didn’t do a damn thing to help him because they remembered what he did.
-
Saving your own ass only gets you but so far.
I really liked the movie and plan on seeing it again. I’m not going to lie a part of me felt kind of ashamed to see it due to the backlash kinda like black guilt. I first heard of the movie being made from the petition going around about a year ago when the screen play was leaked. Even then I thought the concept was cool.
I would love to see a slavery revenge movie that’s historically accurate about Nat Turner or about The Haitian Revolution. Doubt that would happen.
“I would love to see a slavery revenge movie that’s historically accurate about Nat Turner or about The Haitian Revolution. Doubt that would happen.”
-
+1
I’m confident serious scripts of that nature have been submitted many times over. It’s doubtful such a film will ever greenlighted. There would be too much concern over the possible societal implications such a film would have on the psyche of blacks. We may get empowered. So in the meantime, The Misadventures of Pooty Tang’s Soul Plane II Society For Colored Girls and the likes will keep us mind numbingly entertained and in our place. Hollywood aint stupid.
“The Misadventures of Pooty Tang’s Soul Plane II Society For Colored Girls and the likes will keep us mind numbingly entertained and in our place.”
#iDied
“The Misadventures of Pooty Tang’s Soul Plane II Society For Colored Girls and the likes will keep us mind numbingly entertained and in our place.”
#iDied
“I would love to see a slavery revenge movie that’s historically accurate about Nat Turner or about The Haitian Revolution. Doubt that would happen.”
-
Danny Glover had been trying to get a Toussaint L’Overture movie out for over a decade or so, but NO ONE has been willing to fund it.
No one will fund it not because of some racist ish from Hollywood, but because folks will not turn out to see.
But maybe that is what makes Hollywood racist. It only cares about the color green.
I would like to see movies that have a majority black actors in creative, imaginative roles other than slaves, like in a sci-fi or fantasy/fiction.
I’m still waiting on a movie about Robert Smalls. He jacked a confedrate warship and then got elected to congress. How player is that?
About the “Klan” scene (which was especially funny because it was like an origin story…they “invented” those masks, remember?). I disagree with Champ…it was totally QT dark humor. The comedy was set prior to a planned massacre. It ended in mass death.
…
On that note, I think that if anyone should be offended by Django, it should be American white folks. Not a single redeeming white American character in the movie. Every single white person was treated like a death extra, a Star Trek red shirt. Well, their characters were so one-dimensionally evil, it was hard to care that they were getting slaughtered left and right.
I thought the scenes with the precursor to the KKK was hilarious. My man was genuinely butt-hurt about his boys disrespecting his wife.
We can all agree that the bags…they could’ve been done a lil better.
That scene was QT’s version of Spielberg melting the Nazis at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. Like Spielberg, QT just took out a little time to troll a group of highly idiotic fools. Spielberg had goose-stepping fascists and QT had toothless domestic terrorists.
“Every single white person was treated like a death extra, a Star Trek red shirt”
—
yeah, there were alot of dead white people
that was a really in depth analysis. i dont think it sounds like a good movie. it sounds graphic and callous and controversial for no reason and i dont get how something with so much horror in it could even remotely entertain. people slay me with what they find humor in and even worse, something youre entertained by on a screen could happen right next to you and it wouldnt click in your head how to handle the honesty of humanity.
thats frustrating. and i honestly dislike im the kind of person who takes stuff seriously. even some comedy specials ive stopped watching because the humor sounds like pain. and the pain gets laughed at. and im like…does no one else hear that undertone.
laughter is good when it heals, when its good spirited, even in dark times. i dont know what the scene is with the kkk but it sounds like one of those instances it portrayed something malicious or malevolent and it was masked with humor. precious is like that. that is a VERY dark movie (that i couldnt sit through) and as opposed to others dealing with the reality stuff like that is so common, the only thing they take away from it is the entertainment value of making fun of her.
then, when you hear someones struggle you laugh or pass it off and leave it up to a black republican to deal with whilst you sit on your butt tryna sound educated, complaining about EVERY. SINGLE. THING. the person does. but ima chill. i dont have to carry that weight anymore thanks to all the white people who are kind to me.
but lol @ the basketball line. that was so random. and so many men lol. pff. skills. i wanna see.
This is why you need to watch the movie. Your opinion is based off second hand information and it does a disservice to the movie without having the facts. Go see it and tell us what you think, I’m pretty sure you’ll enjoy it.
It actually isn’t controversial. It’s basically Shaft, or Coffee, except set in the antebellum South.
then that’s a great reason to NOT see it
First, let me say that the site looks nice! It’s been a while since I’ve been on here, so I’m behind on the times.
.
Next, to go into this post and the comments: thank you. I haven’t seen Django yet, but I’ve spent the last 3 weeks trying to convince my other half as to why we have to see the movie. I get it. I understand why it was made, and the context. What I don’t understand is the stupidity involved with the protesters, mainly people like Al Sharpton and the like trying to put the “racist” label on QT. It’s annoying.
.
But yeah. I have all intentions of sharing this post to my benefit.
I have not read any of the comments for fear that I will read spoilers, so forgive me.
I’ve learned to ignore the controversy surrounding Tarantino’s films. I believe Pulp Fiction was marred by similar controversy regarding the repeated use of the word n*gga/er. I don’t see what the issue was then, and i still fail to see it now.
Anyway, your description regarding the types of relationships between the slaves and their owner in this film brings another movie to mind: Mandingo. It too depicted a very interesting relationship dynamic between several slaves and their owner. Although filmed in the 70′s I thought it was a rather good flick in terms of showing a very raw look at slavery, particularly the psycho social and sexual aspects of it.
At the same time, it is that very reason why it was just as infuriating to watch. Primarily due to moments where it seemed to have an air of perverse fetishism for the modern day 2520 man to live vicariously through depictions of his forefathers exploits and subjugation of the black man, woman and child. Unfortunately, it is a film that is not nearly as talked about (if at all), but still worth seeing in my opinion.
I look forward to seeing Django Unchained though. I only hear good thing about it.
I am a Tarantino fan, and I expected to live this movie. For the must part, I did. Still, te scene with the dogs was something I couldn’t really watch (along the lines of the curb stomp scene in American History X for me). My biggest gripe with Django was that Brumhilda was not so much a character as she was a plot device.
I thought Broomhilda was more of a princess/damsel in distress. Rarely in films is a black woman deemed worthy enough of rescue; black women in film are usually rescuing themselves or in the trenches with the men. Broomhilda was, for all purposes, the princess of the story. Like Princess Aurora in Sleeping Beauty, she was the driving force of the movie without being seen in every scene, but because of who she was she was worth the rescue by the handsome prince… *shrugs* At least that’s how I saw it.
“Rarely in films is a black woman deemed worthy enough of rescue” – THERE IT IS. To me that makes the film worthwhile. We do not need to know any details about her except Django is going to save his woman. Is it any different than Bruce Willis rescuing his wife in Die Hard ? It was his wife and he would do “whatever” he had to do to get her back. White women have had that treatment in cinema since forever so it pleases me to see it for a Black woman.
What was bad about the dog scene? You couldn’t even see anything.
And Broomhilda might have been one dimensional, but I favor the idea that Schultz wanted to save her simply because of her name and the ability to speak German, casting aside his original selfish intentions of just collecting a bounty. She wasn’t a plot device, she was THE PLOT.
Just like with the curb stomp scene (where you never really see anything), I just couldn’t watch. I guess I have no real explanation for it beyond that.
I understand that she was the plot, but so was the ring in the LOTR. She was nothing more than a plot device. Even looking at it through the idea of her as a princess doesn’t save it for me. Even Disney gives their princesses a personality of sorts and I’ve never been a fan of the damsel in distress unless they can also play a part in the rescue.
I get your point but I honestly don’t know what they could have done with her. She got sold, ran away twice, got whipped, beaten, and used as a pleasure girl. Kerry played her like a woman who died on the inside slowly. It could be the classic gender role stereotypes, but she needed a reason, and when she got it, she needed to keep her composure but everything she did was out of fear.
-
I guess they could have fleshed her out but I just don’t know what would have become of it, especially since Leo just stole the damn show for that whole portion of the movie.
Also, she ran away- TWICE, AND at the very end she gets a Gun, which one then can assume Django and she become a Husband/Wife Bounty Hunter team….
I was Django a week after it was released…in Birmingham.
By tha time Django and Dr King got to Mississppi, you could cut the tension in the theather with a knife…same thing I felt when I went to see Pulp Fiction and the “dead ninja storage” scene came around.
I like the movie a lot, and ill watch it again at some point.
But this weekend i rented the original Django which was released(not in USA) in 1966 starring Franco Nero as the title character(white italian, who also makes an appearance in QT’s Django) who walks into a small town dragging a coffin.
Both use the same theme song.
I saw Django…
“But this weekend i rented the original Django which was released(not in USA) in 1966 starring Franco Nero as the title character(white italian, who also makes an appearance in QT’s Django) who walks into a small town dragging a coffin.
Both use the same theme song.”
.
Wow. I need to check that out.
@ RWC
I got it from Netflix(you cant stream it; DVD only)
Ok, I need to go see it tomorrow.
I liked Django but think its greatness and level of controversy are overhyped. It simply was what it was. (then again the only movies that I’ve seen that pissed me off were Miss Burning and schindler’s List) Then again my favorite movie is an over the top confederate revenge flick so I kept an open mind. It took a fictional look at slavery via the eyes of several over the top characters of all stations in life.
If I saw the words “Tarantino helmed slave revenge flick” scrawled on a piece of paper then Django would’ve been what I expected. It had great characters and cameos – Tom Wopatt, Don Johnson, and Jonah Hill’s parts were amusing. No one does sinister redneck better than Walton Goggins either.
What I really liked about the movie was its glaring use of over the top inappropriateness and nothing else exemplified over the top inappropriateness than slavery.
“What I really liked about the movie was its glaring use of over the top inappropriateness and nothing else exemplified over the top inappropriateness than slavery.”
.
That plus the relentless exploding of globs of flesh all over the place every time someone got shot. Good lord. It was like seeing the Kill Bill eye ball-plucking scene happening over and over. lol.
Their was a ton of splatter in DJango U. They must have been using dum dum bullets.
I meant “there”.
I’m glad that Champ brought up that N*ggas in Paris article he wrote back in the day, because the backlash towards Django was based off the exact same thing: phoniness.
….and the “N” word bothers me more than NIGGER…..in my Richard Pryor voice…standing on my front porch….screamin…. NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA NIGGA…now what? shrugs shoulders….wraps bathrobe a lil tighter…cause it’s cold…closes door…GOES BACK TO BED…and life goes on. NIGGA. Now go find and oldie but goodie….Sly and the Family Stone….Whitie don’t call Nigga…Nigga don’t call me Whitie….or as you all call em 25 20′s…good ish…still good ish…Oh!!!! and I got ya’ll s book.
signed…Ol Skool Creeper
Whitie don’t call me Nigga…is there an edit button?
Before I plunge into the comments, I have an announcement for the VSBs in the NYC Tri-State Area. We’re doing a meet-and-greet on Thursday, 7 PM at Soco 509 Myrtle Ave in the City of Brooklyn! Yeah, that’s what’s up. If you want to let us know that you’re coming through, email me at iluminati14@gmail.com, and we hope to see you there.
Oy why must y’all tempt me with drinks when I’m trying to detox?
I want to make it, but it’s on a weeknight…in BK…and I live in Astoria. That train commute is NOT a joke. (We need more BK-queens trains. The G line is useless!)
I’m with Shamira here. I don’t drink but would go anyway, but it’s a weeknight and I’m in the Bx.
if you—or anyone else!—is around this Saturday, there is gonna be a fly show called “Seis Del Sur” at the Bronx Documentary Center on 151 & Cortlandt. it’s about the South Bronx back in the the days, as seen thru the lens of six Puerto Rican photographers from around the way :: http://www.seisdelsur.com/
ohhhhh neat!
Look, I’m in Brooklyn and it is still going to be difficult as hell getting there from my job. But this is just meetup #1. If this is successful, meetup # 2 is in Queens. Ask Todd for details.
Ya’ll better keep having them until I visit!
BUT… WIP will be there.. all the way from Florida!!!!!
*
i’ll be coming from long island so maybe i can swing for a qns/li person… let me know!!!!
*
Asiyah you said you were coming to meet me!!!!!!!
Hmm…I shall consider it! Even if just for a little bit
I need someone to be a witness to how many drinks it will take for Yoles to dry hump somebody.
I vote for 1. LOL
“African-American History Tour Guide†I died! We’ve all play that role one time or another.
I knew that hubby might be the one when (very early on, before we were even “we”) we were talking about Pulp Fiction. When we got to the part about Marcellus getting “medieval on his ***” we both couldn’t stop laughing, tears running down our faces laughing. It was our favorite line from the movie. That’s when I realized that I really, really liked this guy. Who knew that “getting medieval” would bring a couple together. I guess I have to thank Quentin Tarantino.
I can’t wait to find time to see this movie. Then again, I tend to be late to QT movies. It took me like 10 years to see Pulp Fiction. Ah well.
I think that Django Unchained is a Good Thing because it shows that slavery, like any social institution involving more than 5 people, was complicated. Slavery took place over a thousand mile wide range, in all sort of different contexts, from 20k slave plantations to random White dudes buying one to creep up on a come-up, all involving 4 and change million people with a half a million free people who look just like the slaves running around. Anyone who thinks that slavery was going to be one blanket parade of horribles is a fool, and I don’t need to know them. That Django Unchained is going to introduce such narratives to people outside of college Africana studies classes and militant circles in the hood is definitely a positive.
_
Also, there’s the fact that for a large chunk of White people and Latinos (not to mention virtually all of the Asian-American community), slavery is not of their individual past. For example, if you live in the NY area, odds are that the typical White person you come across had a grand total of Zero relatives in the US when slavery was going down. I think it’s helpful to educate people about the society they live in and how it came to be. Perhaps it’ll help people to make wiser judgments. Of course, some people can get out of control when it comes to this (Ta-Nehisi Coates? This means YOU!) but you get the idea.
_
Also, I’m glad QT took it on, because slavery is something that needs to be spoken of in a tonally inappropriate way. I understand why in 1970, you needed to be uber-serious at all times. After all, this wasn’t too far away from Stepin Fetchit and Amos ‘n Andy on the TV screen, and Black people had to present themselves as very noble just to get any level of respect from White America. While you can say that things aren’t perfect for Black people now, they are clearly different than they were back then. You can’t White America to accept us and trust us as one of their own, while saying that you don’t trust them at all and want to stay separate. At some point, we as Black people have to relax and feel comfortable enough in our own skin that we can express the full range of our humanity without fear of being shackled in chains the second we speak wrong. And besides, with the White people around me, I might mess around and get a name I can’t spell.
_
In closing, I find it funny that Black film makers and industry types have complained about White Savior movies and Mystical Magical Negroes, but it takes a White guy to make a movie that goes out and breaks the mold with aplomb. Trust out that the whole crew in “Black Hollywood” is so scared of massa that they won’t break the mold and be who they are. And it’s a shame.
In closing, I find it funny that Black film makers and industry types have complained about White Savior movies and Mystical Magical Negroes, but it takes a White guy to make a movie that goes out and breaks the mold with aplomb. Trust out that the whole crew in “Black Hollywood†is so scared of massa that they won’t break the mold and be who they are. And it’s a shame.
-
I thought the same thing; the shade some black filmmakers were throwing at Django was just off. But is it possible it was more of a jealousy thing as their films can’t get made (or don’t get much, if any, acclaim) when QT gets greenlit for everything?
There’s some of that involved, to be true. However, the whole issue of stuff not getting greenlit is as old as the hills. Taking it out on QT just comes off like a b1tch move, especially since he isn’t controlling anyone’s budget. They would be much better off trying to figure out how to get that kind of movie made one way or another.
The thing of that is though, if you’re a young, black film maker, I’m thinking it may be hard to break into the industry, even if your ideas are innovative and dope beyond measure, it’s still white-washed as hell in Hollywood.
-
I do agree though, that if we want it to happen we have to make it happen, i.e. Issa Rae.
~ Trust out that the whole crew in “Black Hollywood†is so scared of massa that they won’t break the mold and be who they are. And it’s a shame.
.
i’m of the mind that if you work from a place of love and respect, if integrity is your guiding star, then money and status don’t play a central roll in the production of art.
.
if people choose to go the Hollywood route, they willfully lower themselves into the mouth of the snake. this, however, is not the only option by any stretch of the imagination. we have filmmakers like the great Melvin Van Peebles who have not only been in the game for forty years but straight up created an entire genre (that was quickly co-opted by Hollywood for a big fat payday).
.
Van Peebles shows that no one ever has to sell out. one man can do it all. he puts his money where his mouth is and finances his own films so that he is beholden to no one. and the result is freedom in its purest sense.
Agreed. I don’t think it’s a shame to make commercial art. However, if someone chooses that route, they need to be honest with themselves about what that entails. Likewise, if someone claims to be making art for art’s sake, they need to be honest with themselves about what it entails. You can’t make the Next Big Idea with comic book blockbuster money, and anyone thinking otherwise is a fool.
[*chuckling excessively hard at 'mystical magical negroes'*]
Did anyone peep how QT and the other Aussies didnt use the “n-word”?
I did. I could have really liked them had they not been minions for back-breaking, soul-crushing slave labor.
Yeah, none of the non-American-born whites used the n-word.
Hey. Haven’t posted here in a while. Your progress has been amazing. I have a couple observations. I haven’t seen the movie Django, I will… but I just think it’s a little unnerving that black people and African Americans in particular are so complicit in their own disrespect and degradation. I don’t know all the answers but I do know a couple things… 2.5 MILLION people died during the transatlantic slave trade. That was just bringing the slaves from Africa. That doesn’t include those that suffered and died when they got here and lived as slaves for 400 years. A white man makes a partial comedy about one of the tragedies that is written on this country’s soul and people crack jokes. He’s getting hella paid. One way to desensitize people to reality is to make them laugh. They gave us crack, now they give us Django Unchained. Nobody laughed at the holocaust, or made any slapstick comedies about it. When did lynching stop? The 1960′s?? I don’t know what we should be teaching our children… but it’s a pity that movies like Django are even made… and what’s sadder is that these things are always ours. We need some spiritual awakenings.
Inglorious Basterds was a QT film about the Halocaust. Made a sh*t ton of money too. Because it’s a Quentin Tarantino film.
-
I do not look to Quentin Tarantino for a history lesson, hell, I didn’t look to the public school system for a history lesson. I taught myself Black history and I, as well as quite a few people here, know of the wrong, heinous things done to people for the love of money and power. Personally, I take more offense to being told what I should be offended about, than I do any movie.
“I do not look to Quentin Tarantino for a history lesson, hell, I didn’t look to the public school system for a history lesson.”
*puts sticker on Tes’ helmet*
“Personally, I take more offense to being told what I should be offended about, than I do any movie”
God bless you, Tes.
That is an interesting perspective.
“Personally, I take more offense to being told what I should be offended about, than I do any movieâ€
And if you are offended by my comment, I apologize, that wasn’t the intent. This is a site where adults offer a variety of perspectives, and this is my perspective.
I don’t just take offense with just your perspective but all the perspectives that say that I should feel some sort of way about a fictional work based on a historical time. Just because I enjoy that film does not mean I don’t know my history, and the implications of that are what I personally take the most offense to.
The Holocaust can’t be joked about in the same way slavery can because the Jews wrote the book on “forever a victim” standards. But at least they channel their frustrations into means that PROVIDE FOR THEM. Black people do nothing of the sort, so to consistently have Black rage towards the same issue without changing the tone or the questions asked proves pointless after a while. Nothing changes, they waste time and energy, and in the end, no one cares.
-
But by having a film like this, and exposing the issue from a different standard, a new dialogue is opened, a new perspective is seen, and JUST MAYBE….Black people might ask a different question.
I agree with your comment about Jewish people channeling their emotions and grief into ways that provide for them. The concept of being forever a victim is interesting however, because its obvious by how much illness runs in the families of black people that we haven’t taken the time to heal. Or to really deal with the pain and trauma of our ancestors. Life has a way of working things out, whether we as human beings choose to acknowledge these things or not… nor does nature forgive ignorance. And if this movie provides the catalyst to start a different conversation then maybe it’s time.
That’s really all I hope in my life time. Clearly Black people can have success and even change the rules of the world if they really try. But as a whole, we need to stop waiting on someone to do something for us, and just do it ourselves. I guess a lifetime of being told “no” would discourage anyone, but that can’t be the only thing stopping us. I could compare Blacks to Romanys…they never had a chance to hold their own, they always got the short end of the stick, but unlike them…we at least had a few people fight for our victories tooth and nail. We just need to keep that momentum going.
Let us look at the argument:
1. “I haven’t seen the movie Django” (I don’t have any data to back up my observations.)
.
2. “I just think it’s a little unnerving that black people and African Americans in particular are so complicit in their own disrespect and degradation.” (The film is over 2.5 hrs long, but you’ve observed that it is degrading and disrespectful to black people?)
.
3. “I don’t know all the answers” (I’m still making assumptions, since I don’t know what actually happens in a movie that is over 2.5 hrs long)
.
4. “2.5 MILLION people died during the transatlantic slave trade. That was just bringing the slaves from Africa. That doesn’t include those that suffered and died when they got here and lived as slaves for 400 years.” (Very true, yet this is also argumentum ad passiones as in an appeal to emotion: a logical fallacy)
.
5. “A white man makes a partial comedy about one of the tragedies that is written on this country’s soul and people crack jokes. He’s getting hella paid. One way to desensitize people to reality is to make them laugh.” (How do you “know” it’s a partial comedy, if you’ve never watched it?)
.
6. “They gave us crack, now they give us Django Unchained.” (How do you know what “they” gave us, if you don’t know what was given? Also, where is the evidence that Django Unchained is having an effect on the lives of black people?)
.
7. “Nobody laughed at the holocaust, or made any slapstick comedies about it. When did lynching stop? The 1960′s??” (Refer to Inglorious Basterds 2009 by QT. When did lynching stop exactly?)
.
8. “I don’t know what we should be teaching our children… but it’s a pity that movies like Django are even made… and what’s sadder is that these things are always ours.” (We should probably teach children to gather all the facts (i.e know what they’re talking about completely) before they come to inaccurate and unwise conclusions. So you’re saying a movie where a freed black slave goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of despicable white guys should never be made? My God, have you no imagination?)
.
9. “We need some spiritual awakenings” (and more respect for logic and objectivity over assumptions and emotions)
The UNCF tagline in the 80′s was “A mind is a terrible to waste” You are now seeing the results of a wasted mind.
You can say that again.
Amen
Let us look at the argument:
1. “I haven’t seen the movie Django†(I don’t have any data to back up my observations.)
Untrue assesment. Although I haven’t seen it myself, I’ve been bombarded by the opinions of relatives and friends who have. Enough so that I can offer an opinion of context.
2. “I just think it’s a little unnerving that black people and African Americans in particular are so complicit in their own disrespect and degradation.†(The film is over 2.5 hrs long, but you’ve observed that it is degrading and disrespectful to black people?)
Yup. That’s my assessment. It’s capitalist blaxploitation. Whether I saw it or not.
.
3. “I don’t know all the answers†(I’m still making assumptions, since I don’t know what actually happens in a movie that is over 2.5 hrs long)
I said it. I’ll say it again.
.
4. “2.5 MILLION people died during the transatlantic slave trade. That was just bringing the slaves from Africa. That doesn’t include those that suffered and died when they got here and lived as slaves for 400 years.†(Very true, yet this is also argumentum ad passiones as in an appeal to emotion: a logical fallacy)
How, is this a logical phallacy? Maybe people should appeal to their emotions a little more.
5. “A white man makes a partial comedy about one of the tragedies that is written on this country’s soul and people crack jokes. He’s getting hella paid. One way to desensitize people to reality is to make them laugh.†(How do you “know†it’s a partial comedy, if you’ve never watched it?)
I don’t live in a vacuum.
.
6. “They gave us crack, now they give us Django Unchained.†(How do you know what “they†gave us, if you don’t know what was given? Also, where is the evidence that Django Unchained is having an effect on the lives of black people?)
This whole system has an effect on the lives of black people.
.
7. “Nobody laughed at the holocaust, or made any slapstick comedies about it. When did lynching stop? The 1960′s??†(Refer to Inglorious Basterds 2009 by QT. When did lynching stop exactly?)
Did lynching stop?
.
8. “I don’t know what we should be teaching our children… but it’s a pity that movies like Django are even made… and what’s sadder is that these things are always ours.†(We should probably teach children to gather all the facts (i.e know what they’re talking about completely) before they come to inaccurate and unwise conclusions. So you’re saying a movie where a freed black slave goes on a rampage and kills a bunch of despicable white guys should never be made? My God, have you no imagination?)
I do have an imagination. Mine doesn’t include this.
9. “We need some spiritual awakenings†(and more respect for logic a
if you’re going to defend your admittedly uninformed opinions by saying that enough people have told you about it to present a well-informed perspective, you’re already losing.
It’s not a comedy. Period. There are moments of relative levity that are juxtaposed with intense depictions of how slavery is. It’s a tool used by so many great written and visual artists, both black and white. Toni Morrison used it quite frequently in her prose, and I don’t think anyone is attacking her for making a mockery of the black experience.
The ONE scene “the KKK scene” that could be argued on that behalf is a tool used to portray just how preposterous the white people were at the time. Immediately following that they are slaughtered. There’s no mockery of the black experience. In fact, the crux of the movie highlights that ALL of the white people were evil, self-serving, or both. I don’t understand how that’s disrespectful.
if you’re going to defend your admittedly uninformed opinions by saying that enough people have told you about it to present a well-informed perspective, you’re already losing.
I don’t have to watch it to have the opinion that I have.
There are moments of relative levity that are juxtaposed with intense depictions of how slavery is.
Moments of levity are interesting, however, why would anyone attack Toni Morrison as a black woman for using her gift in the way that she has? In the era that she came out of and as brilliant as she was. Comparing Toni Morrison and Quentin Tarantino are like comparing apples and oranges.
You can have an opinion all you want – but you can’t claim validity to it if you have no firsthand experience of it. Using other people’s opinions to create your own is lazy to me. But do you. I’m not gonna go around commenting on things that I haven’t experienced myself. Isn’t that we always accuse white people of? Anyways, multiple people on this thread have pointed out that there in fact wasn’t any kind of mockery or exploitation involved, and since you didn’t watch the movie, I really don’t see how you have any basis to dispute the matter.
And regards to apples and oranges – Not in this context. They are both artists depicting a story (or stories), both of them fictional writers. Unless you are going to tell me that she only has a license to explore those parameters as a black women – which, to me, is severely limiting. My point is, no one would attack Toni for doing it, the same way I don’t think people should attack Tarantino for it.
Tarantino is brilliant in his own right, for that matter. He may not be everyone’s cup of tea, the same way Toni isn’t for everyone. But they both revolutionized their respective fields and redefined their art and their genre. The comparison is not as disparate as you may think.
I can’t speak for what’s in your head, but it seems to me that your biggest issue is that a white person did this – or maybe that QT did, specifically. To which I say…tough cookies. If the sole reason why it’s a mockery is because a white person did it then you should address why that fact upsets you so much.
The script was leaked publicly long before the movie was released, so many people already made informed opinions without ever having to set foot in the theater, sorry.
“Nobody laughed at the Holocaust or made any slapstick comedies about it”.
In addition to Inglorious Basterds, there was this… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogan%27s_heroes
Your response is pure emotion.
” One way to desensitize people to reality is to make them laugh. ”
I thoroughly disagree with that. I would argue that one way to make a topic more comfortable to discuss is to bring some levity to it. Have you ever tried to have an honest-to-god discussion about slavery/civil rights with a white person? Not a crazy racist or super conservative, but a relative moderate/liberal who generally believes it was bad. It is the most awkward thing ever. There no proper frame for the discussion. There’s no seemingly appropriate way to examine it. So if entertainment is a good way to shed some light on the situation, I don’t mind at all.
I’m really just confused at how you can be so offended by a movie you haven’t seen. You say it’s a comedy, but it isn’t. At all. There’s no mockery made of slavery. If anything, Tarantino spent time making sure that the evils of slavery are made loud and clear, as well as the complexities. When you see the clear caste system, the abject violence towards some of the individuals it is so obvious that Tarantino did his research that I don’t understand how people can claim he made a mockery of it. Maybe some people were butthurt about the fact that some blacks were shown in a less savory light then they would have liked, but that was REALITY. I’m really tired of people complaining that white people don’t address black topics, and then turning around and getting mad at them when they do.
QT essentially created a black superhero that’s palatable to the masses and y’all are mad. I don’t get it. (Django comic book? Am I the only one that could see that?)
Also, QT made a revenge fantasy along similar lines called Inglorious Basterds that was about the Holocaust, so there goes that theory.
There is a Django comic. (http://www.vertigocomics.com/comics/django-unchained-2012/django-unchained-1) I haven’t read it yet #doe
THIS, CheAna Frazier. Lovin’ your entire post.
Still haven’t seen it (forget you Rewind) and hate all of ya’ll for talking about it.
*stomps off and slams e-door*
And another thing. I don’t know Quentin Tarantino personally… but he and no one like him should ever be allowed to publicly use the word NIGGA or NIGGER. It’s degrading.
Who should use the word?
I personally don’t use the word. What other people do is their business, however, what is sacred? If the dehumization of my ancestors and the words associated with their pain and brutalization for centuries isn’t sacred then what is? I have an 85 year old grandmother who can tell me about stories about her life a couple generations from slavery. I wouldn’t call her a nigger so I don’t use the word.
“What other people do is their business” is exactly what it boils down to. If I see Quentin Tarantino in the street and he says “Hey, you there! Ni-gg-er girl! Come here!” I’ll be offended, upset and be justified in getting someone bigger than I am to whoop his ass. However, for characters in a film based in the historical south where black people weren’t called “black people” it’s justified and accurate.
-
Sacred is defined differently by different people, and I don’t place words in the realm of what is sacred.
~ I don’t place words in the realm of what is sacred.
.
i love this because i agree and disagree at the same time. for me, the sacred is beyond the Word, but the Word symbolize the sacred in a form we recognize. thus, it is very easy to confuse the two, especially when language is one’s metier.
.
i wanted to ask, Miss Tes, how do you keep from making the symbolic sacred ? i’m very interested in ways to transcend the limitations of language and i feel as though you would have valuable insights ~*~
This is real.
I place my feelings in the realm of the sacred more than I do anything else. If something compels me to feel a certain way, the “something” itself is not sacred, but the way it’s interpreted by myself, the way I feel about it, is. It’s a tough thing to explain…
-
The words are symbolic yes, but sort of the way that bodies are; bodies are simply vestibules for our truer selves. Words are the vehicle by which we communicate the feelings, but not the feelings themselves and so the words hold no power without a feeling behind them and it’s the feeling that I hold to be sacred and the truth of a person, place, or thing.
thank you ~*~ i appreciate this. it’s very helpful to hear what people hold closest to their heart as a means to understanding the ways in which we connect to ourselves, to each other, and to the Universe ~*~
I’m sorry, but that perspective is flat out stupid.
_
Look, I get how horrible slavery is. I’m saying this as someone who has literally read the insurance schedule listing the value of my 4x great grandmother as a child, and who could find out in 10 minutes how many slaves there were on the plantation my paternal line ultimately comes from. (Including a slave named, no joke, Toby.) That said, I don’t see how sanitizing any mention vaguely connected to slavery from the history books is going to either honor our ancestor’s legacy or prevent it from happening again. If anything, it marginalizes their struggle.
_
The word ni-gg-er was used in the common vernacular of the day. It, in fact, arose from the vernacular of the slave holding South. Pretending it wasn’t used requires that you pretend that a large chunk of history just flat didn’t happen. I understand the qualms against contemporary usage, and those qualms are more highly justified. That said, the only reason the beef is there is because we know where it came from. Once you delete that, you delete a significant part of history that shapes our lives to this day. Taking umbrage at someone clearly reflecting our history is dumb, and it renders all of us just a bit more dumb.
hey Todd, slightly off topic but if i may ask :: how did you gain access these historical records ? i am working on a project where i am only able to trace the matrilineal line to ~after~ the Civil War. any insights you might provide as to how to get access before then would be very much appreciated ~*~
Ancestry.com helps. I know that in NYC, the public libraries have an account where you can access the records, but you can’t save them to your own account. I bypassed that by bringing a laptop to the library and access the 2 versions in 2 separate tabs. Also, if you’re willing to pay a bit more, they’ll actually get what you ask for, and it takes 4-6 weeks. In my case, I lucked up on a *very* distant cousin who had paid up some $$$ for some of the records, and among them was the schedule I mentioned.
excellent, thank you for the leads !
Calling my perspective stupid is rude and shortsighted.
Taking umbrage at someone clearly reflecting our history is dumb, and it renders all of us just a bit more dumb.
Tarantino is reflecting our history in a way that is crystal clear, although it’s extremely sad that this is where we are.
He can use it if he wants. As long as he knows what comes next.
The word isn’t the problem. It is the implication behind it. If a Korean person says ni-gg-er, they aren’t talking about Black people, they are saying “ummm”. But guess who doesn’t know that? Black people.
-
It is real tiring to tell other people what they should and should not do when you can’t even fix the mess in your own backyard.
Man, I remember when I was learning Chinese and I realized that….I was like “I could have saved so much energy being offended in Chinatown!” Lol
Haha the first time I found that out, I was listening to Russell Peters. I never heard anyone not white or Black say it, but I could only imagine how that feels hearing that in Koreatown or actually being in China or Japan.
I think in Japanese, it means “he said” or “she said”. The broader point stands though.
Yea that is true. This is why it pays to know words mean nothing without motivation.
I think it’s more offensive to to censor the n-word when ignorant, racist white people are being historically depicted.
You need to watch the movie before you can actually comment. I don’t like QT at all. I feel that his films are just flat out dumb, use excessive violence, and tend to venture all over the place. However, i wanted to see this film.
.
Django is not a comedy. At all. Are there 2 parts that make you smirk to release some tension? Absolutely. But other than that, there was nothing funny about this film.
.
Jamie plays a character that will do anything to get his woman back and when given the opportunity, does so with a vengeance and purpose.
.
Kerry played a character that was strong and weak. AT THE SAME TIME!!! How she was able to convey that role, I have no idea. Like Rewind said up top, it was like she was dying slowly on the inside and you felt it.
.
The guy that was partners with Jamie (forgot his name) deserved his Golden Globe last night. His purpose was to catch bad guys and simply keep his word to Jamie.
.
Leonardo you wanted to throat punch 8 times but MAN did he play his role to a T especially when he found out the truth.
.
Last is Danny. I have never seen a house slave played with such arrogant ignorance. That is the only way to explain him.
.
We need to stop being so sensitive with our past to the point that the moment a white person makes a film that pushes boundaries about us, we get into our feelings. If anything, this movie was a love story that didn’t degrade blacks and pointed fingers at the stupidity of the slave owners.
QT did a good job with this movie. Even i will give him that much credit.
+1
Tarantino is another 2520 who is trying to help us as a race and as usual we don’t get it. By over using the word NI-GG-ER, he is trying to get you to be offended by it so you won’t think it a cool word to toss around as a term of endearment
Interesting. How is he trying to help?
I enjoyed the movie. If nothing else it is good for starting a dialogue.
-
Buy a bike and a gun!
I liked the script more than the movie. The film was at best decent.
-
*SPOILER*
Reading it first made the choppy editing that was found in the final product more apparent. I also think the part of the story where Hildi was involved in a “Pony” relationship was edited out because it would have caused the audience to think too much about the peculiarity of slavery.
-
All-in-all, the over-analyzing of the film was silly from jump. People fell all over themselves to project all of their insecurities and agendas on Django and Quentin. There isn’t much depth in the movie to chew on, as other than the Mandingo fighting side story, everything truly conversation-worthy was left on the cutting room floor. What we were left with is essentially Mario Bros. set in a fantasy version of The Antebellum South.
“I’m sorry Django, but the princess is in another plantation.”
LMAO.
I too thought the editing was a bit off; as it turns out the editor he worked with on his previous films passed away and this is the first film after her passing.
This whole thread reminded me of why I used to visit this site so regularly.
“…At the same time, as frustrating as it is that an educated man would know so little about American history that he’d even conjure that question, asking the question is better than the subject never even crossing his mind.”….
Or getting an inaccurate, dumb, uninformed, wrong, stupid, or racism-based answer from someone else who has an ax to grind.
I personally am glad you were there to answer the question. Who better than a VSB?
“
Amen!
All I can sa is this: People are bitching about Django and STILL dislike Tyler Perry movies, but will defend the HELL out of these reality shows (L&HH, BBW, BGC, etc,and now All my Babies’ Mamas and Best Funeral Ever), having Clutch go Man bashing over the Male Ego faux-outrage over Scandal??? Really, this is what Black people are getting bent over shape about? Not Gun Violence, not Poor Education or Limited Job opportunities, but THIS??!!! GTFOHWTBS
I think that a lot of people feel powerless over gun violence, poor education and job opportunities, but feel powerful enough to smack down QT over a movie. It’s ironic, because the same mindset that allows people to go nuts over this is the same mindset that causes people to be violent: a sense of a lack of control over one’s life and fate. They say murder is a form of self-hatred, especially for the non-psychopath. It’s a form of destroying what we hate in ourselves by destroying the life and joy of others. In this particular case, the only difference is degree.
I staed what I said out of context; I get the “powerlessness” of unemployment and violence, but then again are we Really Powerless?? Are many of us not Parents, Uncles, Aunts, Older Siblings? Do we not know that “kicking it” won’t help you with a job interview,that there is a time for being Comfortable and a time to be Proffesional, or much of this world is WHO you know as opposed to WHAT you know?? This has been repeated for decades, hell the Talented Tenth comes to mind and this was in the late 1800s-early 1900s!!!! I’m no genius but I’m sure as hell not oblivious or naive to the where I stay neighborhood-wise, let alone my city, state, country or the globe at large.
Sometimes I believe that Personal Priorites are the biggest hinderance to Black folk long before even attempting to tackle Racism AND Colorism. There’s a reason the sayings are Take care of Self and dealing with In-House issues before trying to be Captain Save ‘Ems
Maybe it also helps to know how to spell, “Professional.” Hehe. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I’ll let you pass this time. Almost everybody has used improper and incorrect grammar and spelling in here at any given time, even You, Sass.
this being 2013, I’ll TRY to be a bit non-confrontational, emphasis and capitals on “try”
All I can say is this: People are bitching about Django and STILL dislike Tyler Perry movies, but will defend the HELL out of these reality shows (L&HH, BBW, BGC, etc,and now All my Babies’ Mamas and Best Funeral Ever), having Clutch go Man bashing over the Male Ego faux-outrage over Scandal??? Really, this is what Black people are getting bent over shape about? Not Gun Violence, not Poor Education or Limited Job opportunities, but THIS??!!! GTFOHWTBS
Scandal is the shit. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t like Scandal. I have gotten male friends into that show.
I love Scandal too. it shows an uber-capable and strong woman who is also uber-weak emotionally. I wouldn’t think feminists would like it at all.
-
Buy a bike and a gun!
im an [strikethrough fail/] animated family movie [/strikethrough fail] action movie kinda person myself. qt movies are like going above and beyond the call of duty to meet gore and graphicness quotas; they actually make me squirm so i dont watch them. guys have a higher tolerance for stuff like that so hes a guys guy director.
im sure having THE tarantino make a graphic film about a black mans epic triumph is like, wow. and im sure spike lee was thrown under the bus by people (black men) for speaking out against the film. alls im saying is being painted and perceived in a positive light makes you draw closer to whomevers doing it. even if the person isnt your race.
being around black people sucks. its the family structures being nonexistant. broken homes. domestic violence. external violence. inadequate facilities and education. drugs. alcohol. homelessness. mental health issues. and people TALK about these issues aaaall day everyday but some of us have weak stomachs and it gets under our skin so we take active roles in trying to course correct. black people, and more specifically, black men are hard to just chill with.
its hard to step out of a leadership capacity when the atmosphere is muddled. its hard to be entertained when theres a job to do. we may not be vietnam/civil war/civil rights level conflict but every generation has its bout. im just wondering if black men do stuff like this in real life. you save the day in real life?
Nope, the KKK scene was actually funny.
Yeah, I laughed. Heartily.
Champ, this is one of your best posts. I thought of a few things after reading this:
- I have not seen it yet. I’m sensitive when it comes to slavery. Perhaps I am hyper-sensitive. My sensitivity comes from being taught about it by teachers and mentors, reading about it on my own, and knowing enough about my family’s history to consider the way the institution impacted us.
- I love all of QT’s movies. Every last one of them. I am a fan of him. As much as I dig him I just get a twinge when I hear a white person say the word nigger, even in his movies. I dont feel it when I hear a black person say it. I mile high salute any black person that does not have the same reaction. Maybe when I grow up.
- While I think the push back on this movie was over the top I am gonna fall short of calling people oversensitive about their feelings as it relates to slavery or any representation of it.
It’s great this movie created conversation. But is it anymore than water cooler dialogue? Personally is that all I want out of a movie about slavery? Two of my white, married, male coworkers want to go see it with me. Knowing these men I am certain that the conversation would scratch more than the surface, which is what I want out of any discussion with white people around slavery. They know that I am not invested in making them feel comfortable, which is what they want. I see it as an opportunity for real growth and understanding. Chats about the movie of the month I’ll save for summer blockbusters about something less potent.
- When I was younger my entire affluent school (middle and high school) went to see Schindler’s List, all paid for by the school. They rented a local movie theatre and used all five screens. This was around the time when folks were making absurd claims that the Holocaust did not happen. The history of the Holocaust was so important, and they were (rightfully) so concerned that it would become lost to our generation that the school made this day happen. We had a day of discussion and heard survivor accounts. It was one of the most incredible learning days I ever had as a student. The movie Sankofa was out at the same time. I had to see that on my own.
-Django from what I hear is a good movie. I wonder if it is the kind of movie, like Schindler’s list, that will help young people not forget. Perhaps it doesn’t need to be. Time will tell.
im not sure its slavery that makes me uncomfortable or even sensitive to such subject matter so as much as it is who ive been raised around. it was largely mentors, teachers, and elders who experienced struggles and true hardship and i took it to heart. i still do. its hard to be my age and silly and fun because im aware the burdens i carry to set the foundation for the next generation. this movie is like…idk. the perfect middle. polarizing. at most i feel curious.
but, i also feel uncomfortable. in and of my own life experience i cant say ive been firehosed and called the n word but i was raised in the company of those who were. ‘n*gger’ makes me flinch as does a white person using the n word. out of respect i do not find entertainment value in an honest to god struggle. i do not laugh at uncomfortable subject matter. it would be fairly difficult for me to sit through something like this. im not sure it would offend me i would just be agitated and conflicted and my emotions would be turnt ALL thee way up.
“I love all of QT’s movies.”
.
If you can sit through necrophelia rape and an implied child prostitution scene (Kill Bill), I’m pretty sure you can handle Django.
At #5 I thought of the KKK scene as almost a cut out of a Mel Brooks movie. It felt like I was watching Blazing Saddles for a moment and I loved every second of it. Totally unexpected and totally welcomed.
People who are looking at Django through any sort attempt at documenting slavery honesty are missing the point. A lot of the reactions towards Django have far more to do with the idea and the existence of Django rather than the film itself. For example, people have talked endlessly about how Mandingo fighting never actually occurred. That’s true and it’s also irrelevant. The point is that it is completely within the realm of possibility because of the cruelty of slavery that white men would engage in something like that for entertainment purposes.
People who want to show this in history classes are disturbed. Anyway, the greatest movie on slavery that I’ve seen is Haile Gerima’s Sankofa. Granted we all know Black people don’t actually like to support Black made creations because they so desperately want to integrate and want a white man to make an authentic slave movie instead of consuming an already brilliant film.
You’re right there are plenty of black movies made this year by actual black people that never got that much blockbuster support.
One off the top of my head: Pariah.
It has nothing to do with being a Black creation. There are hundreds of movies made by people of all colors, that don’t get the recognition it deserves. The only difference between those films, and Black films, is that Black creations are the only ones that try to use your race as a way to guilt you into seeing the movie (Roots, Trois, Malcolm X, Sankofa, Red Tails). And if you chose not to, are then berated and told “you must not care about your history”.
-
Excuse me, I was unaware that biographies, journals, and other such things don’t exist. That the ONLY way to “learn my history” is to watch Malcolm X, or Sankofa (which I have not seen), or Roots (which I still have not seen and have no intention to, unless I’m EXTREMELY bored). Being told I HAVE to watch a Black creation, because I’m Black, is what irritates me. People could care less if it looks entertaining, or if it’s a subject I’m genuinely interested in. It’s just, “It’s a Black film, support it.” How about making something I want to support?
Agreed.
Think about it. D*mn near EVERY time someone talks about a Black film, the dialogue is the same. “Hey, this movie is made by a Black director/has a predominantly black cast!” Uh….so? The promotion (and by this, I mean word of mouth) for almost every Black film, whether it be mainstream or underground, relies more on the RACE of the director and actors, then the actual plot or characters of the movie. I will watch any movie, as long as it’s good. Stop telling about the race of who made the sh*t or who stars in the sh*t. I don’t give a f*ck. I’m paying for entertainment, not because we share a similar ancestory.
-
That’s why I LOVED Kevin Hart’s promotion of Think Like A Man. Because everyone was doing the typcial “It’s a Black fim, you HAVE to see it.” And he would always say, no. It’s not a “Black movie”. It’s just a regular movie with Black actors/actresses. That’s what Black films need to do. Get people to see the movie out of genuine interest, not guilt.
This is so incredibly wrong-headed.
Why?
No. What’s “wrong-headed” is guilting someone into seeing a movie because of race. I understand all the notions for doing so. Showing Hollywood that predominantly Black films can be successful, open up more possibilities for black actors/actressess/directors, etc. But relying on race to sell/promote your movie, then chastising those that don’t see it, is incredibly stupid, arrogant, and f*cking insipid. Stop using “Blackness” as an Affirmative action tool to get people to see your movie.
That’s not even what I said or even alluded to. I was referring to the reactionary displeasure that people had towards Django because it didn’t properly display how they wanted on a movie involving slavery to go. There are already Black filmmakers who have done that and have made better films than this, but those same people voicing displeasure at a white person not conforming to how they want to be presented won’t support Black artists who actually do that.
I completely understood what you were talking about. I wasn’t replying to your comment as a whole, only this line “Granted we all know Black people don’t actually like to support Black made creation”. Which is inherently false. Black people, like any other people, support whatever interests them. Black people went to go see The Dark Knight Rises not because Christopher Nolan is white and they were so desperate to integrate into White America, but because they were interested in seeing the movie. The same could be said for any other popular movie. Fact is, most Black people don’t watch many Black films because they haven’t heard of them/have no interest in the movie. The dialogue is never “Oh a Black director made this? F*ck this movie!” (as I said, it’s actually the opposite.) But more along the lines of “This movie is about Fredrick Douglas? Boooring. F*ck that. I’m bout to go watch Pootie Tang.”
Why would it be disturbing to show this movie in a history class? In what way is Roots the better option? Regardless of what is thought, since we didn’t live during those times, we have no idea what truely happened beyond documentation. But if you can provide visual media that can give viewers feelings they can’t grasp simply by reading, then I think it would do future generations a great justice to have a film like Django taught in schools. Not as a historical reference, but to emphasize the extremities of the past, that you can never truly know what happened, but here is a way to relate to it.
well, for one thing “Roots” didn’t have Hip Hop music on the soundtrack, as if rap was playing on radio stations then. If that’s not false history, I don’t know what is. Heck noooo, this should NOT be in history classes.
well, for one thing “Roots” didn’t have Hip Hop music on the soundtrack, as if rap was playing on radio stations then. If that’s not false history, I don’t know what is. Heck noooo, this should NOT be in history classes.
well, for one thing “Roots” didn’t have Hip Hop music on the soundtrack, as if rap was playing on radio stations then. If that’s not false history, I don’t know what is. Heck noooo, this should NOT be in history classes.
Great post!
I have yet to see the movie however point #6 was dead on. People arent as offended by the use of the word as they are trained to react to a white person using it!
Also, as african americans it may not be our job to educate others on african american history bit we can certainly educate ourselves and those around us who may be ignorant to the facts.
Lets face it, American history and African American history are two totally diffrent things and the later will never be taught for all to know!
I haven’t seen this movie, but I am enjoying reading all of your perspectives about it. It’s convincing me to see it eventually. Thanks y’all.
This is what I meant above. Like seriously?
-
http://www.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/TarantinoFINAL-6001.jpg
I just want to see the Nat Turner or John Brown movie.
Spike Lee wants to criticize… YOUR MOVE, BRO! Make it happen.
Great point. These people should be the change they want in the world.
+1
Agreed. Lee, Singleton, Hughs Bros, Van Peebles, et al…
Would be nice to see works covering great historical black figures hit the mainstream from these talented directors. However, who is to say they haven’t already pitched the idea to hollywood execs only to get refused.
Then again, the independent film festival is a good way to go if big hollywood refuses to get on board. Many GREAT films comes from the indie circuit.
White Hollywood will never make the movie of Nat Turner or Touissant L’Ouvature. They scurred.
Saw Django on Christmas day. I’m a HUGE Tarantino fan and I liked it a lot… didn’t love it. Great movie but not his best. Leonardo DiCaprio stole the movie and, whether intentionally or not, I believe that his character’s behavior offers, by far, the greatest amount of insight to be gleaned from Django.
**small spoiler alert** There’s a scene in the movie where Candie is speaking on “gifted negroes” and the day when they would be the norm as opposed to anomolies…which leads you to believe that he was simply a product of his time, actually held some progressive beliefs, and didn’t completely believe that blacks were genetically inferior. At the same time he showed ULTIMATE disregard for the lives of his slaves and completely basked in the hyperbolic privilege that he was afforded just for being white and wealthy. He didn’t hate his slaves… most of the violence directed at them at his behest were either for his amusement or due to him simply “taking care of business”. It took a few days after viewing for this to sink in for me and when I thought about it it struck me as an infinitely more scathing indictment of slavery than we’ve seen in the past. In Roots and most movies like it we’re shown slave owners as extremely racist old white curmudgeons and the oppression always seems to emanate from the conviction that things were as they should be. They believed that white race was superior in every way hence things were how they were. I saw Django as more realistic because in reality, slavery was more about opportunism and the evil brutality of capitalism than it was about racism. Candie seemed to exert his power simply because he could. He was like a spoiled child playing with his toys. More than just a racist, he was an evil HORRIBLE human being. White slaveowners had lost any semblance of compassionate humanity and had themselves become less than human. I think that this is what Tarantino was trying to say. It’s been said before that slavery actually does damage to the oppressor and the oppressed. Notice the contrast between Christoph Waltz’s European and DiCaprio’s American. By the end of the movie he saw Candie as a barbarian whose actions, even though they were the status quo, actually made him look as evil as any of the men that he hunted professionally, which is probably the reason that it ended the way that it did between them. This realization made me like the movie twice as much and I plan to see it again soon.
Wow. That is a great introspective.
His whole approach to ‘scientific racism’ was what made that speech great. Because people TO THIS SAME DAY are trying to keep scientific racism alive. The author of the ‘Bell Curve’ comes to mind. It wasn’t just an indictment of olden timey racism but our modern notions of what Black people are capable of.
Exactly!!! I was gonna post that in my original comment, but as it is its already the longest that I’ve ever posted on this site. I’m almost positive that Tarantino picked DiCaprio for the role because he’s young, handsome, and charismatic. When you’re first introduced to him in the movie… I can’t speak for everyone but I felt conflicted… you wanted to like him even though you knew he was a piece of sh*t. Candie was the cool young hipster of his time. Of course he doesn’t show overt racism to the anomoly. Of course he was comfortable and maybe even civil with the exceptional African-Americans such like his gorgeous lady-friend and the titular character. He believes that this makes him forward-thinking and ahead of his time. Nevermind the other 99.9999% whose humanity he flat out REFUSES to recognize. His privilege doesn’t require him to and so he uses, literally abuses, disregards, and brutalizes them however he sees fit. Its the exact same way for young whites today. The only difference is that the power scales aren’t as unbalanced.
I think after reading this post and your response it is a must that I see this movie this weekend.
But I thought his whole “phrenology of Old Ben” speech showed that he believed that while black people could be clever, and occasionally exceptional, they were still inferior.
.
Another interesting aspect of his character was the irony in how inferior he was in terms of worldliness and knowledge. He liked to go by Monsieur Candie but couldn’t speak a word of French and was embarrassed about it. He had no idea that the author of the Three Musketeers was black. He did not rule by intelligence (like he believed he did), he ruled by brute force backed by the institution of slavery. That, to me, was pretty deep.
I have a STRONG DISLIKE for Kwarantino and his works, yes! I cannot STAND HIM one bit, and what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? or the discussion at hand? Not a damn thang, but I just needed to say it. Urrrrrrrrrrgh!! Woosah.
Happy Monday.
Tell us what you don’t like!
DJANGO was a brilliantlly crafted story line; glad it won the Golden Globe for “Best Screenplay”.
The comments on this thread – coupled with the broader debates and backlash swirling around it – confirm that the film has tangibly impacted viewers and prospective viewers, alike. As a student of film, I can hear Maximus Dessimus Meridias say, so eloquently, “…Is that not why you are here..?!!”
Here’s the deal:
In 15-20 years, DJANGO Unchained will be revered as one of the most audacious portrayals of freedom, justice, and love in the history of American cinema.
Notably, it has effectively adjusted the historically manipulated “starting line” for how we–as global citizens–discuss the atrocities of 18th and 19th century America.
By taking what many would call a “radical approach”, Quentin Tarantino has grabbed “the bull(sh*t)” by the horns and the film’s provides a clear pathway to hold non-sugarcoated conversations about America’s figurative and literal “skeletons in the closet.”
Where others have come to a fork in the (Hollywood) road and only gone to the right or left…or worse, turned around and just talked ish about the other weary travelers…Quentin went straight. With time and greater perspective from audiences, he will be celebrated for his role in giving AFAMs a rightful portion of our ’40 Acres and a Mule’.
The producers, writers, actors, directors, and all those involved with this project deserve nothing but respect…and they’ll have it in 15-20 years. Start your watches on…ready….set…go!
DJANGO was a brilliantlly crafted story line; glad it won the Golden Globe for “Best Screenplay”.
-
The comments on this thread – coupled with the broader debates and backlash swirling around it – confirm that the film has tangibly impacted viewers and prospective viewers, alike. As a student of film, I can hear Maximus Dessimus Meridias say, so eloquently, “…Is that not why you are here..?!!”
-
Here’s the deal:
-
In 15-20 years, DJANGO Unchained will be revered as one of the most audacious portrayals of freedom, justice, and love in the history of American cinema.
-
Notably, it has effectively adjusted the historically manipulated “starting line” for how we–as global citizens–discuss the atrocities of 18th and 19th century America.
-
By taking what many would call a “radical approach”, Quentin Tarantino has grabbed “the bull(sh*t)” by the horns and the film’s provides a clear pathway to hold non-sugarcoated conversations about America’s figurative and literal “skeletons in the closet.”
-
Where others have come to a fork in the (Hollywood) road and only gone to the right or left…or worse, turned around and just talked ish about the other weary travelers…Quentin went straight. With time and greater perspective from audiences, he will be celebrated for his role in giving AFAMs a rightful portion of our ’40 Acres and a Mule’.
-
The producers, writers, actors, directors, and all those involved with this project deserve nothing but respect…and they’ll have it in 15-20 years. Start your watches on…ready….set…go!
i was stunned, at first. Then I got used to it.
**Spoiler Alert** Just saw tha movie. And I say…To HELL with Django. Dude didn’t help NONE of his fellow slaves and even got one cat turned into dog food!! Treated tha rest like crap. Don’t care if he was on a mission. Couldn’t root for him after that. Hell naw!
I object! He had to play the part! If he would’ve let Dr. King buy d’Artagnan, Monsieur Candie would’ve known something was up and they would’ve never got to Candyland; going along with what Dr. King wanted, if he didn’t play his character right, all the work they’d put in up to that point would’ve been for naught. And in the end, he blew up the house and he said something to the effect of “That’s for d’Artagnan.” Besides, he wasn’t in it for the other slaves, he was in it for his woman, and considering the time frame he was in, one slave was easier to save than all of the slaves.
I always skim this blog but I’m finally going lay down a reply because I’ve found myself mulling over this aspect of the film.
I think that ultimately Django as a character was not only fighting the white institutions of slavery but also the emotional baggage of “black responsibility”. He became a symbol of individuality in face of convention. NOT a black hero… rather just an individual…a MAN…wanting to carry on his life in some “normal” way (which is rather absurd thinking given the time period).
For instance, one thing I noticed as I replayed the film in my head is that towards the end, Django did not take on any of the slaves left in the wagon on as “apprentices” or as possible collaborators. In other words he didn’t “pay it forward” the same way Schultz’ character did in the beginning of the film. He really just said “I don’t know what y’all finna do but I’m gonna get my lady and kill a few white folks in the process”. There was nothing Malcolm X about this character. Some might see it as selfish but I find it rather empowering because in this world of “black first, person second” you’re constantly being told what you’re entitled to and what you’re not entitled to. What you need to do and what you don’t need to do. I think, perhaps, QT wants to make the point that “black” characters are not relegated to ANYONE’s expectations. They can be whatever the hell they want to be.
At first i didn’t want to see the movie because i don’t like movies about slavery but I’m glad that i went to see it. I’ve never seen a QT film but now that I’ve seen this one I want to see others. QT is so over the top with everything. I wonder how much fake blood they used in the film. There were a few parts of the movie that were funny to me. Maybe they weren’t supposed to be but I laughed (sue me) i.e. KKK scene, “say goodbye to Ms. Laura”. Honestly, people need to see the movie for themselves before they make a judgment. It was not at all what I was expecting.
-
i could careless about backlash or what other people think I should think or feel about the movie. I’m glad I went to see a love story about a man who refused to give up on his wife and went through hell and back to get her. How many men out there would do what this character did to get their wife/life back? I’m asking for a friend
“But, while Roots (and Amistad) definitely was graphic, there’s a difference between the relatively grainy film used in something made in the 70s (and the documentary-esque feel of Amistad) and the type of picture you get with the high definition cameras used today.”
The reason that old films look “grainy” has to do with the degradation over time of the original film. Analog film of any kind is higher-definition than any high-def digital source.
That said, I get your point.
“Now, is it every Black person’s duty to go around educating White people about slavery and race? No.”
I disagree. We can’t have it both ways. You can’t condemn people for being ignorant, and then refuse to educate them.
I really liked your take on Django; your opinion was well expressed and I couldn’t have said it better myself. I decided to wait and see Django after the crowds died down a bit and even avoided spoilers in the process, which was nice. After a non-black co-worker of mine said that she had plans to see it, I was so intrigued that I made certain to catch it while it’s still in theaters. Long story short, as you rightfully explained, it was quintessential Tarantino. I’m not a huge Tarantino fan, but I do count his movies as far more artistic (in a sadist way) and unique than most of the crap Hollywood usually cranks out. From the backlash and shock I’d heard prior to seeing it, I was expecting something far more offensive. Instead, it was an entertaining movie, a satirical love story that had some ounces of truth and bouts of exaggeration. Nothing to protest about. I liked it and was also pleasantly surprised how much positive dialogue it created among non-black people who are still conveniently unaware of the truths of slavery. Good times!
Folks just don’t get hollywood. Corporations know that if Django Unchained was done like in the manner of great story telling like Lincoln, Saving Private Ryan, or even Roots, it will not make money. So to get niggas out to pay to watch, the movie had to be made outlandish, over the top. Niggas aint trying to see a documentary for 3 hours. I’m with VSB, I’m officially sick and tired of the term “N-Word”. It is common language now, NIGGA.
It is sad that a movie can’t just be a movie. Why do we have to analize a movie about anything more than how funny it is, the amount of action or saddness. I went to see it with my my wife just to enjoy the entertainment, not to say it was racist or how django was upitty. I simply went because my coworkers said it was great. My co workers were white and black . No talk about it showing the different classes of society or slaves, just that the actors did a great job and it was 2 1/2 hours of laughter. I could careless of what spike lee says. He is from Georgia just like me yet he has to judge everything about race. As a film producer you would think it was a great movie . But no its always something Something wrong when ever black people are envolved . This is why conflict is still around. Thank the Lord that the common man doesn’t act this way . Instead we act and treat each other as a man no matter where you come from or what color you are . We see each other as men not white , black red or yellow and if one of our races gets made fun of we laugh , that’s what its all about .