Django Unchained

Chris91 wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

I didn't find the use of the N word offensive--it made sense in the context of the time period in which the film is set. I did, however, think the violence and the gore was a bit excessive.

Complaining about violence and gore in a Quentin Tarantino movie is like complaining about violence in the NFL. It proves my long held suspicion that you are legitimately retarded.

Really, what else do you expect going into a QT movie? Especially one about a former slave turned bounty hunter fighting to get his wife back from a sadistic plantation owner? This is the man who directed Reservoir Dogs, not the creator of the Smurfs.

That was a critique, not a complaint. The amount of blood shed didn't always seem consistent with the injuries--sometimes it was too much, and sometimes it wasn't enough.

Now I'm waiting for the Sues to come out of the woodwork, and for the inevitable slashfics.

Not to disrespect you, Anne, but I'd say the chances are greater of Jay Cutler being named Super Bowl 48 MVP than of "Django" producing any Suefics. Tarantino's way too gory for your average Suethor.

Read 'em and weep.

GAHHHHHHHHHH!

Chris91 wrote:

GAHHHHHHHHHH!

If you think that's bad...

I get the picture.

There's nothing fanbrats won't create Sues for.

Penguin wrote:

Movie Bob's take on it was interesting.

Well, I'll admit, after watching his reviews I'd rather watch this movie than Life of Pi.

Guess which movie I AM gonna see with my friends.

I liked it.

Quote :

The biggest problem in this movie, the thing that made my skin crawl, was that... well, I'll call it "Niggersploitation". Why? The whole film feels like fetishization of slavery and the oppressive race dynamics of the Antebellum South.

Not defending the movie but apparently black audiences loved it and there were a whole bunch of tweets by black people saying the movie made them want to kill whitey. Make what you will out of that.

V3N0M wrote:

Quote :

The biggest problem in this movie, the thing that made my skin crawl, was that... well, I'll call it "Niggersploitation". Why? The whole film feels like fetishization of slavery and the oppressive race dynamics of the Antebellum South.

Not defending the movie but apparently black audiences loved it and there were a whole bunch of tweets by black people saying the movie made them want to kill whitey. Make what you will out of that.

Yeah, I heard some people tell me that Spike Lee only got offended because he "couldn't make a movie that good". Those people were black and over the age of 70.
I honestly think with this sort of thing it's a weird reversal where the only people getting offended are white people because they're ashamed/forgot/believe our society to be post-racist

at least that's the gist I'm getting from Tumblr and stuff, mostly just social justice people who really miss the point of a lot of things and just argue semantics, because honestly they act as allies and as such their only experiences of oppression are next to nothing. So they're projecting onto other groups their fears

but that's just me and I of course could be completely, totally wrong

Quote :

but that's just me and I of course could be completely, totally wrong

I dunno, the black people over 70 that I heard coming out of the theater were uncomfortable at the "niggers". One couple left the theater in the middle of the movie and complained to the manager.

But then, like people have said, a lot of black people liked it.

I think the social implications of this movie are quite discussable and a lot of it probably comes down to perspective.

Though I do believe it is worth mentioning that turning real life horrors and tragedies into relatively shallow levels of entertainment is a rather common media criticism that transcends race and has been leveled at "Titanic" and the "Medal of Honor" games.

Or who knows, maybe I'm just being an oversensitive hipster because Bob knows I am.

Mr.Doobie wrote:

Quote :

but that's just me and I of course could be completely, totally wrong

I dunno, the black people over 70 that I heard coming out of the theater were uncomfortable at the "niggers". One couple left the theater in the middle of the movie and complained to the manager.

But then, like people have said, a lot of black people liked it.

I think the social implications of this movie are quite discussable and a lot of it probably comes down to perspective.

Though I do believe it is worth mentioning that turning real life horrors and tragedies into relatively shallow levels of entertainment is a rather common media criticism that transcends race and has been leveled at "Titanic" and the "Medal of Honor" games.

Or who knows, maybe I'm just being an oversensitive hipster because Bob knows I am.

Who the fuck is Bob?

Mikey has been calling you an oversensitive hipster for at least two years.

I have yet to see it, but it is interesting to watch people get squirmy about this. However, I also can see mixed reactions in how black people have responded to the movie... Sort of in the same way that older generations of black people feel about the use of the word "nigger" being used by their kids as a term of endearment/comradery is potentially unsettling... I often wonder if it's just a change that is occuring a little too early culturally for some? I don't know, I'm not black, so seriously... Grain of salt on this.

I would also like to point out that Quintin Tarantino is white. Not that this is a bad thing, but there are implications there.

Eeveegou wrote:

I would also like to point out that Quentin Tarantino is white. Not that this is a bad thing, but there are implications there.

The question has long been posed about whether this movie would ever have been given the green light had the director not been a). a person with Quentin Tarantino's directing resumè, and b). white.

It's kind of like how people get up in arms over how Tank Girl is illustrated/written by men so there's no way it can say anything about feminism?

That question comes down to an oppressed group's ability to self-determine, which is something that has been thrown back and forth over time. A straight, white man can be a feminist, queer ally, anti-racist, whatever form of social progressivism you want, but where does their right to lead the rhetoric end? Do they even have the ability to truly, fully empathize with oppressed groups? How valuable is socially progressive rhetoric coming from the privileged?

Overall, though, I don't think Quentin Tarantino intended this to be some form of racial critique. If it is, what is he trying to say? That slavery sucked?

I've heard the "Spike Lee is just jealous he didn't think of this first" thing but let's be real, Spike Lee would never even think to make a movie like "Django Unchained" in the first place.

Aggie wrote:

The question has long been posed about whether this movie would ever have been given the green light had the director not been a). a person with Quentin Tarantino's directing resumè, and b). white.

Why would him being white make it MORE likely to be green lit?

Spoonman wrote:

That question comes down to an oppressed group's ability to self-determine, which is something that has been thrown back and forth over time. A straight, white man can be a feminist, queer ally, anti-racist, whatever form of social progressivism you want, but where does their right to lead the rhetoric end? Do they even have the ability to truly, fully empathize with oppressed groups? How valuable is socially progressive rhetoric coming from the privileged?

Those questions usually come from exploiters like Jesse Jackson that have a vested interest in keeping white people feeling guilty.

It's like saying America and England shouldn't have stopped the Holocaust because neither of them are Jewish states.

Spoonman wrote:

I've heard the "Spike Lee is just jealous he didn't think of this first" thing but let's be real, Spike Lee would never even think to make a movie like "Django Unchained" in the first place.

Because Spike Lee is a horrible waste of organs? Glad to see you and I are on the same page.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Aggie wrote:

The question has long been posed about whether this movie would ever have been given the green light had the director not been a). a person with Quentin Tarantino's directing resumè, and b). white.

Why would him being white make it MORE likely to be green lit?

Because a black non-white director would have their motivations questioned immediately and would be accused of trying to promote black-on-white violence. Since Hollywood is still largely run by white males, there is no chance in hell that they would risk that sort of controversy cutting into their potential profits.

Also, I happen to know a teacher where I student teach who is black and has his MA in screenwriting. Right now, he's in the process of garnering investors for his project (he's so close!! I'm rooting for him >_< ) and his consultant said that investors in movie production have hesitations to put much into a movie that has a predominantly black cast because it just doesn't make nearly as much money. It's a shame since there is just as much talent/ideas/insight/etc. out there from talented men and women who are black. Or Hispanic, or Asian, yadda yadda.

That being said, I wondered myself if it would have been as successful if the director was black. *shrugs* I will agree that Hollywood is predominantly white-centric... But so is everything else. Probably one of the hardest thing I do as a teacher is coming to terms with my positionality in the classroom... A white woman at the head of a class of students from different racial backgrounds. I'm not even going to start on that dilemma...

Eeveegou wrote:

But so is everything else. Probably one of the hardest thing I do as a teacher is coming to terms with my positionality in the classroom... A white woman at the head of a class of students from different racial backgrounds. I'm not even going to start on that dilemma...

I'm a white librarian at a school that is predominantly Hispanic. It seldom occurs to me to think about race. I'm all about the reading.

Lady Anne wrote:

I'm a white... It seldom occurs to me to think about race.

Lady Anne wrote:

Eeveegou wrote:

But so is everything else. Probably one of the hardest thing I do as a teacher is coming to terms with my positionality in the classroom... A white woman at the head of a class of students from different racial backgrounds. I'm not even going to start on that dilemma...

I'm a white librarian at a school that is predominantly Hispanic. It seldom occurs to me to think about race. I'm all about the reading.

A la verga

Um... librarians do not really... teach? That compairison is completely without meaning.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Um... librarians do not really... teach? That compairison is completely without meaning.

I deal with students of all races (predominantly Hispanic, but lots of other groups, too) all day, every day. I do teach, just not officially. I am in a position of power over the kids--and I don't give a shit about their races. I've heard it all: "You hate me because I'm black." "You hate me because I'm Mexican." "You hate me because I'm white." No matter what kids say, the answer is the same: "The bell has rung. Go to class!"

Some people ponder it, some people don't. However, I've had a decent amount of conversations where I've left coming to terms with my whiteness and it was sort of a mixed bag of emotions and dilemmas. It's such a weird subject with a shit ton of rules, but as a cohort, we talked about it, struggled, respected each other and "rough draft speech." We can go on and on about "oh you're a pussy liberal," and I can totally understand that kind of notion since there are a shit ton of loud and profound liberals out there. And, I'm not really sure if I feel too inclined to defend myself only because I can be that way sometimes. Not that I'm too proud about that... Mainly because I start acting like I'm an expert on race.

What I will say though is that librarians do play a role as teachers, but it also depends on the involvement of the librarian in student learning. It's so funny that we're talking about this since my 6th graders have had a solid month and a half of library time spent on watching documentaries about Caesar Chavez during the farm worker strike and the Freedom Riders from the Civil Rights Movement.

Disco Stu wrote:

I finally went to see it today, and hate to break it to y'all, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and understood it as a legitimately good movie. It's revisionist history and in no way fetishizing. It feels the same as 1970s blaxploitation films except with 80x more effect. If any of you have seen Mandingo, Drum, Legend of Nigger Charley or anything (Roots??) of the sort, you'd understand the historical significance of them. People don't make those films because we eat the fuck up films with minstrels and mammies and they gotta have sass yet be happy about slavery! The Help, anyone? So although this was made by a nerdy white guy, he does know his shit and apparently well enough to get actors like Jamie Foxx to come play. It's not as if these actors don't know what they're doing.

He -spoiler- got into this because killing white people for pay? Sounds great.

DiCaprios role deconstructs the genteel southern stereotype (Gone With The Wind).

Candyland is supposed to be ironic.

Also, Christoph Waltz. He is awesome.

...I only watch his scenes in IB, anyway, because...screw you, Brad Pitt.