found this article interesting
Issues Pages:
Django, the N-Word, and How We Talk About Race in 2013
Thu, 2013-01-03 23:05
#1
RevolutionPlease
Django, the N-Word, and How We Talk About Race in 2013
Thu, 2013-01-03 23:08
#2
RevolutionPlease
As I left the theater after Django, it was interesting to see how diverse the crowd was, and, based on the conversations being had in the lobby, how they were all impacted in some way, whether it was by the violence or the language or the fact that it was simply a really good movie. I left the theaters feeling oddly proud of Tarantino for making such a thought-provoking film, while feeling the exact opposite way about Spike Lee for not giving Django a chance. I was slightly shocked at how numb I became to Leo's use of the N-word, to the point that I almost started to marvel at the bravado with which he uttered it. As for my "Django Moment," yes, there was the horrible foreign couple behind me that thought everything was hilarious, but mine came from a more unexpected place: the laughter that filled the room when Samuel L. Jackson and Jamie Foxx would say the N-word — less like we imagine blacks would have in the 1800s, and more like they were two of the four Kings of Comedy.
You really need to read it all for the context.
Fri, 2013-01-04 04:04
#3
just saw DJANGO a couple hours ago. Best movie i 've seen in a long time.
Also, really interesting article. Totally disagree with spike lee, and especially when he won't watch the movie...you can't vaguely criticize a movie you haven't seen. To me it's much more offensive to make a movie that has slavery in it and not use the word, that totally sanitizes it.
And hearing the word used so casually in the film was what was hit home. what's interesting is that in today's context it seems totally normal for the black actors to say it, but seems really odd when white actors do--a complete reversal from the the era in which slavery existed.
And from a film standpoint, i thought this was one of the more honest depictions of slavery i've seen on film, even if it is as spike calls it a "spaghetti western" (not sure why he thinks that's a bad thing...)
i think spikes just pissed off that he didn't make this movie first and that tarantino worked with pam grier and fred williamson....
Fri, 2013-01-04 07:31
#4
Maysie
Spoiler alert.
So far, much of the debate surrounding the film has obscured more than it has revealed, focusing on its use of “the ‘n’ word” and horrific depictions of slavery. Unfortunately, such criticisms make the debate too easy for the movie’s supporters.
Their reply is simple: “Tarantino is just trying to lay bare the grisly truths of slavery and the social and cultural norms of the time. And I know they sure as hell said ‘nigger’ bunches of times, so it makes sense that all the characters say ‘nigger’ bunches of times. He’s making us swallow a bitter pill all for our betterment.”
Of course, one might then wonder whether “motherfucker” was also a part of nineteenth-century Mississippi parlance, but no matter. I say let the “nigger” — happy whites like Tarantino have their fun. He’s just one of those kids in my American history class, once we got to discussing The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in English. They always found the most the “nigger”-laden passages in the book to read aloud and each utterance had the word hurtling excitedly off their tongues.
....
Once critics have finished defending the so-called realism of the language and the brutality, then the rest is surrendered to Tarantino’s imagination. And when it’s about a slave’s revenge why not let him go wild? It’s tempting, of course. Who wouldn’t hit the theater to see a slaver’s viscera blown across a cotton field? But it’s in this revenge fantasy where the film falls short of its own potential. Django Unchained ultimately has less to do with black vengeance than it does with machismo. Some might claim it’s about both, but Tarantino’s obsession with virility is dominant.
.....
It’s hard to see how asserting a black man’s hyper-masculinity serves the idea of black agency much anymore or how it even breaks from existing racist tropes.
....
Remarkably, a story about slave-on-slaver violence barely makes a nod at slave revolt. Some might say that such a grand gesture isn’t really in Tarantino’s repertoire, but Inglorious Basterds shows this to not be the case at all. In the movie he allows for history to be completely rewritten, as a band of Jewish-American soldiers and a Jewish theater owner murder the entire Nazi leadership in one night. Why then should something as plausible as a slave revolt be considered an absurdity?
There is one moment that seems like the perfect opportunity for Django to evolve from his lone gun-slinging to rallying others to fight. After fooling his captors and preparing his return to Candyland, Django goes over to the wagon where a few of Candie’s former slaves are sitting in a cage. One would imagine that now free and moved by Django’s feats at least one person, if not all, would join him and take the opportunity to reap revenge on the Candie plantation, where they themselves had lived dehumanizing lives as Mandingo fighters. Instead, they look on at Django awestruck, as he rides off.
Fri, 2013-01-04 08:11
#5
Kaitlin McNabb
I think the whole Spike Lee comment is just due to the fact (well largely) that him and Tarantino have had a bit of a feud sine Jackie Brown and Lee wasn't a fan of Tarantinos liberal use of the n-word then.
I'm a Tarantino fan, and as much as this film was about black slavery, I don't think it was made to be a commentary on the times. In interviews since Inglorious Basterds, he says he likes to use these moments of history becasue they expose a lot of the history that Americans are so unwilling to talk about and recognize as their own. Setting slavery as a western style movie seems to be another way to expose audiences to an time in history that they might not go and see in another movie (because they "dont want to" "too intense" etc).
The thing that stood out for me the most was that Tarantino tried to submerge the audience in an onslaught of violence, tension and suspense for three hours to seemingly mimic the horrors of slave life. Similar to Addio Zio Tom's approach in Goodbye Uncle Tom (that movie is extensely graphic). The comic relief of the bag head scene was much appreciated for my senses, but even that is obviously cloaked in awfulness.
@milo204 hearing white actors drop n-bombs and just use them as regular words was really unsettling. When I was watching the movie, I kind of wondered the dynamic of all the actors and how each felt to verbally say the word and receive it.
Fri, 2013-01-04 09:07
#6
Maysie
So, how "we" talk about race in 2013 is exactly the same as how "we" talked about race for the past few decades.
Fri, 2013-01-04 09:40
#7
Kaitlin McNabb
As in trying to avoid it?
I think a lot has been projected onto the movie that just isn't there. There are problems with the movie in two parts: as a movie and as a critique and exploration of black slavery.
For me, as a movie, the characters of Django and Hilda are a bit underdeveloped as is their love story, but somehow I liked that you had to go on the faith (as in just believing their story) of their characters. Also, I think Waltz's character could be misunderstood as the hero and anti-slavery champion. Being that he used and stated that he will unfortunately use slavery to his advantage to get Django to help him, and then continues to feel an obligation towards him, paints him as a person who is sympathetic, but still willing to take advantage. And also he seems to get the better of himself in his end.
As a critique on black slavery in the US, I think the movie did little more than to show the abhorrent violence -- in a stylized and still "audience friendly" way -- and show humanity and how humans work when forced into a hierarchy. I feel like Tarantino used the backdrop of black slavery to inform his movie, forcing Americans and other audiences to view the events when they might not have normally, but doesn't go beyond any greater statement than "this happened"
What were you thoughts on the movie Maysie?
Fri, 2013-01-04 09:49
#8
While it does sound like a great yarn, I refuse to watch any of Tarantino's pornography of violence. I was glad to read the piece Maysie quotes, as indeed the "Badass N****r" is a fundamentally racist stereotype of hypermasculinity. You'll read a lot of that shit on White Supremacist ultra rightwing racist sites.
No slave revolt in the works (certainly not by women slaves!) Reworking old stories is all well and good, but this reminds me of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, where he writes the REAL Jewish partisans who existed from France and Italy to Poland and Russia out of history, bringing in the Yanks (albeit Jewish Yanks) to off the Nazis.
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:00
#9
Kaitlin McNabb
That's a good point about Inglorious Basterds Lagatta. I remember kind of scoffing a bit (although, I enjoyed the movie for the acting and characters), because of America's history with WWII and their perception of their participation...
I agree with the stereotype of hypermasculinity and have read a few good articles on that as well.
I think my overall "thing" with this movie was, I wanted to watch it as a movie, but it is supremely tied to real life and real life events. It is difficult, not construtive, and impossible to disassociate what is going on in the film from history.
Also, again, it sucks that at this point the only conversation had about black slavery taking place in the media is surrounding this movie, but I don't view this movie as the be-all-end-all critique and exposure on the issue.
I'm kind of going back and forth with the idea of Tarantino exploiting the backdrop, or if it was his way of making a movie and forcing an audience to witness history and events they might otherwise ignore.
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:26
#10
I really like Louis CK's take on the "n-word"
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:33
#11
I expect I'll see the movie, though I think it is important to remember it is first and foremost an homage to a film style more than history. After all, Hitler didn't get killed in a theatre, That said, I think it would have been pretty weird to not use the word in that movie.
And actors? Well actors are actors, and their job is to act.
But I also think it is only partially true that best way to illustrate the evils of slavery is by amping up the horrific violence. Really, that probably has more to do with recreating the 30 year-old film than the 150-year old story.
William Seward, one of the leading abolitionists who lost the nomination to Lincoln, and served in his cabinet, took a trip to Virginia - then the most powerful state in the union - in 1835. He didn't see acts of murder or mutilation, but what he and his wife did see so depressed and repelled him that he never went south again until after the war was nearing its end.
They met virtually no one on the roads. Other than the houses of the planter aristocracy everything was in decay, and there was no middle class whatsoever. Seward compared it to parts of France he had been to which had suffered through the attrition of war for over 40 years. They spoke with an old blind woman who was set to work alone, doing nothing but turning a wheel in a yard all day, and also passed a group of small, naked children roped together on the way to auction, being led by a slavedriver to a drinking trough, then over to a barn, where they sat down, crying.
Seward and his wife could not stand being in such a place, cut short their trip, and quickly headed back north.
(edit)
Really, I think the horrific violence doesn't hold a candle to the far greater myth of the glory and chivalry in the antebellum south, and that the war was one of northern aggression. In reality, the place was falling apart long before the war.
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:49
#12
@milo204 hearing white actors drop n-bombs and just use them as regular words was really unsettling. When I was watching the movie, I kind of wondered the dynamic of all the actors and how each felt to verbally say the word and receive it.
I think one of DiCaprio's interviews alluded to his thinking that the movie was constantly "going too far" and that once he became desensitized to a number of things and found himself becoming violent and unfeeling in various moments often not in shooting. One of the prop glasses exploded and his hand was considerably injured and he never noticed it.
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:50
#13
Sven
I really like Louis CK's take on the "n-word"
Other than "the n-word," "the c-word," "the f-word," and "the b-word," are there any other words referred to only by a letter?
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:55
#14
Kaitlin McNabb
I think one of DiCaprio's interviews alluded to his thinking that the movie was constantly "going too far" and that once he became desensitized to a number of things and found himself becoming violent and unfeeling in various moments often not in shooting. One of the prop glasses exploded and his hand was considerably injured and he never noticed it.
Do you have a link for that interview or know who did it? That is incredibly interesting and really makes sense within his portrayal of Candie.
Thinking back on the film, I'm not sure if I can pinpoint any one moment of violence that I was like "oh wow" because as much as it was graphic, it didn't completely show everything, and left violence at times more alluded to as well.
A couple of exceptions: hot box, flashbacks of dog eating; but just seeing the visuals of people walking in chains, being chained up, seeing them with branding marks, was definitely too much, much like the reference to Seward.
Maybe it's a meshing up Seward's reflections and grizzly depictions?
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:55
#15
"Nigger" was originally a dialectical form of the Spanish/Portuguese word "Negro" which simply means black in Spanish, which is only pejorative for those who dislike people with black skin, cats with black fur etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger
By the way, amon Haitians speaking Creole, it is not a derogatory word, "un nèg" simply means a person (usually a man) and "un bon nèg" is a good person, a Mensch.
As Seward observed, while branding and horrible punishments, including killing, certainly existed to reduce slaves to things and to enforce enslavement on plantations where there were far more Black slaves than White masters and overseers, it was actually relatively rare. Not out of any humanitarian sentiment on the part of the slavers, but simply because slaves were very valuable commodities. There is an old story about a slaver saving a Black slave of his from drowning rather than an Irish day-labourer working for him, because he had paid a huge sum for the slave, and just spent a few pennies on the Irishman's wages.
Of course that doesn't mean that slaves were better off than exploited and discriminated Irish immigrants, for the latter remained free and could better their lot, and not have their families ripped apart (except by exile).
Seward describes the utter dehumanisation slavery meant, and of course with the small children sold off, the denial of the most basic ties between humans.
Since I didn't see the film and don't plan to, I don't know whether Django and Broomhilda experienced the horror of having their children stolen and sold away.
Fri, 2013-01-04 10:59
#16
Kaitlin McNabb
[spolier alert]
Lagatta, no they didn't, but the premise of the film is that they are each sold as punishment for getting married and Hilda's face is scarred so she can no longer work in a home and is reduced to a 'comfort girl' and Django is sold on the cheap cheap.
Fri, 2013-01-04 11:02
#17
Oh, that is why they don't seem to have any children, when a slaver would most certainly NOT discourage slaves from bearing progeny - valuable commodities.
Fri, 2013-01-04 11:06
#18
Kaitlin McNabb
Ya. Their backstory isn't really well explained, except that he is the Seigfried to her Broomhilda, which is why Waltz's chooses to help him -- as a German he feels obliged and honoured to help a real life Seigfried.
A lot of people have wrote commentary about how Django and Hilda's relationship is really given enough weight, and I wonder if it is because you have to believe in their love and not see it? That old Hollywood type deal. Also, whether they have children is not directly stated, but I assumed not, and how long they have known each other isn't stated either from what I remember.
I think the film maybe could have benefitted from 20mins of backstory for them, but maybe not. A half-read a really long article on the movie that made reference to the original script, and I think it might have had more details there.
Fri, 2013-01-04 11:33
#19
Other than "the n-word," "the c-word," "the f-word," and "the b-word," are there any other words referred to only by a letter?I really like Louis CK's take on the "n-word"
Well, there's a campaign right now about the "R-word", which is "retard" or "retarded" used as an insult. I'd say that there are actually TWO "f-words", one being "fuck" and the other being "faggot". So that makes it hard to even know what someone is talking about if they mention that someone used "the f-word".
Though the "n-word" is obviously a lot more controversial. People will say "fuck" and "bitch" and "cunt" all teh time but will hesitate like made before saying "nigger" and avoid articulating the word like the plague.
I find the whole "refusing to say a word" (like the guy interviewing Samuel L. Jackson) completely ridiculous. We all know what the word is. Avoiding saying it doesn't erase the concept. Like I always find it weird when a newspaper or magazine is quoting someone who cursed and will print something like "Dick Cheney told the senator to 'Go f--- himself.'". Like, okay, we know that F followed by a bunch of random dashes means "fuck". If you're gonna put the idea of "fuck" into the story, just go ahead and say "fuck" instead of the dashes, cause it's the same f---ing thing at the end of day.
There's a huge difference between calling someone a slur or referring to someone by a slur than there is in discussing a slur, quoting a slur, etc. I'm Jewish. If someone calls me a "kike", we're gonna have a problem. If someone wants to discuss the entymology of the word, quote the word, etc. fine. Have at it. You don't need to call it "the K-word"
Or if someone makes a movie featuring an anti-Semitic character who uses the word or insults Jews, etc. , fine. It's either a historical representation or it's a fictional narrative. Quentin Tarrantino's last movie "Inglorious Basterds" dealt with Nazis and there were lots of swastikas in the movie. Is the swastika an offensive symbol? Of course it is. But there's a big difference between a bigot spray painting one on my family's front door than with a director using it in a movie about Nazis, who used it as their symbol.
Fri, 2013-01-04 11:34
#20
The Root magzine has a long interview between Tarantino and Henry Louis Gates jr.
In that excerpt, they discuss the concept of a "white saviors". Haven't read much of it, the old attention span ain't up to it these days. The five pages there are just one part of the series.
Fri, 2013-01-04 11:35
#21
Other than "the n-word," "the c-word," "the f-word," and "the b-word," are there any other words referred to only by a letter?I really like Louis CK's take on the "n-word"
The L Word
Fri, 2013-01-04 12:21
#22
Do you mean "lesbian"? That is only insulting if used by a homophobe to denigrate gay women, or women ASSUMED to be lesbians because of their dress, behaviour (athletic, etc.) Or by some macho ijut to a random woman who doesn't want to sleep with him...
The slang "lezzie" is derogatory, and I've never heard lesbians use it in the positive way I've heard gay men use "fag" or LGBTQ people use - and reclaim "queer".
Obviously we have different slurs in French...
Fri, 2013-01-04 12:37
#23
Do you mean "lesbian"? That is only insulting if used by a homophobe to denigrate gay women, or women ASSUMED to be lesbians because of their dress, behaviour (athletic, etc.) Or by some macho ijut to a random woman who doesn't want to sleep with him...
The slang "lezzie" is derogatory, and I've never heard lesbians use it in the positive way I've heard gay men use "fag" or LGBTQ people use - and reclaim "queer".
Obviously we have different slurs in French...
The L Word is the name of a TV show, which is why the words were capitalized.
Fri, 2013-01-04 12:50
#24
Kaitlin McNabb
No the mods don't allow that offensive slur and your above post has been modified as such. As the referenced post, it is in regards to a bigger issue that the moderators are working on and the posts will reflect that.
Please don't be antagonistic with names and language. Also, please don't assume everyone is aware of pop culture references and receive and treat reactions as such. Thanks.
And as a fun fact, the L word was primarially filmed in Vancouver and the ladies used to come into the restaurant I worked in all the time. They are super pretty.
Fri, 2013-01-04 13:12
#25
A lot of the scenes were filmed in the HEU building which means the show helped that, mostly female, union's bottom line.
Fri, 2013-01-04 13:55
#26
Kaitlin McNabb
Yes. Portlandia always nails it.
Sometimes when I talk I feel like this, but I just generally don't have thoughts of my own.
Okay, let's move on from the Portlandia and tv references back to the Django, N-word, and how we talk about racism stuff 
.
Here is an interesting live discussion on Huffpo via Racialious surrounding Janell Ross' “America’s Understanding of Emancipation Proclamation On Its 150th Anniversary Too Simple For Country’s Own Good.” They are discussing initally the idea that lots of American's believe racism has been solved because of things like the Emanicipation Proclamination (because slavery is done! no), there is a black president etc; but that 400+ years of systematic racism and slavery cannot be solved by one moment, one day, one year.
Fri, 2013-01-04 13:58
#27
Fri, 2013-01-04 13:59
#28
Kaitlin McNabb
From what I have watched already it is really well moderated and discussed, and serves to debunk a lot of the historical inaccuracies around slavery and freedom as well as present day issues and concerns with racism.
Fri, 2013-01-04 13:59
#29
Cross posted with you . THis should sort out the chronology:
(edit)
I can see how this movie revived this language debate, but even from some of the articles posted here, the problems some have are as much to do with attitudes and expectations as with the language.
In any case, I don't see the debate over what is acceptable and not acceptable language being resolved anytime soon, because there are no rules that everyone can agree on, even within so-called progressive camps. And it's not going to be solved by banning words anyway.
Fri, 2013-01-04 14:05
#30
Kaitlin McNabb
Ya, there needs to be understanding of the implications of language and the history behind words. Words change intent based on the user, and also provide subcontext sometimes regardless of intent.
I think the n-word falls under the category of 'reclaimed words' much like the f-word seems to try to fit into that category.
Also, I think a lot of people who use the above statement as an argument of reverse-racism (guh) need to check their privilege, ya know.
Fri, 2013-01-04 14:22
#31
.. and the fact that there are philosophical differences regarding many different aspects of what is and is not acceptable. Not everyone sees those words as reclaimed.
Not to mention what is and is not possible, and the effectiveness of education as opposed to banning. Personally I don't think it is a given that everyone, having the same understanding and experience, is going to come to exactly the same conclusions about this.
Django Unchained might seem obviously problematic (to some) in that it is satirical. I think the lines might be a bit different in the debate as it applies to To Kill a Mockingbird, and not just the fact that much of that debate centred around letting it into schools. I have read strong arguments on both sides of that issue.
Fri, 2013-01-04 15:04
#32
Mr Tea's comment reminded me that while I was aware that "Kike" was probably first used by established Jews in NYC against newcomers from Eastern Europe, I didn't know (or remember) the origin of the slur. So I happened upon an OED blog with studies of several ethnic and racial slurs:
http://blog.oup.com/2009/10/ethnic-slurs-kike/
And evidently the shunning of "squaw" as an equivalent of the c-word stems from ignorance: http://blog.oup.com/2009/07/ethnic-slurs/
But if something is used as a slur, then it is one, since after all the N-word simply stems from a word meaning "Black".
Fri, 2013-01-04 16:18
#33
Do you have a link for that interview or know who did it?
one of the big Vancouver circulations
Georgia Straight maybe? not sure if was credited to their reporter or reprinted with permission from elsewhere
Fri, 2013-01-04 16:30
#34
And evidently the shunning of "squaw" as an equivalent of the c-word stems from ignorance: http://blog.oup.com/2009/07/ethnic-slurs/
when the everyday label of "woman" is used pejoratively with such frequency it is somewhat mind boggling that people couldn't make this connection given the intent of the word. I can recall from photgraphs it being scrawled on several 'counter-protest' picket signs at conflict points in the wisconsin/minnesota where the matter of 1-2 months/year of exclusive hunting rights was met with "were going to do XYZ to you and take your women"
Fri, 2013-01-04 17:07
#35
the other thing tarantino did with this film is that in almost all westerns the truth of slavery is left out on purpose by filmmakers, there are almost no black people except Woody Strode in once upon a time in america that i can recall...and of course blazing saddles....and the majority of FN people are just white actors in paint.
i think he provided a much needed reality check to the genre, and that's his real contribution.
to those saying django should have started a revolution...first, it's kind of pointless to talk about all the different directions the story could have gone in but didn't. and a revolution would have been a completely different story and not Django, keep in mind it's based on an already existing storyline from the 70's....he's just re-interpreting it.
Fri, 2013-01-04 17:11
#36
Oh absolutely. As the article states, due to misogyny many neutral words meaning woman or maiden are worsened and used as gross sexual epithets.
I remember Inuit people in Kuujjuak laughing at Western swearing based on sex and bodily functions. They thought it was ludicrous to use such normal things as insults.
Fri, 2013-01-04 23:58
#37
http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/quentin-tarantinos-django-unchained...
Steven Boone wrote one of the best reviews for the movie..
Through Basterds and Django, Tarantino states that all power that dehumanizes an Other is bloody and treacherous, and that when it's performed in our name, we should know exactly what it looks like and anticipate tasting similar treachery in retaliation. A certain non-violent, ingratiating character in Django Unchained gets swept away in a cartoon-like gun blast. She flies back like a rag, as weightless as her convictions. At both screenings I attended, the audience roared with laughter in that moment—but it was an uneasy laugh.
Sat, 2013-01-05 01:15
#38
Milo wrote:
the other thing tarantino did with this film is that in almost all westerns the truth of slavery is left out on purpose by filmmakers, there are almost no black people except Woody Strode in once upon a time in america
Do you mean Once Upon A Time In The West? Once Upon A Time In Ameeica is a gangster film, not a western, I believe.
Sat, 2013-01-05 01:15
#39
Left Turn
From the article that Maysie posted:
It’s a shame, because the history of North Atlantic slave revolts offers up a lot of interesting material. Try this: “For our declaration of independence, we should have the skin of a white man for parchment, his skull for an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen.” That’s Boisrond-Tonerre, Jean-Jacques Dessalines’ aide. Tarantino certainly couldn’t write that.
Django can't revolt, because if Tarantino had tried to write anything approaching the above quote, he might not have got funding for his movie.
The above quote is from the Haitian revolution, and movies on that subject don't get funding from Hollywood, or Europe, or really anywhere other than the Venezuelan government. Just ask Danny Glover, who had difficulty coming up with the money to fund his movie about Toussaint L'ouverture.
[url=http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_e3UYOiNEhW03rcVTpcB2e15IMg]Danny Glover's slavery film lacked "white heroes", producers said[/url]
US actor Danny Glover, who plans an epic next year on Haitian independence hero Toussaint-Louverture, said he slaved to raise funds for the movie because financiers complained there were no white heroes."Producers said 'It's a nice project, a great project... where are the white heroes?'" he told AFP during a stay in Paris this month for a seminar on film.
"I couldn't get the money here, I couldn't get the money in Britain. I went to everybody. You wouldn't believe the number of producers based in Europe, and in the States, that I went to," he said.
"The first question you get, is 'Is it a black film?' All of them agree, it's not going to do good in Europe, it's not going to do good in Japan.
"Somebody has to prove that to be a lie!", he said. "Maybe I'll have the chance to prove it."
"Toussaint," Glover's first project as film director, is about Francois Dominique Toussaint Louverture (1743-1803), a former slave and one of the fathers of Haiti's independence from France in 1804, making it the first black nation to throw off imperial rule and become a republic.
The uprising he led was bloodily put down in 1802 by 20,000 soldiers dispatched to the Caribbean by Napoleon Bonaparte, who then re-established slavery after its ban by the leaders of the French Revolution.
Sat, 2013-01-05 10:43
#40
Django can't revolt, because if Tarantino had tried to write anything approaching the above quote, he might not have got funding for his movie.
I don't know about that. I think Marcellus Wallace said something along those lines in Pulp Fiction.
I can see why Danny Glover would have difficulty getting funding for a number of reasons, including his politics, and the subject of the movie he was proposing. But I wouldn't assume that it couldn't be done at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7i_9rrNqyQE
Sat, 2013-01-05 17:39
#41
absolutely meant once upon a time in the west...getting all twisted thinking of leone movies!! i love the beginning sequence of that movie, it's genius!
that henry louis gates interview is really great and delves into a lot of the nuances some people might not pick up on in the movie...any of QT's critics should read it.
Fri, 2013-01-18 00:02
#42
RevolutionPlease
Watched it. So much to say.
Fri, 2013-01-18 01:29
#43
"Tarantino’s obsession with virility is dominant."
I have yet to read the article in full, but, if anything, Tarantino seems obsessed with creating strong black and/ or female characters:
Jackie Brown for Pam Grier. Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Darryl Hannah and Vivica A. Fox's characters in Kill Bill. Melanie Laurent and Diane Kruger in Inglorious Basterds. Amanda Plummer in Pulp Fiction. Patricia Arquette in True Romance (a story originally much more focused on her, but trimmed for length).
Not really a passive bunch. Much less so than the typical hollywood female role in an action film: the wife who nags or worships the hero in two scenes and vanishes for the rest of the film. The Untouchables comes to mind.
Ultimately, I'd like to see Tarantino put his money where his mouth is, and finance projects like Danny Glover's or, I dunno, Mary Harron's. Even if Tarantino's heart is in the right place, ultimately it should be black and female filmmakers telling their own stories. A nice touch would be if he donated this money anonymously.
Here's another article on the topic by two black film critics:
http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.ca/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublema...
For years, I hoped Lee, or any Black director for that matter, would turn his or her attention to giving us a slavery based movie from a literally Black point of view. Our backstories are rich and endlessly dramatic. Yet how many Black directors have even been CLOSE to making an epic movie about slavery? We've seen our perspective in books (Toni Morrison's Beloved), and on stage (August Wilson's The Piano Lesson, for example), and on TV (Roots), but we've not really seen this perspective on film. Lee could get it done. I would have loved to have seen Spike Lee's Beloved, or his take on Nat Turner. Especially his take on Nat Turner! But no, I just get complaints.
Granted, with slavery epics buoyed by both Oprah and Spielberg failing to make paper, the financing wasn't there in Hollywood. But why not a low-budget indie? You don't need $100 million worth of CGI, because aliens don't run plantations. Get a kick-ass script, find a field down South, get some ashy muthafuckas with raggedy clothes on, some sinister looking White people, and voila! There are stories to be told out there, and with a lived-in funkiness to them, not the stifling beatification that can only serve to mar creativity.
Tue, 2013-01-22 02:29
#44
RevolutionPlease
Finally watched it. poor white man's review:
Incredibly mysogynistic.
A bit liberating if you're a liberal.
Made me cry for my sisters and nieces. I'd die for them (sic)
We gotta do something because this world favours us white men too much.
I wanna earn my creds'. I dun wanna watch this shit no more.
I'm the epitome of privilege and I hate it but I gotta do what I gottta do.
How do you weigh those apples and oranges?
Tue, 2013-01-22 06:34
#45
Maysie
Thu, 2013-02-28 19:19
#46
Catchfire
Loved this piece by Jesse Williams who plays Dr. Avery on Grey's Anatomy, and who has eyes that could kill a unicorn.
In fact, in this entire, nearly three-hour film, there are no scenes with black people interacting, or even looking at each other, in a respectful or productive way.
If only one black person (Django) displays the vaguest interest in gaining freedom, while the rest consistently demonstrate that they wouldn't do anything with that freedom, were they to obtain it, then we're not able to become invested in them or their pursuits: We can't relate to shiftless characters. Being illiterate, and/or brown, does not remove the ability to think, or observe or yearn or plan or develop meaningful relationships.
Despite the repeated suggestions that they are similar narratives, "Django Unchained" has little in common with "Inglourious Basterds," Tarantino's 2009 fantasy involving a band of American soldiers taking revenge against the Nazis. The latter's title characters choose to form a band of men who risk their lives for a generous and creative endeavor to stop the Holocaust completely, saving all of their people, not just one.
"Django" is just a random guy, who, to no credit of his own, was plucked from slavery by an impressive white man and led on a journey to save his wife.
"Inglourious" did not walk us through provocative scenes of concentration camp torture, gas chambers and ethnically stereotyped victims. Nor were Jewish characters subjected to the indignities of being torn apart by dogs. And while we have our trusty authenticity card out, did the Jewish people not suffer the repeated verbal onslaught of "kike," "rats" and other grotesque terms?
Were such words used in "Inglourious Basterds" more than 100 times? How about 70? OK 30? 10? Thankfully, Tarantino knew that he was perfectly able to tell a story without such gimmicks. (He also knew the community he claimed to be avenging wouldn't stand for it.)
Thu, 2013-02-28 22:39
#47
the "refusal to shake hands" scene near the end reminded me too much of the privilegeds(today) being unwilling to tolerate the 'untoleratable' for the potential benefit of others who have endured their whole lives
Fri, 2013-03-01 15:56
#48
did dr.avery even watch the movie? there are a few scenes where django interacts with slaves, and where the slaves show the desire for freedom.
Again another review based on what the review THINKS the movie should be, where the story should go etc instead of reviewing it like any other movie. And probably never seen the original django so has no idea what he is reviewing anyways.
it's like reviewing a metal record and complaining it's too loud and you can't dance to it.
Mon, 2013-04-29 14:53
#49
I just rented Django. Tarantino, true to form uses the word "nigger" in the same way he uses violence - so frequently that it's desensitizing. I noticed that Tarantino's cameo character never used the word. He said "black" when referring to the slaves he was charged with. Hmmm.
Mon, 2013-04-29 15:03
#50
. I noticed that Tarantino's cameo character never used the word. He said "black" when referring to the slaves he was charged with. Hmmm.
I didn't notice that and am not sure why that would be. Certainly, his character in Pulp Fiction used the n-word quite casually in a story set in the 1990s
Mon, 2013-04-29 19:09
#51
. I noticed that Tarantino's cameo character never used the word. He said "black" when referring to the slaves he was charged with. Hmmm.I didn't notice that and am not sure why that would be. Certainly, his character in Pulp Fiction used the n-word quite casually in a story set in the 1990s
Interesting you should reference Pulp Fiction, given that Samuel L. Jackson's character in both Pulp Fiction and Django make liberal use of "motherfucker". It's become iconic. It seems to me, since the term "motherfucker" is anachronistic in pre-civil war southern US, it's one of Tarantino's references to his other films. He does that. A lot.
Perhaps the difference between Tarantino's Pulp Fiction character and his Django character's use of "nigger" has more to do with a sensivity to the subject matter. White guy drug dealer and fixer using the word is a bit different from the Django context. Interesting.