"I like the way you die, boy." - A thread for Django Unchained

[Lumenskir]

Sneaking in just under the wire* is the Movie of 2012, Tarantino's latest pop culture mashemup about the Western film genre, revenge, slavery, racism, and how awesome fake blood looks when it's splattered against white surfaces.

*Take that Zero Dark Thirty!**
**I'm sorry, I didn't mean it, just come out near me please.

So, anybody else manage to see this? Some thoughts:

-I'd put it comfortably at the Kill Bill level in Tarantino's filmography, and it was pretty much as ruthlessly entertaining as its revenge driven cousin.

-I think in a perfect world Samuel L. Jackson would win all the awards, but more realistically I see Leonardo Dicaprio having his day in the "actually getting hardware" spotlight (I think I read an article about actors striking out in main actor categories but getting deluges once they settled into juicy supporting roles).

-I love how in Kill Bill the human body was basically holding gallons and gallons of red water waiting to be shot out a hose at the sight of the slightest cut, while in Django the body is basically full of trash bags filled with amazingly goopy red syrup and each bullet hits with the force of a fifteen pound bowling ball dropped from a skyscraper.

-Seriously, there's a part in the penultimate shootout where a bad guy keeps getting shot that is one of the funniest things in cinema this year.

-Of course, the proto-Klan insufficient hood thing was also amazing. It was like the not-yet-written fifth best Key & Peele sketch.

-What's everyone's opinion on the "Probably not as happy as it seems" ending? I've read two/three theories (1) It was exactly as happy as presented, (2) Stephen's warning about slavers/white people chasing them down will eventually come true, or (3) Django died after the first huge shootout and everything that follows his castration is a Brazil-esque fantasy. I personally think (3) is most likely (just for how deliriously fantastical the whole dressage thing was after blowing up Candieland), but I can see a mix of (1) and (2) (where Django and Broomhilda make it North while fighting off those who want them dead).

-I'm kind of ashamed with myself that the whole Von Shaft -> Shaft thing had to be pointed out to me later.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Wait are you saying Zero Dark Thirty was the second best film of the year? Because if you are I can legit get you arrested for hate speech.
Also I don't like Tarantino but I do like Spaghetti Westerns- will I like this film.

[Kim]

I've heard it falls heavily within the Tarantino wheelhouse to the same extent as any of his other films, so probably not.

[Lumenskir]

Wait are you saying Zero Dark Thirty was the second best film of the year? Because if you are I can legit get you arrested for hate speech.
I'm saying I didn't get a chance to see it in 2012 so I don't know where it falls on my list (although based on how everyone I respect is talking about I'll probably like it a lot).
Also I don't like Tarantino but I do like Spaghetti Westerns- will I like this film.
I'm going to take the safe bet with 'no'.
I've heard it falls heavily within the Tarantino wheelhouse to the same extent as any of his other films, so probably not.
I dunno why, but this statement amuses me. The way I'm seeing it, I think it breaks down to "He is extra Tarantino-y in this movie, like every example of his movies."

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Those people you know who like Zero Dark Thirty- don't be friends with them anymore.
It is the most hateful bit of propaganda I've seen since Triumph of the Will- it glorifies torture, it demonises foreigners, it hides war crimes and it willfully distorts facts to make these points. It is not a film, it is a crime.

[Solid Snake]

I'm saying I didn't get a chance to see it in 2012 so I don't know where it falls on my list (although based on how everyone I respect is talking about I'll probably like it a lot).

It's a movie that distorts the truth in an effort to make torture seem like an effective tool against so-called 'terrorists.'

Don't watch and support that bullshit. Even John McCain doesn't want you to, and this is one of the 2% of times when John McCain is 100% right.

EDIT: Goddamn it, I as ninja'd by Smarty?
...And we agree on someting?
Fuck.
I need to rethink this.
Okay Lumenskir, go see Zero Dark Thirty!!!

[Revising Ocelot]

I dunno why, but this statement amuses me. The way I'm seeing it, I think it breaks down to "He is extra Tarantino-y in this movie, like every example of his movies."

Ugh. My father hates Tarantino and yet he really wanted to watch Inglourious Basterds over Christmas because WORLD WAR TWO FILM. It's already unbearable watching films with him that he likes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Inglorious Bastards would have been a really good film if it was only the last 10 minutes.

[Lumenskir]

Those people you know who like Zero Dark Thirty- don't be friends with them anymore.
It is the most hateful bit of propaganda I've seen since Triumph of the Will- it glorifies torture, it demonises foreigners, it hides war crimes and it willfully distorts facts to make these points. It is not a film, it is a crime.
Stop! You're making the wait to see it even more unbearable!!
It's a movie that distorts the truth in an effort to make torture seem like an effective tool against so-called 'terrorists.'

Don't watch and support that bullshit. Even John McCain doesn't want you to, and this is one of the 2% of times when John McCain is 100% right.
How the fuck has everyone but me seen it already :((((((

[Solid Snake]

How the fuck has everyone but me seen it already :((((((

I haven't, and I won't.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I am secretly a high-ranking member of the Tea Party. We had advance screenings.

[Lumenskir]

I haven't, and I won't.
But then how can you tell people what it's about then?

Because I've heard all of the caterwauling, but in reading reviews I'm seeing a lot of sentiments of people walking out of the movie horrified at the torture scenes and how little they actually helped anything, which makes it seem like the torture that is presented isn't a gleeful presentation but rather a "Look at what atrocities were done in the name of this mission."

Which, you know, makes me want to see the movie and develop my own opinion, rather than take McCain's word for it or whatever...almost like how I felt after seeing Spike Lee's hadn't-seen-the-movie tweets about Django Unchained (yes, back on topic, good going Lumenskir).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No those people who said that are all blinded by their massive boners for commiting war crimes.
Cause I have seen it and it is atrocious. And all the reviews I have read have also agreed with me.
The film directly posits that torture was influential in catching Bin Laden and was necessary to protect America.

Here's the best review of it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/24/zero-dark-thirty-torture-bigelow-boal
This review is 100% accurate- I have sat through Salo, through Spit on your grave- this was worse.

[Solid Snake]

But then how can you tell people what it's about then?

This is silly reasoning.

We have entertainment journalists for a reason. If they do their jobs well, you can trust their judgments to avoid financially supporting endeavors that do not merit your financial support.

Based on your position, I should purchase the next Call of Duty -- despite anything I've heard about it -- because I can't possibly have an opinion on the title without "experiencing it for myself." That isn't so. I have opinions about lots of videogames I haven't played, and movies I haven't seen. Again, that's what journalists -- and other perspectives, ranging from experts whose opinions I value to friends I trust -- are for.

[Lumenskir]

We have entertainment journalists for a reason. If they do their jobs well, you can trust their judgments to avoid financially supporting endeavors that do not merit your financial support.
Great job acknowledging the perspective of all of the entertainment journalists I'm relying on then!

[Arhra]

Since I've been to see The Hobbit and Les Miserable after Boxing Day, they for some reason decided to show the trailer for Zero Dark Thirty before both.

I have to say I find 'based on inspired by a true story' movies that come so soon on the heels of the real event distasteful at best. And, well, based on the trailer, it looked like propaganda trying to whitewash some very dubious acts. I have absolutely no interest in seeing it and am frankly baffled that it even exists.

Sooooo, how about that Django Unchained?

[Lumenskir]

Ugh. My father hates Tarantino and yet he really wanted to watch Inglourious Basterds over Christmas because WORLD WAR TWO FILM. It's already unbearable watching films with him that he likes.
Seriously, how far into the opening talky scene did he get before exploding into Old Manium?
Sooooo, how about that Django Unchained?
It's quite entertaining!

[Revising Ocelot]

Seriously, how far into the opening talky scene did he get before exploding into Old Manium?

I managed to pacify him with The Dam Busters. He didn't watch Basterds. Yet.

[Kim]

Django sounds like it uses slavery as another excuse to tell a story primarily focused around white people and that the black people in the film exist primarily to have violence done to them and nothing more.

Which isn't remotely surprising, given that it's written by a white dude who thinks being told there are certain character types he shouldn't write because he's white is The Real Racism.

Plenty of people who are not me have talked about this far better than I could.

Negative Thoughts (http://karnythia.tumblr.com/post/39415204208/whiteness-unchained-when-a-national-shame-becomes-camp)
Discussion On the Film Between Varying Opinions (http://thefeministwire.com/2012/12/django-unchained-a-critical-conversation-between-two-friends/)
Positive Thoughts (http://jamellebouie.net/blog/2012/12/29/quick-thoughts-on-django-unchained)

I don't plan on seeing the film, but this isn't an attempt to dissuade others from seeing it. It's an attempt to introduce facets of discussion about the film current absent from the thread. I've seen a lot of people talk about this, mostly on Twitter thus sharing their thoughts is less convenient than the articles above, so I thought it too important to neglect here.

There ya go.

[pochercoaster]

Take my opinion with a grain of salt but I just saw it and it was basically a white saviour movie with Django as the sidekick. The most brutal violence was reserved for all the black characters most of whom barely received any characterization which IMO just objectified them- meanwhile the white saviour and the villain receive most of the screentime and dialogue. The women were objectified as fuck.

I don't really like Tarantino's movies, there's something narcissistic about them and I don't like how he uses violence. That's about all I got.

[Lumenskir]

Plenty of people who are not me have talked about this far better than I could.

Negative Thoughts
Discussion On the Film Between Varying Opinions
Positive Thoughts
These were all really good reads (and it was interesting to see how each called out and interpreted some of the same elements), thanks!
Take my opinion with a grain of salt but I just saw it and it was basically a white saviour movie with Django as the sidekick.
I thought it was going to go that way for awhile, but I feel that the film ultimately thinks of Schultz as the Magical Whitey intended to lift Django up and then shuffle off (although imbued with a lot more heft and fun than normal), i.e., I felt his role was to give Django the tools he didn't yet have so that he could tell his own tale.

I also think the reading of Schultz's last move in the first link Kim offered is a little off, in that I don't think QT was reserving the 'best kill' (i.e., killing the main villain) for the white hero. Once Candie enters the reading room and talks with a brandy drinking Stephen, the film pretty clearly lays out where the true power/decision making in the house derives from. Schultz, at best, kills the figurehead, and it's Django who has to actually take out the real power structure.* And rather than Schultz's last act being the saving grace that delivers Django's final relief, it just stirs up the bigger shitstorm that Django has to deal with.

*I also think this is part of the movies structure in showing us the twin pairings of Django/Schultz v. Stephen/Candie.
meanwhile the white saviour and the villain receive most of the screentime and dialogue.
I'm not sure if the screentime thing checks out, but I don't really get why it's so outrageous that Django (being modeled on the "say as few words as possible" Western characterization seen in The Man With No Name and Harmonica from Once Upon a Time in the West) would talk less than the characters whose main attributes are how they overuse words.
The women were objectified as fuck.
This was actually really disheartening, especially after his last movie made Shoshanna (and her 'romantic travails') so integral to the narrative. I've seen some talk about how it isn't Broomhilda's movie (or that discussion of rescue narratives in Kim's second link which I don't think I've fully digested), but it's a shame on the movie, yes.
I don't really like Tarantino's movies, there's something narcissistic about them
In that he feels he's entitled to insert himself into them, or that they only reflect what he likes/knows, or something else?

[Solid Snake]

This is what I wondered at 3 AM with Tarantino’s defense still as fresh as a pile of shit in my mind: so anyone can speak on… anything they want? How many conferences on obstetrics and gynecology would doctors attend if they were conducted by plumbers? Who asks their barber or hairdresser to explain organic chemistry? Who gets their legal advice from a veterinarian?

I'm going to completely change the subject now because reading this made me wonder a bit.

...Should I not attempt to write from a woman's perspective in my fiction? I'm not asking the question to be snarky, I'm asking because it's a legitimate response to the argument advanced by this writer, and also because my most recent creative writing idea had me writing from the first-person perspective of a protagonist.

I'll never know what it is truly like to be a woman, and while I can do my fair share of research and while I certainly have friends I can count on for advice to get the tone and tenor right, a first-person perspective always invites that margin of error. Does it matter whether I'm writing that perspective for a woman in a fantasy world, as opposed to the 'real world?'

Hmm. I don't know the proper answer from a social justice perspective. What I do know is that this belief -- that we can't write about what we don't personally, intimately experience -- would have a very limiting effect on fiction generally. I understand applying it to events like slavery or the Holocaust, but applying it wholesale would make paralyze fiction outright.
...Unless every character were myself, I guess. But don't we already have enough privileged white male jerkasses running amok in books?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It depends- how much do you hate Edward Said? Personally I like to make him cry so I write novels about palestinians fighting the british police state.

[Bells]

the only thing you will find out is that being a woman is not overly different than being a man. The bigger thing that changes is how a part of one group thinks they should interact or view the other.

I'm working on my novel that is driven forward by a Mother/Daughter relationship with 2 female protagonists that also deals with religious prejudice, slavery, racial prejudice all in a world of Mystical fantasy. Mind you i'm not a daughter or a mother now or ever been before... nor have i been subject of slavery or much of any prejudice really (aside from being an overweight kid and a geek, but c'mon...) and yet i feel perfectly confident that i can write these subjects in a tasteful, contextual manner that serves the story i want to tell properly. plus, a fuckload of research and leisure reading on these subjects...

You can mary sue yourself to neverland and back if you want... or you can tell the story you feel like you want and can tell.

Last i checked Mark Twain didn't have a second secret life as "Nigger Twain" ...

[Kim]

...Should I not attempt to write from a woman's perspective in my fiction?

More there are certain aspects of being a woman that, having not experienced first-hand, you are not as equipped to write about as a woman. This doesn't mean you shouldn't write stories from the perspective of women. It means you probably shouldn't use the oppression women have gone through as fodder for a camp revenge story.

I'm all for stories starring women, regardless of who writes them, but I'm much less interested in Joan of Arc: Joan Harder as written by a man than as written by a woman.

To return to Tarantino a bit, there's a scene in Kill Bill where Beatrix Kiddo finds out that she's been being raped while in her coma and kills the guy responsible. Her rape exists for no reason but flashy revenge shit, accompanied by Tarantino's foot fetishizing, if I recall correctly. He's taken something actually really awful that a lot of women have had to experience and reduced it to nothing more than the seed for a revenge scene that still filters her character through gross male gaze. As soon as the scene is over, her rape is meaningless, as though it never happened. (This is not mockery of foot fetishes. Foot fetishes are fine. The way men in cinema tend to pander to their fetishes is gross.)

That's the sort of stuff the writer means when they say there are certain things certain people shouldn't write about.

[Solid Snake]

More there are certain aspects of being a woman that, having not experienced first-hand, you are not as equipped to write about as a woman. This doesn't mean you shouldn't write stories from the perspective of women. It means you probably shouldn't use the oppression women have gone through as fodder for a camp revenge story.

I'm all for stories starring women, regardless of who writes them, but I'm much less interested in Joan of Arc: Joan Harder as written by a man than as written by a woman.

Yeah, when it comes to my own fiction, I'm probably more worried about the little subconscious things that can send the wrong message, as opposed to anything Tarantino is likely to pull. I don't envision rape even being a thing in my story, for example, though to give away why it's not a thing would be spoilerific.

I'm confident that the story's setting in a fantasy world in which Sexism Was Never a Thing will help matters, but it also presents a more subtle challenge. Because of my privilege and because of the society I've been raised in it's entirely possible that some under-the-radar sexism will slip through the cracks -- not intentionally, but just as a byproduct of assumptions of 'normalcy' that might be inaccurate. And then it becomes even worse in a sense, because then as an author I'm postulating that some examples of different expectations for genders would be prevalent even in a society where "Sexism Never Existed."

It's also hard to imagine how transgendered individuals fit in a society where gender and sexuality differences are barely acknowledged in the first place. If the extent of the differences between men and women can be summed as "One gets pregnant and the other doesn't," and there's no additional cultural or societal boundaries or barriers and no expectations that women, for example, would be 'feminine' or men be 'masculine', I don't understand what the drive would be there. I don't plan on writing from the perspective of a transgendered character -- I think that's beyond my skill -- but I'd like to have transgendered characters appear in the story, but it's nearly impossible for me to imagine how they'd fit.

Then there are all sorts of little questions that have bugged me as I've tried to write. For example: I toyed with the notion of both men and women wearing dresses on formal occasions -- dresses and gowns and whatnot wouldn't be gendered. Among other things it seems silly that even a fantasy society would draw an arbitrary line there. But then I thought "What if men read this and are like NO NO WHAT THE FUCK?" The question of ensuring broad audience accessibility is always in the back of my mind, even if it shouldn't be.

Sorry for the detour. Back to discussing Django Unchained.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Snake I'm assuming you have read the many feminist sci-fi books which deal with these sorts of things to give you a clue? If you haven't there are heaps (feminist sci-fi being a massive genre for tailing out ideas and things) but the classic ones are Left Hand of Darkness, The Female Man and probably Unveiling a Parallel but there are heaps which should be helpful.

[Solid Snake]

Snake I'm assuming you have read the many feminist sci-fi books which deal with these sorts of things to give you a clue? If you haven't there are heaps (feminist sci-fi being a massive genre for tailing out ideas and things) but the classic ones are Left Hand of Darkness, The Female Man and probably Unveiling a Parallel but there are heaps which should be helpful.

I haven't. My story's more fantasy than sci-fi, but thanks for the tips.

[pochercoaster]

Also check out Margaret Atwood, she writes a lot of dystopic fiction with feminist themes (the most obvious example being The Hand Maid's Tale.)

This was actually really disheartening, especially after his last movie made Shoshanna (and her 'romantic travails') so integral to the narrative. I've seen some talk about how it isn't Broomhilda's movie (or that discussion of rescue narratives in Kim's second link which I don't think I've fully digested), but it's a shame on the movie, yes.

To clarify, I don't mind that Broomhilda had to be rescued, it's just that it seemed like there were a few women in the movie used mainly as decoration, like that one lady in the fetishy french maid dress. I get that they're for a reason but IDK. I would've appreciated more time spent on Broomhilda, though, as you said it's really disheartening in comparison to Shoshanna in Inglourious Basterds.

[Kim]

I actually haven't read The Female Man, but I'm gonna second Smarty's recommendation of it on the basis that two very smart friends of mine absolutely love it. Anna said it brought her to tears.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Spoilers: It is about a man and then that man turns out to be a female. On reflection the title gives it away.

[Arcanum]

Spoilers: It is about a man and then that man turns out to be a female. On reflection the title gives it away.

My mind is blown.

[Bells]

this is a Tarantino-related thread... something should be getting blown sky high alright..!

[Marelo]

Leaving the theatre, I leaned toward reading Django Unchained as a commentary on violence, its motivations, and whether it's ever justified, and I think the film puts forth the idea that it usually isn't, but can be necessary to accomplish something worthy, but it's going to always be an awful task.

From a social justice perspective, it was a lot for me to digest. There are tons of ways to read a lot of what's going on. I still haven't made up my mind, but I think I'm leaning toward Kim and Pocheros' opinions.

From a straight-up entertainment perspective, it was pretty entertaining.

I don't regret seeing it.

[Magus]

Finally got to see this yesterday (I've been sick as a dog all through the holidays). Hilarious movie, definitely provacative, though I think he kept it...as semi-tasteful as you could expect from a Quentin Tarantino movie tackling this subject until near the end, where it devolved into outright insanity. I'd say my most memorable moment which actually had little to do with the plot was the "training montage" to the tune of "I Got a Name" by Jim Croce. Absolutely beautiful cinematography of the countryside during that sequence. The beautiful sights reminded me of Leone's opening for Once Upon A Time in the West. There are definitely Spaghetti Western influences on the movie that I think are enjoyable in and of themselves.

ABOUT THE RACE THING

I don't know how much I can comment on this movie as it does numerous provocative things with race, including tackling the "Uncle Tom" caricature head-on and directly instead of ignoring it (Samuel Jackson steals the movie, especially the second half). I can also see people being offended by scenes of brutality (which are if anything perhaps underexaggerated from the real experience) being interspersed with levity or not being treated seriously (though I doubt anyone would expect anything else form a QT movie).

Something interesting I took away from this movie--those who actively and knowingly aid the true criminals are punished more severely than those actually committing the acts themselves or ultimately the most responsible for the acts. The best examples I thinkare of Little Roger versus Big John and Stephen versus Candie--LittleRoger is shown in flashback and in present as the one who ties up slaves for Big John to beat on with the whip. In the film Big John issummarily executed whereas Django beats on Little Roger with a whipbefore shooting him several times. Roger dies a much more ignominious and violent death than Big John.

The same thing happens with Stephen and Candie--Candie is summarily
executed by Schultz, whereas Stephen is knee-capped and left to suffer for several minutes before the house explodes. A similar thing happens to Candie's right-hand man--he is shot several times, including in the groin, as opposed to dying quickly.

I'm not sure if Tarantino did this on purpose or not, but what I took away from it is that as bad as the people at the top are, the truly insidious people in scenarios like this are the Quislings who aid them while attempting to keep their own hands clean of ultimate responsibility. Evil people need to be killed, whereas traitors need to be annihilated. This is a bit different from Inglourious Basterds where the biggest brunt of the violence was reserved for those at the top. But I think he did it this way to show the insidious nature of people like Stephen who actively aided the white power structure, a bit like actual World War II Quislings who aided the Nazis. The ingratiation (and in Stephen's case, much of the actual power) comes at the cost of "their own". Not just evil, but traitorous. Again, not sure if that was Tarantino's purpose but that was what I got out of it.

[Azisien]

Django Unchained managed to steal away my childlike wonder of summer blockbusters, because I think it's my favourite movie of 2012. Though I guess 2012 can be summarized as a triad of The Avengers, The Hobbit, and Django Unchained.

I'll have to watch it a few more times once I secure a retail copy and add it to my collection, but based on first impressions, it's probably my favourite Tarantino movie. I went with a large (12, iirc) group of people, so the discussions after the movie were fun too. A fair chunk didn't like the movie because of the level of violence. I get it, but if you're 50 years old, haven't heard of the Tarantino formula yet, and can't read movie ratings, too bad so sad.

As for any racism/whateverism debate sparked by this movie, talk about a painted target. I mean, it doesn't get much more obvious. Though I haven't really heard too much uproar either. I can't decide if it's because I'm not searching actively for the uproar (I've read a handful of articles but ehhh), because it's Tarantino so his star power precludes much criticism, or because any uproar is just impulsive bandwagon-y horseshit. Eh, I'll just play it safe and go with the latter.

Anyway, still not sure where Django stands ultimately. But I've given it a 'must-watch' recommendation to most everyone I know.

[Solid Snake]

As for any racism/whateverism debate sparked by this movie, talk about a painted target. I mean, it doesn't get much more obvious. Though I haven't really heard too much uproar either. I can't decide if it's because I'm not searching actively for the uproar (I've read a handful of articles but ehhh), because it's Tarantino so his star power precludes much criticism, or because any uproar is just impulsive bandwagon-y horseshit. Eh, I'll just play it safe and go with the latter.

Welp, here comes the next godawful NPF social-justice 'conversation.'
How 'bout we just nuke the site in advance so I don't even have to see how horrifically offensive this one turns out.

[Arcanum]

I find that first link Kim posted (http://karnythia.tumblr.com/post/39415204208/whiteness-unchained-when-a-national-shame-becomes-camp) hilarious.

This is what I wondered at 3 AM with Tarantino’s defense still as fresh as a pile of shit in my mind: so anyone can speak on… anything they want? How many conferences on obstetrics and gynecology would doctors attend if they were conducted by plumbers? Who asks their barber or hairdresser to explain organic chemistry? Who gets their legal advice from a veterinarian?

Comparing a writer writing fiction to someone speaking at public seminars and conferences. That's one hell of a leap. We wouldn't have whole genres if writers only wrote about things they had in depth knowledge of. I'm not saying you shouldn't do research before writing (because you definitely should) but for this person to instantly assume Tarantino meant he can write about anything off the top of his head, it's laughable.

In regards to the slave violence complaints, i.e.
I’m talking about the two mandingo slaves who fight to the death in Calvin Candie’s parlor, ending with both men covered in blood and the victor not only clawing his victim’s eyes out by hand, but also smashing his face with a hammer. I’m talking about the slave who is attacked and torn to death by a pack of vicious dogs, a punishment ordered by Calvin Candie. I’m talking about Jamie Foxx as Django hanging naked from his ankles almost visibly castrated by a white slaver with an orange-hot blade, and Kerry Washington as his wife Broomhilda whipped and nearly bashed in the head with a hammer by Calvin Candie. As it turns out, the institution of slavery was not violent and/or awful enough, but must be saturated with a series of humiliations and atrocities in its storytelling.

I will just say that this quote from the third link Kim posted completely refutes everything the above quote says:
ndeed, the movie is at it's most affecting when violence against slaves is depicted; it's never played for laughs, and is meant to provide a visual sense of the evil of slavery (something many Americans still have a hard time grappling with).

Then there's this gem:

All I can say about Leonardo Dicaprio’s performance as Calvin Candie is that it made him less of a convincing actor and more of a convincing racist. He was a little bit too believable for me, and by that I mean the slave master stole the show from the slave.

You mean he's a good actor because he had you convinced of his character? Holy shit! It's almost like he's doing his job!

This is continued with:

The comic camp created around this national shame is expressed and made sympathetic through many exchanges of witty banter and Tarantino’s tendency to make heinous villains handsome, charming, and/or funny.

It's almost as if someone can be a horrible piece of shit despite being handsome, charming, and funny on the surface. But nope, clearly these traits are about garnering sympathy for the villain.

The complaints about the KKK scene are also unwarranted. The film is set "two years before the civil war" i.e. 1859. Meanwhile some basic research shows the KKK was founded in the 1860s. In other words, that scene has another joke hidden below all the other obvious ones, which is that that was the beginnings of the KKK before they were actually the KKK. I didn't even know when the KKK was founded when I first saw that scene, but I instantly assumed it was a jab at their origins based on the lack of signature hood/robes and general incompetence.

Schultz is, after all, the star and the one who avenges the slaves by killing Calvin Candie in the end. He was so overcome by his disgust for Candie’s racism that he just couldn’t help himself.

Okay now I'm convinced I watched a different movie than this person. Shultz didn't shoot Candie because "oh man this guy is getting too racist." If that was the case Shultz would have gunned him down the instant he had Broomhilda's papers in his hands (actually, probably sooner). Schultz was committed to the plan, and when that didn't go through he just wanted to get as far away from Candie as possible (because of his disgust for Candie's racism and brutality). What drove him over the edge was Candie's gloating and complete disregard over the deal they just made to further his gloating. It was the straw the broke the camel's back.

And Shultz's impulsive move doesn't even accomplish anything! He didn't cut off the serpent's head, he just plucked out one of the fangs. How can anyone see that as being the star and avenging the slaves when it just makes shit worse?! Was Hercules the hero when he cut off one of the Hydra's heads?

I feel bad for anyone taking to heart the content in that first link Kim posted, but really this is one of those films where you will see what you damn well want to see. If you want to hate this movie and see a film all about white privilege and slavery as a backdrop and whatever else the controversies are about, then that's what you will see. If you want to see a movie that reverses a lot of tropes, has the standard Tarantino violence and gore, and is overall entertaining, then that's what you will see. Just make up your mind on what you want to see before you step into the theater, because this film will apparently live up to your expectations regardless of what they are.

[Kim]

Just put Azisien on ignore.

Dude thinks "the race card" is an actual thing to complain about.

You'll live a much happier, more fulfilled life not knowing the words he says.

I'm not going to respond to what Arcanum said, because as a white person digging too deep into this is something I don't feel equipped to do. There's a reason I kept my comments on the film fairly minimal and focused on sharing what others had said. I mention this only because I feel it may be wise for others to consider doing the same before starting into this discussion.

[Arcanum]

So you as a white person don't want to dig to deep into this but you're okay with posting a lengthy blog post by a white person digging too deep into this? What?

[Kim]

So you as a white person don't want to dig to deep into this but you're okay with posting a lengthy blog post by a white person digging too deep into this? What?

Blog post which came to my attention by way of some black friends who felt it addressed some of their concerns about the film.

I don't feel equipped to discuss it in depth. I asked other people to consider whether or not they are before posting. This person felt equipped to discuss it in depth and made the post. Friends to whom these concerns are more relevant shared it with me. I in turn shared it with the forum. I don't feel any of these things are at odds with what I've said.

[Arcanum]

Sorry, I initially read this:
I mention this only because I feel it may be wise for others to consider doing the same before starting into this discussion.
as you advocating non-discussion based solely on race. That was a misunderstanding on my part, my bad.

[Kim]

Another article about Django (http://www.buzzfeed.com/roxanegay/surviving-django-8opx)

What struck me most, sitting there in that theatre, was how Django Unchained was a white man’s slavery revenge fantasy, and one in which white people figure heavily and where black people are, largely, incidental. Django is allowed to regain his dignity because he is freed by a white man. He reunites with his wife, again, with the help of a white man. Django Unchained isn’t about a black man reclaiming his freedom. It’s about a white man working through his own racial demons and white guilt.

This paragraph was pointed out by others, and I think it's an important thing to take note of, regardless of how you feel about the rest of the review.

[Lumenskir]

I might be misreading that paragraph, but isn't that very reductive to how the mentor archetype works in fiction? I mean, without Obi Wan being there to mind wipe stormtroopers and barter with Han, Luke is literally stuck on Tatooine/dead when the stormtroopers find him. Without Morpheus dropping out of the blue to lift Neo out of the Matrix we don't have a movie.

I like the way this discussion framed it (http://bigmediavandal.blogspot.com/2013/01/unchained-melody-two-troublemakin.html)
It's also the first scene to establish Schultz's M.O. of exploiting his own whiteness to the fullest. He uses his race and refinement like a CIA asset whose swarthy complexion and command of Arabic lets him move freely through the Muslim and Arab world. The fact that Schultz's ruse ultimately serves to turn a slave into an avenging outlaw is fucking thrilling to my black eyes.

I don't think that just because Django needs Schultz's help means he's helpless without Schultz, no more than any duo or team with complementary skills is helpless when considered individually. And I don't think it's fair to say that his accomplishments are lessened because he had to get help from a white person.

[Azisien]

Well, y'see, I actually read all of the articles posted in this thread regarding the movie so far out of genuine interest. Well-written some of them were, but pretty much all reliant on shitty arguments.

The one point that came up that rang true among everything was Tarantino's hypocritical use of "history." He invokes "historical accuracy" to use the word nigger ten thousand times in the movie, but says the movie isn't supposed to be historical and there's lots of modern slang that make its way into the movie.

Of course, I still don't agree with this point, but it was the most illuminating. I could see how someone walked away with that notion, feeling rather uncomfortable. Most of the discomfort though, is probably still just from the pure shock value of the movie, which is pretty high. I think the authors delivering this point said they had to avert their eyes and plug their ears constantly. Definitely not Tarantino regulars.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man there is still a lot of argument here- should I bite the bullet and go see it so I can provide the definitive proof of whether or not it is racist and how racist it is. I am the font of all wisdom after all, this is probably in my job description somewhere.

[Azisien]

You should. Be really drunk so your drunk vision can get to the bottom of this conundrum.

But most of the argument is based on articles posted by folks in the nethernet, I haven't even really seen much argument here specifically (as admitted, probably a few people have just censored their problems away - hmm, sounds familiar to some real world problems).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I think the main problem is very few of us have seen the movie. LIke I have plnty to say on various points raised in this thread but its not totally clearcut so I feel I'd really have to see it first and I think others are the same way.
I am thinking of analysising it through Tarantino's other movies though- as he tends to make the same movie over and over again.

[Bells]

If you are interested, go see it. Form an opinion on it. If you are not interested, say "fuck it" and put your cash on stuff you are interested in. If you are not interested but want to have an opinion on a movie you didn't see or a book you didn't read cause "you don't have to see it to know it's shit" well than that would be just presumptuously stupid out of anybody walking on this living earth, wouldn't it?

It's not like a list of all movies you saw make some sort of personal record like a police record that can shape what jobs or promotions or opportunities you can get in this world... if the movie peeked your curiosity, go see it. If it sucks, tear it a new asshole to anyone within earshot that gives you the time to listen... If it's Ok, just rant about the absurd price of popcorn...

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I judge people by what movies they have seen.

[Token]

Ahahahahahaha white people.
Y'all is more entertaining than the actual movie.

[Token]

"Oh no it isn't racist because [reasons]"
"Oh well I have BLACK FRIENDS so I get to say it's not acceptable"
"But what about the race card you cant just destroy my Blue-Eyes White Privilege like that!"

stfg

[POS Industries]

"Oh no it isn't racist because [reasons]"
"Oh well I have BLACK FRIENDS so I get to say it's not acceptable"
"But what about the race card you cant just destroy my Blue-Eyes White Privilege like that!"

stfg
I officially nominate Token for mod.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Do you even need a nomination process? I thought you were God-Emperor of NPF

[Revising Ocelot]

Just ban the entire forum and go home.

Problems solved forever.

[Token]

Oh god no.

[Nique]

Django probably features the normal amount of violence a Tarentino film has, which I think is problematic in itself because it seems to present violence as entertaining on it's own merit. Which, in my opinion, is a messed up value to have.

As far as whether or not the movie is racist, it sounds like a lot can be read into the movie. But since I'm not going to see it, can someone compare it to Will Smith's Wild Wild West, as another movie that places a black hero into an increasingly unlikely chain of events in the incredibly racist southern united states circa.1800s??

[Kim]

"Oh no it isn't racist because [reasons]"
"Oh well I have BLACK FRIENDS so I get to say it's not acceptable"
"But what about the race card you cant just destroy my Blue-Eyes White Privilege like that!"

stfg

Sorry

[Azisien]

As far as whether or not the movie is racist, it sounds like a lot can be read into the movie. But since I'm not going to see it, can someone compare it to Will Smith's Wild Wild West, as another movie that places a black hero into an increasingly unlikely chain of events in the incredibly racist southern united states circa.1800s??

Tarantino handled the CG sequences with the giant fireball spitting spider with a lot more eloquence and poise than Barry Sonnenfeld ever could.

[Magus]

There was also a similar level of rap music I would say.

Django probably features the normal amount of violence a Tarentino film has, which I think is problematic in itself because it seems to present violence as entertaining on it's own merit. Which, in my opinion, is a messed up value to have.

You just haven't experienced the pure joy of Punisher: War Zone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXKOHhSz8-U) yet.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Token you such a hilarious cracka.
If I ever start trolling (despite everyone accusing me of this, I pretty much never troll) I'm going to take after you.

[Bells]

Cracka Trollin with Token n' Smarty... sounds like a Youtube series...

...or maybe a Kevin Smith movie? I dunno...

[Magus]

Cracka Trollin with Token n' Smarty... sounds like a Youtube series...

...or maybe a Kevin Smith movie? I dunno...

Are we talking Mallcrackers Keven Smith or Cracker State Kevin Smith?

[Japan]

I don't really have any black friends anymore, sort of lost touch.

But I'm not really white either.

So in my decidedly light brown opinion, I can honestly say that watching this movie was the first time I ever exclaimed "fuck yeah" after watching a white woman get shot through a doorway.

I can also honestly say that I don't really understand what that reaction implies, about either the movie or myself.

[Magus]

I had some black roommates in college but I don't really have any black friends now. I demand that more black people move to rural Pennsylvania so I can befriend them and prove my non-racism.

[Bells]

Magus.... what did you do with your former black friend? It seems... from what i can see from your account of the tale that he was there.... and then he wasn't. And now he is not and you are looking for others.... WHAT DID YOU DO MAGUS!?



Seriously i think that's the most sinister insinuation joke i ever done in my whole life... what the fuck! i'm just going to take a bow now and leave the stage in a high note of a very flat B thankyouverymuchandsorry

[pochercoaster]

I don't really have any black friends anymore, sort of lost touch.

But I'm not really white either.

So in my decidedly light brown opinion, I can honestly say that watching this movie was the first time I ever exclaimed "fuck yeah" after watching a white women get shot through a doorway.

I can also honestly say that I don't really understand what that reaction implies, about either the movie or myself.

This (and the last 20 minutes) was the good part of the movie.

[Magus]

Magus.... what did you do with your former black friend? It seems... from what i can see from your account of the tale that he was there.... and then he wasn't. And now he is not and you are looking for others.... WHAT DID YOU DO MAGUS!?



Seriously i think that's the most sinister insinuation joke i ever done in my whole life... what the fuck! i'm just going to take a bow now and leave the stage in a high note of a very flat B thankyouverymuchandsorry

We did some homework projects together for the classes we had in common but that was about it. I only had about seven friends in college in totality, anyway, and they were all people I had classes with for the most part.

[PyrosNine]

Tarantino was an exploding Deus Ex Machina. From Australia.

Also, every death in that movie can be rated from Oh Crap!! to SERIOUSLY!? Every SERIOUSLY!? death is a wink from Tarantino to you, and you're supposed to notice how absurd and over the top it is in Bobobo style. Especially Candie's sister!

And a lot of the jerks who exist just to get shot by Django are famous actors making an appearance because it's a Tarantino movie.

Poor Horsies! :(

[Solid Snake]

Here's Mr. Tarantino setting the "violence in movies" dialogue back eons with stupidity, also comparing himself (under duress with a question he doesn't want to answer) to a slave which is kind of ridiculous. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GrsJDy8VjZk)

Edit: It's actually kind of funny that less than a couple minutes after he's congratulating himself for restarting a genuine conversation about slavery and race in America, and less than a couple minutes after expressing that he's using the interview to publicize the movie, he compares himself to a slave because he doesn't want to answer the interviewer's question, then criticizes the interviewer for asking tough questions for publicity purposes.

...Is this what Tarantino is usually like? Because if so, he's totes an asshole.

[PyrosNine]

Tarantino is a man who has the sense to make a good movie, and none of the sense needed to handle serious, topical, controversial subject matter with any sort of caution. Some other movie makers handle difficult subject matter gently, carefully, while he hits it with a bull dozer and doesn't care about the possible effects beyond whether or not it will make a good movie, because he doesn't know, care. He's in the business of making movies, not in starting social movements or swaying public opinion for the better.

In other words, : He's great in movies, but an idiot in everything else.

[Azisien]

Here's Mr. Tarantino setting the "violence in movies" dialogue back eons with stupidity, also comparing himself (under duress with a question he doesn't want to answer) to a slave which is kind of ridiculous. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GrsJDy8VjZk)

Edit: It's actually kind of funny that less than a couple minutes after he's congratulating himself for restarting a genuine conversation about slavery and race in America, and less than a couple minutes after expressing that he's using the interview to publicize the movie, he compares himself to a slave because he doesn't want to answer the interviewer's question, then criticizes the interviewer for asking tough questions for publicity purposes.

...Is this what Tarantino is usually like? Because if so, he's totes an asshole.

The interviewer here starts throwing loaded questions. Maybe that's his job, I dunno, but that's probably why Tarantino starts getting visibly pissed. To be clear, those were pretty loaded, not 'tough.' That the interviewer then sat there and kept trying to tease out his questions despite being - and I'm no conversational master here, but - REALLY CLEARLY shut down, is a sign he didn't know when to move on, or he wanted to get Tarantino as riled up as possible. And whether incompetent or asshole-ish himself, that's not positive.

Of course, Tarantino is obviously kind of a dick. I haven't watched a ton of interview footage of him, but he's always been kind of socially awkward. He could have answered the interviewer and moved on quickly, or just sat there deadpanning and saying 'no comment.' Lacking his special effects crew necessary to make the interviewer explode, I guess he's just a little rude.

[Solid Snake]

The interviewer here starts throwing loaded questions. Maybe that's his job, I dunno, but that's probably why Tarantino starts getting visibly pissed. To be clear, those were pretty loaded, not 'tough.' That the interviewer then sat there and kept trying to tease out his questions despite being - and I'm no conversational master here, but - REALLY CLEARLY shut down, is a sign he didn't know when to move on, or he wanted to get Tarantino as riled up as possible. And whether incompetent or asshole-ish himself, that's not positive.


I disagree. I don't see how those questions are 'loaded.' If Tarantino wants to make movies that glorify obscene amounts of violence, he should be ready to defend his use of those scenes in the movie. Tarantino acts indigent that the question would even be asked, which seems ludicrous to me. Of course that question's going to be asked. What director is so self-centered and arrogant to refuse to engage in a critical response to his work?

Prior to asking those 'loaded' questions, Tarantino noted that he was present at the interview to promote his product. And, stonewalling when asked those questions ultimately was far worse than simply relying on the First Amendment or making some other justification while actually answering the question.

[Azisien]

I disagree. I don't see how those questions are 'loaded.'

They are loaded because the interviewer is assuming the connection between real violence and fantasy violence as he asks the question. That is what a loaded question is. It's specifically designed to piss Tarantino off. Considering every movie he's ever made is violent, too, maybe he does feel like he doesn't have to answer that question, yet again. Though he did answer the first. He makes violent movies because he thinks they are entertaining. Both public critical response and public sales agree.

You know, like some NPFers don't feel like writing out long-winded counterarguments to bigotry anymore, and just opt for "ur dumb." That, plus 15 years.

I'll say this though. I think Tarantino is on drugs. He seems like he's on drugs. I've watched the clip twice now and I'm reasonably sure he's on a lot of cocaine. So maybe some of his behaviour can also be attributed to, he's on drugs.

[Solid Snake]

They are loaded because the interviewer is assuming the connection between real violence and fantasy violence as he asks the question. That is what a loaded question is. It's specifically designed to piss Tarantino off. Considering every movie he's ever made is violent, too, maybe he does feel like he doesn't have to answer that question, yet again. Though he did answer the first. He makes violent movies because he thinks they are entertaining. Both public critical response and public sales agree.


I don't see the interviewer making that assumption.
And even assuming that assumption is being made, and even assuming that the interviewer is 'wrong'* on the correlation between fantasy violence and real violence, his position is only being further supported by Tarantino's angry stonewalling. In other words, Tarantino's only supporting the underlying thesis of a correlation by refusing to engage on the topic. He's damaging his own cause.


* (I actually don't think the interviewer would be wrong to assume this, but that's a different subject entirely and bound to cause huge kneejerk arguments from gamers and fans of violent content who are offended by the mere possibility that our culture's a bit fucked up.)

[Azisien]

Well he's clearly super duper into the cocaine, so damaging his own cause is not a big problem for Tarantino.

**to the violence thing: sounds like a possibly fun discussion. My own position is very not-kneejerk, and pretty simple actually. On the topic of society being sick, though, agreed, due to a couple hundred factors (some of which have active discussions threads, right now)

In closing: we'll have to agree to disagree. I see the interviewer making that assumption, you don't. I don't think we'll convince each other one way or the other. Cocaine.

edit edit: Actually the loaded question thing is a smaller thing. I think he did it, so that is that. But the bigger mistake is just that he kept pushing Tarantino to answer the question(s) even though it's frighteningly obvious to even the most socially-inept folk that Tarantino just didn't want to talk about it or answer it. He should have moved on to his other questions instead of poking Tarantino with a stick for 2 minutes. Maybe he didn't because Ratings. If that's the case, interviewer wins, everybody is a dick (the interviewer is just the polite dick).

[Solid Snake]

**to the violence thing: sounds like a possibly fun discussion. My own position is very not-kneejerk, and pretty simple actually. On the topic of society being sick, though, agreed, due to a couple hundred factors (some of which have active discussions threads, right now)

On the related subject of violent videogames, I just think gamers really repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and feed into the negative perceptions of their hobby by kneejerkingly defending the most grotesque scenes under the guise of 'creative expression.'

In America, even the oft-lauded First Amendment never covered obscene content. And we're at a point where we as gamers should be the first in line to ask developers and ourselves whether certain content has artistic merit, of it's just being outrageously obscene for obscenity's sake.

I do believe that some of Tarantino's depictions of violence, maybe even in Django (though I haven't seen it), may be justified. We should be confronted with scenes that expose how truly and irredeemably awful slavery really was. A lot of it depends on the tone of the scene. Is the audience being asked to reflect upon how terrible the violence is, is the audience being asked to cheer the cathartic defeat of a monstrous villain, or is the violence just being glorified and existing for the mere sake of entertaining through gory close-ups of death and destruction?
I do think Tarantino just likes tossing in a bit of extra violence for violence's sake, and that's where his credibility is damaged. It lessens the impact of the violent scenes that do have a purpose, and it contributes to a broader discussion about how fucked up our obsession with grotesque, over-the-top violence is.


edit edit: Actually the loaded question thing is a smaller thing. I think he did it, so that is that. But the bigger mistake is just that he kept pushing Tarantino to answer the question(s) even though it's frighteningly obvious to even the most socially-inept folk that Tarantino just didn't want to talk about it or answer it. He should have moved on to his other questions instead of poking Tarantino with a stick for 2 minutes. Maybe he didn't because Ratings. If that's the case, interviewer wins, everybody is a dick (the interviewer is just the polite dick).

I agree with this -- the interviewer definitely didn't want to move off the subject of violence.
Where I think I disagree though is whether it's inappropriate for the interviewer to press Tarantino there. If Tarantino wants to be interviewed to increase the publicity for his upcoming release, he needs to understand that interviewers retain the right to challenge him and won't just fawn over his glorious presence. It seems to me like Tarantino only wanted to be asked positive questions that could lead him to sell his movie, and that's just not what good* journalists do.

TLDR: The tradeoff for the opportunity to market your work to an audience is that you will be criticized, and you should be able to handle the criticism and respond to it like a reasonable adult.

* (I have no idea whether or not this particular journalist is 'good' -- for all I know he's been a self-righteous jackass in other interviews. Doesn't change my general perception of his work here.)

[Azisien]

On the related subject of violent videogames, I just think gamers really repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot and feed into the negative perceptions of their hobby by kneejerkingly defending the most grotesque scenes under the guise of 'creative expression.'

In America, even the oft-lauded First Amendment never covered obscene content. And we're at a point where we as gamers should be the first in line to ask developers and ourselves whether certain content has artistic merit, of it's just being outrageously obscene for obscenity's sake.

Perhaps this should be a thread, then?

I do believe that some of Tarantino's depictions of violence, maybe even in Django (though I haven't seen it), may be justified. We should be confronted with scenes that expose how truly and irredeemably awful slavery really was. A lot of it depends on the tone of the scene. Is the audience being asked to reflect upon how terrible the violence is, is the audience being asked to cheer the cathartic defeat of a monstrous villain, or is the violence just being glorified and existing for the mere sake of entertaining through gory close-ups of death and destruction?
I do think Tarantino just likes tossing in a bit of extra violence for violence's sake, and that's where his credibility is damaged. It lessens the impact of the violent scenes that do have a purpose, and it contributes to a broader discussion about how fucked up our obsession with grotesque, over-the-top violence is.

Based on my one viewing of Django - most of the violence falls into the two groups that Tarantino mentions. Maybe the cathartic violence is actually two sets though: one part cathartic, one part over-the-top Tarantino-style violence (re: Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, etc). While a fully serious movie might get rid of the over-the-top part, I have to agree with him, it's entertaining for me, so I justify it that way. He was certainly going for the Spaghetti Western finale of the Hero just shooting loads and loads of Bad Guys trope, and it was worked in very well.


I agree with this -- the interviewer definitely didn't want to move off the subject of violence.
Where I think I disagree though is whether it's inappropriate for the interviewer to press Tarantino there. If Tarantino wants to be interviewed to increase the publicity for his upcoming release, he needs to understand that interviewers retain the right to challenge him and won't just fawn over his glorious presence. It seems to me like Tarantino only wanted to be asked positive questions that could lead him to sell his movie, and that's just not what good* journalists do.

TLDR: The tradeoff for the opportunity to market your work to an audience is that you will be criticized, and you should be able to handle the criticism and respond to it like a reasonable adult.

* (I have no idea whether or not this particular journalist is 'good' -- for all I know he's been a self-righteous jackass in other interviews. Doesn't change my general perception of his work here.)

What I can't possibly know from just that clip is that was it Tarantino overreacting, or the cocaine? I don't know much beyond this clip either. I SEEM to vaguely recall other interviews and overall he's just a pretty snippy guy, yeah.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Violence in movie/videogames defineatly creates violence in real life because I want to natural-born killers murder all the people complain about violence in the media.

[Magus]

Tarantino's pet peeve is being asked about violence in his movies' impact on society because he's been asked that question 900 times and gets tired of answering it. I'm not sure if an interview goes by where he isn't asked about it, though I think I remember an Inglorious Basterds interview on NPR that only mentioned it in talking about the cathartic qualities it has as "alternate history" fiction. He's said that he's answered that question multiple times in multiple interviews and has no more to say about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/everything-quentin-tarantino-really-thinks-violence-movies-200748205.html

There's also this rather infamous interview (popularizing his "BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH FUN, JAAAAN!" reaction):

n7k4GQSGvx8


For more on this particular movie, listen to his Django Unchained NPR interview:

http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/168200139/quentin-tarantino-unchained-and-unruly

Skip to 20:19 to hear him get somewhat comparatively pissed in a much less bombastic after he is asked, "Is it [movie violence] ever less fun after a massacre like Sandy Hook?"


Tarantino: Would I watch a Kung fu movie three days after the Sandy Hook massacre? Would I watch a Kung fu movie? Maybe, because they have nothing to do with each other.

Gross: You sound annoyed. I know you've been asked this a lot.

Tarantino: Yeah. I'm really annoyed. I think it's disrespectful to their memory, actually.

Gross: To whose memory?

Tarantino: To the memory of the people who died to talk about movies. I think its totally disrespectful to their memory. Obviously the issue is gun control and mental health.