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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Azisien

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 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?