Is Django Unchained racist?

[baboon2004]

Corbucci was much better at dealing with women than Leone or any of the others.

this sounds very sinister . Edit: though come to think of it, isn't that one of the jokes in pulp fiction?

Thanks for the Corbucci recs, will check them out.

 

[...]

Ha, yes. Portraying, then. That sounds prettier. There're a lot of proper righteous gals in his flicks.

 

[IdleRich]

"But isn't that because he wanted to make The Gestapo's Last Orgy?"

I think he wanted to make a film about a load of films and that was one of them. I suppose you could argue that with Django if you are determined to put together a Spaghetti Western and a Blaxploitation film you're almost forced into making a film about slavery.

 

[e/y]

Haneke recently criticised Schindler's List:

I suppose that his criticism that it is manipulative can be directed at Funny Games, too, but then FG isn't dealing with history the way that SL is.

 

[Bangpuss]

It looks to me like an Inglorious Basterds prequel. I'll say this about Tarantino, in relation to his films being less formulaic than your average Hollywood guff. He's full of contradictions.

They're not as unimaginative with their dialogue, characterisation, music, cinematography, structure, you name it, as most films with Samuel L Jackson or Leonardo Di Caprio tend to be. They're more dynamic, more entertaining. He seems to respect his audience enough to go above and beyond this tripe for them. But it's also the kind of indulgent self-worship which plays on a prejudice of his audience as blood-hungry attention-span-deficient bozos by saying, look how talented I am in that I can make you hold on longer than other directors before giving you your pay off. Watch me do this. In some ways, the virtuosity is refreshing, not to mention entertaining. A film-maker marching into multiplexes and titillating the action crowd not just with stylish violence but dialogue and characterisation and references from arthouse and obscure b-movies is cool. I wish it happened more. (Although when Guy Richie had the same idea, look how that turned out. And all the raft of movies post-Pulp Fiction that made you wish they'd just made a nuts-and-bolts thriller without all the jump-cuts, sub-Tarantino dialogue and non-linear narratives. It makes your realise how good Tarantino is when you see his imitators fall so far short.)

BUT Tarantino has his own formula for building a movie. This can also be tiresome, just like Adam Curtis can become tiresome, because the more of them you see, the more you feel the content is all just fuel for the director's showboat. They're a series of set-ups for him to show off, so it really doesn't matter if it's the holocaust or the slave trade being depicted. And I use 'depicted' in the loosest possible sense. Because they're all just costumes, sets and characters, which both revel in and (at their best) critique the nonsense of Hollywood portraying history.

On a more simple note, I find it hard to believe that Tarantino in any way intended for a movie to be racist. Not the guy who grew up in a black area of LA, and has worked with so many black actors, musicians, etc. He's probably too focused on making it flow well as a music video than to actually care about the content's themes. The fact that people are even discussing Django Unchained as having any kind of historical significance probably makes him laugh. He'd probably say to stop taking it too seriously, but take QUENTIN very seriously.

 

[...]

I think I agree with all of that. Good post.

 

[CrowleyHead]

It looks to me like an Inglorious Basterds prequel. I'll say this about Tarantino, in relation to his films being less formulaic than your average Hollywood guff. He's full of contradictions.

They're not as unimaginative with their dialogue, characterisation, music, cinematography, structure, you name it, as most films with Samuel L Jackson or Leonardo Di Caprio tend to be. They're more dynamic, more entertaining. He seems to respect his audience enough to go above and beyond this tripe for them. But it's also the kind of indulgent self-worship which plays on a prejudice of his audience as blood-hungry attention-span-deficient bozos by saying, look how talented I am in that I can make you hold on longer than other directors before giving you your pay off. Watch me do this. In some ways, the virtuosity is refreshing, not to mention entertaining. A film-maker marching into multiplexes and titillating the action crowd not just with stylish violence but dialogue and characterisation and references from arthouse and obscure b-movies is cool. I wish it happened more. (Although when Guy Richie had the same idea, look how that turned out. And all the raft of movies post-Pulp Fiction that made you wish they'd just made a nuts-and-bolts thriller without all the jump-cuts, sub-Tarantino dialogue and non-linear narratives. It makes your realise how good Tarantino is when you see his imitators fall so far short.)

BUT Tarantino has his own formula for building a movie. This can also be tiresome, just like Adam Curtis can become tiresome, because the more of them you see, the more you feel the content is all just fuel for the director's showboat. They're a series of set-ups for him to show off, so it really doesn't matter if it's the holocaust or the slave trade being depicted. And I use 'depicted' in the loosest possible sense. Because they're all just costumes, sets and characters, which both revel in and (at their best) critique the nonsense of Hollywood portraying history.

On a more simple note, I find it hard to believe that Tarantino in any way intended for a movie to be racist. Not the guy who grew up in a black area of LA, and has worked with so many black actors, musicians, etc. He's probably too focused on making it flow well as a music video than to actually care about the content's themes. The fact that people are even discussing Django Unchained as having any kind of historical significance probably makes him laugh. He'd probably say to stop taking it too seriously, but take QUENTIN very seriously.

Agree strongly w/ this.

It's also a little disheartening that Tarantino's moral agendas don't register with his larger audience. I saw Django in a theater, and I watched so many of the similar people who, when I saw Basterds (which, I dislike a lot) rise up for rapturous applause and whoops, fall flat and seem ridiculously uncomfortable. All due respect to you guys, but the reality of a movie where white Americans get slaughtered by a black male is so loaded that no matter what Tarantino might actually think he does, he unintentionally creates a vivid statement. Then again, I'm also tired how he traded in his clunky naive 'feminism' after "Death Proof" got publicly panned, for a movie like Basterds which is grossly misogynist.

 

[Bangpuss]

Agree strongly w/ this.

It's also a little disheartening that Tarantino's moral agendas don't register with his larger audience.

Does Tarantino have any moral agendas? I've not really looked into it, so I may be wrong. He may well have made some statement about his films having a moral message, but I've not seen it. From what I've read, he's been pretty much consistent in saying that onscreen violence is totally different from actual violence, and the two shouldn't be linked. (The same applies to the violence of slavery, naturally.) Disagree with him if you like, but he's set out his stall. I don't think he's claiming this is anything other than a fantasy, or that it has any real historical significance. In doing so, I'd say it's a more honest film than most of Hollywood's 'historical' films.

(This may change, of course, when I actually see it!)

 

[e/y]

I think this is a really interesting take on IB:

 

[IdleRich]

"It looks to me like an Inglorious Basterds prequel. I'll say this about Tarantino, in relation to his films being less formulaic than your average Hollywood guff. He's full of contradictions.
They're not as unimaginative with their dialogue, characterisation, music, cinematography, structure, you name it, as most films with Samuel L Jackson or Leonardo Di Caprio tend to be. They're more dynamic, more entertaining. He seems to respect his audience enough to go above and beyond this tripe for them."

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

"But it's also the kind of indulgent self-worship which plays on a prejudice of his audience as blood-hungry attention-span-deficient bozos by saying, look how talented I am in that I can make you hold on longer than other directors before giving you your pay off. Watch me do this. In some ways, the virtuosity is refreshing, not to mention entertaining. A film-maker marching into multiplexes and titillating the action crowd not just with stylish violence but dialogue and characterisation and references from arthouse and obscure b-movies is cool. I wish it happened more. (Although when Guy Richie had the same idea, look how that turned out. And all the raft of movies post-Pulp Fiction that made you wish they'd just made a nuts-and-bolts thriller without all the jump-cuts, sub-Tarantino dialogue and non-linear narratives. It makes your realise how good Tarantino is when you see his imitators fall so far short.)"

That happens in any field though doesn't it? Someone comes along with something new and good and a million inferior imitators come along with their take on it. You can't really blame the originator for that though even if their overall effect is to ruin music/film/books for years.

"BUT Tarantino has his own formula for building a movie. This can also be tiresome, just like Adam Curtis can become tiresome, because the more of them you see, the more you feel the content is all just fuel for the director's showboat."

True enough but I think his films are slightly more varied than you give him credit for - Kill Bill parts 1 and 2 for instance feel completely different from each other. Also, I think you notice his style more cos all the other directors are so similar - in action films it's almost as if you have Tarantino and Other, if there were more categories I don't think his stuff would seem as familiar as it does.

"They're a series of set-ups for him to show off, so it really doesn't matter if it's the holocaust or the slave trade being depicted. And I use 'depicted' in the loosest possible sense. Because they're all just costumes, sets and characters, which both revel in and (at their best) critique the nonsense of Hollywood portraying history."

Well maybe it doesn't matter in terms of how good the film is but it might matter to someone in other ways.

"On a more simple note, I find it hard to believe that Tarantino in any way intended for a movie to be racist. Not the guy who grew up in a black area of LA, and has worked with so many black actors, musicians, etc."

Surely no-one thinks it's intentionally racist, that's not the question.

"He's probably too focused on making it flow well as a music video than to actually care about the content's themes."

Probably true - but maybe he shouldn't be.

"The fact that people are even discussing Django Unchained as having any kind of historical significance probably makes him laugh. He'd probably say to stop taking it too seriously, but take QUENTIN very seriously."

True. He's said a couple of unwise things but possibly he's made a cartoon that happens to be about slavery and it never crossed his mind that it could annoy someone. But if that's right then he's a little foolish no?

 

[e/y]

If he didn't give it any serious thought then that is more than a little foolish considering the subject he's working with.

 

[Bangpuss]

OK, researched this a little more and, crucially, seen it. Just walked out of it in fact. Not walked out as in left early, but exited at credits.

And here's my thoughts: it is, as I expected, a brilliantly put-together film in the same vein, and the same style, as Inglorious Basterds. The music is awesome. Bringing hip-hop in seemed natural and right, and made my heart pump. All the lead actors are incredible (even Leonardo Di Caprio, for whom 'decent' is usually a compliment.)

Is it racist? No. It's a blaxploitation flick dressed up as a western. I can see why some people say portraying the blacks-rise-up as a fantasy is a racial narrative, since it implies that black people didn't rise up. But there's way more dispelling the myth of black subservience than there is enforcing it.

I hear that Tarantino did make some pretty dumb remarks about giving people the opportunity to talk about slavery, as though it hasn't been debated already. Shut up, Quentin. You're not racist, but your ego means you should let the movie itself do the talking on such matters. Because the movie itself is a brutal, yet thrilling and satisfying trip into the hideousness of institutional racism, and subservience.

It also wouldn't be possible to discuss Django Unchained without making reference to Tarantino's own monumental screen presence. I mean, that was just straight-up bizarre. Why on earth did he feel the need to cast himself? As a fat Australian? Dude needs an editor. And a gag. But what the hell, he did good.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

still not seen this but tarantino has been hilarious talking about how django will get people talking about slavery. all im seeing is people talking about how tarantino thinks people will get people talking about slavery. but slavery hasnt been mined anywhere near as much as the holocaust, so any film that does feature it is going to be more scrutinised (i wish spike lee's comment about it was actually a bit more sane sounding and reasoned its points better, rather than sounding like exactly the type of random spike lee comment you would expect him to make). i guess the fact that tarantino has a raging fetishy erection for the 70s black male action heroes he saw as a kid also makes it seem a tad creepier. but im thinking that most people dont really know all that much about slavery. (i also find it funny how when this film is discussed on radio or tv or most places it seems, the complacent 'oh im just so above it all' contingent never invite anyone connected to slavery (i.e. someone black) or a historian on the subject at least, to talk about it.) then again i have been surprised at how depoliticised most of the reviews of zero dark thirty have been so maybe thats just what we should expect from modern film critics.

i am sort of looking forward to seeing it though. as far as modern blaxploitation - which is what this seems to be, just in the body of a western, black dynamite was mostly crappy - pretty sure this will be tons better.

 

[baboon2004]

(i also find it funny how when this film is discussed on radio or tv or most places it seems, the complacent 'oh im just so above it all' contingent never invite anyone connected to slavery (i.e. someone black) or a historian on the subject at least, to talk about it.) .

Well, however well intentioned, films about slavery, just like films about the Holocaust, will encourage that kind of smug 'racism/complicit passivity in the face of evil are no longer an issue' reaction.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

that made me think of this piece i read this week and the banality of evil about hitlers home movies (although the reaction it provoked when first shown was a bit different to django, perhaps as there, the evil was distant and other whereas with slavery the evil is closer to home and much harder to pin on any one person) -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/27/hitler-home-movies-eva-braun

 

[Local Authority]

I've completely overlooked this film as a film about racism and slavery. All it is, is a homage to the films that have influenced him. He may try to depict his films having some sort of intellectual premise but we all know they don't and we may know that he doesn't intend them too. They have an idea which he uses as context to create the film but I don't think they should be taken as more than that.

The film itself, is inherently racist, as much as anything made by an institutionally white male trying to depict the hardship of the people who his ancestors may have suppressed will be.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

tarantino is a pretty immature man... hes a cineliterate man-child, with the sensibilities of a teenage boy. im sure hes not the only one in that regard, but he really is all about the sensation (not even just style) over the substance. but he is also a genius, albeit one that can often feel a bit ersatz. so yeah i think he knows he has nothing to really 'say' about slavery, even if he loves to pretend he does, but im wondering what his next film will be about. its as though hes picking 'important' eras in history now to get away with violence so he can pass it off as being righteous. id love to see him do a native american revenge western, totally turning the conventions of the genre on its head.

 

[Mr. Tea]

The film itself, is inherently racist, as much as anything made by an institutionally white male trying to depict the hardship of the people who his ancestors may have suppressed will be.

Is being "institutionally white" any different from common-or-garden being white? Moreover, is it therefore impossible for any white director to make a film about black slavery and it not be racist? Would it still be racist if a black director had made the same film, shot for shot and line for line?

Maybe I've got this wrong but I didn't think an individual could be "institutionally" anything...

 

[IdleRich]

"The film itself, is inherently racist, as much as anything made by an institutionally white male trying to depict the hardship of the people who his ancestors may have suppressed will be."

And how much is that?
Seems like an institutionally dumb comment to me.
Ancestors may have suppressed? If we're gonna judge anything on what conceivably might have been done by their ancestors to someone else's then... I can't even be bothered to pick that apart to be honest, just go away and think a bit and see if you can make that point properly so I can judge if it's as stupid as it appears to be.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

i liked it. found it interesting as its got the usual QT flourishes, but its also in some ways his least QT film to date, the dialogue in particular. its almost like his version of doing a 'studio' and an old school genre picture at once. it is almost two films, one which is QT doing comedy, like a slavery western panto. very strange. made me think of mel brooks. some of the acting from chris waltz seemed esp hammy in the beginning. QT was really going for the vibe of those old europan westerns. and its also like a buddy movie - i felt that the whole righteous revenge thing was undermined by having schultz there. as though they thought a white character was needed as an 'in' for the wider audience who might find it too much to have a film set during slavery and a black lead out to basically kill all the white characters (also to assuage white guilt on part of the audience by providing evidence of someone who went against the prevailing beliefs of the time). but they were a team i would say, it wasnt like schultz was doing everything. also found the actual revenge part satisfying but slightly underwhelming - in a way there wasnt really enough of it. sure theyre bounty hunters so fox gets to kill white people but there wasnt nearly enough of the whipping scene, scenes where he gets to really destroy the agents of slavery he really wants to punish. the film almost deprives you of this. because if this really was an all out slave revenge, it would have played out quite diff to a more conventional revenge movie (dont get me wrong, the shoot out was still pretty great).

in terms of a definitive depiction of slavery, it doesnt really stand up. it isnt v interested in probing slavery beyond the obvious horrrendousness - which it does pretty well, but its more interested in it as a vehicle for violence and cartoony villains, which robs it somewhat of the blood curdling power it might have had and what i was half expecting from what the cast and QT had been talking about (all the realism etc). so theres no real insights about it. and though some of the violence is truly nasty - like the wrestling scene - had he shown some of what really went on, it would have been genuinely unbearable. its not as controversial as people seem to think. but anyway, the last act is pretty badass. which is what a QT film is meant to be about (i confess, i even liked deathproof).

foxx and his wife's accents didnt seem properly southern though and a lot of the music choices made this prob the worst QT soundtrack so far - there was no need for tupac or rick ross! his films have always existed in some weird time-space (jackie brown had foxy brown on the soundtrack) but here it was made worse as its set in a prior century and there obv wasnt any hip hop around back then lol. shame he didnt bother using any time-specific music.