Escape to the Movies: Django Unchained

[Therumancer]

Bla bla white-supremacist diatribe

While I'm always in favour of telling african-americans to get over themselves and stop acting like all whites everywhere are responsible for slavery, there's a pretty fundamental flaw to your argument;

Two wrongs don't make a right. No amount of previous injustices ever mitigate the evil of a later one. Would you argue the Berlin Wall wasn't too bad because, after all, they were only Germans?

... Also, "black egyptian slavemaster"? Egypt was never a "black" nation. Great Zimbabwe is the greatest "black african" empire to exist, Egypt was inhabited at first by north africans (what we today would consider ethnically Semitic or Persian) and later by Greco-Europeans (Cleopatra was Greek) and today by Arabs.

Well, speaking for myself I felt The Berlin Wall was a good thing. Germany basically made two attempts to take over the world, and had developed some truely frightening technology which we were in the process of divvying up with the Russians. Contrary to the Hollywood version, the Nazis were not some tiny minority within Germany, that somehow still managed to be omnipresent, and there was the issue of Germany's international influance and the alliances it managed to pull together both before and during the war, and the rather ambigious nature of some of the allies who were as much fair weather friends as anything. Simply put, I pretty much feel that keeping Germany split in half forever and never letting it regain it's feet would have been appropriate. As things stand now, I consider Germany's rapid recovery into a world power, especially economically, so quickly after the wall went down rather frightening. I don't care how much remorse they might claim for the World Wars, I personally do not trust them as a nation, and probably never will. As it is, I kind of depressingly notice that for every case of them removing all the Swatstikas from "Lego Indiana Jones" out of shame, it seems that someone manages to find some really "rocking" German Death Metal and innocently queries "wow man, why are the Germans so much better at this than everyone else?". Of course I am a militant at heart. While we should have let Germany re-unite eventually, the 80s were too soon (one of the few things I disagreed with Reagan on). I think we needed to keep them divided a few human generations at least, at least until nobody born during the baby boom after the war was still alive at any rate. Yes, it was mean, it divided families, it damaged their culture, etc... but that's kind of the point as far as I'm concerned. We should have waited for Germany to be broken before we pulled the wall down, shattered enough where this kind of immediate recovery wasn't going to happen. I know the reasons for the wall with the USSR, and what was said publically, but to me the idea was to ensure Germany would never be powerful again after two global wars. Right now Germany might not have a military like it did before, but economically speaking it's an absolute beast, and there are more kinds of power than military, I don't like Germany having any kind of weight in global affairs, at all.


Also, yes, I do believe that previous injustices do mitigate further ones. There is a point where you just have to get over it though. In the context of this discussion I think that QQing about slavery in the US is a problem because not only is it over with, but the guys who did it also ended slavery. We were also probably some of the nicest (comparitively speaking) slave owners ever. We could have justified keeping slavery alive forever by way of payback and being the most astronomically cruel bastards ever by way of payback and we would have just been square... we didn't though, we ended it, and have been trying to end it on a global scale. That's why it pisses me off when people want to continue to harp on this like it's somehow relevent, when even at it's worst it's nothing compare to crap going on right now in other parts of the world.

See, also the complaints about American slavery fuel the counter cultures which are holding back minorities in the US. Adding validity to "hey, your owed for how badly wronged your people were" which hardly speeds assimilation into mainstream culture.

Simply put, this isn't a forgotten issue, so there should be no real reason to throw it out there. Just let it take it's place as a historical footnote and move on.

 

[Therumancer]

I'm not saying Django is a bad movie on it's own merits, it just doesn't deserve credit for being anything other than a blaxploitation action movie, it doesn't go anywhere paticularly new, or say anything remotely relevent.

Apart from being an unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature? Dunno.

"Roots", "Amistadt" , we've been here before in the media. It's a fairly popular thing for people to drag up to get some quick contreversy. It's not like this is something people forgot about.

That said, my point isn't so much that the movie was made, it's that it receives any kind of Kudos for it, when it's just a generic violence "Blaxploitation" movie trying to use a really over the top version of historical events to justify the violence. While a decent movie on it's own, you can't say it carries any real menaing on the subject or has any redeeming value because of it. At the end of the day it's just an excuse to have a black dude shoot a bunch of white guys and be 'edgy' because of it.

Tarantino doesn't deserve a whole lot of credit for this one.

 

[Therumancer]

Apart from being an unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature? Dunno.

An unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature would instead focus on the everyday actions and inaction of everyday people that allows for the triumph of evil. Quentin Tarantino should really quit his dabbling in historical revisionism. Re-imagining these historical events in a fictional context as the result of the actions of extraordinarily evil caricatures fails to reflect the mundane, ordinary face of evil.

Ultimately, it will prove to be unhelpful.

I was mostly retaliating against the way Therumancer uses the golden rationalisations and relative virtue to fallaceously absolve America's past.

You at least have a cogent argument against the way Tarantino portrays history. I agree an adaptation of something like 'Huckleberry Finn' or 'The Longest Memory' by Fred D'Aguiar would probably promote more understanding.

More accuratly I don't think the USA needs to be absolved at all. The most notable thing about slavery in the USA is that we ended it, and then have been trying to end it on a global stage, as I've said before.

Trying to portray the USA's slavery as something unusually terrible is kind of ridiculous, but it's a grindhouse movie, so that's kind of forgivable. My problem is people like you and Bob acting like this movie has some kind of weight to it, when really it was probably some of Tarantino's worst work, pretty much a blaxploitation flick, trying to come up with an excuse to justify a black guy killing a bunch of white dudes, and thus being 'edgy' and 'contreversial' because of it. It doesn't merit praise, or even derision, just a basic "meh" since it's a pretty average movie.

If you wanted to have the movie carry meaning, and actually go somewhere new, then Django should have gone back to Africa to gun down a bunch of slavers and such there and fighting the trade from that end. That's something that hasn't really been done before, and would show a better understanding of the subject matter. Not to mention being a little more relevent to today, since that's where a lot of the current human trafficking still goes on.

 

[TAdamson]

The most notable thing about slavery in the USA is that we ended it.

More white-washing

Most other Western countries also abolished slavery long that time and in their colonies around that time. Being one of the last doesn't make American slavers any less vile than those of other countries.

Trying to portray the USA's slavery as something unusually terrible is kind of ridiculous,

As is trying to justify it using morally fallacious arguments involving golden rationalisation and relative virtue.

My problem is people like you and Bob acting like this movie has some kind of weight to it,

My problem with people like you is you dismissal of US slavery as something minor using golden rationalisation and relative virtue.

If you wanted to have the movie carry meaning, and actually go somewhere new, then Django should have gone back to Africa to gun down a bunch of slavers and such there and fighting the trade from that end.

No, you would have that happen because you are uncomfortable with southern whites slave owners carrying their fair share of the blame for the slave trade.

If they hadn't demanded slaves in the New World the slave trade wouldn't have reached the extent that it did. But no, you want to blame the enslavement of black africans on other black africans, not the people that demanded black africans to exploit.

Note that I don't think that North africans shouldn't also shoulder blame.

 

[GamerFromJump]

Even if it were going to be playing where I live, I don't think I'll be giving money to Mr. Jaime "Our Lord and Savior" Foxx.

Before anyone immediately calls, "Ohai butthurt Christian", I'm not a Christian, butthurt or otherwise. I just find that kind of cultish idolatry very offputting, and reserve my right in a free market not to support its purveyors.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Man, why the Bane hate?

I get that you didn't like Batman, Bob, but you're just trying to rile up the fans who did like it now. It's crass, and it came out of nowhere in the middle of an otherwise fine review.

you didn't even really make a joke, it was just "Bane sucked! On with the review."

 

[HellbirdIV]

I don't like Germany having any kind of weight in global affairs, at all.

So you're admitting that your entire schtick is based on the fact you're a bigot. Well, that was a whole minute wasted typing up a reply, give or take five seconds for this second one.

 

[Therumancer]

The most notable thing about slavery in the USA is that we ended it.

More white-washing

Most other Western countries also abolished slavery long that time and in their colonies around that time. Being one of the last doesn't make American slavers any less vile than those of other countries.

Trying to portray the USA's slavery as something unusually terrible is kind of ridiculous,

As is trying to justify it using morally fallacious arguments involving golden rationalisation and relative virtue.

My problem is people like you and Bob acting like this movie has some kind of weight to it,

My problem with people like you is you dismissal of US slavery as something minor using golden rationalisation and relative virtue.

If you wanted to have the movie carry meaning, and actually go somewhere new, then Django should have gone back to Africa to gun down a bunch of slavers and such there and fighting the trade from that end.

No, you would have that happen because you are uncomfortable with southern whites slave owners carrying their fair share of the blame for the slave trade.

If they hadn't demanded slaves in the New World the slave trade wouldn't have reached the extent that it did. But no, you want to blame the enslavement of black africans on other black africans, not the people that demanded black africans to exploit.

Note that I don't think that North africans shouldn't also shoulder blame.

It's not "white washing" or anything of the sort. Just the simple facts. You are just so in love with the idea that you don't care about any point demonstrating how stupid it is, and need to find any lopsided way you can to try and dismiss a point you don't like. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Truthfully I think you've gotten so fixated on argueing with me, you've long since lost sight of what your argueing against, which is why your getting thrashed, not that anything other than a debate was going to come out of the internet. You keep having to stretch futher and further.

For example, what are we argueing about here? Here is a hint. It's not slavery. It's about whether "Django" is a profound and praiseworth effort for approaching this forgotten and taboo subject, or a very average blaxploitation movie that has nothing paticularly original or profound to say on the subject. See, on most levels you've already lost by your own arguements, as pretty much everything you say is "known" pretty much means "Django" loses more and more points so to speak.

That said, you REALLY need to do some research, I mean big time. I hate to tell you this but slaving in Africa and The Middle East didn't come due to demand by europeans for slaves. Rather they were enslaving people there as a way of life, and it was simply a product that was exploited. The interest of Europeans neither expanded the market, or reduced it when they stopped taking slaves. Indeed human trafficking exists to a substantial degree all throughout that region much to the outcry of human rights groups.

To be honest slaves were simply a way of making money on the last part of a voyage. Do some reading about the "Trade Winds" and the triangle traders used to run. Slaves were simply something for them to load given the lack of anything else of value in the region so they wouldn't have empty holds on the way back. There weren't really that many dedicated slave ships, contrary to mythology, most were just traders which hung up some chains in their holds for the last leg, which is why the conditions were so deplorable. A lot of money could be made from slaves, but not so much that many people ran that as a dedicated path, this is one of the reasons why slaves were so expendable, unless the ship had failed to make a reasonable profit on the other legs of the trip. The ship would pretty much run the winds in the same directions, around and around in a gigantic circle doing the routes.

Yes, europeans DID exploit Africans and Arabs willing enslave each other, but had no real part in encouraging it as the slave trade was both establishing long before their involvement (and before there was civilization in Europe) and continues on until this day.

As far as the fault of Southern Slave Owners, well consider these guys DID wind up having their lands and fortunes destroyed. The South was pretty much devestated after The Civil War. The slaves were intentionally freed in the most irresponsible way in history so they would go crazy and level the infrastructure, with the Yanks using black soldiers disguised as slaves to make surgical strikes against hold outs and such.

It's not like people just said "your free" and after that war The South just went back to business as usual. The guys who were responsible got their butts pretty badly kicked, and then continued to be kicked while they were down.

See, there isn't any real social commentary or anything in Django, it's all about trying to be edgy with the black on white violence, with the slave thing just being an excuse, rather than any kind of an important point. It's neither accurate, or something that was glossed over.

If you wanted to be profound with the statement, having Django go back to Africa to kill the people who enslaved him (or his parents) would be, simply because that's something you generally don't see. The whole "white slave owners were da evil" is pretty much "duh" territory by modern sensibilities, and counter culture keeps the memory alive for political gain to the point where it's not like anyone forgot. There is literally nothing at all profound or worth of praise about this movie, it's an over the top "grindhouse" version of slavery (not accurate as mentioned, but meant to be over the top), with a lot of over the top gunslinging and fighting (at times). A pretty typical Tarantino movie overall, but without his usual intellectual touches since that's missing from the premise. You can say it's a pretty average move... good guy, bad guy, bad things, much violence. But nothing special to make it stand out as "OMG, this is so special because of the subject matter". Truthfully "Roots" covered a lot of the same material if you just want a condemnation of slavery (and that's the movie that arguably launched Levarr Burton, who aside from his role as Laforge was also insturmental in directing a lot of Trek episodes and such through DS-9, and thus worthy of being a subject of geekly worship).

 

[Therumancer]

I don't like Germany having any kind of weight in global affairs, at all.

So you're admitting that your entire schtick is based on the fact you're a bigot. Well, that was a whole minute wasted typing up a reply, give or take five seconds for this second one.

On some things I am indeed a bigot, that said I don't really consider this one of them. Two attempts to take over the world in one century is enough for me. I don't feel it's bigoted at all to think there should be repercussions for that, since this is something Germany actually did. Dividing the country up and rendering it irrelevent is NOT a nice thing, and pretty bloody extreme, but so are the reasons. It's not a situation where I think simple sanctions were sufficient, and to be honest I don't think having trust issues is unreasonable after that.

Look at the amount of money going through Germany right now, and the amount of economic power it has. During this global recession it seems to be weathering the storm fairly well compared to most other countries. I imagine as time goes on, especially with the climate the way it is, Germany is just going to become economically stronger, banking and such has always kind of been their thing.

You might trust them, I personally think it's too soon. In this case I think it's more cautious than bigoted. Culturally speaking germany has always been very, very, powerful. I don't see germany as being inferior to the US so much as I see a threat. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, but cripes... do we really want to go
for three times?

 

[TAdamson]

That said, you REALLY need to do some research, I mean big time. I hate to tell you this but slaving in Africa and The Middle East didn't come due to demand by europeans for slaves.

No-one said it did. Slavery has been around for thousands of years. But do you really think that demand doesn't affect supply?

Which brings me to your next point:

The interest of Europeans neither expanded the market, or reduced it when they stopped taking slaves.

I'd really like to see your evidence for this one.

Then again you're the sort of person who thinks that "documentries" on the Discovery channel are proof that the Mayans predicted the end of the world in 2012, and that your experience as a casino security guard gives you evidence that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles.

 

[Gunnyboy]

Interesting how every single white reviewer I've seen loves this movie (Jeremy Jahns, MovieBob, etc.) while a lot of black reviewers despise it (the guys over at Spill.com, for instance).

The Spill guys have shitty taste in movies

 

[GamerFromJump]

May I just observe that there are a disturbing number of people, both on the board and IRL, who seem to believe in the concept of bloodline guilt; one of the savage tendencies of humanity that we ought to be quit of to be called "civilized"?

 

[jecht35]

It's comments like these that make me think Poe was right in the house of usher. People seem to be unable to escape the baggage from our ancestors past, then let it define us.

 

[HellbirdIV]

May I just observe that there are a disturbing number of people, both on the board and IRL, who seem to believe in the concept of bloodline guilt

It's one thing to say that white americans should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors, and another to make them admit that their ancestors were horrible, horrible people. What this movie does is the latter.

 

[Markunator]

I will certainly go see this film when it comes out here in Sweden. However, I wanted to bring up that the Spill Crew (who very frequently disagree with Bob) didn't care much for the film. Their criticisms of the film were - among others - that it was widely uneven in terms of tone, that the N-word was overused in a way that just felt exploitative, that the characters played by Kerry Washington and Samuel L. Jackson were uninteresting. They said that people are letting all these problems with the film slide just because it's directed by Quentin Tarantino. One of the reviewers, Martin "Leon" Thomas, was so offended by the film that he no longer wanted to be a member of the Austin Film Critics Association, because he didn't want his name in an organization who would recommend a movie like this for everyone to see.

Anyway, this is their video review:

Here's their audio review, which is much longer:
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blog/show?id=947994:BlogPost:6042812

And this is a podcast in which one of the reviewers, Korey Coleman, discusses the film with his fans via phonecall (I haven't listened to this one yet for fear of spoilers):
http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/spill-call-in-show-django-talk

Anyway, what do you guys think of their opinion of the film?

EDIT:

Interesting how every single white reviewer I've seen loves this movie (Jeremy Jahns, MovieBob, etc.) while a lot of black reviewers despise it (the guys over at Spill.com, for instance).

The Spill guys have shitty taste in movies

Examples?

 

[dekster]

As it is, I kind of depressingly notice that for every case of them removing all the Swatstikas from "Lego Indiana Jones" out of shame, it seems that someone manages to find some really "rocking" German Death Metal and innocently queries "wow man, why are the Germans so much better at this than everyone else?"

Your whole post reeks of sciolism and historical inaccuracy, but that part's truly hilarious. What the hell has Death Metal got to do with anything? You think they're good at making music because they have "experience" killing people? (Also, in case you'd like to know, removing the swastikas has less to do with shame than the fact that Nazi symbols are banned in Germany.)

 

[Gearhead mk2]

So the basic premise is "black Punisher goes up against Hazama's slave owning great great great grandad." I want to see this movie SO bad. This has been a good year for violent works that have some meaning to them huh? Stuff like this, Zero Dark 30 and Spec Ops show we can talk about serious things in action films and games.

On a side note, how long before someone tries to get this film banned for saying anything about America that doesn't amount to "EMERICUH FOK YEH!"?

 

[Vigormortis]

He's popular and great in everyone else's eyes. He must be doing something right.

By that logic, Justin Bieber is one of the greatest musical artists and performers in history.

I'm just sayin', popularity is not an accurate metric for quality.

Anyway, what do you guys think of their opinion of the film?

I mostly agree with it. I think they harped a bit too much on the overuse of the word "******", but I agreed with everything else. Essentially, it was a decent to good film with a few awkwardly paced sections and some other bits feeling disjointed.

It was by no means a bad film, not even by any stretch of the imagination. However, I'm not sold on it being one of the "best" films of the year.

Even so, some of the performances were amazing. Especially Foxx and DiCaprio. However, Jackson's was a tad dull and Taratino's "cameo" was awkward.

The Spill guys have shitty taste in movies

Compared to what? Movie Bobs?

The same Movie Bob that openly defends Sucker Punch as a decent film?

Joking aside, neither the Spill crew nor Movie Bob have "shitty taste" in films. Taste, by it's nature, can't be "shitty". It's opinion. Opinion is subjective.

Somebody needs to put Tarentino on a leash. This one felt schizophrenic. FIrst hour good, went downhill, end kinda redeemed itself. Leo was good though.Also, some dumb kid talked through the whole movie, and he was analyzing it too, badly.

You know, this is probably true. If someone would just step in, once in a while, during filming to keep him from going off-the-rails, I'd probably be able to agree with some in seeing him as one of the best directors in the industry. One of my biggest complaints with many of his films is his tendency to over-indulge in some of his more pretentious eccentricities; of which often led to his films feeling uneven.

That's all he needs. Someone to say, "No Quentin. No."

[sub](that and to lay off the coke a bit)[/sub]

 

[Therumancer]

Man, why the Bane hate?

I get that you didn't like Batman, Bob, but you're just trying to rile up the fans who did like it now. It's crass, and it came out of nowhere in the middle of an otherwise fine review.

you didn't even really make a joke, it was just "Bane sucked! On with the review."

Since I'm done with my other arguements (mentioned I was withdrawing, and now the newly created troll accounts are appearing to egg me on.. soo) I thought I'd address this.

For all the things I disagree with Bob on, he seems to approach this from a very specific angle, that's hard to disagree with. Ask yourself what the differance between Bane, and say Red Skull and Loki (just to use the other super villains) is? The answer is simply that The Red Skull and Loki were played well, and very much like the comic characters. The actors stepped into the role of an existing character and played it to the hilt and were able to convince you that they were a well known super villain, more or less as you'd expect them to be. Bane in comparison isn't anything like his comics counterpart, he doesn't look like him, doesn't act like him, and is carrying an agenda that isn't even a Bane-type plot. Bane also doesn't belong there as a movie villain, because he's not the villain, he's the henchman OF the villain who doesn't appear until the end of the final act (I won't give any spoilers for the moment).

I'll also say something you rarely hear from me, but a lot from Bob. The character was also "white washed". See, I go off about cases where it's not true, or being read into or projected onto something, but I don't agree with changing the ethnicity of established characters. All of the things I said about changing Heimdall's ethnicity, or using Nick Fury's "Ultimate" counterpart, or whatever else apply here in reverse. Bane is one of the cooler Latino super villains out there, the fact that he's spanish, wears the Lunchadore mask, and got tough in the south of the border third world are all part of what makes the character who he is. Turning him into a big, muscular, white dude with a british accent is absolutly stupid.

I get that the Nolanverse was taking certain liberties with characters to make them a bit more realistic (as hard pressed as I am to use that term), but where the essence of most of the Batman rogue's gallery survived, Bane wasn't anything like "Bane" he was just some big, muscular, kung-fu guy in a scary mask. It was the kind of role that might have once been played by Bolo Yeung in kung-fu movies. Entertaining as a villain, creates jeopardy for the hero, but the thing is this is supposed to be an iconic character.


Now, I'm not saying that "Dark Knight Rises" was a bad movie, or anything of the sort. Just like I don't say "Thor" was a bad movie for changing Heimdall's ethnicity or anything. I'm not even saying Bane didn't fit well into that movie. However when your doing a comparison of the best movie villains of the year, along with two actors who were able to play their character as it was created (the sign of acting abillity) as opposed to more or less having something written specifically around him, Bane *does* fall short... even if you liked "his" movie overall. On top of that, as I pointed out above, Bane isn't the villain of the movie, he doesn't belong on villain lists. He's a henchman, an attack dog. I won't say more about it for spoiler reasons though. In the comics he's a villain in his own right, here he is not.