I don't know if it's been said yet, but the real "original sin" of America would be the genocide and cultural rape of the Natives, which is the only disagreement I have with Bob's review.
It's like why Star Wars looks to be all bars and imperial bases. I'm sure there are bakeries, but they're not relevant.AzureFlameLord said:I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.
However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.
My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.
Well, that is a problem to me, because I live in the Southern States. Yes, slavery was an unspeakable evil, and the continued racism after the Civil War was arguably worse. However, to exaggerate the hatred and ignorance present within the Southern States or to imply that there was nothing else through lack of representation is completely unfair and unjust. Certainly it was not the point of the film at all, but less informed people could watch this film and develop biases towards the Southern States. This sort of thing is the reason that many people up north think we still don't have internet or running water here. The South is where a lot of horrible things like the Ku Klux Klan thrived, but it is also the source of much of America's unique culture. Hospitality and friendliness is an unspoken code that has permeated Southern society due to its background of small agricultural communities. I just think it's ridiculous and unfair that, to Tarantino, every White American was an evil bastard while the only whitey with human traits was a German immigrant. Maybe I'm taking it too personally, but it seems to me that Tarantino may have aimed his theme of "revenge" too broadly.Benpasko said:It's like why Star Wars looks to be all bars and imperial bases. I'm sure there are bakeries, but they're not relevant.AzureFlameLord said:I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.
However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.
My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.
Naw man dont worry about it im from mississippi I dont think it will be like that. Not for the majority of mature smart humans anyway.AzureFlameLord said:Well, that is a problem to me, because I live in the Southern States. Yes, slavery was an unspeakable evil, and the continued racism after the Civil War was arguably worse. However, to exaggerate the hatred and ignorance present within the Southern States or to imply that there was nothing else through lack of representation is completely unfair and unjust. Certainly it was not the point of the film at all, but less informed people could watch this film and develop biases towards the Southern States. This sort of thing is the reason that many people up north think we still don't have internet or running water here. The South is where a lot of horrible things like the Ku Klux Klan thrived, but it is also the source of much of America's unique culture. Hospitality and friendliness is an unspoken code that has permeated Southern society due to its background of small agricultural communities. I just think it's ridiculous and unfair that, to Tarantino, every White American was an evil bastard while the only whitey with human traits was a German immigrant. Maybe I'm taking it too personally, but it seems to me that Tarantino may have aimed his theme of "revenge" too broadly.Benpasko said:It's like why Star Wars looks to be all bars and imperial bases. I'm sure there are bakeries, but they're not relevant.AzureFlameLord said:I agree with everything said in this review. The movie IS incredibly well acted, shot, and paced. I have absolutely no complaints aside from a feeling I got toward the very end that they were dragging the plot's resolution out a bit too long. Even that may have been Tarantino's way of emulating a Spaghetti Western style, so I can't really fault him for it.
However, I would like to bring up a question that is not based on my own knowledge or opinions, but was instead brought up by a historically... versed friend with whom I saw the film.
He believed that Tarantino's sensationalist nature, which is focused upon riling up the audience and inciting an aggressive emotional investment in his films, played a major part in his depiction of slavery and Southern racism within the movie. For the vast majority of the film, the entire population of the Southern States (I think they focused primarily on Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) is represented as being just as aggressively and sadistically racist as Calvin Candie himself. While the mindset of White Americans at the time was programmed through generational teachings to believe themselves racially, intellectually, and culturally superior to black citizens and slaves, this sort of aggression and cruelty should not have been as common or consistent as Tarantino made it seem. Pretty much every location was depicted as being either a slave market or a plantation.
My question to anyone who has an opinion to share or wishes to enlighten me is: Do you believe this is an unfair exaggeration on Tarantino's part in order to accomplish more of an emotional weight within his film, or is he justified?
Anyway, sorry for the wall of text.
Therumancer said:To be honest there is nothing really all that terrible about the USA's participation in the slave trade. To be honest not only were we comparitively a set of lightweights, we're actually more signifigant for ending slavery and then championing human rights, than we are for the handfull of decades where we actually practiced it.
Historically speaking, it was the "races" (I use the term in quotes since we're all human) that are viewed as minorities within the US that practiced slavery for the longest and most brutally, and actually continue to practice it today. Indeed freedom (nobody effectively owning anyone else in a way society recognizes) is what makes the first world what it is.
As things stand now, it's a huge issue that throughout Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and even large portions of Eastern Europe and Eastern Bloc states, human trafficking thrives.
When you consider that the USA and first world europe are probably the most free places in the world, and it's the muscle of countries like the USA at least trying to stop human trafficing, it's kind of odd to see movies that want to portray us as something special here... a movie trying to address an issue that is only signifigant due to white guilt doesn't deserve much in the way of credit for it's subject matter.
I'm pointing this out less to start an arguement about geo-politics, but to point out that as entertaining as a movie like "Django" might be if you don't think too hard about it, to really address the subject matter you'd need to say have your "Django" type character head back to Africa to kill the people who actually enslaved him and then sold him to europeans.
Also in the scope of history if your going to think in terms of blood-soaked justified vengeance over history, you could consider douchebags like Leonardo Dicaprio's character a fitting payback for the injustices which were first visited upon whites, and for much longer.
If your going to give someone kudos for handling a subject matter, at least they should handle it right. That said, I don't think "Django" was even trying to handle it right, which is kind of the point, it deserves no real praise for doing something it never accomplished. It's basically a piece of blaxploitation trash cinema, created with a combination of old school and modern techniques.
Therumancer said:To be honest there is nothing really all that terrible about the USA's participation in the slave trade. To be honest not only were we comparitively a set of lightweights, we're actually more signifigant for ending slavery and then championing human rights, than we are for the handfull of decades where we actually practiced it.
Historically speaking, it was the "races" (I use the term in quotes since we're all human) that are viewed as minorities within the US that practiced slavery for the longest and most brutally, and actually continue to practice it today. Indeed freedom (nobody effectively owning anyone else in a way society recognizes) is what makes the first world what it is.
As things stand now, it's a huge issue that throughout Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and even large portions of Eastern Europe and Eastern Bloc states, human trafficking thrives.
When you consider that the USA and first world europe are probably the most free places in the world, and it's the muscle of countries like the USA at least trying to stop human trafficing, it's kind of odd to see movies that want to portray us as something special here... a movie trying to address an issue that is only signifigant due to white guilt doesn't deserve much in the way of credit for it's subject matter.
I'm pointing this out less to start an arguement about geo-politics, but to point out that as entertaining as a movie like "Django" might be if you don't think too hard about it, to really address the subject matter you'd need to say have your "Django" type character head back to Africa to kill the people who actually enslaved him and then sold him to europeans.
Also in the scope of history if your going to think in terms of blood-soaked justified vengeance over history, you could consider douchebags like Leonardo Dicaprio's character a fitting payback for the injustices which were first visited upon whites, and for much longer.
If your going to give someone kudos for handling a subject matter, at least they should handle it right. That said, I don't think "Django" was even trying to handle it right, which is kind of the point, it deserves no real praise for doing something it never accomplished. It's basically a piece of blaxploitation trash cinema, created with a combination of old school and modern techniques.
He's popular and great in everyone else's eyes. He must be doing something right.malestrithe said:I have no real love for Tarantino. It is not because he takes pieces of obscure foreign movies and makes his own mashups of them (Which is one those tired pop culture arguments you either missed or did not think of). Even Spielberg and Lucas did that, (Hidden Fortress is Star Wars in plot and storybeats). I dislike him for getting praise for really doing nothing. His most famous movie, Pulp Fiction, is a simplistic movie with the "innovative" conceit of showing the story out of order. If that movie was shown the way the narrative demanded, he would not have that hip and trendy label attached to him.
Actually it DOES make it less reprehensible, since the tone of movies like this makes it out to be a uniquely American issue. It's fine to say slavery was wrong, after all we abolished it for a reason, but to make American slavery out to be something special, or worthy of paticular consideration or vengeance, especially when there are far worse forms of slavery than anything we did continueing to go on right now, is something that I have a problem with.TAdamson said:This is exactly the sort of casuistic moral equivication and moral fallacy that I'd expect from you Therumancer.
So because there was slavery of all people in the far past and slavery in the present that makes the use of African slave labour in the Southern States and the rest of the Americas less reprehensible?
So the fact that it was partially Africans or Arab Africans who responded to the American demand for slaves that somehow makes the ownership of slaves by Southern plantation owners less reprehensible?
Typical of you Therumancer that you attempt to whitewash what is rightfully considered to be a dark stain on the US past with the with specious Golden Rationalisation and Comparative Virtue. Yes, everybody country and culture that participated in the slave trade should look deep into its soul. The US makes that introspection occasionally and people like you cry tears about "white-guilt", that "other's were just as bad", that "slavery was practised for all of human history".
The US is actually so introspective is the indelible stain that it has left on US society. Slavery gave way to white supremecism and segregation. African Americans still find themselves disproportionally targeted in some areas by law enforcement. These things have gotten better, but playing the "comparitive virtue" card, that it's worse in other nations in the world, doesn't make it okay. Comparing one's culture to worse or the worst of human cultures is not interesting nor does it lead to the introspection required for improvement.
I would also ask you Therumancer about why you cry so much about "White-Guilt"? Perhaps it is because you feel the phenomenon keenly and therefore being reminded about the trangressions of the past upsets you so that you must find these flawed justifications for the things that were done?
So no. Tarantino does not need to have Django go back to Africa to kill his original enslavers. It's an American movie speaking directly to and limiting itself to the US experience with slavery. Films and other forms of discussiondo not need to explore
By that standard, Michael Bay should have a mantle full of Oscars by now...MegaManOfNumbers said:He's popular and great in everyone else's eyes. He must be doing something right.malestrithe said:I have no real love for Tarantino. It is not because he takes pieces of obscure foreign movies and makes his own mashups of them (Which is one those tired pop culture arguments you either missed or did not think of). Even Spielberg and Lucas did that, (Hidden Fortress is Star Wars in plot and storybeats). I dislike him for getting praise for really doing nothing. His most famous movie, Pulp Fiction, is a simplistic movie with the "innovative" conceit of showing the story out of order. If that movie was shown the way the narrative demanded, he would not have that hip and trendy label attached to him.
Apart from being an unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature? Dunno.Therumancer said: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.
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;Therumancer said:Bla bla white-supremacist diatribe
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.TAdamson said:Apart from being an unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature? Dunno.
Best comment ever!HellbirdIV said:Two wrongs don't make a right. No amount of previous injustices ever mitigate the evil of a later one.
I was mostly retaliating against the way Therumancer uses the golden rationalisations and relative virtue to fallaceously absolve America's past.Paradoxrifts said: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.TAdamson said:Apart from being an unflinching portrayal of this dark stain on American history that has not been seen outside of written literature? Dunno.
Ultimately, it will prove to be unhelpful.