The Big Picture: Is Django Racist?

[XDravond]

Well I kinda doubt it's racist but the problem is everyone have their own view on things (and of course by that sometimes wrong ;-) )

So is it okay to make a "fun" movie about a serious subject? anyone not agreeing with a big "Yes" have been somehow traumatized/taught etc that said subject is "to serious"... otherwise we could have a look at WW2 how often hasn't that particular event been ridiculed etc...

And by the way is it only me that find it interesting that in 99/100 times it white people that are racists... oh well xenophobia is kinda odd at times... and I love media that throws "this/that is sooooo racist".....

Oh well my fever/energy less brain found this episode worthy of my time

 

[JudgeGame]

Nothing racist about pompous white people over-ruling black people on why they shouldn't be upset, and what does and doesn't amount to racism. Good shit, Movie Bob!

(I haven't seen the movie, so I can't actually make any comment on whether it actually does things that reconcile affected audiences, or is just an OTT 'righteous' movie that really just indulges in the narcissism of white guilt; but that would be an important issue to weigh in the subject)

I don't want to be too harsh, but I have to say I'm not impressed with the conversation that's taking place. It goes something like.

Black person: This film is kind of problematic.

White person: How?

Black person: Well, there are several isolated things that come off as racist and it makes me feel uncomfortable.

White person: Well, as a whole the movie is clearly against racism, so there. Conversation over.

Tarantino seems happy with the reaction and in a way I think he should be. I've seen some terrific articles on Django U and I've learnt a thing or two from those articles. On the other hand, white people and especifically white critics are dismissing all this and seem much more interested in preserving Tarantino's honor. Having said that, there are white critics tearing the film down but they are the most racist of the bunch. So overall, disappointed.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Anyone seen Black Dynamite? I love that movie but somehow doubt Spike Lee's seen it.
Maybe he should Do the Right Thing© and see the movie.

OT: Not seen it yet but doubt it'll be that bad in all honesty.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

is just, gah, stupid and bad. You're saying that black people can't handle a movie without trying to imitate it, something that has never happened before, because SURPRISE! Black people, even those suffering through modern-racism, are not boiling pots of hatred waiting for an excuse to start killing people

I just assumed since there's been a lot of white people inspired to acts of violence recently, the same is possible for black people. I'm not saying the average black man or woman off the street is going to think these things, that WOULD be racist. I just feel that in regard to the whole conflict of American race relations, the last thing we need is a hero who gets what he wants by killing people.

 

[RTR]

This video could use a more ironic title. How about "Breaking the Chains"?

 

[feycreature]

Racist is kind of too vague. Is the movie hateful or intending to give offense? Nah, not really. Is it disrespectful? Eh..... The use of the N word goes from shocking to grating to immature to, frankly, desensitizing. And it may be putting the cart before the horse to do "The great hero! But black!" and "See how a man can be warped by a cruel and amoral environment" all at once. It muddies the message a little. It was less difficult in Basterds because there had already been a lot of stories of WWII with Jewish heroes and they didn't have to be archetypes.

On the other hand, if Django is supposed to be an archetypal hero it makes his semi-corruption and the delight in killing a lot of people a little creepy. Also, there seemed to be some indecision over which hero. First he's the tortured, damaged soul seeking revenge, then the stalwart warrior, then the crafty underdog. That's actually a totally fine and cool character arc, but it gets crowded out by the big ideas and mythic quests. That muddling certainly has it's own effect, and that effect is clever (Yay, hero guy's gonna save the day....by killing a whole lot of people and being either totally blase or thrilled....but I can't feel bad for them they were terrible people), but it's also distracting and the emotional tug-of-war just eventually led me to stop even trying to make any sense of it. Plus, the moral tug-of-war is a bit too realistic for the larger-than-life characters.

TL,DR: Tarantino IS immature and undisciplined. That's always been my beef with him. It's unsurprising that when he tackles something that has this much emotional weight for this many people he's gonna come off as disrespectful, because I haven't noticed him giving a shit about being respectful about anything ever.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Haven't seen the movie yet, but if Quentin Tarantino handled slavery in roundabout the same manner as he dealt with Jews, Nazism and WW2 in Inglorious Basterds, then I bet a lot of sacred cows weren't so much slaughtered as ritually dismembered with a blunt object.

 

[bLAZay00]

Short answer, no. Long answer no it is not racist.

Even longer answer: Jamie Foxx said his favorite part about the movie was getting to shoot white people. That line makes it into the movie, but he said it before the script did.

I was waiting for someone to point this quote out. Explain how someone's "favorite part about the movie was getting to shoot {skin color} people" is NOT racist, please.

You obviously have not been around black kids right after the first time they see Roots (bad joke I know). I can tell you how. An actor has to "get into character." He has to feel the person he's playing, understand all aspects of him. That means the absolute powerlessness, the desperation the character feels has to be completely internalized. For all intents and purposes you "are" that person. Juxtapose Foxx as one of the cultural elite now in the role of a man not even counted as a full person. So many indignities and injustices heaped on the character. And now he gets a chance at pay back. Check out what happens with some character actors.

Either Tarantino is trolling, or he's honestly trying to spark a debate. I hate the Trey Stone and Matt Parkers of the world who drop a heavy topic then back away to avoid the flames. He's said he wanted it to be a period film. Fine. Then he says he doesn't want to be held accountable for what it brings up. Fine. Pick one. And btw, the cavalier attitude with the N-word, not cool, never been cool, never will be cool.

That being said it is a brave film. There hasn't really been a film that revels in just how demeaning and dehumanizing chattel slavery was. You could even argue that Christopher Waltz's character arc reflects a modern white dude being exposed to the depths of historical slavery. That it is done through mostly dialogue speaks highly to his prowess as a writer and a director.

 

[James White]

I agree here 100%. And I still think Spike Lee needs to sit down somewhere, watch the movie, and shutup about it.

 

[darksakul]

If the movie was made by a black director and writer, Spike Lee would say it was one of the most poignant movies of our time. If you ask me, the only thing that's racist about this movie.. is Spike Lee.

True.

Spike Lee has a habit of looking for racism that is not there.
Like when Clint Eastwood made a movie about the US Marines on Iwo Jima and Spike Lee tried to call him out for racism for the lack of black people in the movie. The Truth was there was no blacks there as blacks where restricted to supply transport and handling munitions. Yes in World War II the country was credibility racist when when fighting against fascism. But Eastwood want to get the movie as historically accurate as he could (you know for a movie). Spike Lee failed to realize there was a Native American and an Asian involved in the platoon that one that battle. That Spike Lee didn't want to acknowledge there other minorities other than blacks.

It sounds like Mr. Lee should speak to Mr. Brooks on how to handle controversial points in world history.

Sadly that would devolve too quickly to the "my people suffered more than yours" argument as sadly Jews and Blacks are known to do way too much.

 

[daibakuha]

It sounds like Mr. Lee should speak to Mr. Brooks on how to handle controversial points in world history.

Sadly that would devolve too quickly to the "my people suffered more than yours" argument as sadly Jews and Blacks are known to do way too much.

whoosh

imma leave this here

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082517/

 

[daibakuha]

I don't really see the point in objecting to Django killing people in cold blood a lot of action movies do the same for their heroes and don't get any slack for it. Not to mention the fact that he only really kills 2, maybe 3 people in cold blood, and that was only after they tried to kill him first.

How many action movies has the hero casually shooting the villain's sister when she does nothing on-screen to warrant it?

Not to mention the fact that if he didn't kill those people they would have hunted him down like an animal and probably have dogs tear him limb from limb.

You think that the slaves he let go were immune to bribery from other masters? They're all going to end up at other plantations. The movie was kind of big on emphasizing how important the freedom papers were to ensuring that other slavers wouldn't re-sell him. Matter of fact...

Yes, the movie is racist, and it's racist in the most correct way possible. When Calvin Candie makes his speech about "one ****** in 10,000" actually being independent-minded enough to take freedom's opportunity when it comes, Django merely proves that he's the one. The rest of the slaves? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson is one in 10,000 that decided to seize power instead of freedom, but otherwise every other black character in the movie is passively acted on or heavily encouraged by outside action [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html], rather than shown to be an independent actor taking their actions from reason and personal history. And you know what?

It precisely matches the psychological profiles of the vast majority of black people today. Collect welfare checks when shown how, commit random violence against each other when the feeling strikes you, take affirmative action/government quote and set-aside jobs to create an artificial middle class, vote en masse for the guy who's a half-member of your race despite the fact that his amnesty for illegal immigrants primarily destroys the low-skill high-labor jobs that kept your parents and ancestral communities employed after slavery...

Have you considered the fact that Samuel L. Jackson might not, in fact, have been acting all that hard? That he does, in fact, have some precedent for this role?


Phrenology "skull bumps" as an explanation for the phenomenon might have been pseudoscience, the observations of black passivity, stupidity, and indolence were as real and universal as rain.

What the actual fuck?

 

[Ronin08]

I don't really see the point in objecting to Django killing people in cold blood a lot of action movies do the same for their heroes and don't get any slack for it. Not to mention the fact that he only really kills 2, maybe 3 people in cold blood, and that was only after they tried to kill him first.

How many action movies has the hero casually shooting the villain's sister when she does nothing on-screen to warrant it?

Not to mention the fact that if he didn't kill those people they would have hunted him down like an animal and probably have dogs tear him limb from limb.

You think that the slaves he let go were immune to bribery from other masters? They're all going to end up at other plantations. The movie was kind of big on emphasizing how important the freedom papers were to ensuring that other slavers wouldn't re-sell him. Matter of fact...

Yes, the movie is racist, and it's racist in the most correct way possible. When Calvin Candie makes his speech about "one ****** in 10,000" actually being independent-minded enough to take freedom's opportunity when it comes, Django merely proves that he's the one. The rest of the slaves? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson is one in 10,000 that decided to seize power instead of freedom, but otherwise every other black character in the movie is passively acted on or heavily encouraged by outside action [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html], rather than shown to be an independent actor taking their actions from reason and personal history. And you know what?

It precisely matches the psychological profiles of the vast majority of black people today. Collect welfare checks when shown how, commit random violence against each other when the feeling strikes you, take affirmative action/government quote and set-aside jobs to create an artificial middle class, vote en masse for the guy who's a half-member of your race despite the fact that his amnesty for illegal immigrants primarily destroys the low-skill high-labor jobs that kept your parents and ancestral communities employed after slavery...

Have you considered the fact that Samuel L. Jackson might not, in fact, have been acting all that hard? That he does, in fact, have some precedent for this role?


Phrenology "skull bumps" as an explanation for the phenomenon might have been pseudoscience, the observations of black passivity, stupidity, and indolence were as real and universal as rain.

I don't really see the point in objecting to Django killing people in cold blood a lot of action movies do the same for their heroes and don't get any slack for it. Not to mention the fact that he only really kills 2, maybe 3 people in cold blood, and that was only after they tried to kill him first.

How many action movies has the hero casually shooting the villain's sister when she does nothing on-screen to warrant it?

Not to mention the fact that if he didn't kill those people they would have hunted him down like an animal and probably have dogs tear him limb from limb.

You think that the slaves he let go were immune to bribery from other masters? They're all going to end up at other plantations. The movie was kind of big on emphasizing how important the freedom papers were to ensuring that other slavers wouldn't re-sell him. Matter of fact...

Yes, the movie is racist, and it's racist in the most correct way possible. When Calvin Candie makes his speech about "one ****** in 10,000" actually being independent-minded enough to take freedom's opportunity when it comes, Django merely proves that he's the one. The rest of the slaves? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson is one in 10,000 that decided to seize power instead of freedom, but otherwise every other black character in the movie is passively acted on or heavily encouraged by outside action [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html], rather than shown to be an independent actor taking their actions from reason and personal history. And you know what?

It precisely matches the psychological profiles of the vast majority of black people today. Collect welfare checks when shown how, commit random violence against each other when the feeling strikes you, take affirmative action/government quote and set-aside jobs to create an artificial middle class, vote en masse for the guy who's a half-member of your race despite the fact that his amnesty for illegal immigrants primarily destroys the low-skill high-labor jobs that kept your parents and ancestral communities employed after slavery...

Have you considered the fact that Samuel L. Jackson might not, in fact, have been acting all that hard? That he does, in fact, have some precedent for this role?


Phrenology "skull bumps" as an explanation for the phenomenon might have been pseudoscience, the observations of black passivity, stupidity, and indolence were as real and universal as rain.

What the actual fuck?

I don't really see the point in objecting to Django killing people in cold blood a lot of action movies do the same for their heroes and don't get any slack for it. Not to mention the fact that he only really kills 2, maybe 3 people in cold blood, and that was only after they tried to kill him first.

How many action movies has the hero casually shooting the villain's sister when she does nothing on-screen to warrant it?

Not to mention the fact that if he didn't kill those people they would have hunted him down like an animal and probably have dogs tear him limb from limb.

You think that the slaves he let go were immune to bribery from other masters? They're all going to end up at other plantations. The movie was kind of big on emphasizing how important the freedom papers were to ensuring that other slavers wouldn't re-sell him. Matter of fact...

Yes, the movie is racist, and it's racist in the most correct way possible. When Calvin Candie makes his speech about "one ****** in 10,000" actually being independent-minded enough to take freedom's opportunity when it comes, Django merely proves that he's the one. The rest of the slaves? Maybe Samuel L. Jackson is one in 10,000 that decided to seize power instead of freedom, but otherwise every other black character in the movie is passively acted on or heavily encouraged by outside action [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/04/whats_wrong_with_the_hunger_ga_1.html], rather than shown to be an independent actor taking their actions from reason and personal history. And you know what?

It precisely matches the psychological profiles of the vast majority of black people today. Collect welfare checks when shown how, commit random violence against each other when the feeling strikes you, take affirmative action/government quote and set-aside jobs to create an artificial middle class, vote en masse for the guy who's a half-member of your race despite the fact that his amnesty for illegal immigrants primarily destroys the low-skill high-labor jobs that kept your parents and ancestral communities employed after slavery...

Have you considered the fact that Samuel L. Jackson might not, in fact, have been acting all that hard? That he does, in fact, have some precedent for this role?


Phrenology "skull bumps" as an explanation for the phenomenon might have been pseudoscience, the observations of black passivity, stupidity, and indolence were as real and universal as rain.

I literally just woke up and this is likely the most offensive and blatantly incorrect thing I'll read all day.

 

[demonofsarila]

Yeah, we should honor people who were slaves by never touching the subject in movies. Yeah cause that makes any sense. Maybe it's because I don't watch R rated movies much, but I've never seen a movie show slavery so realistically. By which I mean show the brutality, disrespect, and culture around it like Django does.

I consider myself pretty averagely educated about US history. But I didn't know some slaves were forced to fight to the death. Now you can be sure I will never forget.

Making something interesting / engaging / fun is the most effective way of teaching as far as I know, and Django nails that on the head. Like Bob said, it's not looking slavery up in a glass jar, the movie brings you into the reality of the time period. Then goes unrealistic at the end, but I liked that because to me it pointed out how dumb unrealistic westerns are.

Racist is kind of too vague. Is the movie hateful or intending to give offense? Nah, not really. Is it disrespectful? Eh..... The use of the N word goes from shocking to grating to immature to, frankly, desensitizing.

I don't see that (the use of N word) as the movie being disrespectful, but rather as the movie being realistic. The reason it's such an offensive term today is because of the way it was used in the past, and the movie is trying to show that past.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, I was going to comment about how in the hands of someone who understands context and subversion, even that touchy period of US history could be used to make an engaging film (Mel Brooks did it with Blazing Saddles).

But I just saw the clouds crack in anticipation of a colossal shitstorm, so Imma just going to sit here with my umbrella, and watch.

 

[Mashedup9999]

I consider myself pretty averagely educated about US history. But I didn't know some slaves were forced to fight to the death. Now you can be sure I will never forget.

The reason you didn't know about it was because all current evidence indicates, it never happened. And honestly why would it? For one thing, while slave owner's were deplorable people for engaging in the act of slavery, the vast majority of them weren't sadistic sociopaths. Also from an economic perspective it's even stupider. As much as it churns my stomach to say it, those people were their owner's property and very expensive property at that. Nobody in their right mind would have their slaves killed unless it was necessary, and certainly not for fun.

 

[Cpt. Slow]

In short, yes, in long YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES. I am getting sick of white people being painted down to be the root of all evil. Why so much attention for something that happened years ago when slavery still happens to this day? Yes, the countries where all your precious shiny iThings come from like China, and the rest of South East Asia. What do you say? they are debt slaves so it's their own fault? Oh sure man, keep telling yourself that while you catapult another ill-tempered bird to ensure the demise of a green hoofed animal. America (and any other modern western country) should stop chastising themselves for a part of history which we current and older generations have no part of. I hear you thinking: 'never again' well, it's not going to happen again any time soon, that I can guarantee. But everyone needs to get of their high horse and start helping other people in the aforementioned countries because dwelling over the past is not good, people should be doing something with it. Yes, I know that life is going to be difficult without your happy meal surprise but hey, sometimes you have to make a sacrifice for the greater cause.

 

[Sovereignty]

Unfortunately, if you had continued reading this thread, you would have seen the post where I not only "apologize completely and unequivocally," but even mention how wrong I was and state that I will not go back and edit my previous comment, so that people can see how wrong I was (rather than being dishonest and deleting it) and so it can serve as an example of what not to do. And I explain why I became overzealous.

I believe in admitting when I'm wrong and apologizing for unwarranted criticism. The internet would be a far better, more constructive place if more people would do that.

EDIT: which isn't to say it's your fault for not reading the entire thread. Rather, I'm suggesting that it's unfortunate that my apology came several posts later.

I agree fully with you. I was unfortunately just responding to what I'd read in your first post (I saw no edit of the sort saying you'd retracted your statement.) I wasn't thinking you might respond later realizing a mistake or that someone would defend me.

Just defending myself, but I appreciate the sereneness of your apology. Sorry for being rather harsh in my response, the internet WOULD be a better place if more people could step up as you have.

 

[Whispering Death]

Seriously I think this is the best Big Picture you've done. What a great philosophical take on a movie.

*golf clap*

 

[Maddhaus]

Tarantino seems happy with the reaction and in a way I think he should be. I've seen some terrific articles on Django U and I've learnt a thing or two from those articles. On the other hand, white people and especifically white critics are dismissing all this and seem much more interested in preserving Tarantino's honor. Having said that, there are white critics tearing the film down but they are the most racist of the bunch. So overall, disappointed.

While I hate to disagree with a Judge, I really feel that your assessment is unnecessarily reductive. By my read, white critics haven't been arguing out of some desire to preserve Tarantino's honour. Certainly, they are defending Tarantino for putting a hell of a lot more thought behind his movie's intents and goals than Spike Lee gives him credit for; however, more often than not, it seems to me that white critics are more concerned with the fact that a) Lee is beaking off about a movie he has admittedly not seen, and b) using the word '******' in a context that's appropriate to the story being told is not indicative of racism.

Frankly, I'm sincerely impressed with the dialogue that this has sparked. It's important that Americans refrain from ...ahem... 'whitewashing' the oft times unsavoury history of the United States. I've been very pleased to see that a modern conversation of the legacy of slavery (and the unfortunate racism that still pervades many corners of the US) can occur while at the same time examining those racist elements and confronting them when they rear their ugly heads (as we've seen in this thread).

I can't speak to the quality of the film itself; I'm sad to say I haven't seen it yet. However, given Lee's justifications for perceiving the film as racist, not to mention the commentary from many on both sides of the debate, I'd have to say that while the resulting conversation is a good one to have, there doesn't appear to be a lot of meat to the "Django Unchained is racist" bar-b-que.