The Big Picture: Is Django Racist?

[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.

 

[DalekJaas]

I have never wanted to watch a Spike Lee movie and the ones I have seen are average at best. I think his opinion isn't understandable it is just some 'poor-bugger-me' I need an opinion on this because I'm black nonsense. I guess he is held in regard in the USA and nowhere else.

Bob must be doing the Boston accent deliberately now because I don't recall ever hearing it when his videos first started. I don't know why because it is not a pleasant accent to listen to.

 

[darksakul]

whoosh

imma leave this here

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

I am fully aware of films done by Mr Mel Brooks like History of the World Part I or Space Balls where Brooks made fun of race. The huge difference is and reason Brooks does not get (as much) backlash is he starts out making fun of his own people first the Jews. That there almost a dozen Jew jokes are made before Brooks rolls out the Black, Asian, White and what ever else jokes.


Here is a example of Black Joke done by Mel Brooks.
Completely different that Django Unchained Quentin Tarantino (Like Apple to Bananas, forget Oranges), sad part is Spike Lee would still claim it's racist.

 

[JudgeGame]

...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...

The thing is that the language used in the film, as you might have gathered from the trailers, does not coincide with the language used in mid-19th century. As an example, the expression ************ was coined some way into the 20th century and yet is featured quite a lot in Django. Of course people can argue that this is all irrelevant because ****** was used a lot in the time period an it has a deep relation with the culture of slavery but my point is that it was a choice that Tarantino made and it was sometthing we all know is very hurtful. I don't think there is a valid reason for including it in the way Tarantino does, which is basically using it about 100 times. If he was going to use it a few times at key moments, I would have respected his decision more.

And as for Spike Lee's reaction, I don't think he jumped to any conclusions with the film and I think there is already a lot to discuss without having to see the film. For example:

a) The majority of important roles in the film are played by white men.
b) It's a film about black people taking physical revenge on white people. You may have a different opinion, but I think the way black people have dealt with their oppression over the centuries has been incredibly civilized considering, so the allegation that black people want physical revenge is plain offensive to a lot of people who have been fighting against the long-standing accusations from white people that black people are ignorant, violent and spiteful while history proves otherwise.
c) It is an action film (or has been explicitly advertized as one). I don't think it's out of line to say that action films aren't always the appropriate genre to discuss very serious issues like slavery, in the same way that FPSs aren't always the appropriate way to talk about war.
d) It's unambiguously a blaxploitation film. There is a lot of discussion on where blaxploitation fits in the racism picture but over the years people have pointed out that the image blaxploitation paints of african-american communities isn't positive and hasn't helped dismantle any of the stereotypes associated with black people.

I'm not saying I agree with Spike Lee, I just want to let know I respect his reasons for thinking what he thinks. And while as a professional he could be critisized for not even watching something before he makes grand statements about it, I can say the same for a lot of people who would rather point at all the cool stuff Tarantino has done, than actually delve into how we should discuss racism and if Tarantino does talk about racism with the respect it deserves.

In the world we live in, racism is a very tangible reality that permeates all aspects of life. If we aren't willing to start from there and figure out how to get racism out in the open, then we are wasting our time. In all honesty, I think Django is only slightly racist, in the most subtle and innocent of ways possible. But a lot of people won't even consider that to be a possibility.

 

[daibakuha]

And as for Spike Lee's reaction, I don't think he jumped to any conclusions with the film and I think there is already a lot to discuss without having to see the film. For example:

a) The majority of important roles in the film are played by white men.
b) It's a film about black people taking physical revenge on white people. You may have a different opinion, but I think the way black people have dealt with their oppression over the centuries has been incredibly civilized considering, so the allegation that black people want physical revenge is plain offensive to a lot of people who have been fighting against the long-standing accusations from white people that black people are ignorant, violent and spiteful while history proves otherwise.
c) It is an action film (or has been explicitly advertized as one). I don't think it's out of line to say that action films aren't always the appropriate genre to discuss very serious issues like slavery, in the same way that FPSs aren't always the appropriate way to talk about war.
d) It's unambiguously a blaxploitation film. There is a lot of discussion on where blaxploitation fits in the racism picture but over the years people have pointed out that the image blaxploitation paints of african-american communities isn't positive and hasn't helped dismantle any of the stereotypes associated with black people.

a) The primary cast consists of two white dudes, two black dudes. The only reason why most of the auxiliary cast is white is to fit the period and the location. These 4 people are the only ones in the movie with more than 6 lines of dialog.

b)Django doesn't kill the people in the plantation solely because they are white. He kills them because they are bad people. He's not getting revenge for being a slave, he's getting revenge for what they did to him and his wife. If he was going after then for slavery he would have gone after his previous owner(s).

c) Who are you to say what themes can and can't be discussed in any genre? There are shooters that discuss the nature of war just as much as there are action movies which discuss the nature of humanity and our drive to kill each other.

d) Django isn't a Blaxploitation film, and doesn't try to be either. Django is a western, it fits all the tropes of the genre and none of the ones commonly associated with Blaxploitation.

These are assumptions being made by you that are mostly incorrect, and could have easily been remedied if you had actually gone to see the film, before judging it so harshly.

 

[JudgeGame]

a) The primary cast consists of two white dudes, two black dudes. The only reason why most of the auxiliary cast is white is to fit the period and the location. These 4 people are the only ones in the movie with more than 6 lines of dialog.

b)Django doesn't kill the people in the plantation solely because they are white. He kills them because they are bad people. He's not getting revenge for being a slave, he's getting revenge for what they did to him and his wife. If he was going after then for slavery he would have gone after his previous owner(s).

c) Who are you to say what themes can and can't be discussed in any genre? There are shooters that discuss the nature of war just as much as there are action movies which discuss the nature of humanity and our drive to kill each other.

d) Django isn't a Blaxploitation film, and doesn't try to be either. Django is a western, it fits all the tropes of the genre and none of the ones commonly associated with Blaxploitation.

These are assumptions being made by you that are mostly incorrect, and could have easily been remedied if you had actually gone to see the film, before judging it so harshly.

For christ's sake, I'm not saying this is my opinion, I'm just saying this is something that is immediately apparent from the films trailers.

a) The lead characters in the posters, the trailers and the IMDB are Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz and Leonardo Dicaprio. All of them middle-aged men, two of them white. The fourth guy I assume is Samuel L. Jackson who as far as I know wasn't even advertised to be in the film, which if nothing else says something about the marketing department. Also, I know for a fact there a lot less lines delivered by black actors than there are from white actors throughout the film.

b) I'm not stupid. I know the bad guys in the film are actually bad guys. This isn't a justification for revenge, especially not lethal revenge. As far as I'm aware, the history of african americans is notably free of revenge killings and some people would rather celebrate that than revise history so they were in fact guilty of those crimes. I think people have every right to be offended by the idea of revenge as a form of redemption.

c) There's only so much you can say about violence with violence. There's even less you can say if the violence in question is glorified violence. I'm not saying action films don't have a right to exist, I'm saying it often isn't the best way to approach a subject that is a lot more complicated than people shooting each other in the face.

d) Tarantino's film roots lie very deep in blaxploitation cinema. It's probably his favorite genre. Absolutely everything he does is affected by this. I also know for a fact I'm not the only person who's picked up on the blaxploitation in Django. As an example, repetitive pointless uses of the word ******. Tarantino loves the word. He uses it a lot in films. He has been critisized a lot of times for this and asked to stop using it so lightly. He hasn't.

 

[Cpt. Slow]

So... you're against a movie about American slavery painting the white slavers as fuckers? Nice assumptions by the way. You do realize that, when it comes to slavery, America still doesn't really talk about it? There's a Nazi history museum in Berlin, yet many American history textbooks still only gloss over the subject. If you don't find that horribly offensive, then I just can't help you.

You should not help me, you should focus your attention on the modern slavery that still is playing a part of this world. And if it's so important, maybe the American government should do something about it. Because one film is not going to change the stance of an entire government towards a dark time for America. And not all white people then were slavers, they just did not dare to speak out against it, in fear of any (social) repercussions. Luckily that changed with Abraham Lincoln. But the image of the great white (slaver) that's usually a bull-crock image people still keep high to use as a verbal 'weapon' in current (geo)political conversation. Just like the fact that a lot of people think that all Germans were Nazi's during World War II. But a more reasoned man would know that the Germans who would stand against Hitler would face execution for treason.

 

[ninjaRiv]

"The N word" is not used as often as you'd think, actually. I expected a whole lot more. Also, it's used by white racist people who use that term to describe a black slave like we use "person." "Hey, here's a ******." "hey, here's a person." You see?

The white actors have more lines, yes, but that's because Django doesn't talk much. As for Jackson's character, he doesn't shut the fuck up when he turns up near the end.

You also should remember that black people weren't allowed to talk much so they didn't.

As for the violence, I don't think it's glorified, compared to his other movies. Tarantino shows a lot of restraint and the worst violence is off screen and more effective. Am I the only one who laughs at a guy getting his head blown off in Pulp Fiction but is uneasy and uncomfortable when, off screen, a guy beats a guy's head in with a hammer?

At the heart of it, it's a Spaghetti Western so you're not gonna get an accurate portrayal of this subject but, let's face it, this is gonna get a whole lot more views than that sort of film. Therefore, more talking. Also, at the end of the day, a new hero was created. He's a fantastic one, too. Not because he's black but because he's awesome.

 

[Nomanslander]

No, it's not racist, but the movie is a definitely a bit juvenile in its approach to the matter. But - then again - that's just Tarantino for you.

 

[yunabomb]

I decided to peek at this thread again and I saw Myrmecodon's post.

Now I'm reminded of why I don't look at the escapist forums very often.

 

[TheOrb]

My first reaction: "Well, yeah. Of course it's rascist, it's set during the slave trade."
However I feel I may have missed several themes after listening to Bob...
He reminds me of a friend I had in Secondary School who analysed The Wizard of Oz as an analogy for some agricultural struggle the farmers were having or something. I thought he was over-analysing; turns out there are others like him.
Maybe I'm just a sociopath, and I can't pick up on those things.

 

[TheOrb]

Tarentino is savvy.

Does anyone know if there's a topic for this interview? This guy is awesome.

I loved how that hit some media outlets over the weekend with "OMG Tarantino's bizarre rant!" and some screenshots taken out of context; spend a few minutes actually watching the interview, and you see how much Guru-Murthy was trying to bait him. "So violence, why do people like violent films, why do you make violent films, violence, violence, what about your responsibilities as a filmmaker using all this violence, do you think there's a link between violent films and psychopaths, violence, violence?"

The Graham Norton Show was brilliant last week; with Tarantino, James McAvoy and Alan Davies. Not particularly deep (what do you expect from Graham Norton?) but a good laugh.

I found Tarintino quite a pillock in that interview. He was hardly baited, though the publicity remark was rather spiteful...
At approxiamately 2:00, completely ignored the question and ran with his dialogue success; despite many modern Brits not having Slavery (as a taboo) at the forefront of their minds when discussing black people.
My opinion? It happened. We fixed it. It's over. We move on.

And he doesn't even know that he put "comfort girls", i.e. sexual exploitation, into HIS OWN MOVIE... Interesting.
Aaaaaannnnnnddd the final parts of 6:31... THAT was rather defensive. I believe as a filmmaker (or, as someone who puts his views up for public display) he does have a responsibilty to tell us why he feels the way he does; especially if they are first-time viewers of his work.
I would have asked pretty much all of those questions; apart from "directors' didn't get better as they got older", that seemed rather useless.
I didn't see him on Graham Norton though, so I pass on that.

 

[JWAN]

19 seconds till the accent showed up, that's a new record.
And where was Spike Lee's outrage when Tarantino made a movie confronting the actual Holocaust?

Well... Spike Lee is an idiot and he calls everything racist, especially if that thing is associated with a white person.
---
Wait a second... wouldn't that make Spike the racist?

 

[Therumancer]

19 seconds till the accent showed up, that's a new record.
And where was Spike Lee's outrage when Tarantino made a movie confronting the actual Holocaust?

Spike Lee is pretty much one dimensional when it comes to his politics, he tends to remain pretty much within the cosm of Black America rather than actually being a champion of equality.

Ever since Spike did his "Malcom X" movie there has been a lot speculation and supporting evidence tying Spike to the Black Muslim movement, and specifically "Nation Of Thisslam" though I believe he has continued to deny connection.

This is an issue because when you get down to it "Black Muslims" are basically religiouslly fueled pro-black Nazis with what amounts to a genocidal agenda towards whites instead of Jews. It comes down to the belief that once there was the black man, who was the only, and original, man and how an ancient scientist sorceror with a fascination with magnets named "Yakub" (or Jacob) discovered a form of genetics and created white people as a weapon to oppress the proper, black man. Whites basically not being true humans. Yakub and the "white devil" being responsible for all woes to effect blacks, along with a prophecy that the white devil is prophecied to fall and the proper black man will once again rule the planet. You can look it up on wikipedia as "Yakub" and other sources if your curious about the mythology. This was incidently the inspiration for Charles Manson's predictions of "Helter Skelter" which was going to be the great war between whites and blacks, which whites would lose, but would themselves rise up again, with his cult being preparation for these events.

When you get down to it, I don't think Spike is militantly violent in a direct sense, but really I don't think he cares about anyone who isn't black on a fundemental, and spiritual level. He's not a guy who is going to come out to defend a group of impoverished people or victims unless large numbers of blacks are going to benefit from it. That isn't his fight (so to speak).

-

At any rate, what I think/suspect about Spike Lee aside, my opinion about "Django" is well documented, I don't think the movie is racist, so much as a work of blaxploitation cinema, intended to drudge up political issues and cause divides and conflicts, which also means a lot of attention and money. In a situation where the biggest problem facing black america is black america and it's counter cultures, creating a movie like this seems to justify anti-societal behavior and a political victim complex is counter productive. Especially seeing as it's portrayal of slavery is just as inaccurate as the happy slave strumming his banjo all day, except in the other direction.

That said, I can see why Spike Lee doesn't like it, it plays to similar sentiments and positions to his own, but not in an extremely reverant way, and points in directions I'd imagine he doesn't think black america is quite ready for yet.

Such are my thoughts.

While I'm hardly a fan, I'd point out that the whole "horrors of slavery" thing is not exactly new either. "Roots" which pretty much launched Levarr Burton's career covered a lot of the same material, without being quite as exploitive (though also hardly balanced or accurate to the realities).