I'm going to try and make this quick. I had a lot of thoughts during the movie so I apologize if this post seems all over the place.
- Saw it with a predominantly white crowd. (packed screening, like 4 black people not including me and my brothers)
- QT peppered a lot of the N-words with jokes (many un-needed but slave times so OK), but there were a lot that weren't seasoned to be digestible, yet the crowd laughed nearly every time. Crowd cracked up when the screen showed black people in chains. I had to stare at the screen to find something funny. There was none. Just black people in chains trudging through mud. Yes people racism is dead!
- I thought the movie was a good popcorn flick, but as a revenge flick it was bad, and even worse as a movie that delves into the topic of slavery.
- Don't get me started on the KKK scene
- There weren't any slave owners that were made to be REALLY hated except the Bittle brothers - and they were killed in the beginning. The rest of the film they killed racists and slave owners without even showing how ruthless these people were -- and even when they introduced one that was supposed to be a terrible man he was offset by two very disturbing things:
Dicaprio was a loveable/charming slave owner.
SLJ was worse than Dicaprio
Now these may not seem like a big deal but they are very insidious in nature. The man the movie MAKES you hate isn't all the slave owners, it isn't DiCaprio but SLJ's character. (He was even going to let Django and Schultz go; although racist, he was a man of his word who didn't like being lied to. He simply just made Schultz pay what he originally was going to. Not a bad guy right? Right)
In a revenge movie about killing white slave owners the black man's final triumph isn't over a white slave owner, it's over a house n*****-- he doesn't even get to kill the "worst" slave owner in the south (Mr. Candie), Schultz does, a white man! No, the final enemy in this revenge movie is a black man, albeit an uncle Tom, they still made the black man the prime hated, despicable enemy. No one liked SLJ. Mr. Candie, a supposedly terrible and ruthless slave owner had to argue with his servant Stephen to even let them in the house, and be treated well.
As soon as they showed SLJ I whispered to my brother, "Notice how they make the most hated character a black man..."
Compare this movie to Inglorious Basterds, a very similar revenge flick -- except for it actually felt like a revenge flick. A bunch of Jews killing "Nahzis" in very brutal ways and at the end they exploded Hitler's head. I'm not Jewish but it seemd very cathartic and infinitely satisfying. Imagine if they didn't kill Hitler (since he did kill himself IRL) but instead they killed a Jewish guy. This movie? A copout. No, it didn't feel satisfying at all - and out of all the over the top violence in the movie, he simply shoots Stephen (SLJ) in the legs and blows up the house.
The scene where Schultz killed DiCaprio made no sense, and was just the setup to actually have the black man be the main villain. The white man was so upset about injustice that he killed another white man in cold blood without regard for the shotgun aimed at Django or Broomhilda.
And don't tell me this was an analyses on black people being their own worst enemy. Black people are treated poorly by black people because America tells EVERYONE to treat black people bad, not just the majority but minorities as well. Just look at the famous white/black doll beauty experiment. Black people are learning the same prejudices that most Americans do.
In all I think QT made a terrible mistake. A subject as sensitive, clouded and sometimes outright ignored should have been handled differently.
There's a lot of things I missed but this should give you a feeling on how I felt.
Worse than Dicaprio? He was a mandingo fight enthusiast and had dogs eat a man alive to see if Django was for real. SLJ sent a Broomhilda to the box and ruined their plans but most hated is a bit hyperbolic.
the slavers at the very beginning were shitty and the Bittle brothers as well, you forgot the dude who was prepared to cut Dango's dick off but ended up getting his dick shot. Above everything every slavers was portrayed as ignorant as fuck and cartoony.
As for the most hated character being black....the hero was also black and I really liked SLJ's character.
I really don't agree with almost anything you said.
I'm going to try and make this quick. I had a lot of thoughts during the movie so I apologize if this post seems all over the place.
- Saw it with a predominantly white crowd. (packed screening, like 4 black people not including me and my brothers)
- QT peppered a lot of the N-words with jokes (many un-needed but slave times so OK), but there were a lot that weren't seasoned to be digestible, yet the crowd laughed nearly every time. Crowd cracked up when the screen showed black people in chains. I had to stare at the screen to find something funny. There was none. Just black people in chains trudging through mud. Yes people racism is dead!
- I thought the movie was a good popcorn flick, but as a revenge flick it was bad, and even worse as a movie that delves into the topic of slavery.
- Don't get me started on the KKK scene
- There weren't any slave owners that were made to be REALLY hated except the Bittle brothers - and they were killed in the beginning. The rest of the film they killed racists and slave owners without even showing how ruthless these people were -- and even when they introduced one that was supposed to be a terrible man he was offset by two very disturbing things:
Dicaprio was a loveable/charming slave owner.
SLJ was worse than Dicaprio
Now these may not seem like a big deal but they are very insidious in nature. The man the movie MAKES you hate isn't all the slave owners, it isn't DiCaprio but SLJ's character. (He was even going to let Django and Schultz go; although racist, he was a man of his word who didn't like being lied to. He simply just made Schultz pay what he originally was going to. Not a bad guy right? Right)
In a revenge movie about killing white slave owners the black man's final triumph isn't over a white slave owner, it's over a house n*****-- he doesn't even get to kill the "worse" slave owner in the south (Mr. Candie), Schultz does, a white man! No, the final enemy in this revenge movie is a black man, albeit an uncle Tom, they still made the black man the prime hated, despicable enemy. No one liked SLJ. Mr. Candie, a supposedly terrible and ruthless slave owner had to argue with his servant Stephen to even let them in the house, and be treated well.
As soon as they showed SLJ I whispered to my brother, "Notice how they make the most hated character a black man..."
Compare this movie to Inglorious Basterds, a very similar revenge flick -- except for it actually felt like a revenge flick. A bunch of Jews killing "Nahzis" in very brutal ways and at the end they exploded Hitler's head. I'm not Jewish but it seemd very cathartic and infinitely satisfying. Imagine if they didn't kill Hitler (since he did kill himself IRL) but instead they killed a Jewish guy. This movie? A copout. No, it didn't feel satisfying at all - and out of all the over the top violence in the movie, he simply shoots Stephen (SLJ) in the legs and blows up the house.
The scene where Schultz killed DiCaprio made no sense, and was just the setup to actually have the black man be the main villain. The white man was so upset about injustice that he killed another white man in cold blood without regard for the shotgun aimed at Django or Broomhilda.
And don't tell me this was an analyses on black people being their own worst enemy. Black people are treated poorly by black people because America tells EVERYONE to treat black people bad, not just the majority but minorities as well. Just look at the famous white/black doll beauty experiment. Black people are learning the same prejudices that most Americans do. I wouldn't give QT that much credit anyway
In all I think QT made a terrible mistake. A subject as sensitive, clouded and sometimes outright ignored should have been handled differently.
There's a lot of things I missed but this should give you a feeling on how I felt.
Worse than Dicaprio? He was a mandingo fight enthusiast and had dogs eat a man alive to see if Django was for real. SLJ sent a Broomhilda to the box and ruined their plans but most hated is a bit hyperbolic.
the slavers at the very beginning were shitty and the Bittle brothers as well, you forgot the dude who was prepared to cut Dango's dick off but ended up getting his dick shot. Above everything every slavers was portrayed as ignorant as fuck and cartoony.
As for the most hated character being black....the hero was also black and I really liked SLJ's character.
I really don't agree with almost anything you said.
Yes, this would kind of make some sort of sense if
Django didn't end up triumphing over SLJ's character in the end. Protag vs Antag and all. Django didn't kill Mr. Candie, he killed a servant. What sense does that make unless the servant was worse? And, yeah DiCaprio was bad, but they framed SLJ to be theoretically MUCH worse. Hence the arguing about letting them stay, arguing about their rooms, arguing about Broomhilda being taken out, constantly giving the stink eye to Django, and eventually being the reason they were found out -- and him trying to come up with the worst way imaginable to punish Django.
Yes, this would kind of make some sort of sense if
Django didn't end up triumphing over SLJ's character in the end. Protag vs Antag and all. Django didn't kill Mr. Candie, he killed a servant. What sense does that make unless the servant was worse? And, yeah DiCaprio was bad, but they framed SLJ to be theoretically MUCH worse. Hence the arguing about letting them stay, arguing about their rooms, arguing about Broomhilda being taken out, constantly giving the stink eye to Django, and eventually being the reason they were found out -- and him trying to come up with the worst way imaginable to punish Django.
Yes, this would kind of make some sort of sense if
Django didn't end up triumphing over SLJ's character in the end. Protag vs Antag and all. Django didn't kill Mr. Candie, he killed a servant. What sense does that make unless the servant was worse? And, yeah DiCaprio was bad, but they framed SLJ to be theoretically MUCH worse. Hence the arguing about letting them stay, arguing about their rooms, arguing about Broomhilda being taken out, constantly giving the stink eye to Django, and eventually being the reason they were found out -- and him trying to come up with the worst way imaginable to punish Django.
Soundscream said it well on the podcast. Dicaprio was Waltz's character's nemesis and SLJ was Django's. Which is why Waltz couldn't take his bullshit anymore and basically killed himself to kill candie.
Django himself said a black slaver is the lowest thing on earth, so there's context and it isn't 'ugliest character has to be black'.
A revenge movie about killing slave owners all the sudden makes a house negro the big baddie? Ugh. It's a copout. Again, imagine if in Inglorious Basterds they killed a low ranking Jew hating Jew - and there were some who were in service to the Germans...
Soundscream said it well on the podcast. Dicaprio was Waltz's character's nemesis and SLJ was Django's. Which is why Waltz couldn't take his bullshit anymore and basically killed himself to kill candie.
Django himself said a black slaver is the lowest thing on earth, so there's context and it isn't 'ugliest character has to be black'.
Oh I already know how they framed that. I know what the movie tried to do. It just didn't sit right with me.
And that would be fine but there was no black slaver technically running things. If they did it in that way (set up this ruthless black slave owner) I would have been more forgiving. It still would have been irksome, because the majority of slave owners back then were whites. So you make the main villain of the movie a possible rare subset of evildoers who really were only given positions of authority by white people?
It's a cop-out to have the main antag to be a black man. Yes, blacks hating blacks are terrible but:
FoxyFox39 said:
And don't tell me this was an analyses on black people being their own worst enemy. Black people are treated poorly by black people because America tells EVERYONE to treat black people bad, not just the majority but minorities as well. Just look at the famous white/black doll beauty experiment. Black people are learning the same prejudices that most Americans do. I wouldn't give QT that much credit anyway
edit: In a movie about killing slave owners, America's not even ready for a black man killing a white racist/slaver in a gruesome and bloody finale.
dlb edit: And they could have easily made Django kill a black slaver throughout his revenge spree, just not as the main villain.
but it was low level goons and a guy who said the N-word a few times (who didn't in that movie) and was going to cut off Django's privates. I say boo to that. Big deal! Certainly not enough to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
- There weren't any slave owners that were made to be REALLY hated except the Bittle brothers - and they were killed in the beginning. The rest of the film they killed racists and slave owners without even showing how ruthless these people were -- and even when they introduced one that was supposed to be a terrible man he was offset by two very disturbing things:
Dicaprio was a loveable/charming slave owner.
SLJ was worse than Dicaprio
Now these may not seem like a big deal but they are very insidious in nature. The man the movie MAKES you hate isn't all the slave owners, it isn't DiCaprio but SLJ's character. (He was even going to let Django and Schultz go; although racist, he was a man of his word who didn't like being lied to. He simply just made Schultz pay what he originally was going to. Not a bad guy right? Right)
In a revenge movie about killing white slave owners the black man's final triumph isn't over a white slave owner, it's over a house n*****-- he doesn't even get to kill the "worse" slave owner in the south (Mr. Candie), Schultz does, a white man! No, the final enemy in this revenge movie is a black man, albeit an uncle Tom, they still made the black man the prime hated, despicable enemy. No one liked SLJ. Mr. Candie, a supposedly terrible and ruthless slave owner had to argue with his servant Stephen to even let them in the house, and be treated well.
As soon as they showed SLJ I whispered to my brother, "Notice how they make the most hated character a black man..."
Compare this movie to Inglorious Basterds, a very similar revenge flick -- except for it actually felt like a revenge flick. A bunch of Jews killing "Nahzis" in very brutal ways and at the end they exploded Hitler's head. I'm not Jewish but it seemd very cathartic and infinitely satisfying. Imagine if they didn't kill Hitler (since he did kill himself IRL) but instead they killed a Jewish guy. This movie? A copout. No, it didn't feel satisfying at all - and out of all the over the top violence in the movie, he simply shoots Stephen (SLJ) in the legs and blows up the house.
The scene where Schultz killed DiCaprio made no sense, and was just the setup to actually have the black man be the main villain. The white man was so upset about injustice that he killed another white man in cold blood without regard for the shotgun aimed at Django or Broomhilda.
And don't tell me this was an analyses on black people being their own worst enemy. Black people are treated poorly by black people because America tells EVERYONE to treat black people bad, not just the majority but minorities as well. Just look at the famous white/black doll beauty experiment. Black people are learning the same prejudices that most Americans do. I wouldn't give QT that much credit anyway
In all I think QT made a terrible mistake. A subject as sensitive, clouded and sometimes outright ignored should have been handled differently.
There's a lot of things I missed but this should give you a feeling on how I felt.
And Stephen is the last enemy to be destroyed, not necessarily the worst.
I hated him more than any other character because how devious he was at first and he's essentially the one running the plantation, yet he's just one of the more tragic results of the institution of slavery in the first place. It's just like you said! Stephen didn't hate black people on his own, he was conditioned to do so. Black people aren't the cause of their oppression in America but all too often, we sure don't do much to help the situation.
Even if he is portrayed as worse than any of the other Americans in the movie, him being worse doesn't negate their evil. Candie being lovable? Psh. If you just mean he's acting charming/charismatic, then that's all it is. His demeanor doesn't have any true bearing on who he is, and who he is is as despicable as Stephen, though he's dumber/childish (as made clear by his preference of being called "Monsieur" yet he doesn't know French).
Schultz uses the Bacall wanted poster to show Django how evil the guy was; as nice a guy he is, he believes there are people who deserve to die. He has a sense of justice.
Schultz lost it during that scene because, as evident all throughout the movie, he's disgusted, not just by slavery, but the casualness of it all. Even Americans in the film who didn't approve of slavery were still used to it since, at the time the film takes place in, they would have grown up with in. Schultz hasn't seen it first hand until the start of the film. He noticed the scars on Django's back, he questions why people are staring as they ride into town, he sees a man sic dogs on another because that man doesn't want to kill anymore, and that same man then sits in his decadent house eating white cake, listening to Beethoven.
Then, to top it off, that same man humiliates him by seeing through his clever plan and getting his money earned through bounties after threatening to smash a woman's head in. The handshake was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Speak for yourself when you say the plantation owners in the film weren't shown to be despicable or that the film doesn't make you hate the white slavers. I know for a fact I hated the white slavers; I've seen people here mention they didn't think Stephen was that bad.
EDIT: people on GAF, not just this thread.
EDIT EDIT: And
Stephen the first shot with Stephen was him signing checks with a "Calvin Candie" stamp. He's the one running things there and since he's willingly subservient/self-hating, he's fine with doing so behind the scenes.
but it was low level goons and a guy who said the N-word a few times (who didn't in that movie) and was going to cut off Django's privates. I say boo to that. Big deal! Certainly not enough to get the bad taste out of my mouth.
And Stephen is the last enemy to be destroyed, not necessarily the worst.
I hated him more than any other character because how devious he was at first and he's essentially the one running the plantation, yet he's just one of the more tragic results of the institution of slavery in the first place. It's just like you said! Stephen didn't hate black people on his own, he was conditioned to do so. Black people aren't the cause of their oppression in America but all too often, we sure don't do much to help the situation.
Even if he is portrayed as worse than any of the other Americans in the movie, him being worse doesn't negate their evil. Candie being lovable? Psh. If you just mean he's acting charming/charismatic, then that's all it is. His demeanor doesn't have any true bearing on who he is, and who he is is as despicable as Stephen, though he's dumber/childish (as made clear by his preference of being called "Monsieur" yet he doesn't know French).
Schultz uses the Bacall wanted poster to show Django how evil the guy was; as nice a guy he is, he believes there are people who deserve to die. He has a sense of justice.
Schultz lost it during that scene because, as evident all throughout the movie, he's disgusted, not just by slavery, but the casualness of it all. Even Americans in the film who didn't approve of slavery were still used to it since, at the time the film takes place in, they would have grown up with in. Schultz hasn't seen it first hand until the start of the film. He noticed the scars on Django's back, he questions why people are staring as they ride into town, he sees a man sic dogs on another because that man doesn't want to kill anymore, and that same man then sits in his decadent house eating white cake, listening to Beethoven.
Then, to top it off, that same man humiliates him by seeing through his clever plan and getting his money earned through bounties after threatening to smash a woman's head in. The handshake was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Speak for yourself when you say the plantation owners in the film weren't shown to be despicable or that the film doesn't make you hate the white slavers. I know for a fact I hated the white slavers; I've seen people here mention they didn't think Stephen was that bad.
You wouldn't but Quentin and every other person does.
Quentin: "The reason that actually made me put pen to paper was to give black American males a western hero, give them a cool folkloric hero that could actually be empowering and pay back blood for blood."
Interviewer: "And that's the revenge bit...?
QT: "Well, in the case of laying waste to a genocidal white racist class , and the institution of slavery, yes..."
I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought all of the slave owners were loveable, or even that Mr. Candie was not a terrible human. It was just offset (not entirely of course!) by his hospitality towards a black man and SLJ's character.
Most of your other points have been answered in previous posts. Of course I am open to opinion. This was just my interpretation of the film. I would see it again. I don't HATE it. I'm not raging. It was simply annoying at the end to see such a huge copout. It's a popcorn QT flick so I can't be too upset.
You wouldn't but Quentin and every other person does.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought all of the slave owners were loveable, or even that Mr. Candie was not a terrible human. It was just offset (not entirely of course!) by his hospitality towards a black man and SLJ's character.
Most of your other points have been answered in previous posts. Of course I am open to opinion. This was just my interpretation of the film. I would see it again. I don't HATE it. I'm not raging. It was simply annoying at the end to see such a huge copout. It's a popcorn QT flick so I can't be too upset.
To be fair, Quentin Tarantino isn't very good at making villains. Some of his films completely lack a villain, and those that do contain one (Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained), have villains that are fairly likable despite the fact that they're morally repugnant. Bill, the Jew Hunter and Candie are so quirky and likable for much of the movie, that when Tarantino finally supplies some narrative justification for their villainy, that audiences sort of just shrug it off.
Probably because Official threads for overwhelmingly popular films like Django Unchained are basically a massive circle jerk where negative/differing viewpoints are either ignored are rebutted lazily.
Like I mentioned earlier soundscream's audio was low. I have had no time to edit thus far and just allowed clipping throughout the entire file in hopes it would level out a bit.
Test it out, let me know how it sounds and what you used to listen to it with. If need be I'll go back and boost the volume on every bit of Soundscream audio in the hour and a half recording.
Next thing, Podomatic is.....kinda weak. the upload limit is fine. Don't think we'd ever surpass the 250mb monthly limit. The bandwidth limit is already 1/5th gone after just 1 episode being offered in this thread.
I was thinking about libsyn.com I have no gripes about the $5 a month cost if the service is worth it. I'll look into it more in the next couple days.
I considered posting in there but wanted to gauge the reactions of fellow black posters before I did that. I wanted to see if I was alone for seeing that very odd plot development.
I guess I am. I'm still trying to decide if I want to post in there after this less than enthused reaction to my opinion.
I considered posting in there but wanted to gauge the reactions of fellow black posters before I did that. I wanted to see if I was alone for seeing that very odd plot development.
I guess I am. I'm still trying to decide if I want to post in there after this less than enthused reaction to my opinion.
You have right to have an opinion, but i just thought it was kind of strange since you have never posted here to use the thread as a sounding board for your view on the film.
To be fair, Quentin Tarantino isn't very good at making villains. Some of his films completely lack a villain, and those that do contain one (Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained), have villains that are fairly likable despite the fact that they're morally repugnant. Bill, the Jew Hunter and Candie are so quirky and likable for much of the movie, that when Tarantino finally supplies some narrative justification for their villainy, that audiences sort of just shrug it off.
Probably because Official threads for overwhelmingly popular films like Django Unchained are basically a massive circle jerk where negative/differing viewpoints are either ignored are rebutted lazily.
Like I mentioned earlier soundscream's audio was low. I have had no time to edit thus far and just allowed clipping throughout the entire file in hopes it would level out a bit.
Test it out, let me know how it sounds and what you used to listen to it with. If need be I'll go back and boost the volume on every bit of Soundscream audio in the hour and a half recording.
Next thing, Podomatic is.....kinda weak. the upload limit is fine. Don't think we'd ever surpass the 250mb monthly limit. The bandwidth limit is already 1/5th gone after just 1 episode being offered in this thread.
I was thinking about libsyn.com I have no gripes about the $5 a month cost if the service is worth it. I'll look into it more in the next couple days.
You have right to have an opinion, but i just thought it was kind of strange since you have never posted here to use the thread as a sounding board for your view on the film.
You wouldn't but Quentin and every other person does.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought all of the slave owners were loveable, or even that Mr. Candie was not a terrible human. It was just offset (not entirely of course!) by his hospitality towards a black man and SLJ's character.
Most of your other points have been answered in previous posts. Of course I am open to opinion. This was just my interpretation of the film. I would see it again. I don't HATE it. I'm not raging. It was simply annoying at the end to see such a huge copout. It's a popcorn QT flick so I can't be too upset.
Revenge happens in the film but to equate that Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds doesn't make sense. Django is trying to resuce his wife; he was perfectly content with leaving with Broomhilda until things went awry after the handshake. He doesn't go back to Old Man Carrucan who deliberately split him and his wife up. He kills those in between him and his girl. He also doesn't really do shit to help any of the other slaves; any help he gives them is just as a result of furthering his own (admirable) interests.
There was no one person who wronged Django, it's the entire country that's screwed him over, so even thinking of it as a straight-up revenge flick weird. Kill Bill's a no-brainer. Hitler is the Basterd's target and Shoshanna's as well and the outset of the movie is her reason for vengeance. DU is different because in those other movies, they weren't trying to save anybody.
Django does go back to Candy Land and cleans up, but it's climactic because we get to see the most vle character get offed, but also because he's doing something without saving Broomhilda as his ulterior motive; he's already got her at that point. I take it as him adopting Schutlz's mentality about justice. He ends up using that "hold the lantern to make your enemy think your guard's down, then drop it and smoke 'em," move Schultz used, so it's safe to see it as him fighting evil now that his personal stake in the matter has been taken care of.
And again, Stephen was running the show. The first scene with him signing checks shows he's running things there and since he's willingly subservient/self-hating, he's fine with doing so behind the scenes. He's also the only reason Django and Schultz's plan falls through.
Maybe it's because I see the whole "black people being an enemy of themselves" differently than you that I find the ending satisfying.
Also, I don't see the whole "popcorn Tarantino flick" thing as any reason not to take something from this movie beyond "straight up revenge shoot 'em up." I can't say I know all of what his intentions were, but there's some poignant stuff brought up.
Probably because Official threads for overwhelmingly popular films like Django Unchained are basically a massive circle jerk where negative/differing viewpoints are either ignored are rebutted lazily.
Revenge happens in the film but to equate that Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds doesn't make sense. Django is trying to resuce his wife; he was perfectly content with leaving with Broomhilda until things went awry after the handshake. He doesn't go back to Old Man Carrucan who deliberately split him and his wife up. He kills those in between him and his girl. He also doesn't really do shit to help any of the other slaves; any help he gives them is just as a result of furthering his own (admirable) interests.
There was no one person who wronged Django, it's the entire country that's screwed him over, so even thinking of it as a straight-up revenge flick weird. Kill Bill's a no-brainer. Hitler is the Basterd's target and Shoshanna's as well and the outset of the movie is her reason for vengeance. DU is different because in those other movies, they weren't trying to save anybody.
Django does go back to Candy Land and cleans up, but it's climactic because we get to see the most vle character get offed, but also because he's doing something without saving Broomhilda as his ulterior motive; he's already got her at that point. I take it as him adopting Schutlz's mentality about justice. He ends up using that "hold the lantern to make your enemy think your guard's down, then drop it and smoke 'em," move Schultz used, so it's safe to see it as him fighting evil now that his personal stake in the matter has been taken care of.
And again, Stephen was running the show. The first scene with him signing checks shows he's running things there and since he's willingly subservient/self-hating, he's fine with doing so behind the scenes. He's also the only reason Django and Schultz's plan falls through.
Maybe it's because I see the whole "black people being an enemy of themselves" differently than you that I find the ending satisfying.
Also, I don't see the whole "popcorn Tarantino flick" thing as any reason not to take something from this movie beyond "straight up revenge shoot 'em up." I can't say I know all of what his intentions were, but there's some poignant stuff brought up.
It's definitely intended to be a revenge film. At its core, it's an homage to Spaghetti Westerns, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Spaghetti Western that wasn't a revenge film. I'm honestly not sure how you'd classify it as anything but a revenge film. The genre doesn't require a single targeted entity to exist. There are revenge films that are a commentary on patriarchy, where Men in general are the targeted villain.
You don't have Django dropping stuff like "kill white people for money, what's not to like about it," or flashbacks of him being wrong juxtoposed within the narrative, or him re-dishing out the atrocities that were forced onto him (whippings, verbal abuse, etc), him outright slaughtering whites, etc. if the film weren't a revenge film. Either he's a sadistic murderer without aim, or there's justification to his brutality.
And I simply can't agree with the notion that there was anything remotely poignant about the film. There was definitely some blatant above the surface themes that were extremely basic, but the intentions of the film were A) Entertainment and B) To construct an homage to a genre that influenced Tarantino so heavily. Tarantino is not in the business of constructing socially conscious films, and there was absolutely nothing within the film to suggest that he had a radical change within that department.
It's definitely intended to be a revenge film. At its core, it's an homage to Spaghetti Westerns, and you'd be hard pressed to find a Spaghetti Western that wasn't a revenge film. I'm honestly not sure how you'd classify it as anything but a revenge film. The genre doesn't require a single targeted entity to exist. There are revenge films that are a commentary on patriarchy, where Men in general are the targeted villain.
You don't have Django dropping stuff like "kill white people for money, what's not to like about it," or flashbacks of him being wrong juxtoposed within the narrative, or him re-dishing out the atrocities that were forced onto him (whippings, verbal abuse, etc), him outright slaughtering whites, etc. if the film weren't a revenge film. Either he's a sadistic murderer without aim, or there's justification to his brutality.
And I simply can't agree with the notion that there was anything remotely poignant about the film. There was definitely some blatant above the surface themes that were extremely basic, but the intentions of the film were A) Entertainment and B) To construct an homage to a genre that influenced Tarantino so heavily. Tarantino is not in the business of constructing socially conscious films, and there was absolutely nothing within the film to suggest that he had a radical change within that department.
The plot point the movie hinges on is Django getting back to Broomhilda. Before he rescues her, there's nothing he does that doesn't help him accomplish that. Even if he's getting payback, it's for ulterior reasons. I loved the movie in part because I felt like I was vicariously enacting vengeance on some KKK members and slavers, but that doesn't make it the same kind of revenge epic like Once Upon a Time in the West.
Foxy was directly comparing it to Basterds, a film which, despite being broken into pieces, is pretty straight forward in that the desire for revenge is what drives the film. Django Unchained felt more like a rousing adventure film with a lot of ass-kicking on the side. That's why I said "I wouldn't call it a revenge flick," not "It's not a revenge flick." I see where you're coming from, but it still feels different and saying the ending was a cop-out because it doesn't compare to Hitler getting shot up in IB doesn't seem appropriate when they're not the same type of film.
Again, I don't pretend to know what Tarantino's intentions were going into this. I specifically chose the term "brought up," poignant stuff because that what happened. It wasn't thoroughly explored and Tarantino has never had movies that were deep when it came to social commentary, no matter what his fans say (Pulp Fiction's is a comedy, yet you'll see people treat it like Goodfellas or something). However, I can't watch the scene where two slaves are fighting to the death and three other black folk ignore it for various reasons, and just say "this movie doesn't have anything poignant in it." It only served as backdrop to the plot, but it's still there.
Whether Tarantino consciously tried to make a point with that is of no consequence. It's something that can be discussed here though.
Its the best/worst Batman film. It doesn't work as a standalone film, but it has certain elements which are high points in the trilogy. And I think it was made that way intentionally, but I can see where people have issues with it.
She can take as much as she wants. But just having a booty jam up against my side while I'm trying to chill on the couch is a no-no. Either sit on my lap or do something else.
She can take as much as she wants. But just having a booty jam up against my side while I'm trying to chill on the couch is a no-no. Either sit on my lap or do something else.
She can take as much as she wants. But just having a booty jam up against my side while I'm trying to chill on the couch is a no-no. Either sit on my lap or do something else.
She can take as much as she wants. But just having a booty jam up against my side while I'm trying to chill on the couch is a no-no. Either sit on my lap or do something else.
Hey, if she's offering to make me one out of the kindness of her heart, who am I to refuse? Otherwise, I can make my own damn sandwich. And it'll be better than Dreams-Vision's, too.
Like I mentioned earlier soundscream's audio was low. I have had no time to edit thus far and just allowed clipping throughout the entire file in hopes it would level out a bit.
Test it out, let me know how it sounds and what you used to listen to it with. If need be I'll go back and boost the volume on every bit of Soundscream audio in the hour and a half recording.
Next thing, Podomatic is.....kinda weak. the upload limit is fine. Don't think we'd ever surpass the 250mb monthly limit. The bandwidth limit is already 1/5th gone after just 1 episode being offered in this thread.
I was thinking about libsyn.com I have no gripes about the $5 a month cost if the service is worth it. I'll look into it more in the next couple days.
Just got of Skype with an old friend. Cool white guy that used to mix with us. Said he met the perfect girl but broke up with her because........she dated 3 black guys before him.
........wtf? This is actually a thing???
I remember some gaffer once said something like "I liked her so much but stopped once I found out she was a mudshark". Thought It was some kind of joke.
You guys ever seen this before? Guys that won't touch a girl if she's been with a black guy?
Revenge happens in the film but to equate that Kill Bill or Inglorious Basterds doesn't make sense. Django is trying to resuce his wife; he was perfectly content with leaving with Broomhilda until things went awry after the handshake. He doesn't go back to Old Man Carrucan who deliberately split him and his wife up. He kills those in between him and his girl. He also doesn't really do shit to help any of the other slaves; any help he gives them is just as a result of furthering his own (admirable) interests.
There was no one person who wronged Django, it's the entire country that's screwed him over, so even thinking of it as a straight-up revenge flick weird. Kill Bill's a no-brainer. Hitler is the Basterd's target and Shoshanna's as well and the outset of the movie is her reason for vengeance. DU is different because in those other movies, they weren't trying to save anybody.
Django does go back to Candy Land and cleans up, but it's climactic because we get to see the most vle character get offed, but also because he's doing something without saving Broomhilda as his ulterior motive; he's already got her at that point. I take it as him adopting Schutlz's mentality about justice. He ends up using that "hold the lantern to make your enemy think your guard's down, then drop it and smoke 'em," move Schultz used, so it's safe to see it as him fighting evil now that his personal stake in the matter has been taken care of.
And again, Stephen was running the show. The first scene with him signing checks shows he's running things there and since he's willingly subservient/self-hating, he's fine with doing so behind the scenes. He's also the only reason Django and Schultz's plan falls through.
Maybe it's because I see the whole "black people being an enemy of themselves" differently than you that I find the ending satisfying.
Also, I don't see the whole "popcorn Tarantino flick" thing as any reason not to take something from this movie beyond "straight up revenge shoot 'em up." I can't say I know all of what his intentions were, but there's some poignant stuff brought up.
The TDKR thread has been this way forever. I've seen people all but say no one has a right to dislike the film.
Let me preface by apologizing if this post is hard to read I'm writing this as I'm getting ready to leave the house.
Spoilers for DJANGO AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While an important plot point its subservient to the meat of the film: Black slave killing white slave owners. You didn't see Django because it was a romantic story, you didn't see it because he had to rescue his wife. It was marketed in such a way to play up the aspect of revenge and violence.
Django represents the repressed and enslaved African American, the other slave owners and Mr. Candie and his plantation represent exactly what Mr. Tarantino said in the interview: "[A] genocidal white racist class, and the institution of slavery..." Django: Unchained (the film's name tells you exactly what to expect within. What ideas come to mind when you think of a title such as that?) gives physical identities to all those ideas. The symbolism of the film very clear. Whether or not there is one person that we can pin all the past atrocities on doesn't matter at all.
Tarantino also says that's why he started writing!
"The reason that actually made me put pen to paper was to give black American males a western hero, give them a cool folkloric hero that could actually be empowering and pay back blood for blood."
There's nothing in that quote that talks about rescuing a damsel in distress. We all know the true point to the film and because you have further exposition for the reason behind his killing doesn't mean that it nullifies or takes higher precedence than "A folkloric hero that...pays back blood for blood." Whether or not he helps other slaves is moot. He's not required to free slaves. He's required to kill white slave owners, nothing more. (He did actually make sure the black servants left safely though)
I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me Stephen was in control or running things. You may be right in some manner, but ultimately he still answered to the authority of Mr. Candie. And perhaps I'm too naive to see where you're going but this is also seems to be a moot point -- The antagonist of the story was Stephen, a black house negro. Yes he had some clout, but the main antagonist had better have some clout. Otherwise, why do we care if he dies?
Django going back I would say only helps my point. It's a revenge film. Like you said he could have left. But he went back and decimated the entire Candie house, and even Mrs. Candie who really did nothing wrong in the film (except wanting to punish the man who was the cause of the death of her husband which is very understandable) The denouement was supposed to be very cathartic because Django was killing everyone who wronged him... the representation of slavery finally setting things right. Underneath it really had nothing to do with Broomhilda but everything to do with the main premise of the film.
And Broomhilda could easily have been killed and the story still would have served its purpose. It doesn't really hinge on Django rescuing her. Again, Brromhilda only serves to contextualize a former black slave killing white slave owners.
And I argue that it is directly comparable to Inglorious. You don't need every single plot point or every single conflict to be symmetric. The thematic motif is that of an oppressed class, enacting vengeance (the reason they can or do is moot) on the oppressive.
With that said, even the most memorable lines to both movies are extremely similar in nature. Paraphrasing here but you have a bunch of Jews saying, "We're in the business of killing Nahzis!" and as harSon said a black slave saying, "Kill white people for money, what's not to like about that?"
I really don't think we'll agree on this. It's clear we have very different interpretations of the film. I think having a black man as the final baddie is a cop out to the entire premise of the film, and to the subject of slavery. You of course do not. I understand why you'd think that, I just disagree.
Man this flu is on some CIA sickle cell shit. But I got to live, so I can laugh when Dy tries to be a dad when his son gets signed to the CFL, only to get hit with "Where were you?" by Dy jr.
