kingdizzy01
ATXBBOY
my question is: in the begining, why was django picked from the rest of the slaves? i missed that part.
Anyone Seen Django?
- Thread starter Pool_Shark
- Start date
-
- Tags
- movies
Perceptive analysis. And for those criticizing the use of ******, I suppose you've never seen Roots, written by a black man. Calm down. It was used during the era. And BTW considering
all of the white people died, even the "good one", and were all pretty much bumbling idiots except for the "good one"
B-Rock Odrama
Banned
Okay...I thought this was an original production...in that case I guess Django's Neo like ability to dodge/bullets hold his own single handedly in close corner gun fights with dozens of better armed gunmen is staying true to the original film.
Cause he knew what the brothers who Schultz was looking for, looked like
Well its staying true to spaghetti westerns in general
And as far as the django films, there has been like 30 of them. Even a Japanese one that taratino is in (which is around the time he got the idea for this movie)
kingdizzy01
ATXBBOY
damn i remember now, preciate it!
This is the trailer for the original
Peep his behind the back shooting and disarming abilities
[ame=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uA0EUIKKgec]Django (1966) - Original Trailer - YouTube[/ame]
KAWS
Pro
2. The graphic, amistad-like scenes. If you're going to put graphic, Amistad-like imagery in your movie, the principal message of your movie should be about the sobering, brutal nature of slavery. There are a few moments where it seems like QT's fishing for laughs when the reality of the situation just isn't funny.
Example: White guy on horseback chasing 3 black dudes off into the field for comedic relief in a scene.
This is a better articulated version of what I think was spike's problem with the film. Even though he hadn't seen it, he knows QT's style, and had a pretty accurate impression of what the tone of the film would be.
That said, I disagree with the conclusion that spike and @Reality come to (the bolded).
Every rational human being believes that "all men are created equal,"and from this you have to conclude that slavery is a moral wrong. Since we can all come to that conclusion ourselves, a movie that features slavery doesn't have to be a two hour exposition on how slavery is wrong.
The point of those brutal scenes was to show how dedicated Django was to his wife. He could have stopped the man from being ripped to sheds by a dog, but it would have jeopardized the reunion with his wife.
You might have missed how the arc of the story was matched with the German fairy take of Siegfried and Broomhilda. Django Unchained is a love story. Don't let the genre of the movie distract you from that. The fact that Django was a slave was incidental and serves only as the hellfire that Siegfried goes through.
Additionally, I would argue that the film does deal with the brutal nature of slavery appropriately. It shows how much the institution warps the minds of those involved. In order to justify it, they have to see the slaves as less than human. That's how they can buy, sell, torture, and torment them. Candie does this with his little discourse on phrenology. Big Daddy does this when trying to describe how the other slaves should treat Django.
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it funny dudes are in here getting themselves into a tizzy about this movie. If you feel this way, and feel like slavery can only be portrayed in most harsh and dramatic ways, I HIGHLY recommend you don't waste your time seeing the movie. You're just setting yourself to get worked up and offended.
I got to be honest, and call me a c00n if you want, but while the 'N' word is offensive to me, I'm more concerned about intentions and whether they're for malice and the context. I'm not "OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WORD EVER FOR WHATEVER REASON" type of guy. There are some contexts that i'm neutral towards its use, for example if it happened to be said during the description of a historical event or if its simply a straight forward objective quotation of what someone said.
In a movie, I'm less emotionally moved by the word than say a real life situation where someone actually use that word around me. For me movies are an escape and while I won't say I don't have any lines that can be crossed, I'm more flexible in my tolerance. That is, if the director/writer, knows how to handle it in way that it PERSONALLY doesn't turn me off. Hell there are some QT movies where they use the word and give me the
face such as that infamous scene in Pulp Fiction. However, despite the word being used more here, given the context, I wasn't that bothered by it. That is just how I feel about it and I don't expect everyone else to have the same tolerance levels as me and that is cool.
In the case of the movie, like I said in a previous post, yeah the word is used a lot, but given it occurs in a broader context of portraying the slave masters as the antagonists in the movie and any injustice towards black people in this movie were later righted through revenge, its forgivable, TO ME. The folks who used this word in the film were also some of the most despicable villains in the film and justice is served by the end of the film.
I got to be honest, and call me a c00n if you want, but while the 'N' word is offensive to me, I'm more concerned about intentions and whether they're for malice and the context. I'm not "OMG YOU CAN'T SAY THAT WORD EVER FOR WHATEVER REASON" type of guy. There are some contexts that i'm neutral towards its use, for example if it happened to be said during the description of a historical event or if its simply a straight forward objective quotation of what someone said.
In a movie, I'm less emotionally moved by the word than say a real life situation where someone actually use that word around me. For me movies are an escape and while I won't say I don't have any lines that can be crossed, I'm more flexible in my tolerance. That is, if the director/writer, knows how to handle it in way that it PERSONALLY doesn't turn me off. Hell there are some QT movies where they use the word and give me the
face such as that infamous scene in Pulp Fiction. However, despite the word being used more here, given the context, I wasn't that bothered by it. That is just how I feel about it and I don't expect everyone else to have the same tolerance levels as me and that is cool. In the case of the movie, like I said in a previous post, yeah the word is used a lot, but given it occurs in a broader context of portraying the slave masters as the antagonists in the movie and any injustice towards black people in this movie were later righted through revenge, its forgivable, TO ME. The folks who used this word in the film were also some of the most despicable villains in the film and justice is served by the end of the film.
Francis White
i been away to long, my feeling died.
Spelling would help you get your point across, Sam Jackson was perfect in his role, he played the hell out of that role and when he woke up Calvin to how they were playing him, he also should that he playing Candie also, he c00ned it up for him in public but in private he spoke proper and showed an insight that Calvin lacked, if you remember Schultz told Django to play a role, well Stephen played a role also.
A great analysis. Look at the situation you have the white man/black helper dichotomy goingon but look at the pros and cons. Both django and steven worked with a white man. Bit while Shultz may have been the brains the entire operation was for Djangos benefit. Contrarily, you could say that Steven was the more insightful between him and Candie, but yet it was a situation much more beneficial to Candie. Also if you pay attention Steven isnt the typica slave, he speaks damn near freely, chills in the big house and runs shyt. In other words its prolly not possible for him to even think like a regular slave. Dude been having mad privliges for years.
The discourse in this topic hasnt got ignorant lets keep it up....and i'll post more i have some theories myself about things in the film.
But
and 
at both Leo's and Kerry's acting if that was reall his blood and nither o.e of them broke character.
Prodigital
All Star
When stephen started walking straight up in the end i was like 
He was a great character and played a great antagonist to django. Both of them were way smart and knew how to work the systems they were in, on par with candie and schultz IMO.
And nikka had to be used in this movie, i mean in terms of atleast fitting the historical location and time. No one really knows how much the word was tossed around back then, but i think QT does a great job of breaking our initial impressions of it by the end of the movie. The first couple times everyone was kind of shook and eventually they stopped even noticing... which is kind of how the word is taken in real life, its just a filler pronoun tossed in our dialogue.
He was a great character and played a great antagonist to django. Both of them were way smart and knew how to work the systems they were in, on par with candie and schultz IMO.
And nikka had to be used in this movie, i mean in terms of atleast fitting the historical location and time. No one really knows how much the word was tossed around back then, but i think QT does a great job of breaking our initial impressions of it by the end of the movie. The first couple times everyone was kind of shook and eventually they stopped even noticing... which is kind of how the word is taken in real life, its just a filler pronoun tossed in our dialogue.
Here's a Huffington Post article where QT debates a movie critic about Schultz's "harebrained scheme" to get Broomhilda. He REALLY does a great job of explaining Schultz's mindset and the reason why he does the things he does:
Quentin Tarantino, 'Django Unchained' Director, Challenged Us To A Debate On A 'Harebrained' Plot Point
Quentin Tarantino, 'Django Unchained' Director, Challenged Us To A Debate On A 'Harebrained' Plot Point
When stephen started walking straight up in the end i was like
He was a great character and played a great antagonist to django. Both of them were way smart and knew how to work the systems they were in, on par with candie and schultz IMO.
And nikka had to be used in this movie, i mean in terms of atleast fitting the historical location and time. No one really knows how much the word was tossed around back then, but i think QT does a great job of breaking our initial impressions of it by the end of the movie. The first couple times everyone was kind of shook and eventually they stopped even noticing... which is kind of how the word is taken in real life, its just a filler pronoun tossed in our dialogue.
100
and it also touch on the self-hatred that was birth in the slavery era between blacks. You saw how the slaves looked at Django when they though he was a slaver, what DJANGOS own impression of black slavers were, Stevens entire character, the fact that Brumhilda was valuable simply because she spoke german and no other intrinsic reason. How you had a black mistress who doesn't bat an eye and 2 black men being FORCED to kill one another....its so vile and its a psychological batter we have within yourself as black people still to this day (#teamlightskin, ect.)
And to all the whit people who may not understand why Steven acted the way he did its evident in this one line "There gon always be Candyland". If you think slavery is never going to end then eff it, a person like him is gonna say "fukk everybody, ima try to survive if i gotta and if that mean i gotta shuck and jive to do it i will, but i'll be alive and i'll be fed."
Another thing i think people missed. When Candie was giving his speech on phrenology, notice he said "the three dimples are in the sector of the brain that control CIVILITY"
notice he didn't say weakness, or submissiveness or even critical thinking. He said Civility. Black people dealt with slavery in stride and that was better than chaos, and if it got too bad they ran and risked death because even that was better than chaos. The fact that slaves could come from so many african countries and be scattered across the south like that and still set up communities and have social structures is profound and i think its something QT alluded too that people AREN'T going to get.
Reality
Make your own luck.
Look man, I'm not at all overly sensitive. I grew up in a predominantly white area in the south and work in a predominantly white corporate environment in a red state. If I were overly sensitive I wouldn't have a job or live where I live.
That said, I didn't walk into the movie expecting to be offended. And truly I'm not "offended" by what I'm talking about...it's more accurate to say I take issue or have a critique of what QT has done. Of course, that critique can't be taken out of the context of what QT's previously done...which I didn't really touch on in my original breakdown of the movie.
Anyway:
Yes, but what does it matter who said it? The word "******" was still being used for laughs...in a movie about slavery...written by a white director...who has a history of writing questionable lines using the word "******". If that's not cause for
, you're just giving QT a pass he hasn't earned (and FYI--i don't think anyone should use the word in conversation and I don't use it myself).Thank you. You're proving my point. In a movie about slavery, a black man is presented as arguably the most antagonistic force
. This is absolutely the wrong message, and I don't assume the audience is educated well enough on slavery and the archetype that Stephen represents to not be rubbed the wrong way by it.So you have Leo/Candie giving a 5-10 minute monologue voicing a phrenological argument for why blacks are submissive, not creative, and less intelligent--why we we're not "burdened by genius". This is what QT sat down to write for a movie that was essentially a vanity project-- something to do in his free time. Anyway, the movie's entire "rebuttal" to Candie's argument consists of:
1. A throwaway line from Schultz that Alexander Dumas was black (he was a quarter black)
2. Django stating that everything Candie said was "hogwash" or something to that effect.
In other words, a 10 second rebuttal to a 5 minute argument. And note that Django isn't the one who kills Candie-- it's Schultz. Django kills the hillbillies and rednecks that Candie states are essentially "******s" themselves throughout the movie. Also, side note, I guarantee you there will be increased searches for "black people skull shape", "black people skull dimples", "black people skull dimples" now. More Americans being introduced to phrenological arguments for black inferiority...gee, thanks Quentin
.Overall, you can't properly view this movie critically without asking yourself questions about why QT chose to make a movie set around slavery, chose to write it in the way he did, and chose to have it develop the way it did. My personal take is that this was QT putting most of his thoughts on race & blacks on the table (in a movie that runs 15 minutes shy of 3 hours
). Pretty disturbing look into his mind and the internal debate he's had/is having about our intelligence, agency, etc.
