Anyone Seen Django?

[Real]

Man. I kinda like this movie more than Inglorious b*stards...

Only reason why i'm comparing is cuz its the last two QT films.

Theater was jumping when they got to the 100 black coffins scene

 

[HHR]

Do you mind explain to me why Blind Side offended you?

The scene where Michael gets distracted by a fukking balloon during practice was one of the most absurd things I've ever seen in a movie. I felt offended for the real Oher at that moment.

 

[Real]

The scene where Michael gets distracted by a fukking balloon during practice was one of the most absurd things I've ever seen in a movie. I felt offended for the real Oher at that moment.

Real talk. They also made it seem like he had absolutely NO idea wtf football even was.

 

[smARTmouf]

To be fair for those that's outraged...the dudes name was DR. KING....Shultz...

Then for the majority of the movie I thought they referred to him as Dr. Scholls since QT has that foot fetish and all...lol

 

[Newzz]

...

 

[Guess Who]

as QT himself explained in an interview, schultz selfish self-righteousness got in the way. the very thing he told django NOT to do! he was forced to give candie was pass when he witnessed him sic the dogs on that runaway slave-fighter and watch the dogs tear that slave up to bits. he didn't want to subject himself to be lower than candie... he felt humiliated, and didn't give a fucck about the consequences of his actions and the whole reason they were there in the 1st place.

it exposes schultz to who he truly was. he was a flawed character like many white people who claim to MEAN well, but more detrimental for the cause and only doing it to gas themselves up as being "morally just".

and I think that flashback is to signify that Schultz finally starts to actually "get it,"--what the whole slavery thing is about, how terrible it is, and that by buying Broomhilda back, even if that means the mission is a success, that he is upholding slavery and the horrors that come with it. In realizing this, he decides that he can't live with himself, so he kills Candie, knowing it means he'll die to.

Basically, he makes the transition from being guilty white liberal whose motives are to distance himself from the "bad" whites, to actually being down for the cause and willing to fight and die for it. I've personally seen, in real life, white liberals experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance as they have gone from speaking out against white supremacy to actually understanding it and realizing that they have benefitted from it and in many ways upheld it. The shift in moral compass is often frightening for them, which is why they are so adamant in NOT talking about issues or telling us to "get over it." They don't wanna talk about it or face it cuz it fukks with their entire self-concept of being a "good" person as they realize how much they benefit by living in a white supremacist society.

The more I think about this movie, the more I believe it is designed to throw the curtains back on white supremacy and is a harsh critique of it. It seems to say, "hey, this is what white people think of you, and this is how they justify it, and it's all STUPID!" or from a white person's perspective, "this is what we think of them and how we treat them, we have been irrational and childish (hence Candie and Candie Land), and it's STUPID because they show more humanity than we do (all the white characters, except Schultz, are actually subhuman and lacking insight/character/intelligence, while all the black characters, even the uncle tom, show insight and humanity). This movie is asking everybody to wake up.

What I'm surprised not too many people have commented on in this thread is how black people are portrayed in this flick and the commentaries made on contemporary black issues--how we think of ourselves and how we are scared of "them" on a psychological level...I think the ending is basically saying that we have no need to be scared, we don't need white people to save us, that we can do it on our own...just that we've been conditioned otherwise.

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Man wow, you guys really went and saw this garbage huh? Its like that? Its like so demonic but you went to hole in the door n peeped, friends? Interesting like word, friends?

 

[Newzz]

Movie is a classic........nikkas!

 

[Marvel]

and I think that flashback is to signify that Schultz finally starts to actually "get it,"--what the whole slavery thing is about, how terrible it is, and that by buying Broomhilda back, even if that means the mission is a success, that he is upholding slavery and the horrors that come with it. In realizing this, he decides that he can't live with himself, so he kills Candie, knowing it means he'll die to.

Basically, he makes the transition from being guilty white liberal whose motives are to distance himself from the "bad" whites, to actually being down for the cause and willing to fight and die for it. I've personally seen, in real life, white liberals experience a great deal of cognitive dissonance as they have gone from speaking out against white supremacy to actually understanding it and realizing that they have benefitted from it and in many ways upheld it. The shift in moral compass is often frightening for them, which is why they are so adamant in NOT talking about issues or telling us to "get over it." They don't wanna talk about it or face it cuz it fukks with their entire self-concept of being a "good" person as they realize how much they benefit by living in a white supremacist society.

The more I think about this movie, the more I believe it is designed to throw the curtains back on white supremacy and is a harsh critique of it. It seems to say, "hey, this is what white people think of you, and this is how they justify it, and it's all STUPID!" or from a white person's perspective, "this is what we think of them and how we treat them, we have been irrational and childish (hence Candie and Candie Land), and it's STUPID because they show more humanity than we do (all the white characters, except Schultz, are actually subhuman and lacking insight/character/intelligence, while all the black characters, even the uncle tom, show insight and humanity). This movie is asking everybody to wake up.

What I'm surprised not too many people have commented on in this thread is how black people are portrayed in this flick and the commentaries made on contemporary black issues--how we think of ourselves and how we are scared of "them" on a psychological level...I think the ending is basically saying that we have no need to be scared, we don't need white people to save us, that we can do it on our own...just that we've been conditioned otherwise.

Good post....but...

How do we explain that Django needs Dr. King Shultz to bring him along. Could a version without Dr. King work or does the movie need a white character that whites can identify with? Is Dr. King Shultz basically MLK who is showing to the promise land? He puts himself in danger for Django (black people) even though he really didn't need to. I think that the using the name Dr. King was done on purpose for this reason.

Another thing, I believe that many white people will try and identify with Dr. King when they are really Mr. Candie. White people today, really believe that they wouldn't be down with slavery or segregation if they were around back then, but we know based on history that was not the case.

Django also did not kill white men in a real position of power. He killed hicks and overseers. Dr. King killed the town sheriff and Mr. Candie. Django's character was dependent on Dr. King and that is how whites feel, that we need them to get to where we want to get to in life.

Another point, the slaves were not killed by other whites, but by another slaves, like in the Mandingo fight and by dogs. I think this took away from the sting of the fact that whites killed black slaves and actually enjoyed doing it. It takes away from Django's revenge factor if the white murders of slaves is not shown but only implied. I think this was purposely done. Some whites may have a hard time sympathizing with Django's struggle because there is no connection of a true revenge motive.

Mandingo fights = black on black homicides today

It is form of entertainment for white people to see what we do to each other. Even st0rmfr0nt members cheer on black on black crime, because it allows them to keep their hands clean. The person who fostering the environment for such killings is the white man. That is what the fight scene implies. Candie even gives him a female slave to "lick his pole" as he says. Even says that he has his choice of female slaves because of the "work" he puts in on other slaves. Sound familiar?

When Django plays the role of the black slaver in order to get his woman back...It shows the lengths that black men have to go to survive and get what they want in America. Its the selling out to fit in with your white boss so your family can eat. Its changing the tone of your voice or not wearing dreds to fit in even though you are still a N****R in their eyes. That was a tough balancing act for Django and it is for us as black men. He had to hold back many times, just like we do with white people. Knowing we want to cuss them out or smack them up over bullshyt they say and do to us.

Big Daddy - its a play on the Pimp lifestyle. We usually associate that name with black men, but we must also realize that plantation owners bought females slaves for the sexual pleasure of themselves, their sons, and to "pimp" out to other white men in the community. This really makes pimping women not look cool, because it has roots in slavery.

There is other deep stuff in the movie. QT really understands the psyche of white and black people really well. Its obvious this dude grew around us and really enjoys black culture. I just had a few gripes on what wasn't done in the movie, like I stated above. It would have given a different emotion if he had whites actually killing slaves or sexually abusing them, something that really and would make white feel like crap in the movie when watching. I don't think that white people got that emotion in this movie. I know that what I am saying sounds raw, but this stuff really happened and I think that is where the film fell short of being a real classic and not just a very good movie even with the cartoonish violence. But heck, what can I say its not like the movie was based on a true story.

 

[Marvel]

Saw last night. Had to sit in the first row

Overall I was a little disappointed that it had such a light tone to it. At certain points it almost feels like a comedy or a parody. That was a let down, I was looking for it to have a more raw feeling. Then again I can see why QT would make that choice.

Def not a bad movie, I would def watch it again, especially certain scenes. Sam Jackson was comic gold. I'm looking forward to the DVD rip so I can watch it again.

I feel the exact same way, that is why the movie fell short. How do make a movie about slavery with all the brutality that comes with it into a comedy/parody?

Remember when you first watched Rosewood or Cry Freedom. That feeling of and when you left the theater. White people were

This was more

 

[Gravity]

How exactly is this movie made "to entertain white people"? Why not just...to entertain?

White people make up 65-70% of moviegoers. This is common sense. Again, any movie about slavery that allows people like you to be comfortable and feel entertained is suspect to me. I admit that I'm just suspicions because i havent seen it. White people like you wouldn't be comfortable and entertained when shown a movie that honestly depicted slavery and white people. White people like you aren't even comfortable or capable of having an honest discussion about race today in 2012.

We are really going to sit here and state with conviction that Django Unchained was designed to entertain white people specifically?

Or are you making a statement about the Movie Industry being a business and its primary function is to entertain PEOPLE generally?

As Black people... mater fact...

Gravity, are you taking the stance that it is blasphemous up to make a movie with certain cartoonish and comedic undertones because it deals with the slavery of our ancestors?

Are you so concrete on that stance that you think it is wrong to make a movie about ANY tragedy unless it is absolutely 100% serious?

Or just black tragedies? Or just slavery?

Yes, this was made to entertain whites. It's a Hollywood movie that was made to make money. Who do you think makes up the overwhelming majority of moviegoers? White people. Obviously they want dollars from every ethnicity but the movie would bomb and fail if white people didn't like it. If you don't think that white people's feelings(to put that in a simple way) were taken into account when making this movie then you're naive. Django is a slavery movie thats made to entertain people, whites included. That's my point. I'm not saying its blasphemous, right, or wrong. I'm calling it for what it is. It's exploitation and whether that's "right" or "wrong" is up to you. I don't sit on a high horse.

I feel the exact same way, that is why the movie fell short. How do make a movie about slavery with all the brutality that comes with it into a comedy/parody?

Remember when you first watched Rosewood or Cry Freedom. That feeling of and when you left the theater. White people were

This was more

This is the point that I was making earlier in this thread. Any movie about slavery that makes white people comfortable enough to be entertained by it seems kind of suspect.

 

[HHR]

I'd like to think you're trolling, but I doubt it

 

[Guess Who]

Good post....but...

How do we explain that Django needs Dr. King Shultz to bring him along. Could a version without Dr. King work or does the movie need a white character that whites can identify with? Is Dr. King Shultz basically MLK who is showing to the promise land? He puts himself in danger for Django (black people) even though he really didn't need to. I think that the using the name Dr. King was done on purpose for this reason.

Another thing, I believe that many white people will try and identify with Dr. King when they are really Mr. Candie. White people today, really believe that they wouldn't be down with slavery or segregation if they were around back then, but we know based on history that was not the case.

Django also did not kill white men in a real position of power. He killed hicks and overseers. Dr. King killed the town sheriff and Mr. Candie. Django's character was dependent on Dr. King and that is how whites feel, that we need them to get to where we want to get to in life.

Another point, the slaves were not killed by other whites, but by another slaves, like in the Mandingo fight and by dogs. I think this took away from the sting of the fact that whites killed black slaves and actually enjoyed doing it. It takes away from Django's revenge factor if the white murders of slaves is not shown but only implied. I think this was purposely done. Some whites may have a hard time sympathizing with Django's struggle because there is no connection of a true revenge motive.

Mandingo fights = black on black homicides today

It is form of entertainment for white people to see what we do to each other. Even st0rmfr0nt members cheer on black on black crime, because it allows them to keep their hands clean. The person who fostering the environment for such killings is the white man. That is what the fight scene implies. Candie even gives him a female slave to "lick his pole" as he says. Even says that he has his choice of female slaves because of the "work" he puts in on other slaves. Sound familiar?

When Django plays the role of the black slaver in order to get his woman back...It shows the lengths that black men have to go to survive and get what they want in America. Its the selling out to fit in with your white boss so your family can eat. Its changing the tone of your voice or not wearing dreds to fit in even though you are still a N****R in their eyes. That was a tough balancing act for Django and it is for us as black men. He had to hold back many times, just like we do with white people. Knowing we want to cuss them out or smack them up over bullshyt they say and do to us.

Big Daddy - its a play on the Pimp lifestyle. We usually associate that name with black men, but we must also realize that plantation owners bought females slaves for the sexual pleasure of themselves, their sons, and to "pimp" out to other white men in the community. This really makes pimping women not look cool, because it has roots in slavery.

There is other deep stuff in the movie. QT really understands the psyche of white and black people really well. Its obvious this dude grew around us and really enjoys black culture. I just had a few gripes on what wasn't done in the movie, like I stated above. It would have given a different emotion if he had whites actually killing slaves or sexually abusing them, something that really and would make white feel like crap in the movie when watching. I don't think that white people got that emotion in this movie. I know that what I am saying sounds raw, but this stuff really happened and I think that is where the film fell short of being a real classic and not just a very good movie even with the cartoonish violence. But heck, what can I say its not like the movie was based on a true story.

I agree with all of this.

I didn't actually catch the symbolism of Django having to become one of "them" to fit in and achieve his goals. Very good analysis my dude.

And I think in a perfect world they would have shown more harsh violence towards whites, more Django killing powerful whites, and less Schultz having to lead and then partner with Django, but I think Tarantino needed to this in order for his movie to be received well (or even made at all), as Hollywood and America are not ready for a true black revenge film. So, Tarantino made certain concessions to even get this movie at all.

 

[Gravity]

I'd like to think you're trolling, but I doubt it

I'd like to think that you are smart enough to post an intelligent reply, but you aren't.

 

[Guess Who]

I feel the exact same way, that is why the movie fell short. How do make a movie about slavery with all the brutality that comes with it into a comedy/parody?

Remember when you first watched Rosewood or Cry Freedom. That feeling of and when you left the theater. White people were

This was more

I dunno bruh...the theatre I saw this in was 85-90% white and by the time Django left Big Daddy's plantation, people were mad quiet, and faces were grim! Then again, I live in Toronto and from having been to the States, I know that race relations up here are a lot better and white folks in this city seem to be more willing to face themselves and have more of an understanding of white supremacy and cultural sensitivities--half of this city of 3 million people are immigrants, which I think fosters an environment of understanding.

I don't know, I'm still conflicted about certain things...I may feel completely different in a week.