Anyone Seen Django?

[phillycavsfan]

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

If you went into this movie expecting Rosewood or Cry Freedom that shyt is on you, not on the movie. Tarantino was NEVER going to make a movie like that. Nah, this shyt was the perfect anti-slavery movie.

And like Schultz said, Django couldn't just walk into Greenville, Mississippi and got what he wanted. He'd be arrested and sold back into slavery as soon as he was spotted. And he couldn't just walk onto the plantation to snatch Broomhilda away, because they'd probably be caught and hanged the next day. That's not 'cism; that's the reality of the situation.

 

[bewitched]

Oprah made a movie based on slavery called Beloved and it didn't get support from the mainstream or was critically acclaimed. But if the subject is touched upon using comedy and parody, the mainstream will support it. This goes to show you that slavery cannot be understood by the masses without what happened during the time period be water downed for the masses. This is why Hollywood would green light a movie like Django and give it acclaim. A real slavery revenge movie would recall the stories of John Brown, Denmark Vescey and Tousaint L'Overture, who all put their lives on the line, formed rebellions that came to be the reasons slavery ended in the US and Haiti. I haven't seen Django yet so I won't comment about the movie, but my reservation about the movie that it's going to cheapen the legacy and brutality of slavery in front of the masses and our ancestors don't deserve that at all with the hell they lived through. Like Spike said, they need to be honored and their stories should be told authentically.

 

[HHR]

It doesn't cheapen slavery AT ALL. I literally don't know how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Also, Beloved is a not a good film. That's the biggest difference between the two films.

And just because Django's arc may not be "authentic", it doesn't mean the brutality of slavery wasn't handled with respect.

 

[Gravity]

It doesn't cheapen slavery AT ALL. I literally don't know how anyone could come to that conclusion.

Says the white boy who admits to laughing while watching the film.

 

[HHR]

Says the white boy who admits to laughing while watching the film.

Why are you dedicating so much time to a movie you haven't seen and have ZERO understanding of?

Again - the movie is "about slavery". The movie is also funny. This DOES NOT mean that the movie makes slavery funny.

I refuse to believe someone can be this stupid.

 

[Pool_Shark]

Watched the movie yesterday.


Extra average.

As a western it was a good movie but as a QT movie it wasn't even close to touching pulp fiction or reservoir dogs. There was a few good parts like when Django whips the fukk out of that guy by the tree. A lot of the movie felt like it was moving too fast at the wrong times and too slow when it should have sped up.

It was almost a waste. Your gonna start all this controversy, get all these eyes on you, and you come with this If he was trying to push the boundaries or whatever this movie should of been on some epic level. Instead it's just clunky. The actors are good and Shultz stole the show.

Movie was decent but not something worth going to the movie theater for. Just download it when it comes out. I was kind of bored towards the end honestly. I think Quentin Tarantino lost whatever made his first few movies so damn good.

 

[Gravity]

Why are you dedicating so much time to a movie you haven't seen and have ZERO understanding of?

Again - the movie is "about slavery". The movie is also funny. This DOES NOT mean that the movie makes slavery funny.

I refuse to believe someone can be this stupid.

Try that psychology on somebody else. The only thing that I'm dedicated to right now is voicing my opinions on a variety of topics on a message board.

I never said that the movie made slavery funny. I'm saying that a movie about slavery that is funny to crackers like you is suspect. You're in no position to say whether the movie cheapens slavery or not, you're a cracker. A dumbass cracker to boot. How can a movie about slavery made to entertain people not cheapen it? Don't ever question anyone else's intelligence.

 

[Fillerguy]

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.

I feel as though both of yall are right

 

[Marvel]

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.

QT understands Hollywood and white people in their relation to black people. The movie crafted for the purposes that I stated...to lessen or eliminate the white man's guilt for his past.

Before I watched the movie, one of my black coworkers told me he saw it and was like when talking about the movie. I didn't even care about the spoilers because the movie was what I expected. There are no curve balls with the racially tinged movies in Hollywood, there must be a white savior in them and a level of sugarcoating of black treatment.

 

[gluvnast]

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.

i actually had mentioned that, but this thread is so long it's way way back somewhere in the middle. in fact, the true enemy wasn't candie, but stephen only to imply that the biggest foe that keeping black people back is our own.

 

[Marvel]

If you went into this movie expecting Rosewood or Cry Freedom that shyt is on you, not on the movie. Tarantino was NEVER going to make a movie like that. Nah, this shyt was the perfect anti-slavery movie.

And like Schultz said, Django couldn't just walk into Greenville, Mississippi and got what he wanted. He'd be arrested and sold back into slavery as soon as he was spotted. And he couldn't just walk onto the plantation to snatch Broomhilda away, because they'd probably be caught and hanged the next day. That's not 'cism; that's the reality of the situation.

I am hip to the Hollywood game and QT. It was exactly what I expected it to be. It was billed as a black Inglorious b*stards from the beginning. I am just trying to point out the movies subliminal messages and flaws and the fact this movie should be seen as some sort of black people got their revenge on racists white type movie.

The second part, if its a movie, couldn't Django just recruit runaway slaves and freeman to invade the plantation. Remember this is the creative control that directors should have. But it is not happening like that in Hollywood.

Don't bring up reality, when we didn't see some of the shyt I said was missing to make it more REAL in my previous posts.

 

[TheDarceKnight]

does anyone remember the scene when the guy was whipping kerry washington and he had those pages of the bible stapled onto him and was reciting bible scriptures? what was that supposed to mean?

I saw it as he was using the Bible as a fukked up justification to be a fukking sociopath and torture that woman. But when I saw it, I actually weren't sure if those were Bible verses or if they were her slave papers. I thought they were ownership papers of slaves he owned.

 

[HHR]

Try that psychology on somebody else. The only thing that I'm dedicated to right now is voicing my opinions on a variety of topics on a message board.

I never said that the movie made slavery funny. I'm saying that a movie about slavery that is funny to crackers like you is suspect. You're in no position to say whether the movie cheapens slavery or not, you're a cracker. A dumbass cracker to boot. How can a movie about slavery made to entertain people not cheapen it? Don't ever question anyone else's intelligence.

Someone throwing around slurs while attempting to debate a racial issue...sweet.

 

[phillycavsfan]

Oprah made a movie based on slavery called Beloved and it didn't get support from the mainstream or was critically acclaimed. But if the subject is touched upon using comedy and parody, the mainstream will support it.

Are you stupid? Comedy and action are more popular genres than drama.

Nobody wants to pay and watch some 2 hour slavery drama in a theater.

 

[valet]

there were no "multiple endings" whut u think this is return of the king?

there was just one ending. just one. django returning and rescuing his woman. BY HIMSELF, NO ASSISTANCE.

whut 2nd, or 3rd ending was YOU seeing?

Well, "endings" is in quotes. Not literally. Ending as in the the "shootouts". The movie felt like it was about to end. And then it went on again with another shoot out. There are critics who say it's too long and I think editing wise there could be a way this could flow way better.