Anyone Seen Django?

[Piff Perkins]

1st of all, I clearly said "kkk like characters" so it's obvious that I was aware that they weren't the actual kkk. You're trying too hard.

Yes, people like you are looking for something to be offended by. I simply expressed an opinion, you don't have to agree with it my man. I understand that you like the movie and all of that, but take QT's dikk out of your mouth and stop acting hurt because I am expressing a view that you don't like. You're defending QT when he's not even being attacked. Django is what it is, a QT blaxploitation slave revenge flick. You can say whatever you want but there's simply no getting around that. Pointing out how bad it made whites look or how much fun it made of whites doesn't change the fact that it's an "entertaining" movie using slavery as the backdrop. Knowing that, there's no way that it could not trivialize slavery. This isn't a historical documentary that is handcuffed to the facts and reality regarding slavery, its just a fictional movie about a slave getting revenge. If you don't think that things(regarding slavery) were watered down or that QT took people's feelings(white and black) into account when making this film then you're an idiot. This movie was made to entertain, not educate or inform. This isn't about me being "offended" by the movie. If anything, I'm offended by people like you who feel the need to bend over backwards defending the movie from the truth. I kinda understand, you don't want to really like a movie that trivializes and exploits slavery. Lying to yourself isn't the way to resolve that conflict though.


"the truth, or the reality, was a thousand times worse than what I showed."

Quentin Tarantino

I have been saying that since the film came out, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make about me. The film is what it is. I've never said it was some serious drama about slavery, and neither has QT. But the film has some clear relevance in terms of depicting slavery on film in a way few "big" films have ever done, plus it gets into some rather interesting racial dynamics I haven't seen in major film in decades (house v field slaves)

It doesn't trivialize slavery anymore than Inglorious Basterds trivialized Nazis/Holocaust. Nor does it "exploit" slavery anymore than Hogan's Heroes exploited WWII. Slavery is the setting of the film, not its main point. And no one who watched it came away with the impression that slavery was a walk in the park - the film does a good job of depicting some of the savagery of slavery.

Of course the film is entertaining, just as Inglorious Basterds is entertaining and Blazing Saddles is entertaining - both of which are based around rather serious settings. Most people who are familiar with the history of film - specifically exploitative race films - appreciate it. As I have said, it masterfully switches the stereotypes and themes that dominated films like Birth Of A Nation or Triumph of the Will.

 

[OmegaK2099]

“I actually enjoyed the movie, but we cannot support this type of commercialization,” Ali said. “I don’t seen any dolls representing Hitler that came from Tarantino’s (Holocaust movie ‘Inglourious Basterds’)...I don't see them making dolls of Holocaust survivors who are bald and starving in concentration camps.”

 

[Piff Perkins]

“I actually enjoyed the movie, but we cannot support this type of commercialization,” Ali said. “I don’t seen any dolls representing Hitler that came from Tarantino’s (Holocaust movie ‘Inglourious Basterds’)...I don't see them making dolls of Holocaust survivors who are bald and starving in concentration camps.”

THANK YOU

 

[Gravity]

I have been saying that since the film came out, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make about me. The film is what it is. I've never said it was some serious drama about slavery, and neither has QT. But the film has some clear relevance in terms of depicting slavery on film in a way few "big" films have ever done, plus it gets into some rather interesting racial dynamics I haven't seen in major film in decades (house v field slaves)

It doesn't trivialize slavery anymore than Inglorious Basterds trivialized Nazis/Holocaust. Nor does it "exploit" slavery anymore than Hogan's Heroes exploited WWII. Slavery is the setting of the film, not its main point. And no one who watched it came away with the impression that slavery was a walk in the park - the film does a good job of depicting some of the savagery of slavery.

Of course the film is entertaining, just as Inglorious Basterds is entertaining and Blazing Saddles is entertaining - both of which are based around rather serious settings. Most people who are familiar with the history of film - specifically exploitative race films - appreciate it. As I have said, it masterfully switches the stereotypes and themes that dominated films like Birth Of A Nation or Triumph of the Will.

First it was "the notion that the film trivializes slavery is just stupid". Now it's "It doesn't trivialize slavery anymore than this or that". You're moonwalking dude. Do you want to talk about Django or other movies that trivialize or exploit atrocities in world history? I'm not comparing Django to other films, judging it on a curve. I'm simply being truthful about the movie. You can't say that it's a fictional blaxploitation slave revenge flick, then deny that it exploits slavery. This isn't a real life story, it's completely fictional. QT made the story up to make money. He made the conscious decision to use slavery as the back-drop of his made-up story. Again, the movie was made to entertain not educate. Knowing that, how does the movie not trivialize slavery? I just provided a quote from QT himself telling you that he watered shyt down(something that anyone with common sense could figure out on their own) and you're still trying to argue.

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

What makes this a blaxpolitation movie?

 

[2 Up 2 Down]

I just provided a quote from QT himself telling you that he watered shyt down(something that anyone with common sense could figure out on their own) and you're still trying to argue.

He gave us a sample of how brutal and dehumanizing it was. I wouldn't say it was watered down, he was just putting it out there to let people know it was even worse than what he depicted in the movie. What movie has shown in in full?

 

[Tommy Tuffnuts]

that scened when they first leave the mountains and head for MISSISSIPPI game me the chills for some reason

 

[ltheghost]

First off it wasn't the KKK, which was not founded at the time. They were a rag tag group of racists out trying to kill a black man and his white friend; pretty evil thing to do, in the eyes of MOST people who saw the movie.

QT films always portray moments of levity in dangerous characters. Consider the ridiculous conversations two hit men continually got into in Pulp Fiction, or how comical yet dangerous the Jew Hunter was in Inglorious Basterds. Yet in Django, these characters are not portrayed in a positive or effective light - they're objects of scorn, ridicule, and disgust. The rest of the film features very serious racists who are very good at being racists (Candie especially), so the notion that the film trivializes slavery is just stupid. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest most non-rich slave owning southerners in 1858 were dumbasses.

No one left that movie thinking "oh boy, why were blacks so afraid of slavers back then, they were clowns lolll." Nah b. I thought it was brilliant the way QT flipped stereotypes throughout the film. Hell, nearly every white character in the film is a dumbass. Even the formidable Candie clearly wouldn't be as dangerous without the true brains behind him: Stephen, the black slave.

People are just looking for something to be offended by. When was the last time a major blockbuster film featured a black protagonist killing evil white people? When was the last film that portrayed slaves getting whipped, branded, castrated...and all the other stuff that history books leave out? And yall are complaining? If a black man directed this you'd be jumping for joy

If a black man made this movie it would not have been released to the general public...unless Tyler Perry makes it with Madea travelling through time.....

 

[OmegaK2099]

they should have got david banner to do a couple tracks for the soundtrack

 

[Stone Cold]

“I actually enjoyed the movie, but we cannot support this type of commercialization,” Ali said. “I don’t seen any dolls representing Hitler that came from Tarantino’s (Holocaust movie ‘Inglourious Basterds’)...I don't see them making dolls of Holocaust survivors who are bald and starving in concentration camps.”

Ok where's the bald and starving Holocaust survivor action figures tho?

 

[OmegaK2099]

Ok where's the bald and starving Holocaust survivor action figures tho?

they werent even in the movie

[ame=http://youtu.be/R_Du_wF9wUw]Quentin Tarantino Responds to the Criticism of Using the N-Word in "Django Unchained" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Stone Cold]

they werent even in the movie

Quentin Tarantino Responds to the Criticism of Using the N-Word in "Django Unchained" - YouTube

Why not?

 

[OmegaK2099]

the only one standout Jew I remember being in inglorious basterds was the bear jew who im surprised didnt get his own action figure, the others i just remember being a fraction of a scene when hans landa is raiding the dairy farm

 

[GzUp]

Can I get a lank to re watch this piff?

 

[Stone Cold]

but wouldnt it make more sense to include bald and starving jews in a movie about the Holocaust/getting revenge on Hitler in the same way he included slavery in a "speghetti western" tho?

or am I too far gone from the realm of logical reasoning?