Just saw 12 Years a Slave

[Mic-Nificent]

there wasn't a white savior in django... dr. schutz was killed off for a REASON just so it gives django the undisputed rank of hero. people would have a small mind if you ASSUME that just because schultz bought django his freedom at the beginning of the film that he's a savior. the real recognizes real when you saw how the roles of leader and sidekick dramatically got reverse further onto the film to the point the so-called "savior" almost jeopardized everything and got himself killed.

that film ought to be more APPRECIATIVE, because of the fact it represented a black hero in a world, then as well as NOW cease to exist.

Schultz did play the part of a white savior but he was also a commentary on white liberals.

He was a white savior in the sense that Django only got his freedom because of Schultz, Django got all of his training from Schultz, and Schultz came up with the plan to save Broomhilda. Yes, Django became THE hero of the film after Schultz death, but the movie was nearly over by that point.

Schultz is a commentary on white liberals in the sense that he's disgusted by the system of slavery but is also willing to take advantage of it for his own means. HIs privilege in not having to "KNOW" the ins and outs of slavery and white supremacy in the U.S. shown many times throughout the film. The scene where this commentary stands out the most to me though is his finals scene. Schultz puts Django and Broomhilda in grave danger by killing Candie, while he's clearly trying to be an ally to Django and Hilde he ultimately places his own personal desire for justice and what's right above the well being of the two people he claims he's trying to save.


With all that said, I really like the film, but it's incredibly problematic in a lot of ways and people need to stop fronting like it was this epic amazingly empowering film for black folks, because it wasn't.

 

[PartyHeart]

Schultz did play the part of a white savior but he was also a commentary on white liberals.

He was a white savior in the sense that Django only got his freedom because of Schultz, Django got all of his training from Schultz, and Schultz came up with the plan to save Broomhilda. Yes, Django became THE hero of the film after Schultz death, but the movie was nearly over by that point.

Schultz is a commentary on white liberals in the sense that he's disgusted by the system of slavery but is also willing to take advantage of it for his own means. HIs privilege in not having to "KNOW" the ins and outs of slavery and white supremacy in the U.S. shown many times throughout the film. The scene where this commentary stands out the most to me though is his finals scene. Schultz puts Django and Broomhilda in grave danger by killing Candie, while he's clearly trying to be an ally to Django and Hilde he ultimately places his own personal desire for justice and what's right above the well being of the two people he claims he's trying to save.


With all that said, I really like the film, but it's incredibly problematic in a lot of ways and people need to stop fronting like it was this epic amazingly empowering film for black folks, because it wasn't.

What are the ways in which you find it to be problematic? Just curious..

 

[O.Red]

Schultz did play the part of a white savior but he was also a commentary on white liberals.

Schultz is a commentary on white liberals in the sense that he's disgusted by the system of slavery but is also willing to take advantage of it for his own means. HIs privilege in not having to "KNOW" the ins and outs of slavery and white supremacy in the U.S. shown many times throughout the film. The scene where this commentary stands out the most to me though is his finals scene. Schultz puts Django and Broomhilda in grave danger by killing Candie, while he's clearly trying to be an ally to Django and Hilde he ultimately places his own personal desire for justice and what's right above the well being of the two people he claims he's trying to save.
.

Spot on

 

[Mic-Nificent]

What are the ways in which you find it to be problematic? Just curious..

Well for one the depiction of the clan is one from a very "white" perspective. I get what Tarantino was trying to do in making them look like fools, but that undercuts just how terrifying and dangerous the klan was during that part of history (even though the Klan didn't exist during the period the film is supposed to take place).

Boomhilda is a non character in the film, she exists solely as prize to be claimed that is under constant thread of being sexually assaulted (though Tarantino never actually goes there), she has little to no motivation of her own outside of running away twice. She's not portrayed as intelligent, nor strong, even her love for Django isn't all that fleshed out.

The freeing and training of Django by Schultz was also problematic. I felt Tarantino tried to minimize this a bit by showing the scene of Django and Hilde running away, but it's so brief we don't really get a feel for how badly Django wanted his freedom and what he was willing to do to get it.

Stephen as the main villain of the film was a huge cop out IMO. So instead of Django rising up and taking down a character that represents white supremacy he rises up and takes down a character who's very nature is due to white supremacy. Again, I get what Tarantino was tying to do is showing that Candie was just an uncivilized shmuck and Stephen was really running things, but like the Klan example it really undercuts the overall message and shows that it was written from a "white" perspective.

Those are just the things off the top of my head, I haven't seen the film in a minute. It's an entertaining movie, but it could have been much more than that if not for the little things.

 

[gluvnast]

Schultz did play the part of a white savior but he was also a commentary on white liberals.

He was a white savior in the sense that Django only got his freedom because of Schultz, Django got all of his training from Schultz, and Schultz came up with the plan to save Broomhilda. Yes, Django became THE hero of the film after Schultz death, but the movie was nearly over by that point.

Schultz is a commentary on white liberals in the sense that he's disgusted by the system of slavery but is also willing to take advantage of it for his own means. HIs privilege in not having to "KNOW" the ins and outs of slavery and white supremacy in the U.S. shown many times throughout the film. The scene where this commentary stands out the most to me though is his finals scene. Schultz puts Django and Broomhilda in grave danger by killing Candie, while he's clearly trying to be an ally to Django and Hilde he ultimately places his own personal desire for justice and what's right above the well being of the two people he claims he's trying to save.


With all that said, I really like the film, but it's incredibly problematic in a lot of ways and people need to stop fronting like it was this epic amazingly empowering film for black folks, because it wasn't.

I agree to an EXTENT to the notion that Schultz played the role of the white liberal, and there's no argument that he indeed saw himself as that "white savior", but all of that was intentional. He was killed off for a reason. You are absolutely right that he represented how white liberals are to this day, which is claiming to be disgusted at the system, but uses it to their advantage for their own benefit or to make themselves "feel good". When Candie outsmarted and got the upper-hand on Schultz, he didn't care about Django at that point, he was upset and embarrassed that the likes of someone like Candie got the best of him, and even though they succeeded in what they were set out to do, he ignores it due to his own selfishness and pride. Him getting killed off was INTENTIONAL to show that in truth, Candie and Schultz are like Conservatives and Liberals today, they're not truly for the cause, but rather to show each other up on some upperhand vs. lowerhand shyt.

To add, Schultz didn't really teach Django anything, Django just became more independent on his own in his MENTALITY. Every so-called "role" that Schultz told him to play was some kind of servant to Schultz's role, but the further into the picture, it blatantly shows that Django was taking control over Schultz rather than the other way around.

Because it was one thing to be free from physical bondage, but Django throughout the picture was growing free from the MENTAL bondage, which separated himself from the rest of the people who had a slave mentality.

 

[gluvnast]

Well for one the depiction of the clan is one from a very "white" perspective. I get what Tarantino was trying to do in making them look like fools, but that undercuts just how terrifying and dangerous the klan was during that part of history (even though the Klan didn't exist during the period the film is supposed to take place).

Boomhilda is a non character in the film, she exists solely as prize to be claimed that is under constant thread of being sexually assaulted (though Tarantino never actually goes there), she has little to no motivation of her own outside of running away twice. She's not portrayed as intelligent, nor strong, even her love for Django isn't all that fleshed out.

The freeing and training of Django by Schultz was also problematic. I felt Tarantino tried to minimize this a bit by showing the scene of Django and Hilde running away, but it's so brief we don't really get a feel for how badly Django wanted his freedom and what he was willing to do to get it.

Stephen as the main villain of the film was a huge cop out IMO. So instead of Django rising up and taking down a character that represents white supremacy he rises up and takes down a character who's very nature is due to white supremacy. Again, I get what Tarantino was tying to do is showing that Candie was just an uncivilized shmuck and Stephen was really running things, but like the Klan example it really undercuts the overall message and shows that it was written from a "white" perspective.

Those are just the things off the top of my head, I haven't seen the film in a minute. It's an entertaining movie, but it could have been much more than that if not for the little things.

Stephen as the real antagonist is not at all a cop out, but a truth that the BIGGEST enemy for the black man to succeed is ourselves. The whole crabs-in-the-barrel mentality, the whole stab the other in the back. The whole house n*gger vs. field n*gger argument. Because the main ones that keep us down is ourselves, it be always someone to sell us out and down the river. Even Malcolm X got assassinated due to a black man conspiring with the white government & organization.

 

[MostReal]

Stephen as the real antagonist is not at all a cop out, but a truth that the BIGGEST enemy for the black man to succeed is ourselves. The whole crabs-in-the-barrel mentality, the whole stab the other in the back. The whole house n*gger vs. field n*gger argument. Because the main ones that keep us down is ourselves, it be always someone to sell us out and down the river. Even Malcolm X got assassinated due to a black man conspiring with the white government & organization.

everything you've typed in this thread is why I appreciated that film. It has many layers to it.

 

[Mic-Nificent]

I agree to an EXTENT to the notion that Schultz played the role of the white liberal, and there's no argument that he indeed saw himself as that "white savior", but all of that was intentional. He was killed off for a reason. You are absolutely right that he represented how white liberals are to this day, which is claiming to be disgusted at the system, but uses it to their advantage for their own benefit or to make themselves "feel good". When Candie outsmarted and got the upper-hand on Schultz, he didn't care about Django at that point, he was upset and embarrassed that the likes of someone like Candie got the best of him, and even though they succeeded in what they were set out to do, he ignores it due to his own selfishness and pride. Him getting killed off was INTENTIONAL to show that in truth, Candie and Schultz are like Conservatives and Liberals today, they're not truly for the cause, but rather to show each other up on some upperhand vs. lowerhand shyt.

Not sure why you said all this, I never said Schultz being the white liberal wasn't intentional.

To add, Schultz didn't really teach Django anything, Django just became more independent on his own in his MENTALITY. Every so-called "role" that Schultz told him to play was some kind of servant to Schultz's role, but the further into the picture, it blatantly shows that Django was taking control over Schultz rather than the other way around.

Because it was one thing to be free from physical bondage, but Django throughout the picture was growing free from the MENTAL bondage, which separated himself from the rest of the people who had a slave mentality.

What are you talking about? Schultz taught Django how to read, how to use guns, the basics of bounty hunting, and he also came up with the plan to free Broomhilde. Even the scene that points out that Django is the fastest gun in the south is flashback to Schultz training him.

And yes we do see Django come into his own as the film progresses but that doesn't even begin until damn near halfway though the movie.

 

[Mic-Nificent]

Stephen as the real antagonist is not at all a cop out, but a truth that the BIGGEST enemy for the black man to succeed is ourselves. The whole crabs-in-the-barrel mentality, the whole stab the other in the back. The whole house n*gger vs. field n*gger argument. Because the main ones that keep us down is ourselves, it be always someone to sell us out and down the river. Even Malcolm X got assassinated due to a black man conspiring with the white government & organization.

What you just said is exactly why it's problematic and a cop out.

The fact that Django journey doesn't begin nor move forward until the intervention of a white man and having the ultimate villain be another black man basically lets the structure of white supremacy during that time off the hook. The Stephen character isn't just evil for the sake of being evil, he's as much of a victim of slavery as Django and Hilde. If not for the system of slavery in the south the Stephen character as we know him doesn't exist, there'd be no need for him to be so self hating and loyal to the Candie family. That's not an allusion to crabs in a bucket, that just a lazy bullshyt metaphor by a white director who doesn't know any better.

 

[Fillerguy]

If you come out a slave film thinking the biggest threat to blacks are blacks, you've completely missed the point and you clearly arent built for this type of discussion

 

[MostReal]

If you come out a slave film thinking the biggest threat to blacks are blacks, you've completely missed the point and you clearly arent built for this type of discussion

good point

 

[gluvnast]

If you come out a slave film thinking the biggest threat to blacks are blacks, you've completely missed the point and you clearly arent built for this type of discussion

Except the fact Django Unchained wasn't directly ABOUT slavery in a literal sense. It used both the spaghetti western genre and it's setting around slavery to tell a story about a BLACK HERO. If anything, it was an allegory to why black people TODAY aren't and still are living IN a slave mentality. In fact listen to Candie's speech...

 

[The Real]

Except the fact Django Unchained wasn't directly ABOUT slavery in a literal sense. It used both the spaghetti western genre and it's setting around slavery to tell a story about a BLACK HERO. If anything, it was an allegory to why black people TODAY aren't and still are living IN a slave mentality. In fact listen to Candie's speech...

But that's the point, isn't it? You don't find something strange about someone using slavery, metaphorically or analogically, to suggest that Black people are their own worst enemies?

 

[MostReal]

But that's the point, isn't it? You don't find something strange about someone using slavery, metaphorically or analogically, to suggest that Black people are their own worst enemies?

currently in todays climate...we pretty much are.
Yes, there are plenty of things working against us...but we want to continue to be blind once we are exposed to truth...who's fault is that?

 

[K.O.N.Y]

So we not going to notice how a movie about African american history, has no as starring in it