Spike Lee Goes in: "Django is disrespectful to my ancestors".....

[Deafheaven]

dude won like a bafta, academy award, golden globe and all that shyt for IG

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Why does this thread have almost 700 replies?

 

[Rapmastermind]

Oh Lord:

"TARANTINO DROPS N-WORD AT GOLDEN GLOBES AFTER WINNING BEST SCREENPLAY"

Less than a minute into his press conference backstage at the 70th Annual Golden Globes, the Django Unchained winner dropped the N-word. The usually bustling press room fell silent for a second; a reporter could be heard letting out a whistle, as in, "Oh, boy."

The filmmaker's choice language came as he fieldied a question about his controversial, slavery-era spaghetti Western. Tarantino was not apologizing. Critics who think the N-word should not have been spoken by his 19th century characters, the mile-a-minute Tarantino argued, are "saying I should massage. They're saying I should whitewash. They're saying I should lie."

Don Cheadle, a winner for House of Lies, who took the stage right after Tarantino, couldn't resist picking up the thread. "Please no [N-word] questions," Cheadle told reporters. "Black people questions are all right." For the record, Cheadle said he hadn't seen Django, but was looking forward to checking it out.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Stop asking me these dumb questions that you should know the answer to yourself. Are you arguing that Django doesn't exploit slavery, or are you just making the bytch made "yea Django exploits slavery but don't say that because other movies have exploited incidents in history too" argument? Stop tap dancing and say what you have to say. What movies are you trying to compare Django to?

No I'm saying it doesn't exploit slavery any more than any other movie exploits history. That's what movies do, they take a historical event and bring a story to the viewer. Django doesn't bring forth any negativity about black people or slaves, so I wonder where your beef comes from.

Is it always unaaceptable to make a fictional movie with slaves as characters? Could QT have made the movie django in a way that you wouldn't consider exploitative? Could a different director have made a non exploitative django?

You won't answer my questions because it will expose the purely illogical, emotional conclusion you are drawing about the movie.

 

[jwinfield]

CHRISTOPH WALTZ WINS BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR AT GOLDEN GLOBES. Of course none of the Black Performances were nominated at the Golden Globes as well as the Oscars. As I said earlier in the thread, Hollywood loves to award "White Savoir" roles and once again they do.

Weren't you complaining that we have to play slaves to get nominated, now you're upset that no slaves were nominated?

Waltz was the only actor nominated for IB. He won the GG and an Oscar for playing a character named the Jew Hunter. Was his nomination based on the character he played or his performance?

 

[jwinfield]

Oh Lord:

"TARANTINO DROPS N-WORD AT GOLDEN GLOBES AFTER WINNING BEST SCREENPLAY"

Less than a minute into his press conference backstage at the 70th Annual Golden Globes, the Django Unchained winner dropped the N-word. The usually bustling press room fell silent for a second; a reporter could be heard letting out a whistle, as in, "Oh, boy."

The filmmaker's choice language came as he fieldied a question about his controversial, slavery-era spaghetti Western. Tarantino was not apologizing. Critics who think the N-word should not have been spoken by his 19th century characters, the mile-a-minute Tarantino argued, are "saying I should massage. They're saying I should whitewash. They're saying I should lie."

Don Cheadle, a winner for House of Lies, who took the stage right after Tarantino, couldn't resist picking up the thread. "Please no [N-word] questions," Cheadle told reporters. "Black people questions are all right." For the record, Cheadle said he hadn't seen Django, but was looking forward to checking it out.

Quentin Tarantino, Don Cheadle use 'n-word' backstage at Globes | PopWatch | EW.com

When asked if he was ever shaken by the use of the n-word while making Django, Tarantino responded:

“If somebody is out there actually saying when it comes to the word n—–, the fact that I was using it in the movie more than it was being used in the antebellum south in Mississippi, then feel free to make that case. But no one’s actually making that case. They are saying I should lie, that I should whitewash, that I should massage, and I never do that when it comes to my characters.”

 

[Fillerguy]

Everyone's already copped pleas for his n word usage for years, they're coppin them for Django. Even some Blacks are on his dikk because of his "black criminal injustice" interviews, pre-Django but...... This man just doesnt know win he's won.

 

[Gravity]

yeah but you are the same guy that said that exploitation of hip hop music has nothing to do with race, so like i said you are not credible

You're an idiot though. You can't even express yourself clearly. Your opinion of what/who is credible means nothing. Every genre of music has been exploited by the music industry, not just hiphop. Not only that, but black people have played a major part in the exploitation of hiphop and always have. By saying that the exploitation is all about race your ignore those crucial facts.

what does this have to do with anything, in the context of the django and america slavery is part of black culture and black history

You said that Django is an example of white people exploiting black culture and trying to explain to you that slavery is not black culture. Slavery is just as much part of white history/culture as it is black culture/history. The argument isn't that Django exploits black culture, the argument is that movie exploits the institution of slavery period.

yeah and thats all i have to say because the connection is self evident

You haven't made a connection between exploitation on the music industry and this discussion because there isn't one to be made. There is no connection between NIP and Django. That was a dumbass comparison you made to serve your personal agenda regarding hiphop.

my arguments was that it does exploit slavery and black history/culture but it doesn't exploit it anymore than a typical rap song or any other historically based movie and overall its a good funny movie

Since you claim that Django doesn't exploit slavery anymore so than a typical rap song, list some of these typical rap songs that exploit slavery. You used NIP as an example, explain how that song exploits slavery. Your position here is stupid.

people brought up the dolls, and i said i dont like the dolls but it doesn't seem like its anything more than the typical exploitation hollywood does and i added it doesnt seem any more exploitative than a song like nikkas in paris, in that its distasteful and some black people might be offended by it

You don't even know what the word "exploit" means. To exploit something isn't defined as classifying something as distasteful and offensive(which are both matters of opinion). To exploit something means to use something to one's own advantage. Exploit is not even a negative word on its own, it can be used to explain positive or negative behavior. You and that other clown keep trying to box me into arguments that I haven't even made. I haven't said that Django is the only movie to exploit something, that the music industry is color blind, or that it's right or wrong to sell slave dolls. I'm saying that the movie Django exploits slavery period, that's my position here. You and that other poster are trying to defend or justify Django exploiting slavery by clouding the issue. This discussion is about Django, not anything else. You're see through.

yeah but you are the same guy that said that exploitation of hip hop music has nothing to do with race, so like i said you are not credible

You're an idiot though. You can't even express yourself clearly. Your opinion of what/who is credible means nothing. Every genre of music has been exploited by the music industry, not just hiphop. Not only that, but black people have played a major part in the exploitation of hiphop and always have. By saying that the exploitation is all about race your ignore those crucial facts.

what does this have to do with anything, in the context of the django and america slavery is part of black culture and black history

You said that Django is an example of white people exploiting black culture and trying to explain to you that slavery is not black culture. Slavery is just as much part of white history/culture as it is black culture/history. The argument isn't that Django exploits black culture, the argument is that movie exploits the institution of slavery period.

yeah and thats all i have to say because the connection is self evident

You haven't made a connection between exploitation on the music industry and this discussion because there isn't one to be made. There is no connection between NIP and Django. That was a dumbass comparison you made to serve your personal agenda regarding hiphop.

my arguments was that it does exploit slavery and black history/culture but it doesn't exploit it anymore than a typical rap song or any other historically based movie and overall its a good funny movie

Since you claim that Django doesn't exploit slavery anymore so than a typical rap song, list some of these typical rap songs that exploit slavery. You used NIP as an example, explain how that song exploits slavery. Your position here is stupid.

people brought up the dolls, and i said i dont like the dolls but it doesn't seem like its anything more than the typical exploitation hollywood does and i added it doesnt seem any more exploitative than a song like nikkas in paris, in that its distasteful and some black people might be offended by it

You don't even know what the word "exploit" means. To exploit something isn't defined as classifying something as distasteful and offensive(which are both matters of opinion). To exploit something means to use something to one's own advantage. Exploit is not even a negative word on its own, it can be used to explain positive or negative behavior. You and that other clown keep trying to box me into arguments that I haven't even made. I haven't said that Django is the only movie to exploit something, that the music industry is color blind, or that it's right or wrong to sell slave dolls. I'm saying that the movie Django exploits slavery period, that's my position here. You and that other poster are trying to defend or justify Django exploiting slavery by clouding the issue. This discussion is about Django, not anything else. You're see through.

No I'm saying it doesn't exploit slavery any more than any other movie exploits history. That's what movies do, they take a historical event and bring a story to the viewer. Django doesn't bring forth any negativity about black people or slaves, so I wonder where your beef comes from.

Is it always unaaceptable to make a fictional movie with slaves as characters? Could QT have made the movie django in a way that you wouldn't consider exploitative? Could a different director have made a non exploitative django?

You won't answer my questions because it will expose the purely illogical, emotional conclusion you are drawing about the movie.

The only conclusion that I've drawn about the movie is that it exploits slavery. Since you cannot refute that you to try the cloud the issue with itrelevant bullshyt. "But but bu it doesn't exploit slavery anymore so than this or that movie exploits history". That's a bytchmade copout. We aren't talking about other movies and how they exploit events in history. We are talking about Django and how it exploits slavery. If you want to discuss other movies and how they exploit historical events then start a separate thread. Again, this is about the movie Django and how QT decided to exploit slavery to sell it. I'm not acknowledging those dumbas questions because you're trying to use them to cloud the issue. Either explain how Django doesn't exploit slavery or shut up.

I'll even answr 1 of your questions. How could QT have made a movie about slavery that doesnt exploit it? He could've done so by making a true honest no holds barred documentary for no profit without compromising to spare people's feelings. No, there's no way of making a fictional entertaining movie about slavery that's not exploitative.

 

[No1]

Can someone give me a recap on this shyt and why it's getting so much discussion in here? I didn't realize that it was a big deal

 

[MeachTheMonster]

I'll even answr 1 of your questions. How could QT have made a movie about slavery that doesnt exploit it? He could've done so by making a true honest no holds barred documentary for no profit without compromising to spare people's feelings. No, there's no way of making a fictional entertaining movie about slavery that's not exploitative.

This is a very closed minded and hypocritical stance to take. You say something being exploitative doesn't mean isn't negative, and that django didn't bring forth any negativity about black people, but you still wanna bellyache about django being exploitative. If there is nothing negative about it, why does it bother you?

In my opinion movies like django are good, because they keep our history alive. White people try to write slavery out of the history books, they try to act like it didn't happen. And people like you being so sensitive and emotional about the subject, allow them to do that. They'd rather not talk about it, and you'd rather them not talk about it, so who keeps the memories alive?

It's funny that you say I don't know what exploitative means yet you say a documentary would not be exploitative. If QT or any other director makes a documentary about slavery and sells it, he will be making a profit off of slavery therefore exploiting it. Your argument that django is exploitative is weak, because the nature of ALL movies dictates that they are exploitative going by the exact definition of the word. You have nothing negative to say about the movie, you just don't like the idea of a white guy directing a slavery movie, which is not a totaly off base opinion, but quit throwing this exploitative stuff around because it means literaly nothing at all.

 

[Stone Cold]

This is a very closed minded and hypocritical stance to take. You say something being exploitative doesn't mean isn't negative, and that django didn't bring forth any negativity about black people, but you still wanna bellyache about django being exploitative. If there is nothing negative about it, why does it bother you?

In my opinion movies like django are good, because they keep our history alive. White people try to write slavery out of the history books, they try to act like it didn't happen. And people like you being so sensitive and emotional about the subject, allow them to do that. They'd rather not talk about it, and you'd rather them not talk about it, so who keeps the memories alive?

It's funny that you say I don't know what exploitative means yet you say a documentary would not be exploitative. If QT or any other director makes a documentary about slavery and sells it, he will be making a profit off of slavery therefore exploiting it. Your argument that django is exploitative is weak, because the nature of ALL movies dictates that they are exploitative going by the exact definition of the word. You have nothing negative to say about the movie, you just don't like the idea of a white guy directing a slavery movie, which is not a totaly off base opinion, but quit throwing this exploitative stuff around because it means literaly nothing at all.

Wrong. They actually love to give us that history. Thats why we keep getting movies like Django and The Help. The will never give us movies that include us at the peak of civilization(Ancient Egypt,Babylon,Sumeria,Ethiopia) in the same respect as Troy,Ten Commandments, and other epics. But they have no problem giving us subordinate and subservient roles. Which is one of the reasons why I have a problem with this movie. Hell, Marvel can't even give us a Black Panther movie. QT thinks he's doing us African American males a favor by giving us a slave hero we can be empowered by. Which is a complete oxymoron. There is no real pride in anything that happens in Django. He gets to kill white hicks...so what? At the end of the movie slavery continues and there are plenty more plantations doing the same shyt. We don't get to "kill Hitler" at the end of the movie like in IB and end our holocaust.

Secondly, just because all movies can be exploitative doesn't make his argument weak at all. You said a documentary about slavery can be exploitative. Thats a fair point but that doesn't make the fact that Django is overly exploitative null and void. Yeah if a director makes money off a historical documentary based on slavery it is exploitation but not nearly as much as Django which includes over the top/cartoon like violence and comedy under the context of slavery then make action figures,t-shirts,other merchandise based on said movie.

To say this movie is entertaining is one thing, (which i agree it is) but to say QT is doing us African-Americans a favor by making this movie is another. In fact a case can be made that white people benefit from this movie more, which is another level of exploitation.

 

[theworldismine13]

You're an idiot though. You can't even express yourself clearly. Your opinion of what/who is credible means nothing. Every genre of music has been exploited by the music industry, not just hiphop. Not only that, but black people have played a major part in the exploitation of hiphop and always have. By saying that the exploitation is all about race your ignore those crucial facts.

the fact that black people participate in it does not mean its not exploitative, i dont know where you get that from

what makes something exploitative as far as race, is when race or culture is used to profit but the the race or culture does not get benefit from it

that is why a lot of seventies movies were called black exploitation films, there were a lot of black people involved but the people making the most money from it where whites and the films did not contribute to the edification and enlightenment of the black race or the general public, so in the end black people that participated in black exploitation films were being exploited

if you think that exploitation in the music industry has nothing to do with race, that's fine, but what is it about django that you have a problem with then? or whats wrong with the dolls? if other historical events have been exploited what's wrong with exploiting slavery?

and i will repeat what you said just for clarity

according to you, exploitation in the music industry has nothing to do with race

thanks for sharing

You said that Django is an example of white people exploiting black culture and trying to explain to you that slavery is not black culture. Slavery is just as much part of white history/culture as it is black culture/history. The argument isn't that Django exploits black culture, the argument is that movie exploits the institution of slavery period.

ok, so what is wrong with exploiting slavery?

You haven't made a connection between exploitation on the music industry and this discussion because there isn't one to be made. There is no connection between NIP and Django. That was a dumbass comparison you made to serve your personal agenda regarding hiphop.

the obvious connection between nikkas in paris and django are the use of the word ****** to entertain white audiences, the dolls are an extension of that exploitation imo

i dont see any reason for me to separate the movie industry from music industry, they both operate under the same corporate and cultural forces

but if you and people that agree with you dont see any connection between music and movies and you think im derailing the thread, thats cool, i understand, apparently you want to discuss django in a vacuum and keep the discussion simple, that's why i offered my deepest and sincerest apology for derailing the thread

Since you claim that Django doesn't exploit slavery anymore so than a typical rap song, list some of these typical rap songs that exploit slavery. You used NIP as an example, explain how that song exploits slavery. Your position here is stupid.

what i said was django exploited slavery and black history and culture, slavery is part of black history so its the same difference, nikkas in paris is a song that exploits black culture just like django, if you want further examples just pick any rap song, imo the whole rap industry represents an exploitation of black culture and i would equate rap music to black exploitation films because they offer no edification of black culture itself

You don't even know what the word "exploit" means. To exploit something isn't defined as classifying something as distasteful and offensive(which are both matters of opinion). To exploit something means to use something to one's own advantage. Exploit is not even a negative word on its own, it can be used to explain positive or negative behavior. You and that other clown keep trying to box me into arguments that I haven't even made. I haven't said that Django is the only movie to exploit something, that the music industry is color blind, or that it's right or wrong to sell slave dolls. I'm saying that the movie Django exploits slavery period, that's my position here. You and that other poster are trying to defend or justify Django exploiting slavery by clouding the issue. This discussion is about Django, not anything else. You're see through.

from a personal point of view if i own something and somebody uses it in a manner that i think its distasteful and offensive then from my pov that would meet the definition of exploitation in a negative sense

rap music is my music, black slaves were my ancestors so that history is my history, so if i see somebody using either rap music or the history of black slaves in an offensive manner its appropriate for me to call it exploitative in a negative way

the only point i was making is that the slave dolls and django in general isnt any more exploitative then what you see in rap music or what you see in hollywood in general

and you are lying, you said here http://www.the-coli.com/2881891-post644.html that its wrong to sell slave dolls and now you are trying to say that you never said anything about slave dolls

but overall if you say django is exploitative and i say its exploitative im not sure what it is you are arguing about, if you do not want to expand the discussion into rap music and hollywood in general, then dont, in theory there is nothing wrong with discussing django in isolation, i personally wouldnt but thats just me

 

[NYC Rebel]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QerkJnAC88"]Filme/Movie: Quilombo (1984) - YouTube[/ame]

Minus the english subtitles.

The first scene depicts a new device the slave owner bought used to punish their slaves but not kill them. The device ultimately kills the slave leaving the owner pissed that it didn't work.

The subliminal shots they take at Christianity is great!!

At the 7:55 mark, the two speak actual Yoruba amongst each other.

at the 19:33 mark, he dresses as Shango, the Yoruba god of war....

Great film.....

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Wrong. They actually love to give us that history. Thats why we keep getting movies like Django and The Help. The will never give us movies that include us at the peak of civilization(Ancient Egypt,Babylon,Sumeria,Ethiopia) in the same respect as Troy,Ten Commandments, and other epics. But they have no problem giving us subordinate and subservient roles. Which is one of the reasons why I have a problem with this movie. Hell, Marvel can't even give us a Black Panther movie. QT thinks he's doing us African American males a favor by giving us a slave hero we can be empowered by. Which is a complete oxymoron. There is no real pride in anything that happens in Django. He gets to kill white hicks...so what? At the end of the movie slavery continues and there are plenty more plantations doing the same shyt. We don't get to "kill Hitler" at the end of the movie like in IB and end our holocaust.

On one hand you ask for historical accuracy, then on the other hand you complain that the end of the movie didn't throw history out the window.

Saying they will never give us movies about ancient Egypt, Babylon, etc has nothing to do with this movie. The fact is there aren't enough movies about us period. Most directors won't even touch black actors, or black stories, so for one as popular as QT to do it is a step in the correct direction.

I've never heard QT say he was doing anybody a favor, so I don't know where you get that idea from.

Secondly, just because all movies can be exploitative doesn't make his argument weak at all. You said a documentary about slavery can be exploitative. Thats a fair point but that doesn't make the fact that Django is overly exploitative null and void. Yeah if a director makes money off a historical documentary based on slavery it is exploitation but not nearly as much as Django which includes over the top/cartoon like violence and comedy under the context of slavery then make action figures,t-shirts,other merchandise based on said movie.

What makes django "overly exploitative"? Is it just the fact that its a fictional action movie or is there something more sinister going on?

I disagree with the stance that making a fictional action movie involving slaves is inherently wrong or exploitative. Slavery is a part of history and it shouldn't be off limits for people to give their take on it, or to try to write a story within the confines of its history.
On one hand you wanna say black people aren't respected by Hollywood, but on the other hand you wanna complain about this movie getting the full Hollywood treatment (collectors items, t-shirts,etc) wouldn't it be wrong for QT to treat this situation as different and to not follow through with his usual plans, you'd be calling that discrimination.

To say this movie is entertaining is one thing, (which i agree it is) but to say QT is doing us African-Americans a favor by making this movie is another. In fact a case can be made that white people benefit from this movie more, which is another level of exploitation.

I didn't say he was doing us a favor. But more black actors were cast and payed to be in this movie than the last 10 big blockbuster movies. White people have been trying to forget about slavery and their history as slave masters for a long time, if anything this movie reminds them of the atrocities they committed, most of the comedy in the movie comes from the stupidity and downfall of white people, should we be up in arms about QT exploiting negativities about whites?

 

[AquaCityBoy]

Spike Lee's general fakkitry and bytchassness are more disrespectful to my ancestors than Django Unchained.