We owe Spike Lee a huge Apology

[dangerranger]

From what I'm seeing the main issue stems from people and Spike wanting to Django or a movie on slavery to be what they want it to be and not what Django actually turned out to be. I've been reading a lot of you guys comments and seeing the back and forth. Reading the links provided too.

It's not wrong to have your opinion on what a slavery movie should be about. But I see all these little arguments where people are injecting how they feel slavery should be depicted but the problem is it's a matter of one injecting their personal opinion into something that's already been made.

It's a complex issue to look at. Because clearly everyone's sensitivity to the issue is relative so surely the way things are presented varies based on the person. Personally speaking I enjoyed the film immensely. I did not find the way things were portrayed to be too slapstick and obviously I laughed at many parts. Does this mean I take slavery as a joking matter? Obviously not.

Sometimes I think it comes down to mere hyprocrisy. Because many of us will watch some of the worst things and laugh. You can find such things by going on youtube. This doesn't mean we find these situations funny all the time. Just some of the time, we ultimately pick and choose when we choose to be sensitive and self-righteous and I think this is one of those things. In the end I think this is one of those bandwagon scenarios where the outcry is simply a chance for a lot of people to trying to find new points to add to the controversy.

Lastly about Spike Lee, he stated why he didn't want to see the movie. That's his prerogative. Like I said again, it's simply because it's him injecting his opinion on what he thinks a slavery movie should be(not be) opposed to seeing what Django really is and about.

 

[Gravity]

My bad, the complaint about the excessive use of the word "******" came after Jackie Brown, not Django. I still say, it's impossible to comment on the tone or a flick without watching it.

You obviously still don't get it then. There is nothing wrong with what Spike said, it's perfectly logical. He doesnt agree with the premise of the movie and has decided not to watch it. You can either agree or not agree, but you only make yourself look silly by trying to say that he is "wrong" or he shouldn't have said what he said.

#FreshABM

 

[PimpHandStrong]

QT JUST GAVE YOU A MOVIE WHERE YOU GET REVENGE AND A CHANCE TO AVENGE THE BLACK QUEEN AND YOU'RE COMPLAINING???????????????

Bruh, QT didn't give me shyt. How some of you continue to see this movie as black empowerment revenge flick is beyond me.

1. Jamie didn't kill anyone of note. All he killed were bum ass white people. Ol dude is the one who killed Candy.

2. Ol dude had Jamie on a leash the whole movie. Only until he died did Jamie really do as he pleased.


I think you all are giving QT TOO much credit.

 

[Kid McNamara]

Yes but I'm not a famous and influential director. Just the fact that he is a director suggests that he should go see a movie before trashing it, that's his profession. If he just decided he wasn't going to see it, he wouldn't be putting out public statements about it. I'm sure plenty of other people decided not to go see it, but they didn't feel the need to make a public statement about it.

Not sure I follow this logic. Spike is a filmmaker not a film critic or journalist. It is not his job to view every film and offer up valid and fair criticism/praise.

Furthermore, and this point has been made time and time again, he did not "trash" the film in any way. He simply stated that he regards the premise as disrespectful to his ancestors, and that he would not be seeing the film.

Spike never asserted that you should not see the movie and to believe otherwise suggests that you put too much faith in the thoughts and opinions of others, and not enough faith into your own.

In other words (and this is a general statement), attacking Spike for refusing to see the film suggests a character flaw in you. The flaw becomes evermore apparent when phrases such as "uncle Tom" are used describe someone who simply refuses to patronize a slave revenge fantasy created by a white filmmaker.

But I mean, most troubling is how other black folks are so willing to forget about Malcolm X, Bamboozled, 4 Little Girls, and When the Levees Broke/If God is Willing and Da Creek don't Rise. As if any of what is explored in Django Unchained is more important or meaningful than watching five minutes of Bamboozled...or even worse, having a go at the man who helped to expose this to a national audience:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00NSbzuJM44[/ame]

 

[FreshABM]

From what I'm seeing the main issue stems from people and Spike wanting to Django or a movie on slavery to be what they want it to be and not what Django actually turned out to be. I've been reading a lot of you guys comments and seeing the back and forth. Reading the links provided too.

It's not wrong to have your opinion on what a slavery movie should be about. But I see all these little arguments where people are injecting how they feel slavery should be depicted but the problem is it's a matter of one injecting their personal opinion into something that's already been made.

It's a complex issue to look at. Because clearly everyone's sensitivity to the issue is relative so surely the way things are presented varies based on the person. Personally speaking I enjoyed the film immensely. I did not find the way things were portrayed to be too slapstick and obviously I laughed at many parts. Does this mean I take slavery as a joking matter? Obviously not.

Sometimes I think it comes down to mere hyprocrisy. Because many of us will watch some of the worst things and laugh. You can find such things by going on youtube. This doesn't mean we find these situations funny all the time. Just some of the time, we ultimately pick and choose when we choose to be sensitive and self-righteous and I think this is one of those things. In the end I think this is one of those bandwagon scenarios where the outcry is simply a chance for a lot of people to trying to find new points to add to the controversy.

Lastly about Spike Lee, he stated why he didn't want to see the movie. That's his prerogative. Like I said again, it's simply because it's him injecting his opinion on what he thinks a slavery movie should be(not be) opposed to seeing what Django really is and about.

I hear what your saying and I like how you atleast followed the thread and gave your opinion.....


BUT


to what I bolded...you found a movie with fictional slavery elements funny???

I seen a thread someone started on here where they pulled up the clips of bugs bunny and all those old school cartoons on they racist shyt.....

Poster were outraged.....Some even said it changed how they looked at bugs bunny for outright racist overtones and JOKES

somethings just shouldn't be intertwined with comedy.....SLAVERY is one of them.....

to your second point...your absolutely correct...........but because we watch people get killed on worldstar and some ignorant fuccz even laugh

DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT????????

hell fuccin no.....but who is there to defend it??? who is really going to come and fucc with worldstar and really shut it down when millions of people love it??

SLAVERY and the way its viewed is something SPIKE and ANY BLACK PERSON should defend...and when we don't... you will get DJANGO UNCHAINED 2 - Goes to Hawaii and the multiple copycats and spinoffs

UNTIL slavery is something that we like yeah it happened its over with and motherfuccaz going to be like .."Yo that DJANGO UNCHAINED 6 BACK to the FUTURE was CRAZY did you see how that slave dove in the water to catch some fish with his barehands and the CAC was yelling ****** you better get me some shrimp that shyt was wild funny son"


Um no thats what we are trying to protect...for future generations and for my ancestors ...and usually if you can't feel that ...you look like




This comes from the website that Spliz posted if you really checked the links..

@davidehrlich
david ehrlich
DJANGO UNCHAINED: holy shyt. brutally hilarious spaghetti comedy does for business what Basterds did for war. Best American film of 2012.



A white dude who thought that a spaghetti COMEDY based around SLAVERY was HILARIOUS....


if that don't make you go .....then

 

[spliz]

I'm not a sugar-coater, fukk your feelings. You posters are selectively sensitive. I'm not biting my tongue for you or anyone else. I think that the dumb shyt that you're posting is disrespectful. If you can't get past me calling you dumb for saying dumb stuff then just ignore me. You ain't gon do a thing though, so save all that telling me what to do stuff.

I'm just disgusted at how some black people have decided to cape for QT and this movie. It's quite telling. Some of you are real life versions of Stephen and don't even realize it. The way that Spike has been thrown under the bus by some blacks in defense of QT is downright sad. Even if he did say that he had a problem with the use of ****** in the film after reading the script(which he didn't), that would still be a legit criticism. People defending the movie want it both ways. On 1 hand they defend the use of ****** by saying "well it would have been inauthentic to not have the white characters use it because the movie is set in slavery". Yet when you point out some of inaccuracies in the film, the defense is "well it's just a movie, it wasn't meant to be historically accurate look at slavery woo woo". Django is a fictional tale, so of course it's not a historically accurate look at slavery. That's the point. QT wasn't obligated to use the word ******, he made a conscious decision to use it. If QT's goal was to make a historically accurate movie set in slavery, then he would have made a movie based on something that really happened and he would have handcuffed himself to the facts. Instead, he chose to make a blaxploitation spaghetti-western using slavery as the backdrop. There are plenty of things in the movie that aren't accurate regarding the time that the movie is set in. King and Django both use weapons that weren't available at the time for starters, and I could go on and on. My point is that Django is a movie telling a fictional tale. QT could have easily made Django without using the word ****** if he wanted to, he was not obligated to use the word ****** like so many of these people caping for him are saying. There are plenty of things in the movie that aren't historically accurate, so save that BS excuse. QT use the word ****** in Django for the same reason that he always uses the word in his movies, he wants to for whatever reason. This is another example of the house-****** "protect massa at all cost" mentality that some black people unknowingly have.

like I said my nikka im not about lettin internet muhfukkas disrespect me...and u goin mad hard...for no reason...just cause I disagreed with what I felt SPIKE was sayin without giving it a fair shake...u attacking me and my character...for no reason..I got the wrong idea cause the different articles was miscontrueing what he said and when..mixed with other actors reactions...and I already gave it up to u nikkas for that shyt...but no..im not Steven..no..im not no uncle tom...all I said is to watch a movie before it gets certain criticism...in which u seem to have done...on top of that...Im on RECORD my nikka for shyttin on white people for using the word..if u know my history on "sohh" or on here...Ive had long drawn out arguments about the shyt...just cause we don't agree on certain angles does NOT question my validity as a black man...so u can fukk outta here wit that...like I said..I feel where u sayin cause shyt was a misunderstanding overall...so we can peace and keep it movin or u can continue to be mad....

 

[FreshABM]

Not sure I follow this logic. Spike is a filmmaker not a film critic or journalist. It is not his job to view every film and offer up valid and fair criticism/praise.

Furthermore, and this point has been made time and time again, he did not "trash" the film in any way. He simply stated that he regards the premise as disrespectful to his ancestors, and that he would not be seeing the film.

Spike never asserted that you should not see the movie and to believe otherwise suggests that you put too much faith in the thoughts and opinions of others, and not enough faith into your own.

In other words (and this is a general statement), attacking Spike for refusing to see the film suggests a character flaw in you. The flaw becomes evermore apparent when phrases such as "uncle Tom" are used describe someone who simply refuses to patronize a slave revenge fantasy created by a white filmmaker.

But I mean, most troubling is how other black folks are so willing to forget about Malcolm X, Bamboozled, 4 Little Girls, and When the Levees Broke/If God is Willing and Da Creek don't Rise. As if any of what is explored in Django Unchained is more important or meaningful than watching five minutes of Bamboozled...or even worse, having a go at the man who helped to expose this to a national audience:


and thats the problem that will arise... those movies in future generations will be forgotten ...some people still haven't seen these movies in 2013


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00NSbzuJM44

 

[Kid McNamara]

to what I bolded...you found a movie with fictional slavery elements funny???

somethings just shouldn't be intertwined with comedy.....SLAVERY is one of them.....

DOES THAT MAKE IT RIGHT????????

hell fuccin no.....but who is there to defend it???

SLAVERY and the way its viewed is something SPIKE and ANY BLACK PERSON should defend...and when we don't...

A white dude who thought that a spaghetti COMEDY based around SLAVERY was HILARIOUS....

if that don't make you go .....then

Wait, what difference does his opinion make on this discussion. So because a white hipster enjoys something, I am suppose to automatically dislike it? It is this type of thinking that has us in a funk. The idea that there is only one way to be black, one way to feel, one way to live, one way to think and act. I have my opinion outside of what that man feels, and I'm perfectly fine expressing it and allowing him to express his. His co-signing the film doesn't mean he is co-sign some hidden slave and master ethos, it simply means he is approaching the movie from a different perspective.

For the record, I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure how it applies to anything discussed in this thread.

BTW, who is defining what can be made comedic and what is RIGHT? Why can't someone use slavery as a premise for satire or comedic deconstruction?

Did you laugh when Dave Chappelle did it?

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Not sure I follow this logic. Spike is a filmmaker not a film critic or journalist. It is not his job to view every film and offer up valid and fair criticism/praise.

No he is not a critic, but he decided to critique this movie so he should have gone to see it first. He probably chooses not to see lots of movies every year, but this is the one he chose to speak out about. As a director and a colleague to the people in the movie, the respectful way to critique the movie would have been to go see it and lobby a real logical criticism.

Furthermore, and this point has been made time and time again, he did not "trash" the film in any way. He simply stated that he regards the premise as disrespectful to his ancestors, and that he would not be seeing the film.

If I say I'm not going to see a movie nobody cares. If THE Spike Lee says he's not going to see a movie people take note. He could and he did influence a lot of people with that simple comment, and he did it on purpose. He knows people hear and respect his words, that's why he never hesitates to use them. Most of the "controversy" over this movie isn't even about what was or wasn't in the movie it's about spike lee and his comments.

Spike never asserted that you should not see the movie and to believe otherwise suggests that you put too much faith in the thoughts and opinions of others, and not enough faith into your own.

He doesn't have to say that people shouldn't go see the film. He is probably the most repected black film maker ever, what he says about a film people listen to, which is evident by so many people riding for him and his comments.

 

[Fillerguy]

Did you laugh when Dave Chappelle did it?

Yeah. The time traveling pimps made it hard to take seriously.

 

[FreshABM]

Wait, what difference does his opinion make on this discussion. So because a white hipster enjoys something, I am suppose to automatically dislike it? It is this type of thinking that has us in a funk. The idea that there is only one way to be black, one way to feel, one way to live, one way to think and act. I have my opinion outside of what that man feels, and I'm perfectly fine expressing it and allowing him to express his. His co-signing the film doesn't mean he is co-sign some hidden slave and master ethos , it simply means he is approaching the movie from a different perspective.

For the record, I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure how it applies to anything discussed in this thread.

BTW, who is defining what can be made comedic and what is RIGHT? Why can't someone use slavery as a premise for satire or comedic deconstruction?

Did you laugh when Dave Chappelle did it?

Ok now you lost me...

no1 said their is only 1 way to be black find that quote for me...

My problem is a white hipster is enjoying and find a movie "brutally hilarious"

with a movie that has slavery as the backdrop...

you need more of a understanding???? lemme know

and I never said he was co sign "some hidden slave and master ethos"

where did you get that from?? I'ma give you the benefit for now..but your wilding out because your stating things...and replying to them... THAT I NEVER SAID


you can't understand Why can't someone use slavery as a premise for satire or comedic deconstruction?

did you not finish reading my post about how it will be viewed by future generations??? go read it again...that should answer your question


fillerguy is white so I expect him to laugh..and think nothing of it.....

Did I laugh NO!!!...did I think the joke was accomplished and could of been funny ...Yes!!....but its just like when a lady fall and bust her ass......did I think it was funny YES!!!......would I laugh NO!! because its a woman and she could of injured herself..........

some people have to look at things for more than what they just appear...open ya'll minds

you know who would laugh and think nothing of it CHILDREN ..thats what kids do


but once again your question was Why can't someone use slavery as a premise for satire or comedic deconstruction?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A MINSTREL SHOW IS???

You probably wouldn't have a problem with a CAC laughing at that too right???

 

[Gravity]

like I said my nikka im not about lettin internet muhfukkas disrespect me...and u goin mad hard...for no reason...just cause I disagreed with what I felt SPIKE was sayin without giving it a fair shake...u attacking me and my character...for no reason..I got the wrong idea cause the different articles was miscontrueing what he said and when..mixed with other actors reactions...and I already gave it up to u nikkas for that shyt...but no..im not Steven..no..im not no uncle tom...all I said is to watch a movie before it gets certain criticism...in which u seem to have done...on top of that...Im on RECORD my nikka for shyttin on white people for using the word..if u know my history on "sohh" or on here...Ive had long drawn out arguments about the shyt...just cause we don't agree on certain angles does NOT question my validity as a black man...so u can fukk outta here wit that...like I said..I feel where u sayin cause shyt was a misunderstanding overall...so we can peace and keep it movin or u can continue to be mad....

Theres nothing to be "mad" at as far as you or any other poster, that's my point. You say I'm going hard but I'm just talking, being truthfully honest. It's not personal. The 2nd part of that post wasn't directed at you specifically, I was speaking in general. I actually saw that you acknowledged that you had Spike confused. Had you actually read the piece in the 1st post like I initially suggested, we'd be on the same page already.

 

[storyteller]

You obviously still don't get it then. There is nothing wrong with what Spike said, it's perfectly logical. He doesnt agree with the premise of the movie and has decided not to watch it. You can either agree or not agree, but you only make yourself look silly by trying to say that he is "wrong" or he shouldn't have said what he said.

#FreshABM

I didn't say he's wrong, I said I respect the opinion of someone who actually watched it and was critical. The "I will honor my people" tweet was over the top and reeked of "give me your attention, black people stay behind me...I'm your voice!" and was wack as hell. Calling it a Leone Spaghetti Western missed the point...Like the article I posted mentioned, it's an homage but it's got more depth and is stylistically closer to a Western.

Where'd you get that I said he's "wrong?" I just don't respect the opinion and think he was more concerned with getting attention (as well as continuing his long running beef with QT) than actually concerned with the content.

 

[Gravity]

I didn't say he's wrong, I said I respect the opinion of someone who actually watched it and was critical. The "I will honor my people" tweet was over the top and reeked of "give me your attention, black people stay behind me...I'm your voice!" and was wack as hell. Calling it a Leone Spaghetti Western missed the point...Like the article I posted mentioned, it's an homage but it's got more depth and is stylistically closer to a Western.

Where'd you get that I said he's "wrong?" I just don't respect the opinion and think he was more concerned with getting attention (as well as continuing his long running beef with QT) than actually concerned with the content.

I still say, it's impossible to comment on the tone or a flick without watching it.

It's not impossible for Spike to say that he thinks that the premise of the movie is disrespectful without seeing it. That's a perfectly logical and respectable position. I had my own reservations about the premise of the movie before seeing, and after seeing it my suspicions were pretty much confirmed. That movie is definitely exploitative, it also perpetuates the status quo in Hollywood.

 

[spliz]

It's not impossible for Spike to say that he thinks that the premise of the movie is disrespectful without seeing it. That's a perfectly logical and respectable position. I had my own reservations about the premise of the movie before seeing, and after seeing it my suspicions were pretty much confirmed. That movie is definitely exploitative, it also perpetuates the status quo in Hollywood.

Atleast u did go see it to see for urself to confirm ur suspicions...I must say there has been times ive been surprised myself about a movie after ive written it off..