We owe Spike Lee a huge Apology

[storyteller]

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.

Being suspicious and then feeling reaffirmed after watching...I can dig that. Spike is allowed to think that it will be exploitative or disrespectful, however when he took from "I'm not watching because I feel that it's disrespectful" which I think is assumptive at least to the "It's not a spaghetti western (without seeing the flick, this is a reach), I will honor my people" territory...he completely went to the extreme. He diminished the value of a movie and implied that it was a "dishonor" to the people without having seen the damned thing.

I also just don't like that this is a man who constantly rails against others in hollywood and not just white people. Was this dude really mad at Will Smith because a white man directed Ali!? He comes off as just a dikk, so I automatically roll my eyes when he speaks. Had he watched the movie or even used portions of the script to back up his opinion...I'd have respected the opinion a lot more. He went with overdramatic comments that were vague and didn't prove anything...except that he invites controversy.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

I agree 100% with the article. Scust at toms exposing themselves in this thread.

 

[diggy]

I watched part of this flick at the barbershop today...the dialogue had me laughing honestly, the delivery was comedic and Jaimie Fox in the Blue Velvet outfit was on some next level shyt...I expect to be rolling once I see the whole shyt.

 

[Gravity]

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..

So how do you reconcile knowing that a movie exploits slavery but also believing that it's not disrespectful? Whether you "liked" the movie or not, you have to admit that it exploits slavery.

Being suspicious and then feeling reaffirmed after watching...I can dig that. Spike is allowed to think that it will be exploitative or disrespectful, however when he took from "I'm not watching because I feel that it's disrespectful" which I think is assumptive at least to the "It's not a spaghetti western (without seeing the flick, this is a reach), I will honor my people" territory...he completely went to the extreme. He diminished the value of a movie and implied that it was a "dishonor" to the people without having seen the damned thing.

I also just don't like that this is a man who constantly rails against others in hollywood and not just white people. Was this dude really mad at Will Smith because a white man directed Ali!? He comes off as just a dikk, so I automatically roll my eyes when he speaks. Had he watched the movie or even used portions of the script to back up his opinion...I'd have respected the opinion a lot more. He went with overdramatic comments that were vague and didn't prove anything...except that he invites controversy.

You don't have to see the movie to come to the conclusion that it exploits slavery. That's pretty obvious just based on the premise of the movie. It was billed as a slave revenge flick. The second paragraph here makes it sound like you have some kind of agenda against Spike. None of that is relevant to the discussion. Again, Spike's position is that a movie exploiting slavery is disrespectful. Stop trying to make this about Spike and debate the actual issue. Explain how Django isn't exploitative and therefore, disrespectful?

I watched part of this flick at the barbershop today...the dialogue had me laughing honestly, the delivery was comedic and Jaimie Fox in the Blue Velvet outfit was on some next level shyt...I expect to be rolling once I see the whole shyt.

Exactly

 

[spliz]

So how do you reconcile knowing that a movie exploits slavery but also believing that it's not disrespectful? Whether you "liked" the movie or not, you have to admit that it exploits slavery.

If I felt that way..I would go see it to see if I was correct in my assumptions..to see how exploitive it really was..cause sometimes trailers and such can be deceving...thats just me tho...especially if I was a director like Spike is..

 

[Gravity]

If I felt that way..I would go see it to see if I was correct in my assumptions..to see how exploitive it really was..cause sometimes trailers and such can be deceving...thats just me tho...

That question was to you man.

 

[spliz]

That question was to you man.

Oh imo...I didnt feel that he took slavery lightly in the movie..it may have had its funny parts...but that was mostly cause of how dumb the white people were..and how much of an uncle tom Samuel L was in the movie..but even those jokes were based on facts about the time..like the Ku Klux Klan part..I understand both sides of the argument honestly...both sides bring good points and bad ones...I just feel in order to give a TRUE and ACCURATE assessment of the movie u had to have seen it...which is why I respect ur opinion on it..and anyone elses whos seen the movie..especially if they took the time to logically break the shyt down...one thing I DO like about this movie is that it has caused people to have this discussion...

 

[Kid McNamara]

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

You didn't explicitly state it (so I cannot quote you), but you're obviously implying it, and since many of your statements are based on implication, I'm assuming my point isn't truly lost on you.

You're implying that black people who are defending Django Unchained should reconsider, in part, because a white hipster referred to it as being "brutally hilarious" and "the best movie of 2012." Therefore, since white hipsters enjoyed it and considered it relevant, black folks should not.

Allow me to include your original quote:

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

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

See, you're implying that because "white dude" feels a certain way about it (he finds it "HILARIOUS"), I, as a black guy, should feel the opposite way about it ("if that don't make you go .....then"). Now, if you were trying to make some other point, I'm open to hearing it. Otherwise, I don't see why you included any of his comments regarding the film.

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

I cannot.

Again, I bring up the Chappelle Show skit and I point out the fact that Key and Peele use slavery as a backdrop for comedy on an almost weekly basis.

My question is more, who gets to determine what subjects can and cannot become catalysts for artistic expression, no matter how outlandish they may be?

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

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

I did. Thing is, I happen to agree with you on a fair amount of points, just not this one. So, should hip-hop be invalidated as legitimate expression because "future generations" might take it the wrong way? Cats on wax talking about murder, drugs, and about how black women being nothing more than three holes. Few, if any, of these dudes have actually been apart of that life, but they speak on it.

How do we decide what crosses the line? And if someone doesn't agree, what does that mean?

DO YOU KNOW WHAT A MINSTREL SHOW IS???

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

This is where we may be arguing two different points. I'm arguing for freedom of expression in general and perhaps you're arguing against Django itself. Minstrelsy and Django don't operate on the same plane and if they do, it's only superficially. Minstrelsy was, in part, white directed entertainment meant to mock, demean, and insult black culture (while simultaneously being undeniably fascinated by it). Even at it's worst, Django Unchained is not that and you know this man.

I guess I just mean to say, if we want to have a nuanced conversation about how we are perceived, it doesn't begin or end with Django Unchained. Furthermore, when we begin building these artistic barriers, it only leads to more harm for us.

Please see Patrice:

 

[NZA]

You are responding to a strawman here. Nobody has tried to take away any of QT's rights. This isn't an issue of what QT is or isn't allowed to do. You're misrepresenting what the point was. When whoever wrote that piece says that QT doesn't "love us" he's saying that he hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt(to put it mildly) that the blacks who have chose to cape for his movie are giving him.

if i go with that interpretation then it is still arbitrary. they dont need QT's "proof of love" to decide that a movie is of value in spite of spike's objections. the movie can be of value on its own merits (real or perceived by luke and gregory)

 

[Gravity]

Oh imo...I didnt feel that he took slavery lightly in the movie..it may have had its funny parts...but that was mostly cause of how dumb the white people were..and how much of an uncle tom Samuel L was in the movie..but even those jokes were based on facts about the time..like the Ku Klux Klan part..I understand both sides of the argument honestly...both sides bring good points and bad ones...I just feel in order to give a TRUE and ACCURATE assessment of the movie u had to have seen it...which is why I respect ur opinion on it..and anyone elses whos seen the movie..especially if they took the time to logically break the shyt down...one thing I DO like about this movie is that it has caused people to have this discussion...

How did it not take slavery lightly when it was only used to set a blaxploitation/western revenge flick? The sole purpose of the movie is to make money, not spark any productive discussions between the races about our history of race relations(which is hasn't done on any kind of large scale). Again bruh, it's a fictional QT action revenge flick using slavery as the vehicle to push it. The movie has grossed over $130 million so far. Who is that money going to? Certainly not to any black people(besides the 1 black producer the cut in just cover their ass). Django is the definition of exploitation, the slave dolls were the icing on the cake. They weren't even trying to hide the shyt. Of course the movie took slavery lightly, QT used it to push his Hollywood blockbuster movie. Just because it had a few graphically violent scenes regarding the treatment of slaves that made you feel sad doesn't change anything that I've just said. I'm just disappointed at how easy it is to pimp us as a people. This Django thing reminds me of the joke that QT told in Desperado about 1 guy paying the other guy to piss on him. We will allow whites to piss on and exploit us as long as they throw us a bone or 2.

if i go with that interpretation then it is still arbitrary. they dont need QT's "proof of love" to decide that a movie is of value in spite of spike's objections. the movie can be of value on its own merits (real or perceived by luke and gregory)

Again, you seem to be missing the point of the piece. The point was that Spike shouldn't be thrown under the bus in defense of QT, not whether or not you should like the movie. Maybe you need to go back and read it again.

 

[Fillerguy]

Please see Patrice:
Hannity & Colmes Debate Don Imus Controversy (Part 1) - YouTube

Patrice pal'd around with the racist cacs Opie and Anthony

 

[NZA]

Again, you seem to be missing the point of the piece. The point was that Spike shouldn't be thrown under the bus in defense of QT, not whether or not you should like the movie. Maybe you need to go back and read it again.

1. this point you are talking about now is not the point you mentioned in your first post toward me, 2. i said that point in my first post, breh

im essentially saying that spike should have never been insulted, but that point about QT's love was pointless. for some reason you chose to respond to that, i dont know why if it is not of importance to you. and i never mentioned what i like, i am talking about gregory and luke

 

[Kid McNamara]

Patrice pal'd around with the racist cacs Opie and Anthony

And? What does that have to do with his logic?

 

[Fillerguy]

And? What does that have to do with his logic?

Its flawless

 

[spliz]

How did it not take slavery lightly when it was only used to set a blaxploitation/western revenge flick? The sole purpose of the movie is to make money, not spark any productive discussions between the races about our history of race relations(which is hasn't done on any kind of large scale). Again bruh, it's a fictional QT action revenge flick using slavery as the vehicle to push it. The movie has grossed over $130 million so far. Who is that money going to? Certainly not to any black people(besides the 1 black producer the cut in just cover their ass). Django is the definition of exploitation, the slave dolls were the icing on the cake. They weren't even trying to hide the shyt. Of course the movie took slavery lightly, QT used it to push his Hollywood blockbuster movie. Just because it had a few graphically violent scenes regarding the treatment of slaves that made you feel sad doesn't change anything that I've just said. I'm just disappointed at how easy it is to pimp us as a people. This Django thing reminds me of the joke that QT told in Desperado about 1 guy paying the other guy to piss on him. We will allow whites to piss on and exploit us as long as they throw us a bone or 2.Again, you seem to be missing the point of the piece. The point was that Spike shouldn't be thrown under the bus in defense of QT, not whether or not you should like the movie. Maybe you need to go back and read it again.

Like I said I respect ur opinion bruh...and regardless of WHY it was made..and what QT thought or motives..which we will NEVER know cause we arent inside his head...its STILL causing us to have this very discussion...cause we would not be talking about this of it wasnt for this movie coming out....QT and ur opinions on the movie itself aside...it has been sparking a lot of discussions and as long as the horrors of that time are being discussed and not ignored I honestly dont mind it...