My 1st post to you was about you responding to a strawman. Whether QT should or shouldn't be "allowed" to make the point was never an issue here. You simply don't understand the guy's point about whether QT loves black people. I don't know if you misread the piece or you just don't comprehend too well. The point was that Black people were quick to jump on Spike in defense of QT and his movie and that it shouldn't have been that way. His argument is that Spike has held us down in Hollywood and is personal responsible for putting numerous black people on. Spike has kicked down a lot of doors and he deserves more respect than he's gotten in wake of his comments about Django. On the other hand, QT hasn't done anything for black people in Hollywood for us to throw Spike Lee under the bus in his defense. Now you can either agree or disagree with the piece, but you need to understand it first.
We owe Spike Lee a huge Apology
- Thread starter Street Knowledge
- Start date
kermit da hustla
Banned
Spike Lee doesn't need my help to defend him, but he does deserve our gratitude and respect.
I remember watching Pulp Fiction for the first time. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, if not loved it. It is fair to characterize it as a classic piece of American cinema. But that doesn't in any way mitigate the impact or excuse the "Dead N***** Storage" joke(s) in the film. They were unnecessary and wholly arbitrary in nature. They weren't for expository effect or "authenticity."
They were to generate laughs. He got none from me.
Then came Jackie Brown. This time, it was more of the same but for a lesser quality movie. Samuel L. Jackson was once again (like Pulp Fiction) used as the loudspeaker for the supposed humor. In fact, it was used 38 times. Again, not for expository effect or "authenticity" sake, (although Tarantino has argued publicly that the movie was an homage to the Blackxploitation genre in which the word was often used.)
But again... used to generate laughs... and I didn't.
My familiarity with Tarantino's work was neither linear nor chronological in nature. It wasn't until after Jackie Brown that I went back and discovered Reservoir Dogs... and there it is found too. Say it again with me... not for expository effect or "authenticity" sake.
This time it wasn't necessarily for laughs per se, but was used by "Mr. Pink" to specifically degrade and deride as an insult.
This is largely the history of Quentin Tarantino leading up to Django Unchained, a movie whose script was widely circulated in the year prior to its release. Spike Lee read it, I've read and virtually everyone else involved in entertainment had read it long before the movie premiered.
Lee, made it clear that he did not plan to support the movie, finding the whole premise of spaghetti western slave drama to be "disrespectful" to his (and my) ancestors. In response, Lee was criticized and castigated for not having viewed the movie first and for being a "hater," as the reductionist, simple-minded argument would go.
Lee's critique is not, was not and will never be dependent on the "quality" of the movie. It never was about the movie, it's about the very premise. I don't need to actually view "Slavery -- The Broadway Musical" starring Jennifer Hudson to forward the idea that slavery as a musical is wholly disrespectful in its very conception. I don't need to sit through "Slavery - The Daytime Soap Opera" starring Shemar Moore or "Superman The Man of Steel Frees the Negroes" co-starring Flava Flav either to come to this reasonable conclusion.
If you need to see the movie to gauge the accuracy of Lee's point... you've in fact already missed it.
Let me say it again and in bold, because I'm sure somebody below in the comment section will say to "see it" first.
If you need to see the movie to gauge the accuracy of Lee's point... you've in fact already missed it.
Those familiar with the horrible premise of The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, which aired briefly on UPN should already get the point.
Please save your Django movie review, it's not relevant to this discussion. No matter if you loved it or hated it... not germane to the issue. Keep it to yourself while debating this issue.
It is and always was about the premise (and predilection) of Tarantino.
Lee was called (among other things) a "thug" and "punk" by comedian dikk Gregory and a "conniving and scheming Uncle Tom" by former 2LiveCrew leader Luther Campbell. I respect the former and laugh at the latter. dikk Gregory has a long, undeniable civil rights history, but such a classless rebuke for a film he wasn't in and criticism not directed at him is curious at best. And you also mean to tell me, the man BEST known for debasement of countless women of color and a career of misogyny, Luther Campbell was calling the director of Four Little Girls, When the Levees Broke, Malcolm X, Do the Right Thing and Miracle at St. Anna (producer) an "Uncle Tom?"
That would be laugh-out-loud funny if it weren't so sadly ignorant. Campbell knows about as much about Harriet Beecher Stowe as I do quantum physics.
...As in nothing.
Each one of Spike's aforementioned movies was a very sincere and detailed love letter to the African-American community. Love letters, not just movies. While Spike Lee was forever changing the future of film and how Black directors and actors would be utilized back in the late '80s... Campbell was in the midst of a 19th century minstrel show revival, cavorting and undulating to "Oh, me so horny."
And now Campbell feels both comfortable and confident to say Lee is an "Uncle Tom?"
It is silly to think such stupidity was going to pass unless I said something. If nobody else tells the truth, I will.
I have not agreed (or appreciated) all of Lee's work (including use of the N-word), or even his depiction of women in many of his films. And for that I have summarily criticized him over the years, check the record. But be absolutely clear, you can't question how much he loves the African-American community and his sincerity is above reproach. Know that before Denzel and Halle accepted their Oscars, it was Spike who made them into viable silver screen options. It was Spike who introduced Samuel L. Jackson to the world, paving the way for Tarantino to use him in films, not vice-versa. It was Spike who laid the path for contemporaries John Singleton, Ernest dikkerson, F. Gary Gray, Tim Story, the much-maligned Tyler Perry and Antoine Fuqua who also publicly chided Lee with respect to Django.
That would be the same Antoine Fuqua, who directed Training Day, featuring the very same Denzel Washington (and N-words) as a vehicle to an Oscar. Spike says "you're welcome" Antoine.
When there were none of them, Spike was fighting FOR them, telling stories on film traditional Hollywood refused to support. A director doesn't make films like 4 Little Girls to make himself wealthy or in the hopes of winning Oscars. He does it because he's in love with us.
Oscars are given out for questionable roles like those in Training Day and Monster's Ball... not Malcolm X. They are given out for movies like The Help, Glory, Precious and Driving Miss Daisy... not A Huey P. Newton Story or Bamboozled. Lee was making movies for us and about us... not primarily for wealth, fame or Oscars. To call him a "hater" is to say you really haven't been paying attention for the past 25 years. To call him a "thug" (dikk Gregory) means that you really are just a comedian and not to be confused as a real confidante of Dr. King.
Our history can't be denied, one which Lee has dedicated his life to chronicling and preserving.
Turning the corner...
There is nothing to suggest in Tarantino's personal history that he loves us (We grew up less than a mile apart in the same housing track in Harbor City, CA). Fascinated maybe... but love, absolutely not. It is not unlike those who made the argument that Elvis loved and respected African-Americans because "he had 'Black girlfriends.'"
Um... yeah. Waking up next to "us" doesn't mean you love us and neither does a slavery movie in which the protagonist happens to kill all the "bad White people."
Tarantino's behavior reeks more of fascination with the Black experience, complete with an N-word fetish; not respect or reverence. Not to mention, his cavalier use of the word even outside of the film realm (i.e. backstage at the Golden Globes) gives me great, great pause.
I don't have to wonder whether Lee has a deep and abiding respect for our history and contributions to this country, even beyond slavery. His record is inarguable. Conversely, Tarantino's record is equally inarguable. The only thing Tarantino has proven is that we can count on "N*****" to be a staple in his films, past, present and future.
If you disagree with Spike... fine. But to disrespect and disregard him in the expression of that disagreement is wholly unacceptable. Spike Lee has earned better.
We collectively missed Spike Lee's point and owe him a huge apology. Quentin Tarantino has never fought for, or to uplift us. Luther Campbell definitely has never fought for us and the next uplifting thing he does will be his first. Spike Lee doesn't need my help to defend him, but he does deserve our gratitude and respect.
---
Morris W. O'Kelly: We Owe Spike Lee a Huge Apology
Morris W. O'Kelly: We Owe Spike Lee a Huge Apology
spike's premise that slavery isn't an appropriate historical backdrop for a spaghetti western is completely offensive to the idea of artistic license. one step further, it would reduce storytelling to such a degree that the narrative would become a bland and interchangeable prop rather than the film's backbone. the western genre, which spawned such classics as shane and unforgiven, is inextricably rooted in the colonization of this land and the subsequent genocide visited upon the native people already living here before the settlers' arrival. are we to assume that westerns are now inappropriate? is it to be argued that schindler's list, which relates the story of miraculous survival during the holocaust, is an inappropriate film? spike's argument was, as well-meaning as i believe it to be, an inexcusably selfish position to take by a fellow creative who plies his talents in a medium that appreciates great imagination oftentimes bound by historical subtext. slavery is something that is irremovable from the fabric of american history, and tarantino has every right to make a film based upon that terrible period in time.
i'm not a huge tarantino fan, and i only watched the beginning of django unchained, but i can't side with spike on this one. it's sour grapes, and dikk gregory was correct when calling spike a "thug." he's acting like a bully simply because he's regarded as the king of black cinema.
Kid McNamara
'97 Mike Bibby
That is crisp.
This is the issue. Look man, Spike just stated his reasoning for not seeing the film. Why in the world do you have an issue with that? We keep going back to this point and no one has provided an adequate response.
Why does Spike have to be a "thug" or "punk" or anything else because he stated his opinion on why he is not seeing the movie? Sour grapes? About what? What is Spike Lee sour about in this particular instance?
You don't have to go at Spike Lee to disagree with him (you proved that in your first paragraph). It is that simple.
storyteller
Superstar
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.
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?Exactly
You can go from the trailers and descriptions and think it "could be" an exploitation movie...but until you sit down and watch it you can't be sure it's not satirizing the typical exploitation films or that it takes a serious tone as it progresses. That's why vague arguments based on premise don't sell me. If I sat down and said "you think it's exploitative, which scenes did you feel were exploiting the plight of slaves" and you couldn't pick something specific out...I would be quick to assume that you never gave it a chance. Basically, I watched the movie and thought the visceral nature of the violence towards slaves right down to the scars on their backs was enough to keep people from taking everything about the movie. But if you responded that the depiction of pre-KKK hooded men in a light natured, harmless way was too soft or that the violence throughout the movie was similar no matter who was being attacked, good or bad (like the guy in the article I posted)...I'd see your point.
My point on Spike isn't that I have an agenda against him...it's that this is common for him. He wouldn't have liked this movie no matter what tone it took (didn't he hate on Amistad?). He has a proven track record of trashing successful people in hollywood black or white and he has made outright insults toward QT in the past...so his position that it exploits slavery and is disrespectful rings insincere. Especially when he can't give any specifics about it because he admittedly won't even watch it.
As for how is it not exploitative, I gave a lengthy explanation of where I found depth in the film in the Django thread with respect to how the slaves were portrayed as the most intelligent characters in the story and how the slave/master dynamic is completely flipped by the end of the flick when Sam is tossing his cane aside and Jamie Foxx is taking over the bounty hunting business. I didn't think the scenes with slavery treated it lightly except when it was treating the racists in the movie as complete buffoons in most cases or ignorant and hateworthy in the case of Candy. I'm not gonna type it all out again, but basically...I thought QT tried to give the film more depth but it did lose some of that because he injected too much humor and the line began to blur for most people in the audience. Like the article I posted said...it's insensitive but it isn't racist.
NZA
LOL
LOL, im gonna have to take an L on this one. i just reread and you are right, breh. strike the last sentence of my first post off the record.
So you actually think that conversations like this are worth being pimped? What do you mean that you don't know what QT's motives are? He's a Hollywood film maker, not a humanitarian. Django is a fictional action revenge flick. Is it not obvious to you that the sole purpose of the movie is to make money? QT and Hollywood are laughing all the way to the bank with this. I'm sorry, I cannot respect the opinion that discussions like this(which are sad btw) justify supporting QT exploiting slavery to push a movie.
To storyteller, that's a bunch of bullshyt. You lost me when you tried to deny that the movie is exploitative. You can try to justify it being exploitative with the "but other movies are exploitative too" argument like the Kermit the frog poster but you car deny that it's exploitative. That's a fact.
Respect.
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
Speaking from my perspective of A BLACK MAN if you have to ask me why I find a white hippy dude finding a black exploitation film based around slavery funny.............YOUR LOST and very close to the C word..........if your a white person.... I don't need to explain shyt..if you don't get it...you won't get it...your not black.......especially after my posts in these thread....
If I a black man laughed at holocaust comedy scenes....do you think Jews would agree with that?? Do you think they would find that funny??
If you think yes...your mentally challenged..and thats in general.......
Its not about white and black.....that white hippy ancestors were not black slaves taken from Africa.....sooooo of course he would laugh and think nothing of it...what don't you understand...
Of course in this country people have freedom of speech ....nobody is attacking freedom of speech...BUT once again...JUST CUZ YOU CAN...doesn't make it RIGHT...I have the freedom of speech to call you whatever I like right now...but I won't because its unnecessary and I respect others...but if I didn't I could call you whatever the fucc I like because of freedom of speech...that still don't make it right...so plz miss me with that bullshyt
Once again because Key and Peele do it its right?? People really just follow anybody in circles right?? Fucc a key and peele I seen that show once and never watched those dudes...they are another problem not a solution...they have the right to make whatever they want but if they need to use slavery as a backdrop on their show weekly to be FUNNY..then their c00nS and we all know who they are making that show for .....they come on the same channel that chappelle ditched for Africa right???? Wow what a concidence..
Chappelle gets tired of getting pimped and how his show comes across turns down 50mil..and goes to africa..........that same channel finds 2 dudes to keep the agenda going 
and homie..don't come at me with implied shyt...be a man and just ask what it is....we are here to discuss..but to imply is to basically assume..and when you assume we all know you can look like a ass ..
your words below
"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.
and did you really compare hip hop..and slavery??? and should we curtail hip hop because of future generation..."
Hold up..you just compared a music form...entertainment ...breakdancing ..djing... rapping............to SLAVERY... ...ol boy we done.....I don't think your black based off the foolishness and blatant fukkery you posted ...so it is what it is
O and last point minstrel shows was comedy for white ppl and sometimes black people c00nS based on slavery
Whats DJANGO??
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
Patrice pal'd around with the racist cacs Opie and Anthony
see Fillerguy is a white dude who keeps it funky..no bullshyt and games to try and make some bullshyt point
Good looks Filler I'm happy you caught that
You really posted a clip of one black man defending that CAC calling black women he doesn't know out their name....he's a c00n ... IDGAF ...I wouldn't cosign a black dude on his radio show calling 12 white women who he doesn't even know ...12 white bytches with devil red skin............ I would say WHOA BRO...you out of line
but because bum as Patrice defended him that means something....stop it...your not fooling anyone
O really so the fact that Patrice chills with racist pieces of shyt ...would have no merit on how he feels about a white man calling a black female a nappy head bytch??...
Mcnamara I hope you keep your opinions to yourself..cuz I'd straight back hand slap you
O and one more thing FUCC YOU CAC
FreshABM
Dollaz make Sense $$ ABM Commas After My Commas
Yea its flawless right??? CAC Mcnamara thought he was slick huh...
spliz
SplizThaDon
Than dont agree..its fine with me..I guess u would rather cats not have the discussion at all..not have any dialogue at all...fine..u seem to fail to see the bigger picture in this shyt...when was the last time u had arguments about slavery?..discussions on point of views..etc etc...it seems u cant take anyone elses point of view if its ANY diverse from urs my dude...I happen to like that black people are having serious discussions about slavery...fukk Quentin...fukk Spike...this is something that needs to happen more often...im tryna come to a common ground..but u keep pullin back fams..we just gonna have to agree to disagree..even tho I only disagree with u on SOME things...not all..
storyteller
Superstar
Like I said, I explained why I didn't feel it was exploitative in a different thread, I'm not gonna go out of my way again. Being a satire of exploitation films in history and being an exploitation film is a very different thing. I don't really care if you agree or not, you're entitled to your opinion, but if all you say is "that's bullshyt" without adding any reasoning to it, then there's no discussion to be had and I ain't about to bother with you.
courtdog
Drinks Blood from a Boot
There's too much for me to respond to. But I'll just address these from pg.14 which is where I was last seen...
With your logic, Denzel should of went thru with "The nikka they couldn't kill"
NEXT QUESTION!!!
Now.. Mr.Compton. Real Talk, WTF is going on in Compton?
Attack on family in Compton latest incident in wave of anti-black violence - latimes.com
Kendrick Lamar's style isn't what Compton is known for.. Suge Knight getting knocked the fukk out. Now you all bytchmade. What gives???
He does, the problem is you don't know shyt. You a little dumbass muthafukka acting like you got MORE wisdom than he does
See, maybe you haven't noticed. We in the age of bytchnikka
nikkaz ain't standing up for shyt, they falling for everything. In the past, we wouldn't stand for bullshyt. Now you fakkits wanna lay down for it.
He knows better
You might as well said "Oh don't you go upset Massa now"
You said there are plenty of movies you wrote off?
How many of those movies did you read the entire script from first?
And which one of those scripts had controversial subject/backdrops that would make you say "Naaaaah"
We all know the answer to that. I welcome people like you to this thread.
Cuz yall nikkaz will nitpick everything BUT THE ACTUAL fukkIN TOPIC
From NZA sayin some dumbshyt to a "strawman" like homey said. To the c/s from Kodie and Rekkac00n
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8Oq_Sd3Bw[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv7Js0HK7s[/ame]
So if somebody wants to create a parody on slavery, we should wait til after the movie is out before we say anything about it
With your logic, Denzel should of went thru with "The nikka they couldn't kill"
NEXT QUESTION!!!
Shut up cacLol so now it's against the rules for someone posting on the Coli to be from Compton. this is worse than pathetic. Long beach blvd and rosecrans chump....no you can't have my street address, I don't roll that way...but I'm sure you and ya boy freshabm do
ExactamundooooooooSo I read half of it...sorry it's Friday and I'm trying to get out work early.
But, I share the same sentiment in that I'm not entertaining anything with making slavery as the backdrop to tell a make-up or factual story about that terrible time period in America.
I'm not really sure how to get to Wichita
Now.. Mr.Compton. Real Talk, WTF is going on in Compton?
Attack on family in Compton latest incident in wave of anti-black violence - latimes.com
Kendrick Lamar's style isn't what Compton is known for.. Suge Knight getting knocked the fukk out. Now you all bytchmade. What gives???
First off, what the fukk do you know to say "He should know better"
He does, the problem is you don't know shyt. You a little dumbass muthafukka acting like you got MORE wisdom than he does
See, maybe you haven't noticed. We in the age of bytchnikka
nikkaz ain't standing up for shyt, they falling for everything. In the past, we wouldn't stand for bullshyt. Now you fakkits wanna lay down for it.
He knows better
You might as well said "Oh don't you go upset Massa now"
You said there are plenty of movies you wrote off?
How many of those movies did you read the entire script from first?
And which one of those scripts had controversial subject/backdrops that would make you say "Naaaaah"
We all know the answer to that. I welcome people like you to this thread.
Cuz yall nikkaz will nitpick everything BUT THE ACTUAL fukkIN TOPIC
From NZA sayin some dumbshyt to a "strawman" like homey said. To the c/s from Kodie and Rekkac00n
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg8Oq_Sd3Bw[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv7Js0HK7s[/ame]
TELL ME YA CHEESIN FAM?
I walk around a little edgy already
all that bullshyt u typed has got nothing to do with what he said bout Django
u sound like a muthafukka who failed all his essay questions in school cause you wrote a buncha paragraphs not related to what the essays were bout
I dont give a fukk bout what Spike did or said in the past,if you're here to discuss what he said bout Django,then do just that
We're not here to discuss Spike's history of 'hating' or whatever the fukk u wanna call it
fukking dummy
No, you are failing to see the bigger picture. You got pimped ******. While youre sitting here acting stupid talking about "who knows what his motivation was? Im not in his head" QT is laughing at you on his way to the bank. He just made a BS movie that exploits slavery for a buck($123 million and counting) and he has blacks like you not only defending it but throwing brothers like Spike Lee under the bus in defense. That's the worst part about all of this. I couldn't make this up. Discussions like these are sad, not productive. Again, this conversation is about how black people have jumped on Spike to defend Tarantino. This isn't an open and honest conversation between whites and blacks about our history of race relations and how to improve them. People like you insist upon trying to give this movie undue credit. Just say that you like the movie even though it exploits slavery, stop lying to yourself and everybody else in the process. Nah, there is no common ground between us on this.
The movie being exploitative is a fact not an opinion. QT used slavery as a vehicle to push his fictional film for profit. That's not up for discussion or debate, it's undeniable. I couldn't care less about what you've said in other threads. Your opinion is bullshyt. Plus I can tell that you aren't black. Beat it.
MouseTeeth
All Star
No. No we don't.