"When actors are acting racist they're not really acting."
- Thread starter Luken
- Start date
but in both those genres you still have likable protagonistshow grey was Clint in the good bad and ugly you still find him rootable. You aren't going to find a blaxploitation movie like blackula and as evil as he was I still rooting for him. Even the original django was rootable. Quentin made a "black" revenge western where the only character the audience really liked was white
Schultz's is just a lot of talk and pretty condescending in hindsight, which really just points to how good an actor Waltz is that he can make you fall in love with a guy that compares himself to a slaver and doesn't really do anything to cause any waves in the status quo
plus Tarantino's approach to characters is more ambiguous than it appears, i think the more appropriate Eastwood movie to bring up is Unforgiven, since that one takes one of the western's icons and dirties up the morality in a way that's hard to pin down
or think about it this way, you root the Basterds because they're enacting violent vengeance on the Nazis but what's the implication of all that, the same question is really at play in all of Tarantino's movies
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
dude Tarantino ain't no fukin Kubrick, Jamie foxx's django was a badly written character simple as
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
kinda like him being best friends with nas right? 
dudes life ain't open like that but what we do know is he's best friends with Toby McGuire and a known racist named mark breh
Last edited:
Amphibious
Land, water, wherever.
Poetical Poltergeist
Precise and cold hearted
Leo? The coli's golden boy racist? Never..I doubt he ever had a racist thought go through his head at any time in his whole life.
his motivation and characterization is simple, just like the Basterds; this doesn't equate to badly written
Stephen's the more complex character
in order to play the role of Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York, Daniel Day-Lewis, always the method actor, actually had to become a racist crime boss
this would later serve him well when he took on the role of Abraham Lincoln
this would later serve him well when he took on the role of Abraham Lincoln
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
this ain't about complex or basic characterisation it's about a good characterisation. You keep referencing the basterds when that hinders your arguement cuz they were better written than django. How are you going to write an ensemble better than a lead in a revenge flick (based on a runaway slave)
you keep referencing the basterds when that hinders your arguement cuz they were better written than django. How are you going to write an ensemble better than a lead in a revenge flick (based on a runaway slave)
the Basterds are cartoons compared to Shoshanna, I keep bringing them up because they've got one motivation and so does Django
i don't see it as bad writing, i see it as Tarantino saying that all these characters will ever be are killing machines
OmegaK2099
Gettin' It In
Leo and Rihanna, Leo got all up in that and told her to kick rocks when she said he needed a six pack, give the man some dap
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
this debate became static at the point you started making the direct comparison between the characterisation of an ensemble up against the protagonist in a one man revenge flick. Given the setting and the actors all commending tarintino for having the balls to go there you just don't champion what he did unless you are a c00n
Last edited:
they're both revenge flicks by the same writer/director
hell the Basterds aren't even given the same level as characterization as anybody in Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
different movies and are you going to tell me you didn't find the basterds (sans roth) more likeable than django? And they weren't even jews. That's unacceptable, hell even Calvin candie was more likeable than django that's how thin he was written. You couldn't get behind the character or his love affair