Knowing your audience? Django Unchained

crossposted from manyfesto.net



Quentin Tarantino finally made a version of Inglorious Basterds for me. I thought it a mite peculiar, the minor obsession with the gore fest about smashing Nazis over the heads with baseball bats, but about halfway through Django Unchained, it all finally clicked for me. I was born and raised in the South, where the grotesque history of race relations there is still a deep source of shame for me personally, even if I never took part in slavery, lynchings, race riots or segregation. But I live in its wake and I benefit from it, even indirectly. The effects of such a painful chapter of human history were plain to see in my day to day life and effects such as incarceration rates, poverty, and drugs continue to be one of the most shameful aspects of contemporary American life. It’s a wound that people try to ignore, even if it still causes pain as it is picked fresh every day. That this country was built on the backs of enslaved human beings and that their descendants are still treated as second class citizens by the system that has so clearly profited from their misery continues to haunt any American of conscience.

So as I was cheering on the bloody escapades of our hero in Django, I suddenly considered that this must be how my German friends, who are also so deeply ashamed of their past, must feel when they watch Nazis get blown up on the big screen too. And how good for Tarantino that he’s figured out a way to tap into this deep cultural shame, and offer us all something of a therapeutic catharsis. Finally! I get to see plantation owners eat lead for their crimes. Tarantino doesn’t back away from the gore: we see slavery in all its bloody and grotesque splendor – men being torn apart by dogs, rape, dismemberment, castration, constant humiliation, and, through the portrayal of the collaborator Stephen, even the sometimes-deeper infection of the minds and hearts of the enslaved themselves. And just as we all secretly desire, the plot shifts from a story in the last forty minutes or so to the bloodbath we’ve all been waiting for. The killing spree that takes place for the latter quarter of the film was inevitable – the hand that has been reaching for the gun for the whole film is let free. It feels terrible, in a way, to enjoy watching anyone be killed, but this is part of the glory. Not being able to fully enjoy it, though wholeheartedly supporting it, is the white liberal’s prize in Django.

Likewise, the character of Dr. Shultz affords the white viewer an easy buy in- he is also white, also horrified by the gruesome reality of slavery, but also uneasy at the gore and depth of the violence. His desire to help save Django’s wife and leave without incident is proof of this itself. But Django wants blood – indeed, he deserves it. While Shultz is unable to fully stomach the part of “mandingo-dealer” in order to accomplish his goals, Django himself has no issue with making the sacrifices of moral pride necessary to accomplish his vengeance and save his wife. While Dr. Shultz turns green as a man is torn apart by dogs, Django says that he is used to it, having been around Americans longer than his partner has. Could I ever tap into this source of rage and vengeance? Could I ever cheer at the screen while the slaveowner’s sister – blissfully ignorant of her brother’s darker crimes, a mirror of many where I grew up – was blown away in cold blood?

But then, maybe this film was not for me. This could be a deeper catharsis for those in the audience who were still beat down by this history, not in the abstract and shameful way that I was, but in socio-economic reality. So then, why was Spike Lee famously boycotting the film? Maybe the answer is grounded in the fact that a white man made this movie – it can always be excused as just another Tarantino gore-fest. If Spike Lee had proposed making a film about a former slave riding through the South killing white people, he would have been laughed out of Hollywood. No one would finance that. The controversy would be enormous, never mind how many times the dreaded N-word would be thrown at the audience. It is mildly controversial when a white man makes the film, but would be unthinkable if a black man did it.

Maybe this is where we should situate this film politically – the vengeance of Django is acceptable under the watchful eyes of Tarantino, but the same film would be too much, too real if it was made by someone such as Spike Lee, a politically outspoken black man. As Tarantino makes it, the historical irreverencies can be chalked up to an attitude that the movie can be read as apolitical – Spike Lee’s main contention with the film. In which case, I’m inclined to agree with Lee: is it possible to make an apolitical film about slavery in the United States without being grossly offensive?

Overall, the film delivers on skill and acting. It’s not as blood-and-guts as some of Tarantino’s other work, though the violence is still staggering. A cheer went up from the audience as a white overseer was shot on horseback, his blood splattering the cotton plants. The resentment still exists, and the effects of slavery are still felt all over this country. Is Django Unchained a sign of broader race relations in the states, or is it simply a way for people to feel better about themselves for a while before stepping back into the cruel reality of American life?

Discussion of Knowing your audience? Django Unchained on tHE r H i z z o n E:

#1
a funny nickname I heard for Zero Dark Thirty was Jingo Unchained
#2
what's the deal with spike lee doing all those ads for the navy.
#3
what's the deal with spike lee? it's like, you're black, but you have the name of an anime bounty hunter! who are these people??
#4
tpaine.........

https://twitter.com/SeinfeldToday
#5
Modern Seinfeld ‏@SeinfeldToday

George can't handle a casual relationship with his tattooed/bisexual gf (Pauley Perrette). A photo of a confused Kramer becomes a meme.
#6
Modern Seinfeld ‏@SeinfeldToday

George breaks up w/ his gf (Gretchen Mol) because she's ruining his Netflix suggestions w/ her shows. Newman claims to be part of Anonymous.
#7
lmao

Modern Seinfeld ‏@SeinfeldToday

Kramer becomes an Internet famous photo bomber, so Jerry checks his photos and finds Kramer in the background of every single one of them.
#8
the birth of black baby jesus
#9

getfiscal posted:

what's the deal with spike lee doing all those ads for the navy.


The man who did the definitive film version of Malcom X's life also did promotional ads for the American military, wow.

#10
Oh wow, a film that presents an expose on what should have happened to the South's cultural and social elites. It's almost as if they should've been executed without trial or excuse, the very infamy of their social status being the unconditional warrant of their demise. No matter. We can have a film serve as an improvement on the condition of race relations in America. Yea yea, the north might have benefited from the institution of slavery, but the people who enforced it are the real culprits- albeit, retroactively. And the vitality of the North in the post-Civil War era demonstrates a resolve towards something better. I agree, we have a long way to go. But the idea that such a film like Django (an, albeit, pornographic depiction of samurai justice) is something which is worthy of Hollywood production should be one of many indices of cultural improvement in the American understanding of race relations.
When I sat in the theater and saw people cheering the destruction of illegitimate masters, I saw it retroactively as an inscription of the improvement on our race relations in this country. That, despite the fact that the ongoing war against the minority poor in our country goes on unabated; we can heal the wounds of our egregious socio-ethical impasses. Living in New York has given me a new perspective. That life does go on. That things, though however slowly, can change. That God in his mysterious ways does show that there are lifting visions of the meek.
Films like Von Trier's Manderlay, in juxtaposition to Django Unchained, are found wanting. They demonstrate a sort of retrograde vision of race relations. That minority conformity within the American mainstream comes with a sort of condolence of state violence, that integration itself (having met fierce resistance within racially included groups) had a sort of compromise for black socio-cultural admittance to the mainstream. No matter. I have an opinion, and, Allah willing, it is the correct interpretation.

As-salamu alaykum,
excuse me for the brief reply
#11
spike lee is a bad director
#12

gyrofry posted:

spike lee is a bad director



#13
Sounds like more violent Hollywood trash, i'll give it a miss
#14

gyrofry posted:

spike lee is a bad director



reminder that spike lee opened a film like this

#15
Also the slave owners are actually allegories for the Weinstein brothers
#16
[account deactivated]
#17
Warner brothers actually. And foxx is supposed to be prince Rogers nelson and foxxs wife is his recording career. Ero-tic ci-tay *dances super angular to a funky prince single*
#18
#19
[account deactivated]
#20
inglourious basterds > season 4 of the wire > season 2 of the wire > pulp fiction > jackie brown > django > reservoir dogs > kill bill
#21
samuel jackson turned in a fine performance as uncle ruckus
#22
christoph waltz is a great actor
#23
jamie foxx isn't
#24

gyrofry posted:

jamie foxx isn't



i disagree but you must admit he played the archetype well. he only had to be as good as clint eastwood or franco nero and that worked imo

#25
[account deactivated]
#26

Guyovich posted:

gyrofry posted:

jamie foxx isn't

i disagree but you must admit he played the archetype well. he only had to be as good as clint eastwood or franco nero and that worked imo

well the strong silent type thing works better when the character isn't essentially a sidekick to more emotive performers

#27
[account deactivated]
#28
#29
i can't really watch theatrical violence and suffering but i appreciated this review, thx
#30
I can't help but feel like Django and Inglorious Basterds and any of these exploitation style movies made today are the cheapest and easiest type of film for pop-culture junkies to produce and even though I enjoy these movies I end up disappointed because it seems like such cheap shit. I understand that this the last few years of movies are probably closer to what Tarantino has wanted to make his whole career or really enjoys, but this really shouldn't be getting mainstream praise or attention because to me it's just this vulgar (but entertaining) hyperbole on race relations that could've been accomplished in 30 minutes. It's cool and all, but these kind of movies being widely distributed and well-loved by people of my generation is pretty depressing because I hear more people talk about this film than anything of actual value. I don't intend this post as a response to disclipline's post (which I agree with to some extent) but more just a comment on the cultural fixation with with these violent fantasies rooted in shameful historical circumstances.
#31
I agree with Sherm. Compare Django to a Scott Sanders movie and it's clear that one is bullshit white person guilt and the other is informed by knowledge of the black experience and of modern black radicalism. It's really nothing for a white person to decide to make a movie about a black dude killing evil caricatures of slave owners.
#32
Kill bill is about a woman getting revenge against a man. Inglorous Bastard is about jews getting revenge on nazis. DJ Unchained is about a black man getting revenge on white people... There was a cool thing they did when Superman was on the radio in the 50s, some guy had the idea to do an episode where Superman takes on the Ku Klux Klan, and the episode humiliated the Klan and seriously hurt their membership...

Tarantino's audience is above all male, so maybe there it's good that he makes movies that they go BANANAs for, that cast the white man unequivocably as a the douche bag. After all, the social function of these "Controversial!" movies, shows, is not all that educational or thought-provoking, it's an affirmation of morality. That's all a revenge fantasy is, the protagonist's journey to condemn evil. Its like jerry springer
#33
[account deactivated]
#34

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

I agree with Sherm. Compare Django to a Scott Sanders movie and it's clear that one is bullshit white person guilt and the other is informed by knowledge of the black experience and of modern black radicalism. It's really nothing for a white person to decide to make a movie about a black dude killing evil caricatures of slave owners.



lol "evil caricatures". if y'all can't see the value of a movie about revolutionary violence against all white people by slaves than why don't you look at the shitty movie Lincoln that is out right now.

if movies about slave revolts were so easy, why has there only ever been one mainstream movie about John Brown, which was pro-slavery? How about all those hollywood movies about Nat Turner? this forum has some of the worst opinions about movies i've ever seen, at least for a forum which is supposed to be socialist, anti-racist, and philosophical.

#35
[account deactivated]
#36
[account deactivated]
#37
quentin tarantino finally reached the apotheosis of his wiggerdom by making a shitty remake of boss nigger, which was likely why he got into film in the first place. good for him
#38
so your the motherfucker always crossing out sri lanka and writing in ceylon on maps and globes around the country. what a weird little johnny appleseed thing
#39
[account deactivated]
#40

babyhueypnewton posted:

EmanuelaOrlandi posted:

I agree with Sherm. Compare Django to a Scott Sanders movie and it's clear that one is bullshit white person guilt and the other is informed by knowledge of the black experience and of modern black radicalism. It's really nothing for a white person to decide to make a movie about a black dude killing evil caricatures of slave owners.

lol "evil caricatures". if y'all can't see the value of a movie about revolutionary violence against all white people by slaves than why don't you look at the shitty movie Lincoln that is out right now.

if movies about slave revolts were so easy, why has there only ever been one mainstream movie about John Brown, which was pro-slavery? How about all those hollywood movies about Nat Turner? this forum has some of the worst opinions about movies i've ever seen, at least for a forum which is supposed to be socialist, anti-racist, and philosophical.

Frankly it is capitalist takeover of a discussion that should be dominated by people quoting Stokely Carmichael at each other.

Care to share your thoughts? Sign up for tHE r H i z z o n E and Post your heart out, baby!