yardbarker

NCAA Wiretap Headlines

OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"

Moderators: moocow007, magnumt, mrpoetryNmotion, NoLayupRule, Knickstape1214, Brooklyn_Yards, j4remi, Thugger HBC, GONYK, Thorn

Post#271 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 8:06 pm by Travis Knight

j4remi wrote:
Oscirus wrote:Stephen was a kiss ass hypeman who was nowhere near as evil as SLJ likes to think and Django pretty much relied on Schultz to get his bride. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie but let's not pretend this was anything other then tarantino using a gimmick for his spaghetti western


Nah, Stephen runs the show. He raised Candie, he played at being weak to make Candie feel in control but every bad deed Candie does once Stephen's in the picture is thanks to Stephen. He's the one who figures out the plan, he's the one tells Candie about it and gets him into the mode to get revenge...he plays dude the whole way. The dropping of the cane is symbolic as hell in that regard.

In this movie, I thought Stephen was viewed a wiser man than Candie, because Stephen is older, and in this situation, has more chemistry with the slaves.

I still thought he was a "kiss ass" who showed too much loyalty to his master/former master.

Spoiler alert: That scene when Candie Ddes, Stephan bursts out crying and screaming, which my entire theater thought was hilarious. I thought it was funny too, but it pissed me off to see Stephan's loyalty.
Image

RIP: Sky_Knicks, DocZaius
Travis Knight





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,737
And1: 339
Joined: Dec 5, 2011
Location: New York, New York
Top

Post#272 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 8:32 pm by Travis Knight

I did enjoy Django. I will probably watch it a few more times once it comes out on Blu-Ray/DVD. Like most Tarantino movies for me, they get better the more I watch them.

I do not really think Tarantino is a racist. He just does not care. People of all races use the n-word like it is nothing. I never thought Tarantino made blacks in particular look bad. If you get offended easily, he pretty much makes all races look bad.
Image

RIP: Sky_Knicks, DocZaius
Travis Knight





Head Coach
User avatar
Posts: 6,737
And1: 339
Joined: Dec 5, 2011
Location: New York, New York
Top

Post#273 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 8:34 pm by cgmw

Tarentino clearly has ADD. He's a dude. He likes explosions, blood splatter, cool weapons, violent killings, more violent killings, catchy songs, cool panoramas, action camera shots, provokative ladies, bare balls, and will go out of his way to find outrageous ways to display violence. What he doesn't do is create any sort of emotional depth to his characters. I think he tries, but IMO fails almost completely. Instead what you get is a bunch of cool stuff overlaying a simple, often cliched, and entirely predictable hollywood plot line.

For a cool movie with no emotional depth, I think Django does in fact cheapen the unfathomable emotional significance of slavery. Problem is, nobody will go see a movie that conveys the true emotional depth of such a serious and depressing subject. Remi, I think you're right that Django if nothing else reaches a wide audience and gets them thinking and talking. But IMO it reaches a wide audience the same way as a blurb on the wrapper of a Big Mac or McRib.

Ok, maybe a Wendy's Baconator. Those things are amazing.
"Willingly, gratefully."
cgmw

RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,887
And1: 1,011
Joined: Jul 23, 2003
Location: Winning now since 1973
Top

Post#274 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 9:16 pm by cgmw

Just saying, no movie review would be complete without mentioning that the white male filmaker felt compelled to use a big fake black c*ck & balls in a castration scene.

Did anyone else catch the size of the fro on the bottom of Django's nutsack? Wow.
"Willingly, gratefully."
cgmw

RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,887
And1: 1,011
Joined: Jul 23, 2003
Location: Winning now since 1973
Top

Post#275 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 9:17 pm by j4remi

cgmw wrote:Tarentino clearly has ADD. He's a dude. He likes explosions, blood splatter, cool weapons, violent killings, more violent killings, catchy songs, cool panoramas, action camera shots, provokative ladies, bare balls, and will go out of his way to find outrageous ways to display violence. What he doesn't do is create any sort of emotional depth to his characters. I think he tries, but IMO fails almost completely. Instead what you get is a bunch of cool stuff overlaying a simple, often cliched, and entirely predictable hollywood plot line.

For a cool movie with no emotional depth, I think Django does in fact cheapen the unfathomable emotional significance of slavery. Problem is, nobody will go see a movie that conveys the true emotional depth of such a serious and depressing subject. Remi, I think you're right that Django if nothing else reaches a wide audience and gets them thinking and talking. But IMO it reaches a wide audience the same way as a blurb on the wrapper of a Big Mac or McRib.

Ok, maybe a Wendy's Bacon Cheeseburger. Those things are amazing.


I wouldn't argue about QT being more glamor and less depth with most characters...In Reservoir Dogs and in True Romance (which he wrote), I think you could connect with characters more than in his works since mainly because he introduces a ton of characters instead of building a small core of strong ones. His most developed characters are ALWAYS his villains and the strongest emotion you get is a serious dislike for those characters whereas rather than relating to most of his protagonists, you just kinda think "that's a cool ass character."

However, I don't think his inability to create a powerful emotional connection cheapens slavery...I just don't. If you didn't feel disgusted by Candie and Stephen, sympathetic toward Dartanian and Hilda or at least some admiration for Django and Schultz...Well then yeah the impact of his narrative is lessened...but I doubt anyone will forget the dog scene, the mandingo fight or the whip scars. Had he built a stronger love story (and I admire his attempt this time what with Django picturing her and a damn good performance from Washington) then yes, the emotional impact would match the visual impact...but I don't think it cheapens it. That's pretty harsh imo.

As far as the attention to slavery being equivalent to a snapple fact, no way. Just the fact that you have Spike Lee and some others complaining about it, this takes on a whole new significance. Anyone who takes a while to look up if that's really how slaves were treated (something I could picture happening at least to some extent in this wikipedia age we live in) is going to feel things that QT couldn't manage in his script. Granted, slavery was more a back drop and the themes of Django focused more on love story and action scenes...but just calling attention to it for almost three hours and reminding people that it was THAT UGLY gives it some kind of impact. I think one issue here, which easily could lead to complaints and being offended, is that there's no real message about slavery in the flick besides "it's bad." But what statements about slavery are there to be made? That's partially why it's such a difficult topic. Plus, like you said, if someone tried to make a movie that matches the serious and depressing points of slavery...they likely wouldn't get any production money. I don't know that anyone could make a script that could ever actually live up to all that.

An Aside: I think it's interesting that there was no outcry over the Catcher Freeman episode of Boondocks in light of how offended people have been about this having a lot of comedy in it. That episode was all jokes, had no real depth and dealt with slavery as well...I guess smaller audience = less reaction.
BAT - Hawks
Rajon Rondo/Brian Roberts/Shane Larkin
Kyle Korver/Evan Fournier
Terrence Ross/Vince Carter
Al Horford/Mike Scott/Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright/Jermaine O'neal

385
j4remi





Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 25,111
And1: 1,956
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Top

Post#276 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 9:20 pm by j4remi

Shpati21 wrote:In this movie, I thought Stephen was viewed a wiser man than Candie, because Stephen is older, and in this situation, has more chemistry with the slaves.

I still thought he was a "kiss ass" who showed too much loyalty to his master/former master.

Spoiler alert: That scene when Candie Ddes, Stephan bursts out crying and screaming, which my entire theater thought was hilarious. I thought it was funny too, but it pissed me off to see Stephan's loyalty.


Stephen pretty much raised Candie, so I think that's part of his big loyalty. Dude ran that mansion. He's chillin' in the big chair with a glass of wine in that private library...and commands an army of white guys mindlessly firing their guns on Django...he was a boss. I'd love to hear QT and Samuel talking about his background more, I think the character change he has when it's just him and Django is really telling even though it only happens in two short scenes.
BAT - Hawks
Rajon Rondo/Brian Roberts/Shane Larkin
Kyle Korver/Evan Fournier
Terrence Ross/Vince Carter
Al Horford/Mike Scott/Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright/Jermaine O'neal

385
j4remi





Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 25,111
And1: 1,956
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Top

Post#277 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Tue Jan 8, 2013 9:27 pm by cgmw

To be clear, I'm not offended by Django in the slightest (except for Jaime Foxx's fake scrotum afro wig). I just understand where Spike's coming from and agree with his general point.

To me, the violent scenes you mentioned came off primarily as cool movie scenes and secondarily about slavery. I can imagine Tarantino story boarding them out, excited like a little boy, "yeah we'll have f*cking Mandingo Fighting on the parlor room floor with a f*cking eye gouge and a hammer, and then f*cking dogs will f*cking tear a Mandingo Fighter limb from limb..." It comes off as gratuitous. He's good at staging these scenes, and obviously has a lot of fun with it. Even to the point where he self-efacingly packs himself with dynamite and blows himself up with a single perfectly placed Django bullet.

That's why Schultz's big racial epiphany at the end rung hollow. I didn't believe for a second that a professional killer would be shaken by dogs ripping apart a man. No. I knew Tarantino just needed a reason for yet another gratuitous killing scene. It's why his movies have no true emotional depth.

Tarantino paints in broad simple strokes. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Those who need to die die and those who need to walk off into the sunset do. He uses simplistic, hackneyed, familiar storytelling as a vehicle for cool, clever, fun, snappy, outrageous, funny, and most-of-all violent scenes.

There's depth to these characters, but not the kind of depth that makes people relate on an emotional level. Or at least not me and my cold dead heart, anyway. Telling a story in this style about one of humankind's most deeply emotional subject matters should in fact ruffle some feathers.
"Willingly, gratefully."
cgmw

RealGM
User avatar
Posts: 14,887
And1: 1,011
Joined: Jul 23, 2003
Location: Winning now since 1973
Top

Post#278 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 10:38 am by prophet_of_rage

He is a talented B-movie maker. Nothing more nothing less.

And for all you who says: "Everybody says the N-Word, it's no big deal." Then why don't you write it out and stop using nonsense like "the N-word?" That's because it is a big deal.
prophet_of_rage
Assistant Coach
User avatar
Posts: 4,141
And1: 288
Joined: Jan 6, 2005
Top

Post#279 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 10:50 am by j4remi

cgmw wrote:To be clear, I'm not offended by Django in the slightest (except for Jaime Foxx's fake scrotum afro wig). I just understand where Spike's coming from and agree with his general point.

To me, the violent scenes you mentioned came off primarily as cool movie scenes and secondarily about slavery. I can imagine Tarantino story boarding them out, excited like a little boy, "yeah we'll have f*cking Mandingo Fighting on the parlor room floor with a f*cking eye gouge and a hammer, and then f*cking dogs will f*cking tear a Mandingo Fighter limb from limb..." It comes off as gratuitous. He's good at staging these scenes, and obviously has a lot of fun with it. Even to the point where he self-efacingly packs himself with dynamite and blows himself up with a single perfectly placed Django bullet.

That's why Schultz's big racial epiphany at the end rung hollow. I didn't believe for a second that a professional killer would be shaken by dogs ripping apart a man. No. I knew Tarantino just needed a reason for yet another gratuitous killing scene. It's why his movies have no true emotional depth.

Tarantino paints in broad simple strokes. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Those who need to die die and those who need to walk off into the sunset do. He uses simplistic, hackneyed, familiar storytelling as a vehicle for cool, clever, fun, snappy, outrageous, funny, and most-of-all violent scenes.

There's depth to these characters, but not the kind of depth that makes people relate on an emotional level. Or at least not me and my cold dead heart, anyway. Telling a story in this style about one of humankind's most deeply emotional subject matters should in fact ruffle some feathers.


Two things, Spike didn't see the movie...so his power to comment on it is severely undermined and if you don't know how QT boarded it out...it's tough to comment on how those scenes came about.

Schultz's epiphany was built up from extremely early on if you paid attention to all the cues. A professional killer spent the movie justifying his murder by saying "they're bad people" ...the dog scene haunted him bc when he went to save an innocent man, Django drew the parallel between Schultz and Candie. Schultz sees himself in Candie when he realizes they're both murderers, it a multi-level moment when he shoots Candie...he's committing suicide literally AND figuratively.

QT does indeed paint in broad simple strokes, but there are still layers to his storytelling. He cut a ton from the original script, apparently he had a lot of time dedicated to fleshing out Hilda that he had to drop. I think that could have gone a long way toward giving the love story more depth but it also would have hurt the profitability of the film.

And you're right, telling any story set within the times of slavery should ruffle feathers. But the fact that people would be happier to brush it under the rug and just accept it as "well it's too controversial to write about, talk about or try to work within" is upsetting to me. Like I said, even if someone hates the movie...at least he's willing to acknowledge a time in our history that exposes how ugly our treatment of others can be rather than just ignore it or pretend it never happened...and at the very worst at least he spawned a discussion about the pain and suffering that happened rather than taking the "we have a black president now...clean slate"

prophet_of_rage wrote:He is a talented B-movie maker. Nothing more nothing less.

And for all you who says: "Everybody says the N-Word, it's no big deal." Then why don't you write it out and stop using nonsense like "the N-word?" That's because it is a big deal.


Think about context here...it's a movie set in the times of slavery with a bunch of slave owners in it...what do you expect?
BAT - Hawks
Rajon Rondo/Brian Roberts/Shane Larkin
Kyle Korver/Evan Fournier
Terrence Ross/Vince Carter
Al Horford/Mike Scott/Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright/Jermaine O'neal

385
j4remi





Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 25,111
And1: 1,956
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Top

Post#280 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 11:21 am by prophet_of_rage

j4remi wrote:
cgmw wrote:To be clear, I'm not offended by Django in the slightest (except for Jaime Foxx's fake scrotum afro wig). I just understand where Spike's coming from and agree with his general point.

To me, the violent scenes you mentioned came off primarily as cool movie scenes and secondarily about slavery. I can imagine Tarantino story boarding them out, excited like a little boy, "yeah we'll have f*cking Mandingo Fighting on the parlor room floor with a f*cking eye gouge and a hammer, and then f*cking dogs will f*cking tear a Mandingo Fighter limb from limb..." It comes off as gratuitous. He's good at staging these scenes, and obviously has a lot of fun with it. Even to the point where he self-efacingly packs himself with dynamite and blows himself up with a single perfectly placed Django bullet.

That's why Schultz's big racial epiphany at the end rung hollow. I didn't believe for a second that a professional killer would be shaken by dogs ripping apart a man. No. I knew Tarantino just needed a reason for yet another gratuitous killing scene. It's why his movies have no true emotional depth.

Tarantino paints in broad simple strokes. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Those who need to die die and those who need to walk off into the sunset do. He uses simplistic, hackneyed, familiar storytelling as a vehicle for cool, clever, fun, snappy, outrageous, funny, and most-of-all violent scenes.

There's depth to these characters, but not the kind of depth that makes people relate on an emotional level. Or at least not me and my cold dead heart, anyway. Telling a story in this style about one of humankind's most deeply emotional subject matters should in fact ruffle some feathers.


Two things, Spike didn't see the movie...so his power to comment on it is severely undermined and if you don't know how QT boarded it out...it's tough to comment on how those scenes came about.

Schultz's epiphany was built up from extremely early on if you paid attention to all the cues. A professional killer spent the movie justifying his murder by saying "they're bad people" ...the dog scene haunted him bc when he went to save an innocent man, Django drew the parallel between Schultz and Candie. Schultz sees himself in Candie when he realizes they're both murderers, it a multi-level moment when he shoots Candie...he's committing suicide literally AND figuratively.

QT does indeed paint in broad simple strokes, but there are still layers to his storytelling. He cut a ton from the original script, apparently he had a lot of time dedicated to fleshing out Hilda that he had to drop. I think that could have gone a long way toward giving the love story more depth but it also would have hurt the profitability of the film.

And you're right, telling any story set within the times of slavery should ruffle feathers. But the fact that people would be happier to brush it under the rug and just accept it as "well it's too controversial to write about, talk about or try to work within" is upsetting to me. Like I said, even if someone hates the movie...at least he's willing to acknowledge a time in our history that exposes how ugly our treatment of others can be rather than just ignore it or pretend it never happened...and at the very worst at least he spawned a discussion about the pain and suffering that happened rather than taking the "we have a black president now...clean slate"

prophet_of_rage wrote:He is a talented B-movie maker. Nothing more nothing less.

And for all you who says: "Everybody says the N-Word, it's no big deal." Then why don't you write it out and stop using nonsense like "the N-word?" That's because it is a big deal.


Think about context here...it's a movie set in the times of slavery with a bunch of slave owners in it...what do you expect?


I do think about the context. This is QT a shockmaster, making a spaghetti western in slavery times, treating the deep south as if it were the Wild West. This is QT who is infamous for his licence with the word nigg@r using it 110 in a film and saying "Well, it's slavery times so it's authentic." Well, what about your other films where the use is gratuitous? Especially the films where there are no Black people? Reservoir Dogs, for instance? Why have it 38 times in Jackie Brown? There is a larger issue here.

Spike's argument is that slavery is not something to make a comedy about. QT has made a comedy about slavery. He has not made a serious film. He remade a B-movie. That's it. And my original point about the n-word was for people who were saying that it should have no power or impact because people (currently) say it all the time. My question then is if it is acceptable why do we use nonsense terms like the "N-Word?" And we all know why because the term is offensive.
prophet_of_rage
Assistant Coach
User avatar
Posts: 4,141
And1: 288
Joined: Jan 6, 2005
Top

Post#281 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 11:31 am by Jmonty580

It just goes to show how desensitised people have become to slavery, I think people want to make light of it and distance themselves from it because its still a hurtful horrific thing that happen. I think there are still real emotions today about what happened that people dont want to confront. Imo a movie like this makes light of something that shouldnt be made light of. It would be like making a silly super hero comedy about 9/11 or the CT school shooting. Those things are way to fresh though to kid about, slavery is alot further away so people think its ok now for some reason. I think most people wont be offended. I personally was not, but I still say its a shame that it makes light of such a serious thing, and part of me wishes i was offended.
Jmonty580
General Manager
User avatar
Posts: 8,325
And1: 171
Joined: Jun 8, 2004
Location: Stamford, CT
Top

Post#282 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 1:37 pm by prophet_of_rage

I just can't believe that people think this is a real commentary on slavery. It's an excuse to create gore. Beautiful, but vapid.
prophet_of_rage
Assistant Coach
User avatar
Posts: 4,141
And1: 288
Joined: Jan 6, 2005
Top

Post#283 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 2:30 pm by BKAY

might have been a little tasteless but damn good movie.
BKAY




Sixth Man
User avatar
Posts: 1,553
And1: 296
Joined: Apr 8, 2011
Top

Post#284 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 3:17 pm by moocow007

Joe Curry wrote:i never saw a Tarrentino film , is that weird ?


Yes. And definitely worth an experience. He's a obviously foot fetishist whose quirky movies always involves pretty much every scene going a step or two beyond what every other movie in similar situations would stop. Hero's die. Bad guys live. Sexual taboo's are flaunted. Good guys with bad traits. Bad guys with good traits.
Image
moocow007




Global Mod
Global Mod
User avatar
Posts: 72,192
And1: 3,904
Joined: Jan 6, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
Top

Post#285 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 6:37 pm by yaboynyp

prophet_of_rage wrote:
j4remi wrote:
cgmw wrote:To be clear, I'm not offended by Django in the slightest (except for Jaime Foxx's fake scrotum afro wig). I just understand where Spike's coming from and agree with his general point.

To me, the violent scenes you mentioned came off primarily as cool movie scenes and secondarily about slavery. I can imagine Tarantino story boarding them out, excited like a little boy, "yeah we'll have f*cking Mandingo Fighting on the parlor room floor with a f*cking eye gouge and a hammer, and then f*cking dogs will f*cking tear a Mandingo Fighter limb from limb..." It comes off as gratuitous. He's good at staging these scenes, and obviously has a lot of fun with it. Even to the point where he self-efacingly packs himself with dynamite and blows himself up with a single perfectly placed Django bullet.

That's why Schultz's big racial epiphany at the end rung hollow. I didn't believe for a second that a professional killer would be shaken by dogs ripping apart a man. No. I knew Tarantino just needed a reason for yet another gratuitous killing scene. It's why his movies have no true emotional depth.

Tarantino paints in broad simple strokes. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Those who need to die die and those who need to walk off into the sunset do. He uses simplistic, hackneyed, familiar storytelling as a vehicle for cool, clever, fun, snappy, outrageous, funny, and most-of-all violent scenes.

There's depth to these characters, but not the kind of depth that makes people relate on an emotional level. Or at least not me and my cold dead heart, anyway. Telling a story in this style about one of humankind's most deeply emotional subject matters should in fact ruffle some feathers.


Two things, Spike didn't see the movie...so his power to comment on it is severely undermined and if you don't know how QT boarded it out...it's tough to comment on how those scenes came about.

Schultz's epiphany was built up from extremely early on if you paid attention to all the cues. A professional killer spent the movie justifying his murder by saying "they're bad people" ...the dog scene haunted him bc when he went to save an innocent man, Django drew the parallel between Schultz and Candie. Schultz sees himself in Candie when he realizes they're both murderers, it a multi-level moment when he shoots Candie...he's committing suicide literally AND figuratively.

QT does indeed paint in broad simple strokes, but there are still layers to his storytelling. He cut a ton from the original script, apparently he had a lot of time dedicated to fleshing out Hilda that he had to drop. I think that could have gone a long way toward giving the love story more depth but it also would have hurt the profitability of the film.

And you're right, telling any story set within the times of slavery should ruffle feathers. But the fact that people would be happier to brush it under the rug and just accept it as "well it's too controversial to write about, talk about or try to work within" is upsetting to me. Like I said, even if someone hates the movie...at least he's willing to acknowledge a time in our history that exposes how ugly our treatment of others can be rather than just ignore it or pretend it never happened...and at the very worst at least he spawned a discussion about the pain and suffering that happened rather than taking the "we have a black president now...clean slate"

prophet_of_rage wrote:He is a talented B-movie maker. Nothing more nothing less.

And for all you who says: "Everybody says the N-Word, it's no big deal." Then why don't you write it out and stop using nonsense like "the N-word?" That's because it is a big deal.


Think about context here...it's a movie set in the times of slavery with a bunch of slave owners in it...what do you expect?


I do think about the context. This is QT a shockmaster, making a spaghetti western in slavery times, treating the deep south as if it were the Wild West. This is QT who is infamous for his licence with the word nigg@r using it 110 in a film and saying "Well, it's slavery times so it's authentic." Well, what about your other films where the use is gratuitous? Especially the films where there are no Black people? Reservoir Dogs, for instance? Why have it 38 times in Jackie Brown? There is a larger issue here.

Spike's argument is that slavery is not something to make a comedy about. QT has made a comedy about slavery. He has not made a serious film. He remade a B-movie. That's it. And my original point about the n-word was for people who were saying that it should have no power or impact because people (currently) say it all the time. My question then is if it is acceptable why do we use nonsense terms like the "N-Word?" And we all know why because the term is offensive.


Pretty compelling argument….
yaboynyp
Assistant Coach
User avatar
Posts: 3,886
And1: 106
Joined: Jul 8, 2010
Top

Post#286 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:35 pm by j4remi

prophet_of_rage wrote:
I do think about the context. This is QT a shockmaster, making a spaghetti western in slavery times, treating the deep south as if it were the Wild West. This is QT who is infamous for his licence with the word nigg@r using it 110 in a film and saying "Well, it's slavery times so it's authentic." Well, what about your other films where the use is gratuitous? Especially the films where there are no Black people? Reservoir Dogs, for instance? Why have it 38 times in Jackie Brown? There is a larger issue here.

Spike's argument is that slavery is not something to make a comedy about. QT has made a comedy about slavery. He has not made a serious film. He remade a B-movie. That's it. And my original point about the n-word was for people who were saying that it should have no power or impact because people (currently) say it all the time. My question then is if it is acceptable why do we use nonsense terms like the "N-Word?" And we all know why because the term is offensive.


QT isn't a shock master, he makes hyper violent movies sure...but this is a lot of fluff to fill out an argument. If you had a problem with the N word in other movies, fine. Bare in mind that outside of the scene in Pulp Fiction which I think was in bad taste but never found all that bad, he always has villains use the word. QT equates racism with evil pretty consistently as an auteur. When someone like cgmw makes arguments about his character development, that's cool...but this over simplification of what went on in the movie is off base.

It's not a comedy whatsoever. It's an action movie first, a love story second and there are comedic elements sprinkled throughout. The violence toward slave was never light hearted or weakened. I saw this post on another board and I think this guy gets my point of view and maybe says it better than I could.

First off it wasn't the KKK, which was not founded at the time. They were a rag tag group of racists out trying to kill a black man and his white friend; pretty evil thing to do, in the eyes of MOST people who saw the movie.

QT films always portray moments of levity in dangerous characters. Consider the ridiculous conversations two hit men continually got into in Pulp Fiction, or how comical yet dangerous the Jew Hunter was in Inglorious Basterds. Yet in Django, these characters are not portrayed in a positive or effective light - they're objects of scorn, ridicule, and disgust. The rest of the film features very serious racists who are very good at being racists (Candie especially), so the notion that the film trivializes slavery is just stupid. I don't think it's a stretch to suggest most non-rich slave owning southerners in 1858 were dumbasses.

No one left that movie thinking "oh boy, why were blacks so afraid of slavers back then, they were clowns lolll." Nah b. I thought it was brilliant the way QT flipped stereotypes throughout the film. Hell, nearly every white character in the film is a dumbass. Even the formidable Candie clearly wouldn't be as dangerous without the true brains behind him: Stephen, the black slave.

People are just looking for something to be offended by. When was the last time a major blockbuster film featured a black protagonist killing evil white people? When was the last film that portrayed slaves getting whipped, branded, castrated...and all the other stuff that history books leave out? And yall are complaining? If a black man directed this you'd be jumping for joy
BAT - Hawks
Rajon Rondo/Brian Roberts/Shane Larkin
Kyle Korver/Evan Fournier
Terrence Ross/Vince Carter
Al Horford/Mike Scott/Jonas Jerebko
Brandan Wright/Jermaine O'neal

385
j4remi





Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
User avatar
Posts: 25,111
And1: 1,956
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Top

Post#287 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 8:01 pm by moocow007

On all this angst...ive never taken any Tarantino movie as anything as sheer shocking, vulgar and funny comedic action that is sometimes best watched drunk, other times alone and other times right after getting laid. I wasnt offended with his stereotypes of my race cause I understood that that was not the intent of it. In fact at times him exaggerating racial stereotypes actually help highlight to me how stupid the very stereotyping that goes on really is and how pathetic those people are.
Image
moocow007




Global Mod
Global Mod
User avatar
Posts: 72,192
And1: 3,904
Joined: Jan 6, 2002
Location: In front of the computer, where else?
Top

Post#288 Re: OT: Spike Lee rips "Django"
Wed Jan 9, 2013 9:45 pm by Pharmcat

moocow007 wrote:On all this angst...ive never taken any Tarantino movie as anything as sheer shocking, vulgar and funny comedic action that is sometimes best watched drunk, other times alone and other times right after getting laid. I wasnt offended with his stereotypes of my race cause I understood that that was not the intent of it. In fact at times him exaggerating racial stereotypes actually help highlight to me how stupid the very stereotyping that goes on really is and how pathetic those people are.


:lol: :lol:
Pharmcat
Global Mod
Global Mod
User avatar
Posts: 43,148
And1: 1,066
Joined: Oct 4, 2002
Top

PreviousNext

Return to New York Knicks


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mnml, Starks, xTheHunterx, Yahoo [Bot]