How can you people go see this movie two to three times? Its way too long. I have more to do in my life than sit thru a 165min movie again!!
The movie is entertaining though.
Thought the Rick Ross song was to appeal to black crowds. I enjoyed that song in the film but couldn't stand the 2Pac mash/mix at the end.
How can you people go see this movie two to three times? Its way too long. I have more to do in my life than sit thru a 165min movie again!!
The movie is entertaining though.
Thought the Rick Ross song was to appeal to black crowds. I enjoyed that song in the film but couldn't stand the 2Pac mash/mix at the end.
I've seen Seven Samurai at least 10+ times. The movie length is 207 minutes. I must be nuts according to your standard.
Whats your opinion on the slavery exploitation comedy schtick in Django?
what was the comedy shtick?
The scenes depicting interactions between slaves and slave traders and masters are nearly all played for comic effect - right from the opening where Schultz frees Django and then throws the other slaves the key offering them a choice: follow the north star of carry the traders home - followed by their grateful shooting of the trader, is played as a joke, the outfit Django picks for himself when he is given free choice of what to wear - resulting in a flashy, garish and ridiculous choice, the scene with the Klansmen and their hoods - which drags on and isn't very funny to begin with, right down to the dialogue between Dicaprio and Jackson - the plantation is called Candieland!- the characterization of practically all the southern whites as monsters, the Mandingo fighting league (of which there is no historical record) - all combined they boil down to an outright caricature of slavery - served up for comic effect, and a few poorly staged shoot outs. No prob?
car??i??ca??ture (kr-k-chr, -chr)
n.
1.
a. A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.
b. The art of creating such representations.
2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation:
Also the siegfried references are bananas. The wagnerian siegfried myth was Hitlers favorite parable for Teutonic racial superiority and Germanic self determination. why is that in there? Django is the black siegfried? An inspirational nazi myth acting as a black supremacy metaphor ? WTF people.
I think that's your own hang up there. Sorry, but when I heard the story in the movie I didn't automatically think of Hiter, and I know he loved him some Wagner.
Also the siegfried references are bananas. The wagnerian siegfried myth was Hitlers favorite parable for Teutonic racial superiority and Germanic self determination. why is that in there? Django is the black siegfried? An inspirational nazi myth acting as a black supremacy metaphor ? WTF people.
I think that's your own hang up there. Sorry, but when I heard the story in the movie I didn't automatically think of Hiter, and I know he loved him some Wagner.
The Siegfried myth was an integral part of the Nazi mythology - part of the Nazi Stab-in-the-back myth or Dolchsto??legende - it is obviously being referenced by QT as a sick joke in Django's overtly racially charged story. All the more obvious because the movie fritz lang made was one of Hilters' favorite films which he watched repeatedly.
Hitler loved Fritz Lang's cinematic depiction of the traditional German Siegfried epic, the Nibelungenlied
The fact that Django - the black slave era superhero - is freed, clothed, armed, taught how to shoot, inspired to violence - 'mentally liberated', then led to save his wife, by a white german doctor called Schultz King - who masterminds and bankrolls the whole rescue, and then sacrifices himself, killing the ultimate bad guy, Candie, so Django can enact his revenge on all the left over lackies, the uncle tom character and a defenseless white woman - is hardly an empowering statement of black power. Just what is QT implying there?
I'm very familiar with what I call the Mighty Whitey Saves the World trope which is very popular in Hollywood. However Schultz was a supporting character, not the main one in Django. I took him more to a be a foil to bring about Django's development and move the story along, which is what a main supporting character often does in a story. I didn't take that to be a message about black dependency upon whites.
finelikewine"ONCE UPON A TIME, I HAD A VINYL." http://www.discogs.com/user/permabulker 1,416 Posts
staxwax said:
motown67 said:
staxwax said:
Also the siegfried references are bananas. The wagnerian siegfried myth was Hitlers favorite parable for Teutonic racial superiority and Germanic self determination. why is that in there? Django is the black siegfried? An inspirational nazi myth acting as a black supremacy metaphor ? WTF people.
I think that's your own hang up there. Sorry, but when I heard the story in the movie I didn't automatically think of Hiter, and I know he loved him some Wagner.
The Siegfried myth was an integral part of the Nazi mythology - part of the Nazi Stab-in-the-back myth or Dolchsto??legende - it is obviously being referenced by QT as a sick joke in Django's overtly racially charged story. All the more obvious because the movie fritz lang made was one of Hilters' favorite films which he watched repeatedly.
That link you posted is highly arguable. Please be more careful what sources you quote. The linked site is a revisionist nazi propagande page, which shouldn't be linked anywhere.
I only just noticed - apologies for linking to that specific site - but the point is obvious - nazis love the siegfried myth and it is well documented that hitler doted on the Fritz Lang movie about the Siegfried myth - something im sure Tarantino is aware of and is obviously deliberately referencing.
Hitler loved Lang???s depiction of the traditional German epic, the Nibelungenlied. He thought that it expressed his racial and cultural concerns and he used a 1925 version with a Wagnerian soundtrack for propaganda. Lang claimed that Goebbels told him how the Fuehrer loved his films and asked him to produce National Socialist films for the Reich.
???The propaganda minister (Goebbels) told the director (Lang) that the Fuhrer was one of his most avid fans. The Fuhrer had ???loved??? Metropolis, which he had seen at a low point in his career, and of course Die Nibelungen, too whose majesty had apparently caused the Nazi leader to break down and weep. Lang quoted Goebbels quoting Hitler: ???Here is a man who will give us great Nazi films.??? Hitler, in short, wanted Lang to serve as the head of a new agency supervising motion picture production in the Third Reich. He would become the Nazi???s Fuhrer of film??? (McGilligan, 175).
The first film in Fritz Lang's Nibelungen, Siegfrieds Tod (Death) might well have been named Brunhilds Rache, Broomhilda's Revenge. The overarching moral is the ancient Germanic aristocratic knightly principle that recognises the necessity to fight and to conquer in order to demonstrate one's manly virtue (strength) and to be worthy of high standing and to secure a mate of high racial birth -- for otherwise the knightly aristocratic race is subverted and weakened by the weak breeding. Thus Siegfried forges himself a sword and fights his way through foreign lands to Queen Kriemhild's palace to wed Broomhilda.
Whats your opinion on the slavery exploitation comedy schtick in Django?
what was the comedy shtick?
The scenes depicting interactions between slaves and slave traders and masters are nearly all played for comic effect - right from the opening where Schultz frees Django and then throws the other slaves the key offering them a choice: follow the north star of carry the traders home - followed by their grateful shooting of the trader, is played as a joke, the outfit Django picks for himself when he is given free choice of what to wear - resulting in a flashy, garish and ridiculous choice, the scene with the Klansmen and their hoods - which drags on and isn't very funny to begin with, right down to the dialogue between Dicaprio and Jackson - the plantation is called Candieland!- the characterization of practically all the southern whites as monsters, the Mandingo fighting league (of which there is no historical record) - all combined they boil down to an outright caricature of slavery - served up for comic effect, and a few poorly staged shoot outs. No prob?
car??i??ca??ture (kr-k-chr, -chr)
n.
1.
a. A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.
b. The art of creating such representations.
2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation:
thanks for the definition! :roll:
i cant disagree with you about it being a caricature. it is in fact fiction and not a documentary.though you may be exaggerating the comedic effect .
...the german's dialogue in general is deliberately clever and entertaining. i didnt see the first scene as comedic unless you are equating revenge with comedy )i dont know why youd do that). the german is very methodical and gets his man...i didnt see the key toss or revenge as a joke. i didnt really know the story or character, so i wasnt even sure what his agenda was, he was shooting people in the head and buying slaves, that didnt exactly spell goodguy to me. django doesnt turn around and smile or laugh. hes got a serious as shit expression on his face.
...the outfit is definitely a joke. is that necessarily clowning slavery? might be more a reference and dig at the stereotypical flamboyant black pimp.
...klansmen hood troubles is definitely a joke, casting them as inept clowns. does that make light of slavery? does the dogs ripping up the runaway make light of slavery? does women getting whipped? he said in interviews that the realities were much more horrible. should he have gone further and depicted that?
...how is mandingo fighting played for comedic effect? that shit was horrifying. were you or your friends laughing? whether its real or not is another question. would you have rather QT substitute something as equally revolting as rape of slaves because it was more realistic?
...again, by casting southern whites as monsters, im not sure how that is played for comedic effect. its a two hour spaghetti western, do you want him to cover the abolitionist movement? was candie's sister a monster? i think it showed the degree of complicity and participation in slavery by people living in the south around plantations. was the barkeeper a monster by calling the sheriff? do you think things were less monstrously segregated after emancipation?
...and sure the dialog between jackson and dicaprio was fucked up and uncomfortable. especially the hercules part. but i think it was intentional. i found it interesting that when jackson summons him to the study, he's drinking cognac and his tone changes entirely. the shuck and jive act was all a facade, as both characters were well aware. sam jackson was really a trusted adviser who still had to keep up appearances. i found that interesting and not comedic. anyway, the shucking and jiving was far from comedic in my eyes and i didnt think it was intended to be. jackson was the insiduous house negro whose actions and outlook had been completely warped and twisted to fall in line with his enslavers
so im not trying to tear down your theory, but i think saying that slavery was used for comedic effect is a bit off. fiction is a caricature, sure. and a spaghetti western is going to simplify characters, events, and history. but i think that for the most part of the film, QT did not shy away from casting slavery as a brutal, horrifying, demeaning institution
...and sure the dialog between jackson and dicaprio was fucked up and uncomfortable. especially the hercules part. but i think it was intentional. i found it interesting that when jackson summons him to the study, he's drinking cognac and his tone changes entirely. the shuck and jive act was all a facade, as both characters were well aware. sam jackson was really a trusted adviser who still had to keep up appearances. i found that interesting and not comedic. anyway, the shucking and jiving was far from comedic in my eyes and i didnt think it was intended to be. jackson was the insiduous house negro whose actions and outlook had been completely warped and twisted to fall in line with his enslavers
i believe this was inspired by Lloyd, a character in Elmore Leonard's Mr. Paradise novel. He plays a see-nothing, hear-nothing butler, and in the last act, when the action starts, he comes to life by telling someone he partnered up with, who got caught with drugs, essentially, that "he's (Lloyd) done time, and not for no pussy narcotics. That means I'm charge here." A great scene in the novel, imo.
Tarantino borrows heavily from noir/pulp novels. Check out Jim Thompson's "The Getaway." The plot involves criminals trying to escape America and settle in a criminal safe haven in Mexico. Tarantino lifted the plot for From Dusk til Dawn.
Whats your opinion on the slavery exploitation comedy schtick in Django?
what was the comedy shtick?
The scenes depicting interactions between slaves and slave traders and masters are nearly all played for comic effect - right from the opening where Schultz frees Django and then throws the other slaves the key offering them a choice: follow the north star of carry the traders home - followed by their grateful shooting of the trader, is played as a joke, the outfit Django picks for himself when he is given free choice of what to wear - resulting in a flashy, garish and ridiculous choice, the scene with the Klansmen and their hoods - which drags on and isn't very funny to begin with, right down to the dialogue between Dicaprio and Jackson - the plantation is called Candieland!- the characterization of practically all the southern whites as monsters, the Mandingo fighting league (of which there is no historical record) - all combined they boil down to an outright caricature of slavery - served up for comic effect, and a few poorly staged shoot outs. No prob?
car??i??ca??ture (kr-k-chr, -chr)
n.
1.
a. A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.
b. The art of creating such representations.
2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation:
thanks for the definition! :roll:
I wasn't trying to be smarmy there - just looking at the definition of the word makes it impossible to see Django Unchained as anything but a caricature of slavery, and its protagonists as caricatures of people effecting and affected by slavery. I posted that definition to enforce my point that Django Unchained is a caricature designed for sensationalist purposes. The more I think about this the more outrageous it seems to me - and the more puzzled I am by the positive reception, and the fact that it was able to be made at all.
tripledouble said:
i cant disagree with you about it being a caricature. it is in fact fiction and not a documentary.though you may be exaggerating the comedic effect .
A caricature always has comic intent - and by and large all of Tarantino's film have cynical humor as a trade mark - which makes his tackling of the persecution of jews in Inglorious Basterds and slavery in Django Unchained even more galling.
tripledouble said:
...the german's dialogue in general is deliberately clever and entertaining. i didnt see the first scene as comedic unless you are equating revenge with comedy )i dont know why youd do that). the german is very methodical and gets his man...i didnt see the key toss or revenge as a joke. i didnt really know the story or character, so i wasnt even sure what his agenda was, he was shooting people in the head and buying slaves, that didnt exactly spell goodguy to me. django doesnt turn around and smile or laugh. hes got a serious as shit expression on his face.
The theatre I saw it in reacted with laughter to the killing of the surviving trader by the just freed slaves. The flippant way in which Schultz offers the other slaves - after casually killing and wounding the slave traders - a choice, and leaves it up to them to act as they see fit - resulting predictably in a murderous outcome - is a cynical joke imo. Schultz implies there's only one thing for them to do - so the choice hes offering is belittling. Also - following the north star to freedom is a ridiculous over simplification and one that immediately sets the tone of absurd implications and historical inaccuracies- escaped slaves were far from save in the north at that time. For instance the draft riots in new york city occurred in 1863 as a reaction to Lincoln/congress passing the draft and saw murderous mobs going after the cities black population resulting in many lynchings and the burning of a black orphanage.
tripledouble said:
...the outfit is definitely a joke. is that necessarily clowning slavery? might be more a reference and dig at the stereotypical flamboyant black pimp.
So he's taking a dig at Django - the hero and main character - framing him as a 'stereotypical black pimp' - why? Django is a freed slave out for revenge - why clown him and have him make ill informed garish pimpish wardrobe choices? its clowning Django the freed slave who i suppose we are expected to root for as an agent of black vengeance against slavery - a weird mixed message.
tripledouble said:
...klansmen hood troubles is definitely a joke, casting them as inept clowns. does that make light of slavery? does the dogs ripping up the runaway make light of slavery? does women getting whipped? he said in interviews that the realities were much more horrible. should he have gone further and depicted that?
The Klan were deadly serious and murderous - they weren't jokers fumbling around with their hoods - similarly so were the nazis - so trivialising and portraying klansmen - or nazis for that matter - as bumbling buffoons - is making light of who they actually were in reality - and what they did. In the context of Django its another caricature and comic stroke setting the tone - resulting in an overall comedic take on slavery and its agents.
tripledouble said:
...how is mandingo fighting played for comedic effect? that shit was horrifying. were you or your friends laughing? whether its real or not is another question. would you have rather QT substitute something as equally revolting as rape of slaves because it was more realistic?
Candie is one of the main bad guys in Django - hes so bad, mainly - because of his mandingo fighting stable and trade - but in actuality - there was no mandingo fighting as suggested in the movie - it makes it hard to see him as anything else but what he is - a campy fictitious character doing preposterous things - so who is Django really fighting - a ridiculous glib caricature of white racism reveling in black on black fights to the death, staged in a lounge with beethoven playing in the background? Its so off the wall that it becomes laughable - as violence in movies often does.
The whole mandingo warrior fighting trade makes Candieland - still cant get over that name- a preposterous distortion of what really went on on plantations - is QT referencing boxing or modern sports? - In the end its so ott that Im not at all horrified at that scene - its just another violent set piece in the movie- with graphic violent sensationalism - putting out eyes - being served up as entertainment.
Its a sick joke employed to demonise a campy slave owner who in fact should need no such demonising. QT is also referencing one of his favorite low budget exploitation flicks - 'Mandingo' from 1976 - so its also a 'clever' QT reference to a much reviled semi erotic low budget exploitation flick - it just makes it impossible for me to take the mechanics at work in the Django plot at all seriously - that scene is just adding more and more layers of grotesque sensationalism.
tripledouble said:
...again, by casting southern whites as monsters, im not sure how that is played for comedic effect. its a two hour spaghetti western, do you want him to cover the abolitionist movement? was candie's sister a monster? i think it showed the degree of complicity and participation in slavery by people living in the south around plantations. was the barkeeper a monster by calling the sheriff? do you think things were less monstrously segregated after emancipation?
Its distorting and trivialising what really went on - almost all the southern whites are monstrous buffoons - so QT is setting up a scene where Django can just blow them away and we can laugh it off - which is exactly what happens in theatres when the audience cheers django on shooting those characters in that final shoot out - the shot of candies sisters flying off is definitely a visual joke intended to cause laughs - which it did when i saw it with an audience. In that sense I see them as 'one dimensional monsters' entering the stage so they can later be dispatched for comedic effect, kneecapping them - shooting them in the nuts, etc.
tripledouble said:
...and sure the dialog between jackson and dicaprio was fucked up and uncomfortable. especially the hercules part. but i think it was intentional. i found it interesting that when jackson summons him to the study, he's drinking cognac and his tone changes entirely. the shuck and jive act was all a facade, as both characters were well aware. sam jackson was really a trusted adviser who still had to keep up appearances. i found that interesting and not comedic. anyway, the shucking and jiving was far from comedic in my eyes and i didnt think it was intended to be. jackson was the insiduous house negro whose actions and outlook had been completely warped and twisted to fall in line with his enslavers
the jackson character - the facial expressions and body language were really playing up a shucking and jiving uncle tom archetype imo - it caused eye rolling, nudging and pretty much disbelief in the company i saw the movie with. In all - another layer of gross caricature on top of all the others on display in the movie.
tripledouble said:
so im not trying to tear down your theory, but i think saying that slavery was used for comedic effect is a bit off. fiction is a caricature, sure. and a spaghetti western is going to simplify characters, events, and history. but i think that for the most part of the film, QT did not shy away from casting slavery as a brutal, horrifying, demeaning institution
i dont believe you can treat slavery as a vehicle or setting for an out and out sensationalist violent caricature laden with jokes on one hand - and at the same time be saying - this is a serious depiction of the horrors of slavery - it doesnt fly in my book.
Anyway- thanks for taking the time to respond like you did - anyone is free to interpret the film the way they want, obviously, there's no obligation to be outraged or insulted. The overt violence and constant use of the the word 'nigger' didn't bother me at all, for instance - although it seems those are the aspects of the film most objected to, generally speaking. I don't believe Tarantino is a racist either, for the record.
The more I think about this the more outrageous it seems to me - and the more puzzled I am by the positive reception, and the fact that it was able to be made at all.
Have you ever thought that maybe...juuuuust maybe....you're the most intelligent, most sane and most reasonable person in the whooooole wide world?? I mean, that would certainly help you accept come to terms with your confusion and dismay.
Whats your opinion on the slavery exploitation comedy schtick in Django?
what was the comedy shtick?
The scenes depicting interactions between slaves and slave traders and masters are nearly all played for comic effect - right from the opening where Schultz frees Django and then throws the other slaves the key offering them a choice: follow the north star of carry the traders home - followed by their grateful shooting of the trader, is played as a joke, the outfit Django picks for himself when he is given free choice of what to wear - resulting in a flashy, garish and ridiculous choice, the scene with the Klansmen and their hoods - which drags on and isn't very funny to begin with, right down to the dialogue between Dicaprio and Jackson - the plantation is called Candieland!- the characterization of practically all the southern whites as monsters, the Mandingo fighting league (of which there is no historical record) - all combined they boil down to an outright caricature of slavery - served up for comic effect, and a few poorly staged shoot outs. No prob?
car??i??ca??ture (kr-k-chr, -chr)
n.
1.
a. A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect.
b. The art of creating such representations.
2. A grotesque imitation or misrepresentation:
thanks for the definition! :roll:
I wasn't trying to be smarmy there - just looking at the definition of the word makes it impossible to see Django Unchained as anything but a caricature of slavery, and its protagonists as caricatures of people effecting and affected by slavery. I posted that definition to enforce my point that Django Unchained is a caricature designed for sensationalist purposes. The more I think about this the more outrageous it seems to me - and the more puzzled I am by the positive reception, and the fact that it was able to be made at all.
tripledouble said:
i cant disagree with you about it being a caricature. it is in fact fiction and not a documentary.though you may be exaggerating the comedic effect .
A caricature always has comic intent - and by and large all of Tarantino's film have cynical humor as a trade mark - which makes his tackling of the persecution of jews in Inglorious Basterds and slavery in Django Unchained even more galling.
tripledouble said:
...the german's dialogue in general is deliberately clever and entertaining. i didnt see the first scene as comedic unless you are equating revenge with comedy )i dont know why youd do that). the german is very methodical and gets his man...i didnt see the key toss or revenge as a joke. i didnt really know the story or character, so i wasnt even sure what his agenda was, he was shooting people in the head and buying slaves, that didnt exactly spell goodguy to me. django doesnt turn around and smile or laugh. hes got a serious as shit expression on his face.
The theatre I saw it in reacted with laughter to the killing of the surviving trader by the just freed slaves. The flippant way in which Schultz offers the other slaves - after casually killing and wounding the slave traders - a choice, and leaves it up to them to act as they see fit - resulting predictably in a murderous outcome - is a cynical joke imo. Schultz implies there's only one thing for them to do - so the choice hes offering is belittling. Also - following the north star to freedom is a ridiculous over simplification and one that immediately sets the tone of absurd implications and historical inaccuracies- escaped slaves were far from save in the north at that time. For instance the draft riots in new york city occurred in 1863 as a reaction to Lincoln/congress passing the draft and saw murderous mobs going after the cities black population resulting in many lynchings and the burning of a black orphanage.
tripledouble said:
...the outfit is definitely a joke. is that necessarily clowning slavery? might be more a reference and dig at the stereotypical flamboyant black pimp.
So he's taking a dig at Django - the hero and main character - framing him as a 'stereotypical black pimp' - why? Django is a freed slave out for revenge - why clown him and have him make ill informed garish pimpish wardrobe choices? its clowning Django the freed slave who i suppose we are expected to root for as an agent of black vengeance against slavery - a weird mixed message.
tripledouble said:
...klansmen hood troubles is definitely a joke, casting them as inept clowns. does that make light of slavery? does the dogs ripping up the runaway make light of slavery? does women getting whipped? he said in interviews that the realities were much more horrible. should he have gone further and depicted that?
The Klan were deadly serious and murderous - they weren't jokers fumbling around with their hoods - similarly so were the nazis - so trivialising and portraying klansmen - or nazis for that matter - as bumbling buffoons - is making light of who they actually were in reality - and what they did. In the context of Django its another caricature and comic stroke setting the tone - resulting in an overall comedic take on slavery and its agents.
tripledouble said:
...how is mandingo fighting played for comedic effect? that shit was horrifying. were you or your friends laughing? whether its real or not is another question. would you have rather QT substitute something as equally revolting as rape of slaves because it was more realistic?
Candie is one of the main bad guys in Django - hes so bad, mainly - because of his mandingo fighting stable and trade - but in actuality - there was no mandingo fighting as suggested in the movie - it makes it hard to see him as anything else but what he is - a campy fictitious character doing preposterous things - so who is Django really fighting - a ridiculous glib caricature of white racism reveling in black on black fights to the death, staged in a lounge with beethoven playing in the background? Its so off the wall that it becomes laughable - as violence in movies often does.
The whole mandingo warrior fighting trade makes Candieland - still cant get over that name- a preposterous distortion of what really went on on plantations - is QT referencing boxing or modern sports? - In the end its so ott that Im not at all horrified at that scene - its just another violent set piece in the movie- with graphic violent sensationalism - putting out eyes - being served up as entertainment.
Its a sick joke employed to demonise a campy slave owner who in fact should need no such demonising. QT is also referencing one of his favorite low budget exploitation flicks - 'Mandingo' from 1976 - so its also a 'clever' QT reference to a much reviled semi erotic low budget exploitation flick - it just makes it impossible for me to take the mechanics at work in the Django plot at all seriously - that scene is just adding more and more layers of grotesque sensationalism.
tripledouble said:
...again, by casting southern whites as monsters, im not sure how that is played for comedic effect. its a two hour spaghetti western, do you want him to cover the abolitionist movement? was candie's sister a monster? i think it showed the degree of complicity and participation in slavery by people living in the south around plantations. was the barkeeper a monster by calling the sheriff? do you think things were less monstrously segregated after emancipation?
Its distorting and trivialising what really went on - almost all the southern whites are monstrous buffoons - so QT is setting up a scene where Django can just blow them away and we can laugh it off - which is exactly what happens in theatres when the audience cheers django on shooting those characters in that final shoot out - the shot of candies sisters flying off is definitely a visual joke intended to cause laughs - which it did when i saw it with an audience. In that sense I see them as 'one dimensional monsters' entering the stage so they can later be dispatched for comedic effect, kneecapping them - shooting them in the nuts, etc.
tripledouble said:
...and sure the dialog between jackson and dicaprio was fucked up and uncomfortable. especially the hercules part. but i think it was intentional. i found it interesting that when jackson summons him to the study, he's drinking cognac and his tone changes entirely. the shuck and jive act was all a facade, as both characters were well aware. sam jackson was really a trusted adviser who still had to keep up appearances. i found that interesting and not comedic. anyway, the shucking and jiving was far from comedic in my eyes and i didnt think it was intended to be. jackson was the insiduous house negro whose actions and outlook had been completely warped and twisted to fall in line with his enslavers
the jackson character - the facial expressions and body language were really playing up a shucking and jiving uncle tom archetype imo - it caused eye rolling, nudging and pretty much disbelief in the company i saw the movie with. In all - another layer of gross caricature on top of all the others on display in the movie.
tripledouble said:
so im not trying to tear down your theory, but i think saying that slavery was used for comedic effect is a bit off. fiction is a caricature, sure. and a spaghetti western is going to simplify characters, events, and history. but i think that for the most part of the film, QT did not shy away from casting slavery as a brutal, horrifying, demeaning institution
i dont believe you can treat slavery as a vehicle or setting for an out and out sensationalist violent caricature laden with jokes on one hand - and at the same time be saying - this is a serious depiction of the horrors of slavery - it doesnt fly in my book.
Anyway- thanks for taking the time to respond like you did - anyone is free to interpret the film the way they want, obviously, there's no obligation to be outraged or insulted. The overt violence and constant use of the the word 'nigger' didn't bother me at all, for instance - although it seems those are the aspects of the film most objected to, generally speaking. I don't believe Tarantino is a racist either, for the record.
if you look at Tarantino's films h always does things out of the norm. Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie where you don't actually see the heist happen. You see the aftermath of the job and one of the robbers bleeeding from the gut because he was shot. The film is actually as long as it takes for someone to bleed from such an injury. There's also a scene where a bunch of crooks are sitting around planning their job and they are given "code" names in the form of colors. Obviously this is a stretch, too, but I don't believe it takes away from the over all appeal of the movie.
Tarantino's films are always over the top. That's part of what he does, his "sound," so to speak. This is something he confesses came from reading Elmore Leonard novels. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Leonard's work, but he admits to having a "sound" as well. And that is why I like Tarantino, I suppose. Like him or hate him, his movies all have a certain voice that few writer/directors are able to capture, and in my opinion, that's what makes him so unique.
i enjoyed reading everyone's repsonses, positive and negative, of Django. And the negative reviews on here certainly bring up some valid points.
i agree with JATX about the valid points being dropped and maybe a little with Herm about Staxwax being too damn smart.
for real tho, stax, i appreciate your takes, but i still think some of it is reaching at times and at other times chooses not to dig deep enough. jackson's shucking and jivin is coupled with his sherlock holmes impression in the study, where he is obviously more astute than dicaprio. this has to be taken as a whole. gross caricature? maybe. you dont think blacks acted one way in front of whites under slavery and acted different outside of that public eye? (shit, this still happens). the voice, the shuffling, even the deference was ALL out the window when jackson and leo parlayed in the study. the house negro who "buys in" is a classic stereotypical plantation figure, not always grasped by whites, but hated and reviled by african americans. QT and SJ presented this well and left a lot of room for discussion and analysis of that type of relationship. the willingness of the slave to emotionally invest in the master's game whether through opportunism or some stockholm syndrome shit.
the 'white monsters' too were a varied lot. from candie's circles who excuse their institutionalized brutality through phrenology and other shit to the dog people in the cabin who could barely speak english and were threatened by the well spoken, well dressed Django on a horse.
QT is hardly without faults. i saw an interview recently where he embraced his filmmaking being described as hiphop, borrowing heavily from the past, in hommages that get distorted to serve his canvas. like hiphop, its not a perfect picture...nwa never pretended to be a sociological essay, but obviously it spoke a lot to where some black men in compton were coming from and wanted to listen to. would the winstons have like it? hiphop is ridiculously far from being a tidy, positive expression. you got all types of misogyny, black on black crime, materialism, etc etc. But it elicits strong reactions, stirs debate, and forces people to take stock of the soul of the country. QT's films have their moments where they do this too.
for real tho, stax, i appreciate your takes, but i still think some of it is reaching at times and at other times chooses not to dig deep enough. jackson's shucking and jivin is coupled with his sherlock holmes impression in the study, where he is obviously more astute than dicaprio. this has to be taken as a whole. gross caricature? maybe. you dont think blacks acted one way in front of whites under slavery and acted different outside of that public eye? (shit, this still happens). the voice, the shuffling, even the deference was ALL out the window when jackson and leo parlayed in the study. the house negro who "buys in" is a classic stereotypical plantation figure, not always grasped by whites, but hated and reviled by african americans. QT and SJ presented this well and left a lot of room for discussion and analysis of that type of relationship. the willingness of the slave to emotionally invest in the master's game whether through opportunism or some stockholm syndrome shit.
one question I've got though, when Schultz shoots Candie, why doesn't the dude with the shotty aimed at Django and Broomhilda react, until Samuel L's character starts screaming? The delay between Schultz's gun firing and shotgun dude turning around seems too significant.
Was Candie expected to shoot Schultz when he was insisting on the handshake, thus the sound of a gun firing was assumed to be his?
I too think Stax is reading way too much into the movie, and at times getting out of hand IMHO.
Here's my take one specific scene Stax mentioned.
After being freed by Schultz he has the discussion with Django. The first thing he says is that he wants to free his wife. This isn't Schultz's idea, it comes from Django setting the stage for the rest of the movie. Stax wants to read scenes like this as blacks being dependent upon whites when to me it shows that it was Django's plan all along, hence he is the agent of change in the movie not Schultz.
Django then says his wife's name is Broomhilda, which leads Schultz to go over the German myth. To me, this is part of Schultz's role in the movie. He is a foil to give deeper meaning and understanding to the story. By re-telling the German myth he is trying to say that Django's mission is a noble and romantic one, and foreshadows the trials and tribulations he has go to through to get his wife back, i.e. slay the dragon, walk through hell fire, etc. Schultz then agrees to help Django on this quest, which shows that Schultz is the supporting character and Django is the lead. Django then sets about building his character into the gunfighter and savior that he becomes at the end, once again showing that it is Django leading the story, not Schutz/whites. Stax wants to take this scene as QT bringing up Hitler because Hitler loved Wagner. Is Apocalypse Now a nod to Hitler too, because they play Flight of the Valkyries during the helicopter scene and Coppolla is a movie buff as well? There are Looney Tunes cartoons where they hum the song as well. To me the myth is giving meaning to Django's story. I don't think it's got anything to do with Nazis.
Ehhh Im not really personally offended - although he goes beyond bad taste in IB and DU as ive argued above -and is annoyingly and overly self involved and heavy handed in a lot of his work. The inability to deliver a great and exciting flick that can stand on its own without being an endless sequence of smug references and puerile jokes does annoy the hell out of me with all the acclaim he receives. I am amazed at what QT is able to get away with without causing outrage in many. I still find it incredible how little resistance he encounters.
I have a theory about this now - the longer ive been able to digest the movie. Quentin Tarantino doesnt really have a voice that is truly his own - so far all of his movies have been rip offs or adaptations - notable exception: pulp fiction. Even reservoir dogs which is almost a remake of an obscure hongkong actioner called City on fire from 87 - its basically a remake of that with ad libs tacked on. Jackie brown is his best film imo - based on elmore leonard obviously.
So anyway - not being able to find truly original subject matter hes the perennial sampler of other movies. But having failed to register with audiences and critics with death proof he seems to have concluded he needs an extra element of outrageous scandal to really get those numbers and remain 'relevant'. Enter the inflammatory staging of stories in racially charged and historically controversial areas like jews - ww2 and blacks - slavery. He goes all out and for maximum effect there and gets away with it. Why? Because first of all - like someone argues in one of the articles bassie posted - no matter how hard he tries - hes always going to be a white guy speaking to a white audience. In essence.
White audiences find relief in being able to laugh at his scandalous and irreverent treatment of subjects that are notoriously touchy and make them uncomfortable for fear of offense and guilt, such as ww2 and slavery - so QT goes all in and is applauded for that - finally we can all laugh at this stuff! Those who dont share this relief and are offended find it hard to object - because who wants to be the touchy jew or black raising arguments of insensitivity and offense - because everyone is having so much fun- at the expense of caricatures. Also his jokey treatment makes it hard to go against him seriously because, hey, hes only joking, right? Dont be a spoilsport. Dont be that sour old jew crying anti semite or grumpy black guy saying Racism! Disrespect! And this is exactly what happens to his detractors like spike lee.
So hes the exploiter, the referencer, the bringer of relief and grotesque clown you cant win an argument with. And also - hes a success which is very hard to argue with. The main problem is his movies are boring and unoriginal pastiches, and by making grotesque scandal a trademark - hes become just as bad as those guys that made offensive racially charged exploitation fare in the 60's and 70's. The only question remaining is how far he can take it and what touchy area to wade in to next. Sexism? White slavery? The sex trade? Female prison soft core rape fantasies? Japanese ww2 suicide type steez? The attack on pearl harbour? Darkest africa voodoo sex mondo bizarro fare? Theres plenty of stuff still out there he can scandalize and fill with references to obscure cult joints only those in the know will really get.
Posting from my phone so excuse typos and associative rambling...
A Fairview woman said she was ???terrified??? when a man began yelling and pointing his finger at the audience during a movie in Empire Theatres on Sunday, and couldn???t help but think of the fatal Colorado theatre shooting in July.
According to 32-year-old Kirsten, who did not want her last name used, the man created a scene during the last 20 minutes of Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino???s new film, and told the Bayers Lake crowd they were ???all going to hell??? if they continued watching.
Dean Leland, vice president of media with Empire Theatres, confirmed Monday there ???was an incident??? with a man during the show.
???A guest alerted us that a man was upset, and he did come out of the theatre. Our manager and general manager calmed him down,??? Leland said. ???He retrieved his belongings and left the building.???
Kirsten said she was frightened because the man kept reaching into his pockets and pointing his hand at people in the front rows, giving the impression he could have had a weapon.
He began by shouting for the movie to stop, then he got in front of the screen and began yelling and cursing at the audience, Kirsten said.
???We were terrified,??? Kirsten said. ???My boyfriend and I looked at each other, and I said, ???Do we chance getting up and leaving, or are we going to become targets???????
Eventually someone did leave the theatre, and the man shortly went out as well.
Kirsten and her boyfriend left before the end of the film ???because we were a little bit freaked out,??? she said.
She said she would have preferred to have theatre staff pause the movie and address the audience, but that did not happen. She is also questioning why the theatre doesn???t have on-site security in place to handle situations like this.
Leland said Empire Theatres tries never to stop a film once it has begun, but the managers greeted the audience on their way out and talked about the incident.
???This is an isolated case,??? Leland said. ???I can???t remember the last time something like this happened.???
Comments
The movie is entertaining though.
Thought the Rick Ross song was to appeal to black crowds. I enjoyed that song in the film but couldn't stand the 2Pac mash/mix at the end.
I've seen Seven Samurai at least 10+ times. The movie length is 207 minutes. I must be nuts according to your standard.
The scenes depicting interactions between slaves and slave traders and masters are nearly all played for comic effect - right from the opening where Schultz frees Django and then throws the other slaves the key offering them a choice: follow the north star of carry the traders home - followed by their grateful shooting of the trader, is played as a joke, the outfit Django picks for himself when he is given free choice of what to wear - resulting in a flashy, garish and ridiculous choice, the scene with the Klansmen and their hoods - which drags on and isn't very funny to begin with, right down to the dialogue between Dicaprio and Jackson - the plantation is called Candieland!- the characterization of practically all the southern whites as monsters, the Mandingo fighting league (of which there is no historical record) - all combined they boil down to an outright caricature of slavery - served up for comic effect, and a few poorly staged shoot outs. No prob?
I think that's your own hang up there. Sorry, but when I heard the story in the movie I didn't automatically think of Hiter, and I know he loved him some Wagner.
The Siegfried myth was an integral part of the Nazi mythology - part of the Nazi Stab-in-the-back myth or Dolchsto??legende - it is obviously being referenced by QT as a sick joke in Django's overtly racially charged story. All the more obvious because the movie fritz lang made was one of Hilters' favorite films which he watched repeatedly.
I'm very familiar with what I call the Mighty Whitey Saves the World trope which is very popular in Hollywood. However Schultz was a supporting character, not the main one in Django. I took him more to a be a foil to bring about Django's development and move the story along, which is what a main supporting character often does in a story. I didn't take that to be a message about black dependency upon whites.
That link you posted is highly arguable. Please be more careful what sources you quote. The linked site is a revisionist nazi propagande page, which shouldn't be linked anywhere.
thanks for the definition! :roll:
i cant disagree with you about it being a caricature. it is in fact fiction and not a documentary.though you may be exaggerating the comedic effect .
...the german's dialogue in general is deliberately clever and entertaining. i didnt see the first scene as comedic unless you are equating revenge with comedy )i dont know why youd do that). the german is very methodical and gets his man...i didnt see the key toss or revenge as a joke. i didnt really know the story or character, so i wasnt even sure what his agenda was, he was shooting people in the head and buying slaves, that didnt exactly spell goodguy to me. django doesnt turn around and smile or laugh. hes got a serious as shit expression on his face.
...the outfit is definitely a joke. is that necessarily clowning slavery? might be more a reference and dig at the stereotypical flamboyant black pimp.
...klansmen hood troubles is definitely a joke, casting them as inept clowns. does that make light of slavery? does the dogs ripping up the runaway make light of slavery? does women getting whipped? he said in interviews that the realities were much more horrible. should he have gone further and depicted that?
...how is mandingo fighting played for comedic effect? that shit was horrifying. were you or your friends laughing? whether its real or not is another question. would you have rather QT substitute something as equally revolting as rape of slaves because it was more realistic?
...again, by casting southern whites as monsters, im not sure how that is played for comedic effect. its a two hour spaghetti western, do you want him to cover the abolitionist movement? was candie's sister a monster? i think it showed the degree of complicity and participation in slavery by people living in the south around plantations. was the barkeeper a monster by calling the sheriff? do you think things were less monstrously segregated after emancipation?
...and sure the dialog between jackson and dicaprio was fucked up and uncomfortable. especially the hercules part. but i think it was intentional. i found it interesting that when jackson summons him to the study, he's drinking cognac and his tone changes entirely. the shuck and jive act was all a facade, as both characters were well aware. sam jackson was really a trusted adviser who still had to keep up appearances. i found that interesting and not comedic. anyway, the shucking and jiving was far from comedic in my eyes and i didnt think it was intended to be. jackson was the insiduous house negro whose actions and outlook had been completely warped and twisted to fall in line with his enslavers
so im not trying to tear down your theory, but i think saying that slavery was used for comedic effect is a bit off. fiction is a caricature, sure. and a spaghetti western is going to simplify characters, events, and history. but i think that for the most part of the film, QT did not shy away from casting slavery as a brutal, horrifying, demeaning institution
i believe this was inspired by Lloyd, a character in Elmore Leonard's Mr. Paradise novel. He plays a see-nothing, hear-nothing butler, and in the last act, when the action starts, he comes to life by telling someone he partnered up with, who got caught with drugs, essentially, that "he's (Lloyd) done time, and not for no pussy narcotics. That means I'm charge here." A great scene in the novel, imo.
Tarantino borrows heavily from noir/pulp novels. Check out Jim Thompson's "The Getaway." The plot involves criminals trying to escape America and settle in a criminal safe haven in Mexico. Tarantino lifted the plot for From Dusk til Dawn.
I wasn't trying to be smarmy there - just looking at the definition of the word makes it impossible to see Django Unchained as anything but a caricature of slavery, and its protagonists as caricatures of people effecting and affected by slavery. I posted that definition to enforce my point that Django Unchained is a caricature designed for sensationalist purposes. The more I think about this the more outrageous it seems to me - and the more puzzled I am by the positive reception, and the fact that it was able to be made at all.
A caricature always has comic intent - and by and large all of Tarantino's film have cynical humor as a trade mark - which makes his tackling of the persecution of jews in Inglorious Basterds and slavery in Django Unchained even more galling.
The theatre I saw it in reacted with laughter to the killing of the surviving trader by the just freed slaves. The flippant way in which Schultz offers the other slaves - after casually killing and wounding the slave traders - a choice, and leaves it up to them to act as they see fit - resulting predictably in a murderous outcome - is a cynical joke imo. Schultz implies there's only one thing for them to do - so the choice hes offering is belittling. Also - following the north star to freedom is a ridiculous over simplification and one that immediately sets the tone of absurd implications and historical inaccuracies- escaped slaves were far from save in the north at that time. For instance the draft riots in new york city occurred in 1863 as a reaction to Lincoln/congress passing the draft and saw murderous mobs going after the cities black population resulting in many lynchings and the burning of a black orphanage.
So he's taking a dig at Django - the hero and main character - framing him as a 'stereotypical black pimp' - why? Django is a freed slave out for revenge - why clown him and have him make ill informed garish pimpish wardrobe choices? its clowning Django the freed slave who i suppose we are expected to root for as an agent of black vengeance against slavery - a weird mixed message.
The Klan were deadly serious and murderous - they weren't jokers fumbling around with their hoods - similarly so were the nazis - so trivialising and portraying klansmen - or nazis for that matter - as bumbling buffoons - is making light of who they actually were in reality - and what they did. In the context of Django its another caricature and comic stroke setting the tone - resulting in an overall comedic take on slavery and its agents.
Candie is one of the main bad guys in Django - hes so bad, mainly - because of his mandingo fighting stable and trade - but in actuality - there was no mandingo fighting as suggested in the movie - it makes it hard to see him as anything else but what he is - a campy fictitious character doing preposterous things - so who is Django really fighting - a ridiculous glib caricature of white racism reveling in black on black fights to the death, staged in a lounge with beethoven playing in the background? Its so off the wall that it becomes laughable - as violence in movies often does.
The whole mandingo warrior fighting trade makes Candieland - still cant get over that name- a preposterous distortion of what really went on on plantations - is QT referencing boxing or modern sports? - In the end its so ott that Im not at all horrified at that scene - its just another violent set piece in the movie- with graphic violent sensationalism - putting out eyes - being served up as entertainment.
Its a sick joke employed to demonise a campy slave owner who in fact should need no such demonising. QT is also referencing one of his favorite low budget exploitation flicks - 'Mandingo' from 1976 - so its also a 'clever' QT reference to a much reviled semi erotic low budget exploitation flick - it just makes it impossible for me to take the mechanics at work in the Django plot at all seriously - that scene is just adding more and more layers of grotesque sensationalism.
Its distorting and trivialising what really went on - almost all the southern whites are monstrous buffoons - so QT is setting up a scene where Django can just blow them away and we can laugh it off - which is exactly what happens in theatres when the audience cheers django on shooting those characters in that final shoot out - the shot of candies sisters flying off is definitely a visual joke intended to cause laughs - which it did when i saw it with an audience. In that sense I see them as 'one dimensional monsters' entering the stage so they can later be dispatched for comedic effect, kneecapping them - shooting them in the nuts, etc.
the jackson character - the facial expressions and body language were really playing up a shucking and jiving uncle tom archetype imo - it caused eye rolling, nudging and pretty much disbelief in the company i saw the movie with. In all - another layer of gross caricature on top of all the others on display in the movie.
i dont believe you can treat slavery as a vehicle or setting for an out and out sensationalist violent caricature laden with jokes on one hand - and at the same time be saying - this is a serious depiction of the horrors of slavery - it doesnt fly in my book.
Anyway- thanks for taking the time to respond like you did - anyone is free to interpret the film the way they want, obviously, there's no obligation to be outraged or insulted. The overt violence and constant use of the the word 'nigger' didn't bother me at all, for instance - although it seems those are the aspects of the film most objected to, generally speaking. I don't believe Tarantino is a racist either, for the record.
Initials on the lapels: HNIC
Oh shit!
Have you ever thought that maybe...juuuuust maybe....you're the most intelligent, most sane and most reasonable person in the whooooole wide world?? I mean, that would certainly help you accept come to terms with your confusion and dismay.
if you look at Tarantino's films h always does things out of the norm. Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie where you don't actually see the heist happen. You see the aftermath of the job and one of the robbers bleeeding from the gut because he was shot. The film is actually as long as it takes for someone to bleed from such an injury. There's also a scene where a bunch of crooks are sitting around planning their job and they are given "code" names in the form of colors. Obviously this is a stretch, too, but I don't believe it takes away from the over all appeal of the movie.
Tarantino's films are always over the top. That's part of what he does, his "sound," so to speak. This is something he confesses came from reading Elmore Leonard novels. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with Leonard's work, but he admits to having a "sound" as well. And that is why I like Tarantino, I suppose. Like him or hate him, his movies all have a certain voice that few writer/directors are able to capture, and in my opinion, that's what makes him so unique.
i enjoyed reading everyone's repsonses, positive and negative, of Django. And the negative reviews on here certainly bring up some valid points.
for real tho, stax, i appreciate your takes, but i still think some of it is reaching at times and at other times chooses not to dig deep enough. jackson's shucking and jivin is coupled with his sherlock holmes impression in the study, where he is obviously more astute than dicaprio. this has to be taken as a whole. gross caricature? maybe. you dont think blacks acted one way in front of whites under slavery and acted different outside of that public eye? (shit, this still happens). the voice, the shuffling, even the deference was ALL out the window when jackson and leo parlayed in the study. the house negro who "buys in" is a classic stereotypical plantation figure, not always grasped by whites, but hated and reviled by african americans. QT and SJ presented this well and left a lot of room for discussion and analysis of that type of relationship. the willingness of the slave to emotionally invest in the master's game whether through opportunism or some stockholm syndrome shit.
QT is hardly without faults. i saw an interview recently where he embraced his filmmaking being described as hiphop, borrowing heavily from the past, in hommages that get distorted to serve his canvas. like hiphop, its not a perfect picture...nwa never pretended to be a sociological essay, but obviously it spoke a lot to where some black men in compton were coming from and wanted to listen to. would the winstons have like it? hiphop is ridiculously far from being a tidy, positive expression. you got all types of misogyny, black on black crime, materialism, etc etc. But it elicits strong reactions, stirs debate, and forces people to take stock of the soul of the country. QT's films have their moments where they do this too.
I dont think this really has to be explained.
2. reservoir dogs
3. jackie brown
4. kill bill
5. django unchained
6 death proof
and i'd put true romance and crimson tide above the kill bill's if they 'counted'. four rooms at the bottom.
Ha...nah i mean the duality of Sam Jackson's character.
I knew as soon as he stepped out on the porch, he wasnt the cartoon House Negro.
Was Candie expected to shoot Schultz when he was insisting on the handshake, thus the sound of a gun firing was assumed to be his?
Here's my take one specific scene Stax mentioned.
After being freed by Schultz he has the discussion with Django. The first thing he says is that he wants to free his wife. This isn't Schultz's idea, it comes from Django setting the stage for the rest of the movie. Stax wants to read scenes like this as blacks being dependent upon whites when to me it shows that it was Django's plan all along, hence he is the agent of change in the movie not Schultz.
Django then says his wife's name is Broomhilda, which leads Schultz to go over the German myth. To me, this is part of Schultz's role in the movie. He is a foil to give deeper meaning and understanding to the story. By re-telling the German myth he is trying to say that Django's mission is a noble and romantic one, and foreshadows the trials and tribulations he has go to through to get his wife back, i.e. slay the dragon, walk through hell fire, etc. Schultz then agrees to help Django on this quest, which shows that Schultz is the supporting character and Django is the lead. Django then sets about building his character into the gunfighter and savior that he becomes at the end, once again showing that it is Django leading the story, not Schutz/whites. Stax wants to take this scene as QT bringing up Hitler because Hitler loved Wagner. Is Apocalypse Now a nod to Hitler too, because they play Flight of the Valkyries during the helicopter scene and Coppolla is a movie buff as well? There are Looney Tunes cartoons where they hum the song as well. To me the myth is giving meaning to Django's story. I don't think it's got anything to do with Nazis.
I have a theory about this now - the longer ive been able to digest the movie. Quentin Tarantino doesnt really have a voice that is truly his own - so far all of his movies have been rip offs or adaptations - notable exception: pulp fiction. Even reservoir dogs which is almost a remake of an obscure hongkong actioner called City on fire from 87 - its basically a remake of that with ad libs tacked on. Jackie brown is his best film imo - based on elmore leonard obviously.
So anyway - not being able to find truly original subject matter hes the perennial sampler of other movies. But having failed to register with audiences and critics with death proof he seems to have concluded he needs an extra element of outrageous scandal to really get those numbers and remain 'relevant'. Enter the inflammatory staging of stories in racially charged and historically controversial areas like jews - ww2 and blacks - slavery. He goes all out and for maximum effect there and gets away with it. Why? Because first of all - like someone argues in one of the articles bassie posted - no matter how hard he tries - hes always going to be a white guy speaking to a white audience. In essence.
White audiences find relief in being able to laugh at his scandalous and irreverent treatment of subjects that are notoriously touchy and make them uncomfortable for fear of offense and guilt, such as ww2 and slavery - so QT goes all in and is applauded for that - finally we can all laugh at this stuff! Those who dont share this relief and are offended find it hard to object - because who wants to be the touchy jew or black raising arguments of insensitivity and offense - because everyone is having so much fun- at the expense of caricatures. Also his jokey treatment makes it hard to go against him seriously because, hey, hes only joking, right? Dont be a spoilsport. Dont be that sour old jew crying anti semite or grumpy black guy saying Racism! Disrespect! And this is exactly what happens to his detractors like spike lee.
So hes the exploiter, the referencer, the bringer of relief and grotesque clown you cant win an argument with. And also - hes a success which is very hard to argue with. The main problem is his movies are boring and unoriginal pastiches, and by making grotesque scandal a trademark - hes become just as bad as those guys that made offensive racially charged exploitation fare in the 60's and 70's. The only question remaining is how far he can take it and what touchy area to wade in to next. Sexism? White slavery? The sex trade? Female prison soft core rape fantasies? Japanese ww2 suicide type steez? The attack on pearl harbour? Darkest africa voodoo sex mondo bizarro fare? Theres plenty of stuff still out there he can scandalize and fill with references to obscure cult joints only those in the know will really get.
Posting from my phone so excuse typos and associative rambling...
http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/518587/scary-ordeal-for-halifax-movie-goers-man-yells-curses-at-audience/