Machine
Member
Majority->minority<->minority racism flow chart
White people are not the only ones capable of being racist. I understand the point the flowchart is clumsily trying to make but there has to be a better way of expressing it.
Majority->minority<->minority racism flow chart
"For example Lee Daniels sent me the script for that film hes making now, The Butler, about the black butler at the White House. I read five pages of this thing and could not go any further. I tried to read more of it, and Im not a soft spoken guy, but it was such an appalling mis-direction of history in terms of taking an actual guy who worked at the White House. But then he niggerfies it. He "niggers" it up and he gives people these, stupid, luddite, antediluvian ideas about black people and their roles in the historical span in the White House and it becomes well... historical porn."
I'm inclined to agree with the notion that Quentin Tarantino has an odd fascination with the word Nigger in his films, but the usage of the word, while appropriate with the times in Django Unchained, was exploited far too heavily once he basically started constructing new words with Nigger as the prefix or suffix. I'd love to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when his career up to this point has supplied us with example after example of exploitation of the word Nigger and humor at the expense of blacks being used at random within films and scenes where they honestly have no business being, I can't do so in good conscience.
I'm inclined to agree with the notion that Quentin Tarantino has an odd fascination with the word Nigger in his films, but the usage of the word, while appropriate with the times in Django Unchained, was exploited far too heavily once he basically started constructing new words with Nigger as the prefix or suffix. I'd love to give him the benefit of the doubt, but when his career up to this point has supplied us with example after example of exploitation of the word Nigger and humor at the expense of blacks being used at random within films and scenes where they honestly have no business being, I can't do so in good conscience.
Having said that, I'm also inclined to side with Harry Lennix:
Between Precious and more recently The Paperboy, it's quite clear that Lee Daniels has a very rudimentary and above the surface understanding of race within the United States. I think he has this feeling that his films are more high brow and complex than they actually are in this department, when in reality, they're quite pedestrian and painfully straight forward. Sometimes a scalpel is needed in place of a hammer to nail your point home, and unfortunately, he only seems capable of expressing the discourse of race in our society with the latter. Basically, despite being black and as he suggests, the one ethnicity justified to tackle these issues, I consider his work to be as incompetent as Tarantino's when it comes to handling race and black issues.
Could you please explain what makes Django Unchained a movie for white people, as opposed to say, a movie for everyone?
If anybody made a movie in this era in the south , and did NOT use the word, i'd be more offended.
Racism is racism, doesn't matter if it's from a minority or majority. "Reverse racism" is a term I disagree with wholeheartedly (but that's not for this thread). What is both troubling and telling about this mess is that there still exist words in our society that are "ok" for some races to say and "not ok" for members of another race to say. Equality isn't possible with rules like those.
inb4 "Why do you want to say the n-word so bad?"
Intent matters. I think the intent in Django is crystal clear, to the point of being a weakness of the film in fact.
I can completely see the case for being upset by Pulp Fiction, but Django? No.
I wouldn't say that I was bothered by the usage of Nigger in his films, considering that those respective scenes within True Romance and Pulp Fiction are some of my favorites, but his insistence on using the term regardless of its relevance is a bit weird. I mean, who the fuck thinks of "Dead Nigger storage" and "Sicilians are spawned from Niggers" during the writing process. It's so off-base, out of left field and irrelevant to his narratives that I find myself completely baffled.
Reservoir Dogs had a few instances where characters accused other characters of acting and conducting business "like a bunch of Niggers," ie. always at each other's throats, untrustworthy and killing each other.
Even in Kill Bill, in reference to the slaughter at the chapel, the sheriff says something around the lines of "they even killed that Negrah fella at the piano," and while it wasn't present in the film, in the screenplay this quote is present: "There's cops all over here, I had to be cool. They tend to notice things like Negroes sneaking around people's backyards."
In Inglorious Basterds, there's the card game scene where a correlation between King Kong and the "Negro experience" is made. And within the script, during the opening scene where the Jew Hunter is comparing Jews to rats, he makes a comparison between blacks and gorillas, saying "Negro's - gorilla's - brain - lips - smell - physical strength - penis size."
Jackie Brown and Django Unchained speak for themselves. He has a hard on for racial humor, but as I said, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Does this mean that Lethal Weapon is a movie for black people?I'll bite. Christopher Waltz's Dr. Schultz as the far-too-common "white savior" found in movies sharing (or hogging up) the spotlight with the black lead character/s that could have easily carried the film on their own. Often helps a majority white audience identify with, or better tolerate, the story.
Does this mean that Lethal Weapon is a movie for black people?
I'll bite. Christopher Waltz's Dr. Schultz as the far-too-common "white savior" found in movies sharing (or hogging up) the spotlight with the black lead character/s that could have easily carried the film on their own. Often helps a majority white audience identify with, or better tolerate, the story.
I'll bite. Christopher Waltz's Dr. Schultz as the far-too-common "white savior" found in movies sharing (or hogging up) the spotlight with the black lead character/s that could have easily carried the film on their own. Often helps a majority white audience identify with, or better tolerate, the story.
That's the one aspect of the film I absolutely hated the most. If you're going to make a movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner, then make a fucking movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner. With a few exceptions, narratively, the black characters of this film take a back seat to their white counterparts. They take a back seat within their own struggle. This film does little to go against the tendency for Hollywood films to tell a non-white people's story from the point of view of white people, and in actuality, it reinforces in a big way.
What I wrote was not a snipe. You agreed with someone who wrote "Either everyone can use the word or nobody can." and you said that conditional usage should stop. My question is quite valid. If you want the "conditional usage bullshit" to stop, do you want black people to stop saying it or for white people to be able to say it free of consequence?Hey guys, remember before this thread devolved into pathetic, baseless snipes at each other?
That was cool.
What? I think Dr Schultz is pretty integral to the story. It's set in 1860 ffs, was Django meant to free himself? And then ride around on his own?
That's the one aspect of the film I absolutely hated the most. If you're going to make a movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner, then make a fucking movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner. With a few exceptions, narratively, the black characters of this film take a back seat to their white counterparts. They take a back seat within their own struggle. This film does little to go against the tendency for Hollywood films to tell a non-white people's story from the point of view of white people, and in actuality, it reinforces in a big way.
Mmm, Foxx was definitely at a forefront of the movie. Saying Waltz was the "main" wouldn't be accurate at all when it was a team effort and Waltz simply had the plan. Not to mention Jackson was more of the main antagonist than DiCaprio by far. Even my mom commented on how Jackson was the one pulling the strings and in charge.
You have to think of it in relative terms and the differences in power and position at the times. For a black character during that time Django was far and beyond what a black guy would be allowed to do and get away with. The same goes for Jackson who despite being a servant was actually orchestrating everything once they reached the plantation
I wouldn't say that I was bothered by the usage of Nigger in his films, considering that those respective scenes within True Romance and Pulp Fiction are some of my favorites, but his insistence on using the term regardless of its relevance is a bit weird. I mean, who the fuck thinks of "Dead Nigger storage" and "Sicilians are spawned from Niggers" during the writing process. It's so off-base, out of left field and irrelevant to his narratives that I find myself completely baffled.
I disagree completely. Django wasn't the primary focus of the film until the 3rd act whenAll moments up until that point were filtered through the eyes of Dr. Schultz.Dr. Schultz dies.
That's the one aspect of the film I absolutely hated the most. If you're going to make a movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner, then make a fucking movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner. With a few exceptions, narratively, the black characters of this film take a back seat to their white counterparts. They take a back seat within their own struggle. This film does little to go against the tendency for Hollywood films to tell a non-white people's story from the point of view of white people, and in actuality, it reinforces in a big way.
What? I think Dr Schultz is pretty integral to the story. It's set in 1860 ffs, was Django meant to free himself? And then ride around on his own?
Why are these two things mutually exclusive?What I wrote was not a snipe. You agreed with someone who wrote "Either everyone can use the word or nobody can." and you said that conditional usage should stop. My question is quite valid. If you want the "conditional usage bullshit" to stop, don't you want black people to stop saying it or for white people to be able to say it free of consequence?
I don't think some people here realize how often (almost always?) this happens in Hollywood films. Django is really no exception.
Django managed to miraculously free himself in the last 20 minutes of the film, after the white savior Schultz was out of the picture. Why the hell not? Waltz's character could have also played a smaller role or at least not played leader of the duo (Django being the brains of the operation as an example), but that just isn't how things are done in American movies.
I'll bite. Christopher Waltz's Dr. Schultz as the far-too-common "white savior" found in movies sharing (or hogging up) the spotlight with the black lead character/s that could have easily carried the film on their own. Often helps a majority white audience identify with, or better tolerate, the story.
I'll bite. Christopher Waltz's Dr. Schultz as the far-too-common "white savior" found in movies sharing (or hogging up) the spotlight with the black lead character/s that could have easily carried the film on their own. Often helps a majority white audience identify with, or better tolerate, the story.
???His character is essential to the story though.
There is no story war Django without Schultz.
A white outsider is needed to upset the balance and drive the plot. He is killed and Django takes the spot light. Without Schultz the plot would struggle and move from the personal story of Django to a wider story.
Schultz is not a white character, hes German. He does play one white role though and that does feed into the modern person watching; he is the other view on slavery and racism.
It is a white man and a black man. I think theres some point to this but I don't feel feel its to make the film for a mixed race audience; instead its a larger part of the narrative. Their the modern equivelent of society only Django was once a slave and the film has to stay true to this in giving both him and Schultz different backgrounds.
It is why Kandy and Stephen are there. They play the opposite roles. They mirror Schultz. The final act of the films sees the final show down not of Django vs the white people but Django versus his persecuters. Stephen is one of those. Colour is unimportant to the overall theme.
In the end its a story of a slave; Django.
You can't view Django Unchained in a vacuum though. I wrote this post a while back, but it's relevant here:
Just because he actually has a legitimate reason to use the word for once, doesn't mean we should view Django Unchained absent minded of the history of his filmography when doing so.
Once upon a time, Germans were nothing but dirty immigrants in America, ruining the country with their uncivilized ways. Real white folk were descendants of Britain.
That's the one aspect of the film I absolutely hated the most. If you're going to make a movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner, then make a fucking movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner. With a few exceptions, narratively, the black characters of this film take a back seat to their white counterparts. They take a back seat within their own struggle. This film does little to go against the tendency for Hollywood films to tell a non-white people's story from the point of view of white people, and in actuality, it reinforces in a big way.
Well, it's not exactly an impossibility. And it's possible to have the character of Dr. Schultz as a secondary character, which would make sense considering the film is effectively about Django and his struggle. But that's not what Tarantino did. The narrative is effectively from the point of view of Dr. Schultz, and all scenes that Django shares with a prominent white character, he takes a back seat too. You can tell the same exact story from the point of view of Django, while shifting the primary focus onto the character of Django. It's just a matter of how you write the screenplay.
I think you missed an important turn in Django Unchained. It starts off as you describe, and then Schultz can't handle it. He blows it. His white guilt gets the best of him and he fucks things up. And then Django, with relatively little problem and no second thoughts, finishes the job.
Django grows out of Schultz's shadow. He's most of the way there by the time they reach Candyland.
Anglo Saxon Protestant I get that but german people really wasn't thought of as caucasians? I should look into this more for myself
I disagree completely. Django wasn't the primary focus of the film until the 3rd act whenAll moments up until that point were filtered through the eyes of Dr. Schultz.Dr. Schultz dies.
Everything is still from Schultz's point of view though. While narratively, Django is very much calling the shots at that point, it's still Schultz that's given the majority of the screentime. Django is reduced to whispering into Schultz's ear at this point, with a few exceptions, and while such a relationship between the two at that specific time is narratively and historically justified, the point remains that Schultz is the primary means through which the narrative unfolds.
And then he dies and the film is all Django. I don't see this as a problem, especially as the film is reaching out to an audience of white and black people.
It's also part of the hero's journey. Django is unchained, but is not really free until Schultz dies and he makes it on his own. In that last act he settles the question of his own independence 100%.
Henry Louis Gates Jr.: Spike Lee's on your ass all the time about using the word "nigger." What would you say to black filmmakers who are offended by the use of the word "nigger" and/or offended by the depictions of the horrors of slavery in the film?
Quentin Tarantino: Well, you know if you're going to make a movie about slavery and are taking a 21st-century viewer and putting them in that time period, you're going to hear some things that are going to be ugly, and you're going see some things that are going be ugly. That's just part and parcel of dealing truthfully with this story, with this environment, with this land.
Personally, I find [the criticism] ridiculous. Because it would be one thing if people are out there saying, "You use it much more excessively in this movie than it was used in 1858 in Mississippi." Well, nobody's saying that. And if you're not saying that, you're simply saying I should be lying. I should be watering it down. I should be making it more easy to digest.
No, I don't want it to be easy to digest. I want it to be a big, gigantic boulder, a jagged pill and you have no water.
...
HLG: I'm a scholar of slavery, and one of the things I notice in my classes [that I teach] is that we've become inured to the suffering and pain of slavery, that we've distanced ourselves enough from it, that people can't experience the terror, the horrible pain, the anxiety, the stress, et cetera, that came with the slave experience. I thought that in Django you really began to reinsert contemporary viewers into that pain, particularly through the scene when the dogs tear Candie's slave D'Artagnan apart. And by the way, I don't know if you know, but that actually happened. The French used these dogs in the Haitian revolution ...
...
QT: So what you're talking about, the way your class and people in general have so put slavery at an arm's distance that ... just the information is enough for them -- it's just intellectual. They just want to keep it intellectual. These are the facts, and that's it. And I don't even stare at the facts that much.
HLG: Why do you think we've had to distance ourselves from the pain as we have -- which makes your representation shocking?
QT: I don't know the answer to that question because I don't feel that way. I can't understand why anybody would feel that way. I think America is one of the only countries that has not been forced, sometimes by the rest of the world, to look their own past sins completely in the face. And it's only by looking them in the face that you can possibly work past them. And it's not a case where the Turks don't want to acknowledge the Armenian holocaust, but the Armenians do. Nobody wants to acknowledge it here.
HLG: Well, however you want to depict the horrors of slavery, slavery itself was 10,000 times worse.
QT: That almost became our slogan. It's like, look, the stuff that we show is really harsh, and it's supposed to be harsh, but it was [actually] a lot worse.
...
Quentin Tarantino: Here's the thing. There was actually some talk when the script got out there. Some people were speculating, is Schultz the white-savior character? He whips [out] a magic wand and Django is able to do this and he's able to do that and he's able to do the other thing, but all because Schultz allows him to do it.
And you know, I completely did not think that that was applicable to my story. But the thing is, it's actually kind of interesting at the same time. While I'm telling a black story, I'm also telling a Western. And I have Western conventions on my side to help tell my story.
HLG: In fact, I call it a postmodern, slave-narrative Western.
QT: I'll buy that. But you know, one of the tropes of Westerns and telling a story like this is you have an experienced gunfighter who meets the young cowpoke who has some mission that he has to accomplish, and it's the old, experienced gunfighter who teaches him the tricks of the trade: teaches him how to draw his gun, teaches him how to kill.
Whether it be Kirk Douglas teaching young William Campbell in Man Without a Star or Brian Keith teaching Steve McQueen in Nevada Smith, or actually most of Lee Van Cleef's spaghetti Westerns that aren't with Sergio Leone -- that's kind of Van Cleef's role. Now, you go to the kung fu films -- that's always the case. There's an older guy teaching the younger guy and sending him on a vengeance journey.
...
QT: [Django]'s got to be convincing. And he knows that more than Schultz does. To me, that's one of the interesting things.
You know Django goes on a tutelage in the first half of the movie, but then the teacher-student relationship shifts once they get into Mississippi. Because Django knows exactly this world and understands it. And Schultz is coming from almost a 21st-century perspective. He understands, intellectually, slavery, but he's never seen the everyday horrors and degradation of it.
QT's use of the word tells me more about what he thinks about white people than black people, tbh. I get a general sense that he feels like many white people do indeed use the word, a lot, in private conversations, and his dialogue reflects that. I've talked to some white people I know who admitted they have family and friends who use the word often, either ironically or as a general descriptor for blacks. Considering most of the characters in his films who use the word are con men (Pulp Fiction, Resevior Dogs, Jackie Brown), is it that outlandish to think some people do indeed talk like that irl? It makes sense to me. He isn't romanticizing the word, he's writing dialogue that he feels is real. Most of the characters he creates aren't saints.
With respect to Inglorious Basterds, is it outlandish to portray a Nazi as a proponent of racist sentiments towards black people? Or in Django, is it outlandish to suggest the n-word was used profusely by slave owners and southern racists? What about Candie's phrenology monologue, is it unrealistic to portray a slave owner as a believer in that theory? All of those things seem pretty realistic and likely to me, they aren't forced or outlandish.
Finally with respect to the idea that white people can't say "nigger" without displaying some anti-black sentiment...it's pretty pathetic that a fellow artist and director would accuse another of that. QT is not always displaying his own views in the characters he creates, many of whom are truly ugly people. I would hope that people could view his work as an artist with the basic respect that artists deserve. Now, do some artists express their racist or bigoted views through art? Of course. But I haven't seen anything from QT that reminds me of Birth Of A Nation or Triumph Of The Will.