You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

The Slave Revenge Narrative Many Hoped For… And It’s Not ‘Django Unchained’

The Slave Revenge Narrative Many Hoped For... And It's Not 'Django Unchained'

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen so many white people this excited about a slave movie.

And from reading the thoughts of many others, a common belief seems to be that you’re apparently *uncool* if you aren’t damned excited about Django Unchained.

Well, I guess I’m *uncool.*

Since the trailer was officially released earlier this week, several folks have asked me for my thoughts on what we’ve seen thus far of Quentin Tarantino’s revisionist slave revenge pic Django Unchained. I thought I’d already been clear about all that, sharing concerns I’ve had since first reading a draft of the script about a year ago, and posting my thoughts here.

To summarize, based on all I’ve seen thus far, this isn’t the slave revenge movie I (and I know countless others) were hoping for. 

And no, it has little to do with the fact that the director is not black, which I know has bothered many others. But that’s not the point of contention for me.

I think I speak for a lot of you when I say that, when we first learned that Tarantino was making a slave revenge movie, we immediately thought, Inglorious Basterds Part 2, except the Basterds this time would be slaves, and the villains whose scalps are sliced off in full 35mm color glory, would be the KKK (or any supporters/enforcers of the face of white supremacy during that era).

I’d say there was some excitement about the possibilities. And then I read a draft of the script, and realized that it wasn’t at all anything like what many of us hoped for; instead, call it the frivolity of slavery – superficial, exploitation cinema that would’ve likely been an easier pill to swallow 35 – 40 years ago. A blend of spaghetti westerns and blaxploitation cinema.

And any excitement I previously had for the project almost entirely vanished.

So what were many within the black audience hoping for?

Recall when I had Wendell B Harris Jr (Chameleon Street) on the Shadow & Act Livecast 3 years ago, in 2009, and he relayed a time when he pitched a contemporary lynching retribution film to studio execs, who, not-so-surprisingly weren’t interested. And in a later post, I made connections between Wendell’s idea and another Tarantino movie (which hadn’t been released at the time), Inglorious Basterds – the revisionist history movie on how WWII ended, set in Nazi-occupied France. It’s a revenge flick; as Jeffrey Wells put it: “a Jewish payback movie in which all kinds of brutal and sadistic killings of Germans are presented as not only righteous but delicious, because “them Nazis”… are viciously anti-Semitic and deserve it all to hell.

Now repeat that last sentence replacing “Jewish” with “slave,” “Germans” with “white supremacists,” “Nazis” with “KKKs,” and finally “anti-Semitic” with “racists.”

Revenge in Basterds, unlike Wendell Harris’ lynching retribution idea, does not take place almost a century after the crime. It happens synchronously, in the era it references – essentially one man’s fantasy about what could have been, and not what actually was.

So, it got me thinking further – what if Wendell B Harris’ lynching revenge flick followed a similar storyline? Again, revisionist history, set during the days in which the lynching of black people were de facto commonplace.

Thus, like Tarantino’s Basterds, two story lines converge. Borrowing almost verbatim from the Basterds synopsis, with some obvious alterations made with purpose: One story would follow a ragtag group of black men (escaped slaves) whose mission is to take out as many offending whites as they can get their hands on. They ambush and kill white men responsible for the lynchings of blacks (whether members of the KKK, officers of the so-called law, and members of any white supremacist mobs usually found at the center of lynchings), unabashedly desecrating their corpses, always leaving one alive, so that he can tell others. And the second storyline follows a young black woman (also an escaped slave) who seeks to avenge the death of her family at the hands of white supremacists, by sabotaging the premiere of some supremacist group’s latest propaganda film release, by luring all the guilty parties and their leaders into her theatre, with the intent to seal them all in, and burn the building down, killing them all. And given the time the movie will take place, we’ll make the propaganda film within the film, D.W. Griffith’s Birth Of A Nation.

The title of Wendell Harris’s version can stay the same – Inglorious Basterds. It still works, right?

But that’s not quite the kind of film you’re going to see here, with Django Unchained. It’s not Inglorious Basterds with black Basterds, and white supremacists getting their skulls crushed with baseball bats.

Unless the script has changed drastically since the draft I read (and I hear Tarantino has rewritten parts of it). But all I can go on is what’s been revealed so far, which doesn’t appear to be very different from what I read. Specific sequences may have have changed, but the overall idea that Django exists in a white protag’s shadow, before being able to eventually come into his own and “claim what’s his in the end,” still appears to be at the heart of the story.

Therein lies the problem I believe many of us have with the film, and which some still don’t seem to quite understand. That and the fact that Django’s bride, Broomhilda, reads like more of a prop in the draft of the script I have seen. For all intents and purposes, she’s the lead female in the film, but, returning to the Inglorious Basterds comparison, she’s no Shosanna. The black female “lead” here doesn’t get the same kind of stately treatment that Tarantino gave Shosanna in Basterds. Not even close.

And in anticipation of those who will comment on how true to life the story is, and how representative it is of the time it takes place, my response will be – what part of the term “revisionist history” don’t you quite understand? Last I checked, Adolph Hitler didn’t die from gunshot wounds, in a Paris movie theater set ablaze – a plan orchestrated by a Jewish woman calling herself Emmanuelle Mimieux (after assuming a new identity in France, to protect herself).

Tarantino had countless options with Django; but he went with the most obvious, uninventive choices here, in my humble opinion. American history is littered with black slave rebellions and insurrections that took place during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and most of them didn’t require a white mentor figure to essentially teach them and show them way. 

Unlike Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, Django doesn’t get to call up on a few “hard, pipe-hittin’ niggers” to go to work on their plantation masters “with a pair a pliers and a blowtorch.” There are seemingly no obvious opportunities to “get medieval” on whitey’s ass here, because, given all he and Broomhilda are put through in the film, I think some of us would prefer if he (or rather THEY – enslaved women did also rage against the machine) went all id, in psychoanalytic terms.

I’ve obviously not seen the entire film; no one has – a fact that makes it all-the-more strange that there are some who seem intent on suppressing the voices of those with concerns about the upcoming film, as if they themselves have already seen it. Let’s face it, we’re all basing our thoughts on available data, and every opinion, as long as it’s adequately supported, is valid at this point.

And no, I’m not a Tarantino “hater,” but I wouldn’t call myself a “fanboy” either. This is simply not the slave revenge narrative I hoped for; and given the likelihood that we’ll see another one – especially of this scale – is quite slim, it’s too bad.

Aside from this seeming thus far be more of a fanboy’s wet dream, I’ll certainly still see Django Unchained; I have to, given the work I do here on Shadow And Act. Maybe plenty has indeed changed from script to screen (or at least, since the draft that I read last year), and I’ll be pleasantly surprised. And if that happens, I’ll eat crow.

But if you’re asking me (as many have) what I think of what I know of the project so far (again, based on the script I read, the trailer that’s been released, the bits and pieces revealed by the cast and crew over the last many months), these are my thoughts.

This Article is related to: Features and tagged , , , ,


Comments

Donella

"…there are some who seem intent on suppressing the voices of those with concerns about the upcoming film…" Yes, indeed.

Melanie

Honestly, I'm not a film buff or historian. My opinion on the trailer is just that it looks weak. The film looks weak and I don't think I watched it in its full entirety before my mind started to wander.

I understand the author's points on the film's lack of gravity when it comes to slavery, but honestly I think I could have gone with that if the concept itself seemed better executed, but it doesn't feel like it is. A big part of what turns me off is that Jamie Foxx feels very wrong for this role. Very, Very wrong. It just doesn't resonate, at all.

If it's going to be absurd, let it be absurd….but somehting just felt off.

NameYsaye

I don't take anything Tarantino does seriously; his films are meant solely as entertainment. He is purposely irreverent and takes artistic license to the extreme. He is not a historian. He takes stories and events from history, culture, and myth and creates something on the screen for people who like his work. Don't expect factual data out of Tarantino's films not to be skewed. Every last one of his pics has been retarded, yet brilliant. Django is not going to be any different. He won't be re-writing history with this film. He will be feeding the imaginations of people whose lives would be otherwise bland. For 2 hours Django will be an escape, a way out, for people living quietly desperate lives, who are looking for adventure, a story, and some way to enliven their world through a fiction too ridiculous to be real. If I were looking for a movie to be on point and true about the condition of the enslaved in America, or to give me a history lesson about the numerous acts of heroism of Afro American women and men and children during that period of time, that has never ended only morphed into something new and improved, I would not expect it from Tarantino. He is not in it for the glory of having made a contribution to the knowledge about any event in history, no matter where it happened or when or to whom. He is in it for the gore, for the shock, for the talk, for the money. Sure, there needs to be some form of media that depicts true images of what truly happened and how Black people freed themselves, but that will only happen when we control the media and the message, and the form and distribution of that form. Until then, I will buy my ticket and sit in a crowded theatre to watch the action and adventure and artistic talent of those on screen, with full knowledge that this ain't real and it don't mean a thing. We put absolutely too much energy into finding meaning where there isn't any. Tarantino makes that point every time he makes a movie. It is his own failure to be unable to rise above his conditioned mind, his personality and the limits of his brilliance, to use the power he has earned to make a movie true to the reality that Blacks were their own saviors and inspirations because that is the truth. That he would bring to screen a film that does not allow his characters to be true representatives of Black life in telling this story indicates how immature his mind remains. We should remember he is still just a man, not a god with a camera. Let's not make this failure our remorse.

Dr. Phil Valentine

Excellent analysis. This type of controlled and marginalized "Black fury on screen" is in keeping with the not-too-publicized Khazaarian racism that is awash in Hollywood. Here we are in the 21st century putting white people into other dimensions and distant planets in outer space, and you can't find 2 or more black people of authority anywhere in the same screen-shot! The writer and director of the movie "Sankofa" had to re-do the story-line and re-edit some 16 times because the Khazaarian owners of Hollywood didn't want as much "violence" being shown against whites in the film. Thus we saw the black female lead take her revenge on her rapist master OFF-screen, while Mutabaruka, the ONE man with the heart of a Nat Turner, slink back into the shadows (with a readied machete), while his woman is being abused by slavers. But the rape and brutality of Black women by the whites was VIVID and EXPLICIT, as was the on-screen emasculation of the Black males. Look at the film "Panther". Mario Van Peebles was refused funding by the Khazaarian elite of Hollywood because he wouldn't put a few whites into the "Black" Panther Movement. All this is quite in keeping with the psycho-political subtext of a not-too-well-known movie starring Marlon Brando entitled "Burn". The main gist of the movie (regardless of what Wikipedia says) is that on an island in the Lesser Antilles, whites had achieved "god-like" status among the enslaved population there; so much so that the natives were made to believe that whites could not be killed or harmed in any way. Whites were never to show that they were vulnerable to the majority population, and any affront to them was met with lethal retribution. The idea was to never let the slave population know that they possessed the ability kill and remove these maggot parasites from their homeland, if they only had the WILL to do so. Of course, as is the down-low racist policy of Hollywood, a "white" savior must be there to "show them the way". Brando literally kills a white man in front of the natives and gives the black men of the island their "balls back". And we've seen the same "massa-messiah" bulls#*t perpetuated in the movie "Avatar".
So what else is new…???

jenny lansing

CareyCarey, if you don't see AVATAR as a "white Savior" film you're just not seein.' Just sayin.' Django may be all that you describe. But AVATAR?! They're even "White-savin'" the indigenous on other planets now in Hollywood!

Mark Dudley

I applaud your thorough examination thus far of the thematic realities of this, yet to be released film. However, I make the same challenge to you critics as I would to any artist, " You don't like where a film has gone or is likely headed? Make one yourself".

Charles Judson

Misha, as Carey rightfully points out the Savior in White Savior has tended to have a more figurative than a literal connotation and it shows in the most well known examples. Jake in AVATAR is resurrected from the dead. Dunbar in DANCES dies a metaphorical death and is given a new name, then lives among the natives for so long that when he returns to his fort he's unrecognizable and his fellow soldiers shoot at him. Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW is treated as a God. Tarzan is a demigod like figure, a man born mortal with preternatural abilities along the lines of Hercules. Speaking to Fred's points about the technology, even in films like DANGEROUS MINDS, Michelle Pfeiffer's teacher is a Prometheus surrogate, bringing "fire" (aka knowledge) to her students. Same with THE BLIND SIDE. Even based on true stories, there are still elements of the Prometheus portion of the White Savior trope that are evident. Without the Savior's knowledge, the primitive people the Savior is helping will not progress, they will not evolve, and as a result they won't be protected. Remember, it's Jesus Christ's death and his teachings that were to change the world. Moses gave the 10 commandments to the Israelites. In STAR TREK: TNG the Prime Directive is a subversion of the Prometheus myth. The Federation holds back knowledge for the "benefit" of the primitive civilizations they encounter, placing TNG's Federation in the role of a benevolent White Savior. To quote Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." TNG's crew are basically gods making decisions on behalf of the people below them. It's been interesting over the last few years to see how much the White Savior Trope has been stretched beyond its original use to encompass so much.

CareyCarey

CHECKMATE! The wicked witches are dead. "Also, I always assumed white saviors saved just because they are so wholesome and white…not because they have their own devious intentions". Great insight Ali. The noun phrase "White" saviors, as utilized by blacks in this context, has traditionally been applied to someone above reproach/saintly. Their rewards are based solely on the spirit of helping a person in dire consequences, not personal gain! Dr. King Schultz ( Christoph Waltz) is not a savior nor a "saint". Django and Schultz have a reciprocal relationship… each needs each other.~ by WOW | June 10, 2012 8:40 AM (after the dust settled and the kneejerks were asleep). GAME-SET-MATCH…. they all fall down.

Mark & Darla

This blog are full of narrow-minded narcissists who lack tolerance to another person like or dislike or their perception of art. The narcissists believe their perception of art is the "holy grille" that can't be disputed, examine, scrutinize, study, inspected or analyze. They also believe the longer their post are the more valid their argument. This blog reminds of the show "Curb Your Enthusiasm"

Moonraper

CareyCarey is a plot to destroy black people.

misha

Jug, no surprise that people are focusing on Waltz's race. If Tarantino didn't want folk to do so then have shouldn't have introduced the aforementioned trope. Or is he oblivious to the fact that in such films, race becomes much more of a factor than it would otherwise? I certainly ain't buying that!

Curtis

I gotta say it's Interesting to me that folks are rushing to defend Quentin Tarantino so fiercely, yet when Spike gets criticized on this blog I don't see the same kind rush to defend Spike. Instead, it's the opposite. More love for Tarantino than Spike Lee on a black film blog.

misha

"The spaghetti western genre, not the western genre, have different tropes. In the spaghetti western, the protag is always wronged, left for dead & his land/lady are stolen/taken/destroyed & he's on some get back. The "leading lady" sorry to say, is ALWAYS a prop. They're never strong or do anything other than get beat up & flail about going "ohh" & then run up to the hero in the end, after having been beat up and gives him a kiss & they ride off into the sunset." >>>> So essentially, what you're saying, Ju, is that Tarantino was confined by what a spaghetti western should be? Nevermind the fact that this isn't a traditional spaghetti western, anyhow? That Tarantino (of all people) is merely playing within the rules/tropes, as if he couldn't have broken said rules/tropes, making a bolder film with a twist on the traditional narrative? Really? Ha! Fact is, tambay is right. Tarantino could have done whatever he wanted with this film..he had so many different options but he chose to recycle the same old, tired Hollywood cliches. Sorry, there's no way to spin that.

BluTopaz

No, actually the problem is that some of you are acting like we should be grateful for this movie. Where has anyone stated 'oh how we wish QT would make THIS kind of slavery movie"?. As Dr. Belsidious acutely stated, Hollywood has always inaccurately portrayed this history. So NOW we should do the happy dance because there's a James Brown song in this trailer, cuz Django is a bad mofo, etc. And when did being concerned about how your ancestors are portrayed become militant? The Black defenders of this movie sound like White racists who demand uppity coloreds know their place. What Black man wants to watch Foxx need permission to save his wife, and what kind of Black woman can't wait to see Washington being dehumanized to whichever soul song QT chooses to pay homage to in that scene. It does not matter how horribly the Black woman image is degraded in this movie, long as we get to see Foxx look cross eyed and deliver dead pan lines, it's good exploitation entertainment. When Tambay first posted threads about this movie last year before casting was completed, some negro actually stated "whoever plays Broomhilda should be hot!". Because who wants to jack off watching an ugly chick being raped? Guess that explains Washington's Indian Remy, instead of the more historically accurate cornrows or covered hair as some women have so accurately stated. This is the same filmmaker who declared that Gordon Parks could have done a much better job in the opening scene of the first Shaft, and that he, cool ass White dude (my emphasis of course), would have had Richard Roundtree STRUTTING to the theme song instead of how Parks filmed the scene. So he also fancies claiming how he would have made Black American culture even better if given the opportunity. Which he now has, and so what if some of you are thrilled. Ask yourself if a Black filmmaker would have all kinds of money thrown at him just because he "wants to show how effed up America was back then". To vehemently defend this man by referring to critics as "haters, militant fools," etc. is another level of twisted foolishness, but keep on yassa bossing Tarantino. Reminds me of the Harriet Tubman quote about people not even knowing they are slaves. And any of the White QT fan boys who want to show up and demand how only your hero is qualified to tell this story, go eff yourself in advance. The day I care about your lack of awareness re: your privilege will be the same time I buy tix to a Tarantino film festival.

Dr. Belsidious

Undercover Brother wrote: "Here's the problem, you and most other people act like Tarantino owes you the slave revenge film you've always wanted. Well, guess what? He doesn't. If you don't like his approach, get your own slave revolt film made. He has the money and the resources, so he has the right to do whatever the hell he wants, whether you like it or not."

No, Tarantino doesn't owe us a "slave revolt film" – you trippin'. The FACT is that no self-respecting Black person wants Tarantino doing anything with our historical narrative that has already been pissed on by Hollywood since "Birth of a Nation." Tarantino's ability to have the money and the resources is called WHITE PRIVILEGE and it most certainly does not give him"… the right to do whatever the hell he wants…" But I do find it telling that you think that sense of white entitlement gives him that right. Wow, I wonder if that's what the Europeans were thinking when they destroyed indigenous civilizations. We've got "…the money and the resources, so (we have) the right to do whatever the hell (we) want.

Buy "Django Unchained" from pookie at the flea market and call it a day – until the release of "Nat Turner Vampire Killer."

Undercover Brother

Here's the problem, you and most other people act like Tarantino owes you the slave revenge film you've always wanted. Well, guess what? He doesn't. If you don't like his approach, get your own slave revolt film made. He has the money and the resources, so he has the right to do whatever the hell he wants, whether you like it or not.

linda davis

The moment I realized the purported hero was a hired gun, I knew this was another "white savior" movie. I did not think Tarantino was progressive enough to allow a black male to stand independent of a white authority figure. My other problem with the film is he fell for the same BS in that the female lead is wearing a long weave. The character is not mulatto; she's black. Therefore, her hair should be in braids, locs or a fro.

Fred

I'm glad you wrote this article, Tambay. A good follow up to your script review. Although I can't help but find it a bit ironic that you are answering to those that are trying to suppress the voices that are against a white savior film like this when many of the responses of the post where you uploaded the trailer are not found anymore. Many of those posts, including mine, which called into question this white savior theme that is being used again are not there which leaves the majority of the posts that are in favor of the film (and even those mocking the ones against the film as "militant blacks") present. Was there an error that ended up erasing those responses or can the rest of the responses still be accessed in a way I am not aware of?

gachzorge

I have been a Tarantino fan from the get-go, his dialogue driven films are executed brilliantly. I have yet to dislike any of his films, although there are some things within the films themselves that I don't like. However taking something he made, and completely redoing with different actors in a different setting would be stupid. I'm sure Foxx will get some bloody revenge. It may not match the greatness of Basterds, but it will be filled with great violence, great dialogue, and great characters.

Jug

This is too crazy. I was talking about this on another post. Yeah, I think you have two camps: those who want to see a hardcore revenge fantasy like AMISTAD sans the whole "We saved your black ass" part & those who don't want to see a "light" movie done about Slavery at all. I can understand both sides. But taking each thing on it's merit, however nerve-wracking & painstaking, is the best way to go for me. Unless it just crosses that line (unsupported misogyny & extreme violence & sex cuz, ya know, we could crap) & Yes, everyone's 'line' is different. I get and agree with the concerns for the film (will it be good, will it be insulting, will it 'make fun' of slavery), but concerns given in an extreme view & with vitriol aren't concerns-they're Dogma. And Dogma is dangerous. I think the comparisons to INGLORIOUS are not only inaccurate, they're unfair. This movie literally is A FISTFUL OF DOLLARS. The spaghetti western genre, not the western genre, have different tropes. In the spaghetti western, the protag is always wronged, left for dead & his land/lady are stolen/taken/destroyed & he's on some get back. The "leading lady" sorry to say, is ALWAYS a prop. They're never strong or do anything other than get beat up & flail about going "ohh" & then run up to the hero in the end, after having been beat up and gives him a kiss & they ride off into the sunset. It's not like UNFORGIVEN where the women are strong and fight back, or INGLORIOUS where the lead female exacts her revenge. Nor does the hero have a team of guys like THE DIRTY DOZEN, FORCE 10 FROM NAVARONE or THE EXPENDABLES. It's just him. He is the Onnnnnlly one who can kill that sonuvabitch! Yeah, it does seem a little silly, seeing as how the villain usually has an ARMY that wipe out the good guy LOL, but it's a popcorn flick (sounds A LOT like DESPERADO & DIE HARD doesn't it?) I'm just saying when you bring Racism, Slavery or Antisemitism into the equation it's reeally hard to have a clear debate or analysis about a thing and just what IT is. All of this may be moot cuz it might just suck as Movie, regardless of the social implications LOL

troy

People like subgenres for a reason. When it comes to westerns the héroes and their legends are enduring even if they die in the end. That kinda reminds me of the ever enduring jews and enduring superman. If blacks are known for fighting back i can image others not thinking we can endure and wait our turn. This character may allow other audiences to equate black leads as abiding by the first law of Power, subservience. Allow the audience to pick the right hero or be doomed to sadness like we are in every horror or thriller when the better suit black stud goes out early like a sucker. This storyline he is seemingly taking will challenge the prevailing notions of heroism. Tarantino is not as original as he would claim however. It is not hard for the dog to pool of Wolf amongst a flock of sheep. It is they're industry if i were them i wouldnt let any of us make movies. It is too much like right. Their Gods do not preach of autonomy. So for sake of wanting to be a part of something you are not, you will not only offer ownership of your product but of yourself as well just to sell something to people who dont need it.

Priss

Between Beasts of the Southern Wild, Gimme the Loot and Django Unchained, my issue is with the white men using our Blackness to tell their "magical," "raw," "off the chain" fairytales while movies by real Black People about real Black People are marginalized, minimized and overlooked by critics and an unsuspecting public who will embrace these fantasies. That's my gripe. As for Tarantino and this thing, I expect no more from him. Jamie and Kerry on the other hand now have a stain on their reputations as far as I'm concerned. This is suspect. Although for different reasons than Tambay, count me among the uncool.

Jack Chess

Your a fucking idiot! Tarantino always said he wanted to make a movie about john brown; this is clearly the evolution of that idea. OOOOOOooooooooooooooooo similarity in movies..im a critic now cuz i point it out and can find patterns in things. The script was perfect, the stars are gonna bring it and kill it, just wait and see.

Jordan W.

Interesting blog, but you need to learn to cut loose and have some fun at the movies, even if Tarantino doesn't want to make the same movie twice, swapping WWII for the pre-Civil War South. And try not to condescend to people who enjoy his films, it's unnecessarily inflammatory. Also, I don't think you are *uncool* for lacking excitement for the movie.

Raymond Gayle

Would Tarentino be considered a race traitor as illustrated in Slave Cinema by Andre Seewood or just someone benefitting from the fact that A list African American directors are limited when it comes to the type of subject matter they are allowed to film? Also, would a film by an African American director dealing with the same subject matter generate the type of “buzz” Django Unchained is receiving? We’re talking about a subject that is still taboo in American society. Is it not taboo because Tarantino is telling the story? This has been my frustration with people like Tyler Perry who have the resources to produce a script from a brilliant visionary like Wendell B. Harris.

Vanessa

This is the thing – it was easier to make a film about Jews avenging Nazis because the latter weren't American. When you talk about American Slavery, the subject is not only touchy, but unconsciously/conciously for many it just simply airs too much dirty laundry out. Keep in mind many white people in this county want to be proud of their ancestry; they have a deep-seated sense of patriotism and what that entails are things Blacks/non whites in this country are definitely not fond of to say the least, meaning "majority rules, we did some really bad things but we also helped you out a lot; we don't want/need to pay for what our ancestors did" – not in those words, but that train of thought is there.

To them, even though slavery may have been wrong, it's just "the way things were." To create a film about the mass massacre of white "americans" by Black slaves would be considered to an extent "anti-american/non-patriotic" and just plain non-feasible. Besides that, a serious slavery film is just painful and people frankly don't want to deal with it. You just have to make it "fun" and "cool" for people to get excited about it unfortunately.

Regardless, even if it is fun, what makes me mad is that Tarantino is not one to be politically correct or conservative; it's Tarantino right? He doesn't give a f..well, there are limits to the types of revenge films he'd be willing to make and/or get support from. Simple as that.

Charles Judson

"And in anticipation of those who will comment on how true to life the story is, and how representative it is of the time it takes place, my response will be – what part of the term "revisionist history" don't you quite understand? Last I checked, Adolph Hitler didn't die from gunshot wounds, in a Paris movie theater set ablaze – a plan orchestrated by a Jewish woman calling herself Emmanuelle Mimieux (after assuming a new identity in France, to protect herself)." This is where I definitely diverge from you Tambay. What Tarantino did is not revisionist history it's alternate history. He's been pretty clear that his films exist in alternate universes, with their own set of rules. Rules that even dictate that only The Wolf can move back and forth between them, and that the Elmore Leonard universe is separate. This isn't a holocaust denier trying to rework the narrative to fit his own agenda. I understand your reservations, but let's not confuse a dramatic storytelling device, and a fictional genre, unto itself with a historical approach that can be used for both legitimate and nefarious purposes.

Cribbster

I understand what you're saying. One thing though: "Inglourious Basterds" was like one of those men-on-a-mission movies like "The Dirty Dozen" or "Kelly's Heroes." Tarantino likes to hopscotch around subgenres. While I completely understand you want to see a black version of "Inglourious Basterds," I imagine Tarantino wouldn't want just retread in the same subgenre. So, now you get "Django," which is his blaxploitation-Western. It seems a little limiting to insist that a filmmaker do the same thing twice (even though transposing the form to a different part of the world and focusing it on a different race of subjugated people would certainly be different).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *