Machine
Member
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.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"django unchained" deeply offended lee daniels: "tarantino has no right to our word."
- Thread starter bud
- Start date
- Status
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.
thezerofire
Banned
It sounds like he doesn't understand either historical accuracy or movies or both
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.
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.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
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 can completely see the case for being upset by Pulp Fiction, but Django? No.
Ninja Scooter
Member
You know what's even more offensive than writing a script that uses the n-word? Making a movie with Zach Effron in the lead.
Count Dookkake
Member
Does Lee Daniels have the right to talk about a good filmmaker?
Of course he does, he has a weird fetish for black culture in general, and when he's not doing black people it's jewish people.
ReadingRambo
Member
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?"
inb4 "Why do you want to say the n-word so bad?"
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.
Zoramon089
Banned
It'd be used in one pivotal scene and they'd make a super big deal about the scene...as if it wasn't said casually all the time back then...that's why I liked Django. The n-word was what black people were called back then, in addition to "boy" and other derogatory terms so why make a period piece and make it into some rare and powerful event in the movie? Django's casual use of the word felt more natural than in any other movie I've seen about the times as it should have
That "it doesn't matter" where racism comes from simply isn't true. Racism is a form of oppression. On a macro level, the majority (or group in power, if it's a minority) being racist against the minority (or group not in power) is a larger problem that the inverse.
On a micro level, a Korean grocer in a predominantly black community getting his storefront destroyed in Brooklyn is bad, too. That's minority-on-minority, but in context of the situation, it's a majority v. a minority.
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.
Does this mean that Lethal Weapon is a movie for black people?
ReadingRambo
Member
Mixed people.
QuicheFontaine
Member
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.
ReadingRambo
Member
And if he'd done it all by himself in the deep South in the middle of slavery people would be calling it "blacksploitation" and pandering.
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?
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.
Zoramon089
Banned
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 disagree completely. Django wasn't the primary focus of the film until the 3rd act when
Dr. Schultz dies.
captainnapalm
Member
That's genius for you.
ChocolateCupcakes
Member
This is how I felt during the movie too.
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.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Why are these two things mutually exclusive?
I don't really care when people say it, I really don't. It doesn't offend me. But to suggest that only one particular skin colour should be allowed to say it is ludicrous.
That's not to say I think white people should be allowed to say it, but there definelty shouldn't be this conditional usage. That's what creates the disparity.
So basically, either everyone should be cool with anyone using it, or nobody should. I know that's an incredibly niave POV, I'm not saying it's a viable option, but it's the unattainable ideal.
Zoramon089
Banned
I'd say that aside from Schultz formulating the plan, it was was Django who lead the entire thing including gaining Candy's trust and preventing Schultz from completely blowing their cover
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Yep. Most of the audience is white and non-racist, would like to think that they would be above the omnipresent racism of the 1800s South. So conveniently there is a character that has the same view.
Not that the movie isn't for black people too-- Django gets to kick all sorts of ass and the audience gets to too, by proxy.
It's for everybody.
grimshawish
Banned
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.
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.
EDIT: the history of what groups of ethnic Europeans are "white" in America, and when they became "white", is a fascinating one.
This makes me afraid of forbidden words. Mainly because I really can't understand them. In my country no such thing exists. Some things are rude of course, but they are not shocking and can definitely be said. This is a very American thing from what I gather.
Anyway, I think there is no justification for having forbidden words. Words have no weight if the action is devoid of malignancy. He should not be offended by the use of a word that reminds slavery, in a movie against slavery.
Anyway, I think there is no justification for having forbidden words. Words have no weight if the action is devoid of malignancy. He should not be offended by the use of a word that reminds slavery, in a movie against slavery.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Well, agreed which is why I mentioned Pulp Fiction (the most notorious example, I think). In Django, I think he makes an effort to make his motives clearer. In his older movie, I think he's trolling as much as anything.
Anglo Saxon Protestant I get that but german people really wasn't thought of as caucasians? I should look into this more for myself
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
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.
QuicheFontaine
Member
The story of Django Unchained takes place almost 30 years after Nat Turner. In that very wikipedia article it says that, as a consequence of that rebellion, southern states removed blacks' right of assembly and other civil rights. I just don't see how Django Unchained story would work without a white good-guy.
The film's called 'Django Unchained'. The lead character is Django. While the story might begin from Schultz perspective, Django is in almost all of Schultz's scenes from the moment he's introduced. Django has more screen time. Schultz dies and Django saves the day at the end. Django has the love interest. I can't see how he's a secondary character in this film.
I don't know man. I think I'm just mad at people bad-mouthing Christoph Waltz. I love Christoph Waltz :-(
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.
The history of whiteness in America is about exclusivity, which is built on exclusion. One law professor analogized whiteness to a form of property. Immigrant communities when they first began arriving in large numbers -- the Irish, for example -- were considered white when it was useful to do so (i.e. white v. black, Irish immigrants were always above black), and dismissed as Irish the rest of the time (because they're still dirty micks).
Over time, the Irish assimilate, and they're just white people ("Irish-American" to celebrate the heritage). Happened with a lot of groups.
stufte
Member
So what if Dr. Schultz was black? Would it have been ok then for him to be on screen with Django? Schultz is a mentor/master(in the teaching sense, not the slavery sense) that Django is meant to learn from and surpass. Schultz serves a purpose of savior, then mentor and then sidekick. I see no reason why this should be an issue.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
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%.
PhoenixDark
Banned
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.
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.
I honestly can't think of another movie where the main protagonist takes a back seat to mentor character. Mr. Miyagi, for example, doesn't dominate screentime at the expense of Ralph Macchio's character.
I don't understand how the film being targeted at both white and non-white audiences is justification for a narrative about a non-white character primarily being told through the eyes of a white character. It's not like Hollywood does the same for non-white audiences when the roles are reversed. They sort of just expect them to relate regardless of the significance of the non-white characters within the film. I'm sure that white audiences are more than capable of watching a film where their ethnicity is not at the forefront of the narrative.
I don't understand how the film being targeted at both white and non-white audiences is justification for a narrative about a non-white character primarily being told through the eyes of a white character. It's not like Hollywood does the same for non-white audiences when the roles are reversed. They sort of just expect them to relate regardless of the significance of the non-white characters within the film. I'm sure that white audiences are more than capable of watching a film where their ethnicity is not at the forefront of the narrative.
Fuck.....I shouldn't have come back to read this thread.
TelemachusD
Member
If you haven't seen/heard it, check out this Tarantino interview about Django conducted by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, a prominent black Harvard professor. They discuss a lot of the stuff in this thread including use of the n-word and the white savior role of Schultz.
http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/tarantino-talks-gates-podcast-special
You should really read/listen to the whole thing but here's a couple excerpts:
http://www.theroot.com/multimedia/tarantino-talks-gates-podcast-special
You should really read/listen to the whole thing but here's a couple excerpts:
I'd agree if the dialog targeted other groups as well, but that's definitely not the case. If he's trying to mimic the notion that a lot of people use ignorant terms behind closed doors, then where's the racial commentary on gay individuals, Mexicans, Asians, etc? He exclusively makes 'racist' dialog that pertains to blacks, so I don't think your views of these moments within his films carry much weight TBH.
- Status