Count Dookkake
Member
"Why am I Mr. Pink?"
-
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
"Why am I Mr. Pink?"
I thought of that as I pushed 'Submit Reply,' but the point remains true for the most part.
stufte
Member
You seem to mistake an interesting relationship between characters as some sort of battle for screen time. I ask again. Would it have been OK if Schultz was black?
*edit* also to the point of movies where mentors play a large part:
Morpheus in the Matrix
Tyler Durden in Fight Club
Gordon Gekko in Wall Street
Gandalf in LOTR
Professor X in Xmen
To name a few.
Most of those movies feature a very similar kind of relationship to that of Django/Schultz
Is there some language void that "nigger" fills that no other word can replace? Are you handicapped by not saying it?
Stop being ignorant.
Would what be OK? The current argument is that Hollywood always insists on having the narratives within their films told through from a normatively white perspective, and in doing so, crafting a film where a white character is of the utmost importance narratively. So in that capacity, the character of Schultz being black would be a moment in film history where a film went against the grain for once. The character wouldn't make sense though, so in that regard, no it would not be OK.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make though.
Ken Masters
Banned
It's your ignorance to what black people think that you would say something so stupid
Seriously. You could make the argument that his 80s and 90s output is significantly better than his filmography as of late, but overall, the dude is a fantastic director. Inside Man and 25th Hour are both great films of his from the last decade, and he's incredibly underrated as a director of documentaries.
Count Dookkake
Member
BAMBOOZLED was pretty awesome, too.
Inside Man was a pretty genius movie
Pretty polarizing film, you either love it or you hate it from what I've seen, but I fall in the former camp. It's about as heavy handed as possible, but it works for the film.
And 25th Hour definitely has my favorite ending of any film of the last decade or so. Absolute perfection.
learnedhand
Member
For so many words, language itself is fairly vague in expressing meaning and dependent upon things such as history and context. And it evolves over time. In today's America, the word nigger is mostly shocking and loaded with preconceived connotation. When a black person refers to another black person as "his nigga", the meaning (usually) is one of endearment predicated on a common experience and history.
It's like the word "cunt". It's used more freely in England, but it's possibly the worst insult to any woman in the United States. Call an American woman a cunt and see what happens.
Out of the mouth of a white man to a black man, "nigger" connotes a history of dehumanization and slavery. I'm white. If a black man was trying to insult me and called me a "nigger", I'd be more confused than insulted, and I would ask him to kindly quit fucking with my head and explain his intent.
Now, when the intent is clear, say when a black man and white man are best friends, intent is more easily known, and they can use the term "my nigga" between themselves. The intent is clear, and using what is normally a derogatory term emphasizes the strength of their friendship. This is the evolution of language. Perhaps in 30 years we'll all be calling each other niggers and cunts. who knows
I agree that context and intent are the most important factors. But, much of the time, the listener is unsure of its meaning, and care must be taken when using such a loaded word. So, yes, at this point in american history, it's more acceptable for black people to use the word. The word and the world will evolve, as will its use and meaning.
Fairness has nothing to do with it.
It's like the word "cunt". It's used more freely in England, but it's possibly the worst insult to any woman in the United States. Call an American woman a cunt and see what happens.
Out of the mouth of a white man to a black man, "nigger" connotes a history of dehumanization and slavery. I'm white. If a black man was trying to insult me and called me a "nigger", I'd be more confused than insulted, and I would ask him to kindly quit fucking with my head and explain his intent.
Now, when the intent is clear, say when a black man and white man are best friends, intent is more easily known, and they can use the term "my nigga" between themselves. The intent is clear, and using what is normally a derogatory term emphasizes the strength of their friendship. This is the evolution of language. Perhaps in 30 years we'll all be calling each other niggers and cunts. who knows
I agree that context and intent are the most important factors. But, much of the time, the listener is unsure of its meaning, and care must be taken when using such a loaded word. So, yes, at this point in american history, it's more acceptable for black people to use the word. The word and the world will evolve, as will its use and meaning.
Fairness has nothing to do with it.
This isn't directed at me, but in a perfect world, noone would use it.
But in the interest of trying to be realistic, perhaps the latter. Just treat it like any other swear word. I'm sure that won't ever happen though, so ehh.
stufte
Member
Your argument (at least in the quote I was referring to) was that Schultz shouldn't have had a dominant mentor role in the movie. You then referenced his skin color as a reason for why it's wrong that part of the story is told from his perspective. So I simply asked if it would have been better for his mentor to have been black? Would it have made it OK for a mentor to soak up more screen time if his skin color was different? Should Django not have had any mentor/teacher at all? I'm trying to suss out the issue with Schultz as a supporting character in your eyes.
So if (as you say) a black mentor would have been illogical in the context of the movie, what is the problem?
Actually, I believe the Dutch own it. Iirc nigger comes from 'nikker', which was a curse word for 'neger', a valid and non-offensive term for black people in general.
But back to the topic at hand, you do not own that word. Neither do the Jews own Kristalnacht or Holocaust.
Tarantino made a movie that is set in a period when slavery was the norm and slaves were called niggers. So you're going to see white people use the word nigger.
Did anyone go bananas over Die Hard with a vengeance?
But back to the topic at hand, you do not own that word. Neither do the Jews own Kristalnacht or Holocaust.
Tarantino made a movie that is set in a period when slavery was the norm and slaves were called niggers. So you're going to see white people use the word nigger.
Did anyone go bananas over Die Hard with a vengeance?
PhoenixDark
Banned
He's had some pretty ugly barbs at Jews and gays in his films, and multiple wetback quotes iirc. It's true blacks take most of the barbs but he generally seems more comfortable with black "stuff" for whatever reason. I know he was raised around a lot of black people.
In other words the meaning of language is defined by the relationships of the people who are communicating.
Always-honest
Banned
although i agree with you, this has little to do with this movie don't you think?
For this movie, it seems fitting that this word is used. And ofcourse it's a Tarentino movie so it's all a bit over the top. But it seems weird to make this same movie and not use the word given the historic context (it's not 100% historicly accurate, but you know what i mean).
Yes but you have to understand that it means very different things coming from you then it does coming from me. You wanting all things to be equal with it's usage ignores the history of the word.
Historical context is a factor, you as a white person calling another white person a monkey, has no offensive historical context and it won't be deemed racist. Now if you as a white person calls a black person a monkey there is a good chance that you will be called a racist.
There are certain things that some people just can't say to other people. Now I think Lee Daniels is wrong in this particular case but I don't think other people should ever be allowed to use it casually like black people currently do.
I don't use it and I don't particularly like when other black people use it but it means something very different coming from a person who is not black.
I said Django Unchained was yet another notch in the belt for Hollywood's hardon for telling narratives from a white perspective, having white characters as the primary agency for change and constructing films under which white characters are at the forefront of the narrative by any means necessary. One would think a film about a freed slave rescuing his wife from a plantation owner would buck this trend, but that was obviously not the case, and that's what I was disappointed in. If I'm judging the film in a vacuum, without industry practices weighing heavy on my mind, then I have absolutely no issue with that aspect of the film. But when this happens film after film after film, and Django Unchained is another notch in a belt that's quickly running out of a room, then I can't help but be bothered.
grimshawish
Banned
The importance of the character is hes a foreigner more than being white is all I mean.
In terms of the narrative and the creation of the character in the context of the film.
Did anyone go bananas over Die Hard with a vengeance?
No, because John McTiernan doesn't have a detailed history of making such scenes. It was a one time thing that was narratively justified.
Ken Masters
Banned
This is a thread with 99.9% white people saying what should and shouldn't offend black people
GAF is better then this
GAF is better then this
learnedhand
Member
Sorry, I forgot to about the movie. Ha.
I have no problem at all with using the term in any form of art so long as it is not intended to promote or glorify racism or slavery.
The "Politician dresses in Black Face" thread says otherwise
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I'm going to have to rewatch Django to be sure, but I'm also going to argue against the idea that the story is told from Schulz' perspective. I've been accepting that at face value from harSon, but when I think about it, it's not true. We're not privy to Schultz' perspective, and we are with Django is having it revealed to us over time. We're in Django's shoes, not Schultz's most of the time. Schultz *does* talk more, but the experience is that we like Django are being let in on Schultz's business and knowledge.
Furthermore, when Schultz and Django split up at times, the narrative follows Django. At Big Daddy's plantation, that's all Django.
We know virtually nothing of Schultz's overall motivations or struggles, we know all of Django's.
Furthermore, when Schultz and Django split up at times, the narrative follows Django. At Big Daddy's plantation, that's all Django.
We know virtually nothing of Schultz's overall motivations or struggles, we know all of Django's.
Count Dookkake
Member
You are free to be offended all you want.
Ken Masters
Banned
This thread speaks volumes
How was it not justified in Django Unchained?
What could've been changed easier:the reason why McClane teams up with Zeus, or the reason and historical context why Django goes on a killing spree?
Mammoth Jones
Member
Saw it and neither my girl or I were offended. The only thing that annoyed us was this lady that kept giggling every. single. time. the "n-word" was used. Even when it wasn't for shock value or comedic effect. Just normal slave-days lingo.
But whatever. Was a good movie. Dude needs to learn to cope. We got bigger problems than shit going on in a movie. Because honestly if you can't say that word in a movie that involved chattel slavery in the US during that time period then you can't do movies about that subject and be reasonably authentic.
We were called that.
We were raped. (Which was eluded to in the movies and made me extremely uncomfortable and sad.)
We did have our families torn apart.
But whatever. Was a good movie. Dude needs to learn to cope. We got bigger problems than shit going on in a movie. Because honestly if you can't say that word in a movie that involved chattel slavery in the US during that time period then you can't do movies about that subject and be reasonably authentic.
We were called that.
We were raped. (Which was eluded to in the movies and made me extremely uncomfortable and sad.)
We did have our families torn apart.
I'm agreeing with you somewhat but that thread is worse than this one.
captainnapalm
Member
Films and other creative works tend to be representative of the people who make them. There's nothing sinister there. American films are by and large made by white people for white people.
How often are black directors' movies about black people and aimed at black people. It's the same principle at work. That's what they know and the stories they're interested in telling.
We're talking about Tarantino's films in general. People have been raising issue with his usage of the word nigger since Jackie Brown.
samus i am
Member
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
1) See my other post about it being from a white perspective. It isn't, particularly. It does have a white savior character that white audiences can relate to.
2) Schultz is portrayed as ultimately ineffective as an agent of change, where Django succeeds. Schultz would have at best bought the freedom of two slaves, Django destroyed the whole plantation and freed scores.
Your ire at certain tropes leads you to overlook a lot of more positive messages in the film.
stufte
Member
It's less a racist problem with Hollywood, and more of a "what demographic do we need to represent to make the most money". It is a business after all, and while what you say does happen, I don't think it has the malevolence that you ascribe to it. It's the same reason why silly love stories are shoehorned into action movies. They want as many people (including women) to see it as possible. Yes, it may be silly, but that's how that business works.
It's also obviously not the film Tarantino was interested in making. He wasn't only making a movie about a freed slave rescuing his wife, he was also making a Western, very specifically a buddy western in the vein of Butch Cassidy and the Sundace Kid, he was also making a blaxploitation film, and also making a Hong Kong style action film.
In other words he was making a Tarantino style genre mashup, like every single one of his other movies. If this was solely supposed to be a historical film about a freed slave then that specific part of your argument would hold more weight, but since the movie is attempting to bring in elements from several different genres I think that needs to be taken into account when discussing how or why the characters are presented in the way they are.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Longer than that. It made a huge stir with Pulp Fiction, justifiably so. As I said, I think he was trolling there, and he's grown up somewhat.
I'll watch it again as well, but I'm 100% confident that with the exception of the tail end of the 3rd act and a few exceptions here and there, the film is primarily from the perspective of Schultz. The film is by no means from the perspective of one character, but for the most part, Schultz is the captain of the ship.
The same is true for Schultz as well. For example, the private conversation between Schultz and Broomhilda.
Detailed motivations and being the primary character through which the story is told through aren't mutually exclusive, for example, The Man With No Name character (Clint Eastwood) in Sergio Leone's films.
That Django is listening to through the door the entire time, and is entirely constructed as the big reveal/reunion of Hilde and Django.
If you're willing to read it, here is a culmination of my thoughts on this subject: http://postracecinema.co.nf/?p=31
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
In reverse order:
Those films aren't about the TMWNN, they're about everybody else.
Good example, and why I have to see it again. That scene was striking to me in that Django wasn't there for so long.
Schultz is in charge, but the perspective is Django's. We know what he knows, and don't know what he doesn't know, most of the time.
Anyway, I will have to rewatch (was going to anyway), and don't take any of this as antagonistic. I'm finding this very interesting even if I don't agree with your assessment.
hypostasis
Banned
No, I don't think so -- I've not used it in years (this thread being the most recent use) and apparently functioned on a non-handicapped basis for the duration of time between uses.
Anyway, I don't think any of my personal details are relevant to such issues as who gets to use the word, why, how word meanings change, and the other interesting topics being discussed here.
grimshawish
Banned
I was actually saying he was racist himself.
What offends him is his business but if his own reaons are based in bigotry then I'm not not going to say this.
If we treat the world as black and white it will always be black and white.
Acting as if the world is only black and white is stupid and ignorant anyway; but the worst thing is people are claiming that this conversation can only be had on the grounds of your racist.
Well I call bullshit on that.
Lee Daniels is offended; my opinion will do nothing to that; its impossible for me to do so.
His assertion however that a film maker can or cannot use a the word nigger in his fiction is something I strongly disagree with and frankly see it as small minded and worse, purely stupid.
Am sorry if you disagree with my right to state this due to my race but its not going to stop me stating it.
That's always the case with these types of threads.
stufte
Member
Absolutely, I'll take a look at it.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Reminds of this great scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdhFJ5uArUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdhFJ5uArUc
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
This Samuel Jackson interview still very relevant.
Quit telling people when they should and shouldn't be offended.
- Status