Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (a Spaghetti Western) scheduled for release Christmas 2012

[jking0821]

I mean i guess i see your point duece. Shultz could have just been killed by Candie.....then django could have killed Candie and the movie could have progressed in the same manner.

Me being Caucasian I can't pretend to understand racism because i don't know how it feels. So if people feel a certain way i can't disagree. But from my point of view i guess i just didn't think that was an obvious point of racism in the movie as much as other parts.

I thought when shultz said he hated slavery but had to use it to his advantage at the Saloon....was more racist...that he couldn't have just bound into an agreement with him man-to-man...why did it have to be slave-owner relationship again. But again I am probably blind to a lot of it. Always good to hear other opinions brought to light about things makes you open your eyes a little more to things

 

[fray salters]

I don't really care who killed who. The entire premise of the film was going to incite controversy regardless. Like I said...I think it was a good movie but it's just another example of Hollywood showing us exactly what our place is in this world. A similar film based on another tragedy (like the Holocaust) wouldn't see the light of day. I downloaded Life is Beautiful based on the posts in here and that's even HALFWAY the same as this. Plus it was a foreign film.

On another note...I would like to Hollywood produce a big budget film based on what African civilization was like before slavery. They always just begin us as that this particular time period and you have to believe that is by design. How come we can't make a film based on the Zulu Impi and theme that the same way they did 300 or something? Or perhaps a big budget flick on Mansa Musa and theme that the same way they did The Kings Speech?

 

[deuce king]

I mean i guess i see your point duece. Shultz could have just been killed by Candie.....then django could have killed Candie and the movie could have progressed in the same manner.

Me being Caucasian I can't pretend to understand racism because i don't know how it feels. So if people feel a certain way i can't disagree. But from my point of view i guess i just didn't think that was an obvious point of racism in the movie as much as other parts.

 

No doubt, and thank you for your post.  The point of not having Django kill Candie was done on purpose whether by way of QT or the heads at movie company IMO to either keep the point alive that a black man can't or couldn't kill a white person of power.  As Calvin Candie was the person who from a movie standpoint keep slavery and racism on going as it has been apart of his family for decades as he alluded to from it being passed down by his father.  As if to say only a white person can take a person like Candie out.

 

[big j 33]

I think once they reached Candie's death, he was no longer the singular VILLAIN of the movie. Yes, until that point he was evil, ugly, and a terrible villain deserving death. And had he and Django had a one on one fight to the death where Django ended up triumphant, it could have been a big victory for Django... but there's also King. And King's character arc had been greatly influenced by Candie and the horrible treatment of slaves that King had been exposed to. Candie beat him, figured out their trick, and King just couldn't let Candie get away with it. In part because he had seen the horrors of Candieland and also because Candie had gotten the better of King. 

Once Candie was dead, the greater obstacle was escaping Candieland, and that was far more daunting and dangerous than just one man. If Django killed Candie himself, he would still have to escape and all of that would stay the same, of course... but it wouldn't have been the same ending for King's character. 

I think you could argue Candie was a representation of all the evils of slavery and had Django killed him, it could have been a greater symbolic victory. But I think you can also argue the destruction of Candieland, all of the people working there, all those who profited off slavery, and even the physical structure of Candieland, all had a greater impact than just one man. Once word spreads of the destruction.. what could be a greater victory? The death of a single plantation owner or the complete demolition of his home, plantation, and all of his men?

If someone doesn't buy that explanation, then ok 

 but I think there's a case to be made for that argument and the way it happened in the movie.

 

[big j 33]

I think once they reached Candie's death, he was no longer the singular VILLAIN of the movie. Yes, until that point he was evil, ugly, and a terrible villain deserving death. And had he and Django had a one on one fight to the death where Django ended up triumphant, it could have been a big victory for Django... but there's also King. And King's character arc had been greatly influenced by Candie and the horrible treatment of slaves that King had been exposed to. Candie beat him, figured out their trick, and King just couldn't let Candie get away with it. In part because he had seen the horrors of Candieland and also because Candie had gotten the better of King. 

I think you could argue Candie was a representation of all the evils of slavery and had Django killed him, it could have been a greater symbolic victory. But I think you can also argue the destruction of Candieland, all of the people working there, all those who profited off slavery, and even the physical structure of Candieland, all had a greater impact than just one man. Once word spreads of the destruction.. what could be a greater victory? The death of a single plantation owner or the complete demolition of his home, plantation, and all of his men?

If someone doesn't buy that explanation, then ok 

 but I think there's a case to be made for that argument and the way it happened in the movie.

 

[big j 33]

double

 

[ace rawstein]

Im so glad that interview w Gates was posted. Those were my thoughts when the vid of Tariq was posted.

I believe that Schultz killed Candie because he knew Candie was not going to let them leave his property alive. He had already witnessed Candie being dishonest when he said he would pay the 500 bucks and Candie agreed but still sent the dogs for the mandingo fighter. Mix that in with his building hate for slavery as the man their rounds and how humiliating and untrue it would be to shake that mans hand, it had to be done. At the same time it did them no favors...it was almost a lose/lose situation in away...unless we are to believe that Schultz knew Django had would it takes to make it out of there with his wife.

And from the time they began interacting with Candie, Django was the clear lead at that point.... Jamie was killing every scene. The movie was too good to be disappointed Jamie aint pop Candie himself imo...but I can see your point if you are the type of person that really needed Django to have that validation because of Broomhilda.

 

[miamin2]

that a black man can't or couldn't kill a white person of power.

But Django did kill the white KFC Colonel looking dude when he popped him off the horse

 

[powerballin]

These type of threads always make me feel some type of way. I would say it but I know how the backlash would be.

Backlash? This is a message board man you got share your opinion and not hold back. Just because alot of people NT fall into the same type of thinking doesn't mean you should censor yourself that only makes this place worse.  Nothing wrong with saying how you feel. 

Trust me some people wont quote you and show they agree but they will silently rep you though. 

 

[young thundercat]

Dog he's already addressed his issue.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Lela Rochon's husband weighed in on the subject...


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/antoine-fuqua-defends-quentin-tarantino-407123

Antoine Fuqua Defends Quentin Tarantino Against Spike Lee's 'Django' Criticisms
8:48 AM PST 12/30/2012 by Eric J. Lyman

The "Training Day" director, speaking at Capri's Hollywood film fest, said that if Lee disagreed with Tarantino's work he should have discussed it with him personally, not publicly.

CAPRI, Italy – Spike Lee should have called Quentin Tarantino personally rather than criticize him in public with charges of racism, the director of 2001 Oscar winner Training Day said Sunday.

Lee, the director behind Do the Right Thing (1989), Malcolm X (1992) and the thriller Inside Man (2006), made headlines before Christmas when he said he would boycott Tarantino’s Django Unchained because it was "disrespectful" to black people.

"American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western," Lee wrote on Twitter. "It was a holocaust."

Later, in an interview, Lee declined to elaborate, except to say he had no intention of seeing the film: "I can’t speak on it ‘cause I’m not going to see it," he said.

It is not the first time Lee criticized Tarantino for racial insensitivity: after the release of Tarantino’s 1997 blacksploitation tribute Jackie Brown, Lee blasted Tarantino for what he said was an overuse of "the n-word," saying, "I think there is something wrong with him."

But Antoine Fuqua, the director behind Training Day who says he knows both Tarantino and Lee but is not close friends with either one, said Lee aired his concerns in wrong way.

"That’s just not the way you do things," said Fuqua, speaking on the sidelines of the 17th Capri, Hollywood Film Festival. "If you disagree with the way a colleague did something, call him up, invite him out for a coffee, talk about it. But don’t do it publicly."

Fuqua -- at the Capri festival as part of a big Hollywood contingent that also includes Leaving Las Vegas director Mike Figgis, 300 star Gerard Butler, Iceman director Ariel Vromen and Franco Nero, the star of the original Django film that inspired Tarantino's latest -- also defended Tarantino.
"I don’t think Quentin Tarantino has a racist bone in his body," he said. "Besides, I’m good friends with [Django Unchained star] Jamie Foxx and he wouldn’t have anything to do with a film that had anything racist to it."

Fuqua continued: "I haven’t seen the film, so I can’t speak about it specifically, but we’re supposed to find some truth in films and if you set a film in the 1850s, you’re going to hear the word '******,' because that’s the way they spoke then, and you’re going to discuss slavery because that was part of the reality," he said.

"I want my kids to hear those kinds of words in the right context, so that they’ll know that language is not OK," Fuqua said.

The Capri, Hollywood fest, which takes place on the picturesque island off the coast of Naples, got under way Dec. 26 and will conclude Wednesday.

Sunday's program at the festival included a screening of Fuqua's Training Day -- which earned Denzel Washington an Oscar for best actor -- as well as the first glimpse, the trailer, for Fuqua's soon-to-be-released thriller Olympus Has Fallen. The day's centerpiece screening was the Italian premiere of David O. Russell's dramedy Silver Linings Playbook.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Every pop culture reference QT has made in his movies in chronological order (the year of the reference, not the movie)...

 

[fray salters]

Not really sure what point he's making. They don't work together. Spike Lee doesn't HAVE to direct his criticism to Tarentino privately. That's ******ed.

 

[CP1708]

One thing about killing Candie is being missed however.

Who was the LAST man killed?

One other thing, who was the one that TRULY discovered what King and Django were up to?

The answer, Stephen.

The black slave, that is actually ON the evil white man's side.


So I ask you, which one is more evil? The white slave owner, or the black slave that enforces Candie's way on campus? (so to speak)


Candie is dueling and matching wits with King from the start. That's the play in the game, and in the end, Candie taunts King one last time trying to force him to shake hands. King takes him out.

Django is left with quite possibly the biggest offender in the whole house, Stephen. Who dies last.


Think in terms of the biggest villian. Who kills the baddest bad guy with 30 minutes left in the movie? So was Candie really the true bad guy, or was it Stephen? It isn't like it's a name/actor thing, Leo is certainly not below Sam in any way, hell, the fact Leo's name comes up 3rd is damn near shocking these days. Hell, Stephen is the last main actor we get introduced to. Yet he gets to die last. I doubt it was a by the minute basis for who gets killed when, it's quite possible that Stephen's character was bigger than anyone realizes.

 

[powerballin]

This whole movie is The Cather Freeman story from Boondocks.  Theres too many similarities man.  Too many.

 

[deuce king]

So I ask you, which one is more evil? The white slave owner, or the black slave that enforces Candie's way on campus? (so to speak)

 

Are you serious right now champ??  Your trying to compare a slave owner that has had power in his family for many years and now has that same power himself to a house ***** that's allowed to eat the crumbs left over by the slave owner after meals??

But Django did kill the white KFC Colonel looking dude when he popped him off the horse

Yeah I get that and all, but once again that guy wasn't the main guy or villain in the movie.

 

[Deleted member 43946]

One thing about killing Candie is being missed however.
Who was the LAST man killed?
One other thing, who was the one that TRULY discovered what King and Django were up to?
The answer, Stephen.
The black slave, that is actually ON the evil white man's side.
So I ask you, which one is more evil? The white slave owner, or the black slave that enforces Candie's way on campus? (so to speak)
Candie is dueling and matching wits with King from the start. That's the play in the game, and in the end, Candie taunts King one last time trying to force him to shake hands. King takes him out.
Django is left with quite possibly the biggest offender in the whole house, Stephen. Who dies last.
Think in terms of the biggest villian. Who kills the baddest bad guy with 30 minutes left in the movie? So was Candie really the true bad guy, or was it Stephen? It isn't like it's a name/actor thing, Leo is certainly not below Sam in any way, hell, the fact Leo's name comes up 3rd is damn near shocking these days. Hell, Stephen is the last main actor we get introduced to. Yet he gets to die last. I doubt it was a by the minute basis for who gets killed when, it's quite possible that Stephen's character was bigger than anyone realizes.

i find your views intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. all kidding aside tho...great points. and a great film for those who havent seen it.

 

[CP1708]

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?

So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie.

 

[mronegative]

QT said it....King Shultz had to die. I mean you change a lot of the movie if you let Django kill Candy and then have to find another way for King to die.  This moment was the passing of the torch. It was basically one of the climaxes of the film. If Django kills Candy then you let King die by some other random goon?

Okay fine, King Shultz had to die which I can understand but why couldn't Django have killed Calvin Candie, wouldn't that truly have made more sense??  Also, QT changing "alot of the movie" as you suggested had Django killed Candie is exactly the point.  King got killed by a no name or some random goon in the movie anyway, that part could have remained the same without him killing Candie. 

I....actually agree with this. I think the choice Quentin made was literary and Tarantinoeque, than it was something a black empowerment filmmaker would do. I think he knew what everyone expected to happen and just about when they expected it to happen, so he had it happen earlier and from the wrong person, so that you could stop and think about what his motivations could've been.

But in a lot of ways that is the wrong choice, and in the space of the narrative, all Django manages to do is kill low-level whites like Tariq said. You can reason it out later, but I watched people reason out that The Dark Knight Rises wasn't stupid all summer. In the moment, it does feel false. That gets a little washed away with the bloodbath that happens after, but still.

Maybe Quentin thought, "I don't want to make the stereotypical angry black man." Jamie is pretty soft-spoken through most of the movie. But he is the sidekick through most of the movie and doesn't even get to fight the literal big boss, Candie, just the figurative big bad, Stephen. In my opinion...it gives it a special type of meaning having Stephen be the big bad, but I don't see why Django couldn't have killed both.

The "Training Day" director, speaking at Capri's Hollywood film fest, said that if Lee disagreed with Tarantino's work he should have discussed it with him personally, not publicly.

Yes.

**** anyone who thinks otherwise. You can't call Spike the leading black director and think all the rules don't apply to them. This is him giving into every ******** thing people think about him, and you can say all you want about him keeping it real, but this is Hollywood. No director needs to keep it real. When **** pops off, you quietly say you parted ways over creative differences.

You say you want real black empowerment films, well the biggest black director just **** on the biggest mostly black casted film of the decade. Good look getting what you want from him now. Good look seeing him promote any black empowerment film without getting questions about his comments on Django Unchained.

Maybe THAT'S why Quentin went literary and metaphorical instead of literal. Maybe that's why Quentin had to push hard on racially uncomfortable topics and then pull with humor. Push on that tension and then pull with weird quirks. Run at the ugly truth, and then subvert it with the twists in the narrative like Schultz killing Candie. Because at the end of the day, you want something that's gonna break through and be both memorable and rewatchable.

You could make Roots 2012, but you're not getting $100 million for it. You're not making more than Red Tails did. You're not seeing sold out shows or too many people under 30 going to see it. You're not being brought up or remembered 10 minutes after it leaves theaters. And you're not getting away with half of the things Django did get away with.

This movie didn't live up to all of the potential of what it could've been, but that's really killing yourself over what's not there and ignoring all there is there.

 

[powerballin]

So the black "hero" barely shines until the last 30 mins of a 2hr 45min movie.  He learns everything from a white "Dr.King".  And the biggest villian is black?  Hmmmm

 

[mronegative]

The grown ups are talking. Go away.

 

[fray salters]

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?
So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie.

I'm not sure if you understand the slave owner / house ***** dynamic.

He's brainwashed to believe the more subservient he is to his master...the better off he will be. Are you really asking which one is truly "more evil" here? 

 

[big j 33]

It's a western. That's how it works in a western. A veteran gunslinger finds a young protege and teaches him. The veteran dies or leaves early because his story is complete, he's realized something, done something, something happens that allows him to move on. The young gunslinger, now experienced and knowledgeable, completes his quest.

 

[powerballin]

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?
So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie.

I'm not sure if you understand the slave owner / house ***** dynamic.

He's brainwashed to believe the more subservient he is to his master...the better off he will be. Are you really asking which one is truly "more evil" here? 

This

 

[CP1708]

I'm serious, I'm askin the question. Why wouldn't Stephen help Django rather than help Candie? Why even blow up their spot? They wanted the chick too, it's one broad, what does Stephen care? Candi had NO IDEA of anything goin on, he was conductin business and they woulda been long gone. Who made sure to stop that, and make all the noise? Candie, or Stephen?

So in effect, which one was TRULY preventing Django from rescuing his wife? The answer ain't Candie.

I'm not sure if you understand the slave owner / house ***** dynamic.

He's brainwashed to believe the more subservient he is to his master...the better off he will be. Are you really asking which one is truly "more evil" here? 

Fair enough. I was more looking at which one was more preventing Django getting his wife, but I see your point.