Django Unchained and Overrated

So I get a call from my girl Shannise and she wants to organize a small group of people to see Django and maybe film our reaction afterwards in a short commentary.  You can see our response below.

Tarantino's Django is about a slave turned bounty hunter although I should mention that there was a 1966 film Django about a gunslinger that gets caught in the middle of a feud between the KKK and Mexican bandits.

Typically I have issues with "race" films in Hollywood. They are typically always done through the lens of the mainstream and usually fall short in exploring any kind of authentic narrative as it relates to historical race relations in this country. 

When I heard that Tarantino was directing Django I was a bit hesitant.  Then I saw the film and well I definitely had reason to be cautious.  Then to add insult to injury I read about Tarantino's recent comments on Alex Haley's “Roots.”  You may want to take a shot of Petron before you read this. 

“When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either,” said Tarantino. “I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.”

Hmm, who do I go with on this one? Alex Haley who spent years researching the lineage and story of his ancestors or Quentin Tarantino who thought taking the atrocities of slavery and couching that in a spaghetti western would prove more authentic.

Now don't get me wrong "Roots" was just one story from one man’s perspective but for Tarantino to fix his lips that Django is a more authentic film is just ridiculous. Just because you have folks in period costume and some of the most A list actors in Hollywood using the N word incessantly does not guarantee authenticity.

Tarantino's Django is absolute fantasy and beyond anything authentic.  Jamie Foxx's character would have been beaten, lynched and killed at the first eye roll or sucking of his teeth much less killing white people.

And don't get me started with all the other historical inaccuracies like: all the dark skin folks in the big house; the "chamber maids" being to comfortable in mix company; Samuel L. Jackson's entire irreverant character and the worst infraction the "white" woman of the house escorting comfort girls to her guest.

Most of the hysteria and fear of historical Southern culture was around the effort to keep the "White" woman pure and chaste. They would never have subjected her to such spectacles like stripping a black slave woman down at the dinner table!

So instead of bashing "Roots," Tarantino needs to send the Haley's estate a muffin basket because without the historical and visual references of "Roots" his film would not be as provocative.

Django could not seem to find its legs and vacillated between wanting to be a comedy or serious drama. 

Side note, why is it that the historical African-American experience is allowed to be trivialized?

Tarantino has obviously been influenced by Hip Hop, Blackploitation films, martial arts films and anime but these are genres.  There is no genre for Black Super Hero slave films? When you look at his body of work he plays with characters from these genres but they are characters and by default typically very surface.  That does not lend itself to being able to competently take on a serious narrative on slavery.

He could have easily just done a western with the same plot without slavery as a backdrop.

I just started gaming and this film felt like a first person shooter video game. There was a loose narrative that really strung along opportunities for someone to kill folks or blow things up. 

It could have ended about forty minutes earlier. 

Another rant, what is it with all of these three hour long movies?  Can we not tell a comprehensive story in an hour and a half anymore? It's called editing people!

So why are so many people enjoying this film, especially black folks? 

My theory is that Tarantino needs to thank BET. 

Why? 

BET ran Roots during the holiday’s right before Django's release.  I think after sitting through the "Roots" series, again for some folks and dealing with several days of hard times and beat downs watching Django for some folks becomes a cinematic, WWF, grudge match, smack down of revenge an release.

But alas fantasy retaliation was not enough to keep my interest in Django.

Anyway you will have to see it for yourself but much like  Birth of a Nation I only have to see Django once!

Please enjoy our video commentary with Emiene Wright, Alex Wright and myself. A big shout out to Shannise Jackson-Ndaye for production and editing and also Glenn Burkins  and Q City Metro. 

 

 

Comments

[Miss A]

I was waiting on your commentary on the film. I probably won't see it just because I have issues with Tarantino (though I will admit I was curious about it). I never thought that it would have any sense of historical accuracy. That's not the type of filmmaker he is. I guess my question(s) would be is it always necessary for films that deal with the 'black experience' to be historically accurate? As you all mentioned in your video piece, nothing he really does is historically accurate, so how do we get upset or disappointment when he treats the spaghetti western (with black people in it - which most westerns don't even acknowledge we existed in that time) with the same regard? Will there ever come a time when we can watch a film set in that time and not expect it to reflect slavery in a historical way?

[Shannise Jackson]

Thanks for the shout out and it was most certainly a fantastically fun production for me.

[Professor Locs]

@Miss A. You are very correct that none of his films deal with historical accuracy because again he just likes to play with surface characters and stereotypes he has been influenced by. I think I would be more comfortable with a satirical treatment of slavery in a film if we had done the appropriate work and healing in our society. Again the Jewish community makes a point to treat their history with reverence. Maybe once there has been a legitimate movement to take ownership and heal we can more comfortably explore those themes. You always share great points of discussion....smile

[HannaH Jane]

I am not really sure why Tarantino would make such a statement, especially as Miss A states "nothing he really does is historically accurate." He did not set himself up well :( especially with all the challenges he was facing with this film otherwise. Sorry, I am just getting around to commenting. I purposefully did not read any reviews before I saw it. Posted my thoughts on my site. Mentioned and linked to you too, as your perspective is such an important part of the discussion and I'm not very qualified :)