Spike Lee Talks "Django Unchained"

honeyb87 wrote: Alias_Avi wrote: Okay, I’m back Here are my thoughts… If I was a huge Quentin Tarintino fan and if I wasn’t educated, a conscious thinker and Black (or White), I probably would have loved this film… probably would have even called it a “masterpiece” The gun slinging, horse-ridding, cracka killing, slave revenge fantasy was in full effect! Equipped with your typical Tarintino style Western backdrop juxtaposed to slave-era take on a blackploitation plot. The acting was quality and so was the plot but I most definitely have gripes with a few things… One being… it’s yet another White Hero movie. Ugh!!! White Americans cannot, for the life of themselves, create a freaking movie on the evils of  slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement without freaking sticking a damn White Hero in as the main damn character. Make no mistake, he was the MAIN CHARACTER! Jamie Foxx serves only as the secondary main character (if there is such thing, I think QT might have created this new role with this movie)   Two… why are all the most likeable characters (as in funny/well-acted/most interesting) white????  Sigh. From the bounty hunter, plantation owners, and plantation owner’s wife to the damn KKK (it’s hard to hate a character/villain that you laugh at, right?) Jamie Foxx had the most redeemable Black character. Every other Black character was humiliating with no agency/purpose/dept to justify the rancid humiliation. All of them seemed soulless, submissive, down-right undignified individuals who had little to no emotions (easier to hate in comparison to the grotesquely goofy and ungroomed White idiots). One could make the argument that that’s how Blacks seemed back in those days and my point is that that’s why this movie was typical. Show me a movie on slavery that humanizes these dehumanized souls in the way they deserved. I’d take that any day over a White hero that gives a Black man a gun to kill other Whities. Why was the worst villain of all, in this movie, Samuel L Jackson’s Uncle Ruckus-in-flesh, minstrel show character? Why was his character so extra???? I mean, it was too much. Just way too cartoonish, felt fake. I feel like he had more lines than Django himself Even worst, the most obvious underlying tone of this movie (which I predicted) was the “why didn’t them slaves just up and kill YT? Cuz they stoopid submissive Brothas! That’s why!” message.   It’s as if Quentin was saying with this film “Well, if I was a slave I would have done THIS” which is such a pompous and arrogant way to approach this complicated history Despite me agreeing 100% with everything you said (minus describing people who liked this movie as non educated), I let it slide for the sake of the sheer ambiance and entertainment. I like movies that are controversial and able to ruffle people's feathers *shrugs* Sam's character was pretty over the top. Yes, the premise is .....yet again..... the white guy responsible for taking a black guy under his wing to help him get revenge on his oppressors. POSSIBLE SPOILER The part with DiCaprio's character describing blacks as being submissive by nature based on the dents in their skull was cringe worthy. I have never heard any sh*t like that in my life. I thought it was yet another explanation for white people to use as a justification as to how they are superior over us. Le sigh...

Well, I actually learned in history class that that was belief back then to justify slavery. It was actually believed by scientists that we has smaller skulls, therefore, we were not as smart as Caucasians. Trust me, they justified slavery to not only religion, but science.

I think QT added that in there to show the philosophy of slave owners of the time. Although I thought it was cringe worthy( because I think some whites will believe that shiiit), it had it's place in the movie

I ain't never give so many white people in the movie theater the side eye in my life!






Edited by kkscottdale - Dec 26 2012 at 1:44am

Spoilers

In response to the skull theory thing. I believe Waltz character mentioning to Leo that the three musketeers was written by a (partially) black author was suppose to be the 'aha' moment that spoils his theory, but it seemed pretty tacked on.

There were several things I didn't like about the movie, and many other things I thought could have been done better. I'll just stick to the 2 things that bothered me most.

The first that stands out is Samuel L Jackson's character. I have NO problem with him being a hyperbolic uncle tom, or even him turning out to be the main villain. I thought the way QT played it up was pretty good. Samuel L Jackson's character was deeply engrained in the family and behind closed doors seemed to be pulling the strings as the brains of the operation.

That implied angle was pretty fresh in a slave movie. The problem was that they didn't explore it enough. Since everything was cartoony then it would have been better to show more scenes of Samuel L and Leo together in private, with Samuel L orchestrating master plans. Their littler dynamic could have been emphasized a hell of a lot more than it was. That way it would be clear that he is the main villain.

Instead, they only implied at his evil genius, while still making the final part of the movie black on black violence. Him getting his ultimate revenge on Samuel L Jackson's character wasn't very satisfying.

The banter is always the best part of a QT movie, and Foxx's character was robbed of the chance to confront the man (Leo)

 that said he was a dummy and passed his wife around. Shooting 1000 faceless, nameless, bad guys doesn't carry the weight of intellectually thwarting one evil villain. Yet all Django has a chance to do is shoot and blow up people. Left a bad taste in my mouth.

The second thing that bothered me alot was Kerry Washington being a generic Mcguffin. She was only a plot device, just like the suitcase in pulp fiction. But because she is a person and not money/diamonds, it made Django's plight to find her pretty weak. QT is known for non-linear stories, so why the hell didn't he give scenes to Django and Washington together? Their love should have played a bigger part of the story. As it stands, it had less depth than the romance of a mediocre Disney movie.

Which sort of brings me to my disappointment of the script. QT gave all of the good exposition and dramatic scenes to Leo and Waltz. Foxx barely had any noteworthy dialogue or chances to act. Washington had none. None of the other slaves had anything remotely worthwhile to do or say. Now Leo and Waltz are GREAT in their roles, and show why they are some of the best actors in Hollywood, but it's not a good sign when their characters, which are suppose to be secondary, are the only interesting characters on screen.

Few other minor complaints.

Django was a great gunsman from the very first scene that he holds a gun. He should have had some sort of training before he was a deadeye with a gun. They do show a sort of training scene in the snow where Waltz character says that he is accurate with a gun, but it happens after Foxx has already killed several people with a gun. If anything, Django should have killed those first people with his barehands.

I like stylized violence so those criticisms don't mean much of anything to me, but I thought some of it was pretty uneven. The most violent/cringe worthy scenes of violence were with the slaves. In a revenge flick, this seems backwards. The most blood we see from the bad guys come in the form of blood squirting from already dead people on the floor of a gunfight. Meh.


Overall there were some really good performances. Three of them IMO (Jackson, Waltz, Dicaprio). There were some scenes I was literally belly laughing from. And the tension from the dramatic scenes are all grade-A. But the major two things I didn't like took away from the film as a whole. It's a pretty forgettable movie despite it being a unique blend of genres.




Edited by Random Thoughts - Dec 26 2012 at 2:13am

Alias_Avi wrote: OMG I totally forgot to mention the 'teaching him to read' part! That seemed particularly repugnant on QT's part Only a sadistic White person could write a script like this! Sickening

What scene was this? When Foxx was reading the wanted poster?

Alias_Avi wrote: Why were there so many Black clowns in my audience, laughing at everythingggggg? This made me so uncomfortable! The fact that people felt so free to laugh all this blood, gore and horror! How will the American audience ever approach this subject again with the same sensitivity, discretion and respect that it deserves now that this barrier has been broken?