Tarantino in N-word controversy

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by moon

To be fair to JD he is just repeating the argument that Flaminglonghorn used earlier in the thread himself.

Actually I never said you didn't understand Lee's films. I said his films aren't poorly written. You said you found the films slow and boring. I didn't disagree with that (they are slow, I don't find them boring). It's like me saying I don't like Moby Dick because it's slow and boring (it is), but I would never say it's poorly written (it isn't). You have a right to your opinion, however my opinion is that if you don't like Do the Right Thing then your opinion about movies doesn't matter to me. Or am I not allowed to discount your taste in movies because I think it's horrible taste?

[moon]

Originally Posted by FlamingLonghorn

Actually I never said you didn't understand Lee's films. I said his films aren't poorly written. You said you found the films slow and boring. I didn't disagree with that (they are slow, I don't find them boring). It's like me saying I don't like Moby Dick because it's slow and boring (it is), but I would never say it's poorly written (it isn't). You have a right to your opinion, however my opinion is that if you don't like Do the Right Thing then your opinion about movies doesn't matter to me. Or am I not allowed to discount your taste in movies because I think it's horrible taste?

You said that my opinion didn't matter because I didn't like the movies the poorly written comment came after.

And you are free to discount anyone's opinion for whatever reason you want. I was just pointing out that your statement earlier in the thread was very similar to the comment kunkstyle was criticizing.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Magnum PEI

Samuel L. jackson plays a house slave so he would have had a bit more freedom than the other slaves. He had a close relationship with Candie, but it definitely wasn't an equal one. It was quite clear that he was supposed to represent an 'Uncle Tom'.
Django was really the only black character that acts as an equal. Though he is the only one outside the slave system.

The scene where Samuel L Jacksons character calls Candie into the library and is sitting down drinking a brandy is one of equals, which screwed the whole of Jacksons portrayal to me.
Again the idea that Django was outside the slave system is inane, there was no 'outside' the slave system, hell there was no outside the slave system after slavery was banned, being a 'free black' made no difference in 1858 southern US, a blck man on a horse was a dead man, the whole idea showed to me a lack of understanding of the situation.

[flizzenflozz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The scene where Samuel L Jacksons character calls Candie into the library and is sitting down drinking a brandy is one of equals, which screwed the whole of Jacksons portrayal to me.
Again the idea that Django was outside the slave system is inane, there was no 'outside' the slave system, hell there was no outside the slave system after slavery was banned, being a 'free black' made no difference in 1858 southern US, a blck man on a horse was a dead man, the whole idea showed to me a lack of understanding of the situation.

He 'played' the porch n&&gger to perfection up to that point and you missed the transition to puppet master in that lounge scene..He obviously had been the point of counsel for DiCaprio years before (as shown in in the brandy scene) and made him more than just a slave. You missed a ton of that movie. He was never the porch fool he presented himself to be at the beginning and was 'respected' as such.

[mrvee]

Honkey is not blocked but ###### is.

[Slava]

This thread is hilarious now. People are discussing whether the fictional movie is realistic enough for the period? Not picking on any poster in particular here, but a lot of people here love Batman, the Avengers and all kinds of other clearly not realistic movies. I think anyone buying a ticket knows that this isn't a documentary on slavery, just like Inglorious Basterds wasn't a documentary on the occupation of France. Its entertainment...

[icecube]

Spike Lee doesn't deserve to be uttered in the same sentence as. Quentin Tarantino.

[JD]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Ah, the condescending "if you don't like it you clearly didn't understand it" argument. Always fun.

Of course the "if I don't like it then nobody should" argument is also fun. There's a lot of condescending going around in this thread.

[HPLovecraft]

A Tarantino thread where people are being condescending? There's a new one.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mrvee

Honkey is not blocked but ###### is.

And the white man loses again.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by flizzenflozz

He 'played' the porch n&&gger to perfection up to that point and you missed the transition to puppet master in that lounge scene..He obviously had been the point of counsel for DiCaprio years before (as shown in in the brandy scene) and made him more than just a slave. You missed a ton of that movie. He was never the porch fool he presented himself to be at the beginning and was 'respected' as such.

Of course I realise what Jackson and Tarantino where trying to portray, it is just an absurdity within the period, which is fine if he was just trying to make a comic book but Tarantino himself said he wanted to portray the reality of the period, hence the 'mandingo' fight and the dog scene.

There were no puppet master house n***** in 1850's Missisippi, it belies the whole truth of the era and undermines the purported purpose of the movie.

At the end of the day Tarantino has made a film about slavery where the most evil character is a black guy for christ sake!

[Jason14h]

There were no puppet master house n***** in 1850's Missisippi, it belies the whole truth of the era and undermines the purported purpose of the movie.

Don't forget the scene where DiCaprio talks about "n**** love, and how it's a powerful thing"

Jackson had been the head house n***** since DiCarpio was born. we was like a father to him. They obviously loved each other, shown by Jacksons reaction to his death.

Whether that is absurb for the time period could be debatable, but I'm sure there were some relationships similar to that. There's reason there was a civil war

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Slava

This thread is hilarious now. People are discussing whether the fictional movie is realistic enough for the period? Not picking on any poster in particular here, but a lot of people here love Batman, the Avengers and all kinds of other clearly not realistic movies. I think anyone buying a ticket knows that this isn't a documentary on slavery, just like Inglorious Basterds wasn't a documentary on the occupation of France. Its entertainment...

Huh? Comparing a movie that was intended to be an accurate portrayel of the time period by the director to fantasy movies?

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Huh? Comparing a movie that was intended to be an accurate portrayel of the time period by the director to fantasy movies?

lol Portrayel, the spelling of that word seems less than accurate.

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by EddyBeers

lol Portrayel, the spelling of that word seems less than accurate.

Wow, aren't you the spelling police today. Just got your badge or what?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Huh? Comparing a movie that was intended to be an accurate portrayel of the time period by the director to fantasy movies?

I'm not comparing the directors though, I'm comparing the audience. We can suspend our sense of reality for Batman, but everything should be more accurate in another fictitious work? It makes no sense. Just enjoy it (or don't) for what it is, not based on how historically accurate it is.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Huh? Comparing a movie that was intended to be an accurate portrayel of the time period by the director to fantasy movies?

I didn't once, watching the previews to the film itself, expect an accurate portrayal of the time period at all. I don't think it was presented or advertised that way at all. It's Tarantino, and I'm pretty sure his last realistic intentioned film was Jackie Brown. His last three have all been over-the-top and highly fictional revenge fantasies.

As for the character of Stephen (even though I have made the argument against a realist representation in the film itself), it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a slave would eventually identify with a master. I'm not going to get all psycho-analysis Dr. Phil here, but I would suspect it's like an extended and amplified version of Stockholm Syndrome.

Ok, way off topic from the OP. I just go where the thread takes us.

[Stranger]

Tarantino's next film will focus on a fictional group of blacks in the military during WW2.

"there's something about this that would suggest a trilogy. My original idea for Inglourious Basterds way back when was that this [would be] a huge story that included the [smaller] story that you saw in the film, but also followed a bunch of black troops, and they had been f--ked over by the American military and kind of go apes--t. They basically -- the way Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and the Basterds are having an "Apache resistance" -- [the] black troops go on an Apache warpath and kill a bunch of white soldiers and white officers on a military base and are just making a warpath to Switzerland."


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98419

[JD]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Tarantino's next film will focus on a fictional group of blacks in the military during WW2.

"there's something about this that would suggest a trilogy. My original idea for Inglourious Basterds way back when was that this [would be] a huge story that included the [smaller] story that you saw in the film, but also followed a bunch of black troops, and they had been f--ked over by the American military and kind of go apes--t. They basically -- the way Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and the Basterds are having an "Apache resistance" -- [the] black troops go on an Apache warpath and kill a bunch of white soldiers and white officers on a military base and are just making a warpath to Switzerland."


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98419

Well, at least we know it will still be awkward and uncomfortable!

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Tarantino's next film will focus on a fictional group of blacks in the military during WW2.

"there's something about this that would suggest a trilogy. My original idea for Inglourious Basterds way back when was that this [would be] a huge story that included the [smaller] story that you saw in the film, but also followed a bunch of black troops, and they had been f--ked over by the American military and kind of go apes--t. They basically -- the way Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and the Basterds are having an "Apache resistance" -- [the] black troops go on an Apache warpath and kill a bunch of white soldiers and white officers on a military base and are just making a warpath to Switzerland."


http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=98419

I think too much is being read into that. Tarantino just did a really entertaining hour long interview with Charlie Rose and is asked point blank about his next project. His answer is that he has no idea right now.