Ugly Realities vs. Ridiculous Fantasies

12_years1

An ugly reality will lose out…

Not that it matters, but 12 Years A Slave was awarded Best Movie of the Year at Sunday’s Golden Globes awards.   That’s nice if  you care about that sort of thing.   It was even nicer Armond White didn’t show up to drop any F-bombs and pull off his pee-pee and take a whiz in public.   Probably too busy licking his wounds over being expelled from the NY Film Critics Circle and that matters even less.

In the 18th century, William Wilberforce said of slavery, “You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”

In 19 words Wilberforce hits on what makes 12 Years A Slave must viewing for any conscious human being who wants a realistic, unflinchingly honest and terrifying brutal two-hour trip through the American Holocaust.    You may have to watch it peeking through the fingers of your hand in front of you face, but you can never say again that you did not know.

The story of Solomon Northrup is based on fact. Django is nothing more than an Italian spaghetti western relocated to America so Quentin Tarantino can film his fetishes and fantasies about slave-fights, Black bounty hunters roaming the South killing Whites with impunity and his desire to say “nigger” as many times as he damn well pleases.

12 Years A Slave is a movie. Django Unchained is a cartoon.

...vs fantasy.

…to a ridiculous fantasy.

12 Years A Slave was the best movie of 2013. Period. End of sentence. I do not need the official stamp of awards and I don’t need the consensus of the crowd who line up like lemmings for a Tarantino masturbatory fantasy but go mental when a Black director and a Black screenwriter tell the true story of a Black man taken and held against his will by a vicious slave owner.

If others prefer cartoons like Django Unchained, fine. I ain’t mad atcha and where you spend your movie-going money doesn’t phase me in the slightest.  It’s fine by me if anyone really believes a Black bounty-hunter could wander around the antebellum South shooting and killing as many White men he wants with impunity and without punishment.   It didn’t happen and it’s a joke, but Tarantino is quite the joker.   He made his best film with Pulp Fiction  20 years ago and has floundered since trying to follow-up with a second act he doesn’t seem to have.   Say what you will about Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Inglorious Basterds, and Django Unchained (we’ll forget Death Proof because even Q.T. wants to), but you can’t say Tarantino is challenging himself as a filmmaker or the public as an audience anymore.

12years2

Steve McQueen, Lupita Nyong’o and Chiwetel Ejiofor may have Oscar gold in their future.

But don’t get all up in my grill telling me I don’t know my history and that I’ve been brainwashed by Whites and I’m some sort of self-hating dupe because I prefer movies that challenge me and force me to think and not simply sit there like a spastic drooling in my popcorn at the stylized and vulgar bullshit of a race pimp like Tarantino. Comparing Django to 12 Years is like comparing a Bugs Bunny cartoon to The Godfather.  It’s not a serious comparison and we can’t’ have a serious conversation about it.   Seriously.

Given a choice between a harsh reality and an amusing fantasy on slavery, I’m not at all surprised most opt for the fantasy. Just a bit disgusted.  There may be an intelligent, reasonable and rational argument to be made that Django Unchained is a superior and more honest depiction of slavery than 12 Years A Slave.   I just haven’t found an intelligent, reasonable and rational person make it yet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Quentin Tarantino: Slave Profiteer

An exercise in good clean fun or repellent bad taste?

Yeah, I thought I was over and done with Django Unchained, but apparently Django Unchained isn’t done with me yet.

Tell me Quentin Tarantino has the right to make any movie he wants to make and I’ll agree with you (though if he decides to remake Birth of A Nation I’m gonna have a problem with it).

Tell me you agree with Q.T. when he says, “When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either. 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.”  I won’t agree with you, but I’ll concede you and Q.T. have a right to your opinion (though how the storytelling in Django Unchained “rings true” escapes me).

You can even tell me Django is a masterpiece, isn’t supposed to be historically accurate because really, nothing else is either and we should be happy to see so many  Black folks getting work and getting paid to get their asses whipped and fed to dogs.

I’ll even agree with some of that.

“Okay, so maybe slave action figures wasn’t my best idea…”

What I WON’T agree with is I was wrong about my original contention that Quentin Tarantino is a race hustler who thinks he has a ghetto pass to say and do whatever he wants in his depictions of Black people because he’s a hip White guy.   Art is supposed to be provocative, but this is simply exploitative.   Selling slaves as action figures is some SICK-ASS SHIT and you do it only for one reason.  The same reason slavery was put in place:  PROFIT.

Consider the possibilities.  Little kids can play Calvin J. Candie and make Django and Stephen “Mandingo fight” or act like they’re selling Broomhilda or strip her naked and throw her in  just call them “nigger” all day long.   Sic the dogs on that lazy slave’s ass or whip ’em into line.   The possibilities are endless!

This is not bad taste.  It’s not even poor taste. It’s exploitative junk. You’ve heard of war profiteers? This is slave profiteering.  Quentin Tarantino might not sell Black human beings into bondage, but for $54.99,  he’ll sell you a toy of one.    Everybody plays the fool sometime but only a complete fool support a race mercenary who pimps the oppression of an entire race for a buck.

Malcolm X  wasn’t a film critic but he was highly skeptical of the benevolence of well-meaning White folks when he said,  “I’ve never seen a sincere white man, not when it comes to helping black people. Usually things like this are done by white people to benefit themselves. The white man’s primary interest is not to elevate the thinking of black people, or to waken black people, or white people either. The white man is interested in the black man only to the extent that the black man is of use to him. The white man’s interest is to make money, to exploit.”

Malcolm  was wrong in lumping all Whites as being motivated by selfish self-interest and he wasn’t thinking specifically of a cheap race hustler like  Tarantino when he made those remarks.

But he could have been.

Too late for Xmas, but right on time for birthday gift-giving.

“Django” Is Solid Entertainment, But Lousy History

“Nominate me for Best Supporting Actor. Or else.”

(This post contains some spoilers.)

I know I said I wasn’t going to, but I had to face the awful truth.  People don’t take you seriously when they ask, “Have You Seen It?” and your answer is “No.”   Your argument–no matter how correct it may be–is invalidated.   “How can you  criticize something you haven’t seen?” is the next thing you hear and saying, “I’m not.   I’m critiquing what I know about the topic, not the topic itself,” is a weak comeback.

The only way for me to repair my shredded credibility is to actually break down and see Django Unchained and then nobody could throw the “You haven’t seen it, so you can’t say anything about it” card in my face any longer.

Which is why I saw Django Unchained this morning. It’s a “B-” as a film and a “D-“for historical accuracy and relevance. One viewing will be quite enough for me.
It was better than Inglorious Basterds but it’s fatally overlong.  By the time Tarantino shows up only to offer a prop for the final bloodbath, I was checking my watch and the film is not nearly as much fun as I thought it would be.

Is it Best Picture of the Year material?  Not by my standards. Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz and Sam Jackson were all good. Maybe award-winning good. Jamie Foxx was stoic, but not spectacular. Kerry Washington cries and cringes real good.

“Django? Now where have I heard that name before….?”

The music was awful. Jim Croce? Really? Music should enhance a scene, not distract and annoy. Tarantino needs to find a composer who can write a frigging’ score. The absence of his longtime editor Sally Menke was felt. Too many scenes go on too long. Tarantino’s appearance was totally unnecessary and served only to provide Django the means for an explosive finish.

Regarding Tarantino’s “nigger” fetish, the N-word gets dropped so often it becomes numbing.   I stopped hearing it after a certain point. I just shut it out.   All the talk about “niggers” doing this and “niggers” doing that failed to resonate.   It became like a car alarm down the street.  Vaguely annoying, but not worth focusing on.

I get it that some folks are digging’ on Django for giving them a freshened up blaxploitation flick. Fine. I’ve seen Shaft, Superfly, Coffy, A Fistful of Dollars, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and heathenish. I know what genres Tarantino is tapping from and he’s a better director than any of the guys that made any of those movies (with the possible exception of Sergio Leone).

Django isn’t the story of slavery.  It’s a live action cartoon and revenge fantasy of how we might wish slavery had been.    Hissable villains and bad ass brothers putting heads to bed.  The reality was a lot more terrifying, far crueler, and a lot less cinematic.

Something I did find interesting. For as much of a bad ass as Django was, he didn’t give a damn about any of his fellow slaves except his wife. He offered others no hope, no leadership and no advice. Why would anyone want to look at him as any sort of half-assed “hero” when he was only out for himself? That’s no hero.

One guy is concerned about slavery. The other just wants blood.

The only person Django cared about liberating was his woman. He couldn’t give two farts for anyone else. Nothing wrong with Looking Out for Number #One, but let’s not make Django any symbol of Black Liberation when all he liberated was his lady and the hell with everybody else.  This is not a man of the people.   He’s motivated by  pure self-interest and nothing more.  Freeing his people from their shackles or leading an uprising, is not on his agenda.   His mentor, Dr. Schultz is far more distressed by the horrors of slavery than Django ever is.     Between Schultz and Django only one of them is affected by the horrors he’s seen and it’s not the Black guy.

As pure entertainment, Django delivers the goods.   As far as kicking White folks asses and killin’ them up because they need it so bad, it doesn’t disappoint.

Just don’t tell me Django is a Nat Turner, a Gabriel Prosser, a Denmark Vesey or even a John Brown.  He’s none of those things.   He’s a brother with a gun and an attitude and that is not something in short supply, but that’s all he is and apparently to the delight of many, that’s enough.

One of these days we’re going to get an honest, unflinching and real look at what the peculiar institution of slavery in the antebellum South was like.   It wasn’t like Tarantino’s wet dreams of Mandingo fights, Black bounty hunters killing Whites with impunity and blowing shit up real good.

It’s not just the “d” in “Django” that is silent.   Tarantino has created a competent bit of popcorn entertainment which is  guilty pleasure fun, but as far as offering any meaningful new insights into The Peculiar Institution of American Slavery it has nothing new to say.

“Django” is Tarantino Unchained

Just a couple of guys looking for White folks to kill.

Nothing says Christmas like a movie depicting Blacks as slaves, being torn apart by wild dogs, beaten and whipped, fighting each other to the death,  and repeatedly being called “NIGGER.”.   Is there a better way to celebrate Jesus Christ’s birthday than seeing Django Unchained?

Sure hope so.  I’m not the guy who tells others not to watch a movie he hasn’t seen himself.   I do not want to see Django Unchained and I won’t try to criticize a movie I haven’t seen.

But I’m very familiar with how Quentin Tarantino enjoys waving around his ghetto pass and gleefully drop “N-word” bombs in his movies.   He did it in  Reservoir Dogs.  He did it in Pulp Fiction.  He did it in Jackie Brown and he’ll be doing it on steroids in Django Unchained.

I’m curious what makes you think you call me “nigger?”

Django is Tarantino mashing up spaghetti westerns, blaxploitation and other genres he was fond of when he was still a video store clerk.  There’s nothing historically accurate about a Black bounty hunter running around the South with a kindly German (!) named Dr. King (ha-ha.  Real Funny, Quentin) Schultz killing White folks.  If that were remotely historically accurate it would be called “Nat Turner Unchained” and he’d be butchering White folks with hatches.

Go back through his filmography and you’ll see Tarantino indulging his Hip White Boy status.  He casually drops N-bombs like it ain’t no thing but a chicken wing.   Why?  Because he’s a critic’s darling and they give him a pass they would never give Spike Lee or any Black director.   Spike makes Do the Right Thing and he’s accused by hacks like Joe Klein of potentially starting race riots.   Tarantino makes a movie theorizing what Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name would be like it he were a bad-ass Black man killing White folks in the South and Black folks are the first ones to line up to buy a ticket.   Whose fantasy is being indulged anyhow?

What is the least authentic moment in Pulp Fiction, the movie that put Q.T. on the map?  Not the stabbing Uma Thurman through the breastbone with a shot of adrenalin.  Not the anal rape of Marcellus Wallace whose ass is literally saved by Bruce Willis.  It’s after Vincent Vega blows Marvin’s brains out and they end up at Jules Winfield’s “friend’s house.”

The entire movie Jules is a bad-ass.  He takes shit from nobody, not even his boss, Marcellus.  Yet when he’s standing in front of his “buddy” Jimmy (played by Quentin Tarantino) he turns into a straight-up PUNK.

"It's okay if I call you "nigger" 'cause we're pals, right, Sam?"

“It’s okay if I call you “nigger” ’cause we’re pals, right, Sam?”

[Jules, Vincent and Jimmie are drinking coffee in Jimmie’s kitchen]
Jules: Mmmm! Goddamn, Jimmie! This is some serious gourmet shit! Usually, me and Vince would be happy with some freeze-dried Taster’s Choice right, but he springs this serious GOURMET shit on us! What flavor is this?
Jimmie: Knock it off, Julie.
Jules: [pause] What?
Jimmie: I don’t need you to tell me how fucking good my coffee is, okay? I’m the one who buys it. I know how good it is. When Bonnie goes shopping she buys SHIT. I buy the gourmet expensive stuff because when I drink it I want to taste it. But you know what’s on my mind right now? It AIN’T the coffee in my kitchen, it’s the dead nigger in my garage.
Jules: Oh, Jimmie, don’t even worry about that…
Jimmie: [interupting] No, No, No, No, let me ask you a question. When you came pulling in here, did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said “Dead Nigger Storage”?
Jules: Jimmie, you know I ain’t seen no…
Jimmie: [cutting him off again; getting angry] Did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said “Dead Nigger Storage”?
Jules: [pause] No. I didn’t.
Jimmie: You know WHY you didn’t see that sign?
Jules: Why?
Jimmie: ‘Cause it ain’t there, ’cause storing dead niggers ain’t my fucking business, that’s why!    

What is the point of that scene?   Besides  Tarantino trying to make Sam Jackson his bitch while he screams “nigger” repeatedly.   Is it to set up something of importance?  Is it a key plot point?  Does it provide exposition or advance the story in a way, shape or form?   Or is it simply there for shock value?

There is a difference between using “nigger” to be historically accurate or realistic (Martin Scorsese knows how to do this and not be gratuitous in the usage) and doing it because Tarantino is one of those White boys who thinks he’s so down with the chocolate he has a ghetto pass to say what he wants and charge you $10 to watch him do it.

I say he doesn’t.

“Now, in this scene, I grab your gun and call you ‘nigger.’ Ready?”

If Tarantino really wanted to do a movie about a bad-ass brutha who kills White folks, nobody’s made The Nat Turner Story, but that’s a feel-bad, not a feel-good story.   The guy whose last movie featured machine-gunning killing Hitler isn’t exactly interested in historical accuracy.

I suspect if Spike Lee were to make a movie about a Black guy and his Jewish buddy were traipsing around Europe in WWII killing Nazis in bloody, graphically violent ways and liberating concentration camp prisoners, someone would say it was in bad taste.   There will NEVER be a mainstream movie made by Hollywood that correctly,  honestly and accurately portrays slavery in all its horror.   Blacks are either bystanders waiting for the good White folk to save us (Lincoln) or Black action figures playing out someone’s revenge fantasy (Django).

Blaxplotation was based upon the fact that Black people will pay good money to see their most negative stereotypes (pimps, pushers, gangsters) glorified as urban heroes.   Tarantino is simply the latest self-styled auteur to carry on the time-honored tradition of getting Blacks to embrace fairy tales as entertainment.

I like some Tarantino flicks and hate some others.  I can’t say whether Django is any good or not, but I know I have no interest in seeing it.  I’m just not feeling this movie.  I listened to a podcast the other day where two Black critics, one Latino and one White dude all agreed Tarantino used the racial epithet excessively and gratuitously.    Do I really need to hear “NIGGER” screamed at me in Dolby Surround-Sound for two hours and 45 minutes?

It’s okay if others do, but I do not.