I don’t think he did. If you’ve seen it, which you must have to say such a thing, what in it did you find racist? And I have seen it, by the way. Twice.
You should really see a movie before you criticize it. You should certainly do so before you use that movie to accuse someone of racism. To act otherwise does not present your own character in a positive or appealing light.
I did see the movie and unfortunately heard the racial slurs repeatedly. I didn’t count them myself, but its reported there were 110 uttered. I guess we can assume thats accurate.
Interesting that the ground breaking mini series Roots managed to cover the horrors of slavery without those words. They didn’t sugar coat slavery either. There were some disturbing scenes, but at least the film covered a sensitive subject in a respectful way. I have Roots on DVD and watched it several times.
Wow, I’m not sure I believe that you’ve seen it, but I’ll go with it. You discounted all the non-racist content because of one word. Ok.
Roots was a TV miniseries in the days before cable. It was shown on prime time television over multiple nights, and you’d better believe there was a lot of sugar coating for the home audience going on.
Somebody counted? Someone has way too much time on their hands.
I’d say this is a coating of sugar.
I liked Roots, but I’m not sure a “respectful way” is necessarily the ideal approach for this subject.
Wow. I don’t doubt that you saw the film, but I do find it very interesting the different take two people can have on the same movie.
I thought the film dealt very well with the absurdity of the slavery culture and that one side was white and the other black was just historical accuracy.
Tarantino did a great job showing that a person’s race has nothing to do with how good, smart, bad or evil a person is, and actually also does well showing that how good or bad you are is open to interpretation (really, how can a bounty hunter who only kills be good, and was Jackson’s character of an old slave good or evil?).
aceplace57: I would highly recommend you seeing the film again, but next time leave your preconceived notions on race behind and just absorb the story unfolding on the screen. Anyone calling the film racist has other motives or prejudices they aren’t being honest about when discussing the film.
One last thing: Spike Lee is an attention whore.
Since when is portraying racism in and of itself racist?
You make a much better point than I in far fewer words. 
So you’re done? You heard the N-word in the dialogue of a movie set in 1858, so it must be racist?
Dude.
Haven’t seen the film yet. Everyone I have talked to who HAS seen said it’s terrific.
I’ve got a better idea, Mr. Authenticity. Why don’t you check out the actual book Roots and see how Alex Haley treated the subject when not having to deal with the tender sensibilities of 80s network television.
That’s why Spike Lee says he’s boycotting the movie.
Bottom line: he hasn’t watched it and has no intention to watch it.
Bears repeating again, because apparently it isn’t clear:
- Spike Lee isn’t some Great Black Voice of America. Just pulling out a random black director to say nay on something doesn’t provide any real support for your argument (and is actually a rather racist argument disguised as an anti-racist argument, come to think of it).
- Spike Lee has absolutely Zero Credibility on any movie he hasn’t watched.
- What, again, does this have to do with Bass Reeves? Seems to have devolved into a Tarantino bashing thread, instead.
I agree this thread somehow took a right turn. Django isn’t my cup of tea. But obviously there are many people watching it and had a good time. I agree everyone should watch it and give it a chance.
I liked parts of the narrative. There was potential there for a very good movie. Maybe my background made it too difficult to accept Tarantino’s approach. I grew up hearing every racial slur imaginable amongst peers in high school in the late 70’s and early 80’s. I’m glad that things have changed and prefer not hearing it again. But thats just me. Everyone experiences a movie in a unique way.
When Tarantino did his film, it’s racist. When Spike did Bamboozled, it was satirical.
And Django wasn’t Tarantino’s most offensive film. Basterds was offensively mediocre.
I still repeat my question. What was racist about the movie?
I don’t think you can call it racist and then call it “not my cup of tea” and kind of agree to disagree. Please defend your position, explain how it was racist, or admit it wasn’t.
50 years after the Martin Luther King speech and the conservatives finally have a civil rights issue in which they can rally around. I am so proud of their battle against a film in which white people are shown to be callous, cruel, and murderous towards the people they owned.
:rolleyes:
To me, the “outrage” is because it shows the lie about the most common argument/belief racists have towards slavery in America, that “Black people were treated well because they were valuable property, and you don’t purposely harm valuable property, right?”
It is the possible exposure of this lie that they’re pissed about. But they can’t say it, so it’s all “Oh, look at that mean old white director, forcing his actors to say the ‘n-word’ 110 times! Isn’t that just horrible?”
Does this mean that the ever-vigilant anti-“PC” crowd has seen the error of their ways? Heh… I make me laugh.
I’m not sure what else I can say. For me the language was unnecessary and offensive. It took me totally out of the story. I could brush off a few N words that were used to establish the negative characters. But there was a seemingly unending stream of them. Reports say 110 occurrences. I didn’t waste my time counting.
I’ve hated that word all my life and the ugly prejudices behind it. I see nothing to apologize for.
Other people were able to enjoy the story and ignore the language. That’s fine too. It’s a movie. Buy a ticket and go if you want.
You can explain how he made a racist movie.
Well, black Americans are rushing en masse to see this movie, so maybe they didn’t get the message about it being a racist film.
Or maybe, just maybe, they like what they’re seeing, and are coming back for more.
Unfortunately for Spike, way more black folks have seen Tarantino movies than have seen Spike movies. Jackie Brown was so popular among black audiences in the DC suburb I grew up in, that it was completely sold out at every nearby theater on opening weekend. Black kids love themselves some Kill Bill.
If you didn’t know the ethnicity of the cats involved, you’d think that QT made the art films loved by critics and avoided by audiences, while Spike made the flicks that filled up the multiplex with chocolate like a Whitman sampler.
Tarantino has a tendency to be overly offensive. For instance, in “Inglourious Basterds,” he could have just shown one or two Swastikas to establish the Nazis as bad guys but he insisted on showing them constantly.