But hey, what are the
chances of that happening?
*looks at sidebar on right*
Oh. Pretty high, I guess.
(Hey, what do you know? No spoilers in this post. Well, unless you’re the type to intuit entire
story events from a handful of words. In
which case, quasi-spoilers!
...Or if you prefer, quasar-spoilers.)
A quick glance at the bottom of the Wikipedia page for the movie says that there’s some controversy surrounding Django Unchained. Notable names like Spike Lee and Tavis Smiley
aren’t too happy with the product because it’s an inaccurate depiction of
slavery at the time, or because it’s painting those times in a
much-too-cheerful light (by virtue of its main character running and gunning
across the U.S.), and things of that sort.
And there are opinions that Django
is a way to celebrate killing white men -- all of whom are apparently evil,
while the black characters (most of them, at least) are inherently good. It certainly doesn’t help that Jamie Foxx
made a “joke” about how he got to kill so many white guys throughout the movie.
Honestly? I kind of see where they’re coming from. There’s a pretty high body count, and a
massive percentage of those deaths are abrasive (to put it lightly) white
men. This is more or less a revenge
fantasy -- one with lots of merit and deeper ideas than just “go here, shoot
this bad guy”, but a revenge fantasy nonetheless. There’s one, maybe two sympathetic white characters throughout the entire movie
-- and it’s a friggin’ long movie. If
you’re looking for a realistic depiction of slavery and the social politics
surrounding them, you’re much better off reading a history book; there’s some
nasty stuff depicted here, but it’s more than a little obvious that it’s for
the sake of style instead of accuracy.
Django himself is frequently a maelstrom of destruction when the need
arises, to the point where one wonders if he was written as a teenager’s OC for
a fanfic.
That said, I don’t
think there’s anything to worry about too extensively. Is there stuff worth getting angry
about? Probably -- especially if you’re
the sort who gets in deep with racial relations and historical precedents. But just as the violence in the movie is
designed to be visceral, guttural, and instinctively unsettling, so too is
what’s on display here. Things get
painted in pretty black and white terms (har de har har) for virtually the
whole movie, but at least two of its central characters break out of the
expected roles of their race and balance things out. Adding in some shades of gray, if you will. And Django himself doesn’t exactly get off
scot-free; given the things that he does over the course of the movie to both races, and the fact that he’s clearly not role model material (as
Tarantino’s non-violent viewpoint would suggest), I’d say we’re not meant to
root for Django with anything resembling blind admiration. You
could make a pretty good argument that Django is actually the villain of the
movie.
But with all that said,
I wonder if there’s a certain…unpleasantness to Django Unchained that lies in the undercurrent. You know what I mean -- something that your
brain notices, even if you don’t consciously dwell on it. I can’t help but feel like it’s the support
of white people -- active support or not -- that Django becomes anything
remotely resembling successful. The start
of the movie has him in chains and left virtually helpless; if not for the
nigh-random intervention of a white man, he would have likely been tending to
more fields in the next week or so. From
then on, there’s the question of how much of his character and culture he has
to sacrifice to get what he wants; is he still black deep down and gains
strength from his heritage? Or can
success only be found if he abandons those ways and embraces the social mores
around him? Is he realizing his full
potential on his own? Or is he just
playing copycat, and getting everything that makes him Django the ultra-cool,
ultra-smart gunslinger thanks to the prodding of the race he resents? Is his mission really one born out of
justice, virtue, and goodness? Or just
biting the hand that feeds him?
There are a lot of
complexities and issues to Django
Unchained thanks to its setting. And
there’s no way that the movie can address each of those issues satisfactorily
-- chiefly because this isn’t a movie that’s a hundred percent about slavery,
or a hundred percent about race relations.
But you know what? That’s all
right, at least in my opinion. None of
the things I mentioned, or the movie’s detractors have mentioned (or will
mention), are things that instantly make the movie unwatchable or worthless or
insulting. They’re just things to think
about at the end of the day. There are
plenty of points worth discussing and debating amongst friends and peers, and
that in itself is something that gives the movie more merit (if not
credibility). I can only assume that
Tarantino’s chief goal is a simple one, and one that any creator has in mind: telling a good story. And he told a good story.
I’m not going to sit
here and tell you that the problems the movie presents should be glossed over,
or that the anger or disdain expressed should be dismissed. Much like the movie itself, they’re things
that can and should be observed. And
that’s about all I can say, really…at least, all I can say without requiring
the consumption of both my feet.
Voltech,
awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay! *jumps out of window*
No comments:
Post a Comment