Django Unchained -- new Tarantino film (1 Viewer)

[drummer]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

It seems your issue has more to do with the filmmaker than the verisimilitude of the timeframeWhat do you think most everyone referred to black people as in the mid 19th century?

People can make a 21st century movie and use that word over 100 times too.

But it isn't set in the 21st centuryIs your answer to not make the movie at all?

The word isn't justified by the time period. You still can make a contemporary movie using that word liberally. Tarantino already has. It's not my work, so can't answer to it. All I can answer too is if I would see it or not, which I won't. But not because of the word. That's only part of it. If that word has to be in that script over 100 times, it doesn't fit my taste.

You can make a point about racism without words or blood and violence. I'd rather see that.

This is another interesting point, and I agree. But I'd rather watch 20 films about racism that are all radically unique than watch 20 films that are all identical in tone or content.

Which is odd because you can watch 20 Tarantino films and they are all pretty much the same.

 

[drummer]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic. There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo. I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

 

[drummer]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word. If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it. I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs? Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

 

[drummer]

Just another thought: someone mentioned that Tarantino get's the most out of Sam Jackson, but lest we forget, Jackson's most harrowing character IMO was in Jungle Fever. Heck, I'd throw a 20 at Halle Berry's character, if I could find a crack whore like her with perfect teeth and cheekbones. Not to mention the rack.

 

[drummer]

So? There is plenty of R Rated stuff posted here. That's a horrid answer coming from a pretentious sort as you.Do me a favor and post ###### over 110 times. There ya go fanboy! You've just wrote a Tarantino script!

Pretentious? Is that the best you can do?

Again, you don't need anymore than that.

I could tell you who is coming off as pretentious here with a smidgen of holier than thou thrown in but you wouldn't like it.

Oh jeez thanks. Like this isn't meant to be pretentious at all or condescending or this and that.

No it was meant to be a bit condescending and maybe a touch insulting. Did it succeed?

Oh, I missed this. Since I'm late to respond....There lies your answer.

 

[jdoggydogg]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

 

[jdoggydogg]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

Well, this is an entirely different subject - and one that interests me. Almost every artist that's ever lived has a peak period of 5 to 15 years where they produce their best work. And inevitably, their later efforts always pale in comparison. Guys like Miles Davis and Pablo Picasso produced great work over several decades, but they are the exception.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic. There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo. I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

Sure. Every Tarantino movie will always be compared with every classic Tarantino movie. This reminds me of Scorsese's The Departed. I really love that movie, and I've long argued it would get more love had it not been made by Scorsese.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word.

If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it.

I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.

But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.

Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs?

Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.

ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..

Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock.

Absolutely. I am a Tarantino fanboy, and I love Verhoeven's wacky insanity. I wouldn't ever call these guys "great" in the same way I'd call Coppola and Scorsese great. But they make entertaining movies that appeal to me.

Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

I don't think it's a matter of growing up. If you look at Jackie Brown, that's a very mature, adult movie. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.



If you had substituted The Elephant Man with Irreversible, he would have jumped out of the window.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic.

There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.

I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.

I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo.

I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.

Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

Sure. Every Tarantino movie will always be compared with every classic Tarantino movie. This reminds me of Scorsese's The Departed. I really love that movie, and I've long argued it would get more love had it not been made by Scorsese.

I don't think that's an unfair thing to do at all, people do the same thing with every other director who has made phenomenal films. To be honest I think Django Unchained would get less love if it was made by a different director; besides the acting performances it really wasn't very good and wouldn't have got the Oscar nomination for Best Picture if it was made by a different director imo.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic.

There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.

I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.

I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo.

I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.

Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

Sure. Every Tarantino movie will always be compared with every classic Tarantino movie. This reminds me of Scorsese's The Departed. I really love that movie, and I've long argued it would get more love had it not been made by Scorsese.

I don't think that's an unfair thing to do at all, people do the same thing with every other director who has made phenomenal films. To be honest I think Django Unchained would get less love if it was made by a different director; besides the acting performances it really wasn't very good and wouldn't have got the Oscar nomination for Best Picture if it was made by a different director imo.

I can't argue with any of that. I don't think I'll ever rank Django among Tarantino's best efforts.

 

[drummer]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

 

[jdoggydogg]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

Raging Bull is very bloody. You think that movie isn't violent? I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

 

[drummer]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word.

If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it.

I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.

But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.

Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs?

Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.

ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..

Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock.

Absolutely. I am a Tarantino fanboy, and I love Verhoeven's wacky insanity. I wouldn't ever call these guys "great" in the same way I'd call Coppola and Scorsese great. But they make entertaining movies that appeal to me.

Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

I don't think it's a matter of growing up. If you look at Jackie Brown, that's a very mature, adult movie. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.



If you had substituted The Elephant Man with Irreversible, he would have jumped out of the window.

I've only seen Jackie Brown once, and that's all I needed to see of that film. I do like Robert Forster in that movie though. Requiem For a Dream wasn't out yet, so my roommate was safe there.

 

[drummer]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

Raging Bull is very bloody. You think that movie isn't violent? I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

Raging Bull of course is a boxing movie. As many hits to the head as he shot, I didn't see any brains splattered. I haven't seen it in years, so I could be forgetting something. Brian De Palma has made plenty a bloody movie, and if there one director you could compare to QT, it might be De Palma, who De Palma still is a better director than QT IMO.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word.

If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it.

I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.

But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.

Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs?

Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.

ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..

Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock.

Absolutely. I am a Tarantino fanboy, and I love Verhoeven's wacky insanity. I wouldn't ever call these guys "great" in the same way I'd call Coppola and Scorsese great. But they make entertaining movies that appeal to me.

Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

I don't think it's a matter of growing up. If you look at Jackie Brown, that's a very mature, adult movie. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.



If you had substituted The Elephant Man with Irreversible, he would have jumped out of the window.

I've only seen Jackie Brown once, and that's all I needed to see of that film. I do like Robert Forster in that movie though. Requiem For a Dream wasn't out yet, so my roommate was safe there.

I love Requiem, but yeah, it's very dark.I just saw Detachment last month, and that's one of the bleakest movies I've ever seen. So depressing, it's almost ludicrous.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

 

[drummer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Thank you.

 

[jdoggydogg]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

Raging Bull is very bloody. You think that movie isn't violent? I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

Raging Bull of course is a boxing movie. As many hits to the head as he shot, I didn't see any brains splattered. I haven't seen it in years, so I could be forgetting something. Brian De Palma has made plenty a bloody movie, and if there one director you could compare to QT, it might be De Palma, who De Palma still is a better director than QT IMO.

I love DePalma, and I am certain Tarantino would count DePalma as one of his influences. Better? That's debatable. For every Scarface and Dressed to Kill, you have garbage like The Black Dahlia, Femme Fatale, Mission to Mars, Snake Eyes and The Bonfire of the Vanities.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

I agree to an extent. But you know, Mrs. Dogg is a teacher, and she works with people that have various mental disabilities (autism, aspergers, tourettes, etc.). Having heard a lot of Tarantino interviews, he sounds like he's on the autism spectrum. Not an excuse, just an observation.

 

[drummer]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

Raging Bull is very bloody. You think that movie isn't violent? I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

Raging Bull of course is a boxing movie. As many hits to the head as he shot, I didn't see any brains splattered. I haven't seen it in years, so I could be forgetting something. Brian De Palma has made plenty a bloody movie, and if there one director you could compare to QT, it might be De Palma, who De Palma still is a better director than QT IMO.

I love DePalma, and I am certain Tarantino would count DePalma as one of his influences. Better? That's debatable. For every Scarface and Dressed to Kill, you have garbage like The Black Dahlia, Femme Fatale, Mission to Mars, Snake Eyes and The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Sure, and who knows if QT's curve winds up like De Palma?

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Thank you.

I don't know if you've ever played games on-line. But I play a lot of live multiplayer Call of Duty games, and I am constantly shocked by the casual, vicious racism I hear all the time in those games. But that is another universe from the stuff Tarantino is attempting. You've never once accused Tarantino of being a racist, so I'll assume you think he isn't a racist. Don't you think that laughing at racist morons is cathartic? I mean, racist propoganda and lies are so insidious, don't you think that these simpltetons border on the absurd?You said that had Tarantino used less racial slurs in the movie, you'd give him a pass. How many N words are acceptable in any given movie?

 

[jdoggydogg]

How do you make that movie without using the word ######?

Oh,and by the way, use it all you like, there is a language filter here

How do you make a movie using that word over 100 times? When it's a Tarantino film. I don't type that word because I don't want to. That's my choice, despite the filter.

We agree that the word is extremely hurtful.How do you feel when a comedian like Dave Chappelle or Eddie Murphy uses it?

Their body of work reflects more than just that word, and Chappelle's "The N-Bombs" skit is way more effective in a contemporary setting then just being lazy like Tarantino is by saying "Well, people used it in that time period". South Park did something similar with the "Wheel of Fortune" segment. Those two examples show absurdity using that word in generalization. Afro-American comics like Pryor used that word to connect to their audiences reflecting ther as well as the Afro-American experience. To them, it's deeper than just using it as a line like Dennis Hopper's in True Romance where that line was meant to insult Christopher Walken's Mob Boss character. I know a Sicilian from the old country who was appalled not by the word when she saw that scene, but by that correlation. It wound up insulting two cultures, and that's what that line was meant for. It's a pure racist insult, bottom line. If an Afro-American person uses it, I have no license to say much about it. An Afro-American young man from Kentucky I used to work with used it all the time around me, and even said it was OK that I can say it around him. I told him it's different coming from me, and I grew up around and was a target of prejudice most of my young life. I have used that word in the past, but it doesn't make it right. You can't use it liberally because it's a horrid term that has death and suffering along with the lack of human rights in this country attached to it.

Had Tarantino used it less, there is no real issue. But his body of work has that word used a lot, and he should damn well answer to it. His use of that word was vulgar in his past scripts, and his reaction to this one is appalling. He is still a Man Child with a huge budget to make films. The day he finally grows up and makes a real film without the violence and vulgarity is the day he can be mentioned with a Milos Forman or even Martin Scorcese, who can make a film without those themes.

I agree with some of this. I think where we disagree is you're saying that a "real" film doesn't have vulgarity or violence, and that's something I couldn't ever agree with. By this measure, every Disney film ever made is a real film. It's interesting that you used Scorsese as an example of a real filmmaker, since most of his greatest works are rife with violence and vulgarity.

There are plenty of Scorcese movies that don't have his signature brand of violence in them. Is Raging Bull anything like The Departed? Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore anything like Goodfellas? Casino anything like The Last Waltz? Taxi Driver anything like The Color Of Money? Mean Streets anything like The Age of Innocence? Cape Fear anything like The King of Comedy?

Raging Bull is very bloody. You think that movie isn't violent? I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

Raging Bull of course is a boxing movie. As many hits to the head as he shot, I didn't see any brains splattered. I haven't seen it in years, so I could be forgetting something. Brian De Palma has made plenty a bloody movie, and if there one director you could compare to QT, it might be De Palma, who De Palma still is a better director than QT IMO.

I love DePalma, and I am certain Tarantino would count DePalma as one of his influences. Better? That's debatable. For every Scarface and Dressed to Kill, you have garbage like The Black Dahlia, Femme Fatale, Mission to Mars, Snake Eyes and The Bonfire of the Vanities.

Sure, and who knows if QT's curve winds up like De Palma?

Almost every artist's curve follows that path. It's inevitable.

 

[17seconds]

I enjoyed Django. As a Tarantino fan, I rank it somewhere in the middle below Inglorious Basterds (which I recently saw finally) and about the same as Kill Bill. Doesn't come close to Pulp Fiction or Dogs.Could have been 15 minutes shorter. Wasn't bored but I felt like I was watching a director's cut.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I highly recommend this NPR interview:

Quentin Tarantino, 'Unchained' And Unruly

Fans will like it. Even Tarantino detractors will like it. It's the good and bad of Tarantino all in one place. Listen to the entire thing. There are a couple of times where he says something kind of outrageous then offers an interesting follow up to explain.

One thing is clear: Tarantino sees movies as pure fantasy - not to be taken literally, but to be seen almost as dreams. I think that explains some of his seemingly casual attitude towards these hot button issues.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

I agree to an extent. But you know, Mrs. Dogg is a teacher, and she works with people that have various mental disabilities (autism, aspergers, tourettes, etc.). Having heard a lot of Tarantino interviews, he sounds like he's on the autism spectrum. Not an excuse, just an observation.

I wouldn't be surprised.I'm 100% convinced that Wes Anderson is as well.

 

[drummer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Thank you.

I don't know if you've ever played games on-line. But I play a lot of live multiplayer Call of Duty games, and I am constantly shocked by the casual, vicious racism I hear all the time in those games. But that is another universe from the stuff Tarantino is attempting. You've never once accused Tarantino of being a racist, so I'll assume you think he isn't a racist. Don't you think that laughing at racist morons is cathartic? I mean, racist propoganda and lies are so insidious, don't you think that these simpltetons border on the absurd?You said that had Tarantino used less racial slurs in the movie, you'd give him a pass. How many N words are acceptable in any given movie?

I don't think I said I would give him a pass if he used it less. I did say if he used 90 times less this may not had been an issue like it is. I'm not calling QT racist, just that he is playing fast and loose with a racial slur, and always has. I don't find laughing at racist morons cathartic. I don't find laughing at anybody who victimized people funny for entertainment's sake, but even I can be hypocritical with that with any Sandusky joke. There is a fine line you should cross for the sake of portraying themes, but QT didn't cross a fine line. He is parting the Red Sea using that slur over 100 times in a movie. I don't know the length of the film, but that's a lot of one word in a script. Scorcese used the F-word I think over 100 times in Casino, but you can find a Head Coach in the NFL use that on the sideline quite a few times during a game. I doubt he can use the N-Bomb like he would the F-word. Online games really don't help either, but not just due to the racism combined with the violence. I'd rather my kid grab a soldering iron and a circuit board than waste hours playing a game.

 

[17seconds]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

 

[drummer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

The "best of all time" part was more absurd.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

I agree to an extent. But you know, Mrs. Dogg is a teacher, and she works with people that have various mental disabilities (autism, aspergers, tourettes, etc.). Having heard a lot of Tarantino interviews, he sounds like he's on the autism spectrum. Not an excuse, just an observation.

I wouldn't be surprised.I'm 100% convinced that Wes Anderson is as well.

Wes Anderson is definitely on the spectrum.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

Really?

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

Really?

Beats me. What was the point he was trying to make?

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

Really?

Beats me. What was the point he was trying to make?

I don't think Tarantino films are trying to make a point, they're just telling interesting and entertaining made up stories

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't think Tarantino films are trying to make a point, they're just telling interesting and entertaining made up stories

People are seriously arguing about whether Tarantino was snubbed for not being nominated for Best Director. The film was nominated for Best Picture. jdoggy's persistent defense of QT suggests that he, at least, thinks there's something more to QT than a guy who make mindless action popcorn flicks.This link, IMO, sort of gets to the heart of what is wrong with Tarantino's later movies, particulary Django and Inglorious Basterds. Or, at least, it explains why those films upset people who take the Holocaust and slavery-two of the greatest human evils of all time-seriously. Tarantino is making "alternate history"-and in doing so he is implicitly arguing that stories that deal with the very real, very messy realities of those situations don't interest him. He's interested in using those events as backdrops where a lone hero, or a small group, kick righteous ### in the pursuit of revenge. We stand at something of a remove from World War II and the evils of Nazism. And most of us are similarly removed from the pre-Confederate South. But there is something trivializing about playing an Uncle Tom character or the KKK for laughs while at the same time ramping up the extreme violence of slavery (and use of the N-word)for shock value.If the earlier posted thesis (that Tarantino is representing a world where such revenge fantasies are actually recorded history and his later characters are molded by that) is correct, it still raises the question of whether that conceit is really worthy of a nearly twenty year film career. That's a lot of energy to expend on a pretty banal point.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

Really?

Beats me. What was the point he was trying to make?

I don't think Tarantino films are trying to make a point, they're just telling interesting and entertaining made up stories

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

Really?

Beats me. What was the point he was trying to make?

I don't think Tarantino films are trying to make a point, they're just telling interesting and entertaining made up stories

I meant the point that 17 Seconds was trying to make. Not QT.

 

[jdoggydogg]

People are seriously arguing about whether Tarantino was snubbed for not being nominated for Best Director. The film was nominated for Best Picture. jdoggy's persistent defense of QT suggests that he, at least, thinks there's something more to QT than a guy who make mindless action popcorn flicks.

Are you saying that Jackie Brown is a mindless action popcorn flick? I am not saying that Tarantino is Merchant/Ivory. I'm not claiming he's Francis Ford Coppola. I'm merely defending him as an interesting filmmaker.

If the earlier posted thesis (that Tarantino is representing a world where such revenge fantasies are actually recorded history and his later characters are molded by that) is correct, it still raises the question of whether that conceit is really worthy of a nearly twenty year film career. That's a lot of energy to expend on a pretty banal point.

I really don't understand why viewers require artists to make art that fits a certain criteria. Do you want every movie in the world to be made by David Mamet, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick? I think that would be a boring world to live in. I love those directors. But movies I are like food: I require variety.It's like Tarantino's critics reject him for the simple reason that he isn't making serious films. See his movies or don't see them. This business of requiring artists to live up to some moral code seems to misunderstand the very mechanisms that elicit art to begin with.

 

[GDogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

I agree to an extent. But you know, Mrs. Dogg is a teacher, and she works with people that have various mental disabilities (autism, aspergers, tourettes, etc.). Having heard a lot of Tarantino interviews, he sounds like he's on the autism spectrum. Not an excuse, just an observation.

I actually hung out and drank heavily with him one night about 15 years ago. He has some odd social skills.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

I agree to an extent. But you know, Mrs. Dogg is a teacher, and she works with people that have various mental disabilities (autism, aspergers, tourettes, etc.). Having heard a lot of Tarantino interviews, he sounds like he's on the autism spectrum. Not an excuse, just an observation.

I actually hung out and drank heavily with him one night about 15 years ago. He has some odd social skills.

That does not surprise me at all.

 

[drummer]

People are seriously arguing about whether Tarantino was snubbed for not being nominated for Best Director. The film was nominated for Best Picture. jdoggy's persistent defense of QT suggests that he, at least, thinks there's something more to QT than a guy who make mindless action popcorn flicks.

Are you saying that Jackie Brown is a mindless action popcorn flick? I am not saying that Tarantino is Merchant/Ivory. I'm not claiming he's Francis Ford Coppola. I'm merely defending him as an interesting filmmaker.

If the earlier posted thesis (that Tarantino is representing a world where such revenge fantasies are actually recorded history and his later characters are molded by that) is correct, it still raises the question of whether that conceit is really worthy of a nearly twenty year film career. That's a lot of energy to expend on a pretty banal point.

I really don't understand why viewers require artists to make art that fits a certain criteria. Do you want every movie in the world to be made by David Mamet, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick? I think that would be a boring world to live in. I love those directors. But movies I are like food: I require variety.It's like Tarantino's critics reject him for the simple reason that he isn't making serious films. See his movies or don't see them. This business of requiring artists to live up to some moral code seems to misunderstand the very mechanisms that elicit art to begin with.

Filmakers don't live up to a moral code. They live to a bottom line code. If QT's movies didn't make $$, there is no QT.

 

[jdoggydogg]

People are seriously arguing about whether Tarantino was snubbed for not being nominated for Best Director. The film was nominated for Best Picture. jdoggy's persistent defense of QT suggests that he, at least, thinks there's something more to QT than a guy who make mindless action popcorn flicks.

Are you saying that Jackie Brown is a mindless action popcorn flick? I am not saying that Tarantino is Merchant/Ivory. I'm not claiming he's Francis Ford Coppola. I'm merely defending him as an interesting filmmaker.

If the earlier posted thesis (that Tarantino is representing a world where such revenge fantasies are actually recorded history and his later characters are molded by that) is correct, it still raises the question of whether that conceit is really worthy of a nearly twenty year film career. That's a lot of energy to expend on a pretty banal point.

I really don't understand why viewers require artists to make art that fits a certain criteria. Do you want every movie in the world to be made by David Mamet, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick? I think that would be a boring world to live in. I love those directors. But movies I are like food: I require variety.It's like Tarantino's critics reject him for the simple reason that he isn't making serious films. See his movies or don't see them. This business of requiring artists to live up to some moral code seems to misunderstand the very mechanisms that elicit art to begin with.

Filmakers don't live up to a moral code. They live to a bottom line code. If QT's movies didn't make $, there is no QT.

Art and commerce. Constantly intertwined, always at odds.

 

[17seconds]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

You really haven't caught on that villains in QT films are as likable as the heroes?You can call him derivative, a hack, whatever... Maybe the story arc isn't so great or it's over stylized. But the last thing you can hate on QT for is his dialogue. Guys like Samuel Jackson and Christoph Waltz love saying his words so much they shine in his movies. His dialog is the best ever, and it has nothing to do with the number of n-words and m-fers, but he makes those words fit perfectly.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic.

There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.

I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.

I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo.

I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.

Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

Sure. Every Tarantino movie will always be compared with every classic Tarantino movie. This reminds me of Scorsese's The Departed. I really love that movie, and I've long argued it would get more love had it not been made by Scorsese.

You & me both JDogg..I can see complaints based on Infernal Affairs, but AFAIC, The Departed is perfect. I love Jack, I love Leo, I love crime dramas, I love Scorsese soundtracks fueled by the Stones..The Departed is GREATNESS, and considering the mob movies going a decade back before it and since, you would think more people would realize this.

 

[Kenny Powers]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

So Natural Born Killers was just a terrible movie??I personally really like U-Turn and Savages, and W. was pretty good too.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I like Spike. I like his personality, and I count Do The Right Thing as one of my top 100 favorite movies. But he just looks bad here. If a civilian wants to boycott a movie without even seeing it, that's expected. But I expect more from an artist in the same field.

Tarantino in that interview 'looked' worse. Using the N-Bomb to excess is just plain arrogant coming from him. Lee made "4 Little Girls", so Lee isn't out of context criticizing Tarantino. Tarantino trivialized the N-Bomb to comic effect. Using that word to excess combined with the blood spaghetti slopfest is no comment on that period of time. It's Tarantino flipping the bird at convention for sure, but it's for his own purposes, not for the sake of art. Tarantino knows how much his scripts get quoted too, so that's more calculated than his half ### defense of using that word.

If I posted that word over 100 times here, I would get banned for life. You'll tell me this isn't an R-Rated movie. Which somehow qualifies that word. Micheal Richards pretty much ended his career shouting that word at a heckler, while Richard Pryor used it in a title of one of his recordings and in his routines. Yet Pryor later regretted using that word, and stopped using it, and I'm sure Richards regrets it.

I'm just not gonna accept it as art when I feel Tarantino uses that word for commerce. He could had used it 90 less times and still got his point across, but that word flows out of him like water. If you accept that, fine. He wasn't making an accurate period film anyway, so I guess it's all entertainment to you.

Well said. Now that this discussion has transcended any minor personal beef you and I had, we can get down to some really fascinating discussions on this subject. Where to begin? Is Tarantino a great social critic in the realm of men like Mark Twain or Aldus Huxley? No. I know that Tarantino is very proud of his work, and I am certain he believes he is very intelligent. However, I also think that Tarantino would freely admit that he makes entertaining movies that often simply intersect with powerful cultural and historical topics. So even though I liked Django, I would agree with some critics that the movie simultaneously opens up some very painful wounds while offering no answers in lieu of grisly action and jokes.

But let's be honest: is it every filmmaker's duty to present simple truths in a somber, stoic manner? I think not. Take the KKK scene: someone else mentioned that it's almost ripped right out of Blazing Saddles, and that's an apt comparison. To take that further, the KKK scene reminded me of Dave Chappell's sketch about the white Klansman. There are some things in life - like slavery and racism - that are almost too much to bear. They are so horrific and awful, I have a hard time coping with them on any level. So to laugh at this stuff is cathartic to a degree.

Did you read up on that ESPN commentator who said that Robert Griffen III isn't a real black man? I haven't read your opinion on that matter. But personally, I think that's a mean, awful thing to say about a man. Does the race of the man make those comments worse or less bad? I don't know. Would it be ok if a black director used the N word 100 times in his movie? Even for laughs?

Words are very painful. That old saying that sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I hate that cliche. Words are the most hurtful thing in the world. You can easily recover from a broken bone. Words can sting for a lifetime. So I am acutely aware that the N word is a malicious, terrible word. So is Tarantino. I think that Spike Lee is angry at Tarantino because he believes that Django Unchained is turning a horrific mass murder into mere entertainment. What about Schindler's List? Yes, Spielberg's masterpiece is a serious, dark portrait of a terrible tragedy. That movie made a lot of money, and it gave millions of viewers a chance to feel a shred of goodness about something where there is no reason to feel good.

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock. William Friedkin will never live down Jade. That movie pretty hurt Linda Fiorentio's and Chazz Palmenteri's career's as well as made a mockery of David Caruso's decision to leave NYPD Blue.Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.

ETA: about RG3 and the comment - We live in a day where we have a multi page discussion over Brent Musberger's comments over a beauty queen and a Bama QB. Like the hot cheerleader never dates the High School QB. Had that Bama QB was dating a Mayim Bialik, or the beauty queen was dating a computer science major..

Blazing Saddles is a terrific movie that parodies westerns more than it does race, and a lot of it was almost by accident. They songwriter who worte the theme song didn't even know it was a comedy, and Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid wasn't Brook's first choice IIRC. Difference between Blazing Saddles and Django: one film was parody. Guess which one?

I'll say this about Tarantino is that he is a very skilled director with a unique talent. So is Paul Verhooven. But they can still put out pure shlock.

Absolutely. I am a Tarantino fanboy, and I love Verhoeven's wacky insanity. I wouldn't ever call these guys "great" in the same way I'd call Coppola and Scorsese great. But they make entertaining movies that appeal to me.

Tarantion needs to grow up. I know he knows he has an audience, but the final scenes in Inglorious Bastards was pure stupidity.

I don't think it's a matter of growing up. If you look at Jackie Brown, that's a very mature, adult movie. True story: I had a roommate in New York who went out on a bender and would not get off the living room couch. So I went out and rented 3 movies: Schindler's List, Leaving Las Vegas, and The Elephant Man. I made him watch all three movies in succession with the sound cranked. He got so depressed that he wound up moving out.



If you had substituted The Elephant Man with Irreversible, he would have jumped out of the window.

I've only seen Jackie Brown once, and that's all I needed to see of that film. I do like Robert Forster in that movie though. Requiem For a Dream wasn't out yet, so my roommate was safe there.

Jackie Brown is QT's best film, and Forster and Pam Grier are the main reason why for me. The supporting cast was great as usual, but those 2 killed it. SLJ and DeNiro especially had interesting characters, but that one is all about Forster and Grier and they are both great. And really for the people who dont like Tarantino, they should watch JB and think again.

 

[drummer]

I'm not sure why you think that violence and vulgarity are innately sophomoric. In the hands of the right director (or a bad one), any of these subjects are colored by the artist himself.

The problem is that QT treats violence, profanity, and racial slurs like he's a 12 year old boy.

Tarantino is a master of creating likable villains. Probably the best of all time. Villains who say these things. So I think he's a bit more advanced with it than a 12 year old.

Wait. People like QT's villains because they say ni**er and m-fer a lot?

You really haven't caught on that villains in QT films are as likable as the heroes?You can call him derivative, a hack, whatever... Maybe the story arc isn't so great or it's over stylized. But the last thing you can hate on QT for is his dialogue. Guys like Samuel Jackson and Christoph Waltz love saying his words so much they shine in his movies. His dialog is the best ever, and it has nothing to do with the number of n-words and m-fers, but he makes those words fit perfectly.

Best ever to whom?

 

[drummer]

You haven't answered my question

What did people refer to black people as in the mid 19th century?

That isn't a serious question, because it isn't a period slur. It's still used when referring to African American people this century. What I find odd? People more sensitive to my criticism of Tarantino using that word than being sensitive to the word itself.

I can't speak for any other poster here, but this is so not true for me. I don't think Tarantino is some kind of infallible deity that should never be questioned or criticized.

I think that any film director should do better than his last film, and that's an unrealistic expectation. The Godfather Part III should had never been made, and Garden's of Stone was just as bad from Coppola. But it's even more unrealistic to think that Oliver Stone can do better than JFK. He has been pretty horrid since. But at least he has JFK, and I think Platoon was sloppy and ham handed too.

So Natural Born Killers was just a terrible movie??I personally really like U-Turn and Savages, and W. was pretty good too.

JFK is hard to top. That's one of the greatest films of the century.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I was pretty disappointed with Django Unchained, seems like a big step backwards after Inglorious Basterds which I thought was fantastic.

There wasn't near as much suspense in the dialogue heavy scenes as there was in other Tarantino films; I always had a pretty decent idea of what was going to happen next, which I don't usually in Tarantino's films.

I also really didn't like how in the shooting scenes, Django would fire 6 bullets and hit 6 dudes, whereas the 6 dudes would fire dozens of bullets and miss Django with every shot. This wouldn't have been as big of an issue if more time was spent on how Django became an incredible sharpshooter; in Kill Bill Tarantino spends hours showing the audience how The Bride became a master swordsman, but in Django Unchained he spends 1 five minute scene showing how Django was an expert sharpshooter as soon as he fired his first shot, pretty lazy storytelling imo.

I thought the music was also pretty ####ty for a Tarantino film. The varying genres caused me to be pulled out of the movie each time. It would have been better if there was more cohesion to the music to set a tone for the film imo.

I still enjoyed watching the film, but I thought it was a pretty serious dropoff from Inglorious Basterds, and one of Tarantino's worst along with Death Proof. Tarantino really missed Sally Menke protecting himself from himself on this one.

Interesting points. Do you think that Tarantino aimed a lot lower with Django than he did with Basterds? With Basterds, Tarantino made a film that's on par with his best. Whereas with Django, it felt to me like he was in the same realm as Deathproof. Seems to me that Tarantino intended to make a genre film here. Whereas with Basterds, I think Tarantino was attempting something much more ambitious along the lines of Pulp Fiction.

Some of the music worked for me, but I thought the original songs were pretty corny.

Maybe Tarantino was aiming a lot lower with Django Unchained relative to Inglorious Basterds, but I certainly didn't know that was the case when I watched Django Unchained, assuming that that is true. And I won't deny that expectations have a huge impact on how I rate a film; if I was expecting a glorified B film I'm sure I'd love Django Unchained, but after Inglorious Basterds I was expecting a lot more than that out of Django Unchained.

Sure. Every Tarantino movie will always be compared with every classic Tarantino movie. This reminds me of Scorsese's The Departed. I really love that movie, and I've long argued it would get more love had it not been made by Scorsese.

You & me both JDogg..I can see complaints based on Infernal Affairs, but AFAIC, The Departed is perfect. I love Jack, I love Leo, I love crime dramas, I love Scorsese soundtracks fueled by the Stones..The Departed is GREATNESS, and considering the mob movies going a decade back before it and since, you would think more people would realize this.

Furthermore, the funny scenes are hilarious and the dramatic scenes are excruciatingly tense. How often can do you see that?