Just a few thoughts on this over-the-top violent anti-slavery movie, which for some reason Spike Lee thinks is (although he admits to not having seen it and promises not to see it) disrespectful to his ancestors.
It would be more accurate to say that this movie is disrespectful to the descendants of limited-gene-pool white trash, portrayed here as idiotic gun-toting thugs unfamiliar with the English language. Articulate slave owners are similarly disrespected (and blown apart into small pieces with lots of blood). Slavery is depicted as evil.
I imagine someone asked Mr. Lee to make such a statement, just to rile everyone up and get a lot of talking going about the movie. But to say that portraying blacks as slaves in America in 1858 is disrespectful is much like saying Schindler’s List is disrespectful to Jews or King of the Hill is disrespectful to guys who sell propane. America 1858 is the setting, that’s all, and there were (to our great national shame) slaves then.
With one exception, the African-American characters are portrayed as would be expected in a film about antebellum Mississippi. That is, as slaves. Steven, played by Samuel L. Jackson, is less of a house slave and more of a wannabe massa. He has his kneecaps shot up before he is blown up by a few dozen sticks of dynamite.
Did I mention this film is so violent no one should see it? Everyone is shot to pieces or torn apart by dogs or beat to death or whipped to death or blown to kingdom come. There’s tons of language, and, be warned, we see all of Mr. Foxx. There are also quite a few very funny moments.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Calvin Candie. He owns Candieland. Weird, Tarantino, just weird.
The moral of the story is that true love conquers all, and that true love will climb any mountain and fight off any devil to rescue the beloved. It’s the fighting off of the devil that is so violent, but considering the inducement to do so–a people enslaved , a horror we should not be able to speak of without trembling–and the complete lack of judicial means for accomplishing said rescue, one does root for Django in his quest to deliver his wife from her captivity.
Christoph Waltz is the best ever. He plays Dr. King Schultz, a dentist turned bounty hunter who carries the movie from beginning to end.
But really, if in this holiday season you have to choose only one movie to see, this isn’t the one.
The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. Tarantino poses the question, “What level of violence is acceptable to redress unthinkable horror?” and then answers it, “Any amount.”
With the encouragement of some readers, I did watch Inglourious Basterds which I liked very much. The same question is asked and answered there. Django has, perhaps, less down-time than Basterds, and certainly far more good humor.