# Subliminal messages in Django Unchained?



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Crappy movie that used the word "******" too much.

That's all I got out of it.

Tarantino: "I have an idea for a movie! Let's say ****** a bajillion times! It'll be great!"

Reminded me of that South Park episode where they said "shit" every 8 seconds.


----------



## QueCueYew (Aug 20, 2010)

I first watched the movie high and thought it was obnoxiously pretentious. Don't ask me why, I was high.


I since watched it again. It's a Terentino movie through and through.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Slider said:


> Tarantino: "I have an idea for a movie! Let's say ****** a bajillion times! It'll be great!"


Going out on a limb here but maybe they used the word a lot because its historically accurate. Just a thought.


----------



## marked174 (Feb 24, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Going out on a limb here but maybe they used the word a lot because its historically accurate. Just a thought.


 Right... cuz Terentino cares sooo much about historical accuracy. lol.


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

And here I was thinking it was just a really good movie...


----------



## TheProcrastinatingMaster (Jun 4, 2012)

Slider said:


> Crappy movie that used the word "******" too much.
> 
> That's all I got out of it.
> 
> ...


I don't see why it matters, it's just a word. An offensive one yeah, but it's not being directed towards the audience


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

marked174 said:


> Right... cuz Terentino cares sooo much about historical accuracy. lol.


It's a matter of degree. You can gloss over a few facts or anachronisms and you'll be fine, but if you're going to make a film about American slavery where conflict between black slaves and white slave masters is a big part of the story its just not going to ring true if the white people don't use nasty racial slurs.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

TheProcrastinatingMaster said:


> View attachment 73090
> 
> 
> And here I was thinking it was just a really good movie...


Great acting in a terrible movie.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

Shahada said:


> It's a matter of degree. You can gloss over a few facts or anachronisms and you'll be fine, but if you're going to make a film about American slavery where conflict between black slaves and white slave masters is a big part of the story its just not going to ring true if the white people don't use nasty racial slurs.


It was unnecessarily over the top.

It's the only thing I remember about the movie.


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

Shahada said:


> Going out on a limb here but maybe they used the word a lot because its historically accurate. Just a thought.


True. But were there a ton of instances in Inglorious Bastards where they used "****"? I don't remember it being used at all. Don't forget the "Dead ****** Storage" scene in Pulp Fiction or the scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper insults Christopher Walken's character by telling him that since he's a dark-skinned sicilian, he has "****** blood" (Referring to the Moorish occupation of Italy). I left out some, but Tarantino goes way overboard with his use of the word "******".


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Peripheral said:


> True. But were there a ton of instances in Inglorious Bastards where they used "****"? I don't remember it being used at all. Don't forget the "Dead ****** Storage" scene in Pulp Fiction or the scene in True Romance where Dennis Hopper insults Christopher Walken's character by telling him that since he's a dark-skinned sicilian, he has "****** blood" (Referring to the Moorish occupation of Italy). I left out some, but Tarantino goes way overboard with his use of the word "******".


Yeah I won't argue that he generally has a bit of a love affair with slurs and has kind of a thematic preoccupation with race in general, I just didn't think it made a lot of sense to apply to the use of the word "******" in DO. Though you could say the movie's overall themes fit into that pattern.


----------



## Slider (Nov 17, 2009)

In sum, Tarantino is a weirdo.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Qvinde said:


> But... what does Katt Williams and Spike Lee have to do with the video above? Unless you think all black people think alike?


I just find it funny that there are black people who think he is racist, black people who think he wants to be black, and black people who contradictory think both. Of course this can be interpreted as all blacks think the same. They don't, but it doesn't change the fact that it gives me a chuckle. It has less to do with black people and more to due with the drastic difference between the two accusations. 

I also think all this hate is due to a hyper-awareness amongst some black people in regards to this type of shit (ie people are going out their way to interpret things as racist)


----------



## Geodude (Nov 22, 2009)

Shahada said:


> Part of me wonders if it could honestly be done any other way though. The white on black violence is always going to be more grisly because of the historical reality of the situation. It is uniquely disturbing to see gruesome violence visited upon black slaves by white masters (and often it still is even in a modern context) because that violence has real historical weight behind it, the brutality of a scene like the dog attack is a stand-in for the brutal historical reality of slavery. While there are historical instances of slave revolts and whatnot in the US, for the most part the idea of the black underclass throwing off its shackles and violently raising up against its oppressors is a fantasy, even in the modern day where the effects of institutional racism are still seen everywhere. So it makes sense that when such a situation is depicted in film it becomes cartoonish and fantastical, especially relative to the disturbing violence seen committed against slaves in the film.


I think this might have been exactly @Qvinde 's point (please correct me if I am wrong). There was no *had to* about it. Yes, real violence against slaves was awful. Nonetheless, choosing to make a distinction between the two different types of violence (Cartoonish violence against white people, gritty, unpleasant violence against black people) is a conscious stylistic choice that Tarantino chose to make at some point. The real question is why did he make that choice? 

If I am right, Qvinde's issue is that making the distinction between the two types of violence is inherently racist, as while it may be an attempt to be sensitive to people's feelings about history, it is misguided, as all it does is play into some notion that black and white people (as represented in film) need to be treated differently. I'm not sure if I agree, but I'm also not sure if I don't.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Woof said:


> If I am right, Qvinde's issue is that making the distinction between the two types of violence is inherently racist, as while it may be an attempt to be sensitive to people's feelings about history, it is misguided, as all it does is play into some notion that black and white people (as represented in film) need to be treated differently. I'm not sure if I agree, but I'm also not sure if I don't.


I could see the argument behind it being racist in a patronizing sort of way, yeah. I'm not sure I totally agree either though, I think its a reflection more than anything. I don't think Tarantino thought "lets make the violence against white people over the top and cool because whites are the oppressor and its the right thing to do." Rather I think its just a reflection of the social conditions at play. Due to the historical baggage its kind of difficult to see a black slave killing a bunch of white slave masters as an inherently bad thing, and its difficult to imagine that sort of violence without the weight of justified retribution behind it. At the same time its hard to imagine violence committed upon blacks by whites as anything but disturbing, as its a reminder of the crimes our country and society were built on. Of course its also heavily influenced by "blaxploitation" and the tropes of that genre show up in the film a lot.

The theme of vengeful, justified retribution was also explored a lot in Tarantino's last film, Inglorious Bastards, with similar results: Nazis doing things to Jew is tense and scary and disturbing, Jews fucking up Nazis is totally cool and awesome. Though I think IB explores that issue in the abstract more and how it relates to film in general and the audience (see the ending movie theater massacre where Tarantino turns the camera on the audience with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer) while DU seems more concerned with the historical realities of American racism and less concerned with the fetishization of violence in film itself, for better or worse.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Shahada said:


> while DU seems more concerned with the historical realities of American racism and less concerned with the fetishization of violence in film itself, for better or worse.


I could be wrong, but I think Tarantino made it clear that his intent was to create a spaghetti western that takes places in the south. I think everything else game into fruition to support that intent or because of elements that Tarantino just likes to employ in all his films.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> I could be wrong, but I think Tarantino made it clear that his intent was to create a spaghetti western that takes places in the south. I think everything else game into fruition to support that intent or because of elements that Tarantino just likes to employ in all his films.


Not saying it was the primary thematic purpose behind the film or anything, just talking about how it handles violence thematically in comparison to IB, intentionally or not. I don't think he was very seriously pursuing any lofty political/historical themes in mind and I wouldn't take them very seriously if he did, QT is a stylist first and foremost.


----------



## Qvinde (Jan 21, 2013)

Great article about this film on CNN:Django, in chains - CNN.com


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Django, in chains - CNN.com*

"Django Unchained" is being projected on screens around the world, out of context: A slim percentage of consumers have any rhttp://personalitycafe.com/book-music-movie-reviews/133422-subliminal-messages-django-unchained-4.html#post3764699eal understanding of what took place during slavery, one of history's most prolonged, barbaric and celebrated human rights violations. Sadly, for many Americans, this film is the beginning and the end of that history lesson.*

Slavery still exists. 

*This film follows a brave, cunning and fearless lead character whose name starts with a "D." Viewers of the film's trailer would think that character is Django, played by Jamie Foxx. In fact, his name is Dr. King Schultz, a German portrayed by Christoph Waltz, (spoiler alert) who sacrifices his life in the pursuit of freedom and justice for the black man. It is the white Dr. King, who after sharing a motivational tale about a man reaching a mountaintop, nobly gives his life for "black justice."*

He didn’t sacrifice his life in the “pursuit of freedom and justice for the black man”. What he did was extremely irrational and petty. If anything he betrayed the goal out of greed to fulfill his ego – IE the white man betrayed the black man out of greed. Seems like a good analogy for slavery. See? I can look for meaning that might or might not be there if I purposely try to.

*Tarantino rightly claims that the abundant use of "******" in the film was authentic and of the time. Of course it was. So was chattel slavery and the back-breaking manual labor that kept these massive plantations thriving.*

This literally adds nothing to this person’s article.

*Tarantino's plantations are nearly empty farms with well-dressed Negresses in flowing gowns, frolicking on swings and enjoying leisurely strolls through the grounds, as if the setting is Versailles, mixed in with occasional acts of barbarism against slaves.*

There were instances of the opposite also.

*It's the opposite of the exploration of the real phenomenon of slavery about which he boasts.*

Why do these type of complainers think they have some superior standard for how a subject should be explored?

This does nothing but showcase their arrogance and an instance of irony considering this movie has people talking about racism and American slavery. Shit, maybe he’s some mastermind who purposely made it seem subtlety racist so people would talk about racism in that light. Doubt it but if we are all going to just speculate shit here….

*Sometimes we sacrifice accuracy for story, but these inaccuracies are completely unnecessary. How does depicting slave plantations like circus campgrounds, fit with delirious, babbling overseers wielding bull whips and overdressed rabble wandering aimlessly, further Django's truth? *

*The film's antagonist, Calvin Candie, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, supposedly runs one of the very worst plantations in all of Mississippi. Yet on the road he dines with his slaves, and at home, his fields are mostly empty and he only seems to have slaves in his house. Is this one of those rare slave plantations that primarily trades in polished silverware and gossip? That authenticity card that Tarantino uses to buy all those "*******" has an awfully selective memory.*

Unnecessary? How do you know that? Where you the one who decided what had to be cut? Maybe there were other scenes we don’t know about. Maybe what was picked was picked because he felt it would make for a better movie. Maybe there were other restraints, like time or money. I’m not going to assume that the lack of something in the film was not necessary.

Besides, I saw people working the fields, they were in the film.

*In the film's opening sequence, shackled blacks literally hold the key to their shackles and don't use them, choosing instead to trudge forward, hindered by biting chains, to kill a white man. In the third act, after seeing Django kill the Australians, the blacks sitting in an open cage neither communicate with each other or consider stepping outside of the cage.*

Lol? Really? You can find logical inconsistencies in all films… In fact, there are several Youtube channels dedicated to just that. I have seen a few way worse than this.

This is pure projection.

*In fact, in this entire, nearly three-hour film, there are no scenes with black people interacting, or even looking at each other, in a respectful or productive way.*

Wtf? This is a bold face lie.

*If only one black person (Django) displays the vaguest interest in gaining freedom, while the rest consistently demonstrate that they wouldn't do anything with that freedom, were they to obtain it, then we're not able to become invested in them or their pursuits: We can't relate to shiftless characters. Being illiterate, and/or brown, does not remove the ability to think, or observe or yearn or plan or develop meaningful relationships.*

Those slaves you just mentioned that were “choosing instead to trudge forward, hindered by biting chains, to kill a white man” were not interested in freedom?

Yeah, this article is making less and less sense.

*"Django" is just a random guy, who, to no credit of his own, was plucked from slavery by an impressive white man and led on a journey to save his wife.*

I don’t think many non-white men bought slaves in the US. Plus, it would hinder the story if he didn’t have a white owner, which is integral to the freaking plot progressing… Did this person even watch the same film I did? Also, again, he led him on a journey only to land him in a situation where his nuts are going to be cut off all becomes of a handshake. What a freaking hero this guy is…

*"Inglourious" did not walk us through provocative scenes of concentration camp torture, gas chambers and ethnically stereotyped victims. Nor were Jewish characters subjected to the indignities of being torn apart by dogs. And while we have our trusty authenticity card out, did the Jewish people not suffer the repeated verbal onslaught of "****," "rats" and other grotesque terms?*

Kind of like how you complained about a lack of slaves doing all the dirty work earlier? And so what? There were people complaining about anti-Semitism in that film also.

I’m going to stop here and assume this article is going to continue in fashion.


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

I recommend reading the script if you haven't. There's a lot of stuff that didn't make it in that might clarify people's feelings on the film and what Tarantino was going for.


----------



## Questor (Mar 9, 2012)

While I do care to be informed about history, I never plan to pay good money, just to watch people abuse each other. I did see the previews of this movie recently. That alone told me the main character was a black bounty hunter, who was filled with hatred for white people...for good reason. 

I thank God that I didn't have to live in the days of slavery; that I didn't have to witness the unspeakable brutality now being portrayed in technicolor. 

Hatred is such an ugly and distasteful thing, and a poor source of entertainment, imo.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Questor said:


> Hatred is such an ugly and distasteful thing, and a poor source of entertainment. I don't imagine many women cared to see this movie, if they had an inkling of what it was about. Maybe I'm wrong?


Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Qvinde (Jan 21, 2013)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> I’m going to stop here and ASSume


Wonderful idea.


----------



## CosmicJalapeno (Sep 27, 2011)

Qvinde said:


> Wonderful idea.


Are you going to refute anything I said or use lame ass cop outs?


----------



## Qvinde (Jan 21, 2013)

CosmicJalapeno said:


> Are you going to refute anything I said or use lame ass cop outs?


Yes. Yes. Oh gawd yes.


----------

