Exploitaion > History = Django Unchained

Tarantino chose to make Django Unchained into a blaxploitation film.

Because he likes exploitation films more than History.

Despite the fact that slavery is already the vilest form of exploitation.

Does he not feel that the slaves were exploited enough the first time round?

Tarantino's Works the Word Nigger Like a Slave

I'm tired of "Lame Rationalization Game" Tarantino has been playing in defense of his (ab)use of the word nigger in Django Unchained.

It begs the question:

What exactly is realistic about a movie whose plot pivots on the cartoon contrivance of a bounty-hunting dentist who rescues a slave in exchange for help in identifying the principles in a particularly lucrative bounty. And if that weren't implausible enough, the beneficient bounty hunter (His name is Dr. King Y'all!)  offers to further assist by offering to teach said slave the fine art of gun slinging and to rescue his wife from the clutches of a leering Mandingo fight loving slave owner.

In any realistic movie Django would have been the bounty. Runaway slaves practically sustained bounty hunting business in the day, almost as much as they did the field of advertising. (but that's another story)

It seems disingenuous in the extreme to assume that in a film as contrived as candy floss, the word nigger is taxed with the burden of sustaining the realism of the film. That's a lot of work for nigger to do.

You could almost say that tries Tarantino works the word nigger like a slave!

While that fact may not be literally true, it is certainly literarily true: The word nigger was uttered 110 times in Django Unchained.

Are we supposed to believe that the number 110 was the actual result of some rigorous formula devised by Tarantino for tallying the exact amount of times the word nigger could be uttered in a 2h45 minute movie so that it corresponds "realistically" to the amount of times a that slave would have heard the word in hs day, month, year lifetime? Or is he just playing a lame rationalization game knowing that no interviewer would have the sand to stand up to him, like the guy from Channel 4 did. (Would that Tarantino had the sand to stand up to a major American Interviewer in that manner...in the weeks leading up to the release of his film...when the controversy was in full rage?)

Whatever his reason for exploiting the word as vigorously as he does in his film, it certainly couldn't be because of a preoccupation with the "real". Otherwise he wouldn't have stopped there and realism would have pervaded his production.

No. His lame excuse is just a rationalization for abuse.

What's the point of the being a "provocateur" if you lack the courage to cop to your deeds.

Zero Dark Thirty

I can't fathom how the critics could fall over themselves with love for Zero Dark Thirty. Besides being cowardly is a really banal cia military police procedural film, the directing is dull as dish water.

The script feels constrained and restrained of dramatic juice, interest, detail, character, insight, and isn't abetted one bit by the the cold mausoleum compositions that she feels the need to parade on screen incessantly one after the other, like the outtakes of a much more interesting film. AS IF the paucity of dramatic material substance juice  conflict, LIFE at the films core could sustain such hollow cinematic treatment. Hollow hollow film I tell you -- which is  a real shame because Bigelow used to have a great eye and direct her films with vigour and passion.

But at the end of the day, wihtout having something interesting inciteful important INFORMATIVE to say about the war on terror ZD30 ain't nothing more than a warmed over rerun of Homeland.

And lest that sound like an overly unreasonable or exigent request, just depict the events how they fucking happened, allow the transparency to be your aesthetic, allow translucency to be your statement or condemnation of events.

I mean you preach respect, you preach realism, you happily mawkishly to accept awards form making something other than an base action film (ooooh shudder the thought)  fine, stick to the fucking facts. Why in the name of fairness and accuracy in reporting, would diverge from the facts at such a critical moment in the narrative, in such a conspicuous manner within the narrative structure, with something as provocative and as weighty in your narrative as torture.

That tells you all you need to know about her as a propagan...*cough*  i mean filmmaker.

And why are we harbouring her drippy lies when we know that boat don't float, and that she's just trying to market her leaky vessel as qualified conveyor of cogent facts.?

And why is she given a pass for flip-flopping on her priorities in making the film. One moment she's justifying the existence of her film by cowering behind the shield of realism, then when it suits  her she advocates for artistic license, cowering from the controversy that her artistic license provoked.


So blantantly,disingenuous...Fascinating that we just sop it up.