A Great Movie!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    Yogafriend wrote: From what I read, the "N" word is featured so heavily in the film, it should be billed as a co-star.  I thought that was hilarious, actually.  :0    It's good to be prepared; it would not offend me, especially if it's used in an over the top way, but for those that would find it offensive, they are forewarned. 


    .....it's NOT used in "an over the top way" it's used as part of it's historical timeline as it relates to slavery in the old days prior to the abolition of slavery (13th ammendment?).

    The "N" word IS used in MOST rap music(?) in an over the top way - IMHO.

    Have a listen....nice huh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdT5JTeyn8U

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:
    [QUOTE] Yogafriend wrote: From what I read, the "N" word is featured so heavily in the film, it should be billed as a co-star.  I thought that was hilarious, actually.  :0    It's good to be prepared; it would not offend me, especially if it's used in an over the top way, but for those that would find it offensive, they are forewarned. 


    .....it's NOT used in "an over the top way" it's used as part of it's historical timeline as it relates to slavery in the old days prior to the abolition of slavery (13th ammendment?).

    The "N" word IS used in MOST rap music(?) in an over the top way - IMHO.

    Have a listen....nice huh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdT5JTeyn8U [/QUOTE]

     

    Yes, that was lovely, Rog.   hahahaha.   Right onto my playlist.   hahaha.

    I should not have said "over the top" when that wasn't really what I meant.  I meant that I had read it was used "frequently" in the film, and that's not the same as "over the top" so thanks for the correction.   I'm fine with it, either way.  It's patently wrong to change vocabulary for purposes of what's PC, even when it's tough to hear, the accuracy of the language is necessary.  

    SO ... we cool, bro?  :D



     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:
    [QUOTE] Yogafriend wrote: From what I read, the "N" word is featured so heavily in the film, it should be billed as a co-star.  I thought that was hilarious, actually.  :0    It's good to be prepared; it would not offend me, especially if it's used in an over the top way, but for those that would find it offensive, they are forewarned. 


    .....it's NOT used in "an over the top way" it's used as part of it's historical timeline as it relates to slavery in the old days prior to the abolition of slavery (13th ammendment?).

    NOTE: DMX has a number of other hits yoga. It makes for great holiday music at the company Christmas party!

    The "N" word IS used in MOST rap music(?) in an over the top way - IMHO.

    Have a listen....nice huh?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdT5JTeyn8U [/QUOTE]

     

    Yes, that was lovely, Rog.   hahahaha.   Right onto my playlist.   hahaha.

    I should not have said "over the top" when that wasn't really what I meant.  I meant that I had read it was used "frequently" in the film, and that's not the same as "over the top" so thanks for the correction.   I'm fine with it, either way.  It's patently wrong to change vocabulary for purposes of what's PC, even when it's tough to hear, the accuracy of the language is necessary.  

    SO ... we cool, bro?  :D



    [/QUOTE]

    Absolutely - cool! It's just silly (IMHO)that some movie goers would be upset by the use of the word when it's still perpetuated by the same people that are offended by it!

    As an Italian american I'm not offended by gangster/mafia movies either. It's all silliness.  I walked away from the movie laughing how all the southern slave owners were made to look like idiots.  If anyone should be offended it should be white southerners. If you want a laugh go see this movie - you will enjoy it! ;)

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    I thought this was interesting,it's from the New York Daily News:

      
	Toys from Django Unchained 

     

    Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network called for a national boycott Tuesday of action figures based on the controversial and blood-soaked slavery revenge flick “Django Unchained.” A 10-doll assortment of characters from the film was going for $299 on Amazon Tuesday.

    “Selling this doll is highly offensive to our ancestors and the African American community,” Rev. K.W. Tulloss, NAC's president in Los Angeles, told the Daily News. “The movie is for adults, but these are action figures that appeal to children. We don’t want other individuals to utilize them for their entertainment, to make a mockery of slavery.”

    Tulloss said he hadn’t seen Quentin Tarantino’s movie but heard it was “very good.” Fellow activist Najee Ali from Project Islamic Hope spoke alongside Tulloss in Los Angeles Tuesday and said he’s seen “Django” two times already.

    “I actually enjoyed the movie, but we cannot support this type of commercialization,” Ali said. “I don’t seen any dolls representing Hitler that came from Tarantino’s (Holocaust movie ‘Inglourious Basterds’)...I don't see them making dolls of Holocaust survivors who are bald and starving in concentration camps.”

     

    Neither doll manufacturer National Entertainment Collectibles Association nor licensing partner The Weinstein Company, the film studio behind “Django,” offered immediate comment on the controversy.

    The new doll collection includes 8-inch action figures for Jamie Foxx’s lead character Django and his on-screen wife Broomhilda.

    The call for boycott came after “Do The Right Thing” director Spike Lee said he considered the new movie insulting.

    "American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them,” he wrote on Twitter ahead of the film’s Christmas release.

    Speaking in Berlin on Tuesday, Tarantino defended his latest work saying the brutal abuse he portrayed pales in comparison to what slaves actually endured. 

    "The truth, or the reality, was a thousand times worse than what I showed,” he told reporters ahead of the film’s launch in Germany.

    His “Django” is a modern mash-up that borrows heavily from the spaghetti western and blaxploitation genres, critics say.

    Foxx plays a slave-turned-bounty hunter who sets out to rescue his wife from a venal Mississippi plantation owner, played by DiCaprio.

    The cast also includes Kerry Washington, Christoph Waltz and Samuel L. Jackson.

    Many have compared it to "Inglorious Bastards,” which was highly controversial as well. That movie garnered eight Oscar nominations.



    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/django-unchained-action-figures-sparks-boycott-article-1.1235938#ixzz2HUPYGivR

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    The dolls probably are unnecessary.   :P

    RE: seeing the film.  I think that MrMojo's advice re: the film not being for everyone (blood and violence) is well taken.  Most important is to go in with the knowledge (and warning) of what you're up against in watching the film, so if you go, you take responsibility for buying that ticket.   

    See below:

    "...And there are reasons not to see "Django Unchained." Blood falls like snow, pours like rain, wraps scenes like a blanket. It hangs in drippy, nasty gobbets, it takes flight like a flock of seagulls. There are whipping scenes, a near castration, and other tortures inflicted on the slaves. Yes, the N-word is used 100+ times, but it's hard to argue that usage isn't historically accurate. The forced slave fighting, dubbed "Mandingo fighting" in the film, is horrific -- if you've ever wondered how a pure one-on-one, mano-a-mano beating can kill a man, here is your visual evidence."

    Not sure if that's accurate (or "over the top" ...) or not, but again, it's seems like a good idea to have expectations in check.  

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    I remember in the good old days when women would walk out of the theater during the rape scene in A Clockwork Orange. There will always be movies that shock certain people. As for me, nothing shocks me. A movie is just a movie. Things I see on the news or read about in history books are much more shocking and depraved. It doesn't matter if someting is "historically accurate" or not in a work of pure fiction.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE] Again, don't get me wrong.  I'm a fan of both and of movies in general.  I think your music analogy goes a long way toward explaining the differences.  And yes, brevity and goofiness is almost always more endearing than didacticism.

    My PBS metaphor is glib enough without pointing out Tarantino's video store geek vs. Lee's serious film school backgrounds to show how different they are.

    And yet, I would just again mention Spike's excellent documentaries, esp. Four Little Girls, When The Levees Broke and its follow-up God Willin' And The Creek Don't Rise.  Despite himself, he invokes real drama from real situations.

    Could Tarantino pull off such heavy film verite so successfully?  Perhaps, but I doubt he's even interested.  Maybe he just knows his limitations.  And that's as fine with me as Spike's attempts to broaden his range.

    And ironically or not, Spike Lee's next film is a remake of the violent Korean revenge fantasy Oldboy.  Who knows?  Maybe Q will do a cameo.  ;) [/QUOTE]

     

    BTW, I thought your above summary (not really a defense) of Spike Lee's meritorious work was well taken.  Criticism isn't your issue, not at all, and I know that.   The ability to at least acknowledge if there's a level playing field (or not) in a critical comparison, is a valid, if not somewhat sane,  starting point; moreover, it's valid to state personal preferences, (it "just is" ...) but it doesn't have to be at the expense of putting another artist down, or pitting two against one another, even if they both have that "popular" thing going on.  That still doesn't mean they belong in the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence, so to speak.  

    And I do like the comparison between the two, re: aspirations and goals, skills and desires applied to their craft; vastly different.   Put into context, it's far easier to understand Spike Lee's boycott of this film, and to see it as "Spike being Spike" and leave it at that.  Even though I have never seen the original, Korean "Oldboy" (and I've read about the prospect that many viewers who will see Spike Lee's upcoming version will not have seen the original either), but you know, after this exchange, I will be much more open to the prospect of checking it out.   

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    I'm not sure that it's up to any of us to tell anyone whether or not to be offended.  They either will or they won't, and the the cultural history of art is positively loaded with similar incidents...not to mention the history of film.  I seem to recall a certain feature - one of the first acknowledged 'masterpieces' of cinema: "Birth Of A Nation" - which set many a tongues a wagging upon its release.

    However, if people are forewarned, such as they are with nearly all questionable television shows (and whether out of fear of retribution or simple respect for the audience), and then they get offended yet still complain about being offended, then that's all on them, not the filmmakers.  If someone has a good idea their sensibilities will be damaged, then they shouldn't go see it.

    We can debate all day about the history of language and the horrible legacy of slavery in this country - which we are still coming to grips with 150-odd years later - but that should necessarily be removed from the discussion of artistic merit.

    For myself, I would never, ever try to restrict any artistic depiction of the myriad evils which man has perpetrated unless it was strictly on the terms of the art itself.  Anything less would amount to censorship.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     I remember in the good old days when women would walk out of the theater during the rape scene in A Clockwork Orange. There will always be movies that shock certain people. As for me, nothing shocks me. A movie is just a movie. Things I see on the news or read about in history books are much more shocking and depraved. It doesn't matter if someting is "historically accurate" or not in a work of pure fiction. 

     

    Pretty much the essence of "it's only a movie" ... :)

    Yet, I have had nightmares from a few movies.   That was the absolute end for me, in terms of paying attention to reviews.   I have never, ever taken the advice of a review after that nightmare a number of years ago.    I'll never forget how horrified I was to see such a horrible film that was so highly rated by a critic.   Lesson learned.   Film goer, know thyself.   :)



     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to yogafriend's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     I remember in the good old days when women would walk out of the theater during the rape scene in A Clockwork Orange. There will always be movies that shock certain people. As for me, nothing shocks me. A movie is just a movie. Things I see on the news or read about in history books are much more shocking and depraved. It doesn't matter if someting is "historically accurate" or not in a work of pure fiction. 

     

     

    Pretty much the essence of "it's only a movie" ... :)

    Yet, I have had nightmares from a few movies.   That was the absolute end for me, in terms of paying attention to reviews.   I have never, ever taken the advice of a review after that nightmare a number of years ago.    I'll never forget how horrified I was to see such a horrible film that was so highly rated by a critic.   Lesson learned.   Film goer, know thyself.   :)



    [/QUOTE]

    My sister doesn't even like to watch suspense movies that contain no violence. They give her bad dreams. My wife won't even watch Criminal Minds on TV. We all have those things that give us unpleasant reactions whether in entertainment or everyday life. So I agree, you have to know yourself and how things affect you.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    I've seen A Clockwork Orange multiple times.  At one time it was one of my favorite movies.  I love Kubrick and I loved the novel by Anthony Burgess-even wrote a paper on it in university.  The violence bothered me but I tolerated it pretty well back then.

    My tolerance for violence is much less now.  I won't watch Inglorious Basterds or the Django one, specifically because I've been forewarned about the violence.  I did see Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction-also Jackie Brown, which might be my favorite movie by Tarantino.

    Maybe this intolerance has to do with age, I don't know.  I just know that it makes me physically uncomfortable and detracts from any possible enjoyment of the film I have.  It's just a personal thing.

    There is the issue of whether violence is natural to the plot or if it's 'gratuitous' which is a term that goes back to the Sixties & Seventies, I believe.  I think one of the first directors to be accused of gratuitous violence and glorification of violence was Sam Peckinpah. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm not sure that it's up to any of us to tell anyone whether or not to be offended.  They either will or they won't, and the the cultural history of art is positively loaded with similar incidents...not to mention the history of film.  I seem to recall a certain feature - one of the first acknowledged 'masterpieces' of cinema: "Birth Of A Nation" - which set many a tongues a wagging upon its release.

    However, if people are forewarned, such as they are with nearly all questionable television shows (and whether out of fear of retribution or simple respect for the audience), and then they get offended yet still complain about being offended, then that's all on them, not the filmmakers.  If someone has a good idea their sensibilities will be damaged, then they shouldn't go see it.

    We can debate all day about the history of language and the horrible legacy of slavery in this country - which we are still coming to grips with 150-odd years later - but that should necessarily be removed from the discussion of artistic merit.

    For myself, I would never, ever try to restrict any artistic depiction of the myriad evils which man has perpetrated unless it was strictly on the terms of the art itself.  Anything less would amount to censorship.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I saw The Birth of a Nation in a film class. The KKK is depicted as heroes. What is interesting to me is to consider a point of view that is not seen as acceptable to everyone. My mother is opposed to films that show people jumping into bed together with little hesitation or thought. Much of art promotes values that someone disagrees with. Art can depict anything it wants, but the audience should always keep a sharp critical eye.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    This is a link to a 7 minute interview that was on Nightline last night.It's with Tarantino,DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx.They talk about Django Unchained and the controversy surrounding it.It's a pretty good interview and DiCaprio discloses a tidbit about a scene that went wrong,but is still part of the movie. 

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/django-unchained-tarantino-dicaprio-foxx-answer-critics-18166953

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I've seen A Clockwork Orange multiple times.  At one time it was one of my favorite movies.  I love Kubrick and I loved the novel by Anthony Burgess-even wrote a paper on it in university.  The violence bothered me but I tolerated it pretty well back then.

    My tolerance for violence is much less now.  I won't watch Inglorious Basterds or the Django one, specifically because I've been forewarned about the violence.  I did see Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction-also Jackie Brown, which might be my favorite movie by Tarantino.

    Maybe this intolerance has to do with age, I don't know.  I just know that it makes me physically uncomfortable and detracts from any possible enjoyment of the film I have.  It's just a personal thing.

    There is the issue of whether violence is natural to the plot or if it's 'gratuitous' which is a term that goes back to the Sixties & Seventies, I believe.  I think one of the first directors to be accused of gratuitous violence and glorification of violence was Sam Peckinpah. 

    [/QUOTE]

    I read A Clockwork Orange for a college course. The most interesting thing about the novel for me was the "Nadsat" language that Alex and his gang spoke in.

    I just looked it up on Wikipedia and was stunned to find that there was a chapter with a happy ending which was cut from the American releaase of the novel. Kubrick based the movie on this shortened version.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange

    Here is a case where art was "censored" for commercial reasons. They thought the American audience would prefer a negative ending and find it more realistic.

    As far as Kubrick is concerned, I have a love/hate relationship with his work. He has some filmmaking skills, but I don't always like the final results.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I read A Clockwork Orange for a college course. The most interesting thing about the novel for me was the "Nadsat" language that Alex and his gang spoke in.

    I just looked it up on Wikipedia and was stunned to find that there was a chapter with a happy ending which was cut from the American releaase of the novel. Kubrick based the movie on this shortened version.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange

    Here is a case where art was "censored" for commercial reasons. They thought the American audience would prefer a negative ending and find it more realistic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Interesting...I knew about that other chapter but had forgotten the whole story behind it.

    I also find it interesting that the publishers felt the American audience would prefer the negative ending.  Sometimes it goes the other way around.  For example, the movie version of North Dallas Forty chooses to omit the dark and bloody ending of the novel.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to devildavid's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I read A Clockwork Orange for a college course. The most interesting thing about the novel for me was the "Nadsat" language that Alex and his gang spoke in.

    I just looked it up on Wikipedia and was stunned to find that there was a chapter with a happy ending which was cut from the American releaase of the novel. Kubrick based the movie on this shortened version.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange

    Here is a case where art was "censored" for commercial reasons. They thought the American audience would prefer a negative ending and find it more realistic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Interesting...I knew about that other chapter but had forgotten the whole story behind it.

    I also find it interesting that the publishers felt the American audience would prefer the negative ending.  Sometimes it goes the other way around.  For example, the movie version of North Dallas Forty chooses to omit the dark and bloody ending of the novel.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good example.  And I'll second dd's comment about the language in the novel, which is deliciously bizarre.

    I believe part of it lies in the text itself, because people can read at their own pace and/or interpret the written word in different ways.

    Once it's on the screen, you can't avoid it.  It's there, nuts and all, as the filmmakers' interpretation, not yours.  (i.e., why I hate seeing movies before reading the books.)

    Back on point, I don't think most American moviegoers have seen a lot of truly honest unvarnished depictions of slavery in films, or when they have, it's been couched in civil war melodrama or pseudo-historical haze.  Even "Amistad" was heavy on the courtroom scenes.  (Middle Passage was better.)

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: A Great Movie!

    I recommended "Django Unchained" to several co-workers with a money back guarantee for the ticket price from me if they didn't like it. So far, 7 co workers  have seen it - and it hasn't cost me a dime!

     

    Anyone see "Zero Dark Thirty" yet?

     

Share