I was really looking forward to this movie. Uday Hussein was a pretty interesting monster in real life. What would a historical piece about him look like? Would his behaviour goes to prove that, as David Brin would put it, "unchecked monarchies" are actually the same thing as "hereditary dictatorships?" Would we get an inkling of our own NATO complicity in this?

Nope.

35 minutes in, with my bullshit detector about to crack from overuse, I stopped the movie and started googling it. Yup, it's the fabrications of a career liar interpreted into an exploitation film by a mediocre director, starring a British actor who is... trying out clowning instead of actually acting as he tries to look extra Arab in front of a greenscreen. I don't know why so many reviews said "at least Dominic Cooper was good." Switching between two shallow characters is not difficult. Any decent actor can do it, with the possible exception of Eliza Dushku when she was miscast in the lead of Dollhouse, which she also Executive Produced... and thus had a hand in casting. (Speaking of what power does to your judgment...)

At least I know what to do in my next short. Play two characters. Use a greenscreen. Don't make it a comedy. Win an Oscar.

And to think, someone could have made such a good movie here.

Well, I guess "House of Saddam" covered part of it. Although it also kind of glosses over how the American/British bloc put the people in power that the Americans and British later went to war to depose.

Beautfully shot. Great integration of candlelight. Well-acted.

It's great to see movies about how slavery is the horribly unjust foundation of contemporary America. We need more of this sort of historical awareness. Not that Django is historically accurate, nor does it claims to be. It's kind of a trend with Tarantino what with Inglorious Bastards and all. But what's curious is how, the further we get from the present, the less people care about historical inaccuracy. WWII is more precious than the antibellum South, and no-one cares about wild flights of imagination in the medieval period.

The gender politics are crap. There is some terrible use of the "damsel in distress" trope, with one exception  - the inversion of the "man of colour menacing white women" trope. But not enough to redeem the gender politics. I could write on it, but Tracy Bealer has already said it better.

The only thing I have to add to that essy on gender is that it's curious how the damsel never actually gets raped during the story (as it would make her "less pure"), and the hero never gets castrated (as he'd become "less of a man"). I'd kind of prefer the movie if this wasn't the case. Because that's how slavery worked - you cross the people in charge, and they make an example of you.

For a movie about slavery, and for a blacksploitation movie, the middle has a lot of Candie and Schultz (white leads) talking. However, this changes towards the end as the last two leads are Django and Stephen.

Also, it shows that interpersonal violence is usually not about two people facing off, but one person getting the drop on the other. The "face-off" between two mortal rivals only happens when one person leverages the indisputable advantage of force to push their world-view on the other (like how an armed police officer will lecture you about being in the park after it closes... even though it hasn't closed yet) and it's an act of courage to give back-talk. I like that.

___

 

Follow up thought: I realize now that the filmmakers managed to mostly (completely?) ignore shade, which is kind of an important axis of how slavery was organized in the 1860s. Is a slave 100% african? Exactly half white, half-black? Less than 1/8 and 7/8ths? Somewhere between categories? This measure of white vs. black blood was an important indicator of relative status, and who did what jobs (i.e. housework vs. fieldwork). But Django seems to have passed it by. Oops. Might want to talk to casting about that.

 Want more social justice in your (science-)fiction? Itching to know how to write write about people of different abilities, religions, races, ages, sexual orientations and so on? Or how *not* to do it? There's a book for that!

It's called "Writing the Other" and it's *finally* available for PDF-purchase. It's by Nisi Shawl and Cynthia Ward. See link.

http://www.aqueductpress.com/books/WritingTheOther-Vol8.html



It's full of exercises and good advice.

For some reason it decides not to deal with class (although it can easily be put to use to address class divides), and it has a piece of fiction in it that's entertaining but not the best use of e-paper.

It is one of my favorite books.
2007 Resolutions in review.


  1. - Show some geek pride
IRead more... )

Profile

the_fantastic_ms_fox

August 2017

S M T W T F S
  12345
678910 1112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 30th, 2025 11:12 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios