you gotta make the evil characters actually evil, you gotta make the racist character actually racist. Writing a racist character doesn't make you a racist. Talking about the horrible truths of history in your writing doesn't make you a racist.
Very well put many people can't comprehend the difference between a character and the person playing or writing the character I learned this from D&D I wish more people had the opportunity to learn this.
Exactly, and it’s exactly the same with portraying the racist character . Leonardo Decaprio would never say any racial slurs himself- however, for the film to be educational and historically accurate, as an ACTOR he does; this is in no way a judgement of his character
So true. I hate watching a movie the patriot for example. There’s a guy who clearly hates African Americans and thinks they’re nothing but property. But it’s always implied it’s never directly stated, and the guy always learns a lesson halfway through and suddenly the black man is an equal he’d do anything for. It’s so unrealistic and it cheapens what would have been an horrendous experience for the victims of prejudice, and it’s also cheapens how far society has come.
Well, I wouldn't say "truths." Mandingo fights never actually happened. They were never references officially or unofficially in diaries of virtually everyone that was alive at that period, nor was there any hinting at their existence in ledgers or the deaths of particular slaves and you'd think if that were actually a real thing, some slaves would have made an underground name for themselves. Tarantino's films are entertainment, not history.
The fact that Quentin Tarantino made up the character of Jules, who is by far and away his greatest character ever put onscreen, solidifies how much respect QT has for Sam Jackson
Seriously... Jules is legit my favorite Tarantino character. he was sincere, and outside of his work he was actually very respectable and decent... EVEN IF YOU'RE ROBBING HIS ASS.
@@abigailhowe8302 I love Jules because while his character and dialogue are great, SJs acting of that character is simply phenomenal. Unlike modern day film where I fail to see characters but instead famous faces sensationalised by media; examples being, "I love Robert Downey JR's Iron Man!" where people like him almost exclusively because he is the actor of, and not because he IS, that character, whereas Jules in my mind is Jules and no one else. The character is fully fleshed out and brought to life on screen and not just a cameo with involved dialogue. That takes both writing and acting prowess which modern cinema lacks greatly these days
People seem to have difficulty understanding that just because you write a character doing or saying something doesn't mean you agree with them or think what they do or say is acceptable. Often, us writers try to make our villains as horrible as possible in order to hammer home that they are indeed, villains
@@user-nc9xz1wv4i A Writer's a writer, you do stories or scripts seriously? You're a writer, PERIOD. They aren't comparing themselves to Tarantino in any way, they're just talking about a common thing among writers of all sizes. You're the one comparing them to Tarantino and being an extra dick about it. Stop putting Tarantino on such a pedestal and F*ck off.
How can Quentin be called a racist, when he literally creates a movie about a black slave who gets freed and then becomes a badass bounty hunter and essentially the hero of the film... And finishes up riding into the distance with his girl.
@@ThaSlymes They hate on Quentin because he pushes the boundaries. I'm guessing you either love or hate his work. His movies are some of my favourite of all time. Pulp Fiction, Django, Kill Bill, Resevior Dogs, Jackie Brown... I'm thankful for Quentin
@@antpoop2404 maybe... but yall use it like its a trophy. And tbh thats prety sad and pathetic. Yall dont even know when to use that word cuz yall use it for everything. Its at a point that yall dont even know the definition of the word "racism". So it doesnt matter who defined this term... its extremely over used, and 90% of the times its not even justified to use this term.
Honestly Samuel L. Jackson’s performance in Django was what made the film for me. By far my favourite character, he’s one of those characters you love to hate and IMO was the best supporting act in the film.
Is Tarantino racist? Well... Out of his 8 films, 5 of them either star or prominently feature African Americans... and all are handled with respect and reverence.
That doesn't matter. You can't conclusively show anyone to not be a racist. Calling people racists isn't much of a factual, dispassionate assertion to begin with - it's an unfalsifiable insult.
Vestin you're absolutely right... One doesn't necessarily negate the other... But seeing as Sam Jackson has known and worked with him for nearly 25 years, I feel like he would probably be capable of accurately judging any racial prejudice than Tarantino might or might not have. And while he could very well be a racist person, he doesn’t approach his projects or the people of color that he has worked with with any noticeable prejudice, according to basically every single person he’s worked with.
Jackie Brown is basically Jackie and Ordell using all the other characters (which are all dumb, even the police) as blocks in their personal Game of Thrones.
@@62ZAKA might be, or you forget they where just playing a role , like all the people who send death threads to the actor who played bryce in 13 reasons why.
berry mckockiner no he doesn't😂😂😂 that's Oprah Winfrey your thinking about he doesn't think black people are still opressed the opposite in fact he doesn't believe in white privilege of the racial pay gap and please tell me what he said about get out
berry mckockiner ah so your one of those people who chat shit and when they get confronted about chatting shit they just say '' look it up'' instead of providing proof
Charlie Rose is such a great interviewer! He doesn't talk over guests, doesn't interrupt or force false laughs and asks truly interesting questions and allows the guest to actually answer the question!
"I didn't even know people considered Tarantino a racist." Does almost anyone? He wanted Pam Grier to win an Academy Award. Spike Lee just keeps getting his name in the media over and over by being unreasonable.
Most people don't. Spike Lee and Katt Williams acted like fools in 2012 trying to get people to boycott Django without even seeing it. And there's a subset of black critics who agree with Spike Lee and, while not calling Tarantino a racist outright, accuse him of cultural misuse basically. They're idiots.
I love Django Unchained. Great story, characters, visuals, soundtrack, and it has some really hilarious moments. It's so satisfying watching Django absolutely destroy all of these awful human beings at the end
Well he’s playing a character. It doesn’t display what he’s like as a real person. It’s like if you were to read a book aloud with discriminatory words in it. It doesn’t make you racist, you’re just reading it.
@@aestheticaltwat But it doesn't work like that in America. A lot of them think that even in non-offensive contexts a white person shouldn't say it. Like when singing a long with a rap song for example.
I feel like one of the most shameful things about my generation (gen z) is the fact we know Samuel Jackson best as Mace fucking purple lightsaber Windu lmao
Quentin Tarantino is one the most diverse filmmakers. He’s had white men, white women, black men, and black woman as lead characters. I’ve never seen that before from any filmmaker
Kuroro - Tarantino didn't "let" ANYONE blow him up - he ordered him to - it was in his script. He was making a movie of fiction to make money. Don't give it anymore thought than that.
White people get offended on behalf of everyone else because they think their opinion matters. If someone says their offended by words that aren't even directed at them then they're just self important dick heads
@Lego That's basically the same thing. You're baffled by their ignorance, you're offended by their ignorance. Interchangeable terms. Label the feeling whatever you want, at it's root it's disgust over a person/idea.
@Lego We're kinda splitting hairs here. I think whether or not it's directed at you, it's the same feeling, just different levels of intensity of that feeling imo. Idk tho either way I don't think it's worth giving a shit about either way. No matter what people are going to be stupid, you and I are gonna be stupid ect. It's inevitable so why bother being bothered over it.
Ice Medallion Thank you. This is a fact. Life is different when you realize how many things you LET bother you. The moment you let go and learn to not care is the moment you start to accept the world for what it is.
Good point. Jackson's characters are always the most centered, the smartest and the most serious in every film. They are literally the guy that will have your back if you are with him and the guy that will F you up if you try to screw him over. His characters are the representation of brutality honest and since people. The best kind of people IMO.
@@christianwalker2554 because there was a time where black actors were only cast in stereotypical roles, still to this day black actors and actresses are cast in these types of roles, Samuel L Jackson was thankful that tarantino wrote a character for him that didn't die straight away or wasn't a stereotypical gang banger but a charismatic character with iconic lines and his character is remembered as the best thing about pulp fiction
Seems like half the goddamn world doesn't understand what context is these nights. Or why burden of proof is important, or why "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of most legal systems. People just wanna indulge in righteous anger and hatred without looking at others as complex people who are capable of nuance.
Actually it goes beyond simple context. If an actor is playing a character in the south of the time from 1619-1970, they will use the N word. In most movies circa 1980 and back you see that alot. Only after 1980s to the present day do you see white folks using it less. It's not about the movies, the use of the N word is specifically a terrorist word because it basically means you are a slave and I can kill you if I want to. That's what it means. That's what it has always meant when white people use it on black people because, it's normally follow up with violence. Now black people decided to take the word to make it about solidarity in the 1970s. Here is the deal, unless you want to tell someone who is black that they are a slave and you can kill them if you want to, then you should not use it. It's that simple.
@Christobanistan Don't tell that to the opposite side of the coin of SJWs and PC social media, you. You are just as bad. You are just as confrontational, dramatic and presumptive. You are "us vs them" too You are everything you accuse them of being. The truth is in the middle
@@user-ip6he6rq8c bro, there are way easier instruments than the piano. To say it's one of the easiest puts it to shame, you can go on and on about string instruments, brass, the works. But the piano, probably has the most components in any one european instrument, I say European because Asian instruments are often complex to play, but simple to make. A triangle has your triangle, metal rod. And basic sense of rhythm
As a Japanese...I watched Kill Bill and went "Wow, this is the coolest Japanese stereotype in western cinema history!" Yes it was full of cliches and totally over-the-top but I could see he had tremendous respect for different cultures in his own unique way. It didn't come across as racist at all, unlike some movies like Breakfast at Tiffany's, Rising Sun and Gung Ho. I don't think Tarantino is a racist. Just as Samuel says, he never hesitates to write the smartest, wisest, coolest and most bad-ass roles for non-white/non-American actors.
O'ren Ishi was such a great character. Maybe the best role of Lucy Liu. And she is indeed running things and seems to be the most successful of the vipers and Bill. She put up the best fight of them all too. And she could have won but she showed honor in her final fight.
it almost sounds like Tarantino writes characters with no political/social stigmas and fully understands what a movie requires in order to be genuine from concept to fruition. imagine that.
HighSocks that’s how moviemaking should be. Not bowing down to social interest groups for the sake of protecting people’s sensibilities and feelings. Samuel L Jackson is a revered actor and even more revered human being because he doesn’t believe in that crap. He tells it like it is 24/7!!
HighSocks If you look on “it’s” profile, you will see on their banner “quality steel, not quality product”. I would assume that includes their comments!!
I love that Tarantino actually creates a character for Sam. He doesn't need to audition. He played Stephen brilliantly. I also love him as Ordell in Jackie Brown. That's my fav Tarantino movie.
The only people that label Tarantino a racist is Spike Lee and that's only because he is jealous that some Irish/Cherokee mixed dude makes better black movies then he does. That's like being Japanese and some Puerto Rican can make better sushi than you. I guess I would be a little hurt too lol
Denzel isn't a fan either. A lot of other people probably don't appreciate it either but because he has power they can't say anything. Spike doesn't give a shit so he says it. Denzel is big enough that it won't hurt his career.
When Pam Greir arrived at his office to discuss her role in 'Jackie Brown', she asked about the framed poster of her that he had on his office wall. "Did you put that up because you knew I was coming here?" She asked. "No." He replied "but I almost took it down because I knew you were coming here."
Jackie Brown is one of the coolest movies ever made with the 3 main actors (Grier, Jackson and Forster) nailing every second of it. I must have seen it at least 15 times. In my Top 3.
I'd say Samuel & Quentins partnership is one of the greatest tagteams in all of cinema. They understand each other so well.....it's the audience that comes up with beef sometimes.
The TMG Specialist Dude read my comment again. Clearly I meant that he couldn't be a racist since he made a movie where the black slave was the smart cool good guy.
Theoretically, a racist could very easily make a movie about slaves slaughtering plantation owners. The difference would just be in regards to who is the hero and who is the villain.
Probably my favourite actor in history, Samuel is an absolute pleasure to watch in every movie he's in! What a contribution to acting, what a guy and what an outstanding example of how a guy just gets on with it and brings 100% every time.
filmmistaker He wasn't because Quentin Tarantino has one cinematic movie verse inside another so Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Bastards, Django, Hateful Eight and Jackie Brown create the fake movie universe which include Kill Bill, From Dusk Til Dawn and Death Proof... Those are imagined by the real univsere. It's quite clever really
I appreciate movies, actors, writers, etc that are not afraid to go some dark places boldly. Racism is one of those places and the words around it are so charged that often rather than tackle an issue, use the words in your creative process to convey the ugliness and nastiness, and accept the risk of people not understanding your intent and meaning. That movie moved me and I appreciate the issue of language finally being tackled in the open by the very people it affects. Respek. (Major Lazer reference, go watch it)
this comment section is cancer.. Django was one of THE best movies I have seen in a long time where the two heroes in the movie were a black man (who was a bad ass and freed slave) and a white man (who was against slavery in a time it was at its peak in america). While the enemy was a bunch of racist white men and a black man who was BEYOND racist. and the goal was to save a black woman????? But nah it's racist because they decided to be historically accurate with the racism at that time in history, rather than submitting to this cupcake generation and their fragile ears.
@@Garl_Vinland Slavers were really good guys. They just owned people, didn't allow them to be free or educated, whipped them, lynched them, raped them, forced them to work without pay, etc, etc. Other than that they were really great guys.
@@Garl_Vinland Theres no such thing as an entirely bad person, or an entirely good one. Except slavers, they're entirely bad. You can make excuses like that with your bald white friends but hey, news flash bud, society as a whole kinda hate slavers.
@@dragonslayerteo5756 Brainwashed to hate them now* Pretty certain no one gave a shit about slavers, or slaves for that matter back in the day. Hence why it lasted as long as it did.
More impressive than his directing is his writing. No director can touch QT when it comes to dialogue lol. He can make a serious conversation over foot massages, mayonnaise, killing nazis, bounty hunters, etc.
If you've *seen many of his movies,* you would think he has a problem with black people. He even played the part of a racist in his own film, Pulp Fiction. And I can't even re-watch the shit for what he did to Ving Rhames. Smh.
Awww is someone a special snowflake who's afraid of movies that don't cater to BS PC culture? Life doesn't care about your feelings. Accept that fact and grow up.
A big kahuna burger? That’s the Hawaiian burger joint. Mm mm!! I do love the taste of a good burger. I pretty much can’t eat burgers because my girlfriend’s a vegetarian which makes me a vegetarian. That was a tasty burger.
Shame on Tarantino for using the n-word in his movies because no single person used to say that horrific, offensive and shameful word, especially during the slavery. Everybody was tolerant and respectful towards blacks back in those days...
It was one of the deepest characters in cinema history. If you think about it, both Django and Stephen found ways out of slavery. Stephen was a slave on paper, but his attitude and behavior put him just shy of being an equal of Calvin Candie. He created a symbiotic relationship with his master, and in doing so all but removed the master/slave aspect to the relationship. We find Stephen to be a revolting person, but I don't know if it's right to expect a person to take the high road when introduced into a condition of slavery. It's easy to criticize from a comfortable distance.
He was certainly an intriguing character; I'm actually curious about what Tarantino edited out, because a character like Stephen had to work his way up to being where he was, which was basically as high up as a slave could be. The things he had to do to get there would not have been easy, and he would have to be incredibly clever and insightful, so I kind of wish Stephen had more screen-time devoted to him. It would have been nice to see. What we did get to watch was pretty good though.
He didn't say a house slave.... Stephen was, for all intent and purpose, the COO of the house. He was the highest man in the land who didn't have his name on the deed. He was Alfred. Sure he didn't have status, but he leverage his knowledge of day to day operations to make himself nigh indispensable.
Crazy that people actually think it's reasonable to tell a director to make his film less realistic by taking out a word that artificially offends people.
Regardless of if someone likes the word or not it makes perfect sense to use it in a movie like Django. You can not make any kind of realistic movie like this about slaves an expect not to use the word it would come off silly.Tarantino only uses the word in either scenes or movies were it makes sense.
"a word that artificially offends people" It genuinely offends many people. But offending no one is not the responsibility of an artist. Spike Lee certainly doesn't live by that rule.
What do you mean artificially offends people? that word has been used to degrade black people's for a couple hundred years. it might be artificially offending someone to you because I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and say your white. So unless you know what it feels like to be called that as a black person don't minimize the word just because it doesn't have the same effect on you that has on someone that has a different skin tone than yours. I can totally tell you're that type of person it says slavery was 200 years ago I wasn't there when it was happening, why can't black people just you know forget about it it's the past. So did slavery artificially offend the slaves that was going through it?
@@DonVigaDeFierro It's really self explanatory. Clever is an admirable trait, devious is not. Most of those characters were more devious than clever. Intelligent black people don't generally praise Tarantino for creating memorable cinematic characters.
I love how Samuel L. Jackson and Quentin Tarantino are together. They work like PB&J. Plus he's so good in all the roles he plays and the way he acts them out are just Vincent Van Gogh levels of art.
This is probably one of the best roles he ever played … every stare .. every moment was drawn out by Jackson .. tbh .. that character was the glue to the movie . Because of the audiences affection in past movies it allowed more creative acceptance of the violence
This is why Jackson's words carry such weight,, he's a long body of work behind him, his experiences qualify his appreciation of exactly how to portray characters.. he always excites people's minds as to how he will make his own stamp on any given role
That's what I don't get about these idiots who claim Tarantino is racist. Apparently Samuel Jackson has no problem working for a man who apparently hates him.
Have you seen the video Samuel L. Jackson did called"It's all Samuel L. Jackson's Fault"? He addresses that very idea. It's a really funny video but it's not safe for work so look it up at home if you haven't seen it.
Uh, not sure I'd show this to a kid. Some pretty rough scenes in it for a kid to absorb, like the box torture thing (which would have been wooden IRL, because metal was expensive and because it would cook someone, not dehydrate them). Anyway, shit like that is a bit much for a kid to take in.
+Lula Imo, torture is a level above 'normal violence'. I'd be wary about showing kids it. Adults are better at processing the worst parts of human nature than kids. When you can't process something awake, it shows up when you're asleep. I'm not even sure how you explain that to a kid. _"Oh yeah, well, you see, some people torture because..."_ _"Uh, well, they like to? It makes them feel powerful and feeds their ego?"_ _"What's an ego?"_ _(Spend the next 2 hours explaining philosophy and psychology to a kid that still won't really grasp it)._
Well said, I think he makes so many of Tarantinos films epic because he plays the character and Tarantino writes the character without you feeling its for shock, it’s part of the story and these two have given us two of the most convincing the best characters ever in “Steven and major west” ❤❤
Yeah, just think that during the roman empire racism was directed towards north, where the blond barbarians ran around burning and stealing. This wonderful world continues to change, but half of the people cannot understand dynamic concepts, they think things are eternal any even more funny, they would like people to stay were they are born, forever😂 it never happened in 300.000 years of humanity. Good luck stopping the world to spin
lol hey may not be racist but he's sure trying to be a white savior. nobody has to like his weirdo ass, the same for all these degenerates in hellyweird. b/c he helps in some black actors get a paycheck, it's time to kiss his ass? he can do no wrong, or should be glorified? lmao, a telling thing if that's the case.
TheCrunchySopa He doesn’t try to be a white savior, he just gets the right people for the parts in his movies. If you can’t use your brain to see the truth you’re already biased.
@@Crunchysopa52 he stood with blm against police brutality, and him empowering black characters more than the black woody allen ever did makes the case even more clear.
It actually isn't though. That is a naive thing to think. Although on one hand confusing a actor with the character is stupid, since it is only a performance. On the other hand, a character is made to represent something by a writer. A character is the condensation of an idea into the form of a character, it represents something far more interesting than simply being "a character". It's a form of imitation of truth, but it's also about interpreting truth. If a writer wrote a fascist character, made him kill jews, and shined a positive light on his actions, by glorifying them, then you would see the underlying issue more clearly. A character isn't just a character, it's a construction made by very real people, who have thoughts and are trying to condense a message into this tight package of a character and a performance. And this can be seen when a real historic figure is displayed in a film. Plato, in The Republic, actually describes portraying a person as dishonest, since you are "pretending" to show truth, but you are interpreting it, and more importantly, you are forcing a message onto an audience. The character is then a mockery of the real figure, it is only an imitation of who this very real person is. By representing, let's say, Stalin like a fool (Death of Stalin), you are lying about who the person is: you are saying "this is who he is", when in fact all you are doing is displaying a character that is Stalin only in name and appearance, and then making him do what it is you want him to. The example Plato used was the one of Achilles: He laments the fact that this warrior is seen throwing a fit worthy of a child (at some point he rolls in the dirt), because that sets an example: it says that this behaviour is acceptable of such a warrior, when that really isn't the case. This also comes to play in catharsis. By displaying a character behaving poorly, like Phaedra in the play by Jean Racine, and having this character be punished for having thoughts about her son-in-law, you are warning the audience; you are saying that with such behaviour, namely here the thought of incest, comes disastrous consequences. The fate of the character teaches a lesson to the audience through fear. A character isn't just a character. That statement was made by some playwriters and directors to dissociate themselves from the characters they made, so as to use story as a medium to convey a message they wouldn't dare convey themselves. Thinking that the lilliputians in Gulliver's travels are "only a group of people" and not a way of critizing the futility of conflicts between very real kingdoms, by having two kings fights over which side of the egg should be cracked first when one eats a hardboiled egg, is something of an over-simplification. A character conveys an idea, and reducing his role to "just being a character", and then pretending people are stupid for thinking that a character isn't just a character, is ignoring the reality behind plays. This is the reason why actors, for a very long time, were despised in society, because they were mimicking real actions. They operate in "another world", a fictive one, that only mimics the real one.
bourdier gustave I'm to understand that you believe every director is of the same mindset. Which is completely untrue. Many directors create a story which is the ultimate focus of the film and fill the background with supplemental characters that create an ambience in the film that further drives the narrative. I fail to see how a character designed to be racist implies the director or any screenwriters are racist themselves. The notion has no validity. Absolutely none. Let's say that there's a story about a man who desires to kill all the jews (Adolf). Let's say the movie is seen through a depiction of the man himself. It would make sense for the story to try and justify his actions so you as the viewer could see how the narrative would be depicted through the character's perspective. This doesn't have any racial implications. It merely tells a story of a particularly racist individual. The fact that Tarantino includes racism in his films should further reinforce how he isn't racist. Not the opposite. If you write a story about a black gunslinger in the west, yes there is racism. Duh. The tipme period pretty much demands it. The racism included in the films actually adds to the plot in many ways. It creates a level of immersion you're not gonna see anywhere else. I hate to bring video games into a discussion of cinema but look at red dead redemption 2. Micah is a blatantly racist character. It adds to his character by making him more unlikeable as well as create immersion in the story. If you were to see a black man in the west, it wasn't uncommon for people to lynch them just for the color of their skin. Or are you saying that screenwriters and directors shouldn't be including realism into their work? Is every director who includes a villain a murderer in secret? No. A character's depiction has no reflection of the individual playing or writing the character. That's absolutely absurd. What you should be looking for is consistency to the point of obsession. Racism is not a guaranteed inclusion in any of Tarantino's films. It's merely a plot device used when the scene calls for it. As for Tarantino's foot fetish, that is apparent. That's something that is covered in all of his work. It doesn't add to plot, merely aesthetics for his vision of the story. But then again. I'm just some guy with an open mind on the internet. Believe what you wosh to believe my guy. But what you're talking about is merely conjecture and should be taken as such. You've no real insight to Tarantino's thought process. Stating an individual is racist because a racist character is implemented is just downright delusional.
@@OdinPlays94 I was referring to Plato. The issue isn't whether or not the author behaves in this way or agrees with the actions of a character. The issue is that he is displaying this behaviour, and indirectly, he is promoting it as a model. That is why I mentioned Achilles; Plato criticizes Homer for displaying a hero having a tantrum, therefore normalizing this behaviour. Now in drama Aristotle also mentions catharsis, meaning that bad actions can be displayed if the goal is to display the negative consequences of acting in a specific way. This is displayed by Phaedra, who loves the son of her husband and pays dearly for it. So my point was simply that a character isn't just a character, not necessarily that representing a fascist in a movie makes you a fascist. But I don't agree on the innocence of "simply" displaying a character. It is always a choice that was made, and this choice was not made randomly. Simply to answer. I didn't say Tarantino was rascist. And I am not making this stuff up man, Aritotle wrote what drama was based around., namely The Poetics. So this isn't an unfounded opinion.
You know tarentino really respects Jackson, his thing was "yea I would totally let you be the badass main character, you were just like 15 years too late on the draw. "
Can anyone explain me the problem, why people think that Tarantino is racist? When you make a film in the western or such isnt it normal that black people were called "nigga". I dont think when he would make a 2016 lovecomedy with a black person in the main role that he would called the n-word in this film, but when its a western, or a gangstafilm... i dont see the problem.
Because people are being oversensitive pussies that cling to a buzzword and pay no attention to context or relevance or themes. All they see is a naughty word like little children.
Was wondering when he was going to get around to his justification for why it'd be "impossible". When he got to it, and the way he explained it... it seemed so self evident. I literally laughed at how much sense it made.
it’s ironic that Tarantino, with all his swearing, sex, and violence, that he of all people always makes sure his characters always have humanity to them however good or bad they are
Portraying racism helps understand the history of racism. Unless some frail hippie thinks that characters in every movie should be politically correct which means a movie about WWII will have Hitler promoting Jewish lives matter
zz tarry totally, Hollywood wants people to think the Wild West was like the magnificent 7 with Denzel Washington as a cowboy leading a group. Not even close to history.
@@TJ-fe7rr I don't really understand what you are trying to say. That he is boring? Being undramatic in your daily life doesn't mean you have to be a boring actor. Not at all. You don't have to be a diva to be a talented actor. Actually the opposite. Some of the best are actually really laid back and introverted in their daily life
This is true. Samuel is always written in his films as the powerful, smart, manipulative at times character. And those are usually the BEST to watch because they have so many layers. Tarantino knows no one else can play them like Sameul.
@@ripp846 Nah man, that ain't leftists that get mad at that stuff. Leftists aren't the people that throw tantrums on twitter. You're thinking of liberals.
For the love of god people it’s art! To watch Leo and Sam play horrific racists was great entertainment. If you bad guys aren’t bad enough your hero’s will not have a journey worth caring about.
It's funny because my mother taught me growing up to stay away from his movies because they were too violent. But as an adult I have nothing but pure admiration for Tarantino. The guy has NO education in cinema and literally pisses modern art. His movies are going to be studied and appreciated until the next century as 21st century plays.
actually he might be the one that studied cinema the most out of the current directors. He references a lot. But that doesn't take away what he puts out there.
Django depicted a harsh truth about slavery in the form of the house slave. And Samuel L. Jackson protrayed that role perfectly! I was so taken back by his preformance but at the same time so amazed at the daring of the film. Absolutely brilliant preformances by all the actors!!!
Clearly you're trying to warp Mr. Jackson's motives to fit your own narrative. By saying that Tarantino told Jackson to say this implies that Tarantino has power over Jackson. Why would you think he has that? Is it because Tarantino is white and Jackson is black? Are you implying that whites have power over blacks all the way down to the words they say? That's racist, my friend.
Quentin has been casting people of color in prominent roles for a long ass time before "woke" and "politically correct" culture came around and demanded we see more people of color in movies. how can anyone think he is racist
