January 14, 2013
What Django Unchained Got Wrong: A Review From National Museum of African American History and Culture Director Lonnie Bunch
Jamie Foxx as Django. Courtesy of Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Digital Inc.
For more than two centuries slavery dominated American life, the shadow of slavery shaped everything from politics to the economy, from Westward expansion to foreign policy, from culture to commerce and from religion to America’s sense of self. And yet, contemporary America has little understanding or tolerance for discussions about the enslavement of millions. In many ways, slavery is the last great unmentionable in American public discourse. So I was hopeful and interested when I learned that Quentin Tarantino was to tackle the subject of slavery in his movie Django Unchained.
At nearly three hours long, Django Unchained is as much about slavery as a spaghetti Western is about the realities of the American West. Slavery is little more than a backdrop, a plot device for Tarantino’s musings on violence, loss, individual and collective evil, sex and retribution. The notion of a black man (Jamie Foxx as Django) willing to risk all to regain the wife (Kerry Washington as Broomhilda) who was taken from him when she was sold like chattel is a powerfully compelling narrative, one that is ripe with historical accuracy, drama and pain. Unfortunately, the richness of this story is obscured by the Sam Peckinpah-like violence and by the overly broad characterizations that reduce the character’s humanity to caricature. I understand the power of satire and the fact that it is “just a movie,” but the story of slavery deserves a much more nuanced, realistic and respectful depiction.
There are, however, aspects of the film that successfully illuminate the dark corners of the enslavement of African Americans. Tarantino captures the manner in which violence was an everpresent aspect of slave life that helped to maintain and protect the institution of slavery. The scenes where Broomhilda is viciously whipped or where Django removes his shirt to reveal a lifetime of scars are the movie’s most accurate and most painful moments. Tarantino also exposes the sexual abuse and the lack of control that enslaved women had over their bodies: to the movie’s credit, it does not shy away from the realities of sex across the color line. While Leonardo DiCaprio’s over-the-top depiction of plantation owner Calvin Candie often brought inappropriate chuckles from the audience, DiCaprio does capture the unchecked and capricious use of power that was at the heart of the plantation system. And Candie’s overly friendly and unrealistic relationship with the black head of his household (Stephen, wonderfully created by Samuel L. Jackson), nevertheless, does reflect the status that some enslaved garnered from their proximity to the master.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays the unsettling Calvin Candie. Courtesy of Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Digital Inc.
Yet these moments are far too fleeting in a three-hour movie. One of the biggest disappointments is the depiction of enslaved women. I had been quite impressed with Tarantino’s direction of Jackie Brown, a movie that allowed Pam Grier to explore the limits and the strength of a woman caught in a difficult situation. So I hoped that the women in Django Unchained would have a depth and a sense of completeness that would enhance the film. Unfortunately, the enslaved women are either sexual partners or cowering individuals waiting to be rescued. During slavery, many women struggled to define and to defend themselves in circumstances that sought to strip them of their humanity. Women found ways to maintain a sense of family and a belief in the possibilities of future that they could only imagine. These women do not appear in Django Unchained.
Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson) confronts Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Courtesy of Columbia Pictures/Sony Pictures Digital Inc.
Quentin Tarantino is a gifted filmmaker but this is a flawed presentation. My only hope is that this film opens the Hollywood door that would encourage others to create movies that are much more respectful and provide a more nuanced interpretation of America’s greatest sin, the institution of slavery–an institution whose impact and legacy still color who we are today.
Lonnie Bunch, the director of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, taught film history at the University of Massachusetts. The museum’s latest exhibition, “Changing America: The Emancipation Proclamation 1863 and the March on Washington 1963,” is on view through September 15, 2013, at the National Museum of American History.
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
30 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I wonder if you have the same disappointments with Uncle Tom’s Cabin or the autobiography of Frederick Douglass. I thought Tarantino captured the essence of the institution very well.
Sylvia in comparison to anything else that Hollywood has offered to this point Tarantino is way ahead for it is lacking. Tarantino though only touched the tip of the tip of the iceberg (no pun intended as is si eloquently illustrated in this blog.
As a movie it is a good Tarantino movie, as a Narrative on slavery it is ahead of what we see from Hollywood but it is sorely lacking.
“America’s greatest sin, the institution of slavery” What happened to the Africans whom were sold by their fellow Africans into slavery was indeed short sighted and greed driven. But for the most part it was and some places still culturally accepted and as such customary slaves accepted their role as such.
It was (is) sad but it really pales in comparison to what happened Native Americans.
This movie shows that people are very influenced by violent and racial movies.
Sounds like another film taylored to divide people along racial lines, this time using the antebellum backdrop. Wake up peeps, and smell the BS manipulation…
The movie DJANGO gives examples of the history from that time; the movies explains EVERYONES family history. For those who have complaints about this movie after the Sandy Hook situation, this movie has absolutely NOTHING to do with the shootings. So because of the Sandy Hook shootings, movies that involve guns and killing shouldn’t be made anymore? Please. I’m all for gun control but this movie shouldnt ever be compared to Sandy Hook. This movie was crucial but it was needed to be made. Kudos to Tarantino for having the guts to make his movies surreal. Racism, control and violence is what that time was all about and apparently theres still racism and violence in the world today. The movie just shows who the real bullies were. NIGGER OR NIGGA MEANS IGNORANCE.
ROBB, YOU SOUND IMMATURE. THE MOVIE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MANIPULATION.
Why in the year 2013 do we as black people even need to see another picture especially created by a white man about slavery. There are enough pictures already bout that to reflect the history. I do not want to see another picture bout my black people about slavery, a maid, a butler and anything else that is not showing black people in a positive manner. We must march on to better and more positive images and stories pertaining to our precious history.
excuse me John Bower,were you alive during slavery?You have no idea how bad it was for black slaves in the south.For you to compare Native Americans and Black slaves in slavery shows how ignorant you are,black slaves and native americans were slaves at the same time,true Native Americans were slaughtered,so were black people,this country is so afraid to admit how truely horrible slavery was.Also stop trying to blame black people for the selling of slaves,WE KNOW BLACKS ALSO SOLD SLAVES,but lazy selfish white people started the process and made America the richest country in the world from slavery,ruining people’s lives and family’s, whites valued slavery a lot more then anyone else
I think Tarentino must have wanted this to be as accurate as his other racially-charged revenge movie, Inglorious Basterds. He has never claimed to be a historian. He is, however, a great story-teller who focuses on sensationalism. I think any moviegoer would be remiss if they went to a Tarentino film expecting to see legitimate history and culture.
I listened to Quentin Tarantino’s interview on the Jamie Foxx show on XM radio and I am a fan of his movies. It wouldn’t be a Tarantino movie without his homage to “the Sam Peckinpah-like violence and by the overly broad characterizations”. Tarantino had a hard time dealing with the subject matter of slavery and he hates Calvin Candie. So it was one of the challenges of finishing the script. He had a hard time dealing with the subject matter of slavery in America so that was another hurdle he had to jump to finish the film.
Tarantino shared the story he had to tell and I do not feel he is the one who should tell the story of slavery in a much more nuanced, realistic and respectful depiction. I feel that job should fall on the shoulders of some one like Spike Lee who unfortunately may never get the funding to pull off such a film. They even discussed feelings about Roots and one of the movies he used as inspiration.
I do not have any idea what really happens behind closed doors of the “Big House” However, Sam’s character was the family’s slave, he had been around since DiCaprio’s grandfather and basically raised DiCaprio’s character, so though he would never go against him seriously in public he would tell him a thing or two behind closed doors. And DiCaprio, having grown up listening to him, he would listen then. I couldn’t stand either one of them myself. We still see that type of behavior today.
Kerry Washington’s character had “a depth and a sense of completeness that” enhanced the film. And to me it looked like the woman that followed Calvin Candie was more like his wife than just a sex slave.
Django Unchained was not a story about slavery, it was about the love between Django and Broomhilda and how far he would go for her. (You can tell because Tarantino had the German guy tell the story to Django as an anecdote) The journey of a free African baby who was made a slave and his journey into being a free man was a side story and so was slavery.
You just have to keep in mind it is not just a movie but it is just a Quentin Tarantino movie. There is going to be lots of gun fights with blood, action and the main characters will be fully developed and the side characters will leave you asking questions like “Why did that German guy do that?” or “I saw that coming a mile away, didn’t you?” In spite of all that I think it was a great movie and Jamie and Kerry were excellent.
We have come a long way since Uncle Tom’s Cabin or the autobiography of Frederick Douglas. Those two examples were very distinct from each other in that HArriet Beecher Stowe was an abolitionist who wrote a fiction for White’s to reconsider slavery. Frederick Douglas wrote a first hand account of his life experience as a slave and rising out of those physical and mental shackles.
Django: Unchained is a film that fixates on violence as Black-exploitation films did in the early 1970s. Almost all of those films were challenged and criticized by Black activists, community organizers and leaders of the time for the same reason. Violence, caricatures, Black and white stereotypes, simplification of real social issues. Black Panther Chairman Huey Newton wrote about Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song a film that was not about exploiting Black people in 1971. This was right before Black exploitation cinema took off. It took off with the money and left the stereotypes and caricatures for Black, Brown, Yellow and White folks to sift through and figure out 40 years later that these are stereotypes and not supported by the leaders or community of the day. Artists like Quentin Terentino have made a living off stereotypes and caricatures like Jackie Brown and Django or characters that Samuel Jackson tends to support. Black cinema didn’t start with Melvin Van Peebles but he was key in creating a Black character that didn’t stay a victim against police or state brutality. The character of Sweetback does not end up a statistic in the films ending he escapes from the law. That is why Sweetback was supported by the BPP and many other community groups of the day. Films like Shaft explored alternatives in making a Black man in citing with the Law so they made him into a COP and in turn humanized the image of the Police again. Who they hired was Gordon Parks Jr not the famed Black photographer but his son. Shaft was a story written by John D. F. Black a White screenwriter who wrote for Mary Tyler Moore show. The screenplay was written by Ernest Tidyman a White writer who wrote action films like French Connection and High Plains Drifter. Then there is Superfly also directed by Gordon Parks Jr. In Jet Magazine September 28, 1972 the future Mayor of Washington DC Marion Barry stated that Superfly “robs us economically and spiritually” and that it was “mind genocide.” The complexity is here… Superfly was produced by two upper class Black dentists and Gordon Parks Jr. Upper and lower class Black communities are dialectically confronted with economic situations that differ their experiences in a society that still treats both classes as outsider.
Read behind what we celebrate today through popular culture. It may have been constructed for you to assume one thing while it negates self worth from within.
“Warner Brothers, Sig Shore and Gordon Parks Jr. got themselves together and are selling to the Black community a cinema brand of cocaine designed to appeal to the same people that are the targets of the hard-drug traffic.”
-Vernon Jarrett
I agree with Rob…lol
I wish Salvador Dali had shown a more realistic representation of clocks. His depiction is flawed.
Slavery is the last great unmentionable? You’re kidding, right?
I couldn’t disagree more. This is a movie that makes one think,- about everything. One cannot ask for anything more from any form of art.
Try truth: Diary of a Contraband. The Civil War Passage of a Black Sailor, a true story published by Wm B GOuld IV of his great grandfather’s escape for N.C. slavery and subsequent 3 years service in the Union Navy. Jamie: play the role of Wm B Gould as a young man. Samuel: play him as an old man. Spike: direct. Oprah: produce. This part of American history is absorbing and can be transformative – if we do it right.
IT’S A MOVIE, NOT AN ARCHIVE !!!! Quentin starts with an idea and runs with it. He is an entertainer not a historian. Just enjoy the movie !!!
Vernon,
Thank you for your clearly and methodically painted landscape which is complex and diverse enough to house the historical influence of where and how our black imagery of slavery has become a conversation talking point. The 2000 version of Perry’s Ma’Dear is not just a movie character any more than Super Fly was for the 70′s.
Now I will go see the new movie spin on America’s sin.
Greed, violence against others, disrespect of other’s well being, prejudice, intolerance, etc. have been part of human existence since the beginning of time and sadly still lingers in some people today. We should have descended from peaceful Bonobos rather than violent Chimps.
I wish someone would make a movie based on the book “The State of Jones”.
DJANGO UNCHAINED got nothing wrong at all, because its a movie, filmed entertainment and nothing more. I am a bit surprised that this film would become a point of reference for a historical examination of what remains the dark and shameful foundation of the USA.
It is, after all, a work of fiction!
I also don’t recall this much attention to the idea of accuracy of history in film, for say SAVING PRIVATE RYAN or even ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE KILLER ( or for that matter LINCOLN).
I think Tarantino shows courage in his filmmaking, which itself is a reflection of his own passion for films of simplicity and broad entertainment value. He certainly shows more courage than Steven Spielberg or Spike Lee, both of whom have repeatedly demonstrated their preference for baroque methods of emotional manipulation and historical fakery over the ‘quiet’ simplicity of Tarantino’s cinema of imagination.
Unlike the author of this article,I don’t think that Quentin Tarrantino is a particularly gifted filmmaker, I do however applaud his willingness to deal with a subject matter that frightens and divides most Americans.
In general, American films about history are not impressive. For the most part, Americans don’t know much about history and often don’t care about it; that is why this sort of absurd rendering of the past will not bother them.
For political purposes Americans are constantly trying to rewrite history, they downplay the brutality of slavery, insist that the sexual exploitation of black and First Nations women did not happen and swear that the Antebellum South was a paradise ruined by the “War of Northern Aggression. They maintain that slavery was caused by Africans “selling each other” and not by the need for expendable labor to fill the pockets of European colonists with coin.
It would be wonderful if someone would address the subject of American history accurately and entertainingly but, sadly, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
This review was absolute garbage,equal to the junk one usually finds on Yahoo.
I expect much better from Smithsonian.
That’s “Brunnhilde,” as in the shieldmaiden and valkyrie in Norse mythology, and Wagnerian opera fame, not the comic-strip character “witch.” The point is made, very early in the film that she was owned originally by a German couple – which is why she speaks German. I am surprised that Director Burch missed that very important point.
A black man was given the power to kill, to end the lives of the
enslavers. This was never the reality in real history.
The same is true of his last film, where a bunch of Americans, a
Jewish lady, and a black man with a match standing over a pile of highly
flammable film was able to kill Hitler and a theater filled with the most
powerful Nazis.
It’s safe to say that Tarantino doesn’t care about what others think
when it comes to messing with the realisms of history. And I kind of like
that.
I’m happy that black men can count on this film to be able to relate
to the lead character and feel the catharsis that comes from destroying
those who oppressed and abused your ancestors and left you in a world
where you will never ever ever experience equality, since you are born
into poverty and ignorance, as the majority of black people are in
America. But for a moment. Just a single moment. The black man rose up and
killed that white slave-owning son of a bi$3h. He*@ yeah! (Smithsonian Magazine would not post this comment, and gave me the chance to rework this last sentence, since it had profanity. I’m grateful for the chance to meet a compromise on this censorship.)
but the story of slavery deserves a much more nuanced, realistic and respectful depiction.
Not always. We take tragic events and treat them all sorts or ways. It’s how we process them as a culture. Sometimes we cry and sometimes we are ready to carry things over the top and dare to laugh, be empowered, or take real events and create fiction designed to get under the world’s skin. It doesn’t have to mean we are belittling the original event.
Does anybody recall Mel Brooks doing It’s Springtime for Hitler in the Producers?
So, this movie obviously lacks a totality of coverage in certain areas. The author brings a good point up about women. Buuuuuut, if we are to take a look at Slavery destigmatized and treat it like it ISN’T taboo, it isn’t something with so much stigma we are forced to only depict it in certain ways, then isn’t it wrong to insist it ought to chastised for not depicting enslaved women in the way the author wishes? Because that’s exactly (imo) what Django has going for it, it’s rebellious (compared to previous movies that depict slavery drama or other genre) and raw nature. Starting to hoist upon it requirements only draws it closer to the center, closer to the middle ground of acceptibility and if we follow that impulse through, then what happens to the violence, the hatred and the dehumanization that I believe is a fine blast to our society of reality. I’m not saying there’s no room for developing Broomhilda’s character a bit more, I’m saying it’s wrong to criticize this movie for not being X enough. Because that’s EXACTLY what movies in the antebellum period so far have all tried to do assiduously and it always ends up feeling stale, white washed and well fake. If we force ourselves to treat movies that have taboo subject matter in a regimented way, we’re only reinforcing the reflexive impulse that gives the concept of “taboo” its power to keep the issue at hand alien and distant.
It is very true that: “Django Unchained is as much about slavery as a spaghetti Western is about the realities of the American West.”, but I highly doubt that Tarantino doesn’t know that and that he didn’t make it so on purpose. He never pretended to be showing a historical realistic representation of the slavery. Quite contrary, his claim (which I agree with) is that through the outrageous caricatures the message becomes stronger and much more powerful than an “accurate” historic depiction could ever be. A cool, rational, fact based manner, might not always be the most appropriate way to deal with the incomprehensible madness of the slavery…
I usually prefer to see movies, especially those based on true facts, as reflection of the reality. I will never expect that a movie will describe, in our case, an historical period reliably. My opinion is that movies are only there to make us curious to discover by ourselves the true story. It is obvious that a movie of 2 or 3 hours will never be enough to tell the entire story of slavery.