"I LIKE THE WAY YOU DIE, BOY!"

*Django (Django Unchained).

Not as topical as it has been, I've still decided to wade in on this Tarantino debate:

Is Quentin Tarantino's portrayal of black slavery culturally sensitive?

Rather than drag this out I'll try and get straight to the point. Yes and no.

"Explain yourself Mr Carlisle! What sort of a half-arsed answer is that?" Alright, I will.

What I found most uncomfortable about the film wasn't so much what I saw on screen, but what I took into the experience from my understanding of Quentin's character. See, Good 'ol Quentin has often been heard telling people that he enjoys the "aesthetic of violence" which in my mind doesn't really qualify him for the job of 'sensitive exploration of controversial subject matter' (when it's very clear Tarantino doesn't have a nuanced  bone in his body).

How can I know (for certain) that he's not getting the same satisfaction out of his violence-on-blacks as he is his white-on-white violence? For example, while we accept the bloody shootouts as comic-book style entertainment, is their inclusion here in this film inviting a similar voyeuristic enjoyment of a scene where attack dogs literally rip a slave to pieces?

Even that question poses difficult sentiments. Should violence (any violence) be seen differently just because of the colour of a victim's skin? Is drawing such a distinction, in its own way, not racist?

So here's the thing. My issue is not with Tarantino's 'take' on slavery (for his own part he clearly knows that "slavery is bad" and sees everybody equally whatever the shade of their skin). My issue is more to do with his 'take' on violence in general. I genuinely feel that he is unable to distinguish between comic-book sensitivities which glorify 'action' from gritty 'brutality'. At least, if Tarantino can distinguish the difference, then I feel that perhaps he enjoys them both equally- which is very problematic...
 Reservoir Dogs is NOT Kill Bill, and while their content can both be considered violent, one is realistically visceral while the other is highly styalised. To my mind, one is a condemnation of violence while the other is an action-ballet designed to both thrill and entertain. By including both tones within the same film you send out very mixed messages, and when you apply that rather jarring combination to such a sensitive subject as slavery, then you're going to upset people and invite the criticism of 'trivialising history'.



On a final note; 
Quentin, you really don't help your cause when, aside from showing the horrors endured by the black slaves, you start making shit up like Mandingo fighting! As if things weren't bad enough for them already, you have to draw 'popcorn entertainment' from their suffering? That's pretty insensitive... You dick.