Film Review: Django Unchained

5/10

Quentin Tarantino's historical revisionism continues with Django Unchained, which offers his view on the end of the slave trade if it had to deal with Christoph Waltz and Jamie Foxx. How does Django impact on his later films? Is Jules Winnfield a distant relative of the grovelling man-servant Stephen? If so, does this mean that all of Jackson's characters in the Tarantino canon as related in some way? Trying to tease out the relationship between each character is ultimately more than actually watching Django, which overstays its welcome and lapses into a turgid second half.

 

For most of the film, Waltz is the star, playing sophisticated European bounty hunter Dr King Shultz who frees Django so that the former-slave can help him track down a trio of brothers who are wanted by the state for murder. Their partnership works out, and they continue to work together so that they can free Django's wife Broomhilda, who was bought by psychopathic plantation owner Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). DiCaprio has won deserved acclaim for his role, and he gifts the film's second half it's only good scene, as he saws open the skull of a former slave to 'prove' the inadequacy of black people as a race.

 

Tarantino has always been indulgent, but never as bad as DU. A scene with a proto-KKK gang falls flat with Tarantino attempts to mock them. Before they attack Waltz and Foxx, the lynch mob stop to adjust their masks - they'd been cut earlier that afternoon, and evidently not very well, as they complain that they can't see out of the eye-holes  The scene is admittedly humourous at first - the suggestion that the Klan picked their infamous outfits not based on any tradition or superstition, but on a 'what do we have available' pragmatism - but the joke is dragged on and on, killing the humour and ruining the rest of the scene. It certainly can't have been made, Sideshow Bob stepping on rakes-style, to pad out the running time, which stretches to almost three hours, and features a last half hour (essentially Act 3.5) which is completely pointless, seemingly only existing to resolve the plot which could have been wrapped up earlier, and to give Quentin his inevitable cameo - as a slaver who, like every other character in this film, uses the n-word in a manner in which the casualness only adds to the discomfort. 

 

Which moves us on the main point - is Django a racist film? The film is scattered indiscriminately with racial epithets, (most estimates count them at a rate of one per minute). Often the word is used descriptively, in the same way that someone would use the term 'African-American', which has led some to suggest that, in this context, it is not offensive. A similar situation comes about in Hemingway's Fiesta: The Sun Also Rises, where he uses the word numerous times to describe a black boxer who he is praising. He is not calling the name a 'n-----' to offend him, simply as a way to identify him. This argument falls flat, however - that word is loaded with a history and context which cannot be removed, and so, regardless of the intention of the usage, it is markedly offensive. It may perhaps be even more offensive used like this, as it contributes to a normalisation of the word which ignores the racist context in which it was created and used.  

 

The film is most problematic in regards to race, however, in the relationship which Shultz has with Django - although he frees him, and largely treats him as an equal (although pays him less from their bounties they collect), Waltz still technically his owner, and Django still has to operate within the master-slave social relationship. Therefore, Django is merely enabled by the white character to undertake his quest of saving Broomhilda. This task itself is also one of a personal vendetta, and not aimed at attacking the slavery system as a whole - the slavers are merely to ones who stand between the couple. Twice in the film Django is involved in freeing a group of slaves - once when he is first bought by Waltz, and again in the second-to-last scene. Both times he simply unlocks their shackles or their cage and leaves immediately, leaving them stranded in a hostile wilderness. The film is not, as it has been referred to as, an anti-slavery film, as much as it is a revenge film set in the time of slavery.   

A Personal View on Scottish Independence

At a Yes Scotland event I attended in Falkirk, a local SNP councillor emphasized the need for the pro-independence movement to appeal to people on a personal level. There is an unbridgeable gap, in many respects, between politicians and voters. Politicians peddle empty phrases for votes; but your friends and relatives actually do care about you, and so their arguments are driven by compassion and genuine belief. I agree with this, which is why I will now tell you a personal reason as to why you should support Scottish independence.

The Falkirk Wheel officially opened in 2002, after stumbling over the usual obstacle course laid in front of large projects like it - costs escalating, dates not met, and, in one case, an act of vandalism which set the entire building programme back a few months when it was almost complete. 

Although it does not sound very grand - more like a crap Ferris wheel intended to weakly ape the London Eye - the Wheel is in fact a triumph of engineering and ingenuity. It was built as part of the Millennium Project, linking the Union Canal (which runs from Edinburgh to Falkirk) and the Forth and Clyde Canal (which, as the name might suggest, links the Forth and Clyde Rivers (which supply Edinburgh and Glasgow respectively) and was probably intended to operate in a similar way to the Pamana Canal). This has reinvigorated an archaic form of transport, stopping the canals from lapsing into disrepair along with the industrial landscapes they used to supply. The Wheel itself is built in such a way that it can make a full rotation using the same amount of energy as it would take to boil a kettle. And, as the only rotating boat lift in the world, it is a huge tourist attraction, which is a further boost to the local area.

The opening of the Wheel was a Big Deal in Falkirk - so much so that the Queen herself was invited to the grand opening. It was the first time she had been to Falkirk since, I think, the seventies, and she did not return until last year, to attend the opening of Forth Valley Royal Infirmary in Larbert.

On the day the Queen visited (with the Duke of Edinburgh) I was forced to go. My gran is a staunch monarchist, but my grampa was busy on the day (he works for a charity which runs boat tours on the Wheel for school kids, residents of old peoples' homes, and people with disabilities, so when the Queen visited he was actually on the Wheel itself) and, as she cannot drive and does not like to get the bus, my mum had to take her. And I, being a child of school age who could not be trusted in the house on his own, had to go along.

Currently I am a republican - at the time, although I did not have a clear idea of politics, I probably felt much the same - if nothing else, just to be a contrarian.  So, I was less then pleased at having to spend to afternoon waiting for an old woman to flick a switch to pretend that she made the Wheel move. In reality, the Wheel had been operational for about a week beforehand, and, like C-list celebrities have at Christmas light switch-ons, the button she pressed was entirely for show.  

The Queen's car, surrounded by a fleet carrying her entourage and security, drove into the car park, edging towards the crowd, which numbered near one thousand. Security guards cleared a space, and they drove to a podium close to the switch laid out for the Queen. As she got out of the car, the crowd cheered, and her and Prince Philip waved. He smiled, and she did not, ensuring that she remained committed to the British stereotype of a 'stiff upper lip' and a complete suppression of emotion, something that probably goes some way to explaining her popularity in the UK. She said a few words (I cannot remembered what they are, as they were fairly unremarkable, and the sound system crackled only when it did not muffle her voice), pressed the switch, and the Wheel started to cheers and applause. The Queen again waved, and discussed something with the chief engineer who had oversaw the entire project.

The crowds were again parted so they could drive away, and me, my mum and my gran found ourselves lining the walls of this corridor - the Queen would be driving directly past us. As the car came, I made a decision - instead of waving or clapping, I turned around and stood with my back to her. It was a petty thing to do, but, as an 11 year old, there was little else I could do.

My mum or my gran never saw that I had turned around, so when the Queen's car drove by I was still standing with my back to her. In amongst the cheering, and the general positive commotion  I heard the car stop. As I turned around, the Queen was exiting the door of the car nearest to me. She walked up directly to me.

"What do you think you are doing?" 

I was too intimidated to reply.

"I will ask again - what do you think you are doing?" She sounded angrier the second time. She was leering over me, and I could smell her breath, even feel it warm my forehead slightly. A man behind me, probably oblivious to what was happening, shouted on me to shake her hand.

Then she slapped me. The force - the shock - of her gloved hand knocked me to the floor. I looked up at her, still angry.

"Get up, you insolent little boy." The crowd had been silenced, I could hear the way she enunciated every syllable with disgust. I slowly rose to my feet, only to be struck down by her again. This time it was more like a punch. She leaned down and grabbed the neck of my jacket, lifting me to my knees only to punch me again, several times, about the face and head. She let me drop to my knees. Inspecting her glove, she said:

"So first he turns his back to one, and now he ruins ones glove with blood and... mucus." The knuckles of her glove were spotted with a mixture of blood, snot and tears, which also coated my upper lip and part of my shirt.

Prince Philip's left hook took my by surprise. He had been lurking behind the car, watching with glee. He knew his place, and he knew when to get involved. He help my arms behind my back as the Queen worked my body, and them my face some more. He warned the people around not to interfere, or the same would happen to them. 

The Queen eventually stopped, spitting on my before getting back in the car. I was lying prostate on the floor, attempting to pull myself into the fetal position. As he walked away, Prince Philip aimed two kicks at me - once in my kidneys, then, after he stepped over me, turning to boot my front. I felt a blunt pain in abdomen - he had aimed for my genitalia. They got back in the car without a word, and drove off. Slowly the crowd dispersed. 

Now, that story about the Queen is not true. 

But I think it tells us all we need to know about our relationship with the monarchy.  

How Labour have bought into Thatcher's hegemony

Classifying Thatcher’s hegemony

Stuart Hall’s The Neo-Liberal Revolution [PDF] is an analysis of the contrasting views and systems which have shared the popularity of the British public since 1945.

Firstly, the aftermath of the Second World War prompted an almost-unilateral level of support for the creation of a welfare state. It was the Labour party of Attlee that first pulled it together; but William Beveridge, upon whose famous report the welfare system was based, was a Liberal, and the plans even had support from the Conservative members of the wartime National Government. While Labour, at the time still a party which could claim to represent the working people of Britain, had made great gains in working class and poorer areas, it was not until the war that the wider population began to take notice of the situation of those in poverty around the country this happened when children from destitute inner-city areas were evacuated to the homes of wealthy country families. Although the level of camaraderie and collective British spirit at the time has been overplayed, this, perhaps, also had an effect. The desire for a cradle to grave support system was so deep that the Tory party were unable to win despite their entire campaign being based on the fact that ‘they’ had won the war with their candidate for PM Churchill.

It was not until 1979 that the idea of the welfare state was challenged, when Margaret Thatcher led the first of her three successive governments into an ‘ungovernable’ (as Ted Heath referred to Britain) maelstrom.

               

In 1979 Thatcherism launched its assault on society and the Keynesian state. But simultaneously it began a fundamental reconstruction of the socio-economic architecture with the first privatizations... Thatcherism thoroughly confused the left. Could it be not just another swing of the electoral pendulum but the start of a reconstruction of society along radically new, neoliberal lines? ...

[Thatcher] impelled people towards new, individualized, competitive solutions  'get on your bike', become self-employed or a share-holder, buy your council house, invest in the property owning democracy. She coined a homespun equivalent for the key neoliberal ideas behind the sea-change she was imposing on society; value for money, managing your own budget, fiscal restraint, the money supply and the virtues of competition. There was anger, protest, resistance - but also a surge of populist support for the ruthless exercise of strong leadership.

Hall is right to note the role of Thatcher as a strong leader in the eighties, which contributed hugely to her popularity. Unlike Heath, she did not appear to buckle under the pressure, did not resign Britain to being 'ungovernable'. At the end of eighties Thatcher and Thatcherism uncoupled, taking different trajectories. Thatcher was deposed by her own party in the wake of the poll tax riots, as they feared that she had pushed the people of Britain too far, and a decade of resentment had been building towards the party. John Major took over the party in 1990, and steered them back to the middle ground, reaching there before a Labour party which, under Neil Kinnock, had also moderated itself, largely by expelling the Trotksyist group Militant from its ranks. It was not until the re-branding of Labour under Tony Blair in the mid 1990s that they finally took back power.

This is where the political theory of Thatcherism returns - a Labour party willingly bereft of its social democracy, working class roots. As Hall notes:

But the 'middle ground', the pin-head on which all mainstream parties now compete to dance, became the privileged political destination. New Labour believed that the old route to government was permanently barred. It was converted, Damascus-like, to neoliberalism and the market.

Rather than attempt to reverse the destruction of industrial communities around the country, Labour simply forged on with the Thatcherite view that humans are inherently selfish. It catered overwhelmingly to the expanding middle class (which, in reality, was merely a brand of proletariat with a different quality of life and a collapsing class consciousness). Take, for example, the case of being able to buy your own council house. Remove the status symbol of a mortgage, and there is little difference between owning your own and continuing to rent. All you have done is contribute to the growth of a profit-driven market in housing, which, as a basic human need, should not be given over to the realm of private sector profit (as with health or education). New Labour persevered with this idea, as it believed that the free market could be used to lift people out of poverty - this runs parallel to the belief that working can lift you out of poverty, and is no less inaccurate.

One thing that Thatcher recognized about neoliberal economics, and capitalism in general, is that it must combine the opposed concepts of a free market with a strong state, in that the market must be protected so that it can flourish. Thatcher started the erosion of civil liberties in Britain, attempting to smash its enemies as much as possible. Her government used the police as a private army against striking miners, going out of their way to protect the police from any prosecution. It also eagerly took part in collusion with loyalist terrorist groups in Northern Ireland to murder civilians (when it wasn't just using the army to murder civilians, that is), and used a war over a tiny rock in the Atlantic Ocean to further the cause of British nationalism and imperialism into the twentieth century. This flexing of state muscles continued with Blair, who ignored the vast majority of people who opposed his illegal Middle East wars, and happily ignored the concept of human rights - be it against peaceful protesters, or terrorist suspects who were tortured. There was also nothing done to reverse laws which clamped down on trade union activity, giving Britain the staunched-policed workforce in Europe.

The Coalition government are happily advancing the free market/strong state idea (as they obviously would) but what is more worrying is the complicity of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to conform to the neoliberal blueprint. Miliband has spoken of his admiration of Thatcher before, but the willingness to lazily conform to this hegemony is no more apparent in the case of the recent 'strivers' vs. 'shirkers' development.         

‘Strivers’ vs. ‘shirkers’

Classifying the people of Britain in two distinct camps was, in this case, Cameron's idea (he used the word skivers, but the intent was the same). Strivers are people who work hard, shirkers are people who attempt to avoid it.

It is, of course, a lazy, and horribly reductive. It is, politically speaking, a good move, as it means you do not have to stretch yourself attempting to appeal to more than one group - just set out two camps, and wait for the people to come to you. It does not look at the role played by people who are out of work, and want to be in employment, but cannot because there are not enough jobs being created. Or people who are in work, but skive their way through it. People who cannot work. The idle rich.

It is a classic, simplistic case of divide and rule, motivated by a series of lies and slanders aimed at the poorest people in society. And Labour have bought it.

The Independent today has ran a front page story highlighting the truth behind the stats which roll from the tongues of Tory ministers who want to shame anyone on benefits - at the same time the Labour party have unveiled populist new plans to force anyone unemployed for over two years to take a job lasting six months, otherwise they lose their benefits. This again, is simplistic, ignoring the reality that there are not enough jobs being created, and playing into the idea that anyone unemployed for that length of time is simply 'idle'.

The complexities and failures of a jobs program by both main parties are for another blog post - what it serves as here is an example of the unwillingness of the Labour party to take the tough road (the 'old route' as Hall referred to it above) back to power. It has neglected its roots as a social democratic party for electoral reasons, which, at first, seem common sense. It was Thatcher herself that showed that hegemonies and established systems in Britain could be challenged, through her dismantling of the welfare state. Labour could channel the dissatisfaction with neoliberalism, and highlight its obvious failures. In this context, it would prove to be a greater opposition than it could ever be currently. There is a timidness in the way with which Labour approach politics these days - it no doubt fears electoral ineffectuality. On its current path, it is already ineffectual.