Unplugged on Django Unchained: A Conversation

Unplugged on Django Unchained: A Conversation by  David J. Leonard & Tamura A. Lomax | special to NewBlackMan (in Exile)
There have been so many great discussions on Django Unchained, so many thoughtful and engaging articles, and even more critical engagements within social media.  We’ve seen everything from harsh critiques to high praise, and of course everything else in between.  The analyses, conversations and comments have all been challenging.  Rather than write a review per se, we thought we’d have a public conversation.  Regardless of how we individually interpret the film, we agree that Django needs lots of discussion.  There’s still a fair amount of unsullied ground to cover, or perhaps, previously examined ground to rehash.  Whatever the case may be we invite you to join us. DJL:  Let me start with this: I am not a fan of Quentin Tarantino (QT), Westerns, or action films.  This is not my wheelhouse so it is no wonder that I left the movie with both questions and concerns about its message and representations, and a MEH feeling about the film.  I just didn’t feel it.  More importantly, I find QT to be really arrogant and problematic as a filmmaker and as a PERSONA on a number of levels.  His responses to critics, his self-aggrandizement, his lack of critical self-reflection, his lack of growth as a filmmaker (the fact that this film is so much like his past films is not a ringing endorsement), and the comfort in cashing in on his privileges, trouble me.  My reading of the film is clouded by all of these feelings.     TAL:  David, let me begin by saying, “I hear you.”  I hate almost all kinds of violence so I never got into QT’s films.  I don’t have any preferences for action films either, and Westerns always registered as “white” in my mind.  However, I loved this film!  To be sure, there are numerous problems with both QT and the film.  And I get your critique of QT’s persona.  He absolutely comes across as self-aggrandizing, and perhaps even unreflective.  One thing is for sure, QT is very much aware of his privilege.  That is, he seems to understand quite well who gets to tell what story in Hollywood, and who and what’s needed for authentication.  That aside, I still loved this film.  I read it as a love story—one marred by both life and death of course.   DJL:  Speaking of violence, the violence in the film felt gratuitous at times.  It was often more spectacular than a critique of white supremacist violence.   There were moments where the cinematic gaze was infused with a pleasure in the violence, and that troubled me. Those scenes were early in the film – the scene involving the dogs, and slave fights, and I had to look a way because of the purpose seemed to be about eliciting pleasure from its (white) viewers.   The camera’s gaze conveys pleasure and joy in in these spectacular images.  It didn’t feel as if there was an interest in conveying outrage and spotlighting trauma. Rather there seemed to be an effort to bring viewers into this extreme spectacle of violence.  The lack of reflection in the cinematic gaze angers me.  I think about the times I have taught about the Birmingham church bombing, Emmett Till, and the history of lynchings, and how I have thought long and hard about the pain and trauma.  Sometimes unsuccessful, I have looked inward in these moments, thinking how might whiteness matter when recounting these histories.  I don’t feel like QT accounted for the trauma or this history. TAL:  I concur.  There was a lot of violence in the film, more than I could stand.  But slavery was violent.  Our current context is violent.  But let me just say this, the continuous cannonades of blood were odious hands down.  Still, I think it’s important to keep in mind that, in a captive state, death often marks the point of transition between modes of servitude and inter-subjective states of liberty.  Thus, while the violence in the film was at times overwhelming, and although I really do detest violence, I was admittedly okay with some of it.  I think the problem with QT, in addition to those you mentioned, is that his gaze too often waxes and wanes between voyeurism, fetishism, condescension, and black heroic genius.  On one hand we get Django, a hero of sorts who kills for love and vengeance.  And on the other hand, we get everyone else, a collection of seemingly disposable frozen objects who, among other things, seem cool on not only their enslavement, but the routinization of violence against black humanity around them.  Along with some of the images of death, I found this to be deeply problematic.   Some of the scenes were so gruesome that, in addition to looking away and/or covering my ears, I had to take a mental moment.  As you've stated, QT delivers violence, perhaps even takes pleasure in it, however he doesn’t take the time to deal with or allow us to sit with the trauma.  He doesn’t allow us to feel the pain of the characters; he doesn’t encourage viewers to reflect on the psychic pain of black death or the countless victimizations of white supremacy. We should problematize all of this, but perhaps QT’s offering us a mockery on life.  Sometimes we take pleasure in hideous violence (isn’t this why it’s videotaped so rampant and callously?).  Sometimes we find alibis for engaging the taboo.  Sometimes violence is selfish.  Sometimes it's unprovoked.  And sometimes it's illiberal.  However, sometimes violence may be just.  Cathartic.  Some sort of source of power.  ***
Tamura A. Lomax is the Assistant Chair and an Assistant Professor of African American Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University.  She teaches, writes, and researches in the following areas: American Religion, African American Religion, African American and Diaspora Studies, Gender and Sexuality Studies, and Black British and U.S. Black Cultural Studies.  She is the author of several essays and is currently at work on two projects: An edited volume entitled Womanist/Black Feminist Responses to Tyler Perry’s Cultural Productions, co-authored with Rhon S. Manigault-Bryant and Carol B. Duncan, and her first single authored monograph,  Womanist Thought, Black Feminism, and Black Cultural Production.  She is co-founder, along with Hortense Spillers, of The Feminist Wire.
David J. Leonard is Associate Professor in the Department of Critical Culture, Gender and Race Studies at Washington State University, Pullman. He is the author of the just released After Artest: Race and the War on Hoop (SUNY Press) as well as several other works. Leonard is a regular contributor to NewBlackMan, layupline, Feminist Wire, and Urban Cusp. He is frequent contributor to Ebony, Slam, and Racialicious as well as a past contributor to Loop21, The Nation and The Starting Five. He blogs @No Tsuris.