A Psychoanalyst Reflects on Django Unchained

When I first heard Spike Lee's insistence that he would not go to see Quentin Tarantino's new movie, Django Unchained, because the persistent, repetitive use of the N word was disrespectful of his ancestors, I was inclined to feel that he was being precious and hypersensitive to a word. After all, the film is supposed to be about slavery in a period before the Civil War; who among us knows exactly what words were used in that period particularly in the slave owning South?

After seeing the movie I can only envy Spike Lee for his not having to see the tasteless, repellent, exploitative film that I had the misfortune to sit through. Old Spike will not be exposed to the N word expressed by actors white and black, male and female, in fact by everyone in this despicable film that is a discredit to its director and writer not because of words alone, bad as the frequency of the N word really is, but because it is a shoot them up, revenge comedy that makes use of the visual presentation of the brutality of slavery to make the audience laugh and feel satisfied by the shoot them up mayhem of the ending where all the bad guys are gunned down by the revenge seeking Django.

The audience is drawn into the slaughter of all the bad slave owners and their henchmen, leaving the killing of the most reprehensible character in the movie, Stephen the black house manager, to the last, making it the most earned and delicious killing for the audience to savor. Samuel Jackson's portrayal of Stephen is as shocking as anything I can imagine, leaving this formidable actor to play a role equivalent to finding a Jewish actor to portray a Nazi identified Jew who is intent on joining in the persecution of the Jews. The final scene of Django and Hilly (his wife) leaving the burning plantation, looking great on two gorgeous horses is more suitable for a Frank Capra movie than for this supposed study of the brutality of slavery and the triumph of one black slave.

Role of Film Violence

I had seen Inglorious Bastards and remember that I felt making a revenge comedy about a group of individuals taking the Nazis and Hitler out in one big and glorious explosion was in questionable taste. But this was nothing compared to what I saw on the screen in Django. In that first, unfortunate film we were not subjected to seeing Jews murdered or tortured by the Nazis, we were shown a few Jews executed by the same actor who plays a good guy in Django, but this cannot be compared to the use of slavery as the basis for mayhem, buddy fun, and unending violence.

I never object to violence in films because it is always make believe and not to be taken seriously, but slavery is not something that really is the basis of fun and should not bring laughter or a sense of elation to a film audience. Tarantino may be the most tasteless filmmaker of the recent decades. Django exceeds my limit for vulgarity as entertainment. As a director and writer Tarantino has proven his capacity for total tastelessness.

Spike Lee is taking a good deal of criticism from the media, from Sarah Silverman, and many others for objecting to this film without having seen it, but if he had seen it he would have even greater reason for claiming that it was disrespectful to his ancestors. Who it really is disrespectful to is the audience. Tarantino seduces them, particularly the younger adults in the audience, to laugh at his exaggerated version of the South and the cruel nature of slavery. By making every slave owner hateful and sadistic, Tarantino belittles the legitimate injustice of slavery, even in the hands of more humane slave owners. His cartoon version of history does violence to the audience's capacity for decency in objecting to slavery in whatever form it has existed.

Perhaps it would be better if Spike Lee had seen the film and used his capacity for visual language to denounce what he had seen in a form that exceeds what I can express about its unending offensiveness.