Jamie Foxx in Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained (trailer)

Quentin Tarantino, continuing his run of Hollywood action epics wherein oppressed individuals rise up in total defiance of historical fact to go Rambo on their persecutors (see also: Jewish bad-asses killin Nazis in Inglorious Basterds and black chinamen punching out the eyeballs of slimy westerners in his RZA collaboration Man With The Iron Fists) finally unveiled the official trailer for “Django Unchained” yesterday. Tarantino himself has described the film this way: “[it] tells the tale of a bounty hunter who trains a slave to kill plantation owners in order to gain revenge on a particularly foul bunch of individuals.” It is also packed with big names from star Jamie Foxx and villain Leonardo DiCaprio on down to Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington and a cameo from Jonah Hill. Even if you were dyin’ for a quality black western to provide some balance to the established Clint Eastwood canon, this establishes pretty quickly that Django Unchained is not gonna be much of a history lesson (more like they took Blazing Saddles as the basis for a serious shoot ’em up). It does look like a hell of a revenge movie, though. Pass the popcorn and watch below:


  • joe

    “chinamen”? really. we are past racial slurs. its not funny. please change it.

    • My intention was certainly not to offend and i have changed the copy for that reason. But I think its worth pointing out that even if it is archaic or problematic (in the sense that it suggests all citizens of China are of one ethnicity) ‘Chinaman’ is not a racial slur. If anything it’s a little sexist in the same way the word ‘mankind’ is. As a comparison, describing Muslims as ‘Mohameddans’ is inaccurate because it suggests that Muslims worship the Prophet Mohammed the way Christians follow Christ, when in fact they worship Allah. Which is why if a newscaster used it in a story on, say, Libya, that would be a problem. But it was never a derogatory term for Muslims and I don’t think using it in the context of a story set in the feudal era (as Man With The Iron Fists is) should be considered offensive. But if it had that effect I apologize (and if anybody else agrees/disagrees, feel free to let me know).

    • G

      Fact: the term “Chinaman”/”Chinamen” is a racial epithet, and not in the banal and mostly innocuous sense that Eddie “STATS” Historical Revisionist suggests, alluding to issues of homogeneity.

      I always find it strange when people outside of the marginalized group in question use, and then legitimize, their use of racist language or ideologies. I’m pretty sure Chinese and other [phenotypically] Asian folks, who were and are at the receiving end of this derogatory term, were not involved in the creation, definition, or continued use of it. Not only are we omitted from the process of autonomous self-labeling and identification, but now we have to remind the usurpers of language that it’s not their call.

    • What I was trying to do is to refer to the existence of that ideology without perpetuating it. My point was that there’s not much about the term itself (‘men from china’ oh no) to get offended about–its the very real legacy of colonialism (in the east) and racialized labor (in the west) that its associated with–a sad history that’s reified in some very strange ways in ‘Man With The Iron Fists’–thats offensive (interesting that you’re bothered by my ‘revisionism’ but not Tarantino’s btw). My intention was def. NOT to offend or marginalize and the article is amended. i say ‘try’ because you’re pretty clearly offended. On the other hand, dialogue is good, in my opinion. Maybe even better than autonomous self-labeling.

  • Pingback: Django Unchained [Trailer] | Life And Retrospect()

  • Pingback: Pass The Popcorn: Hollyhood’s Battle Over The Black Cowboy | TheRealBFLY()