markm

Axel   So you think snuff movies should be illegal? This is puzzling on the one hand you don't want any censorship and on the other you do? Which is it.   Bruno   Yes you're talking about artistic freedom to create..... Anything or do you think snuff movies should be censored too?

Where did I say you want to glorify depraved art? You are the one twisting things not me.

  There are laws in this country that protect us from the depraved end of the scale that you would be happy with. You are confusing two issues. This was not about Django it was about the right to show whatever you want.   You believe anything can be shown under the licence of artistic expression. Without exception.

How do you know what others are prepared to pay? It may suit you But many indie film makers dont have a lot of money.

This is about blaming Ang Lee for not giving enough recognition or baling out the VFX company who made the film what it is and never got the appropriate credit or nod.   The VFX company involved seems to want to unite other VFX companies into some sort of union against the film makers Of course this is destined to fail. Unless VFX companies are advocating going it alone to make their own VFX movies and they very well could. I think its a splendid idea   However this turning on film makers will backfire on them if they want to carry on working the same way. They DON'T force VFX companies to under bid Companies do that all by themselves. The problem is the more VFX companies out there competing will mean the more they will drive each others prices down. You obviously didnt read my earlier post.

Axel   The nature of story telling is for the audience to live through the main character To empathise and to feel what he feels. We start and finish the journey sharing his pain and his thoughts. We root for him when the chips are down and we invest our time and ourselves into that. We feel satisfied and we feel uplifted by the end or in his good deeds or we should do if the writing is good.   What you and Bruno are suggesting is sickening. My thoughts are you really don't understand what you are saying and just want to score points.   Tarantino blurs the lines what you are advocating is freedom to all out glorify the most depraved and sick people as heroes and role models. Without exception.   God help us all if you get your way.

Bruno   Okay then so you think it is perfectly acceptable for Tarantino to make a film showing Ted bundy as the hero?

Leang. Quite a powerful film within a moral framework and a clever ending.

Axel   Yes untold unbelievable cruelty in the real world. Good post.

  You dont think a film using a character like Ted Bundy as the hero should be allowed? or have you changed your mind. IE Censorship.  As for the rest you know Bruno you lost any sane rational argument when you resorted to putdowns and twisting my words. I'd appreciate it if you would stop this and try to post only when you have something to say that adds to the discussion.

Bruno   One minute you are condeming censorship the next you are agreeing with it.   I have been saying blurring right and wrong is absurd and now you twist it to make me out to be absurd.   This is not about Django by the way Its about how Tarantino uses characters to turn heroes into sadistic monsters and in particular I'm thinking of Inglourious Basterds and Brad pits character..   its pretty clear to all that your argument is with me and this is personal. GROW UP

Not what I asked though was it?   Okay I'll try again   Axel, Bruno   Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

No its a part of our nature that is neccesary for our survival. Control though has to be taught. Part of control is the teaching of morals. We learn what is acceptable through our society. Of course it wouldn't stop twisted individuals. But twisted individuals are often taught through life to be that way. You would advocate the teaching through film we should all be taught twisted morals are fun.   No it doesn't. Vampires are one of many bad guy monsters out there. What it should do is pit good against evil in conflict with good triumphing. and bad guys getting their come uppance. here is nothing wrong with violence within the framework of a good and evil conflict. The problems begin when the hero is a sadist torturer who is seen to be a role model. When those with violent and criminal ways win against those who are good.   Society is full of people who bully sadistic and love criminality who love these types of heros.

  Axel, Bruno   Okay just want to check. If Tarantino wanted to make a film that showed a Ted Bundy style character as a hero and for the audience to cheer him on you'd be happy with that?

  Yes but it doesn't change their position and maybe it's made it worse. Blaming the director etc on oscar night making them look bad sends all kinds of wrong signals to future contractors. The VFX house created wonderful effects but they are still part of the chain. Many crew are often overlooked for the work they do too. Often actors take the credit for the entire film IE An interviewer will often say to a top actor Lets talk about your latest film for example.

  Capitism and business compete for work. IE effects houses compete against each another. Whoever offers the lowest price for the most work gets the business. If a company unfairly priced the contract knowing they cant deliver and have beaten another company who quoted more and could have delivered they have basicly taken the work from someone else.   Contracts are written for a reason. The VFX company is at fault. NOT the Director. Many VFX companies may go bust and the reason for that is there are to many competing for to little work. This also has the effect of driving prices down. This was the wrong platform to complain on.   Similarly if there were to few effects houses This would drive prices up.   Film makers get this all the time.

Andrew   Yes I am making a Vampire film that has some really nasty bad guys and extreme violence.   But it is a film about good and evil that doesn't blur the lines of right and wrong and it doesnt deal with emotionally morally charged historical events and twist them into something new. If you hold a mirror up you will doubtless see nothing.

You answered your own question when you said If anything Tarantino's portrayal of history is 100% HONEST. Brutally honest. That is why I liked it. The wrongdoing of the racist characters in this film ACTUALLY HAPPENED in history. I felt the film was holding up a bit of a mirror to the audience.   If you think that then what do the many cultures around the world think of it.   Artistic licence also comes with Artistic integrety Responsibilty.   If its a fictional film FINE leave out very senstive history still in the minds of many today and one that seemingly pretends to hold a mirror up to a race. Look lets be honest here. The film uses slavery as a way to hide behind and justify a love of violence for violence sake. Many love violence IE Wrestling boxing. If there was a fight round the back at school. If there is a car crash everyone cranes there neck to have a close look. We ALL have a violent side. How we deal with that is what makes us better or worse human beings. Many of us are great copiers and let others teach us and there can be no doubt films and TV do this. Why on earth people say there is no link between screen violence and real violence is beyond me. Of course there bloody well is that is so obvious. But then we are violent if we dont learn it there we learn it from somewhere else. Or some will seek it out. it's not right or fair to blame film and TV for violence nasty behaviour However Film and TV can give out some wonderful guide book on how thugs can behave or weapons like a clockwork orange and baseball bats.The craze with chinese death stars and Nunchakus. Its been a great source of inspiration to many criminal types. Since Gladiator and the use of dogs every thug has cottoned onto this and now the streets are full of illegal pitbull crossbreeds that many 20 something gang members use as protection or a weapon or even to fight. Thats not to say films are wrong to do this as people copy ideas but it does highlight the fact films do influence society.   I believe film can be an outlet for violence Football is really just two sides fighting. Thats why supporters get so carried away. In the past Heroes have been strong virtuous brave. But in recent times in order to bring something new to the table there has been a lot of scraping the bottom of the barrel.The twisting of good and bad and a redefining of morals. Its about giving people a new experience to make money at the box office. New ideas and a way to justify there own tendencies. But at what cost. In the you can have it all society we now have some want all the greedy selfish lazy nasty arrogant parts of themselves to be accepted. Tarantino plays to that. The truth is this was no reflection of us and no bearing on historical accuracy. Plenty of dialogue rich lines for actors to showboat and get screen time of course this is done to attract actors. Indeed Django unchained epitomises the you can have it all society from the ground up.   Some people think this is groundbreaking Masterful without realising its irresponsible violence that adds to a bankrupt decaying society throwing morals and right and wrong away in. This so called progression will come back and bite us all VERY HARD.   Poor old Tarantino has been put under a lot of pressure for his work and I'm sure he is just trying to do his best. However I don't think even he is aware of how and why he should think about what he writes. After all it wouldnt take much for him to add a moral template and carry on. We all have to learn and it really surprises me at just how stupid and easily fooled people really are.

I'm not saying the British were all good and the Americans were all bad What I'm saying is historically and factually Tarantino's version of events are unbalanced. Not only does he lead us to believe its a good reminder of what happened He also thows in extreme violence to cement the rotten evilness he is happy to let many believe as factual..

  This is exactly what I mean and why films about this time should be handled with care. It's Historically innacurate.   For example Mandingo fighting never actually happened. But you think it was 100% accurate.   Hear what Tarantino has to say himself from about 4mins 30 on.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFh-EssMC1M     There is nothing factually correct about Django unchained. It's a commercial vehicle for Tarantino.   Taken from Wikeapedia Wilberforce and his team were rewarded with victory. By an overwhelming 283 votes for to 16 against, the motion to abolish the Atlantic slave trade was carried in the House of Commons.[5] The debate lasted ten hours and the House voted in favour of the Bill. The Bill received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807  Britain continued to press other nations to end their trade with a series of treaties: the 1810 Anglo-Portuguese treaty whereby Portugal agreed to restrict its trade into its colonies; the 1813 Anglo-Swedish treaty whereby Sweden outlawed its slave trade; the 1814 Treaty of Paris 1814 whereby France agreed with Britain that the slave trade was "repugnant to the principles of natural justice" and agreed to abolish the slave trade in five years; the 1814 Anglo-Dutch treaty whereby the Netherlands outlawed its slave trade; and the 1817 Anglo-Spanish treaty that Spain agreed to suppress its trade by 1820.    By 1783, an anti-slavery movement to abolish the slave trade throughout the Empire had begun among the British public. In 1808, after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807, the Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron. The squadron's task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa. It did suppress the slave trade, but did not stop it entirely. It is possible that, when slave ships were in danger of being captured by the Royal Navy, some captains may have ordered the slaves to be thrown into the sea to reduce the fines they had to pay. Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.[5][6] Notwithstanding what had been done to suppress the trade, further measures were soon discovered to be necessary, and in 1823, the Anti-Slavery Society was founded. Members included Joseph Sturge, Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce, Henry Brougham, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Mary Lloyd, Jane Smeal, Elizabeth Pease and Anne Knight.[7] During the Christmas holiday of 1831, a large-scale slave revolt in Jamaica known as the Baptist War broke out. It was organised originally as a peaceful strike by Baptist minister Samuel Sharpe. The rebellion was suppressed by the militia of the Jamaican plantocracy and the British garrison ten days later in early 1832. Because of the loss of property and life in the 1831 rebellion, the British Parliament held two inquiries. The results of these inquiries contributed greatly to the abolition of slavery with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. A successor organisation to the Anti-Slavery Society was formed in London in 1839, which worked to outlaw slavery in other countries. Its official name was the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.[8] The world's oldest international human rights organisation, it continues today as Anti-Slavery International.[9]

Andrew read the screenplay today all 170 plus pages. Lots of fancy pants writing.  He paints the entire white race except one sad fat person (Scottie) and Dr Schultz (German) as ignorant and evil and the black race as human. If this was reversed there is no doubt the film would be banned. This reinforces a growing prevelant idea white midlle aged western men are racist ultra right wing that can and should be killed off. Yes we know slavery existed and we know there were some awful people but I think some balance. Under what pretext does he get away with using the N word so frequently? Because if he is trying to send a message to the world or to make a statement then this is plain wrong on so many levels.   As a story I would say this is his best to date with a straight narrative that has a few good moments. However its to long and has moments of long dialogue that go on and on. It doesn't really go anywhere fast. So a little boring until the action sequences  that have some nice plot points.   I like the idea of bringing back spaghetti westerns with todays film making knowledge But I would prefer to see someone like Spielberg handle such sensitive material as this and not have it sensationalised in the tarantino manner. By all means have a spaghetti western style but for this subject matter balance is crucial unless of course you dont care who you hurt or at what cost.   NEW EDIT Because I felt I needed to add a little more Remember guys this is just my opinion.   Tarantino may have won an oscar for his writing But in my opinion the film was two stories in one. First was the Bennets plantation which has a beginning middle and end then onto the Candie plantation at around page 50 That tells a similar story all over again. He should really have picked on or the other and gone with that. The dialogue is well overwritten and its easy to see how this would attract actors who want to see their face onscreen for long periods of time. In order to do this he has tried to immitate shakespeare as a modern contemporary. He is NOT. To me this is entirely for the actors benefit I believe many violence thrill seekers would be put off if it was shakespeare. Shakespeare wrote words for the stage and to set the scene obviously different arenas for a start. Shakespeare uses words that convey inner thoughts and not throwaway putdowns and clever repeats and plants. Why Tarantino won an oscar for his writing and not his film making which is cutting edge even if it just plays to those who love violence Sadism torture set in a way they can justify and excuse their love of it.

Andrew   UKIP WANT TO keep the EU as a trade organisation. The UK pays far more in than it gets out. Indeed if the UK said it was leaving the EU would still trade with us and in fact it might put a stop to their dictatorship plans and leave us all with a nice trade organisation.   Right thats it goodnight.

JG You obviously have your own political beliefs and I have mine so  lets agree to disagree on the EU.   AXEL You are not understanding what I am saying about gay marriage or much else for that matter. So our conversations are more talking at each other than proper debate.   So I will say adieu and goodbye to you comrades.

  No I'm not making anything up. Why do you think I am brainwashed?  You've totally lost me?  Why do you think I am stating ideas and what ideas are they?   You're posts dont make any sense. Maybe its a cultural thing. Perhaps youd be better sticking to American politics.   Spelling mistakes?

Same sex marriage is a distraction but in any case. There are civil ceremonies for marriage by the state.     Marriage is an invention of the church. The bible rightly or wrongly says homosexuality is wrong Although not as bad as Islam that demands death.   What you are really saying is you want christians to except homosexuality and rewrite the bible and muslims to rewrite the Quran. Good luck with forcing your own standards onto a religious group. Does kind of make you a bit hypocritical though? .   Bit of a silly move by cameron . Who for no good reason put himself in the firing line of the many religious voters out there.   You have no intention voting to the right? I just love the way you box people UKIP was a single issue party Much of what farage says is plain common sense. By the way I love europe and europeans I also think the idea of free trade within a framework of participating countries can work. Its the takeover of the country The removal of democracy  is something I cant accept.   Really if you want to believe UKIP are right wing and then go on to attribute right wing tendancies that you have seen in other political parties to that thought FINE But ask yourself Would you rather have a thatcher style leader that you can vote out in 5 years OR do you want to lose your country and democracy for good?   I have seen how all the 3 main parties gang up on UKIP saying they are racist and undermining them Really weird how you cant trust any of them but you can trust them when they say this about UKIP. UKIP are not racist they are not right wing They are made up more of ordinary people than any other party. They are mostly fighting a single issue. The EU. If you listen to the crap that is spoeken about the EU Like the EU as kept the peace in europe Fckuck it they damn well gave them the nobel peace prize for it. Dont you realise how hit you are by propoganda lies and cheats. Watch question time where virtually every week Politicians routinely spout lies about the EU. These same people tar UKIP with being racist right wing. Come on JG get some sense man.   QUOTE I dont believe this.   Answer this then.   DEMOCRACY If you dont like the party in power every 5 years you can vote in a new party.   DICTATORSHIP One party that has no opposition parties that therefore stays in power forever.   Imagine that you could vote in any MP as long as its a labour MP   So that establishes the EU as a dictatorship.   1) Were you asked if the EU could have its own constitution/flag/anthem/judiciary/armed forces/police 2)Did you give permission for it to decide our laws? 3)When you get your tax bill your car licence Your council tax. from brussels and want to discuss this Will you be happy to fly out to brussels? 4) Did you know the EU arrest warrant allows them to arrest anyone in any country and take them wherever they want within the EU? They are even allowed to kill you. 5)Did you know their EU Police are stationed in the old Nazi building in the hague? Coincidence?   Fine JG Give up your freedom and democracy Thats the problem there are people  who dont see what is in front of them. Amazing how people wonder why its all falling apart and carry on with a skewed belief system of Nazi right wing and comunist lefties. and takes sides like there in a football team. You're not..   Take care of the freedom liberty and democracy we have had in the past or lose it..