When I was 16, my dad introduced me to Tarantino’s Kill Bill. It felt revolutionary.
From then on, I was hooked on Tarantino films, both as father-daughter bonding and because they fueled my love of film.
But, like all good things, my love for Tarantino’s art came to an end, when I discovered he’s a shit person.
Recently, I rewatched Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Django Unchained’ for an essay and discovered that the idea of the separation of art from the artist, does not work in all situations. In Tarantino’s case, his obvious prejudices towards black people leak into his work in his use of the n-word and the fashion in which he portrays the subject matter of the slave-era South.
The n-word is used 109 times in Django Unchained. That’s roughly one every two minutes. Tarantino’s blatant overuse of the word is not only inappropriate for a caucasian to write, but it also doesn’t add anything to the film. As Jelani Cobb writes in his 2013 article ‘Tarantino Unchained’, the word is used with a “numb frequency” which left me rolling my eyes thinking ‘there he goes again’. Tarantino’s use of the racial slur alerted me to a scene in his earlier movie ‘Pulp Fiction’ where he cast himself as a minor character. In a two minute scene, Tarantino’s white character says the n-word four times seemingly for comedic effect. Cobb describes Tarantino’s use of his films as “camouflage that allows [him] to use the word without recrimination”. In my opinion, both over and misuse of the n-word in Tarantino”s work cannot be separated from the man himself because his determination to say the word bleeds into his film. How can we separate the art from the artist when the art has such a personal connection to its the maker?
Why do cis-gender, heterosexual white men incessantly insist on portraying stories of minorities about which they have no knowledge on said stories? Why on earth did Tarantino think it would be a good idea to portray the slave-era South, led alone with his own romanticised, alternative ‘twist’? Not only did Tarantino have the gall to portray the triumph of slavery at the hand of one “exceptional n*****” (Calvin Candie, Django Unchained), but he also had the caucasity to portray every other black character as passive, submissive and unintelligent. Tarantino chose to create slave-era film and executed that idea with what seems to be little research. His blatant romanticisation of a painful and real subject can only be viewed as a coherent decision, in which the film and filmmaker are equally flawed.
“You must separate the art from the artist” sounds all well and good when you’re listening to a sexist jazz song from the 50s, justified by a simple “they didn’t know any better”, but modern-day artists cannot be excused. The ‘Art v Artist Conundrum’ only exists when there is the possibility of separation. In Tarantino’s case, the art cannot be distinguished from the artist because his films are a grotesque extension of him and vehicles which he employs to fulfil his ‘un-PC’ fantasies.
Jelani Cobb’s article: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/tarantino-unchained
This was a really fun article to read! Separating the art from the artist is always a dangerous subject and can get you into some pretty problematic territory. I’ve recently been swinging closer to the opinion that fully separating art from its artist cannot provide the best picture of that artwork’s meaning or significance. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, some of our perspectives and experiences (problematic or otherwise) are going spill over into our work, and that is important to recognize. In cases like Tarantino, understanding the artist’s attitudes is a pretty important avenue for analysis and can tell us a lot about how certain elements (like the overuse of the word ‘n*****’) are meant to work and what values they are trying to convey.
This is especially important when the artist is still active – the most prominent example that comes to mind is JK Rowling’s recent outing of herself as a full-blown TERF and the ways that is becoming increasingly evident in her writing. You can shout ‘death of the author’ as much as you want, but any purchase of the Harry Potter books or tickets to Fantastic Beasts movies is directly sponsoring her access to a platform and ability to widely spread bigotry and hate. No amount of separating the art from the artist will prevent the economic reality of consuming her work.
I have mixed feelings about even separating art from the artist in the case of sexist 50’s jazz songs – while that society held (and still holds) sexist values as a default, I’m not sure that absolves the artist of indulging in those values. One of the most interesting aspects of cultural history is seeing how social attitudes changed over time and what that might have meant for the people living in those societies. Criticism of old media based on what we know today necessarily involves challenging those attitudes. Also, some people during those times probably did know better! Rather than trying to defend it, it might be more fruitful to acknowledge that the media is problematic, and also that we are not evil for enjoying it as long as we are aware of its problematic nature.
This was a really interesting post! Similarly to Angus, I also immediately thought about JK Rowling and the situation we are in surrounding how we can still engage with her books. As Angus said, her problematic beliefs are becoming more evident in her writing, and it is for this reason that I think it’s important in this case, and many others, to not seperate the art from the artist.
Most of us read the Harry Potter books as children, and upon realising the concerning undertones of racism and classism in the books (https://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=theses) I feel that we had the potential to internalise these ideas due to our age. Because of this, and because JK Rowling has so kindly exposed the origin of the issues in the books, I think it is important that we recognise where these problematic ideas are expressed. This will allow us to interrogate the stories and try to take from them only the positive parts without being passive towards the negative. The books are there, and I love them, but we don’t have to accept them as a whole to enjoy them. Keeping JK in mind when reading them gives us better insight into their implicit subtext.
This was a really interesting post thanks Rose! I had never thought about what you wrote before in references to Tarantino, I have been a fan of his movies for a long time – but I never really thought of him. I too watched most of them with my dad as Tarantino’s movies are so different from others nowadays, they really make you think. One of my favourites of his is Reservoir Dogs it was probably one of the first random movies I ever watched! But in saying this I never thought about what they were saying especially in Django Unchained. After reading what you wrote I do think its right to hold Tarantino accountable for his actions in these films, its not right and he should be thinking about how the characters in his films effect other people. I believe more people just need to be aware of this as it’s hard to get caught up in the theatrics of his films.
Hi Rose, you’ve explored a very relevant topic in your blog post, and I think that we’ve all got some learning to do from it – namely around when and where it’s appropriate that we bring up/entertain certain subjects. Briefly, I’d like to make a few comments. I’m not sure how you came away from Django Unchained with the impression that ‘every other black character [was] passive, submissive and unintelligent’. I rewatched the film recently, and nearly the opposite seemed true; while many of the early scenes certainly aligned with your view, the characters of Stephen and Broomhilda (two main characters) are strong and powerful. Given the movie is a depiction of the horrifically dehumanizing and oppressing nature of slavery, I feel that it would be inaccurate to describe Tarantino’s portrayal as involving ‘little research’, especially as such elements of the film have been praised for their historical accuracy (smithsonianmag, 2013). In the context of Tarantino’s other movies, which have involved killing Nazis, rich people, and mostly white people, I would argue that Django is more of an exception than the norm across his filmography. Tarantino’s satire of the slave-era South, using extreme violence and humour, allows us to see both the ridiculous and cruel nature of the time, much like his portrayal of the Nazis in Inglorious Bastards.
1. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/what-django-unchained-got-wrong-a-review-from-national-museum-of-african-american-history-and-culture-director-lonnie-bunch-1471712/
Hey James! Thanks for the comment, it always interesting to see other people’s take.
I totally get your point about Broomhilde and Steven being more active characters in the film, but the passivity I was referring to was in regards to the plot. Broomhilde, whilst rightfully scared, is not an active part of Django’s revenge plan. I had a whole paragraph on Steven’s character – but went over word count, the gist of it was explaining Steven’s placement as an alternate antagonist to Candie. Whilst, again he is an active character, it feels as though Tarantino placed him in the text to use Samuel L Jackson as comedic effect. As Jelani Cobb says in his article, “the use of this character as comedic foil seems essentially disrespectful to the history of slavery”. Also, whilst Steven may not be outwardly passive/submissive and actually has some control over Candie, his character is shown through Django’s eyes as cowardly and dishonourable, connecting back to the way in which Django is highlighted as the sole saviour figure, and that “one in ten thousand”.
Thanks again for your comment! Much to think about ☺️ I would highly recommend Cobb’s article, as it was the inspiration for my post and stated my points far more eloquently!
This was a really excellent post! (And such a topical problem too, with all of JK Rowling’s recent TERF-related comments).
Though there’s no easy answer to a question like this, I do find that it is always important to view art in regards to the artist. Background prejudices, ideas, and influences can all find a way to leak into artwork (take JK Rowling as the example again, where even if it isn’t direct, depictions of certain magical creatures echo several political biases she has).
Where I’m not sure I totally agree is in the jazz songs, I think it’s very easy to dismiss things as ‘a product of their age’, I don’t think it fully acknowledges the transformative changes that also happened in those ages. While I think it’s probably still fair to enjoy the songs, I think sometimes the whole ‘product of its age’ label can have us accept things that could otherwise generate interesting critical discussion.
Overall I just really loved what you had to say though, definitely thought provoking!