'The Hateful Eight' Marks Tarantino a Neo-Creative Racist!
I have never been that person to ever buy something or felt like I needed to have it, see it or experience it JUST because of the name attached to it. It is probably one of the reasons that I find it so hard to find clothing that I like, because I refuse to perpetuate the over worn and over seen labels that adorn most malls. Well, Quentin Tarantino is no different! His movies are not something that I just HAVE to see just because he wrote it or directed it. To be completely honest, any and all Tarantino films that I’ve ever seen, I never knew they were Tarantino films until I was watching the credits and saw his name. However, of all the films he has done, the one I enjoyed the most had to be the two part epic martial arts film, Kill Bill.
With that said, let’s get into The Hateful Eight review-ness of it all! I’m well aware that there are three things that people expect from the over-the-top director/writer: Harsh language, gory violence, and lots and lots of shock value. Over the years it has been said that the language component is by far the thing that many take issue with because of the offensive nature in the writing. Yet and still, time after time again, these same people who complain and gripe about the writing contiunue to support Tarantino's work. I mean, he's still cashing checks from the looks of it!
The film overall was blurry in regards to plot. It was supposed to be this three-hour epic tail of life in the old wild west amongst a group of bounty hunters looking to cash in their bounties. In his Kill Bill fashion the segments of this movie were split up into chapters. Much like watching a moving book. However, this particular tale could have stayed on the shelf! Samual L. Jackson plays the blunt, vulgar and lie-filled Major Marquis Warren who hitches a ride with overly paranoid (also vulgar) John (Kurt Russell) who is towing his bounty Miss Daisy Domergue played by Jennifer Jason Leigh.
Let's put the speed on the overall movie:
- A whole lot of bounty hunters, thugs, and hangmen are trapped in a house by a blizzard.
- The owner of the house they're trapped in is missing along with her staff and number one patron (who apparently has a chair that he claims).
- There's a gang secretly trying to save the not-so-damsel like woman because the head of the gang is her brother.
-Lastly, there's a lot of shooting and basically everybody dies!
Good! Now that we have that out of the way lets get into my rant! The amount of which the word n****r was used was just simply #TeamTooMuch! I understand for the sake of period peices that writers try to stay true to the vernacular that was used at that time, but if we're being honest, has Tarantino EVER really been gung-ho about sticking to any particular rules when it comes to film making? NO! He hasn't. So I don't think that his overuse of the word was justified by saying, "Well that's the word they used back then..."
Between the Black slurs and the Mexican slurs (basically equating Mexicans to dogs) I was just outdone with the outlandish way in which this film offended so many people. Some might say, in defense of the director, that he didn't just offend Blacks and Mexicans, he also offended White people. My response to that is, a Black person calling a White person a "cracker" (as disrespecful as it is) doesn't carry the same weight as a White person calling a Black person a n****r over and over and over and over (are you getting my point yet?) and OVER agian, given the vein in which the word was birthed. So for those of you who feel like disprespect is ok if everyone is disrespected in such an outlandish and vulgar way.....TAKE A NAP!
The vulgar, racial slurs were overdone, not because of the "time period" the movie is supposed to take place in but because the words used seemed to be just for shock value. Their placement wasn't always needed and could have very well been changed to utilize other language to get the same shock effect and point across. Not to mention, of course, Jackson finding himself (yet again) in another Tarantino film in which his "Johnson" is blown off! Why does this man have a fascination with castrating a black man in his films? Like I said, #TeamTooMuch!
There was a particular scene in which Jackson narrates how and why he made a grown white man strip naked, walk in the freezing snow, and then offer him clothes only if, in turn, the man would suck....and I quote.... his "Big, black, long Johnson." That was more than enough for me and my entire row to want to get up and leave but by that time the film was almost over and we figured, "We paid, we'll stay, it's almost over, but we won't like it!"
Aside from the language, the length of this movie was literally like watching paint dry! I don't understand why this story needed to be three LONG hours of offense. It was as if Taratino said to himself, "I really just wanna say n****r a lot and I need about three hours to do it....what can I write around that?" There was nothing so amazing about the story or the cinematography that warranted this film to be that damn long!
There were some parts that were funny and interesting, yet, nothing that makes the rest of the script worth bearing through everything else. I looked behind my seat at some point and realized that half the the theater that started out with us (having been almost full when me and my friends arrived) had gotten up and walked out.
At the end of the day this movie (in addition to the other QT movies I've seen) made me question quite a bit about Tarantino. I think it interesting that art will usually and always imitate those things in our deepest consciousness. What we feel, what we think and how we ultimiately want to be and want to do are expressed freely and subliminally in the things we create. So I sat there wondering how much of this man's creation is embedded theology and belief, creatively masked as something fun and shocking?
The excuse that, "Well he's not racist because he has so many black friends, has dated black women...blah, blah, blah" is simply not enough to explain away a pattern of how he depicts people of color in his films. And of course, according to the blog world, having 2 black models living with him whom he doesn't charge rent because he's too busy sliding his "Johnson" into any one of them at any given time isn't helping either! I can not confirm nor deny that accusation soley on the base of On The Jaye Spot's reputable sources BUT it is out there for the talking!
One might say that Tarantino is a man who continues to make movies that may (in some small, minute form) bring a very large racial issue to the light and make it sooo uncomfortable for White folks to watch, that they eventually see the ridiculousness of being racists themselves. Something that many are not willing to do in Hollywood and I'm sure some of you may actually swallow that particular flavor of BS. However, I refuse to believe that one can make film after film about an issue, slather it with one of the most hated and known slurs of all American history, continue to castrate or emasculate a black man at SOME point in his film, and I NOT question where he stands on the issue of race? There's a reason that a cliche is a cliche; it tends to be based on truth. Hence the phrase, art imitates life.
The perogative to watch or not watch a Tarantino film is truly based on whether or not you see a problem with his films. Albeit, I don't understand how the majority cannot, but it's a matter of perspective none the less. The only reason The Hateful Eight didn't recieve a straight out FAIL is because I actually enjoyed the shooting. Quentin, come out of your subliminal closet of racism and just let the world know that you really don't like people of color. I can respect that much more than putting it all in your movies and then expecting me to praise you for being so "courageous" and "creative" (cause THAT's not happening). Just let us know, "You guys, I have an erotic fetish for black women but that's about how far my love for color goes."