Lincoln & Django Restrained

A recent New Yorker article (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/how-accurate-is-quentin-tarantinos-portrayal-of-slavery-in-django-unchained.html) linking Django Unchained to Lincoln and Inglorious Bastards was inspiringly poignant and edifyingly ideological. It’s important for critics and especially pundits to point out what’s not being discussed that should be, as Martin Luther King Jr. said on many occasions it’s the silence of our friends that is most deafening. Where were the slaves that fought back in Tarantino’s junk food thrill ride? Where are the Quakers, or men like William Stills, George Thomas, Nat Turner, Fredrick Douglas and so on etc..? Is it just that Tarantino is too lazy to tell the real stories or even hint at some of the history? Likewise was Spielberg’s obsessive focus of that particular period in history too narrowing or close minded to the wealth of passion and history? The late Christopher Hitchens once blasted http://www.laweekly.com/2011-12-29/film-tv/Christopher-Hitchens/full/  the obvious indolence of historical dramas and it’s safe to say exhaustive research into historical facts can only serve to enrichen the viewing experience. That said there’s no doubt that Lincoln and Django Unchained are both very entertaining and well done films. Although given the obvious talents of both directors’ prior works its clear even without a more encompassing message that they are undoubtedly growing lazier. Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Saving Private Ryan, and Shindler’s List are unquestionably American Classic masterpieces but these two current films are not. They were good films and a few of the scenes were great but without a farther reaching appeal to the opportunities that exists in the wealth of the human experience they sell their themes short. Lincoln in its own right is a great film, but at the same time I felt cheated as much of the time felt wasted. It was a film about the passing of the 13^th amendment. It could have been called the 13^th amendment instead of Lincoln. For political wonks the film is candy and fodder adding to the relevance of their daily spins and acceptance of government norms placating the legal corruption strangling are democracy into the intellectual stalemate turning sound policy ideas and structural changes into exasperated futility.  As Thomas Frank said on Martin Bashir recently http://video.msnbc.msn.com/martin-bashir/50474208#50474208 the shill triangulation that these films aspire to serves against our better judgment. Not wishing to give away anything, there is a terrific scene in Django where a character does the unexpected and rises to the occasion but as Frank points out about Lincoln and “Clintonism” it’s just a cliché. Just as Hemingway’s Old Man of the Sea comes back with no meat on the fish, our love affair with the glorious moment when John Wayne or the Magnificent Seven ride in at the last minute or Congress passes a debt limit at the last second in a gesture of sacrifice for the greater good. No. No. No!  It is the unwavering struggle and efforts devoid of illusory tactics that have specific demands and results through painstakingly hard work that is needed. Tarantino’s choice to lift Django to super hero status may be fun for the video game audience but the film would have been better with more realism. Once the main character is elevated pass reality; tangible efforts toward greater truths and motivations become in-compelling. So many opportunities to explore the depths of tolerance determination and acceptance were overtly simplified in both films leaving us with a hunger for a more purposeful justice. Did we see the best of Lincoln? Did we see the best of Django? No, we didn’t see the best of them nor did we get a chance to experience the triumph of their inner spirit to emulate. That speech Lincoln gave to the confederate leaders in their meeting at the ship lacked the conviction we all know he had. And why did I have to imagine Django as a perceived hero of sorts? Apart from a few smiles and stares, he was alone. In the very beginning of Lincoln a soldier recites the Gettysburg address to Daniel Day Lewis. I would much rather of seen Lincoln writing it on his napkin and then speaking the words to soldiers after having seen a scene from the battle itself. I didn’t feel the words. I felt government’s grinding quid pro quo minutia that serves today’s lobbyists and politicians not voters or the grass root activists we’re going to need to educate us. This is the imperative of art and the media today, to counteract the deceptive extremes of the ill-informed not serve as the triangulating shill of malfunction.