Django

[Arreis13]

I felt this movie was great. The soundtrack was great, the camera and lighting throughout the movie was on point. I did have a hard time with the mandingo fight scene as well as the brutal killing of Dartanion. I have never been able to deal with such violence as that in any movie.

 

[HiThere]

Just saw the movie. Took awhile because as a person of African, Carib/Taino whose ancestry has been affected by the ravages of the slave trade then and now was very difficult to watch. I will not go into much details, but this mental construct still exists today. African history did not begin with slavery. Many people who were captured were astronomers, engineers, architects, etc. So slavery, which lasted for approximately 500 years is just a drop in the bucket of time as it relates to the history, culture and traditions of African people.

I do not know how many people of color know their rich history. Many of my friends are afraid to pursue it because of the shame, the pain and the indoctrination of forgetfulness that has taken place on so many levels. The actors in D'Jango represent people that I know today, maybe a bit exaggerated, but I know people like the character Samuel Jackson. Many times "we" are our own worst enemies. Many of the sub-stories and visuals while violent did actually happen and more times than we know or have record of. This system of actions created these realities of the past which are now being played out on a global scale.

What really blew my mind was when D'jango freed himself, left the cage carrying the other enslaved people open and they made no move to escape. I understood then that even though their freedom was a step away, the mental slavery was so overwhelming that they did not consider their physical freedom. It was like watching domesticated cattle/sheep waiting to be slaughtered and having not one clue of their fate.

Why were Africans captured and brought to this situation in the "New World" in the first place? Why is there a distinct difference in the way peoples are treated, especially people of color in this current construct? Why the effort to continue to propagandize the history of the Africans and keep the truth suppressed? If Africa and Africans are as backward as portrayed why the current rush to depopulate and carve up the continent by external forces?

Fortunately, because education was critically important to my family the ability to process information is crucial, so my family is one of oral storytellers. One of my great great great great grandfathers was a brilliant stone mason and his work can still be seen today in our historic district.

While I agree the movie was extremely violent what aspect of slavery isn't. No matter who is doing it to whom. Do we realize that this mindset still exists and my observation is that the system of enslavement also enslaves the master? It creates a perpetual system of division and divisiveness. What is freedom? Who gives one human being the power to enslave another?

Include on your movie viewing 12 Years A Slave, http://www.movieinsider.com/m9435/12-years-a-slave/. Once you get over the fact that these things really happened, replace the actor(s) with yourself, a loved one, etc., the movie will have a different effect.

Knowledge is power.

Thank you for your views on this.

I recently watched this movie, and found it thought-provoking because of the brutal depiction of violence in the context of historical facts - i.e. violence in slavery. While I do not have any reason to believe Tarantino is making movies with the good of mankind in mind, I still find his perspective on violence to be thought-provoking.

Maybe one pinnacle of evolution for an organic portal is the perfectly executed revenge, done in pure righteous anger, with years spent training to be the violent instrument of carnal justice.

Q.T.s depictions of violence seems like a plausible description to me of the dreams of revenge that suppressed people can harbour. He seems to have taken a lot from the kung-fu movies, where the pure and calm hero has to take on the evil adversary because only the hero has the capability to take revenge, and revenge is the ultimate goal, as long as it is executed with skill and righteousness.

I think the same mindset lies behind the people who sees the death penalty as constructive, or aggressive warfare of any kind. Q.T.s movies depicts the mentality that governs this world, but done with nice lightning and inspiring scenery etc., and this makes it disturbing to watch.

It is disturbing to watch because Q.T seems more preoccupied with with the esthetics of the scene than with being distraught about the violence in this world. I think that this is intentional - he uses nonchalance to engage the viewer.

von Trier's movies creates a similar reaction in me - not by nonchalance, but he uses disturbing means and I am never sure whether his intentions are "pure" or "good".

 

[Arwenn]

I felt this movie was great. The soundtrack was great, the camera and lighting throughout the movie was on point. I did have a hard time with the mandingo fight scene as well as the brutal killing of Dartanion. I have never been able to deal with such violence as that in any movie.

The soundtrack was great and cinematography great too. But the violence is gut-wrenching. Just even the whipping scene was brutal enough, and I had to fast forward through the mandingo scene. It really brings home the horrors of white imperialistic supremacy not only over Africa, but India, Indigenous Australia, native North America..... to mention but a few.

{snip}

Q.T.s depictions of violence seems like a plausible description to me of the dreams of revenge that suppressed people can harbour. He seems to have taken a lot from the kung-fu movies, where the pure and calm hero has to take on the evil adversary because only the hero has the capability to take revenge, and revenge is the ultimate goal, as long as it is executed with skill and righteousness.

I think the same mindset lies behind the people who sees the death penalty as constructive, or aggressive warfare of any kind. Q.T.s movies depicts the mentality that governs this world, but done with nice lightning and inspiring scenery etc., and this makes it disturbing to watch.

It is disturbing to watch because Q.T seems more preoccupied with with the esthetics of the scene than with being distraught about the violence in this world. I think that this is intentional - he uses nonchalance to engage the viewer.

von Trier's movies creates a similar reaction in me - not by nonchalance, but he uses disturbing means and I am never sure whether his intentions are "pure" or "good".

Well said Hithere. There is definitely something disturbing about Tranatino's flicks. It's not just the violence, it is how it depicted and justified. Violence for the sake of revenge seems entropic, reduces you to the oppressor's level and seems aligned with Entropic forces , as opposed to the peaceful non-violent protests by the likes of Mandela & Gandhi and the way they brought about change.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Well said Hithere. There is definitely something disturbing about Tranatino's flicks. It's not just the violence, it is how it depicted and justified.

I remember reading an interview with Tarantino in which he talked about wanting to create an "aestheticized violence". Violence as an art form, so to say. Now, how much further can you go on the STS path...

[/quote]

Maybe one pinnacle of evolution for an organic portal is the perfectly executed revenge, done in pure righteous anger, with years spent training to be the violent instrument of carnal justice.

And/Or psychopath.

M.T.

 

[Corvus]

I remember reading an interview with Tarantino in which he talked about wanting to create an "aestheticized violence". Violence as an art form, so to say. Now, how much further can you go on the STS path...

Violence as something nice in other words, no person in right mind would see it as unless highly pathological individual. Think he hides behind mask of rightful revenge but violence is what he is all about because you can not show movies without nice endings and "good" guys winning because it brings reality to the ground, this way they project illussionary justice to real world through movies while around them there is no justice at all. Personal revenge leads nowhere because it does not change anything in broader picture, there will always be someone else going through same thing but that does not bother people because it is not their skin in question, until it is and would ask for all justice available in the world how they were wronged. Guess what -people do not care, as did not he before that experience, or lack two neurons also.

Well said Hithere. There is definitely something disturbing about Tranatino's flicks. It's not just the violence, it is how it depicted and justified. Violence for the sake of revenge seems entropic, reduces you to the oppressor's level and seems aligned with Entropic forces , as opposed to the peaceful non-violent protests by the likes of Mandela & Gandhi and the way they brought about change.

They did not really bring any change(new native boss same as foreigner boss or controlled by them), it is naive to think that one leader can bring lasting change in a world where others are not ready to give an inch of what they did, always waiting for some kind of savior because of programming. Same thing with peacful protests - they do not accomplish anything without knowledge. Even with knowledge of enough people you can not change nothing without violence, when one side uses violence and other is being peacful that peacful side ends up being eaten. Now maybe it is a matter of definition peacful, I was reffering to that hippie naive stance denaying any means of struggle, in other way peacful does not mean showing another cheek. Systems are not changed by turning cheeks. Struggle within and without is natural way of life but acting when need be because other way it is useless.

What really blew my mind was when D'jango freed himself, left the cage carrying the other enslaved people open and they made no move to escape. I understood then that even though their freedom was a step away, the mental slavery was so overwhelming that they did not consider their physical freedom.

They thought they will catch them if they run, but better grave then whole life being a slave.

 

[Arwenn]

They did not really bring any change(new native boss same as foreigner boss or controlled by them), it is naive to think that one leader can bring lasting change in a world where others are not ready to give an inch of what they did, always waiting for some kind of savior because of programming. Same thing with peacful protests - they do not accomplish anything without knowledge. Even with knowledge of enough people you can not change nothing without violence, when one side uses violence and other is being peacful that peacful side ends up being eaten. Now maybe it is a matter of definition peacful, I was reffering to that hippie naive stance denaying any means of struggle, in other way peacful does not mean showing another cheek. Systems are not changed by turning cheeks. Struggle within and without is natural way of life but acting when need be because other way it is useless.

On the outside, the peaceful protests using no violence whatsoever, did enable Gandhi to gain freedom for the country from overt suppression. As with all politics though, the controllers just install their puppet figure heads (either by bribery or threats), and that country is then ruled by them covertly anyway. And no where did I suggest that turning the other check was the method of bringing about change. I was referring to the ability of those leaders to rouse the people from their slumber and get them to object to what was bring done without necessarily using the violence that could then be turned against them. Waking up is something the slumbering masses of today do not seem to be interested in or capable of. And I have no data for this, but I suspect that the PTB are afraid of the collective power of the people, hence the dumbing down, the drugs (both legal and illegal), the disinformation, the continual War on Terrre-or etc.

I then also thought about Caesar, and how the only way that he saw fit to bring about change, was to work his way up through the ranks gain power and an army and fight fire with fire; all the while showing the utmost clemency and mercy and seeking to improve the lives of his soldiers and the people.

I had categorised violence as purely entropic. But perhaps violence per se cannot be deemed as purely Evil or Good without the context of the Third Force. Hmmm, food for thought.

 

[Corvus]

On the outside, the peaceful protests using no violence whatsoever, did enable Gandhi to gain freedom for the country from overt suppression.

Think that covert supression is even worse, overt is maybe even better because people will see where they are, in the end to beggar it does not really matters if it is British or indian upper caste and he is "free", so small change does not make many difference because people like Ghandi and others are easily dealt with and their struggle becomes defined in nationalistic terms - fight against foreigners through working of education and little is said or known about their social intentions, everything is coopted. I agree that peacful protesters can have impact on masses if elite uses violence and then more people join protesters but that is why I said even with mass knowledge about pathocracy - they have armies, technology and weapons and will do anything to protect their status.

And no where did I suggest that turning the other check was the method of bringing about change.

I know you did not but I get impression those protesters are like lambs going to slaughter against people that are armed and trained for those kind of situations, in the mildest case they will got beaten up, in worst killed. You need mass knowledge, benevolent leadership and you need fighters- pople who will fight to the end and have means to fight, and that is practicaly impossible today and there is no way out then by cosmic cleansing, I knew that from the start because saw from the start no such mass awakining is going to happen because people are disinformd, programmed and have diferent polarizations. If you only take into account that 50 per cent of people are ops(and 4D STS influence) everything is clear in that sense - fight against windmills, without balance(that will be possible only on 4D) there is no chance.

I then also thought about Caesar, and how the only way that he saw fit to bring about change, was to work his way up through the ranks gain power and an army and fight fire with fire; all the while showing the utmost clemency and mercy and seeking to improve the lives of his soldiers and the people.

I had categorised violence as purely entropic. But perhaps violence per se cannot be deemed as purely Evil or Good without the context of the Third Force. Hmmm, food for thought.

I agree about third force, but as said struggle is part of life even on higher levels, you do not think when some STO civilization that is evolved on 4D and under attack by sts just says: oh, well we are "peacful", it is not our way of doing things, we will just let ourselves be anihallated. If that was the case there would be only sts way of existence and there is not, guess why? Ying yang symbol does not have in white field little black for no reason, at least when it comes to 3 and 4D. I am telling you from experience of others and my experience, if you do not stand for yourself and your way of more constructive life to death if need be when no other option you are toast not just phisically but spiritualy also, it is self-defating. If you had experience when someone tried to rape you, you would say it is entropic to defend myself?

 

[Reatelf]

I felt this movie was great. The soundtrack was great, the camera and lighting throughout the movie was on point. I did have a hard time with the mandingo fight scene as well as the brutal killing of Dartanion. I have never been able to deal with such violence as that in any movie.

Yes, found that part a little too cruel

 

[Arwenn]

Thanks for your thoughts Corvinus- yes, there is struggle on all levels for sure. And that Third Force and knowing the Context which determines what is Good and Evil is all part of developing Knowledge. In any case, getting back to Tarantino and his propensity for relishing the depiction of violence (just or unjust) is something I can bypass for the time being. As someone said above, once you've seen one of his flicks, you've seen them all.

FWIW.

 

[Vic]

On the outside, the peaceful protests using no violence whatsoever, did enable Gandhi to gain freedom for the country from overt suppression.

Think that covert supression is even worse, overt is maybe even better because people will see where they are, in the end to beggar it does not really matters if it is British or indian upper caste and he is "free", so small change does not make many difference because people like Ghandi and others are easily dealt with and their struggle becomes defined in nationalistic terms - fight against foreigners through working of education and little is said or known about their social intentions, everything is coopted. I agree that peacful protesters can have impact on masses if elite uses violence and then more people join protesters but that is why I said even with mass knowledge about pathocracy - they have armies, technology and weapons and will do anything to protect their status.

And no where did I suggest that turning the other check was the method of bringing about change.

I know you did not but I get impression those protesters are like lambs going to slaughter against people that are armed and trained for those kind of situations, in the mildest case they will got beaten up, in worst killed. You need mass knowledge, benevolent leadership and you need fighters- pople who will fight to the end and have means to fight, and that is practicaly impossible today and there is no way out then by cosmic cleansing, I knew that from the start because saw from the start no such mass awakining is going to happen because people are disinformd, programmed and have diferent polarizations. If you only take into account that 50 per cent of people are ops(and 4D STS influence) everything is clear in that sense - fight against windmills, without balance(that will be possible only on 4D) there is no chance.

I then also thought about Caesar, and how the only way that he saw fit to bring about change, was to work his way up through the ranks gain power and an army and fight fire with fire; all the while showing the utmost clemency and mercy and seeking to improve the lives of his soldiers and the people.

I had categorised violence as purely entropic. But perhaps violence per se cannot be deemed as purely Evil or Good without the context of the Third Force. Hmmm, food for thought.

I agree about third force, but as said struggle is part of life even on higher levels, you do not think when some STO civilization that is evolved on 4D and under attack by sts just says: oh, well we are "peacful", it is not our way of doing things, we will just let ourselves be anihallated. If that was the case there would be only sts way of existence and there is not, guess why? Ying yang symbol does not have in white field little black for no reason, at least when it comes to 3 and 4D. I am telling you from experience of others and my experience, if you do not stand for yourself and your way of more constructive life to death if need be when no other option you are toast not just phisically but spiritualy also, it is self-defating. If you had experience when someone tried to rape you, you would say it is entropic to defend myself?

I think it might be worthwhile to hear responses to Corvinus' (bolded) question. In The Wave (unable to remember exactly where) the point is made that it is our duty to protect ourselves. As far as I can recall this referred to defence on the soul level. But, of course, the body is important, to say the least. Where is the line between the duty of defence, and entropy?

It might also be dangerous to hold up Mandela and Gandhi as peaceful and non-violent - research will reveal complicity in acts of (fatal) violence by the former, and the support of violence by the latter. Such labeling and simplistic beliefs are just what the PTB promote in order to maintain illusion.

I would appreciate hearing members views, as this, for me at least, is a 'grey' area.

 

[Minas Tirith]

I remember reading an interview with Tarantino in which he talked about wanting to create an "aestheticized violence". Violence as an art form, so to say. Now, how much further can you go on the STS path...

Thinking about it, there are quite a few movies like that.

As much as I like the Matrix movies, something was off-putting there for me , and I think it was this "aestheticized violence", though in another way as Tarantino does it. More "clinical", but also done as an art-form ...

Compare The Lord of the Ring movies where the battles shown are more "real" with all consequences that battles have...

M.T.

 

[Divide by Zero]

I remember reading an interview with Tarantino in which he talked about wanting to create an "aestheticized violence". Violence as an art form, so to say. Now, how much further can you go on the STS path...

Thinking about it, there are quite a few movies like that.

As much as I like the Matrix movies, something was off-putting there for me , and I think it was this "aestheticized violence", though in another way as Tarantino does it. More "clinical", but also done as an art-form ...

Compare The Lord of the Ring movies where the battles shown are more "real" with all consequences that battles have...

M.T.

Good point.
A lot of times the fight scenes in movies irk me with their unrealistic violence that keeps going on and on as if the characters never suffer real damage. People see that and have this idealism of violence as if it is some kind of pro wrestling match with a clear winner and loser. Most action movies turn me off because of that simplified dynamic.
Total subjective violence with wishful thinking (super powers, perfect timing, etc).

Meanwhile movies that show real violence, like the gruesome Eastern Promises bathhouse fight scene or LOTR, where you see that sometimes both people lose a lot. I think those movies are closer to objective truth.

 

[1peacelover]

If the enslaved had access to the same weaponry, do you think that would have made a difference? Would that type of slavery had a chance? Do you know realize how many slave mutinies/revolts happened during the 500+ years of the transatlantic and how many people died fighting for their freedom? Too many to count. http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=african-insurrections My family actually is the steward of one of the sugar plantations involved in the 1733 Revolt in St. Jan, Danish W.I.

There are no amount of movies, videos, books, etc. to encapsulate the spiritual, mental, emotional or physical pain and suffering the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade and its damage to humanity. What we see today are the seeds planted deep into our consciousness. It created different people. People without knowledge of self. It created empty vessels to fill with foreign ideas and culture destroying hatreds. This movie actually serves as a good measure to the enslavement that is going on today. The divisions that convince human beings to commit such atrocities against one another. Violence begets Violence. Hate begets Hate. Knowledge protects.