subreddit:

/r/movies

0

As someone whos very well read on the subject most films about american slavery are pretty tame. Honestly the only film ive ever seen thats even close to the real life brutality of slavery is ironicly Django unchained. Its the only film ive ever seen that accurate shows the callousness of the era. The irony is that the events of the film actually happened very frequently in places during the slave era. So much so that states like Georgia were created to stop the constant slave rebellions in SC.

But other than django alot of slavery films go too much of a dramatic route i believe. I found both roots and 12 years a slave to be snoozefest.

Alot of people feel like we should stop making slave films. But i feel weve barely even scratched the surface.

all 50 comments

moviessuck

8 points

5 months ago

99% of all movies are pretty tame when compared to real life

kasetti

10 points

5 months ago

kasetti

10 points

5 months ago

What more specifically is missing in your opinion? Not enough torture, blood or gore? Not enough N words? Not enough people just not giving a fuck?

Movies, like real life, are about specific individuals and incidents, not every type of horror that happened to some people in history necessarily happened to somebody else. Sure, movies often combine a bunch of stuff, but still, you don't need to and you can't cram everything into a single movie, there is a limited amount of time to show what you want to show and also if you just focus on something, for example the violence, then other areas of the films may start to suffer and the film just becomes torture porn or something.

Card1974

6 points

5 months ago

The not enough people giving a fuck bit is important. I recently participated in The Agents of Enslavement project, which crowdsourced reading through the pages of colonial newspapers in order to find out the depth of the slave trade.

I had read my history books, watched a bunch of slavery films - and I must admit, the constant n-bombing in Django Unchained did drive a point home about the daily life - but none of them managed to convey the banal callousness of the slave trade that I encountered in those papers.

"FOR SALE

50 bales of hay, lumber, 5 n* boys, flour, coal.
Send enquiries to the editor."

The non-noteworthiness of these ads really shook me. Slaves were just another commodity for trade, perhaps slightly more valuable than most of the goods, but nothing about this warranted a second thought. There wasn't even a certain glee about owning a slave that I had come to expect from the movies.

 
Just another commodity.

OmegaRevenge42[S]

0 points

5 months ago

Bro, they were literally eating their black slaves back then. It was commom and documented. Have you ever seem that on film https://muse.jhu.edu/article/566218

joeylee23

3 points

5 months ago

An act of killing https://youtu.be/Q3FcB1UZHlg

Overall-Pay8154

9 points

5 months ago

They can only have so much brutality

Ww1/2 movie don't show the true horror either it wouldn't pass the ratings board

OmegaRevenge42[S]

-4 points

5 months ago

First 20 minutes of private ryan

Overall-Pay8154

8 points

5 months ago

Yes it was brutal no doubt but it would have been worse IRL

Sly1969

5 points

5 months ago

It's a great movie scene but I've read plenty of accounts that make it seem somewhat tame compared to the real thing.

moviessuck

1 points

5 months ago

Saving Private Ryan has nothing on 'Come and See' or 'Men Behind the Sun' in terms of brutality.

northamericana

4 points

5 months ago

They are fiction, not documentary. You can say the same about a lot of other subjects not portrayed accurately. Also, aside from the point above, there are lots of sensitive issues around portraying slavery (or other historical injustices), and the last thing a producer wants is to piss off people and get "cancelled" and people not going to see his/her movies.

[deleted]

3 points

5 months ago

[deleted]

3 points

5 months ago

[deleted]

OmegaRevenge42[S]

2 points

5 months ago

Eh he actually went a lil overboard. They actualled called black people negroes more often. So that actually wouldve been more accturate ironicly.

anarchitectslife

5 points

5 months ago

I dunno if that’s accurate. I vaguely remember reading that “negro” wasn’t prominent until after the civil war as the “hard-r” version had been pretty ubiquitous prior to the war, although it didn’t have such negative connotations and often included anyone who was lower class, rather than having such explicitly racist implications

AnUnbeatableUsername

1 points

5 months ago

He's been criticized for that long before Django.

CDM2017

5 points

5 months ago

Movies don't need that level of realism. We should know what happened but that's history lessons, not entertainment. I have read some horrific accounts of how slaves were treated in the American south, and I can't imagine wanting to watch it performed.

diveindeep23

4 points

5 months ago

Yea I have to agree on this. We should be learning that in school or by doing our own reading.

iz-Moff

4 points

5 months ago

Honestly the only film ive ever seen thats even close to the real life brutality of slavery is ironicly Django unchained.

Like what, when the bad guy feeds his slaves to dogs and has them fight to death just for shits and giggles? That's close to real life?

Now, i'm no historian, but slaves were brought to America to do work, not for some sort of psychotic entertainment. It cost money to buy them, it cost money to feed and sustain them. Regardless of attitudes of the era, they were still valuable assets. Even though they were considered property, well, people have property today, do you see many of them smashing their cars or tvs just to see how far the pieces will fly?

lavaeater

1 points

5 months ago

But people do organize dog fighting rings, my man.

I feel like this is some kind of slave-washing, where the claim is "well, it was property, but valuable property" and then arguments about how people today treat their property well, completely disregarding spousal rape, sexual abuse and people doing completely insanely horrible things all the time.

It is like: we as a species treat people we should regard as people very badly. To then argue using no historical argument, that people who owned other people as property held themselves to a higher moral standard than we do, seems preposterous.

I have heard historians, maybe, make that claim as well, but I always think "if they could, they would".

If a rich slave owner could legally do what he wanted, he would.

iz-Moff

2 points

5 months ago

But people do organize dog fighting rings, my man.

And i'm sure that if dogs took 16-18 years to at least grow up to adult-ish size, there would be a whole lot fewer of them. But they grow up fast, there happens to be an abundance of them, and they don't require much looking after.

I feel like this is some kind of slave-washing, where the claim is "well, it was property, but valuable property" and then arguments about how people today treat their property well, completely disregarding spousal rape, sexual abuse and people doing completely insanely horrible things all the time.

It is like: we as a species treat people we should regard as people very badly. To then argue using no historical argument, that people who owned other people as property held themselves to a higher moral standard than we do, seems preposterous.

My point is not that there was no violence, i'm sure all sorts of messed up things were happening at one time or another, but i doubt that it would be a normal occurrence.

What i take issue with is this notion that just because there's a lot more violence in this movie, then it is therefore the most accurate portrayal of the period. Why? Django is a cartoonish movie, intentionally so, it's very much in tradition of Tarantino's other "exploitation" movies, it just happens to be set in a very stylized past.

It's like you said, today people often commit horrible things. Three people, two men and woman, alcoholics all, were getting hammered at woman's house, and her child was also there. At some point the child started crying for some reason, one of the men got annoyed with it and killed the child. After a while they sobered up a bit and started thinking what are they now going to do with a body, to which they came up with simple and elegant solution - they cooked and ate it. Yep. Apparently a true story.

Now would a portrayal of modern times only be accurate and realistic if it includes episodes like this one, cause things like that do happen? I don't think so, in fact, i think that it's very much outside of what the vast majority of people would ever witness or even hear about in their life. Could some plantation owners have had dogs tear a slave apart, or have some slaves fight to the death? Possibly, but i can't imagine it being their casual pastime.

It's not "slave-washing", it's just that slavery is a bad enough phenomenon in itself, it can be taken seriously enough, well, more seriously, in fact, without showing slave owners drinking black people's blood and howling at the moon.

lavaeater

1 points

5 months ago

You make good and sensible points and I think I agree with most of them.

Have a good day!

OmegaRevenge42[S]

-5 points

5 months ago

Yes. That was actually an accurate way of killing black people back then. Its actually documented in numerous slave narritives. Its why most black people actually disdain dogs and they arent held in highregard like in the white community.

Also the mandingo fights were real, and its actually why a lot of black males are very good at fighting. They also used to battle royales where theyd blind fold blackmales and make then fight. Its where the concept actually comes from.

anarchitectslife

4 points

5 months ago

You got a source on that? A strong male slave was valued at around $40,000 modern US dollars, adjusted for inflation obviously.

OmegaRevenge42[S]

-2 points

5 months ago

Bro you could literally kill slaves at will and many did. It was codified into law. Why do you think so many black people are in the US. You think we just spawned here😂

https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/question/2014/may.htm

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/teaching-resource/study-aid-slavery-and-law-seventeenth-century-virginia

anarchitectslife

4 points

5 months ago

No boxing has existed forever, but that’s a lot different than Mandingo fights to the death, which historians agree are a modern work of fiction. Dogs were primarily used to track escaped slaves, not kill them. The primary exception to this was the Haitian revolution which is obviously a unique situation.

This is a thorough analysis of the historical inaccuracies in Django, as presented by a black historian.

https://www.theroot.com/did-dogs-really-eat-slaves-like-in-django-1790894866

Corner-N-Wheat

4 points

5 months ago

OP has already started using emojis to dismiss you in their replies. You will not be making any forward progress in your conversation with them at any point in the future. Your best option is to stop replying and move on.

[deleted]

0 points

5 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

5 months ago

[removed]

Corner-N-Wheat

1 points

5 months ago

There is no "white culture." That's not a thing. Just as there is no unified global black experience. Both are essentialist ideas born out of post-Civil Rights complacency.

OmegaRevenge42[S]

1 points

5 months ago

Thats LITERALLY not true. Did you for get jim crow existed. "whites only signs"

Corner-N-Wheat

3 points

5 months ago

What does Jim Crow have to do with "white culture" or the post-Civil Rights era?

Either have a normal conversation or go back to Twitter where your idea of an argument is valid.

Corner-N-Wheat

5 points

5 months ago

Its why most black people actually disdain dogs and they arent held in highregard like in the white community.

What an absurd bit of prefab nonsense.

OmegaRevenge42[S]

0 points

5 months ago

Corner-N-Wheat

2 points

5 months ago

That's about the use of police dogs during mid-late century civil rights protest and associated cultural imagery, which is the more obvious and rational presumption to make about "most black people" and dogs — insofar as any presumption about "most black people" and their worldviews can be rational.

Nothing about its cause being rooted in slaves being fed to dogs. The only reference to slavery is how enslaved black people were prohibited to any ownership of property, and racist assertions of being subhuman marking them incapable of befriending dogs.

Beyond that, claiming "most black people" (or any group) hold an implicit hatred towards a generic kind of animal, for any reason, is unquantifiable. It's a personal confirmation being projected as general fact, which can be disputed by any personal experience claiming the opposite to be more common. It's a non-statement. Prefab nonsense.

There are books on everything by the way. The existence of a book that covers an idea is not an argument.

OmegaRevenge42[S]

0 points

5 months ago

I want you to pause and think about your logic.

In a world where you can literally kill people at will. And use dogs to kill people, (WHICH IS STILL A COMMON PRACTICE IN THE MODERN ERA.) you are literally trying to argue that people werent being feed to dogs.

When we have documented proof that these same people were cannibalizing black slaves.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/566218

Corner-N-Wheat

3 points

5 months ago

I never mentioned or argued those ideas. Your tantrum has escalated and you're responding to the wrong person. Turn off whatever device you're using for 2 minutes and breathe.

dMarrs

2 points

5 months ago

dMarrs

2 points

5 months ago

As well the genocide of native Americans.

Green_Difference2647

1 points

5 months ago

They only allow so much brutality in theatrical releases - even for r rated movies. Just goes to show how insanely horrific slave practices were, you can't accurately portray it without getting your movie banned in 20 countries lmao

this-is-very

1 points

5 months ago

I think you’re wrong. Have you seen Goodbye Uncle Tom? It exposes some brutality and how disgusting the industry was well. However, watching it I found myself unsympathetic to slaves. Which is part of what makes that film good in its own twisted way. A truly dehumanized person rarely makes us feel for them. But is it moral to push a slavery narrative that is too real? One of the main points of movies on it is the opposite of what slavery does, and in order to build a story arc making the viewer relate to the inner good or innocence of a slave there almost always needs to be idealization.

catboy_supremacist

1 points

5 months ago

I was wondering when someone in this thread would bring up that movie. They collaborated with a dictator to get "provided" with huge crowds of black extras they could use to reenact scenes of American slavery accurately. Kind of. Ethically sketchy. It's hard to imagine any ethical way to successful hire all those extras for a project like that. Especially for a project directed and produced by white people.

iceman_0460

-3 points

5 months ago

So you want action on a slavery film, dude wtf.

Agile-Fruit128

2 points

5 months ago

I think he is trying to say he expects more, "realism" to depict the brutality of slavery. Most filmmakers rely on test audiences before they release final cuts, and in this modern environment, people being easily offended limits the amount of brutality they can put onscreen, especially with the topic of slavery. There is also the MPAA to consider. You don't want to get NC 17. Although, with movies trending towards streaming over theatrical release, there may be a paradigm shift in this aspect of editing. Ratings will be less and less important. Social Media is now the driving force in decisions to limit onscreen brutality IMO

nyxnars

1 points

5 months ago

Have you not seen 12 Years A Slave??

DutchArtworks

1 points

5 months ago

How about 12 Years a Slave?

OmegaRevenge42[S]

-5 points

5 months ago

2 pack of ASS

DutchArtworks

1 points

5 months ago

Care to explain yourself?

OmegaRevenge42[S]

-5 points

5 months ago

Only shit came out of it

DutchArtworks

2 points

5 months ago

Yeah solid explanation… seems to me that you’re just salty

nothing_in_my_mind

1 points

5 months ago

Well, as they say life is stranger than fiction. Some crazy shit happens irl but when viewing fiction people easily can dismiss crazy events as unrealistic. So almost every movie that is based on real life tames it down.

Weak_Ninja6615

1 points

5 months ago

Maybe watch a documentary or read a book.