the distinction between A.O. Scott and MovieLover420 seems to matter less each day, both for good and ill.
Well, the distinction here is that these critics tend to be from more academic fields like history, sociology, those familiar with the documents and writings of that time. Again, these critics mostly don't seem bothered about the revisionism, per se, but in certain assumptions about the period that remained unexamined. I don't think that these are marginal issues, and I don't think that Tarantino should be so brittle about them, other than having an eggshell for an ego.
Re: myths and stereotypes and "avoided with some basic research." Was that the problem, though? Ignorance? The bit you quoted above suggests that a lot of black students felt shame when learning about slavery.
The history teacher whose article I linked earlier was speaking to how much effort has been necessary to disabuse notions like this, that slaves were somehow docile and complacent and maybe even complicit in their own enslavement. It's this aspect which enduces shame, and it also perpetuates a fatalistic myth about why they were enslaved in the first place. It's true that the history of this period is largely obscured in education, when it isn't outright controversial. I understand that Tarantino has no academic background (neither do I, fwiw), but there's a difference between a filmmaker who, taking on a historical subject that remains fraught with significance and controversy, will shoulder the responsibility to do so respectfully given the best information on that subject available, and a filmmaker who would rather wing it and inadvertently regurgitate common but inaccurate (and a little insulting) stereotypes about the people most afflicted by this subject. Considering how Tarantino envisioned this film as the touchstone for future generations, the fact that he's in the latter camp is unfortunate.
If that's a fact, it seems an important one, and it fits QT's clear desire to create some kind of temporary catharsis.
I don't begrudge Tarantino's intentions. I honestly don't think he's examined his motives or projections in this particular case. He's obstinate when it comes to considering his own flaws.
I mean, I'm a huge QT fan, and I have no trouble admitting he has a petulant ego. I just don't think he's particularly inconsistent and I kinda admire his ability (feigned or not) to make what he wants without regard for how it'll be formally received.
I think I placed all of Tarantino's films on my top 100 of the decade list, and probably only
Kill Bill would miss the 100 from the aughts. I'm also a fan of his considerable talents. I wish he was a little smarter, maybe. I don't consider pointing out these flaws, especially when they reinforce the central theme of his recent work (revenge), is inconsistent with being a fan. If I wasn't a fan, I probably wouldn't care. But since his revenge fantasy (
No Elvis Cadillac For Mommy) is such a substantial element of his work, it needs to be critically examined, and I don't really think many modern film critics have bothered to. Maybe they don't want to upset him.
One thing worth asking is whether Tarantino is worse in his self-regard here than other influential filmmakers, or just a lot more willing to say so. I suspect the latter, but obviously I can't prove that.
I won't bother with 'better' or 'worse'. I think what sets Tarantino apart is that he's made his revenge sagas so dependent on classic social justice scenarios. You can't really separate the history of the Holocaust or slavery from
Basterds and
Django. It's embedded in the material. Since Tarantino is projecting what is largely a personal revenge fantasy onto these sprawling histories with millions of affected people still living today, it's a case of where does his personal prerogative end and social responsibility begin? A lot of filmmakers, and other artists, have been equally arrogant, and there's a whole sub-genre of films today which seem to think that their massaging of the narrative will actually solve real-world issues. But Tarantino always seems to have it both ways: his films are lauded as socially significant by their champions and as singularly personal visions by their defenders. In a way, I also have to admire someone who could pull this off, but the value of his films as socially significant increasingly looks to me as a wild overappraisal.