Yeah, kinda like, I dunno, Bridgerton or The Favourite taking liberties with British aristocracy? Some people get really bent out of shape about that stuff, don't they? The key difference is that unlike those latter examples, Tarantino has somewhat self-righteously imbued his revisionism with political significance, the revisions being a comment on that history, and specifically a "social justice" significance, meaning that he should have probably "done it justice" as a matter of thematic consistency.
I respect sarcasm, but I wonder why engaging in these discussions AGGRIEVES you so much as to always be sarcastic towards me. As I said, I love
The Favourite. To me, and I always write in these exchanges that these are only
my personal views, but perhaps I need to capitalise or bold that, the two are not alike. I understand that you disagree, but a kind reminder: that doesn’t make anyone “right” or “wrong”. It’s called “difference of opinion”.
Incidentally, your comment above comes off like you enjoy potentially “catching me out”. A few of your comments come off that way. And yes, that’s not your problem, some jokes are better than others, blah, blah, blah. It’s just that as I keep reiterating, eventually, it discourages one from engaging in earnest discussion, and I would hope that’s what everyone is here to do.
I see a pretty obvious difference between inventing a sexual relationship that most likely wasn’t there and making it graphic and central to the plot and focussing on an obviously fictional revenge/liberation plot and a “love story” between Django and his wife over the historical “lived” (except they are all dead, of course) experience of a group of people which, if one were to attempt that ambitious feat, would probably all disagree about their ancestors’ experiences anyway.
I honestly see absolutely no similarity there. Whether or not one particular group of slaves was or wasn’t aware of the Northern Star is in my view something that is harder to interpret as “obviously true or untrue” and historically in/accurate than implying that lesbian orgies ran wild and unchecked in Anne’s palace.
Because to me, a single fictional individual who is not a real historical figure can be made to do almost anything. That’s the point of fiction. Turning the historical establishment of Queen Anne’s palace into a lesbian haven is far more obviously “incorrect”. I’ve used the word “obviously” liberally in the above, because, well, to me the difference is clear as day. (I would take no issue with two fictional “handmaidens” in the above context being made to have an affair, if they existed in the story largely independently of the court. This is what
Orlando did, with Queen Elizabeth I existing as a mere backdrop for the story, one among many.)
In the same way, there was almost certainly not a single black or non-white person in Queen Charlotte’s court, and Queen Charlotte herself was also, well, quite definitely, according to many reputable historians and genealogists, of easily traceable German-European ancestry with not a trace of African blood. Or, statistically speaking, there could be
one. To suggest that a full court of black people during Queen Charlotte’s era can be compared with a few non-historical figures in
Django being unaware of the Northern Star is, ahem, ludicrous.
I see zero parallels between the two, and if you disagree, that’s perfectly fine. But your incessant attempts to “catch” people being inconsistent are, frankly, tiring and perplexing. Especially as I’ve argued repeatedly that I don’t believe anyone is, or should particularly aim to be, consistent in their views.
To recap: Tarantino’s fictional slaves are not real people. Queen Anne and Queen Charlotte were.
You can't really champion yourself, as QT has, as the savior of a peoples' history, and then respond to those people as "the mob" when they are critical of the portrayal. QT, thankfully, hasn't gone that far, publicly anyway. But it's still a cop-out when you're aggrandizing your films for having this significance, and then responding to certain criticisms, when shown to be legitimate inconsistencies, by shrugging "it's only entertainment, folks". It's good to know that the former was BS all along, I suppose, but it isn't hard to wonder why some people represented by QT's revenge fetishes may feel that their history is being a little exploited in the service of his brand.
Yes, it is probably a cop out. So what? It’s their problem that they are unhappy. As your own example with Tarantino’s references shows, he won’t be able to keep people happy, no matter what he does. So it’s perfectly possible and likely that he engages in these discussions out of mere politeness. (Or as a form of entertainment, imagine that!)
Anyway, I think you and I are just looking at this from completely different angles. Which is interesting to me. No one ever seems keen to answer the question why the endlessly dogged artists should even care, perhaps because it has no answer. As Rita Moreno said in relation to
In the Heights, “You can never do right, it seems.” If someone had skin, as they seemed to suggest they do, in Tarantino getting it right, they should have instilled themselves among his unpaid consultants and held his hand every step of the way in terms of historical accuracy, whilst also keeping everything in line with his artistic intentions. “Be my guest.” It’s the easiest thing in the world to diss people from the sidelines.
So I genuinely wish Tarantino all the best with continuing not to care and happily mangling his references.
In QT's case, it's the false bravado that is the side effect of his insecurities that has become so irritating. Most artists are insecure, and some wear it on their sleeves better than others. QT denies insecurity while revealing it through these petty little tantrums he throws whenever he's stuck in a position of having to admit a mistake or forced into self-reflection. It matters in his case because this insecurity/false bravado complex happens to be a major factor in why some of his recent films are so incongruent between intention and execution.
No, it's proven. It isn't just that QT was careless in his research, but has a tendency to double down in embarrasing ways that suggest 'careless' may be the more generous word for it. Like the Bruce Lee thing. QT cited two books to support his portrayal, and in both cases the actual text of these books contradicted what he claimed that they said. It's funny how his respect for his subjects diminish when his own ego is on the line.
I agree that in the ideal world, he should have said explicitly that he thinks taking even more care would have been detrimental to the product and stuck it out. But, what with the mobs, I don’t blame him for not doing so. However, given that his next film is, for now, at least, expected to be his last, he might just do that if anything like that arises again.
EDIT: seeing as “AGGRIEVES” is such a big deal…