Having seen it (and standard disclaimer that I'm white and obviously can't speak for the viewing experience of black people, and also that I completely love everything that Tarantino does), I feel like the reviewer completely missed the point.
I'm not black, but I'm Jewish, and my experience watching Inglorious Basterds was not that Tarantino was disrespectful to history or the millions who died in the Holocaust, but was a) presenting an incredibly satisfying revenge fantasy, b) making a statement about the relationship between film and audience, and c) making the only kind of fictional movie about the Holocaust that I can stand to watch. I don't want to see my people's history represented by Tragedy! And Sad Music! And Serious Acting! That's manipulative. The opening sequence in that movie is worth a bazillion Schindler's Lists (and why does no one ever criticize that movie for being about a white saviour...but I digress).
I had a similar feeling about Django Unchained. You simply can't represent the horrors of slavery in a way that is dignified or respectful, and Tarantino doesn't try. He makes it brutal. I flinched. I covered my eyes in the infamous dog scene, and then hated myself a little for not being able to watch, because this kind of shit happened to real people. A more serious, subtle filmmaker would have cut away there, but Tarantino forces you to watch. And then he gives you the catharsis of watching one of slavery's victims take incredibly satisfying revenge (yes, the white saviour character kills DiCaprio's character, but the black character kills pretty much everyone else, including Tarantino).
I haven't seen The Help because it did sound completely racist, but it's my impression that it's a story about how some white people really helped out during the Civil Rights era. This is much more about playing with cinematic conventions—how do we depict slaves, Klansmen, Uncle Tom characters, etc., in film.
no subject
I'm not black, but I'm Jewish, and my experience watching Inglorious Basterds was not that Tarantino was disrespectful to history or the millions who died in the Holocaust, but was a) presenting an incredibly satisfying revenge fantasy, b) making a statement about the relationship between film and audience, and c) making the only kind of fictional movie about the Holocaust that I can stand to watch. I don't want to see my people's history represented by Tragedy! And Sad Music! And Serious Acting! That's manipulative. The opening sequence in that movie is worth a bazillion Schindler's Lists (and why does no one ever criticize that movie for being about a white saviour...but I digress).
I had a similar feeling about Django Unchained. You simply can't represent the horrors of slavery in a way that is dignified or respectful, and Tarantino doesn't try. He makes it brutal. I flinched. I covered my eyes in the infamous dog scene, and then hated myself a little for not being able to watch, because this kind of shit happened to real people. A more serious, subtle filmmaker would have cut away there, but Tarantino forces you to watch. And then he gives you the catharsis of watching one of slavery's victims take incredibly satisfying revenge (yes, the white saviour character kills DiCaprio's character, but the black character kills pretty much everyone else, including Tarantino).
I haven't seen The Help because it did sound completely racist, but it's my impression that it's a story about how some white people really helped out during the Civil Rights era. This is much more about playing with cinematic conventions—how do we depict slaves, Klansmen, Uncle Tom characters, etc., in film.
/shameless Tarantino fangirl