I knew early on in Django Unchained that I wasn't going to be able to take it seriously - even though according to A.O. Scott it's "a troubling and important movie about slavery and racism." (HA!) You see, right at the top there's this title card telling us that Quentin Tarantino's latest flick (although I think "cinematic fleshlight" may be the more accurate term) is set in "1858 - two years before the Civil War."
Two years before the Civil War? Really? You're sure about that - two?
Now we were only maybe five seconds into the film proper, but already I was thinking that maybe someone who wanted to make "a troubling and important movie about slavery and racism" might, you know, have fact-checked when the fucking Civil War started.
But then again, it turned out Quentin was actually just setting the proper tone. Because his movie had nothing to do with history, it turned out. I mean not real live history. Not the history that African-Americans have endured in the United States of America. Not that.
No, it's about movie history, of course. (Is there any other kind of history for Quentin?) And you know, if he can win World War II all by himself (as he did in his last opus) what does it matter when the "actual" Civil War occurred? Tarantino's a cinematic god, goddamnit. He may look like Jay Leno's grandma on meth, but hey - respect the genius, know what I'm sayin'?
Likewise, does it matter that the "mandingo fights" central to the plot of Django Unchained never really occurred - at least not according to those fusty old, you know, history-people? I mean mandingo fights were in a movie - Mandingo, in fact - and hell, that's good enough for Wesley Morris! Oh, and wait - you're saying the Ku Klux Klan (which also appears, sort of, below) didn't exist until Reconstruction? What the fuck does that matter, asshole? THE KLAN IS IN A MOVIE - BIRTH OF A NATION - SO TAKE THAT MOTHERFUCKER!! Seriously, what are we talking about here?