the author's plea copping for uncle toms ("it's not stephen's fault, it's slavery's fault! can't you see it's racist to root against him?!") is laughable and pathetic, as is his crying that the use of the N-word was "racial ventriloquism" for tarantino. but those aren't really worth getting into.

i'm interested in the comparison to inglourious, which i think is deeply flawed (the comparison flawed, not the film). the basterds, by shooting hitler, are rewriting the way in which hitler was defeated, true. the notion that this diminishes the struggle of the millions who actually defeated him is a valid critique. not one i really subscribe to, as i think inglourious-- like django unchained-- is so obviously cathartic fiction and not historical reenactment. but using real-life characters like hitler and goebbels does open it up to that kind of criticism.

django, on the other hand, is not defeating slavery. he doesn't shoot jefferson davis. he's not single-handedly taking out a regiment of confederate soldiers at gettysburg and turning the tide of the war. he's rescuing his wife and killing a few random, fictional slaveowners in the process. tarantino isn't saying this is how slavery was defeated or should have been defeated, which is one of the many straw men this author gleefully kicks over. he's telling the story of one fictional slave. criticizing QT for not also stopping to tell the stories of every slave in the vicinity is a fundamental misunderstanding of how films work-- their structure and pacing-- and a fundamental misunderstanding of what django unchained was about. criticizing filmmakers for not making the movie you wish they'd made is the weakest kind of criticism.