Audiences learned during the course of Inglourious Basterds that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t much adhere to real-world history, what with an ending that would make for one hell of a Wikipedia article should it have actually happened. But given that Tarantino unchained Django in his latest spaghetti western homage to get a slavery dialogue going in the first place, we’d probably be right to assume that he considers some aspects of his latest flick to be genuinely sincere.
The slavery aspects, at least, have been highlighted with a raw dedication to issues Tarantino firmly believes have been “white washed” by the majority of Americans. And given that it takes place 2 years before the Civil War, we’ve even got a time-frame. A time-frame for what, you’re wondering? Well, the astute amongst you might’ve noticed that – given the year this thing is set in – some of the historical elements don’t exactly fit.
Join us, then, as we take a look at 7 historical inaccuracies that we’ve noticed throughout Django Unchained. It’s important to remember that spaghetti westerns were iconically anachronistic, so there’s no doubt that many of these inclusions are either purposeful or purposely ignorant of history. We delve in for the sake of pure, adulterated fun, then – because what’s more entertaining than condensed history in list format? On second thought, don’t answer that.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
11 Comments
A different perspective relative to Django Unchained: http://thyblackman.com/2013/01/07/django-unchainedwe-have-a-truth-problem/
Who said this movie was supposed to be 100% accurate? was it based on a true story? no it wasn’t, this author needs to realize that movies are not real, they are a story. Looking at these examples makes me think that if this author had made the movie it would have been a terrible bomb and a rather dull story.
The scene with Jonah Hill didn’t involve the KKK. The bags are referred to as “a nice idea” which means the racists in the scene didn’t make a habit of wearing such disguises. Sure, it was clearly inspired by the KKK but what happens in that scene only tells us that those people are racists wanting to lynch a black man, and on that occasion had decided to wear bags over their heads. Not a historical inaccuracy because nothing in that scene claims that the people are Klan members.
The one about KKK is wrong, the KKK is not mentioned in the movie, and if you really watched it, listened it and understand correctly this scene, It is a kind of “prologue” or “try” to be what will be the KKK in the futur.
They wear hoods badly made, and one of them says “this time we do it without the hoods and next time we will make better hoods”…
(sorry english isn’t my 1st language)
Here’s a minor inaccuracy: At one point Dr. Schultz refers to a judge in Lubbock, but the town wasn’t founded until 1890 (I think). In 1858 that part of Texas was the heart of Comanche territory, and a place only a handful of white Americans had ever been to.
just for the record the city now known as lubbock was settled in the late 1860s, in 1890 they incorporated the towns of old lubbock and monterey, texas
the county of lubbock had been founded back in ’76
west texas’s been settled since the 1860s, they got tired of the indians raidin and razin all texas back in the 1840s, put an end to em,
other indians helped
the comanche werent well liked
Now actually, dynamite was not in production in England before the events of the movie. Dynamite was indeed patented in 1867, not before not anywhere. Also, it was invented by Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel (after whom the Nobel prize is named), not invented by any “Russel Pennyman”.
Though not fighting to the death, boxing was known. Tom Molineaux was a slave who was trained by his fighter father (also a slave) and who fought for the amusement of slaveholders. He eventually gained his freedom and traveled to England to ply his trade. This was all long before the Civil War.
Django is, while entertaining, a complete and utter bastardization in all ways. If the movie was reguarded as simply a well made revenge/action movie, it would be one thing, but that is not the case. Our sad sad culture laude this type slop as a theatrical masterpiece, and Tarantino as a genius. Tarantino’s movies contain about all the thematic depth of a 90′s Spawn comic book: “Er cool protagonist guy gets revenge on an evil (easily vilified) historical racist” and he does so in violent artsy-action ways; killing the unaccessible- pure evil villain. Wait… Am I talking about Inglourious Bastards or Django?? Oh yeah.. They are pretty much the same movie. Real cinema should make people connect with the human experience (emotions with realistic depth); forgiveness, pain of death, anger, jealousy, hate, love, compassion, etc. Tanantino’s films portray these emotions like some kind of junk-food-fun-house video game cut scene. Spinning around on the floor with a samurai sword with poppy music playing doesn’t express any true human experience of death, nor does Django’s war-path express any human experience of anger hate or revenge (much less compassion, derangement, or forgiveness). These movies are entertaining and artfully made ACTION/revenge movies- but not cenimatic art. Besides, even the artsy originality was mostly lifted from Japanese graphic novels and movies (yes even reservoir dogs) and in this case- spaghetti westerns. They are good movies- and Tarantino a great director- but we need to come correct in the way we classify his work (especially his later work).
And Greenville is in Washington County, not Chickasaw. Shouldn’t that have been an easy fix?
Another historical inaccuracy was the song sung at Candyland that mentioned “peanut butter,” a substance that had only been named and patented one year earlier at that point in the timeline. It would not have entered mainstream culture by then — certainly not enough to be part of a popular song.