What do you think when I say the words Wild Wild West? I bet whatever you imagined, it wasn't a complete subversion of the logic of slavery. And that's why today we're talking about Django Unchained, a film that has all the Tarantino hallmarks we love, while also offering an incredibly intelligent, nuanced and, dare we say funny, critique of slavery. Django Unchained is a spaghetti western directed by Ocho Quentin Tarantino and set in the Deep South of 1858. It touches on the horrific past of America's antebellum black slaves with significant use of Tarantino's glorified violence and is wrapped in the western genre. The film follows Django, once a black slave, and his journey as a free man. The plot begins when a German bounty hunter, Dr. Shultz, buys Django's freedom and the two embark on a precarious journey as bounty hunters. They attempt to deceive Calvin Candy, a wealthy plantation order established to save Django's wife. Growing up as a movie buff and working in a video store, it's no surprise that Tarantino draws great influence from others in his work. Undoubtedly the 1970s blaxploitation genre is the greatest intertextualization in Django Unchained. The genre is ironic in contrast to slavery as it primarily involves racism and violence towards white culture. In this film we witness the rise of the black antihero: a bad man but not a good one. Through cinematic form and an intertwined narrative, it presents an exploration of freedom and takes the idea of ​​"an eye for an eye" beyond the break-even point. In saying that, Tarantino's use of a black, existential spaghetti-western hero, Django, to tackle the heavy subject of slavery is very interesting and effective. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Language as a Symbol of Supremacy Surprisingly, Django Unchained offers a purpose to language that goes beyond simply being a vehicle for a man of culture. This is because, from the perspective of white slaveholders like Big Daddy and Calvin Candie, white bodies represent culture and civilization, while black bodies are seen as uncivilized and incapable of proper use of language and appreciation of culture. Enter Schultz, this eloquent German speaks English as a second language is so good it confuses native speaker slavers. His mastery of English vocabulary repeatedly confuses those around him: meanwhile, his rhetorical skills allow him to talk circles around the simpletons of the American South. Schultz disrupts the racist binary we just discussed by making these self-satisfied Southerners seem wildly uncivilized by comparison. It is the emblem of the mythical European civilization on which wealthy American men built their plantations. And he's the walking reminder that these self-styled men of culture are, well, they're full of crap. The idea that slaves were incapable of correct language dates back to Aristotle. For Aristotle, humans differed from animals based on “logos” – a Greek word meaning both speech and reason. In contrast, my dog ​​Woody can only communicate via "phonos" - the barking and barking that can only communicate fear, displeasure and hunger, as well as other basic instincts. More importantly, Aristotle used this to justify slavery in Greece because, in his mind, they were only capable of receiving and understanding the “logos” but not possessing it. In other words, the slaves were unable to speak properly and the reason he invented it. And it is not surprising that this linguistic justification of slavery and the,.