...there are certainly things that black filmmakers can't do that white filmmakers can do...we all know that...Hudlin may not have been able to do that same film and get it on the big screen in the way Tarantino did, but he certainly could have done the film himself, and so could Spike, or Tyler Perry, or Oprah, or any other black filmmaker...and each would have told the story in a different way. Tarantino's reputation allows him to be more violent, graphic and real with his story....we have seen so many other slave period pictures where SLAVERY has been sanitized, and romanticized from a white man's viewpoint, or the slaves have been totally left out of the narrative....I'm glad someone finally chose to tell a story in a different way.....thats what makes this film so special..I understand the challenges the black filmmaker faces but to criticize Tarantino, where if he doesn't get it done, we may go another 50 years into the 21st century before its done, is a little disingenuous...HE DID IT, with the help of alot of black folks, on the screen and behind the scenes...does Tarantino's name give it more credibility, and put more butts in the seats, without a doubt...the movie brought out discussion on many subjects and it will help open the industry up to more films like it, and more opportunities for filmmakers black and white, simply because of the box office.....
will it?? really?
If a black filmmaker makes this story but in a toned down way and white filmmaker does it as nasty as he wanna be then hows that change? You STILL have a black man who has to compromise his vision for fear of alienating a white majority. And THATS the issue...a black man doing a slave revenge movie would be alienating and threatening to the white community. QT doing it makes then laugh and applaud. The Hughes Brothers (who can get just as gritty as Tarantino) would make them walk out the theater.
In regards to opening up the film industry..in the late 80s early 90s there was a "black renaissance" in filmmaking where we saw a larger than ever before with maybe the exception of the blaxploitation era but alot of that was white controlled in terms of writers, directors and producers, of black writers and diretors making majority cast black films. But that soon dried up by the early 2000s. Theyre still alot of black directors and writers but they aren't producing majority black cast films anymore. Something changed and its NOT that black audiences stopped going to the theater.
..as to your point on "others" not getting the opportunity, we all know that is the case across the board in any industry...but at least in this case I believe Tarantino comes in with a pro-Black man agenda, even if it doesn't always appear fully positive, he's given power and intelligence to many of his black characters...I think he truly understands much of those black struggles that you have laid out...however there are many filmmakers that don't understand nor do they care at all about the conditions of "others", but simply use their opportunity for nothing more than making money, and a name for themselves....In this case I don't think thats what Tarantino is all about, just my opinion....
I don't think Qt is a bad man or has evil intent in his heart but he IS benefiting from a paradigm that he is supposedly railing against.
...as to your point about the black man's story always having to have a white man to straighten him out BEFORE he becomes great, or acceptable or a success...well given where we all came from, the position we started from, slaves, in a white majority, white superiority system... it would be almost impossible for any of us to get to the top of any profession, industry, etc, without the help of a white man or white people somewhere along the way....to tell the story of Oprah Winfrey...Bill Cosby...Michael Jordan...Obama...just a few of our real life "heros"....you'd have to include a lot of people along the way that saw their talents, their potential, and gave them opportunites, or took a chance on them in some fashion, and many of those folks would be white...not all of them but many for sure...to tell Oprah's story, you have to include the person that hired her for her first anchor, the person that helped develop her show, producers, writers , etc....same for Cosby, who went from comedy to film, to TV stardom, there had to be white folks along the way that helped him, gave him opportunity...you can't tell MJ's story without including Dean Smith and Phil Jackson...so I think your point on the "well meaning white man" misses on some level and I don't think the Hancock and Django comparisons are really on point at all...
Without Dr Dre there would be no Eminem I get your point and I'm not saying white people can't play a role in helping but in terms of ambition and initiative its all on those people you mentioned. If we were to do the Michael Jordan story do you really think 2/3rds of the movie should concentrate on Phil Jackson teaching MJ how to play in his offensive?
Django was 2 hours long and in all that time we never really get a sense of how deep their love goes beyond his seeing her image all over the place. Hell we don't see her outside of a flashback until more than half way thru the film. We don't see her angling to escape we just see her failed attempts. We don't see Django initating anything for the first half of the film, he's a slave who's resigned himelf to his fate from the opening scene to when Schultz buys him.
From the start of the film Django doesn't TAKE his freedom its GIVEN to him.
A case could be made that while Django is the title character he's not the real hero in the story...how can you tell that? Take schultz out of the movie as it stands and this is how it plays out:
OPEN ON:
EXT - Countryside Broiling Hot Day
As the films OPENING CREDIT SEQUENCE PLAYS We open on seven shirtless and shoeless slaves in leg irons trudging forward. Their new owners, Ace and Dicky Speck (James Remar, James Russo), force the slaves through the elements with the edge of their whips. Among them is Django (Jamie Foxx). Their journey takes them from harsh environments that alternate from arid and dry to sopping wet. As they struggle forward through time, we see Django’s back has been cut to ribbons by brutal beatings.
THE OPENING CREDIT SEQUENCE ENDS.
EXT - WOODS- NIGHT
It’s night. The Speck Brothers lazily rest upon their horses while the slaves shiver in the cold, their breath lingering like smoke.
FADE TO BLACK
END CREDITS ROLL.
Thats it.. thats all we see Django DO for himself before the GOOD white man arrives and changes his life.
so who's the REAL hero here?
In the case of Hancock here's a hero who can do all of these amazing things but is essentially a drunken surly bumblefuck until he meets (saves) a nice white man who helps him break out of what turns out to be his MENTAL BONDS (first by convincing him to go to JAIL) then buys him a superhero suit and teaches him how to express himself properly (periodically talking to him like he's a child) and only THEN does Hancock get his shit together and becomes a full fledged hero. Dude look at the movie again..I'm not making this up