‘Django’ Is Great, But Not Oscar-Worthy

At Esquire, retired NBA star-turned-writer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar writes that while Quentin Tarantino's Django was great, it's not worthy of an Oscar nod.

Sony Pictures
Sony Pictures

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar writes at Esquire that while he was entertained by Quentin Tarantino’s slavery-themed Western Django Unchained, he doesn’t agree that the film deserved an Academy Award nomination.

First, let’s get this straight: I liked Django Unchained and have been recommending it to everyone. It’s gritty and lively and filled with entertaining scenes. It zigs when you think it will zag, and, as with all Quentin Tarantino movies, it has flashes of brilliance. The character of Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), the malevolent house slave who is the real brains behind the plantation, is an inspired creation. His smug compulsion to destroy the innocence and humanity that he has lost but sees in others echoes the best of villains from Harry Lime in The Third Man to John Claggart in Billy Budd. (And Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen? He’s no Fifth-Floor Guardian, but he deserves an Oscar. As do Jamie Fox, Christoph Waltz, and Kerry Washington.)

But should Django have been nominated by the Academy for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay Oscars? No. Not unless the Academy starts new categories such as Most Entertaining Movie or Best Kick-Ass Movie or Movie I Most Wish I Was In. Until then, the Academy members have a responsibility to promote films that demonstrate the highest quality on both a technical and literary level.

Read Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s entire piece at Esquire.

The Root aims to foster and advance conversations about issues relevant to the black Diaspora by presenting a variety of opinions from all perspectives, whether or not those opinions are shared by our editorial staff.