Most of us have heard this reply to concern/repulsion at the gratuitous, relentless, might I say pointless violence of Django, such as what I expressed in my previous blog: What did you expect?  Tarantino is Tarantino; if you go to see his film you can’t criticize him for being himself.

I can’t quite buy this.

It implies that those who attend do or should constitute a self-perpetuating, self-approving audience that forfeits its right, or obligation, to be critical toward its hero.

It argues that those who stumble in or chose to attend but are not devotees should adopt the same attitude of non-critical acceptance (once a Tarantino fan, always a Tarantino fan).

It suggests that critical dialogue is best left for those who do not make an effort to see the movie first, for if they did, they would fit into one of the first two categories.

It therefore invalidates critical dialogue as the lame product of the uninformed, if not unitiated.

Such an attitude finds considerable purchase in our culture be it in relation to our national gun culture, where only the NRA has the moral authority to  be there, do that and speak about it too, or some versions of identity politics where if you are not a member of the group in question you have no right to comment about the group in question.

If such an attitude prevails, I think we are in trouble.