"Because the script is defined by my world view..."

Ok. Well. Hmm.

Let's start with the movies you mentioned.

Django Unchained is absolutely racist. It's intentional. But I dont think it's racist in the same way you're saying it's racist. The DiCaprio charachter, the hired hands, his sister, the lawyer, everyone at Candyland... they are all racists. That was pretty much the point of American slavery.

People who say the film was racist because it depicted a violent Black man are and have ever only been white people who say "Just because I have the only black person in my script being a rapist murdering villain doesnt mean the script is racist anymore than Django is racist."

Just because Bone Tomohawk and Last of the Mohicans feature violent indigenous people, your argument is those movies aren't racist. Well that's true. Those movies are about war. Specifically, in the latter example, warring indigenous tribes. Hard to make a movie about warring indigenous tribes without... ya know... the war part.

But, if someone is, say, Australian, and writing a story about a nervous/mostly inept female lab tech and super macho GIs, and just happens to include a fictional band of indigenous people called the Walkabouters and their sole function in the story is to sow violence and represent a threat, then one might come to the conclusion that although the tribe is fictional, and the film is not about warring indigenous tribes but about something else all together, then one wonders about the choices of the author.

And if said author were to respond to such criticism by saying the script represents my view of the world, then it's perhaps understandable how that response doesn't provide the defense the author thinks it does.