Call me a misogynist if you must, but as soon as someone home invades with murderous intent, gender immediately becomes irrelevant. And QT showed just that.
This isn’t about whether I think you’re a misogynist. This is about thinking more seriously about arguments that are made.
Depicting a character who happens to be from some historically disadvantaged group (a minority, a woman, whatever), happens in the context of society as a whole, not just in the context of the four corners of a film script.
Say one decided to depict a story about a black man in the United States who raped a white woman. The depiction of the black man shows how this character is bad in every single way, in attitude, morals, language, depravity, whatever. And the depiction of the white woman is pure, innocent, kind, generous, all the positive qualities one can think of.
You write a story in which the black man is arrested and is facing the possibility of criminal prosecution. But then, the woman’s friends or relatives are given a reason to fear that the the prosecution will not go through, perhaps because of some legal “loophole”? And so the friends and relatives raise a vigilante mob (all white) who then break into the jail, take the rapist hostage.
And then the movie goes on to depict in graphic detail the torture and murder of this rapist–anything you can think of–flaying, castration, whatever.
You can set this story up to justify retribution against this rapist. But what you’ve depicted is a story that fits right in with the cultural stereotypes that have helped oppress black Americans for centuries. You’re confirming and reaffirming all the racist attitudes of society, and perhaps waking them (consciously or not) in your audience.
Then it’s not enough to say “well, in the story, the guy was bad and deserved punishment.” Movies don’t just happen within their frames.
Now, this is a much more blatant and obvious issue than the question of Tarantino’s depiction of violence against women, but what it shows is that the criticism isn’t ameliorated simply by saying “well, this character was a terrible person who did terrible things, so she deserved it.”
Everything one puts on the screen is a choice. The events, the words, the degree of graphic explicitness – everything is a choice, and those choices happen in the context of the society we live in. And the depiction can serve to reinforce or affirm stereotypes that harm people in society.
For example, I’ve seen reports that suggest that the show “24” actually reinforced the idea that police and security forces should be allowed to use torture to investigate terroristic threats. Depictions can have consequences outside the stories they’re part of, and that’s a serious conversation to have.
So, in general, stories that depict violent retribution as being justified, and killing to be the best solution to threats can be validly questioned. They are very likely propagating an ideology about how justice should work and what the place of violence and killing is or should be in society.
The criticism of “24” is valid. This one is just :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
In your opinion anyway. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
These are not terms used in sincere discussion.
Yeah. His “argument” really does deserve nothing more than a :rolleyes:
So, Acsenray, do you hold the same views when violence **in fictional films **is directed against Nazis & slaveholders?
Or fictional women actress, makeup artist, and stunt women beating an injured and incapacitated white male serial killer to death?
Yes, I think it’s a huge flaw in our cultural landscape. I am a huge fan of fantasy, science fiction, superhero stuff, etc., but I am always disappointed by the fact that they so often resolve their stories with the premise that the best solution to problems is by causing someone’s death or portraying violent retribution as justified or satisfactory.
And, of course, I am particularly troubled by Tarantino’s penchant for relishing in hyper-explicit brutality. There’s a disturbing level of joy in his movies’ depiction of cruelty and violence. There are things I’ve enjoyed in several of his films, but that isn’t one of them.
So for society’s sake, you’d press 2?
They are if he believes the other person isn’t engaged in sincere discussion. I am not saying that’s the case, but I can see where he might believe that, given the nature of your argument.
Let’s try this link…
OK so you’re against violence in film period. Then don’t try to make up bullshit arguments that gender has anything to do with it.
And it’s not our cultural landscape. It’s every cultural landscape, since humans began telling stories.
Hmm, interesting. I hadn’t thought of the Wagner/Wood parallel before. I see your point.
I saw Yesterday, too, and don’t remember any reference to the Manson murders in it.
Ah, I didn’t know that! Quite a beauty. She was good in The Nice Guys, too.
It sure looked good, whether or not it was accurate. Filling the streets with all those old cars and putting up period signage for block after block couldn’t have been cheap.
Agreed.
I thought it was overlong, but I was never bored.
I assume it’s because if the Beatles never existed The White Album wouldn’t have existed for Manson and his morons to obsess over and there’d be no Helter Skelter on the album for asswipe to take up as an anthem. The song wasn’t in Yesterday so they never would have heard Jack Malik’s version (I doubt he recorded it).
They were still crazy murderous fuckheads though, and the asswipe was still butthurt over Melcher blowing him off (which had nothing to do with the Beatles) so it still might have happened. I’m glad it wasn’t touched upon at all in the movie though. They could have had a quick scene where Jack does a Google search for Manson/Tate but they didn’t, and I’m glad.
I adore that movie.
Yeah, I guess my point was that if the Manson murders had occurred, they certainly wouldn’t have been known as “Helter Skelter” and they wouldn’t have written “piggies” and “rise” in blood on the wall.
Charlie was unfortunately just nuts enough that he didn’t necessarily need* The White Album* for inspiration. He would have seized on something else, equally innocuous, and said it inspired him instead.
Astounding collaborative artwork! Loving how Tarantino got the planet talking about violence for less than the cost of a couple of fighter jets while giving Lars von Trier a well-earned break from calling out hypocrites. Also loving how it’ll be watched again and again by students in future generations, represented in this movie by the awesome and inexplicably yet unmentioned Julia Butters’ young Trudi.
1969 was indeed the perfect place to save and start over from.
1963 would have been better if that’s your goal.
I saw it today and liked it (although I had to pee for the last thirty minutes or so, so I was uncomfortable sitting there). In particular, I think it seemed to be a love letter to Los Angeles of the period, with lots of shots of long-gone theaters, restaurants and so forth.
The goof I noticed was the use of the Boeing 747 in 1969. The first commercial flights were in 1970.
You and me both!
(As a result, I didn’t sit through the credits and failed to see the end scene - a commercial that Rick did for Red Apple cigarettes, which are the brand that is always used in the smoker friendly Tarantino universe.)