You say it as if it is a bad thing.
Comparitively speaking, nothing Tarantino’s ever done is even remotely as ‘fucking sick, disturbing, realistic, graphic, gratuitous or violent’ as the stuff you see coming from some non Hollywood sources. The 1st three that come to mind…
The Killer (From Hong Kong)
Funny Games (From Austria)
The Last Horror Movie (From the UK)
…make Tarantino’s stuff look like a Teletubbies episode. It would probably be alot easier to answer why QT’s a rich (as opposed to ‘sick’) fuck.
Now that’s awfully funny. 'Cause over in this post, you said:
As for me, I think we can apply Occam’s Razor to Mr. Tarantino. I don’t think his use of graphic violence has any deeper meanings. I just think Tarantino has a near-pornographic fascination with graphic violence. But I might be wrong. Has Tarantino himself claimed otherwise?
Totall different situation. He was asked for evidence that fans of Tarantino’s movies treat them in that way, of which he (as well as me, BTW) are examples. The analog to the Incredibles thread were if someone were to say, “I don’t think anyone could interpret the film with a conservative agenda” and links were provided to your posts in response. That doesn’t make them right, the majority ratio doesn’t factor in, they just exist. GuanoLad seems to be claiming that all Tarantino fans are in it only for the blood and violence, and Miller has demonstrated that’s not so.
Jesus. At least try and read for context, okay? I said that in response to a specific allegation about the sort of people who like Tarantino movies. Not as some sort of objective evidence that my interpretation is correct. Remember that little lesson you got about when an appeal to popularity is and is not a logical fallacy? This is one of the “is not” cases.
Don’t know, don’t care. The art speaks for itself.
No, that wasn’t my original point at all. Though it’s true that I base my dislike of his movies on what the fans have told me about them, I assume that from what I have seen of them and how the fans react that the content would just make me feel awful, which is not my idea of an entertaining way to spend two hours.
I have an aversion to most realistically portrayed violence anyway, but Tarantino’s context, which from what I’ve seen (admittedly not much of it) doesn’t match up with those saying it has some kind of point to it, and instead does continue to match up with my assessment that he’s a disturbed weirdo.
If you knew me, however, you’d know my tastes in everything don’t seem to always be logical or rational, so maybe I should be more circumspect in some of my more outrageous opinions…
Nope. Matter of fact, I seem to recall having to explain that to you.
But I take your point. You are not making an argument ad populum. You are making an appeal to authority. My mistake.
As for not knowing or caring what Tarantino has said, since you have been arguing about his intent (as opposed to just setting forth your interpretation), shouldn’t Tarantino’s own words carry some weight? (And for all I know, he has said that his violent scenes have deeper meanings.)
Sauce for the gander and all.
And you were completly wrong in your explanation, as demonstrated by your own cite.
You really need to stop throwing around terms whose meaning you clearly do not understand. I was not making an appeal to authority. I did not offer any of those cites as evidence that my opinion is correct. I offered them as evidence that people do, indeed, take Quentin Tarantino’s movie seriously. Wether those people (or myself, for that matter) are correct is immaterial to the point I was making.
Any film is, by nature, a form of communication. It is impossible to discuss interpretation without touching on intent on some level. In effect, an interpretation of a movie (or any work of art) is an interpretation of the artist’s intent. I don’t claim that my interpretation of Quentin’s intent is accurate, because I don’t care if it’s accurate. It’s not a factor in my analysis, which is entirely based on what is present in the movie, and not on any extra-textual commentary by the artist.
Good point. Ever seen “Man Bites Dog”?
I think Tarantino has gone on record stating that violence is just another aesthetic element of filmmaking. It’s a device to be used, like any other, to get your point across, and can be just as valid and artistic as any other. I happen to agree with him.
From what I’ve seen, though, violence and truly dark humor are the only aesthetic elements/devices that Tarantino uses especially well; and even then, it’s always in a highly derivative manner, suggesting the most vivid elements of his memory that make their way into the pastiche are also the most horrific. I really don’t care if it’s homage or rip-off; I liked Pulp Fiction. When Tarantino is on a roll, he can be wildly entertaining. It’s just that he gets on that roll when the subject matter is egregiously bloody and disturbing. He is a true master of the art of sick, and given some of his other efforts, he probably should just stick with sick. It’s his bag, and he carries it well. What that says about the guy, I can only speculate, but I don’t think I’d want to be stuck in an elevator alone with him. I can admire Roman Polanski’s efforts as well, but I’m not going to hire him to be my babysitter, that’s for damn sure.
Fans or Tarantino seem to be offended by the notion their hero could be a pervert. So what? Lots of great artists are perverts; it almost comes with the territory.
Not one for ditto posts, but that’s pretty close to my take, Loopydude.
Tarantino writes sparkling dialogue, and his films can be wildly entertaining. But I think too much effort is being expended by some trying to justify the graphic violence of his films in artistic terms. Maybe Tarantino is just (oddly) fascinated with graphic violence. It does say something about him that it’s the graphically violent scenes from other films which seem to have stuck in his brain and which he borrows for his own movies. Why is he seemingly drawn to those scenes?
QT has said before that few things are cooler than violence in a movie, and few things are less cool than violence in real life.
I enjoy his films a great deal and have spent a little time with the man. He’s a hyperactive goofball, but he’s also much deeper and sweeter than his public persona lets on. He has a deep respect for women and for life in general, he’s good with kids, and while he can have a dark sense of humor he’s no “sicker” than me or tons of people on this board. He’s also a good kisser, but that’s neither here nor there. 
Oh, I got no argument against Quentin Tarantino being a freak. That’s self-evident just by lookin’ at the guy.
Mind you, I’m generally in favor of freakishness, so I don’t have a problem with that.
Hmm. Did he do any biting? 
Hee. No. 
Thanks, Miller, Wendell, gobear et al. I find myself agreeing solidly with you guys. The way the dialogue supports the action, and often throws it in sharp relief, is, IMO, high art. I see no “near-pornographic fascination with graphic violence.” What I see is an extremely thoughtful application of violence in the light of incongruous humor or banal conversation. This makes it disturbing, yes, but not some sadistic application of directorial bloodlust on celluloid. It seems to me, as Miller said, that it’s entirely the opposite. The killers crack jokes and wisecracks while murdering people in cold blood. It seems obvious to me that this is as much a commentary on American action movies and our attitudes toward them as story devices in themselves.
A couple of thoughts.
First, not all the violence in Tarantino’s films (with the exception of Kill Bill, which I’ll get to in a minute) is as graphic as people seem to remember. You don’t see the bullet hit Marvin in the face in the back of the car, you just see the splatter of blood. You don’t see Michael Madsen cut the cop’s ear off, the camera tracks over to a blank wall and the sound of screaming makes the scene all the more chilling because you have to imagine the brutality. When Jules and Vincent are firing away in the hotel room, the camera is facing them. You see them shooting but you don’t see bullets hitting flesh. You don’t see the QT character actually rape and murder the woman in From Dusk 'Til Dawn. You just see the body afterwards. In Jackie Brown, we see Samuel L. Jackson firing into the trunk f the car but we don’t see the bullets hitting Chris Tucker. Tarantino often implies more than he shows you. He seems to pull away from the worst things.
Except, of course, for Kill Bill which brings me to my second point. QT is on record as saying that he doesn’t view his stories as taking place in the real universe but what he calls his “movie universe.” He plays with movie conventions, archetypes and situations to create stories that conform to a different kind of logic, Not real world logic but movie logic. Jules and Vincent are not hitmen, they are “hitmen.”
KB is a revenge film and is a conscious ode to a variety of exploitation films and genres, the most obvious being martial arts movies but also including the classic B movie revenge plot. Because KB is a movie about those movies it quotes liberally from them and is honest enough to revel in the prurient aspects of exploitation films that make them a guilty pleasure. Please take note, however, that he is revelling in movie violence as movie violence, not as real world violence. In KB he amps up the gore to such a level that it cannot be taken seriously. He pushes the spurting blood and severed heads to such a level that it deliberately breaks the boundaries of belief. He wants you to know you’re watching a movie. He wants you to know that blood is being pumped through the neck of a mannequin, because that scene is not about a guy getting his head chopped off, it’s about a movie scene where a guy gets his head chopped off.
I don’t know if I’m doing a good job explaining what I mean about “movie” reality but I hope something comes across. QT explains himself better than I do.
Well for starters I’m someone who used to hate QT, and now I’m one of his biggest fans. The gritty violence, especially in Reservoir Dogs really bothered me. Part of that is because I was 14 when I first saw Reservoir Dogs. I couldn’t get past the brutal violence and cussing and I didn’t see the point. The film was not enjoyable.
I’ve changed my views. The beauty of his movies is that the characters act like real people. Yesterday on the way home from work my buddy and I had probably a 20 minute conversation discussing how the local mcdonalds used to charge a fee to use credit cards, and now they don’t. and we were ba da ba ba ba…loving it. This is the kind of stupid mundane stuff real people talk about.
Just because the characters in the movie are hitmen and criminals doesn’t mean they should act shocked by the violence they create. They deal with death and violence and depravity all the time. The violence they inflict is supposed to be shocking. There are ups and downs in a movie like reservoir dogs. The scene at the beginning where Steve Buscemi talks about tipping waitresses is hilarious and enjoyable. The scene where the cop loses an ear is certainly gross, but what do you think a hardened criminal would do to a cop in that situation. Leave him tied up and healthy? If it were me I’d be taking a sledgehammer to the guys toes to find out exactly what the cops know. Would I rather go to jail for life for all the other cops I killed? Real criminals do what they have to do.
If you find the movies disturbing, than I can understand that. I used to feel the same way. QT doesn’t care whether or not you like his movies. He’s got a healthy fan base, and he makes movies for himself and the real fans. I mean Led Zeppelin didn’t make tunes that everybody liked, they left that to the BeeGee’s
Okay, it’s no secret that I’m a Tarantino fan.
Ignoring for the moment all the film-geek reasons for appreciating his work, I’d like to say that I’m totally perplexed at how people can consider his films glorifications of violence or, in particular amoral. (Heard that tossed around a lot in comparing Pulp Fiction to the saccharine Forest Gump.)
You can only consider Pulp Fiction amoral if you don’t actually pay attention to it. The entire structure of the film is about ethical choices that various characters are faced with, and the results of their decisions. It is strictly a morality play.
Beyond being a simple morality play, the script continually returns to the idea of redemption – that even those who have long since wandered way off the path can turn around and heroically choose to set things right.
Pulp Fiction is brilliant because it’s written in such a way that the dialogue feels casual and natural to almost the point of triviality, but every line is weighted with additional significance – whether it be the densely-packed references to films of the French avante garde or the carefully contrived subtext of the film. This allows different people to sit next to each other in the dark and watch two entirely different films. Someone who likes Steven Seagal action vehicles will watch Pulp Fiction without feeling like they’re being preached to, and someone who likes “serious” movies will watch it without feeling like they’re being pandered to.
Just to give an indication of the obsessive level of subtext in Pulp Fiction, let me quote a post from an old Pit thread, outlining the subtle leitmotif of symbolic washing that runs throughout the film. (And keep in mind that this is just one of several complimentary subtextual themes.)
Well, I must be a sick fuck, because it wouldnt bother me…but then again if it was in a movie and it was action-appropriate for the movie that is one thing. If it was in real life, that would bother me.