SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 3


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 17 Nov 1994 19:35:56 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (33 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
   I have been following the discussion of Quentin Tarrantino and Pulp
Fiction in particular and thought I should put in my bit.
   I'll begin by saying that I believe QT to be one of the brightest new
personalities in the movie business. He is an exceptional writer and a bright
director. That said I wish to respond to the posts I've been reading.
   I don't believe that the use of the word "nigger" is any more offensive
than any form of slang or any other curse word when the use is considered. QT
writes about hard people in a hyper-realistic manner. What I mean by that is
that he takes stereotypes and gives them heart and personality. In doing so
its necessary to use the type of language that those people use. PF would not
have been effective if the characters had used PC language rather than the
language which is popular on the streets and in the cultures they inhabit.
   I've read many mentions of the scene where QT himself uses the "n" word
(I'll use the popular method of reference here) repeatedly. Some have found
this offensive and understandably so, but that was part of the intention, the
other part being, once again, to use the terminology that is popular in the
sub-culture represented. Isn't it acceptable to protray characters in a
realistic manner, rather than white-washing them to keep from offending
people. Film is (or at least should be) an artistic medium, where the artist
should have the freedom to express himself to his best ability. I think its
much like any other art form and should be protected rather than fought
against. Think about the Mapplethorp controversy if you will. Would it have
been better to not show his work because some people found it offensive, or
let it be seen by those who appreciated it for what it was, the honest work
of the artist?
   Well, I don't know if I've really added anything new here, but that's my
take on the subject.
Steve Jackson
ACTIONJ -- America Online
[log in to unmask] -- Internet