SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text 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]>
Top5 Publications <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 13 Nov 1994 16:31:20 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (31 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
My posting regarding what I view as overt racism is *Pulp Fiction* stirred
up a few people, who all seem to want to convince me that the characters
in the story were not racist, and how their relationships should be proof
of that, regardless of what words are thrown around.
Evidently, my point was missed entirely.  The racism I referred to was not
within the story.  I'll buy the argument that the characters in the story
were, for the most part, not racist.  It's Tarantino's reckless use of
racist language that *is*.
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of you raising your hands in favor
of the use of the word "nigger" in the interest of reality have never been
the victims of racism.  As far as the repetition-diminishes-the-power-of-
the-word theory that Tarantino (noted linguist that he is) puts forth, ask
a Jewish person how many times he or she needs to hear the name "Hitler"
before it becomes benign.
My vitriol with regard to this issue is in direct proportion to the
flowers being thrown at the feet of Quentin Tarantino.  I find him an
interesting (if somewhat careless) young director, who has a flair for the
medium, but tends to "borrow" a bit too much for my taste.  However, he
falls quite short of being the second coming of Welles that everyone seems
to think he is.
Look again, folks.  The emperor's not wearing any clothes.
Christopher White