SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 2


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
James Tichenor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sun, 13 Nov 1994 16:42:40 CST
text/plain (52 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>To pass on what Tarantino himself said about the scene, I paraphrase an
>article on him from either Los Angeles Magazine or Entertainment Weekly.  He
>said that he believed that any word that held such power as what you
>referred to as the 'N' word (I cringe at violating your hypersensitivities)
>should be shouted from the rooftops until it has lost that power.
Ah ha! I knew he meant it. He's a smart cookie. For a film that is labelled
as violent, how much violence is really in it? As far as I can remember,
3 killings, an anal rape and a mutilation. Not a record breaker. It's
"violent" and "racist", because QT uses these ideas and stretches them,
drawing them out, dwelling on them, not just "blowing a kids head off"
and moving on to the next act. That one act of violence drove a 30 minute
story. I tell you, he knows exactly what he's doing. Thanks for the quote.
>I find reactionist tactics such as condemning a filmmaker as racist for
>overusing a naughty word disgusting.  Look at what you have said.  Have you
>examined the man before condemning him?  Or have you just reacted to
>something that was obviously there to provoke a reaction in the first place?
> Viewing Tarantino's great relationship with Jackson off-screen and the
>comments he has made regarding his agendas, it seems quite inaccurate to
>label him a racist.  Rather, he is trying to stir up his audience and force
>them to deal with these issues _in themselves_.    He has pushed your
>buttons, and you reacted just like he probably expected.  If you have a
>problem with that scene, maybe you should look at your own values before you
>judge his.   I think this is his goal.
Agreed and thank you for saying so much better than I would have be able to.
Fhew. Thought I was a racist there for a moment.
>Another point:  Jackson's character is the only one in the film to have any
>redeemable moral value, and racism was never an issue in inter-character
>relationships.  They seem to have no trouble getting along (Jackson and
>Travolta, the eventual reconciliation of Marcellus and Willis, Marcellus and
>Travolta, Marcellus and Thurman, Marcellus and Keitel, Jackson and
All good examples. I might be convinced that the only stereotyped (racist)
characters were the white rednecks. But QT is white, so how can that be?
Must be ok then...