----------------------------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.

 

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.

 

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

Tarantino)

 ----------

Forwarded Message>>

 

One thing that lingers in my mind has to do with the scene

in which the car with the body is brought to the suburban house by

Samuel L. Jackson's and John Travolta's characters.  Tarantino, playing

the owner of the home -- and a drug dealer if I recall, insists on pushing

the racism issue by using the 'N' word repeatedly  (I'm censoring myself

here because *I* don't believe in fostering racism in any manner).

However, I think the scene would have been *more* funny, and less

likely to leave a bad taste in the viewer's mouth, if that word had simply

been replaced with the word, "body"  ("You can't bring a dead body here!

Do you see a sign out front saying 'Dead Bodies'?!").  The humor here

should be strictly situational.

 

But that wasn't good enough for the Boy Wonder, who not only had the

gall to have one of his characters throw the word around repeatedly, but

actually took it a step further by playing that character himself, thereby

foregrounding his racism in a way that very few filmmakers would have

chosen to do.  Tarantino is flaunting his racist tendencies and daring us

to question them.  His use of that word  (in that scene, at least) was

absolutely gratuitous and I find it appalling and sad that the film industry

has seemingly condoned this behavior by lauding the film and its director.

I don't care how wonderful other aspects of the film may be -- this type

of reckless filmmaking should not be encouranged.

 

Anyone who can laugh through that scene *without* feeling guilty

should question his or her own views on what constitutes humor.

 

Another (shorter) comment I have on *Pulp Fiction* is in regards to

the print ads for the film, in which the four main characters are shown --

Travolta, Jackson, Uma Thurman and Bruce Willis.  All four had

very distinct hair styles in the film, and they are shown in the ad

with those hair styles intact, EXCEPT for Mr. Jackson, whose long,

shiny curls have been replaced by a closely-cropped style.  Why?

Does the marketing department at Miramax want their African-Americans

to look less threatening for their predominantly white target audience?

This one really baffles me, and I'd like to invite anyone who's got a theory

to please post it.

 

Christopher White