On the topic of Q.T. Chris Wrote:
>2) There is no message. I guess this is similar to what I said >above
>about no moralizing being forced in. But Tarantino has simply made movies.
>That's it. His movies are meant to start at scene 1 and end >with the
>credits. There's no attempt to be 'meaningful' or 'socially >responsible'
>or to 'deliver a message.' He's just making fun movies. ANd I >say, thank
>god for that!
> Tarantino has, to this date, provided us with the best >view of the
meaningless and arbitrary world that we all live >in. I think he's touched
the pulse of the 'Letterman >generation' which can find humor in
>almost anything simply because of the realization that >everything is,
>a joke with no meaning beyond that which we decide to give >it. I know
>I've been waiting for such a level-headed voice in film and I >am certain
his acceptance reflects that others have as well >and hopefully means more
will be coming along the way. Maybe this means we'll be saved in the future
from sentimental crap like The Wonder Years or Forrest Gump. I doubt it but
maybe >there's hope...
How can one write that the films of Q.T. have no message and then state that
"The best view of the meaningless and arbitrary world that we all live in. I
think he's touched the pulse of the 'Letterman generation' which can find
almost anything simply because of the realization that everything is, indeed,
a joke with no meaning beyond that which we decide to give it."
If this is not a message or better yet a moral stance I do not know what is!
In fact the work of Q.T. can be seen as reprensenting a very strong moral
stance both in content and in structure. You may agree with this moral
position(s) (as the antithesis of a Forrest Gump for example) but this
should not be confused with the complete lack of a moral position. Also
don't you think that we should take terms such as "letterman generation" or
"20 something" or "gen - x" with more than a grain of salt? Having travled
around the U.S. quite alot I must express the idea that outside of being
grand marketing programs these groupings have little use in the analysis of
American film or culture most ovbiously in the mid-west and western states. I
think that we frequently underestimate the role of ideology and regionalism
in American life.
But I do wonder. These works of Q.T. receive alot of attention, I am not
sure why. Has anyone worked out an analysis of Pulp Fiction that they would
like to share? Frankly, I see little more than the "flavor of the month" (or
year) in the work of Q.T - I admit that my mind could be changed. Do film
scholars defend this work or is it treated as a cultural "symptom"? Such as
in the popular method of cultural analysis in which culture, and that which
represents it, are treated as a sick body via psychoanalysis and other