SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 3


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
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Tue, 14 Mar 1995 12:51:30 CST
text/plain (24 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
M. Koven writes:
>What Scott saw, and is manifested in his film, is the
>superficial American action film, whereas Tarantino probably saw the
>potential for True Romance to have the "violent art" cinema aesthetic
>that Woo can achieve.
I disagree, insofar as I actually think Tony Scott is a brilliant visual
stylist, and that there is nothing necessarily superficial about the
American action film.  No other arena of American cinema apart from indie
productions is so healthy as the action film, and none other is so rich in
formal play.
The debate about violence in Tarantino has gotten off in the direction of
the morality of it on this list, without acknowledging the cartoon-like
aspects of it- violence is about action in film, and action is about
utlizing the tools of the medium to affect audiences in a visceral fashion.
 In this sense, directors like Woo, Tarantino, De Palma, Scorsese, and,
yes, De Bont, Mc Tiernan, Harlin, both Scotts, Bigelow, and Cameron are
using the medium to its fullest, the last people around who might warrant
the term "pure cinema."  It reminds me of Truffaut's comment on Hitchcock,
that suspense IS film.