Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:30:49 CDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
On Apr 16, 10:12am, Rick Ferncase wrote:
> Subject: Re: Reservoir Dogs
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> I wish someone would address the fascination Mr. Tarantino exhibits in his
> films for male sodomy. There is the prolonged suggestive rough-housing
> between Mr. Blonde and Nice Guy Eddie, as well as the graphic if somewhat
> less-than-credible act perpetrated upon Marcellus by the gun shop
> proprietors. American exploitationist cinema has always rested upon the
> twin pillars of sex and violence. Of course Tarantino has a
> well-documented taste for violence; but he scarcely gives romantic sex its
> due. He doesn't seem comfortable with heterosexual expressions of sex, but
> the scatology aspect of buggery seems to have immense appeal for him.
>
> What's going on here?
>
>-- End of excerpt from Rick Ferncase
Who is being exploited in "American exploitationist cinema"? I think perhaps
the "scatalogical" issue you raise is an interesting one. Human excrement as
metaphor for somethining bigger? Seriously, though, Tarantino's
"well-documented" taste for violence is not a simply dismissed as some would
have it. Sorry I am not able to address your query about the male sodomy
thing directly but perhaps, especially in PF (pulp fiction) the
mythic/hero/boxer's brush with sodomy is a reference to the entire "pulp"
miasma - that is, PULP: n. a soft, moist, shapeless mass or matter.
Food, er, ideas for thought.
--
R. Scott Burnham Whatcha makin' there?
York University Looks like sodie-pop -
North York, Canada Watch it fizz...
E-Mail: [log in to unmask] - Foghorn Leghorn
|
|
|