1) In Wednesday's class, we discussed Tarantino's writing style with regard to issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia. This week's reading (in the Woods book) on True Romance addresses these same concerns. After watching the scene from True Romance discussed in the articles (YouTube link is below), discuss the conflicting opinions about Tarantino along these lines.2) Gallafent argues, "The two questions that seem to always coexist for Tarantino are how kinds of violence operate within his dramatic worlds, and how they can be seen as cinematic techniques." What is the difference between these two "questions?" According to Gallafent, how do we see them operate in Reservoir Dogs? (Feel free to discuss this with regard to Pulp Fiction if you have seen the film before. You can also refer to clips from other films screened during Wednesday's class.)
24 comments:
1. Tarantino uses many issues involving racism, sexism, and homophobia is many of his movies. Many people are offended by his frequent use but others believe it enhances his characters. Does Tarantino really feel this way or is he just a brilliant writer?
True Romance involves a lot of racism and sexism. In the conversation between Coccotti and Cliff, Coccotti refers to Clarence’s girlfriend with many offensive names. He can’t even mention her without adding a degrading name into the sentence. In the same scene, Cliff tells a story about how Sicilians are spawned by ‘niggers’. Many people watching this would be horribly offended and think that Tarantino must be a racist and a sexist. Can you blame them? He is constantly degrading or excluding woman and African Americans. At the same time, he is giving lead roles to woman and African Americans in movies like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and even True Romance. This leads many to think that maybe he includes dialogue like this in his movies to enhance his characters.
Most of the characters in Tarantino’s movies are men. These men aren’t typical males. They are thugs or gangsters. They have to be masculine. This is a reason why woman are not involved in most of his movies. Women are regarded as objects not people in order to reinforce the men’s masculinity. Tarantino is not the only one that treats women differently than men. His movie True Romance had to be changed before it could be released. Instead of the main female character shooting a policeman, a random character lying on the floor does. The Motion Picture Association of America made them change it. They said, “A woman shooting a policeman, that makes it worse.”
Tarantino also uses his degrading comments about African Americans as a tool as well. The conversation between Coccotti and Cliff about Sicilians being spawned by “niggers” was used to break down Coccotti. It leads him to shoot Cliff. That is how much it bothered him. He thought that Sicilians were master liars and a pure race. The statement of Cliff doesn’t have to do with racism; it has to do with finding what will break someone, and doing it.
Tarantino could be considered a racist, sexist, and homophobe by some people, but I don’t think he is. Tarantino doesn’t think he is either. All he is guilty of is writing and doing whatever it takes to make his characters believable.
2. According to Gallafent, “The two questions that seem to always coexist for Tarantino are how kinds of violence operate within his dramatic worlds, and how they can be seen as cinematic techniques.” The difference between the two questions is the first question means we have to be aware of the different kinds of violence and what they mean in the movie. The second question is about how the violence relates to the movie and how the film audience responds to the changing perceptions of violence.
In Reservoir Dogs, the most memorable act of violence is when Mr. Blonde cuts off the ear of the cop. This rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. It wasn’t because it was so violent. It was because of the pleasure Mr. Blonde got from it. The scene is more than just a torture scene. It reveals more of Mr. Blonde’s character. We are shown the coldness of this man that we only heard about before. According to Tarantino, “The truth of it is that was what Mr. Blonde would do when left alone with this cop. To pull back on that because some people might not like it would be lying.” This scene is necessary to show the true Mr. Blonde. It also bothered people because it showed a torture of a cop. The happy music in the background, stolen from Scorsese, also made the torture more brutal. This scene changed the perception of what violence is acceptable to the film audience.
I am kind of torn here. The language used in his films is offensive and does lead me to believe he may be a racist. The fact that he does give women and minorities prominent roles in other movies could be genuine. It could also be an attempt to silence his critics. He could just be compensating to hide his actual feelings of hate and racism. Without personally knowing him it is hard to actually know his motives or intent. He could be a racist or he could just be a creative writer who has no inhibition and is not afraid to walk a fine line between creativity and racism.
Violence sells. That is why I think he uses it in his films. I am not a film major; I am just one of the average movie goers. We are the ones who actually decide if a movie is successful or a failure. We do this by either seeing the movie and spending money or staying home because we are the majority. I do not think the violence has anything to do with cinematic technique; it is only in there to sell tickets. He knows that violence brings in the average movie goers. Film Majors may discuss or believe it is a cinematic technique and can analyze it all day long. To me it is simple; he puts it in there because it sells tickets and makes him money. I’ve seen reservoir dogs numerous times. The part of the movie that I remember the most is the violent act of cutting off the cop’s ear. In fact it is pretty much the only thing I remembered about the film before viewing it again in class.
Jason Mucha
1.) In one regard, in the aspects of film solely, Tarantino seems to want to push the envelope as far as it can go. He see’s Hollywood and the MPAA as rather conservative, and the violence, sexuality, and dialogue his scripts are his own personal protest and lashing out at the system. In the other regard, culturally, he believes his racist and homophobic dialogue in his screenplay are defusing the power that American English gives these words. He’s trying to destroy the idea they’re taboo and people should be offended by them. In fact Dennis Hopper believes him to be the Mark Twain of the nineties. Right, and M Night Shyamalan is the nineties version of F. Scott Fitzgerald. I disagree with the assertion that Tarantino is trying to change the landscape of the English language. It’s one thing to have a character spout racist and homophobic words in a movie, maybe in even two movies, however these type of characters a present in multiple movies. That does say something about the author, even if they don’t realize. What’s the point of it all? To desensitize audiences to these words so that don’t have power? That won’t happen, words do have power, and they should. Why do we have such complicated languages if words should be powerless? Why go through the pains of writing deep thought provoking novels, informational books, articles, and even screenplays if words should powerless? It’s not up to Tarantino to decide which words should have power and which one’s shouldn’t, we’ll leave that up to Mark Twain. The author of the article states that real racist couldn’t have a character as complex as Jules; again, here I disagree. It’s the same excuse someone makes if they’re called out on a remark, “ I have a friend who’s African-American, Jewish, and Gay, I can’t be prejudice!”.
2.) In Reservoir Dogs violence doesn’t take place just for the sake of violence. It isn’t just mindless action and killing. Not only does it operate as method to advance important parts of the plot, but it also operates as an extension of the characters in the movie. The type of violence they commit depends on the type of personality the character posses. Gallafent compares the violence committed by Freddy and the violence committed by Mr. Blonde. When blonde torches the cop he gets pleasure out of it, that ‘s who he is. However, when Freddy kills blonde, and the woman driving the car, he doesn’t say anything, that’s who he is.
1) As a writer of dialogue and of characters, Tarantino often seems to be at odds with himself. As Miller points out in his essay (in Woods), and as we had discussed in class Tarantino writes gratuitously racist dialogue, while on the same hands writing both complex and powerful African American characters (Miller cites Jules in Pulp Fiction). By the same hand, he is extremely misogynistic (the Madonna conversation in Reservoir Dogs) yet the Kill Bill films are solely devoted to a strong and empowered female hero. This leads one (and Miler) to wonder if these are Tarantino's thoughts or if he is being intentionally polarizing. Tarantino is certainly very aware of what he is doing and the effect it has on viewers and critics. And while his characters are hardly reflections of reality (they are more like a hyperbole), their dialogue is definitely rooted in real issues. The frankness in which Tarantino's characters discuss race and sex, most often in the absence of those in which they are discussing both says something about the way we watch movies and the way in which we discuss the taboo subjects of race and sex, in PRIVATE; and how this differs from the way we act in the presence of others. Just as we may laugh with a racist while watching a film alone, or at a sexist joke with a friend, when put in the context of other people, we may act differently, based on what we know about how we are supposed to act. Thus Tarantino’s use of blatant sexism and racism may be an attempt to discuss the difference between the way we do act and talk and the way we are supposed to act and talk.
2) Gallafent presents an interesting argument in his discussion of violence in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, that violence operates on two fields (as an instrument of drama and as a cinematic tool). He spends quite a while writing about the scene where Vincent accidentally shoots Marvin in the van, and how sharply in contrasts with the shooting that precedes it. Cinematically, the former resembles blood-drenched violence in post-modern film (as Gallafent say, post-Production Code film), while the latter seems more like a scene from a noir or Western, a lot of bullets but little blood. Dramatically, Jules and Vincent have strikingly different responses to the two shoots. They are cool as cucumbers executing the kids in the apartment, but loose it when Marvin gets shot in the car. Gallafent says that latter is pitch perfect example of masculinity, while the former is Tarantino’s attempt to feminize his characters. A similar comparison occurs in Reservoir Dogs between the woman shooting Freddy and Freddy shooting the woman. Though White has no response to the death of the woman, he clearly becomes distraught over Pink’s injury, his ultimate undoing. This could also be seen as Tarantino feminize White. We see the two different modes in which violence operates in Tarantino’s films, but how do the two relate? Well, at least in terms of Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, he seems interested in guys, how they talk together, how they work together, and how they interact emotionally. But he sets this in terms of movie genre, and how rules of genre dictate how men should and should act.
Melissa Campbell
I believe that Tarantino uses violence to sell movies. Most people want some form of action or entertainment that does not require a lot of thinking. I know that I go to the movies to be entertained and relax, not to be lectured or taught a lesson. While I do not condone violence, I do not mind seeing a car blown up or someone shot from time to time. The torture scene in Reservoir Dogs was a little much for me because it was just straight violence with very little purpose but in contrast I did not mind the scene in True Romance when Cliff was punched, cut and eventually killed. I guess it depends on the context of the violence but a little here and there is fine in my book.
As far as the racism and homophobia goes, I have no clue. Tarantino could be considered racist based on the continued negative mentions of “niggers” in his films and an occasional lack of women. But then Tarantino casts Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, and he plays a major role in the film. And Uma Thurman plays the main role in Kill Bill. In my opinion, I do not think Tarantino is racist or sexist, I think that he writes for the audience and pushes the audience to their limits but they like it so they keep coming back for more.
For Tarantino, I think he uses violence not only to make a killing at the box office, but also to further explain his characters. He uses the torture scene to explain Mr. Blonde’s character further. Mr. Blonde gets pleasure from torturing the cop in Reservoir Dogs. Mr. Orange, by contrast, does not like killing and only does it to save him or others like when he kills Mr. Blonde before Mr. Blonde kills him and the cop. Tarantino shows that Mr. Orange has compassion and a heart whereas Mr. Blonde is a godless killing machine.
1) To some this speech given by Cliff (Dennis Hopper) is out of place mainly because of the racist dialogue that is thrown at the audience in such an unexpected manner.
Jonathan Miller expands his take on this scene in his article Walken v. Hopper in True Romance “Although both the acting and writing are powerful, there is still something extremely unsettling about the racism in this speech, which is gratuitous. There are no major black characters, and the other than a white Gary Oldman’s line ‘This is definitely not white-boy day,’ there are no other mention of race in the script.” (Woods, p47) I believe this speech might be “unsettling” for most but I also believe that’s the intention Tarantino was going for, this is a speech given from a man who knows he is going to die after he says these “facts”. The use of racism is what powers Coccotti (Walken) to kill Cliff, showing that the effects of racism could be deadly. I can agree with Tarantino’s thought of how some words that are taboo. “Words should not have that much power, and any time you have a word that does, you should strip the power away.” Tarantino goes on about the influence to write that speech, “It was actually a black guy who told me that whole story.” (Woods, p 42) So I can see how some might get offended, but I can also see and more so understand Tarantino’s Philosophy of saying what you want and attempt to stripe away that power of offence.
2) According to Gallafent there are two different kinds of violence through out Reservoir Dogs, one being “Play or knockabout violence” which is the mentioning of violence or some kind of horseplay that results in no major harm to one’s body. The second kind of violence is one in which you experience a graphic representation of the aftermath in an act of violence; you never really see what caused the harm. Tarantino uses these types of violence as cinematic techniques in the sense of foreshadowing and to heighten the drama throughout his films. In Reservoir Dogs we see the use of violence as opposite in the results and means. Lets take the most violent character Mr. Blonde, we experience both kinds of violence with him, in the scene where Mr. Blonde in the office of his loyal friend Joe, Joe’s son Eddie enters and Mr. Blonde and Eddie begin to fight in a way that would be under the category of “Knockabout Violence” with this we get the sense of unthreatening loyalty and friendship between the two. On the other hand when Mr. Blonde tortures of the cop we experience the graphic aftermath of the violence after Tarantino shows use what we heard but did not see, the cops severed ear, with this type of violence we are shown a different side of Mr. Blonde that is sick and very threatening.
I have a very hard time believing that Quentin Tarantino is a racist. To look at his writing technique and say, "This must be a direct reflection of what he really believes", is shallow and uninformed. I think that his writing style is too good not to reflect social issues such as racism.
To consider every narrative as a mirror of Tarantino’s true beliefs is extremely ignorant. It also completely fails to recognize the concept of satire. When a character uses terms like “nigger”, “bitch”, “whore”, “wop”, etc., one must understand the true context of this speech. In the case of “True Romance”, Coccotti and Cliff exchange dialogues that could be seen as extremely offensive. Once analyzed, however, I think they are part of a bigger, more positive theme that encompasses all of Tarantino’s work.
Take Cliff, one of our protagonists in “True Romance”. One could see his dialogue as racist beyond belief, but in the grand scheme of things, his main priority is to protect his son. To do this, he must sacrifice his own life (not allowing any extra information about Clarence to be revealed by methods of torture) by reducing Coccotti to his most primal nature. Cliff knows that calling Coccotti’s ancestors the “spawn of niggers” can do this. Therefore, Tarantino subtly mocks Coccotti for being racist and ultimately killing the man who has information on Clarence. In a way, Tarantino labels him as a beast. The theme of love (Cliff/Clarence, Cliff/Alabama) overpowers any taboo language in the movie. So is Tarantino really racist, or is he illustrating a realistic situation in which his characters are allowed the freedom to speak for themselves?
Racism is not something we, as a society, can ignore. To pretend that words like “nigger” do not exist does not help anyone. In “The Film Geek Files”, Tarantino responds to the use of this word by quoting: “Words should not have that much power, and any time you have a word that does, you should strip the power away.” I believe that that is exactly what his movies do. Regardless, one would be foolish to call Tarantino a racist or sexist after recognizing the prominent roles he writes African Americans and women into in his later works.
As far as violence goes, I believe much of it can be categorized in a similar matter. Sure it has shock value and it sells tickets, but there is always a more important underlying theme. Take “Reservoir Dogs” for example. The notorious scene in which Mr. Blond cuts off a policeman’s ear depicts violence that some may consider copious. I, however, believe that the cinematic and dramatic elements involved justify the scene.
First of all, Tarantino could write all day about how sadistic Mr. Blonde is, but nothing really hits home like a nonchalant, knife-wielding, Michael Madsen chopping of a cop’s ear while grooving to “stuck in the middle with you”. It is necessary to reiterate how evil some of his characters are to make his stories believable. Secondly, how epic was it to see Mr. Orange shoot Mr. Blonde after a real-time, 10-minute torture scene?
In my opinion Tarantino’s theme of brotherhood (cop/cop, criminal/criminal, criminal/cop) overrides any violence that may be deemed as offensive or excessive. To take portions of the movie and label them detracts from the genius of a movie as a whole.
1.) I can see how some people may view Tarantino as a racist, sexist, and homophobe because of the dialog of may of his characters in his movies. I personally believe that type to language makes his characters more believable as real people. His use of racism and sexism shows his brilliance as a director by showing attitudes actual people have. An excellent example of this is in this clip from "True Romance". Coccotti uses degrading sexist terms while talking about Clarence's girlfriend. Tarantino uses this to show the jagged masculinity of the character. Tarantino also uses racism in this clip to set off the killing of Cliff. He shows how racist feelings can upset people.
2.) According to Gallafent, “The two questions that seem to always coexist for Tarantino are how kinds of violence operate within his dramatic worlds, and how they can be seen as cinematic techniques.” The first question referrers to how the violence fits into the overall plot of the movie and the second question referrers to how he uses violence to show the personalities of his characters. In "Reservoir Dogs" Tarantino uses violence to show the struggle between good and bad. He also uses violence to show the personalities of his characters. The violence in the torture scene with Mr. Blond shows the evil and disregard for human life that he has, while the violence in Mr. Orange's scenes shows his need for self preservation and protecting others.
-Robert Mueller
1. One of Tarantino’s unique elements to his writing is that he includes a lot of dialog that many people find offensive. There are arguments put forth that it is to help humanize the characters, and to create a more realistic and accurate portrayal of the subject matter. The elements of racism, sexism, and homophobia are all present in Tarantino’s writing. It is tough for people to discern this style of writing, as simply work of fiction, or if real traits of Tarantino’s personality are coming through in his writing. For the most part, I would say that the men in Tarantino’s films, under their specific context, backgrounds, and circumstances, are believable in saying the offensive things that they do. This is how men in these circumstances talk and the writing makes them believable. One must wonder though, since every film of Tarantino’s includes these elements, if he doesn’t himself have some of those outlooks towards different groups of people, even if not as extreme as his characters.
2. Violence is another element present in all of Tarantino’s work. This element, much like his controversial dialog, is debated among the film community to be excessive or necessary to further his story and to add to the sense of realism. I would argue that the violence used in his films is very necessary. The violence adds immense depth to his characters. The seen in Reservoir Dogs where Mr. Blonde is torturing the cop, and eventually cuts his ear off, is one of the most memorable scenes of violence within Tarantino’s works. If this scene were to have not taken place, the audience would’ve had much less of a look into Mr. Blonde’s character. One can tell that Tarantino thinks out his scenes of violence with detail. The music playing in the background, along with Mr. Blonde’s calm personality really gave you a sense of the kind of guy he is. I believe Tarantino uses violence very effectively in his films.
-Alex Sokovich
1. Is Quentin Tarantino a sexist, racist, homophobe? I really don’t know. On the one hand he consistently writes characters that are sexist (Mr. Pink in “Reservoir Dogs”), racist (Cliff and Coccotti in “True Romance,” various characters in “Reservoir Dogs”) and homophobic (Nice Guy Eddie and Mr. Blonde in “Reservoir Dogs”). That foul language has to be coming from somewhere and it is coming from the mind of Quentin Tarantino. As Paul Woods poignantly asks, “Is Cliff just speaking as a character, or is he speaking for Tarantino?” There is some evidence we have to think that Cliff is speaking for Tarantino. First, as Woods points out, there is no context for what Cliff is saying. There is no racism in his character prior to this outburst. Why then write the gratuitous racism Quentin? Character development? Perhaps…But is that really a good enough reason for a character that has very little screen time and, as we see at the end of the clip, little importance? I’m not sure it is. Also, these racist lines are not spoken in a context for the prosecuted to defend themselves. There was much racist, sexist and homophobic dialogue in “Reservoir Dogs” but there was only one minor black character, one female character that might be considered a bit part and no homosexual characters.
However, this does not prove to me that Tarantino, the man himself, is sexist, racist, or homophobic. He, as Woods discusses, wrote the character Jules in “Pulp Fiction.” He also made “Death Proof,” which according to me is the most “girl power” film I’ve seen since “Spice World.” I think he writes gratuitous language that same way he uses gratuitous violence. He does it to be realistic and to get a rise out of people.
Racism, is different from ethnic. In the article from Woods' book, the script says, "Sicilians are great liars.......champion of Silician liars" (p. 43). Ethnicity is when you describe a person from their cultural background. Racism is when you judge a person's skin color to put them in a specific group, in a very offensive way. The saying from the script is a stereotype of Italians. Italians tend to be looked at as mafia, mob businessmen, or gang members. How Tarantino portrayed Italians is ethnically wrong. It is interesting how he loves to make action movies about the mafia. What Tarantino thinks about Italians is vague. He loves the mafia but at the same time considered Sicilians liars. The other part is where there is sexism; it tends to be easily identifiable in Tarantino's films because of how he wants to keep masculinity throughout his films. It was not till Kill Bill where he gave the main power to a woman. True Romance mentioned fucking niggers from Moors and changed their bloodline. It made me feel like they were mocking African Americans and women at the same time and how Sicilians are “niggers” too. Women used to be beautiful till Moors came and took over the women.
Second part, the question of violence is depending on Tarantino's choice to portray the certain type of violence or not. The differences between these two are play or knockout violence where actors pretend to act out the violence by using their hand as a gun and pretend to shoot at a person, and the violence that really occurred. However, Tarantino has left out the parts where the viewers see what caused or happened to the wounds we see. We only see the beginning or after the violence but almost never during the violence. It is up to the viewers to determine what caused the outcomes (gunshot wounds, ear sliced off, bleeding). Tarantino clued us into what caused the wounds but not actual violence. That is the question Gallafant has discussed in his article. In Reservoir Dogs, we see parts of the wounds, for example, Mr. Orange in the backseat of the car crying he is going to die. We see the gunshot wound to his stomach and bleeding but we do not know what caused the wound. Tarantino used different cinematic techniques to control the violence, making it how he wants us to see it unfold. We may see the cop being shot and the blood splatter but it was a short period, not elaborated. It limits the viewers' time to see the gunshot action to reduce the emphasis of the violence.
1. Tarantino does use a lot of racism, sexism, and homophobia in his films, but does that make him a rasict, sexist, or homophobic? Without knowing him personally it is hard to say whether he is actually a racist or if he just does this in his films to help define the characters. But it is difficult for me to say that he is a racist or a sexist because he does cast women and African Americans in major roles in many of his films. Which makes me believe that he has his characters act racist, sexist, and homophobic to help define these characters as masculine, after all most of his characters are gangsters and crooks and that might just be how he believes they talk.
2. The violence in Tarantino movies is not there just to be gory but instead to help show whom the character is. In Reservoir dogs Mr. Blonde cuts off the ear of a cop and douses him with gasoline before getting killed by Freddy. This scene was made to show just how crazy Mr. Blonde is. Throughout the movie you hear Mr. Pink and Larry talk about how Mr. Blonde went psycho during the Jewelry heist and this scene helps the audience see just how crazy Mr. Blonde is. As Gallafent explains, in the same way when Freddy kills the women in the car he is greatly affected by this and is almost in shock that he actually killed an innocent person. This violent scene shows you more about Freddy’s character, and unlike Mr. Blonde, how he is greatly affected by murder.
Ronnie Dhaliwal
1. In the Jeff Dawson article on “True Romance,” Tarantino talks about his approach to violence relative to the torture scene in “Reservoir Dogs.” “The truth of it is that was what Mr. Blonde would do when left alone with this cop. To pull back on that because some people might not like it would be lying.” Although, as usual, Tarantino is not telling the interviewer all, he appears to be honest in suggesting that he lets the characters go wherever they take him. What makes Tarantino’s relationship to violence, sexism and homophobia such a great controversy, however, is that he allows his characters to go places that no mainstream characters have gone before.
Some people think Tarantino is a racist, sexist homophobe because he so often finds excessive language in the vocabulary of his creations. While he may or may not have those tendencies inside himself, I think his characters raw language and politically incorrect behavior relates to something we read in last week’s readings. Tarantino expresses his appreciation for the “auteurs of excess” and promises to emulate, or even exceed, their most extreme work. While he talks about extreme violence as a kind of dance, he also talks about getting a kick out of it. I think he gets a kick out of being over the top with language and violence, and believes that it shocks his audience into a more intense cinematic experience. I think he’s right.
Tarantino took the world by storm with “Reservoir Dogs,” and “Pulp Fiction,” and even “True Romance” in a way because he ignored accepted boundaries of racist language and extreme violence. He understood, either intentionally or by predilictory accident, that there is great power in hearing taboo language and over-the-top violence. Of course he will be charged with racism when he uses the word “nigger.” And he wants people to be shocked when Marvin’s face is shot off or Zed takes us to the basement. IT IS A TECHNIQUE, and Tarantino pushes it for all it is worth. The hand-wringers and haters only play into his hands as a shock-filmmaker with a talent for language.
2. As mentioned earlier, Tarantino talks about film violence as vital to his story and as cinematic technique. As he says in an earlier interview in the Woods book, he believes that ultra-violent directors get a kick out of the violence – with the obvious inference that he does as well. He also believes that audiences get a kick out of that violence and will pay to see it. As a fan of Hong Kong and martial arts movies -- see Woo reference in Woods – he also sees violence as a kind of cinematic dance. It’s beautiful, in the same way that a bloody Woo or Sonny Chiba martial arts fight is beautiful. Cinema allows hyper-violence to be both beautiful and shocking to our system. “Pulp Fiction” is full of those shocks to the system and the slow motion shootings that fill the movie are a kind of cinematic dance – Jules and Vincent shooting the kids, Mia’s heroin overdose, Marvin getting shot in the face, etc. Vincent and Mia’s dance contest at Jackrabbit Slim’s brings the point home – a real dance has a lot in common with the other dances going on in “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs.” “Mr. Blonde’s” torture shuffle is one obvious conflation of the two.
Gallafent notes these two aspects of Tarantino-esque movie violence because they both matter. The extreme violence is both jolting to the audience and often cinematically beautiful. As silly as the final shootout is in “True Romance,” it has the excitement and beauty of great martial arts and gangster movies. From Public Enemy to Sonny Chiba and everywhere in between, Tarantino has seen movie violence and finds it both effective and beautiful. By trying to take those elements beyond the originals, he is attempting to make it all bigger and better. With his early screenwriting and first two major films, he seems to have accomplished that goal.
While watching a Tarantino screenplay or movie, it is evident that Tarantino excessively uses racism especially toward african americans in his scripts. There is also sexism and homophobia present in True Romance and Reservoir Dogs. Later movies of Tarantino move away from both racism and sexism. Films like Jackie Brown and Kill Bill go completely against the thug script of Reservoir Dogs and True Romance. So in working with the scripts especially in True Romance where Coccotti and Cliff discuss Sicilian heritage, the viewer in a sense feels like the conversation is more human and less scripted and read. Bringing these real but racist and sexist scripts into movies, I believe in a sense that Tarantino intended on using for the essence of the movie and did not reflect is own personal views.
But is there a different view that shows that this racism and sexism was just a reflection of his own views? Certainly it is hard to figure out because after all he has given in multiple films a main character role to a black person and a woman. I do not seem convinced on either.
The difference between Gallafent's two questions is that the first talks about how violence is a way of provoking an image of drama so to draw the viewers toward the situation at hand and the second talks about ways in which cinematic techniques can heighten that drama. This can be seen especially in Reservoir Dog's infamous scene where Mr. Blonde viscously cuts the cops ear off. His easy natured swaggering beforehand to music and his nonchalant attitude to the crime makes viewers uncomfortable and drawn to the scene. The technique of moving the camera away when the action of cutting the ear off maybe be in a sense an attempt to mimic what viewers might due at said action.
1.) I feel Tarantino uses racism as a tool more than anything else. Whether Tarantino himself is a racist can be debated, but many of his characters undoubtedly are. In the scene from True Romance, between Coccotti and Cliff, Cliff uses a multitude of racial slurs and derogatory speech, but I doubt Cliff is actually a racist. Like how Miller in his article compares this scene to a boxing match, Cliff is strategically throwing punches and aiming for Coccotti’s weaknesses. Coccotti, so proud of his Sicilian heritage, is the one offended by the idea of a mixed heritage. He is the one seeing it as being tainted by something dehumanized. The slurs aren’t thrown around for the sake of shock value, or even to put on the air of hyper-masculinity. They are precisely placed personal attacks playing on Coccotti’s racism and insecurities. In this case, racism works to create a dynamic and compelling scene.
2.) The difference between the two questions that Gallafent asks is the first suggests that Tarantino differentiates between types of violence. The second suggests that these types can be manifested is ways to create different cinematic effects. In Gallafent’s article, he describes three perceptions of violence. The first two, one being violence as simulated and the other violence as edited, have a disconnection to our reality. But the third, violence in our presence, is unmediated so we feel it’s real effects. Tarantino’s films make use of these different types. Characters like Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction, and Mr. White in Reservoir Dogs experience both the disconnected violence, and unmediated violence, and both kinds work to portray the characters in different cinematic ways. Jules, Vincent, and Mr. White are all usually dissociated with violence, seeing assassinations and killing cops as part of their jobs, but when a kill is not planned, or one of their own is shot, the disconnect disappears and the characters are vulnerable. What is interesting to me is how Tarantino uses blood to visually distinguish the difference. When Mr. White shoots the cops during the heist escape, White doesn’t even relate the cops’ death to people, and the scene is never actually shown. There is no blood, and no lasting effect. Similarly in Pulp Fiction, once Jules and Vincent have killed their marks in the apartment job, their victims are of no more consequence and little blood is shown. But when Mr. Orange is shot, White is affected to the point of his undoing, and blood is pooled everywhere. Similarly, when Vincent and Jules have a kill on their hands that wasn’t premeditated, their emotional state becomes as messy as the back seat. Tarantino plays with different perceptions of violence to elicit emotional responses. Sometimes it will be to represent the control of his characters, and sometimes it will be prominent and realistic to make the audience feel as uncomfortable as possible to align them with the character’s traumatic state.
Having never seen a movie of Quentin Tarantino’s before this class, only seeing the clips screened in class, and never been in a film course before gives me a different perspective on these topics. It is hard for me [and impossible] to compare with other works and view these clips with a pre-conceived notion of how Tarantino deals with these issues throughout his films.
Having said that, I would say that in this clip from True Romance the idea of racism is used in a manner which adds to the characters and the plot of the movie. I feel that it gives another level of seriousness to the atmosphere being presented. The film would be much different if the story told by Cliff wasn’t as offensive and he’s not killed because of it. The terms used to describe Clarence’s girlfriend by Coccotti are used by the character to enhance his portrayal of hatred towards her. In real life, away from the camera, some people speak like this and I feel that’s what type of character Tarantino is trying to create. Movies are a way for people to get into other’s lives, and that is what we are getting here. Whether these culturally unacceptable ways of handling things and speaking are a portrayal of Tarantino himself is not up to me to decide. I do not know him, or much of his work to even guess about it. But it is possible for someone to use ideas and characters from real life that do not represent their own true beliefs.
As for with the recurring themes and ideas in his other films that you other students are discussing I am unsure. Hopefully throughout this course I will be exposed enough to his films and will be able to better evaluate this topic then. As for the violence in Reservoir Dogs, and other films, I feel that as an established and apparently successful director would use these acts as ‘techniques’; Techniques to create a plot, create interest, develop characters, and tell a story unlike the lives of most viewers. The violence is part of the movie, and therefore adds to it, either negatively or positively depending on who’s judging. Again, this is a topic that I wish to develop more knowledge about throughout the conversations, readings and screenings of this course.
1.) Many critics claim that the racist, sexist and homophobic dialogue of Tarantino’s work qualifies him as just that: a racist, sexist and homophobe. With keeping in mind that Tarantino grew up in the 1980s in Los Angeles, with very a liberal family that didn’t tie him down to home, his dialogue seems more informed and interested in present-day culture than offensive diatribe. Just as Hopper says in response to the Hooper vs. Walken dialogue battle in True Romance, “…we’re in the Nineties now and we live in a violent society. How can you write about it and not make some reflection on your culture?” (Wood, 42). Tarantino has a very perceptive ear and can, assumingly, pick up on the language of the people in the world around him very quickly. He is, after all, known for rambling on and on about everything and nothing. Real, uncut, visceral dialogue is probably one of the most interesting and important tools in Tarantino’s works. Not to mention, he is a true student of filmmaking (what with all those years of obsessive movie-watching) and can’t help but pull slurs and derogatory commentary from the films of cinema history. It is an important part of what shaped history: the racism, sexism and homophobia of out past and the ways it has morphed/changed/disappeared/reappeared. Walken says something about the controversy of Tarantino’s works that really touches on the importance of making characters real and believable: “This film’s [True Romance] not about violence, it’s about people.” (Woods, 42). Isn’t that what all films are, or should be, about? And shouldn’t all of them touch on the language of our past and our present and how it has shaped our cultural identity? Tarantino defends himself and his dialogue best when he says, “ You know I never went to writing school, ‘Write A Screenplay In 27 Days’, or any of that nonsense. One of the things you get taught as an actor is just get the characters talking to each other. Whatever happens is what happens, what they say is what they say and what they do is what they do.” (Woods, 40). What could seem more natural and come across more effectively than shooting acting that works this way. To all the critics that believe Tarantino’s words are unjustified and cross the line: buck up and pay attention to the language of the world today. Tarantino’s recreation of this is simple yet beautiful in its perceptiveness and truth.
2.) The violence is Tarantino’s work is often deemed excessive and overly graphic. This seems to be the opinion of those who have not taken the time to view and review the scenes of violence in all of his films, but most specifically Reservoir Dogs. Take for example the torture scene in which Blonde violates a kidnapped cop in a way that could be viewed as a build to an orgasm. This violence is treated as a way for Madsen’s character to prove to himself that he is the only one in control of the violence he enacts. In response to the cop’s assumption that Nice Guy Eddie was Blonde’s boss, Blonde reacts angrily and quickly to say that he has no boss. As Gallafent had written in his essay, these professional criminals treat violence as if it were a childish game that he struggles to conquer. It is clear that when Tarantino’s murderous characters’ routines are disturbed (especially their mental and psychological states of mind) they act out rashly and childishly due to their levels of discomfort and the realization that they could feel this way about their profession. Cinematically, this scene is shot linearly to the progression of the orgasmic nature of Blonde’s murder of the cop. We watch intently the cop’s face and his fear/fascination with the madness of Blonde. Right when Blonde begins to climax and is about to light his life-ending lighter, there is an off-screen gunshot that hits Blonde. This is shot as if Blonde had been so intent on the murder of his enemy that he had forgotten about Orange, lying on the floor bleeding. This murder is almost an escape from reality for Blonde; this is a calling for him. Freddy is only revealed after Blonde’s climax is disturbed; as if we, the audience, had forgotten him as well (which we most likely had during the scene of heightened intensity). The camera grounds us back into the reality of the space we are in. It seems as if Tarantino is making two different statements about this violence. Dramatically, Blonde’s violence stems from feeling unwanted and alone in the realm of his employers and needs this escape in order to deal with his childish, selfish, psychological insecurities. Cinematically, this violence is something that captivates the audience just as much as it does for Blonde; we are just as deeply involved (mentally and psychologically) in the act as is the assailant. This is the more disturbing part of Tarantino’s violence and exactly what qualifies it as cinematic genius.
It's really hard to say whether or not tarantino himself is racist, or if he is just very in touch with his knowledge or intuition of how an audience would respond to such a dialogue and wants to create that feeling, that shock-uncomfortable feeling, we are all private vouyers in our own private voyeuristic worlds until something on the screen reminds us that people are around us everywhere and we are out to a movie. This racist dialogue reminds us of the people around us, i believe. It puts us in a position that makes the whole audience vulnerable, the way we react to the scene makes us vulnerable. Do people laugh or gasp? What is their response? Racism, sexism, etc, are shown so raw in his work. Maybe he is just very in touch with what that does to an audience as voyeurs...it performs to an audience powerfully. or maybe he is racist... has anyone ever asked him??
2) According to Gallafent, “The two questions that seem to always coexist for Tarantino are how kinds of violence operate within his dramatic worlds, and how they can be seen as cinematic techniques.”
The way in which violence operates talks about how it is performed. two similarities i found in the true romance scene and the ear cutting scene from resevoir dogs are that the victims are first tied down to a chair, tortured (tortured mildly in True Romance and visciously in Resevoir Dogs), and then at impulse are killed fast by being shot in the head. I would define the way this violence operates as tying the victim to be tortured, drilled with questions, and getting shot rather unexpectedly even though we know from the moment we see them in the chair that they will die. Seeing violence as a cinematic technique is different than how it operates because a technique means a personal touch, a flare or personalization. Not how it appears as an operation, but in the way that it is done...
1) In his article Walken v. Hopper Jonathon Miller states that, “Tarantino is no Shakespeare, and a speech that uses ‘nigger’ six times in one paragraph is hardly ‘To be or not to be.’” While that hardly seems disagreeable it also is not pertinent to the discussion of his dialogue. The phrases uttered by his characters are not meant to be poems or words of profound insight but rather commonplace speech and realistic interactions between individuals in today’s (or 1990’s) society. Dennis Hopper gives what seems to be a more accurate and insightful response to Tarantino’s use of racially inappropriate and sexist dialogue comparing his writing style to that of Mark Twain but putting it in context of modern society.
If the entirety of Cliff’s “interrogation” were put into context it would be easy to account for the actions of both him and Coccotti. The actions are not motivated solely by racist or sexist comments but by a much more personal attack. As Coccotti rambles he is almost incessantly insulting Cliff’s son and his new bride. His response, while littered with extremely racist content, is actually centered upon the idea of calling Coccotti’s “great- great- great- great grandmother” a whore. It would seem ignorant to assume that his murderous reaction had nothing to do with those implications but solely the racial diatribe. Cliff’s verbal attack does not necessarily make him racist either; he is doing what he must to break Coccotti.
Tarantino uses this type of speech as a means of characterization and plot development not to mention a brilliant form of social commentary on use of language and behavior. To assume that he is either a racist or sexist based upon the dialogue of fictional characters he has developed would be ignorant and fatuous.
2) The two forms of violence discussed and questioned by Gallafent differ quite greatly in function. Operating within dramatic worlds refers to how Tarantino’s use of violence works toward the characterization and development of individuals in the film as well as furthering the narrative. Gallafent furthers that statement, remarking that it is used to, “make distinctions between the various forms and meanings of violent behavior that are open to different figures and thus what paths his story can take.” Violence as cinematic technique is, as Gallafent states, a means to “explore the film medium itself.” It is inextricably linked to the act of viewing and audience awareness. Cinematic techniques, such as lighting, edits, and camera movement, are utilized by Tarantino to make acts of grotesque violence viewable to a general audience.
The operations of these violent instances in Reservoir Dogs can most likely be best understood through Mr. Blonde’s actions and how other characters relate to him. Up until the ear-splicing scene the violence functions dramatically, developing distinct personalities for each character through their reaction to, discussion of, and part in the violence the audience has seen thus far. As Blonde announces that he has something to show Larry and Mr. Pink the violence, and its associative acts, continue to make distinctions between the type of person Mr. Blonde is, contrasting him from Pink and Larry while assimilating the other two. The removal and subsequent beating of the cop suggests, as Gallafent states, “that the cop has a completely difference significance for Larry and Pink on the one hand, and for Blonde on the other. The two men act with logic and reasoning; it is easy for the spectator to understand their treatment of the police officer as it is a way to vent, get revenge, or possibly gain important information. For Blonde the acts of violence appear unmotivated and entirely natural- cool, calm and collected (though Gallafent does not entertain any notion that this could just be the release of Mr. Blonde’s pent up aggression towards the law, which has kept him jailed for the past four years, it seems like a plausible inference of the scene). The sort of “play or knockabout violence” is a subtle way to imply the need for belonging and the formation of the father/son type relationship we see being established between many characters throughout the film (Larry and Orange/ Eddie and Joe/ Joe and Blonde). Eddie and Blonde joke back and forth before entering an apparently familiar routine of horseplay biding for approval of the fatherly figure, Joe. Similarly in Pulp Fiction violence is used to provide insight into the characters. Jules and Vincent are both characterized and ultimately feminized by different instances of violence. While they are intentionally murdering the men in the apartment complex it is a duty, it is their profession and so they do so without thinking twice; here the noir and western style of violence mentioned by Gallafent is utilized to put a distance between the actions of Jules and Vincent in relation to their victims and the audience. When a gun accidentally misfires brutally splattering Marvin’s head all over Jules and Vincent are at a loss losing their composure and ultimately becoming feminized through the assistance of the wolf and their association with Tarantino as “Jimmie,” a stay at home husband in a bath robe and fearful of his wife.
Violence, especially in extreme forms, is systematically linked with various cinematic techniques. The most relieving and apparent instance in Reservoir Dogs comes with a short steady pan in the scene that you would expect it to occur. As Blonde takes the blade to the cop’s ear the audience is released when the camera slowly and calmly moves to the upper left of the screen, stopping on a ramp with a large closed door, an image that relates the idea of hopelessness and lack of escape plaguing the characters.
1)Although this scene from True Romance repeats terms associated with racism and ideas of racism, determining whether Tarantino is a “racist” would depend on the definition of a “racist” being used. Since a “racist” person is not clearly defined, I can only use the definition of racism. Merriam-Webster defines racism as “ a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” For this, I will define a “racist” as a person holding beliefs in racism, and not as a person who perpetuates or uses terms associated with racism but does not believe in the superiority of one race over another. However, this is not necessarily the correct definition of a racist.
Using these definitions, there is obvious racism in the scene being considered. The character of Cliff uses a term that, in most, if not all, of its usages, implies inferiority of darker skinned people or a supposed “black race.” An interpretation of the scene that Coccotti is offended by Cliff saying that Coccotti is of “black” ancestry, and therefore shoots Cliff, would make it seem that Coccotti holds beliefs in racism and is therefore racist. However, from the scene, it is not possible to deterimine whether Cliff holds racist beliefs or not, he may only be using racist terms only because he is aware of the effect that this will have on Coccotti. It is even more difficult to label the writer or director of this scene as “racist” or “not-racist.” Tarantino did use racist terms and racist ideas in this scene, but he does not show whether he believes these ideas to be true, or even, depending on interpretation of the scene, whether these ideas are right or wrong or good or bad. One interpretation could be that Tarantino is depicting Coccotti as a “bad” person and his belief in racism as wrong, and another could be that Tarantino depicts Coccotti as cool and his racist beliefs as acceptable and possibly factual.
Although we can’t tell whether Tarantino holds beliefs in racism from the scene, it can be said that by writing this script for viewing of large amounts of people who may interpret or understand the movie on different levels, ideas of racism are being repeated, and if that makes a person racist, then he is, but then so is almost everyone else. The average person, however, does not have such a large audiece, and cannot make as great an impact on society. I think that the fact that his movies are going to been seen by large numbers of people gives him greater responsibility to show that although racism was, and still is, a problem in our society, it isn’t right or cool or acceptable, as is may be interpereted in this scene. Tarantino may say that this scene is just a reflection of reality, but using racist terms and ideas and giving no justification for it or really saying nothing else about racism in the movie, doesn’t reflect reality where racism isn’t just something to be indifferent to or accepted and is always in some context. Tarantino’s defense of the use of a racist term is that “words should not have that much power, and any time you have a word that does, you should strip the power away. It’s nit-picking to be offended just by the use of the word...” I don’t understand how using a racist word without giving justification or context for it’s use does anything but perpetuate racist ideas. I also think that Tarantino’s view that he has no responsibility of how what he writes affects people who watch his movies is like saying that a person has no responsibility for how what they say affects other people. I think that if Tarantino doesn’t want restrictions put on what he can and cannot do with his art, he shouldn’t complain about the ratings of his movies that put restrictions on what age a person has to be to see them because a certain maturity is needed to understand that the racism in this scene, while it may reflect reality, is not factual or right, and shouldn’t be accepted in society as it has been in the past.
2)The difference between these two questions is that the first one is asking how violence affects the narrative of the movie and characters in it, and the second question has to do with how violence is used as a technique for manipulating an audience or showing the story in a certain way that will have a desired effect on it's audience. According to Gallafent, in Reservoir Dogs, we see violence used as a cinematic technique when Tarantino tells the story in a way that separates the act of violence from it's consequences. In another way, violence is used to further the plot and tell us more about the character of Mr. Blonde when he kills civilians and tortues a cop.
1.) Tarantino can have an extreme racism, sexiest, and homophobia in his movie. In all his movie and screenplay that he wrote, it just shows the realism for art portraying life. It just telling that he had experience this in is his life, with all the racism, be sexist to all the female, and have a lot fear about homosexually. Although he did born and rise in Los Angles area where all of event happen a lot. By writing in that entire event in his screenplay and his movie, it just makes and connects with the real human emotion to life and other feeling about each other.
2.) The explanation about his explore in violence, it is relative is to push the envelope to make the movie realistic and give the audience to the emotion of the character. In the situation Tarantino give the character is to deal with their emotion, making them feel that they no choice in life but what they had to reacted in that situation . Using violence is a natural event in life, it just more balance in life, without violence or chaos there no meaning in life. It also have some kind of other emotion for movie to balance the character feeling , like it bit of comedy and drama to what the character feeling.
-Quoc (Tony) Tran-
1) I am also torn with the issues of racism, sexism, and homophobia coming up in Tarantino’s work. On the one hand, I think that Tarantino is a truly amazing writer who actually knows how to develop “real” characters. He writes dialogue in such a way that seems to resemble what many people see and hear on a daily basis. These issues are real and very evident in real life, and I think that Tarantino’s work is so great because of this. On the other hand I think that there is a possibility that Tarantino is perhaps a racist, or sexist and he could use the dialogue to get it out, but I don’t really believe this is the case. He does give Women and African American prominent roles in other films.
2)In Reservoir Dogs it is most definitely not that case that there is violence just for the sake of showing violence. If there were, Tarantino maybe would have opted to show the scene of that actual robbery where Mr. Blonde shot several people for “not doing what he asked”. Tarantino uses violence to further his narrative and to display what types of characters he has developed and how they react in a specific situation, like the main violent scene were Mr. Blonde brutally tortures the cop and gained complete pleasure from it. This shows what type of character his was.
I’ve seen almost every film Tarantino has been involved with, and especially after seeing the True Romance clip I can stand firmly on my belief that here is a director that views life as a cinematic pageant. His knack for bloodshed and graphic language come from a form of pop culture usually reserved for back alley burlesque shows. What is real to QT and, what is entertainment fits together in this miasma of splendor that makes up his reality. It’s no small wonder that there are conflicting opinions about the morality of his content, what it comes down to is whether you can stomach the joke or not. Humans for centuries have been entertained by senseless displays of violence. Is it so difficult to grasp that our contemporary values have found an eloquent outlet for this displaced blood lust? Ella Taylor suggest in her article “Mr. Blood Red”, that “We’re really arguing not about violence but about the politics of style.” She suggests it’s a difference in sensibilities. Of course it is. In my house hold you were just as likely to get laughed at for blowing milk out your nose or belching (at the table). But in other families this is not only an offense, but a punishable one at that. I can’t imagine people who were deprived of simple fart humor walking unawares into a Quentin Tarantino film and, leaving have in had some semblance of a good time.
In more ways than one, Tarantino represents the average hetereosexual white male with white privilege. The chances of him actually encountering racism, sexism, or being judged because of his sexual orientation are slim. Therefore, he can write a scene such as that in True Romance without batting an eye, defend it and even find it funny. On one hand, Tarantino can be viewed as a champion. Here is a man who can transcend the restraints of using the word "nigger", can have a primarily all (white) male cast, use women along the lines of props, and make a pop culture hit. The problem with trying to analyze if Tarantino is racist/sexist/homophobic is that we try to analyze through his films--which are fantasy realms where social constraints don't exist. Things are very black and white and grey--saying "nigger" isn't offensive, it's funny. Nothing more, nor less. On the other hand, however, Tarantino is living in the real world, where (according to his personal beliefs) things that shouldn't be considered an issue are in fact very serious to many people. His being able to not have to experience the harrowing situation of being called a "nigger" and being denied of something because of the color of his skin allows him to state, "I actually think 'nigger' may be the most taboo word in the English language. It's nit-picking to be offended just by the use of the word...that's a very limited view and it doesn't really affect me, but I love that speech, it's really funny." (Woods, p. 42) The same goes for sexism and homophobia. In Tarantino's world, these things don't matter. They are there, he knows that they are there, and will poke at them enough to make the audience squirm. But overall it's simply because it's a fun thing to do.
The first question Gallafent poses deals with knowing what the different kinds of violence are and the second deals with how Tarantino uses them to manipulate the audience. In the famous/infamous torture scene of Reservoir Dogs, we do not see the cop's ear being sliced up. Which is ironic, since we've been exposed to blood and guts leading up to that moment. The blood and guts are eye candy for the audience, who is after all sitting craving sensationalism. The torture scene, however, is shot the way it is because Tarantino doesn't need to show us the actual act. He could have, but the effects wouldn't have been as strong or as memorable. The "film geek" simply uses one of the best cinematic techniques that are found in suspense thriller and horror movies, along the lines of Hitchcock. He allows the audience to fill in the blanks with their imaginations (because any good filmmaker knows the audience's imagination can do more damage than any special effects can do).
Post a Comment