 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.165.4.101
and the violence in his movies (with the exception of Kill Bill 1 &2 which he has been saying since before their release were paeans to Asian action films) serve the story.
Un Chien Andalou---I think that's the name of the film with the eyeball being sliced by a razor: Jean Cocteau working with Salvador Dali: what were they thinking?
The Vikings: hell, a guy is blinded and another has an arm hacked off.
But we live in a different world than when those movies (and how about Psycho, too?) were made. How does one make people sit up and take notice, today? Would Saving Private Ryan have made a ripple if it had followed the story-telling style of The Longest Day?
Audiences change and the great directors always have known it and taken them where they have never been---but, once they reach it, they know it is "real."
The reported atrocities of Vietnam; the brutality of the regimes of Mao, Stalin, Amin, Pol Pot--we now know the world is a very, very ugly place---and is far worse than our parents knew.
Would a documentary of Abu Grahib be less shocking than...Reservoir Dogs?
Well, it doesn't matter how shocked some folks are: "Clockwork Orange" STILL upsets many today---and it's a Kubrick classic.
If one cannot discern the artistic difference between Pulp Fiction and say...Cold Blooded Killers (or whatever that Oliver Stone piece of crap was named that "starred" Woody Harrelson and Juliet whatever) the fault can hardly be laid at the directors door.
Hell, you may as well criticize the engineer of a fine speaker system that Joe Six-pack doesn't hear the quality.
Follow Ups:
> > > Un Chien Andalou---I think that's the name of the film with the eyeball being sliced by a razor: Jean Cocteau working with Salvador Dali: what were they thinking? < < <
I saw this in college once. It was a movies showing an eyeball getting sliced open. It was only a few minutes long if I remember correctly-not exactly plot driven cinema. Using this to justify QT's violence, is a bit of a stretch don't you think?
Jack
A BIG strech by the way.
Bunuel working with Salvadore.
Cold Blooded Killers wasn't a piece of crap... you simply didn't like it.
Namely the advertising for violence via the sensationalistic media. If Stone had kept most of the violence off screen then the shock value of the violence would not have gotten in the way of pointing out the depravity of media coverage cloaked in glamour. Instead, Stone stoops to the level of showing the graphic violence in a glamorous way. This is what makes me think the film is crap and it is why the film hasn't stood the test of time.Tom §.
In addition, the Killers is not all that original. It seems to be heavily inspired by another similar work - the disgusting Man Bites Dog.
When Tarantino accumulates a filmography as long, significant and diverse as Bunuel's, then we shall rightly consider him a great director.Obsession with cruelty and violence is definitely not Bunuel's trademark, but it is Tarantino's. And Orange may be a Kubrik's "classic", but it doesn't make it any more worthy from several perspectives, disregarding its obvious artistic merits for the moment.
The Pulp Fiction does seem to have much more in the artistic department than the Killers, but that is hardly something that supports your point - surely one can find as gross and unpleasant examples of anything.
You are trying to argue that black ain't black... and you are not getting much traction.
Or, to stay true to the genre, how many Welles films are of significant merit? Coppola (and...talk about violent!).
Tarantino has made one of the great heist movies (RD), one of the best (I'd say the very best) film noir double-cross capers (PF), an exquisitely complex and satisfying drug adventure (JB), and the absolute best martial arts epic. Not a bad résumé. Perhaps if you'd look at the fullness of the glass and stop concentrating on its empty piece?
The violence in his films is NEVER gratuitous...it always advances the story, defines a character, leads to a critical moment---except of course, in KB 1 & 2.
Now, you just don't care for him, fine. I don't particularly like Tarkovski, he doesn't possess any pacing: kind of like a guy who can't dance but squeezes some bored broad and lunges around the floor.
If I may poke my head into this discussion, I think Tarantino enjoys looking at crime and violence from a comically sadistic viewpoint. After the work he did with Robert Forster and Pam Grier in "Jackie Brown" I had thought he was ready to move on to other films about other subjects, but appparently he is not ready to let go of his weapons yet.I enjoyed "Kill Bill" and "Kill Bill Part 2", but only as live-action cartoons...not as serious explorations of film art. But then, they were not made for those kind of explorations.
Peckinpah and Kubrick also studied violence in film after film, but their methods definitely changed over the years... Peckinpah's work and viewpoint in "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" and "Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia" is different than his work in "The Wild Bunch" or "Ballad of Cable Hogue", just as that work is different from "Ride the High Country" or the early episodes of "The Rifleman". Kubrick's films are also explorations of violence, but what explorations! as it is possible to include "Lolita" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Barry Lyndon" as "violent films" alongside "The Killers" or "A Clockwork Orange".
As much as I like Tarantino, I think he is regressing. Of course he is young yet and hopefully has many years and films left in him. But where is his "Ivan the Terrible Part I" or "Magnificent Ambersons"?
He is only hitting one note on the piano. It's a great note, don't get me wrong, but what about the others?
That is how I see it too. Althogh I consider the Fiction the high point on his career, and for some reason I never got moved by Jackie Brown.
Fiction was very " modern " let´s´wait if it passes the test time, which I am not so certain.
Victor, once again you demonstrate your arrogance. Saying you like or do not like something is expressing a view point. Saying that because you do not like something it is therefore not good, as a fact, is arrogant.You also again demonstrate your ability to change the statement made to suit your retort. I do not think that Tinear (and he can certainly correct me) was arguing that the violence was a good thing, or a bad thing. Merely that the current violence is more reflective of the world that we live in than the films made many years ago. With better technology and better education, we now know of Stalin's atrocities, Pol Pot, etc. Their violence makes that of todays film makers pale by comparison. Our parents and grandparents did not know of that violence, and therefore films did not depict it.
The problem with Tinear trying to define "black", is that you have taken it upon yourself to define the term, and define what is or is not "good", or "artistic." Your world does not includes grays, or any other colors for that matter. Shame.
Dontcha know, you can't say that? You are supposed to say you don't like my statement - as that expresses your view point.Once agiain you demonstrate your arrogance.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
