tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post112862148768565545..comments2023-07-13T04:29:27.514-07:00Comments on Casa del ionesco: My beef with TarantinoEwan Mhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15634824712637908230noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1137997392337488412006-01-22T22:23:00.000-08:002006-01-22T22:23:00.000-08:00Let's face it, Tarantino is a sociopathic film gee...Let's face it, Tarantino is a sociopathic film geek. I actually met him before he even made Reservoir Dogs. He exhibited none of the intelligence and savvy accredited him by deluded film critics or the general public. He was a motormouth film obsessive; nothing more, nothing less. <BR/><BR/>ALL he does is regurgitate scenes from other peoples' films, because he has no life; ALL he does is watch films and then rework them into his own fetishized, misogynistic, repressed homsexual worldview and get paid a lot for it. <BR/><BR/>His only true claim to fame is that he rode the same 'badass nigga gangstaspeak' wave of fame (or infamy) as many of the current worthless rappers (50 Cent, ad infinitum, ad tedium) anticipating, by pure chance, the fascination of bored white suburban youth with black male idiots who swear a lot and kill people. <BR/><BR/>Tarantino's films are not human. they are cartoon sociopathic pieces of worthless amoral shit. He has no clue about real life, it's obvious; all he knows about is making shitty fetish films where characters wank over Uma Thurman's feet or want to be fucked up the ass by a black man. Quentin spent a night or two in county jail. Why do I get the feeling he made a new black friend or two?<BR/><BR/>Tarantino is NOT an artist; never has been, never will be. He has made some mildly amusing films. He is through. Forget him and move on. He's worthless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1134608661648909112005-12-14T17:04:00.000-08:002005-12-14T17:04:00.000-08:00Some of the best art is amoral, and art's capacity...Some of the best art is amoral, and art's capacity to shock, surprise, reconfigure our assumptions and expectations, subvert prevailing societal norms and effect cultural and even political change is a testimony to its vitality and importance. <BR/><BR/>Of course I'm an elitist hypocrite: I'm a Burroughs fan and "Naked Lunch" makes "Kill Bill" seem like "The Waltons." Maybe I just didn't like the formulaic, genre-specific, nature of the "Kill Bill" flicks. With "Pulp Fiction", Tarantino threatened to become a major artist, an auteur to rank alongside David Lynch, but "Jackie Brown" and the "Kill Bill"s were evidence of a talented director treading water (Tarantino-lite). Drearily derivative movies replete with ironic signifiers, slickly produced soundtracks and highly stylised ultra-violence do not constitute artistic progress. His imitative ilk have already ensured that this kind of movie is "business as usual" in Tinseltown. Like 50 Cent and the legion of formulaic "gangsta" rappers mining a rich seam of MTV-mediated paydirt, I'm bored with the prevailing paradigm. <BR/><BR/>Maybe what I really want to see is Tarantino throw off his hipster shackles and take a risk again.Ewan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15634824712637908230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1134583525418826922005-12-14T10:05:00.000-08:002005-12-14T10:05:00.000-08:00You make a good point. But the reason for my assu...You make a good point. But the reason for my assumption is this: "I wouldn't deny that he's intelligent, or that he has exceptional talent, but his defining contribution to cinema, thus far, seems to have been to synthesise and refine (he didn't originate it) an amoral, and contagiously influential, "violence is cool" aesthetic." <BR/><BR/>That remark implies that you disagree with an "amoral...'violence is cool' aesthetic." You seem to want art which is didactic. What is wrong with being amoral? If, according to your later reply, you don't need art to be didactic, then what does the remark I quoted mean?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08588388228334442057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1134523384029749812005-12-13T17:23:00.000-08:002005-12-13T17:23:00.000-08:00Your assumption is unwarranted. You missed my poin...Your assumption is unwarranted. You missed my point. I don't believe Art is "meant" to do anything. No such purposive obligation is incumbent upon artists. Art is merely a vehicle of expression/means of communication. If Art "teaches and delights", then that's merely an ex post facto interpretation imposed from the subjective point of view of the consumer, independent of the intention of the artist. Art is equally capable, inter alia, of provoking, amazing, offending, entertaining, annoying, entrancing and infuriating. <BR/><BR/>The lack of purposive obligation incumbent upon the artist does not imply that there is not a purposive burden imposed by the consumer. Needless to say, Art has to be fit for the purpose, or purposes, of the consumer to have any utility. Tarantino's art doesn't fit any of my purposes, so it has little or no utility for me, though it may be useful for others.<BR/><BR/>In my view, Tarantino produces bad art. His work is, from my perspective, aesthetically displeasing, crass, manipulative, heavy-handed and overwrought. Of course, as a proponent of artistic freedom, I regard his right to produce it as inalienable, just as I would defend your right to consume and enjoy it.Ewan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15634824712637908230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1134522626101257652005-12-13T17:10:00.000-08:002005-12-13T17:10:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Ewan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15634824712637908230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14847688.post-1134519842887129702005-12-13T16:24:00.000-08:002005-12-13T16:24:00.000-08:00Seems to me you would agree with British Renaissan...Seems to me you would agree with British Renaissance literary theorists who held that art is meant to teach and delight. How narrow-minded.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08588388228334442057noreply@blogger.com