> Okay then, let's start with a response to the criticism of
> Tarrantino's use of violence as "cartoonish."
>
> My claim, just to stoke the coals: Tarrantino uses violence as an
> effect of style, not story. This may account for some writer's use
> of the adjective cartoonish. His use of violence is certainly not
> realistic and definitely not necessary. If you wish to remark that
> his use of violence is not cartoonish, then I would like to know how
> you would put it.
I do not know about realistic (we are talking about fiction film,
not documentaries, right?), but --
In _Reservoir Dogs_, when one of the gangsters pours gas/petrol
over the policeman tied to a chair, I had a very visceral reaction:
I was surprised, startled, and afraid - I 'forgot' that I was watching
a film. Later, when another gangster shoots that policeman, I was
relieved that he/I did not have to go through torture of being
burnt alive.
I am quite experienced film viewer, I am 51, but I was caught
unaware.
And these scenes were done (directed) very simply, no frills,
unnecessary camera angles or movements, they were intended
to provoke such reaction. Seems to me that such an outcome was
neither 'an effect of style', nor 'of the story'... Somewhat more
complex elements are all actively included in the game.
Of course, something that is done more stylishly might
affect one emotionally, but such feelings would be of a different
kind/s.
That is what John Bleasdale wanted to talk about, I think...
This has nothing to to with genre (horror or suspense or noir
or whatever).
[English is not my native tongue.
Vukica Djilas
Belgrade, Yugoslavia
+381 11 / 635 804 ]
|