uh, mister ross's precis on kill bill is so far above my intellectual
capacity to respond that i would only say  my six foot three two thirty
pound ex citadel noseguard son case officer in charge of twelve other
undercover dea agents raided a meth lab last month where a crazy on the
other side of the door they rammed down used an ak 47 to shoot off the legs
of one of his own guys so i would like to submit that the universality of
the theme of violence in all these movies is a great service that reminds us
we survive only at the pleasure of the criminal element, be it george dubya
or bill no name, so part of the value of such films, imho, is they remind us
that sitting in macdonalds we may all be massacred and since fear is our
most basic emotional driver and surviving our greatest emotional need, film
violence is doing us an unconscious favor by connecting us with martha's
unthinkable, that veriable automaticty which has allowed us to continue
three million yearrs no matter how we strive to culturally repres and
redsress it into a more palatable unconscious form which is why when my son
asked me what kill bill is a metaphor for, i was stumped and thought i would
ask you all for help.

  also, my half filipina girlfrined is a library director and is going nuts
trying to find out who wrote a poem i had on a cassette and played for her,
and i thought it was about movies, so thought i would ask if anyone here
recognizes the first line and knows the author, and i am recalling from
memory, it goes something like, on the crown of the moor the wolf takes his
own axis and runs with it, through the final frame,  ----- Original
Message -----
From: "Ross Macleay" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Still: Kill Bill Still


> The critical problematic in discussions on KILL BILL seems to be "when the
> means are so abundant can the end be merely trivial' (as put by Rick Groen
> in the Toronto Globe Mail). This means and ends thing is also there in the
> violence problematic, means and ends being ethical as well as aesthetic
> antagonists. Maybe having framed things in this way I should say that I
> would prefer not to be bound by such an antagonism, except that antagonism
> and revenge and the impossibility of reconciliation seem to be at the
heart
> of the film (although some would doubt it has a heart).
>
> I saw KILL BILL last night and could not help but like it. Tarantino is a
> storyteller (I hate this phrase but it is the quick and cliched way to
> summarise what needs more time to say) and his tale here is the old one of
> revenge and how 'the nightmare of history weighs on the brains of the
> living'. Many good things (many means) in the film. However one to note is
> yet again Tarantino's temporal exposition. I would insist this is not mere
> formalism (mere means). Sure it turns what could be a chronology of
episodes
> into rhythmic series of revelations, but I think there is rich ground for
> film philosopers in just what is going on when we respond to
> non-chronological plot, why it fascinates, what it says about this
> time-queered world, and why also it is so appropriate in the revenge story
> where the past hangs over the present.
>
> Ross
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
> ***
>
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
>
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
>
> If you have any questions about salon membership then email:
[log in to unmask]
>
> ***
>
>

*
*
*
*
***

Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.

After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.

If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]

***