From a Jungian perspective, aren't all the females characters in the film,
including the child who might one day be raw enough to look for revenge, be
Kiddo's shadows and the Bill and the teacher male archetypes of the wiseman,
ala Yoda and Obeone and Micky in Rocky, et al. Kiddo's Athenaesque prowess
and use of the sword ultimately lead her to the individuated state of
reconciling with her lost maternal archetype, the Mother, ironically raising
a daughter who would have become she in the future. At the end we have a
Demeter-Persephone arrangement, saving the daughter from the villainous
Hades/Bill, Much like Not Without My Daughter or many other Mother-Daughter
formulations from Stella Dallas to Mildred Pierce.  Ultimately the film
seems to resurrect the value of Maternity and domseticity, ironically long
after killing the Vivica Fox character who had trtied so hard to forghet her
villainous past and raise Her daughter with love and maternal care. Very
ironic. Ron----- Original Message -----
From: "elaine pigeon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: Tarantino & the Crisis of Masculinity


> In response to Keith Henning's post, I would like to say that I find
Jungian
> reading worth considering, which leaves us with the Bride having
integrated
> both her masculine and feminine sides. Philosophically, this puts us in
the
> realm of Hegelian dialectics, as it is a form of synthesis. What is
> disturbing here, is that after killing Bill, the Bride is on her own -- a
> single mother who has achieved independence. Yet, we are even privy to her
> grief in the bathroom scene. So, while the Bride may have integrated her
two
> sides, where does this leave the traditional male in the end? Dead? Is
this
> not a crisis? Does it not suggest the need for a new male archetype?
>
> Elaine Pigeon
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "G. Keith Henning" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Tarantino & the Crisis of Masculinity
>
>
> >   it comes somewhat surprising that the kill bill films et al are
referred
> to as the
> >
> > " "crisis in masculinity," I mean exactly what Ron suggests, that
> > "masculine values or masculine mythologies are being challenged." I am
> > referring to a direct engagement, interrogation or deconstruction of
> > traditional notions of masculinity, especially masculinity as
constructed
> in
> > opposition to its feminine other, a binary opposition that privileges
the
> > masculine and
> > reinscribes it as dominant." from elaine pigeon
> >
> > my take on the films is that it is an assertion of feminine power, not a
> crisis in
> > masculinity. uma does not confront bill et al with some paradigmatic
> feminine approach to
> > power, but with paradigmatic masculine power. so masculinity remains the
> way of the world -
> > hence no crisis in masulinity. but it is a woman (biologically) doing
the
> "deconstructing"
> > or killing. yet she too is trained in the paradigmatically masculine
way.
> so again no
> > crisis in masculinity. it maybe hard to assert that uma is feminine
> (gender), and so again
> > there is an argument there is no crisis in masculinity. what is being
> asserted is that a
> > woman can kick butt just like a man. so it is a softening of the
masculine
> at most, and an
> > attempt to indicate that women are just as "masculine" as are men. so
> rather than engage in
> > the binary thinking that suggests the masculine is better (crisis in
> masculinity suggests
> > that it is dominant), how about seeing the films as a leveling of the
> ground through the
> > elevation of feminine rather than the tearing down of masculine. it may
> now be clear that
> > the film is about raising up the feminine or indicating that it is as
good
> as the masculine
> > or female is as wholly masculine as men are.
> >
> > this raises more the spectre of jung than lacan. we are wholly masculine

> and feminine.
> >
> > regards keith
> >
> > --
> > G. Keith Henning LLB MBA
> > Tourism Management
> > Haskayne School of Business
> > University of Calgary
> > 2500 University Dr. N.W.
> > Calgary, AB T2N 1N4
> > 403.220.3997
> >
> > *
> > *
> > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you
are
> replying to.
> > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
> [log in to unmask]
> > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> > **
> >
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are
replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to:
[log in to unmask]
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> **

*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**