 |
 |
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] ***