QT & Violence

General Quentin Tarantino talk
User avatar
Ify
Fucking Professional
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:51 am
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon

Re: QT - violence

Post by Ify » Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:22 pm

The thing is QT's aim isn't to depict really true to life fight scenes and stay true to the Kung-Fu/Samurai/martial arts genre. He said himself Kill Bill is a fantasy. It doesn't take place in the real world and is in a "movie-movie universe" (if Jules or Vincent were to watch a film, they'd watch Kill Bill), therefore anything can happen from the most shocking to the most cartoonish (the anime is a huge hint). This movie is basically what came out from the cinephile mind of it's creator. His style is that of an autodidact. His knowledge about film dominates his style of filmmaking. Kill Bill is a lot of Quentin Tarantino's film knowledge scattered everywhere on screen. He took all his best parts from his favourite (genre) movies and placed them in the film (the anime segment, the De Palma sequence, the Italian Giallo scene, the Spaghetti Western aspects etc). It doesn't matter if the blood squirting was unrealistic, the fact of the matter is, QT intended it to be this way, as at the end of the day it is HIS movie made for HIMSELF. Why should he give a fuck if Johnny Public didn't like it? He himself knows he likes it and that's all that matters (oh and he has to make some $$$ while he's at it). After digging the Kill Bill script out after all those years, he said "This is some funny shit" this quote alone proves he did not intend this film to be realistic but just "a laugh" and for fun. I don't even think he tried to top any of his other films. He wanted to try his hands out at action (he claims action directors are the best directors) and what better way is there to try and test how good he is at action (for the first time mind you) than doing it for such a wild, unreal, fast forward moving momentum sort of film where he can do practically anything he wants in the way he wants to do it.

About the violence, QT uses the same technique De Palma and Leone used. In Tarantino's previous 3 films, the violence was often quick and fast, there may have been a lot of tension that builds up leading to the violence. QT tries to build up a lot of tension before violence actually occurs (the appartment shooting scene-Pulp Fiction, the death of Ordell-Jackie Brown, the mexican stand-off-Reservoir Dogs) and then when the violence or climax finally comes, it is very quick, just how Leone did. Or when violence is going to take place, it often occurs off screen (Marvin's ear-Reservoir Dogs, the rapist lip scene-Kill Bill, the death of Melanie-Jackie Brown) just how De Palma did. Off course a lot of directors criticise this. Alfred Hitchcock said "someone once told me, that every minute, a murder occurs, so I don't want to waste your time. I know you want to go back to work." Hitchcock didn't like all the tension that builds before the climax of a film. I myself don't think QT glorifies violence. There isn't really a lot of violence in his films except in Kill Bill, but the style he uses to portray the violence causes it to stick in the viewers mind. He often leaves the acts of violence to the viewers mind, as the the imagination is often more scarier than what is on screen. All the violence in his films is justified. He doesn't make a film in order to put violence in it, violence is just part of the film. I don't mind the violence, I think QT can depict violence well, but that isn't to say I encourage it in real life.


Special thanks to Sebastian
Image

"Movies are my religion and God is my patron. I'm lucky enough to be in the position where I don't make movies to pay for my pool. When I make a movie, I want it to be everything to me; like I would die for it." - QT

Jot

Re: QT - violence

Post by Jot » Fri Dec 17, 2004 1:12 am

WeaselCo wrote: well some people like chopsuey and some dont. I do.
I like alot of kungfu movies and there are things in them that are just as impossible. The Master of the Flying Guillotine is just rediculous but its fun nonetheless.
Lol, dude you should seriously consider writing proverbs for fortune cookies  ;D

and I agree, just because violence isnt realistic or is over the top doesnt mean that it can be entirely discredited, it can either be enjoyed for its entertainment value or accepted as symbolism for a more horrific event....and at the end of the day sometimes the most appealing aspects of cinema is as it being an 'escape from reality' and entertaining.

User avatar
Bleach
Fucking Professional
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Latvia

Re: QT - violence

Post by Bleach » Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:24 am

Ify wrote: He often leaves the acts of violence to the viewers mind, as the the imagination is often more scarier than what is on screen.
So, Zed's death and torture should be scarier than the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs? I don't think so. If the ear scene would have been left for imagination, there would be nothing so sadistic. But it wasn't. At least good that Marvin's mouth was closed, I really can't stand when people scream of pain.
The only place where Zed's "imaginable" scenes became somewhat scary was when Butch said "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead" then you could imagine him and Marcellus' guys having fun.
[img width=500 height=66]http://i41.tinypic.com/9sqlpu.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Ify
Fucking Professional
Posts: 5484
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:51 am
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon

Re: QT - violence

Post by Ify » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:32 pm

Bleach wrote:

So, Zed's death and torture should be scarier than the ear scene in Reservoir Dogs? I don't think so. If the ear scene would have been left for imagination, there would be nothing so sadistic. But it wasn't. At least good that Marvin's mouth was closed, I really can't stand when people scream of pain.
The only place where Zed's "imaginable" scenes became somewhat scary was when Butch said "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead" then you could imagine him and Marcellus' guys having fun.
I didn't say the violence that occurs on screen is always less scarier than what one imagines. The ear scene was kind of left for the imagination as the camera panned away from the actual violence, it wasn't shown on screen. Just like the chainsaw scene in Scarface, we didn't actually see the chainsaw penetrating that dudes arm as the camera panned away from it, and therefore it becomes more scarier than it is. I don't think you know what you're talking about actually. The imagination IS scarier than what might be on screen. I can think of far worse things that Marcellus could have done to Zed as we don't actually know what Marcellus did to Zed apart from what he says he was going to do. Also, Zed's death wasn't even shown and yes, I think Zed's death is far scarier or far more violent than the Marvin ear scene.
And when Butch says "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead" I don't think that was the cue for us to 'imagine' what happened to Zed, it was sort of like a joke, one of these poetic things QT uses in his dialogue if you will, or just a 'cool' last line to give to a character who's story was about to end.
Image

"Movies are my religion and God is my patron. I'm lucky enough to be in the position where I don't make movies to pay for my pool. When I make a movie, I want it to be everything to me; like I would die for it." - QT

User avatar
Bleach
Fucking Professional
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 4:18 pm
Location: Latvia

Re: QT - violence

Post by Bleach » Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:11 pm

Actually I never imagine what happens with people if that's not shown. If I know someone is tortured then I know it, I never think how horrible it is, it's a film character after all. But if it is shown, if we can see the person screaming in pain and ways he's being tortured, my nerves are fucked up. It doesn't mean I just think of what I see and that I don't have any imagination.
In La Femme Nikita series there were scenes when someone refuses to tell information, then two people - man and a woman - come in with a briefcase and close the door. In next scene they have dissapeared and the person looks tortured and awful. Then he tells everything. Well, that made me shiver and was pretty horrible.
[img width=500 height=66]http://i41.tinypic.com/9sqlpu.jpg[/img]

User avatar
Scarface
Fucking Professional
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by Scarface » Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:33 pm

greendestiny wrote:


Hey asshole, shut the fuck up....You got your ass handed to you and were totally emabarrassed. Now do us all a favor a get over it!!!!

I have never seen some one so fuckin obsessed with something he claims he never saw!!!

You have been told already go start a new thread and repost your steaming pile of shit or fuck off!!!!
The only arguments greendestiny manages to win are the ones that can't be read. I'm so fucking embarassed by his posts that I don't even know what he wrote.  Let him state he won if that makes him sleep good at night. But you want to know what it really feels like to be embarassed? Ask him about that time when he posted the Top Sellers dvds of 2003, claiming rather proudly, as if he's made this genius discovery,  that Kill Bill is nowhere to be seen on the list. Only to be told by me that the dvd came out in 2004. That should give you an idea of the guy's undisputable remarkable intelligence.

You can now continue your discussion about violence. Thanks and regards.

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:48 pm

Ify wrote:

I didn't say the violence that occurs on screen is always less scarier than what one imagines. The ear scene was kind of left for the imagination as the camera panned away from the actual violence, it wasn't shown on screen. Just like the chainsaw scene in Scarface, we didn't actually see the chainsaw penetrating that dudes arm as the camera panned away from it, and therefore it becomes more scarier than it is. I don't think you know what you're talking about actually. The imagination IS scarier than what might be on screen. I can think of far worse things that Marcellus could have done to Zed as we don't actually know what Marcellus did to Zed apart from what he says he was going to do. Also, Zed's death wasn't even shown and yes, I think Zed's death is far scarier or far more violent than the Marvin ear scene.
And when Butch says "Zed's dead baby, Zed's dead" I don't think that was the cue for us to 'imagine' what happened to Zed, it was sort of like a joke, one of these poetic things QT uses in his dialogue if you will, or just a 'cool' last line to give to a character who's story was about to end.
Actually i do whole heartedly agree with you about imagined violence. And the first scene that came to me was the Chainsaw scene from Scarface. And the one from SEVEN with the fake phallus and even the worse one, the box with the fetus.(Many people actually are under the opinion that they see the guys arm cut off when infact its never even shown) And there is nothing stronger than ones imagination. (I think we all remember when we were kids and you couldnt go to sleep just because the closet door was cracked open just a little bit)  This is why even movie directors will admit that they find that authors are far better entertainers because they only guide the minds of the authors audience pretty much builds up their own scenes in their minds.. (When was the last time you actually saw a movie that even came close to the book? Any good Stephen King movies you have seen lately) And another film maker who was the master at messing with peoples minds was (I still hate my dad for letting me watch his movies with him when i was a kid) A. Hitchcock granted his movies fall under suspense (and some of the examples i have give above are horrors) he left alot to ones imagination and he sure as hell could make you piss in your pants before even setting eyes on the villain of the movie, be it horror, mystery suspense etc. (Rear window was always my favorite)

That being said, it does not always mean that all out explicitness does not work (And yes this even applies to erotic cinema, best example being Sharon Stone's famous crossing and uncrossing her legs, that most people still regard today as one of the most tittilating scenes in movie history even if we have seen several where the woman was stark nake exposing pubes on all..Yet every one went ape over a half second pussy shot)

City of God has one of the most violent scenes i ever saw on screen (The scene where Lil' Ze punishes the runts) It was not overboard with blood flying all over and limbs getting blown off left and right. But almost every one of my friends i showed that movie was deathly silent and visibly affected in various ways..(That may be because none had seen a child get treated that way in a movie before.) But what i saw in them is not even half way what i saw in Kill bill.. Leaving some scenery to the audience's imagination if done right is a very powerful tool. But if one chooses to go cross that line, it would be best they not trivialize grotesque images with out rageous effects and numb the audience by over playing violence thus causing them to unplug totally from the movie!

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:06 pm

greendestiny wrote:But what i saw in them is not even half way what i saw in Kill bill.. Leaving some scenery to the audience's imagination if done right is a very powerful tool. But if one chooses to go cross that line, it would be best they not trivialize grotesque images with out rageous effects and numb the audience by over playing violence thus causing them to unplug totally from the movie!
i wasn't numbed. i didnt unnplug from the movie. i didnt find the images grotesque.

besides, you might be right, and I agree that violence being not shown is more effective, doesnt mean you cant show it. and if QT decides to show it, let him show it, you dont have to watch it!

User avatar
clown
Hard Drinker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:02 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by clown » Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:23 pm

if you dont show violence then its normally meant serious
if you show it, then its meant to entertain you
Image

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:51 am

Tarantino Forum Admin wrote:

i wasn't numbed. i didnt unnplug from the movie. i didnt find the images grotesque.

Yet again i find myself in the rather familiar position of having to explain to you every friggin thing as though you were some invalid. This may come has a huge suprise and shock to you but the topic being discussed here really has nothing to do with you. Get over yourself already! Jeez!

If the issues are too difficult for you to comprehend may be you should limit your participation to cuddling baffoons like Scarface by quickly erasing their certifiable and incredibly dumb posts. I see you are doing a good job of erasing mine every time i expose gross stupidity and back it up with facts! Keep on with the editing its, a good way to maintain a false sense of intelligence amongest you!

MiaWallace

Re: QT - violence

Post by MiaWallace » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:28 am

I erased your last dumb post because it was full of crap. You think insulting people is a way to show your disagreement. Anyway, i can't erase anymore now, but it was me.

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:25 pm

@green:
can you sum up your point, if you have any, in one or two compact sentences, because if not i'll ask you again: what do you want? do you expect us to say "kill bill sucks" just because you blather and blather about how you didnt like it? thats not how it works, dude...

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:17 pm

MiaWallace wrote: I erased your last dumb post because it was full of crap.

Yes indeed  i can see how you came to that conclusion. seeing as to how Scarface's incessant ramblings and borderline psychotic reaction to being exposed as a fool when it comes to understanding film can be construed as intelligent..I can only commend you on being so oustandingly transparent!



greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:24 pm

Tarantino Forum Admin wrote: @green:
can you sum up your point, if you have any, in one or two compact sentences, because if not i'll ask you again: what do you want? do you expect us to say "kill bill sucks" just because you blather and blather about how you didnt like it? thats not how it works, dude...

Sorry, i cant help you. If you are too lazy to read and comprehend my posts in their entirety! Even if i posted one or two sentences, you still would fail to process that simple format seeing as to how to this point in this discussion, you have still failed to figure out the simple question that was paused by the topic starter. When you over come that huddle then may be you will begin to see the many various points made by people on both sides of this discussion! I just dont have the time or the energy to conduct an english comprehension lesson on an internet message board!

User avatar
Scarface
Fucking Professional
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by Scarface » Mon Dec 20, 2004 4:53 pm

You're completely right about everything greendestiny. Now do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

WeaselCo

Re: QT - violence

Post by WeaselCo » Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:31 am

Dear Greendestiny, Hear me talkin' hillbilly boy?! Let me tell yoiu what now.

Leave us. Tonight.  Right now.  And when you're gone, stay gone. You've lost your tarantino message board privileges. Go on now, get your ass outta here.

p.s.  If you don't know what I was paraphrasing why are you here?

guiltygenius
Kiddo
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 7:58 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington

Re: QT - violence

Post by guiltygenius » Tue Dec 21, 2004 11:21 pm

I'm sure Greenie will argue with me, but I saw the violence of Kill Bill as quite artistic.  I think in order to stay connected with our anti-hero Beatrix, we can't see "real" violence, or even see her "victims" as regular people.  Just my opinion.

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:47 pm

Scarface is on strike wrote: You're completely right about everything greendestiny. Now do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
I feel your pain man.. After you embarrassed your self with that stupid bullshit you posted that had to be deleted by the admins so you could save face and they could return to pretending that QT forum members are half as smart as they pretend to be...I dont blame you

At least now you know never to post your nincompoopery around me...Save it for your fellow dimwits!!!

Ps..Hope you had a happy xmas

LMAO

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:51 pm

guiltygenius wrote: I'm sure Greenie will argue with me, but I saw the violence of Kill Bill as quite artistic. 
No man i am not interested i getting in an argument with you. My 7 year old nephew says he finds Chronicles of Riddick to be an interesting movie. I dont argue with him. I just nod my head and send him a Riddick action figure because i understand he has the brain of a seven year old and doesnt yet know that much about movies..(kinda like you)

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Tue Jan 04, 2005 11:46 am

so should i send you a Jerry Bruckheimer action figure now?

User avatar
Scarface
Fucking Professional
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 12:05 am

Re: QT - violence

Post by Scarface » Tue Jan 04, 2005 5:14 pm

Send him a Trinity blow up doll

greendestiny

Re: QT - violence

Post by greendestiny » Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:04 am

Tarantino Forum Admin wrote: so should i send you a Jerry Bruckheimer action figure now?
no actually i would prefer it if you sent me a fake samurai sword so i can run around playing Ninja and trying to convince the world that i have seen Akira Kurosawa movies and that i am smart enough to understand such classic movies...Kinda like you

User avatar
Sebastian
Inglourious Basterd
Posts: 7839
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by Sebastian » Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:42 am

guiltygenius wrote: I'm sure Greenie will argue with me, but I saw the violence of Kill Bill as quite artistic.  I think in order to stay connected with our anti-hero Beatrix, we can't see "real" violence, or even see her "victims" as regular people.  Just my opinion.
nice analysis actually.

User avatar
MiaRose
Basterd
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: QT - violence

Post by MiaRose » Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:41 am

Seb Himself (admin) wrote: nice analysis actually.
Perfect analysis. totally agree.
Image
"I'm not saying that we haven't, and I'm not saying that we have. We love each other, but we're almost too close now to be a couple. We had out life together on Kill Bill. It was like a marriage in every way." -Quentin

shortwavez

Re: QT - violence

Post by shortwavez » Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:00 pm

the violence is acceptable because it is so cavalier. like when surfer girl gets shot. tarantino absolutely refuses to let us be sympathetic to his characters, the violence is so detatched from any sort of emotion.

Dillon

Re: QT - violence

Post by Dillon » Tue Apr 26, 2005 12:55 am

shortwavez wrote: The violence is so detatched from any sort of emotion.
Is this not including Vol.2 when The Bride kill's Bill?

User avatar
Razor
Cowardly Lion
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Belfast

Re: QT - violence

Post by Razor » Sat May 07, 2005 5:03 pm

I do think it's obvious that Tarantino's films are all very violent. Usually stylishly violent though. I think that children definately shouldn't watch them, but that the violence is of an acceptable level for adults. If it's too much, don't watch it. But there are other more violent films around. I don't think he glorifies violence either. If you actually watch his films and examine the impact of violence, it is usually used by damaged individuals and the results are usually pretty painful for all involved.

The Bride, one of the only surviving main characters of KB, led a selfish and violent life as a DiVAS and although she ultimately got her revenge, she too suffered a lot of violence and loss, and by the end though we felt some compassion for her character, she wasn't an innocent person to begin with.

Practically all of the characters in Pulp Fiction are violent or messed up, and the by the end of the film we don't see them any the happier for it.

In my opinion, the only way you can glorify violence is to show it and imply that it is morally acceptable or that it makes the attacker happier. But most of the characters are criminals so any objective viewer understands that these characters are violent criminals and that is why they use violence, not that most people should, and that usually the violence doesn't make them better people.

savage_henry
Hard Drinker
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: manchester

Re: QT - violence

Post by savage_henry » Sun May 08, 2005 8:12 pm

there was a funny thing in brit paper the metro the other day, a lil article about how a bus company had made an advert to promote the taking of public transport rather than cars to work. it was made to look like reservoir dogs with the slogan 'let's go to work', but people complained because of the violence that bus drivers face from unruly customers during the year, lol.

Dillon

Re: QT - violence

Post by Dillon » Sun May 08, 2005 8:17 pm

savage_henry wrote: there was a funny thing in brit paper the metro the other day, a lil article about how a bus company had made an advert
http://www.tarantino.info/forum/index.php?topic=3526.0
Is that the one?

savage_henry
Hard Drinker
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: manchester

Re: QT - violence

Post by savage_henry » Mon May 09, 2005 4:59 pm

nah, i actually tore out the article so i could post it but i cant find it, ill look again

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests