The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Are QT's characters evil people?


#1

The question is simple enough…but think honestly. Can you think of any QT character that is a “good” person? Mr White? Mr Orange maybe…Anyone from Pulp Fiction? Jackie Brown? I’m sure there are good people in there somewhere (in Jackie Brown especially) but could some of you give me a rundown of the good people in QT’s? Movies? I’d really appreciate it.


#2

cool topic! I cant think of a single one in the written-directed by QT films. I guess if you go back to True Romance you can find QTs “good” characters like Clarence’s dad and Dick Ritchie those are the only innocents I can think of.


#3

Butch wasn’t neccesarily a bad person in PF; either was his girlfriend



Marvin Nash wasn’t - either was the cop coaching Mr. Orange


#4

I guess it depends on what you call “good”. Butch associates with hitmen and takes money to rig a fight, his girlfriend is ok with it and goes on the run with him. :-/ They’re not exactly my idea of good people but they’re not bad either because they dont intentionally try to hurt people but still… it all depends on how we define good.


#5

Dick Ritchie seemed to be the most “good” character Tarantino ever wrote. Maybe not the most interesting, but definitely the only one of QT’s chars that probably doesn’t deserve to die - hell, I’m pretty sure thats why QT spared him in the script, even though he had no intention of giving Clarence and Alabama a happy ending.


#6

Alabama is a very strong character. Definitely not evil. What she goes through for Clarance in that scene is amazing. That`s pure devotion.


#7

Ok…I’ll list a few characters, and you guys tell me evil (not meaning someone who is innocent…), or good (could be an essentially good person in a bad line of work…or whatever…), and give me an example or reason why…or whatever you feel cool with. Sound better?



Pulp Fiction:

Vincent Vega

Jules Winnfield

Mia Wallace

The Wolf

Butch Coolidge

Pumpkin

Honey Bunny

Marsellus Wallace



Reservoir Dogs:

Mr. Larry White

Mr. Orange/Freddy

Mr. Blonde/Vic Vega

Nice Guy Eddie

Mr. Pink

Joe Cabot

Mr. Brown

Marvin Nash



True Romance:

Clarence Worley

Alabama Worley

Clifford Worley

Drexl Spivey

Vincenzo Coccotti



Jackie Brown:

Jackie Brown

Ordell Robbie

Max Cherry

Melanie

Ray Nicolette

Louis Gara


#8

You guys have to admit, Drexl was good at heart. Sure, he did a couple of things that maybe you or i may not agree with, but he’s got a good soul in him and he’s trying his best to be good.


#9

its the way you look at it, in most movies Tarantino’s “CHARACTER TYPES” (hitmen, killers, bank robbers, ect) are considered the BAD GUYS, but Tarantino made them REAL people (which they are) by making them talk like everyone else.



Pretend Pulp Fiction is real and the day after all that happened it was in the news…we would think the persons who did what they did (killing Bret and his crew, the robbery, ect) were bad people cause they broke the law and were killers…the reason is because you would have never known them…you don’t know they were talking about HAmburgers, or Madonna, or who their favorite actor is…cause your just reading a news report…and those are the types of stererostype movie characters that DON’T EXIST in Tarantino’s films.


#10

[quote]its the way you look at it, in most movies Tarantino’s “CHARACTER TYPES” (hitmen, killers, bank robbers, ect) are considered the BAD GUYS, but Tarantino made them REAL people (which they are) by making them talk like everyone else.



Pretend Pulp Fiction is real and the day after all that happened it was in the news…we would think the persons who did what they did (killing Bret and his crew, the robbery, ect) were bad people cause they broke the law and were killers…the reason is because you would have never known them…you don’t know they were talking about HAmburgers, or Madonna, or who their favorite actor is…cause your just reading a news report…and those are the types of stererostype movie characters that DON’T EXIST in Tarantino’s films.

[/quote]

That is a very good point. They are real people.



But, even so, they can be essentially good or evil, as with all real people.


#11

[quote]The question is simple enough…but think honestly. Can you think of any QT character that is a “good” person? Mr White? Mr Orange maybe…Anyone from Pulp Fiction? Jackie Brown? I’m sure there are good people in there somewhere (in Jackie Brown especially) but could some of you give me a rundown of the good people in QT’s? Movies? I’d really appreciate it. [/quote]



What does is mean to be good? I mean is it enough for a good person to try to do the right things? Or do you mean a person who really act good.
Isn´t it the great thing that in a QT movie that people have both sites?
Even some "bad" people have good parts... Well okay start thinking about some of the guys, maybe not everyone...

I would be really curious which person you would consider as a good or evil person in a QT movie.

#12

^ agreed. i think thats what QT is trying to say in his movies and remember he didnt write Jackie Brown, Elmore Leonard did as Rum Punch…



cant wait for Be Cool to come out anyone with me there?


#13

David Carradine mentioned in an interview that Kill Bill doesn’t have any good guys. That is how Tarantino’s movies are. He doesn’t have any good guys (Important characters in a film anyway, I mean you can’t include the ‘extra’ in the diner in Pulp Fiction). In Kill Bill we are on the Bride’s side, but she is really evil. We rate for evil characters to do their bidding. That is what makes QT’s films interesting. He writes about evil people, but shows that all evil people have good in them.



Also, I would say that I can’t wait for Be Cool but it has Andre 3000, Christina Milian and The Rock in, which puts me off a bit. However it does have Travolta, Thurman, De Vito, Gandolfini and Harvey Keitel in (4 of whom have appeared in a QT written film) so it would be an interesting prospect. But it isn’t really a ‘gangster’ movie. i mean Chili Palmer tryng to break into the music industry is a bit off putting. “So I guess, we’ll just see… won’t we?”


#14

Interesting topic…



I dont really believe in good and evil people…unless someone has serieus mental problems…(mr blonde)



Its all based on genetics and enviroment that make a person who he is at every point in his life…all choices are made on this…so real free choice really doesnt excist imo…



but what QT is most interested in is showing people that face things in life that other people dont have to face…and I dont think that you should catogorize the people as evil…but the circumstances that they are in makes them decide between 2 evil choices…unless again the person has mental problems…

and those people are even more interesting to see in a movie…


#15

[quote]^ agreed. i think thats what QT is trying to say in his movies and remember he didnt write Jackie Brown, Elmore Leonard did as Rum Punch…



cant wait for Be Cool to come out anyone with me there?[/quote]


Just read your post and your question about Be cool.
We have already an open topic about it:
http://tarantino.webds.de/cgi-bin/tarantino/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=ot;action=display;num=1070919871
If you want, you can post there.

#16

[quote]Interesting topic…



I dont really believe in good and evil people…unless someone has serieus mental problems…(mr blonde)



Its all based on genetics and enviroment that make a person who he is at every point in his life…all choices are made on this…so real free choice really doesnt excist imo…[/quote]

You’re on the right track…but a few steps off. We have choice in this world. It just so happens that the choices we make are determined by our genetics and (to a lesser degree) our environment. The idea of choice isn’t changed; it still exists. It’s just more complete. And with the genetic desire to make certain choices, we have the desire to A) Help, B) Cause harm (it’s actually a bit deeper than that, but for the sake of this debate, I’ll stick to those as the basic areas…unless you demand that I go in depth). The fact that someone genetically chooses to cause harm to others doesn’t change the fact that said person is making the choice to harm others.



The only mental diseases that interfere with this (to my knowledge) choice are those that completely distort a persons view of reality (such as, said person believes he’s swimming, while in fact he’s killing someone.) It’s, in a way, psychological retardation. With Mr. Blonde, we have a sociopath, someone who purposely distances himself from mankind. He knows the difference between right and wrong, and he simply doesn’t care. He’s pure evil.


#17

[quote]


You’re on the right track…but a few steps off. We have choice in this world. It just so happens that the choices we make are determined by our genetics and (to a lesser degree) our environment. The idea of choice isn’t changed; it still exists. It’s just more complete. And with the genetic desire to make certain choices, we have the desire to A) Help, B) Cause harm (it’s actually a bit deeper than that, but for the sake of this debate, I’ll stick to those as the basic areas…unless you demand that I go in depth). The fact that someone genetically chooses to cause harm to others doesn’t change the fact that said person is making the choice to harm others.



The only mental diseases that interfere with this (to my knowledge) choice are those that completely distort a persons view of reality (such as, said person believes he’s swimming, while in fact he’s killing someone.) It’s, in a way, psychological retardation. With Mr. Blonde, we have a sociopath, someone who purposely distances himself from mankind. He knows the difference between right and wrong, and he simply doesn’t care. He’s pure evil.

[/quote]


You're on the right track...but a few steps off.  :D

Everybody has his own reality in which he looks at the world, if a person thinks he is swimming but is actually killing someone, then that means for him that he IS just swimming!
And how does one determine what is really real? Only the individual mind can determine that within its limited human form.

Free choice doesnt excist, its just logical behaviour for someone...everything that person is in one moment in time determens which choices he 's making...he cant choose anything that doesnt seem logical to him. So making that choice isnt an option but a logical step and in a way determend! imo...like animals behave....for instance a cat...he doesnt have free choice, he acts on what he IS, and does and doesnt make real choices...just everytime the logical next step...I see humans in the same way, just with an expanded package of impulses in the brain.

Have you read Schopenhauer? He talks about this....really mindblowing stuff!

#18

No I haven’t. I came upon these thoughts myself through various studies of genetics, sociology, psychoanalytics, philosophy, science and mathematics.



In any event, when I spoke about the insane person “swimming,” it was my assertion that the situation was hypothetical, and, outside of that, based upon the world I percieve. As we experience, we, using our logic, can reason that there is a cause to our experiences that mirrors that which we are experiencing. Example: I percieve that I am shot and killed, thus the cause of the perception must be in continuital relavence to that which has occured in my reality.



And as logic goes in humans, everyone to some degree uses logic. The difference between animals and humans is that our ends to the logical means aren’t always logical. We sometimes manipulate logic to fit our values and morals (the desired outcomes which are caused by the reciptivity of ideas to our genetic patterns). Every action a human being does is to benefit himself, be that morally, spiritually, emotionally, financially, physically, psychologically…etc. Good actions are those that we do for ourselves that benefit others (or that take others into concern). Evil actions are those actions we do to benefit ourselves that hurt others (or otherwise disregard the being of others). Due to our predetermined genetic construction, we wish to do one or the other. We may not individually have a choice in what we want to do, but that doesn’t change the fact of what we want to do.



In essence, the fact that it’s not free will doesn’t make it anyless will.


#19

@ Tarantino is god:



Can you hook me up with some more information?

Afaik it was Schopenhauer how said: “Ding an sich aber ist allein der Wille!” = Which means that the base is the free will and it was Kant who said, that we understand things not like they are, but like we see them.


#20

Kant also said that while we cannot know the roots of our experiences, we can reason that they have a cause that, (while we cannot experience and know first hand), we can surmise and know through rationality.



If you so wish, Hume took a more pessimistic side to the arguement, saying that there is no basis for understanding the roots of our experiences, and that they are just loosely connected occurences.