The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Feminists in Britain attack Grindhouse & Tarantino

[quote=“NonStop”]
Don’t mean to sound close-minded. I loved JB and KB, both of the leads being women, just found the ending of DP to have a certain unrealistic feminist feel to it. Would the man just have stood there and let them take it? I can’t really explain it, just didn’t like the ending.



Just like it would have bene uncomfortable to watch 3 men beat up one woman, I find the same here.
[/quote]

I wrote a well thought out reply to this, but i accidentally closed it somehow. (I hate laptops mouses).



Basically : Violence against women is less watchable because it is so common

I didn’t like seeing him being beaten either, it’s not the right thing to do, he was defenseless.

I feel like the people watching it are only comfortable with it because of the deaths of the earlier girls, and the attempted killing of this group. That combined with a foreign idea of women beating a man to death makes it seem less offensive.

I’ve said it before, I don’t think QT tries to be feminist. I think he just writes most of his characters in the same vein, men are violent, women are just as capable of being violent, thats the only “feminism” I see.

[quote]You were uncomfortable because you liked Mike.[/quote]

I really didn’t like him. Especially once the tables get turned and he’s crying like a little bitch (after he gets shot). He could dish it out but he couldn’t take it. It’s not that getting shot doesn’t/shouldn’t hurt, it’s that he was causing so much pain to these women to basically get off, but when it comes back at him he’s a baby.

[quote=“Eastern Beauty”]
What :o What conflicts are you talking about ???
[/quote]

The whole thing about how Mike preys on women. Actually hes not the only guy preying on women, what about Dov and Omar? Theyre basically doing the same thing as Mike only they arent killing anyone. Yet another reason we sort of connect with Mike in a subtle way.



Mike IS a psycho, but hes also shown to be more than just a one dimensional character as well. He isnt an asexual masked maniac like Jason or Michael Myers, hes probably a tortured soul with sexual problems (the car crash sex fetish, the “little dick”) who became psychotic and twisted over time.



The way the male/female sexuality is portrayed in the film is a main component in most slasher films. Most of the women who end up killing the psychos are not sexually “loose” and are often virgins. What makes the ending of Death Proof uncomfortable to men I think is the fact the women who kill Mike are not the typical slasher film virginal types, they are sexually active, strong archetypes.

[quote=“PutneySwope”]
The whole thing about how Mike preys on women. Actually hes not the only guy preying on women, what about Dov and Omar? Theyre basically doing the same thing as Mike only they arent killing the girls. Yet another reason we sort of connect with Mike in a subtle way.



Mike IS a psycho, but hes also shown to be more than just a one dimensional character as well.



The way the male/female sexuality is portrayed in the film is a main component in most slasher films. Most of the women who end up killing the psychos are not sexually “loose” and are often virgins. What makes the ending of Death Proof uncomfortable to men I think is the fact the women who kill Mike are not the typical slasher film virginal women, they are sexually active and are strong archetypes.
[/quote]
Wow :o

QT was influenced by Carol J Clover’s book Men Women and Chainsaws: Gender in Horror Films. I think that book played a really big part in the themes of male/female sexuality in DP.

[quote=“PutneySwope”]
QT was influenced by Carol J Clover’s book Men Women and Chainsaws: Gender in Horror Films. I think that book played a really big part in the themes of male/female sexuality in DP.
[/quote]
How do you know that?

[quote=“Eastern Beauty”]
How do you know that?
[/quote]

Because he said it in an interview!

Do you have a link to it?

This writer confuses me she says she realises that grind house movies aim to re-invent the exploitative, cheap, drive in’s. But she then questions the main aims this film tries to achieve. What can she possibly expect from a film belonging to this genre? To me this just seems like she has a problem with Tarantino. I dont deny that seeing a helpless women begging for her life is disturbing but a scene like this comes with the territory of the genre. I just hate to think what she would have written if Kurt had won out in the end? I know she says that the ‘male version of women’s empowerment is bullshit’ But how else would she have wanted it to end??

Forget all these little details. The only really important detail here is: IT’S A GODDAMN FILM! The feminist picketing for this film pisses me off as much as those retards who think video games cause violence.

I was expecitng to get ripped for saying what i said, but its good to see some people are understanding of me.

[quote=“PutneySwope”]
The whole thing about how Mike preys on women. Actually hes not the only guy preying on women, what about Dov and Omar? Theyre basically doing the same thing as Mike only they arent killing anyone. Yet another reason we sort of connect with Mike in a subtle way.



Mike IS a psycho, but hes also shown to be more than just a one dimensional character as well. He isnt an asexual masked maniac like Jason or Michael Myers, hes probably a tortured soul with sexual problems (the car crash sex fetish, the “little dick”) who became psychotic and twisted over time.



The way the male/female sexuality is portrayed in the film is a main component in most slasher films. Most of the women who end up killing the psychos are not sexually “loose” and are often virgins. What makes the ending of Death Proof uncomfortable to men I think is the fact the women who kill Mike are not the typical slasher film virginal types, they are sexually active, strong archetypes.

[/quote]

I didn’t find it uncomfortable, as in, ohh, I’m sacred of women now, I just didn’t like the ending, I think a) Mike not defending himself was silly, and b), somehow, as pointed out, you do start to like Mike. Not agree with him, but hes a damn cool character, but nasty. And somehow, his character being beaten whilst he just lets it happen,and the sudden transformation of his character form a strong clear-cut clever kill, to a whimpering wreck, was a stupid one, in my opinion.



Some people like the character transformation, I think it was sad, it ruined his character. I just fouind him to be a lot more interesting in the first half.

[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
I wrote a well thought out reply to this, but i accidentally closed it somehow. (I hate laptops mouses).



Basically : Violence against women is less watchable because it is so common

I didn’t like seeing him being beaten either, it’s not the right thing to do, he was defenseless.

I feel like the people watching it are only comfortable with it because of the deaths of the earlier girls, and the attempted killing of this group. That combined with a foreign idea of women beating a man to death makes it seem less offensive.

I’ve said it before, I don’t think QT tries to be feminist. I think he just writes most of his characters in the same vein, men are violent, women are just as capable of being violent, thats the only “feminism” I see.



I really didn’t like him. Especially once the tables get turned and he’s crying like a little bitch (after he gets shot). He could dish it out but he couldn’t take it. It’s not that getting shot doesn’t/shouldn’t hurt, it’s that he was causing so much pain to these women to basically get off, but when it comes back at him he’s a baby.
[/quote]

I disagree in some ways. Personally, most modern films and tv its more likely you’ll see women hitting men, then vice versa. I mean, I didn’t mind him dying, but I just think QT could have done it better, it annoyed me that he just stood there and took it, and the character transformation.

[quote=“Eastern Beauty”]
I kinda felt this way the first time I watched DP and I’m a woman! And no, it’s not because I liked Mike. I never liked him. People have to have mercy, they shouldn’t kill helpless man especially when these “people” are girls :’(



I can’t believe I really did say that :o
[/quote]

I’m glad I’m not the only one!

[quote=“PutneySwope”]
You were uncomfortable because you liked Mike. Thats why the film is so twisted. QT designs it so you do connect (the car crash) and even feel a bit bad for Mike.



Death Proof isnt an easy movie to digest, it has alot of things going on in it. Its not even as black and white as Kill Bill was. That one, theres a girl out for revenge, period. But even still you kind of get to know and like some of her victims.



In Death Proof QT designed it so Mike is not a black and white villain/killer. He has elements of humanity along with his twisted fetishes. So you feel like he is almost being victimized at the end even though hes done some sick shit before that.
[/quote]

I disagree about Kill Bill. Yes, its a simple revenge film. But I think it illustrates all sorts of different things regarding girl on revenge. Like, her having a baby, the anguish when she thinks her baby is dead, her deep longing it seems for her just wanting to have a family, etc. That was the more ‘normal’ apart of her, and the revenge part was the difference. And I loved that. But DP, it was lacking. I just didn’t like that ending. Never will.

[quote=“NonStop”]
I disagree in some ways. Personally, most modern films and tv its more likely you’ll see women hitting men, then vice versa. I mean, I didn’t mind him dying, but I just think QT could have done it better, it annoyed me that he just stood there and took it, and the character transformation.
[/quote]

Yes, I am sure there is a lot more acceptable violence against men by women in the entertainment media (movies, tv, etc). But the reality is that in real life, in society apart from fiction, women are often the ones receiving the violent treatment. I think this is why people tolerate seeing it the other way in movies and the like, because it really comes off as fictitious.



Also, I always thought Mikes character was weak. He kills innocent defenseless women, he’s basically your typical bully, picking on those much weaker then him, and we all have been told bullies are really weak themselves, so when the tables are turned, he’s revealed to be the little wuss that he is.

[quote=“Angel”]
Forget all these little details. The only really important detail here is: IT’S A GODDAMN FILM! The feminist picketing for this film pisses me off as much as those retards who think video games cause violence.
[/quote]

Yeah I play GTA all the time, and I’ve only done 2 drive-by’s. What’s the big deal?

[quote=“plunderbunnie”]
Yes, I am sure there is a lot more acceptable violence against men by women in the entertainment media (movies, tv, etc). But the reality is that in real life, in society apart from fiction, women are often the ones receiving the violent treatment. I think this is why people tolerate seeing it the other way in movies and the like, because it really comes off as fictitious.



Also, I always thought Mikes character was weak. He kills innocent defenseless women, he’s basically your typical bully, picking on those much weaker then him, and we all have been told bullies are really weak themselves, so when the tables are turned, he’s revealed to be the little wuss that he is.
[/quote]

I’m not so sure about Mike. He just was so cold and clever. Ad he was smart. He out the girl in next to him with the plastic in the way. He hit the car but made sure hsi was reinforced. On the second attack, QT made him careless, and seemed stupid.

A little observation I made was in the second half Mikes not wearing his silver jacket (his “suit of armor” in the first half). And Like alot of real psychos, his fetishes/urges finally got the better of him and he didnt do enough homework on the girls, as he usually does and made a mistake. Watch the scene when he first sees the girls, its like he is a light thats been turned off and when he sees Lee, Abby etc the light goes on. Hes def more vulnerable in the second half which is a big reason why theres alot of conflicting feelings towards him at the end. Hes built up to be an invincible “Death Proof” psycho at the beginning, but by the end hes just a sad broken wimp.

And I don’t think that wasn’t well done. It was like QT was thinking, gotta give ti a twist, lets just completely change the character half way through the movie. I hated that.

Hes more like a real complicated human being. Hes not just “the evil killer”, thats the whole point I think. QT knows what people want to see, thats why he doesnt always give them exactly what they want. He always says he likes messing with an audience. Im sure when those parts play when Mike is crying etc, QT is laughing his ass off knowing that people, esp guys will be like: “WTF?! HES THE TOUGH KILLER GUY!! HE CANT DO THAT!!” Im sure he knew what people would think when he was making it. Also, he made it for himself first. Its the slasher film HE wanted to see when hes in his screening room watching films. Its not for everyone of course. If people want the classic slasher film they can always watch Friday The 13th or Halloween etc.

Excuse me but if QT made this movie for themself why would he release it in theaters? I don’t think you make any sence here.

Every film hes made has been made for himself. He has the audience in mind on some levels but he doesnt make movies just to please everyone.

Every filmmaker makes the film THEY want to see, initially. If not they will second guess everything and nothing about the film will be honest. Then they release the film and hope that their sensibility reaches the audience. That’s how it’s done. George Cukor has said that if he made films prejudging what the audience might like without following his gut, none of his films would have connected with the audience. How the hell can you make a film that way? “Lemme shoot this like this… oh wait, what if the audience doesn’t like that… hmmm… lemme do it this way… maybe the audience will like it better this way… it seemed to work in that other film the audience loved…”

Also its different when youre writing new films from scratch and working in various genres, as opposed to doing sequels to films that have a built in fanbase and doing the same genre over and over. Of course if QT made Pulp Fiction II or Kill Bill II etc there would be a much bigger fanbase and he’d clean up at the box office.



He could sell out anytime he wanted to, but he has chosen to have integrity and write original scripts each time he makes a film. Right there youre taking a chance. Not everyones going to like it, even if he is Quentin Tarantino.