hi
i’m putting together a research project for my film studies coursework on quentin tarantino and the violence in his films!
here are a few questions for you:
1) I think QT uses violence to make people laugh as much as he uses it to shock people. He has 2 different kinds of violence in his films: Implied psychological violence (The ear cutting scene in Dogs) and explicit over the top violence (Marvins head getting blown off in Pulp, the Crazy 88 fight in Kill Bill). Its all a matter of the aesthetic hes trying to convey for the scenes hes shooting.
2) I think violence plays an important part because its part of the stories he’s telling and the genre he’s working in. How many times have you seen a crime or revenge film with no violence whatsoever?
3) Personally, I really enjoy violent and gory films. I always have because violence is cinema as Eisenstein once said. Cinema is based on action and movement and alot of times that movement is violent. BUT, I hate real life violence and murder.
…
1) do you think that there is a particular brand of violence in tarantinos films?
I think that he uses violence, but it isn’t really that graphic. He uses hyperbole, like the mentioned ear scene in Reservoir Dogs. But also uses it in Pulp Fiction, where Butch uses the sword to kill, which leaves the mind to imagine the violence. And in Kill Bill…well it doesn’t need to be explained ;D
[quote=“swervyzervy”]
2) is this violence play an important part in the film?
[/quote]
Violence in a QT movie goes together like peanut butter and jelly.
The psychosis factor always intrigues and criminality makes no exception.
Tarantino has a keen audience of psychotic personalities who identify themselves with his characters.
After all, villains and social rebels have historically charmed the crowds and Quentin depicts them in their pinnacle.
An audience of psychotic personalities? Just because people love QTs films doesnt mean they’re crazy. They just like edgy and fun cinema. QT has just as many regular people fans as Scorsese, Spielberg or Lucas.
I am sure psychotic personalities enjoy his movies most because they get to identify with his characters hence the commonalities. His heroes are in a frenzy mode, kind of diabolic sometimes but so humorous in their own psycho-glamour.
Plus Quentin deeply knows that subliminally, his audience has subtle psychotic tendencies and they concur with their own way, just by watching his films. It’s what pops your eye Pete afterall.
The unique type of violence used in his films represents his style as a director. Same with speilberg in my opinion…be associate him with larger than life moments in film (jurassic park dinosaurs, e.t., war of the worlds tripods destroying whole cities, etc)
Violence is as necessary to Qt films as suspense was to Hitchcock. QT’s sense of humor is very black and revolves around shocking the audience. Without the Violence, he could still make great movies but they wouldn’t be “Tarantino Movies”.
And like Carradine said, his films are not about violence but about the lives of violent people. It’s like Steinbeck with the common man.
I could go on but I’m tired. 
