Quentin Tarantino and Confusion
I posted this a week ago on my Cliff Osmond Unedited blog. I decided today I'd like to also post it on this blog.
"Today's American film writers and directors are all too often substituting confusion for profundity (SEE for a prime example, Quentin Tarantino); offering a mangled storyline as a substitute for the truly profound audience involvement in the paradoxes and moral dilemmas of individual lives.
Perhaps it is because filmmakers (post modern?) like him don't really believe in morality any more; certainly not of the standard Western Civilization philosophical variety. So when they make a film, if morality is absent in the storytelling, there can no audience fascination (and patience) as the plot simply unfolds with the film's characters' moral and/or ethical decisions.
What we are given instead by Tarentinoites are events--especially bloody ones--without personal inner moral resonance (the complexity of old fashioned good versus bad); offered instead are sequences that are fundamentally gratuitous (SEE Tarantino's constant use of unthinking, uncriticized violence) and therefore--rather than the film compelling audience involvement--become audience uninvolving; except for a momentary scenes of shock.
As a result, to compensate, to maintain audience interest when the audience has no emotional long term involvement in character development (due to the characters' moral vacuity), the filmmakers jumble up the plot, abjuring any linear, understandable emotional progression, and force the audience to hang around until well into the film and unemotionally stare at the screen, wondering what the hell is happening to the two dimensional characters in front of them. The audience is not only confused about what the characters are doing (jumbled plot), but they also are being subjected to characters they don't fundamentally care about (since they have no moral depth or dimension).
Confused plot, un-relate-able characters: opening this week is another Quentin Tarantino (or his ilk) film brought to you by the same money-venerating vacuous movie producers from the same moral and education vacuum that produced and applauds Tarantino; or really themselves."
"Today's American film writers and directors are all too often substituting confusion for profundity (SEE for a prime example, Quentin Tarantino); offering a mangled storyline as a substitute for the truly profound audience involvement in the paradoxes and moral dilemmas of individual lives.
Perhaps it is because filmmakers (post modern?) like him don't really believe in morality any more; certainly not of the standard Western Civilization philosophical variety. So when they make a film, if morality is absent in the storytelling, there can no audience fascination (and patience) as the plot simply unfolds with the film's characters' moral and/or ethical decisions.
What we are given instead by Tarentinoites are events--especially bloody ones--without personal inner moral resonance (the complexity of old fashioned good versus bad); offered instead are sequences that are fundamentally gratuitous (SEE Tarantino's constant use of unthinking, uncriticized violence) and therefore--rather than the film compelling audience involvement--become audience uninvolving; except for a momentary scenes of shock.
As a result, to compensate, to maintain audience interest when the audience has no emotional long term involvement in character development (due to the characters' moral vacuity), the filmmakers jumble up the plot, abjuring any linear, understandable emotional progression, and force the audience to hang around until well into the film and unemotionally stare at the screen, wondering what the hell is happening to the two dimensional characters in front of them. The audience is not only confused about what the characters are doing (jumbled plot), but they also are being subjected to characters they don't fundamentally care about (since they have no moral depth or dimension).
Confused plot, un-relate-able characters: opening this week is another Quentin Tarantino (or his ilk) film brought to you by the same money-venerating vacuous movie producers from the same moral and education vacuum that produced and applauds Tarantino; or really themselves."
posted by Cliff Osmond at 12:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home