Tarantino’s depiction of violence As we know, most of Quentin Tarantino’s films have strong personal characters. People call Tarantino as an ‘Auteur’ which means that a director who makes films which reflect his/her personal vison and preoccupations. (Lecture 3) And Tarantino’s characterized use of violence is a huge part of his auteur. Sometimes when people see the specific scenario in a film, they can easily tell that the film is a ‘Tarantino film’ because of the use of ‘Tarantino’s violence.’ To describe Tarantino’s depiction of violence, we can use the phrases ‘all of a sudden, extremely cruelness and strong artistic effect.’ And we are going to focus on two specific examples in ‘True Romance’ which Tarantino played the role
Tarantino is good at using different artistic ways to shape his films. Both of the examples of ‘True Romance’ and ‘Reservoir Dogs’ could prove his skill doing that. As the screenplay of ‘True Romance’ says, ‘All the men stop what they are doing and look at Cliff, except for Tooth-pick Vic who doesn't speak English and so, isn't insulted.’ And after Cliff was killed, the screenplay said, ‘Tooth-pick Vic taps Frankie's shoulder and, in Italian, asks him "what was that all about?" (True Romance¬) The teasing here toward Italian Tooth-pick Vic contrasted huge to Coccotti’s ultra-violence toward Clifford which generated tons of artistic effect and emotional rollercoasters in audiences’ heart. ‘Reservoir Dogs’ did the similar job. ‘Note: This entire sequence is timed to the music. Mr. Blonde slowly walked toward the cop. He opens a big knife. Mr. Blonde just stares into the cop’s face, holding the knife, singing along the song. Then, like a cobra, he lashes out. A slash across the face. The cop moves around wildly. Mr. Blonde just stares into the cop’s face, singing along with the seventies hit. Then he reached out and cut off the cop’s ear. The cop moves around wildly.’ (Reservoir Dogs) The above is the screenplay before Mr. Blonde used gas. The music was there all along the process of Mr. Blonde’s ultra-violence toward the cop and Mr. Blonde sang along the song himself too. The tremendous contrast brings audiences the extreme artistic enjoyment with the complex emotions including fear and easiness. So these two examples fit great to Tarantino’s awesome use of artistic effect in
The only real way to truly understand a story is to understand all aspects of a story and their meanings. The same goes for movies, as they are all just stories being acted out. In Thomas Foster's book, “How to Read Literature Like a Professor”, Foster explains in detail the numerous ingredients of a story. He discusses almost everything that can be found in any given piece of literature. The devices discussed in Foster's book can be found in most movies as well, including in Quentin Tarantino’s cult classic, “Pulp Fiction”. This movie is a complicated tale that follows numerous characters involved in intertwining stories. Tarantino utilizes many devices to make “Pulp Fiction” into an excellent film. In this essay, I will demonstrate how several literary devices described in Foster's book are put to use in Tarantino’s film, “Pulp Fiction”, including quests, archetypes, food, and violence.
2. According to Sobchack, contemporary screen violence greatly differs than portrayals of violence in years past. Today, violent scenes are careless and lack significance because we as audiences have become calloused and desensitized to any acts of violence. She states that there is “no grace or benediction attached to violence. Indeed, its very intensity seems diminished” (Sobchack 432). Senseless violence, gruesome acts, and profound amounts of gore are prevalent in movies today, and because even this is not enough, it must be accompanied by loud blasts and noise, constantly moving scenes to keep audiences stimulated and large quantities of violence for viewers to enjoy what they are watching. Decades ago, it was the story that was engaging to audiences and filmmaking was an art.
Quentin Tarantino’s film, Pulp Fiction, uses words to the fullest of their meanings. Words in the film amplify meaning through their duplicity. Characters call one another names wherein the names’ meanings enhance our understanding of what the character is saying. Even if the author or speaker does not consciously intend the meaning, the language that this paper analyzes contains meaning of psychological importance. Characters’ actual names in the film are also of particular significanc e. Nearly every character’s name reflects his personality or role in the film. Because people are human and integrating a name and personality is difficult, it is only genius for every name to be significant and meaningful. Yet, it may be surprising ho w well thought out the naming of the characters is. Pulp Fiction also touches on the interpretive value of words. Oftentimes, a person or group of people may understand the same definition of a word but interpret it differently. Language is prim arily a means of communicating ideas. The film makes an interesting point of how the actual words used may be irrelevant to the idea being portrayed. In sum, Pulp Fiction demonstrates how the meaning of speech can depend either on the choice of w ords used or on the prescribed reaction to word’s usage.
When we think of high school dropout we automatically start thinking, “Wow, that must’ve been some druggie.” Now what would you say if he dropped out to pursue a dream of his? Would you change your mind? What if he lied on his résumé to ‘compensate for his lack of experience in the film industry’, would you hire him? He gathered all of his knowledge while working at The Manhattan Beach Video Archives. There, he was able to work on some of his earlier scripts such as, True Romance (1993), and Natural Born Killers (1994). Looking to direct his first movie, he was able to get ahold of distribution company, Miramax Films, with Lawrence Bender set in place for production, who was able to secure funding for Reservoir Dogs (1992). Through this, he, Quentin Tarantino was then able to direct his first movie, having grossed 2.8 million from a budget of 1.2 million. He was able to make the difference of the two, 1.6 million, in just eight weeks. In 2009, just seventeen years after his directorial debut, he wrote and directed his first World War II film, Inglourious Basterds. Having set a budget of 70 million, Inglourious Basterds set a domestic gross total of 120.5 million, with a difference of 50.5 million. A huge step from his first. There have been several rumors that have risen since the end of Inglourious Basterds that deals with the films that Tarantino may cover. One specifically deals with a spaghetti western, with a working title of ‘Django: Unchained’.
Director and screenwriter Quentin Tarantino has a unique style that is easily recognizable and sets him apart from other
Nevertheless, Quentin Tarantino's films show plenty of violence. In Pulp Fiction there is for example a homosexual rape, the hit-men killing their victims, and a man having his head accidentally shot off in a car.
As stated, he has a clear use for violence in his film. He likes to incorporate an anti-hero that justifies his actions through a mental imbalance. In the Wolf of Wall Street you will see that the main character has a major drug and behavioral problem, however he is looked at as a hero throughout the movie. You will notice that it seems like he likes to stick with certain characters throughout his movies. He likes Leonardo Dicaprio. This is probably because the actors fit the character that he wants well. If it isn’t broke, why fix it? Martin has a way of making the violence in his films fit into the storytelling process. It is obvious that Martin likes to explore the immoral side of us. He tries to get us to follow characters that do not conform to society. The things about having immoral characters is that the audience can sometimes relate
Why does all the violence in Tarantinos' movies become so attractive to us normal people? I think it's because most of his material is underworld stuff. He deals with things we can barely relate to. Topics that are so far fetched to a "normal" person that they kind of hypnotize us into watching. Things happen in his movies that are so bizarre, we can't begin to imagine them happening to us in real life.
There are movies that make you laugh, that make you cry, that blow you away with jaw-dropping, ever-so-satisfying action sequences. And there is Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece, an homage to the old Pulp Magazines and crime novels popular in the 1950s. Known for their incredibly dense and complex dialogue and excessive violence, Tarantino adds his trademark nonlinear chronology and thorough character development to create a movie that celebrates the fact that chance governs all of our lives. The film consists of multiple stories that tell of the criminals, gangsters and outliers of Los Angeles, the underbelly of society. It follows Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield as they embark on their mission to recovering a briefcase that
Godard creates a unique editing style in Contempt and Breathless through the combination of long takes and jump cuts. Godard’s use of these two editing techniques expresses two separate ideas in regards to an individual’s place in society. In Contempt, Godard’s use of editing illustrates how an individual can exist separate from society. While in Breathless, editing conveys the idea of how society can isolate an individual. The use of jump cuts within Breathless and Contempt was an unconventional technique during the French New Wave and still is today because it violates one of the rules of Classic Hollywood Style.
Ref. The cinema book 2nd edition p100 "Tarantinos films mix violence with intertextual homage. He wants an audience to notice the way his films relate to a history of earlier film, fiction, t.v., thus combining movie fiction and movie criticism by playfully referring to movie history and mini history contained in his stars. " I think Tarantinos style is evolving now he has the money to support his wishes but his storytelling and directing technique is still difinitively Tarantinos own.
In conclusion it is clear that Tarantino’s film is postmodern, and Jameson’s insightful essay stands in relation to Pulp Fiction much in the same way as a prophecy stands in relation to its fulfilment. The postmodernist Tarantino expresses in a full and technicolour form what Jameson the modernist had only partially understood in the more static arts of painting and architecture.
Quentin Tarantino’s auteur is one that speaks of gore, racism, and certain shot techniques. Above all, the aspect that Tarantino is best known for in his long history of filmmaking is the fact that he only uses traditional, or analog, filmmaking techniques. In fact, Tarantino believes that digital cameras used to shoot film will lead to the eventual demise of filmmaking. His views and ideas of digital vs. traditional filmmaking and how his films could be impacted if they were shot in a digital format are explored.
In the article “The Return to Ritual: Violence and Art in the Media Age” by Jacob Siebers the world of violence through art and the cultural influence surrounding it is being examined. According to Siebers traumatic artworks have “something active in them that is more difficult to capture” (5). The art examples in the article are presented in the form of a bullet wound to the head and a half sliced pig suspended in formaldehyde. The subject of trauma art is not focused on a specific aspect, but rather what is disturbingly beautiful to the artist.
The representation of violence exacted upon women in cinema is inextricable from being projected upon all women. To provide a scene that objectifies the female is to reduce the feminine form to its non-dual state, e.g., a sexual object providing a vessel for male gratification (hubris and sexual) rather then being defined by its duality of sentient and physical forms. Those who construct scenes of violence against women are bound to a moral responsibility to subjectify the woman’s perspective, thus reestablishing the female as a victim rather then an object and rendering the act of violence intelligible (deplorable, open to interpretation).