It's kind of late in the debate, but I'm going to put in my
two cents as well.
I realize that all the cool kids (not just here, but almost
everywhere) are complaining about Tarantino. I'm certainly no
film or fiction scholar, but I'm going to revert to my youth
and be the dork who stands up for the kid being picked on
(both Tarantino and the level of violence and sex in today's
hard-boiled fiction).
Tarantino has readily admitted several times that he makes
genre films and he has never hidden his influences. He's
quite well versed in the history of those films and
filmmakers, understands exactly what made them great and
takes it a step further, which is what any artist worth
his/her salt does. And, imho, he does what he does very well;
the guy is one of the best dialog writers around, his camera
work is very good, his characters are fleshed out, and the
plots, while sometimes simplistic, are well worked and keep
me interested. Is he (the dreaded phrase) "self-aware"? Yes,
and admittedly so, it's his intention to make genre pictures,
but this may not always be a bad thing. The violence in his
movies is nothing worse than what he's influenced by and is
often tame in comparison to many films coming out today. The
violence is nothing new; and attributing the violent flicks
(or books) of today to his influence may be stretching things
a bit.
He says he makes films to entertain; there are no metaphors,
symbolism, or hidden meanings. They are what they are: (to
me) simple fun. Nothing more. I absolutely appreciate the
opinions of those who just don't enjoy his sort of films;
there's nothing wrong with that at all. But, on the other
hand, there's really nothing wrong with being one of those
who do enjoy his films either.
Now a nice segue back into hard-boiled/noir fiction.
Imho, there is little difference between Tarantino's films
and Richard Stark's Parker series or almost any of Elmore
Leonard's books. It is what it's meant to be: just fun.
As for the violence and sex in today's hard-boiled/noir
fiction, it seems to me that there has always been violence
and sex in this genre. The difference being that where the
reader has to use their imagination to see Archer's entrails
oozing out of his gut from being shot or to see Walter and
Phyllis getting it on, now the writers are free to describe
these things as they choose. The writers now don't have to
use the equivalent of a fade out. Good or bad? <shrug>
I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I believe it's a good
thing that authors no longer need to choose between
self-censoring or letting others censor their work. Whether
it's done well or not may be up for intellectual debate, but
whether it's good or bad in and of itself is probably up to
each individual's tastes.
I find it a bit ironic that some members of a group dedicated
to a specific genre whose very name (hard-boiled) is
indicative of violence, sex, darkness, and...well...hardness,
are willing to complain not only about a genre filmmaker, but
the characteristics that make up their favorite fiction
genre.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Jul 2007 EDT