AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I'm pretty sure Tarantino loves the violence as much as his fans do.

Monsters University was actually pretty good. I expected no less from Pixar.

Exeres wrote:I'm pretty sure Tarantino loves the violence as much as his fans do.

Yeah, but thats the thing, from what Ive read, theyre apparently supposed to be about how bad violence is, but he doesnt actually deconstruct violent media, he just revels in it. Deconstruction means that you show the actual consequences and impact something has, beyond the glorification it normally recieves, but he doesnt do that, he just heaps more violence on there mixed with annoying self referential wanking. The movies are, on their own, generally pretty entertaining, but theyre not what he says they are

Deconstruction doesn't necessarily show realistic reactions to something, realistic reactions can come with reconstruction (see: man of steel), it's bodaciously what it means, breaking something down and analyzing it.
This often leads to things being not so much realistic, but considering certain implications and concepts that might come with the idea, and this is what Tarantino plays with a lot.

Kill Bill, for the first part, is a reconstruction of violent movies. The Bride slaughters an entire restaurant of assassins and their leader and there's not much else to it, but then the second part tones down the violence a lot and actually makes it's comparatively few violent scenes tense and uncomfortable to watch because now we're not really just watching The Bride, we're actually trying to connect with the character on a deeper level.

Pulp Fiction does it differently, focusing not on the emotions behind the more violent scenes, but actively looking at a whole lot of different ways violent people can be and where it's going to lead them and there's not much more to say about it without getting into spoiler territory.

Django Unchained I'm pretty sure is supposed to be just a straight up action film.

you can't just say something isn't a deconstruction because it's not overly cynical and scary and "oh look at this realism", because sometimes a lack of realism is part of the deconstruction

First off, deconstruction does not have a set singular, easily accessible definition. Let's thus try to avoid getting into a semantical discussion but instead try to think how the concept of deconstruction can be applied to modern media and how it has been applied. Of note is that Derrida, the author of the concept states that “Deconstruction is not a method, and cannot be transformed into one.”

I would intuitively say that for something to be considered a deconstruction it should at the very least take a concept or axiom (whether related to a known character or genre or perhaps something else) familiar to the audience and attempt to paint it in a new light. Note that in that sense it's dependent on the choice of audience, for example Man of Steel is only a deconstruction if you haven't read the comics that introduced the concepts that the movie re-uses.

To explore deconstruction a bit more let's look at one of the most influential examples in modern media, Watchmen (the comic). It took the superhero genre which until that point had consisted of light-hearted and cheesy pulp stories aimed mostly at a younger audience, and explored how the genre-specific concepts would function in a more realistic setting. It explored questions like "what makes someone become a superhero" and "what makes someone become a villain". It examined a different way the general public could react to superheroes than previously depicted in the genre. At the same time the comic didn't shy away from controversial topics like homosexuality, vigilante justice and rape. It proved that socio-political themes had a place in comics.

What makes Tarantino movies deconstructions then? Just having good characterisation and character interaction doesn't make something a deconstruction, that's something all movies should aspire to have. What questions are raised, what concepts are explored?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. A lot of his movies take deconstruction and play with it a little. Going back to Kill Bill, it switches jarringly between movies from just straight up action to something more tense. The first movie is showing what an action movie is to us, and the second shows what an action movie is to the characters.

Also, I said Man of Steel is a reconstruction, because it's not about breaking down the idea of Superman and getting into all the little bits and pieces, but more about looking at Superman's story as a whole, and going from there to actually make the concept of Superman stronger.

I dont know, maybe Im missing something, or maybe Im dumber than I thought I was, but Tarantinos movies never struck me as particularly deep. Entertaining, sure, and his attention to detail is great, but it never felt like they actually carried the message he says they did. Its especially bad with Natural Born Killers, thats supposedly criticizes the glorification of violence... while glorifying violence. Yes, there's the extremist media guy in it, but the main characters act like a prebubescent sociopaths power fantasy, and it kinda feels like the film is saying that THESE guys violence is cool, but not The Man's violence.

well how do you expect them to criticize glorified violence without the movie just bodaciously saying "hey guys violence is bad"

the idea is that violence is a bad thing and you really should be disgusted by this but you're not and that's kind of weird if you think about it

Yeah, but from what I understood, the characters in NBK were supposed to represent the "new breed" of killers, created through society's obsession with violent media, but they didnt come across as bad guys at all, the whole movie was like a giant road trip for them, except with constant murdering. Thats the problem in a nutshell, Tarantino doesnt DISAPPROVE of the things he's supposedly criticizes, hes just like every other filmmaker who claims they critique violence while actually glorifying it. I am a fan of violent media, I enjoy watching violent fiction, because thats the only outlet Im allowed in the castrated, sanitized bullshit society we live in where we all pretend violence is bad while a thousand times worse things happen under the surface, so when Tarantino takes my cheddar, and then tries to have it both ways by both condemning and glorifying, I take that as a personal insult.

that's the point

right there

that exactly it

you're enjoying massive amounts of violence and harm done to other human beings, even if it's fake, it's a really strange and kind of disgusting thing to enjoy seeing
they weren't good people, they were very bad people, but you don't feel like that because they're protagonists.

TheStranger wrote:Yeah, but from what I understood, the characters in NBK were supposed to represent the "new breed" of killers, created through society's obsession with violent media, but they didnt come across as bad guys at all, the whole movie was like a giant road trip for them, except with constant murdering. Thats the problem in a nutshell, blah blah blah personal insult haha are you kidding me.

Dude, Natural Born Killers is THE WORST example possible. Tarantino's original script was altered so heavily that he officially disowned it.

Exeres wrote:

TheStranger wrote:Yeah, but from what I understood, the characters in NBK were supposed to represent the "new breed" of killers, created through society's obsession with violent media, but they didnt come across as bad guys at all, the whole movie was like a giant road trip for them, except with constant murdering. Thats the problem in a nutshell, blah blah blah personal insult haha are you kidding me.

Dude, Natural Born Killers is THE WORST example possible. Tarantino's original script was altered so heavily that he officially disowned it.

Really? Huh, didnt know that. What was the original pitch?

Basically the movie as it is, but the whole "media glorification of killers is a BAD thing" was going to be a lot more pronounced.

So now it's more subtle and satirical. Does that make it better or worse? That's pretty much up to the viewer.

I think itd have been better, I REALLY didnt like how wishy washy the movie was with that message

Galaxy Man wrote:that's the point

right there

that exactly it

you're enjoying massive amounts of violence and harm done to other human beings, even if it's fake, it's a really strange and kind of disgusting thing to enjoy seeing
they weren't good people, they were very bad people, but you don't feel like that because they're protagonists.

I didnt like them though. They came off as narcisisstic douchebags who just killed because they felt like it, what the hell is the point of that? Violence for violence sake is the domain of nutcases who take out their problems on people who have nothing to do with them, its not even constructive violence. The thrill of violent media are revenge fantasies and the feeling of being the hero, not to be some psycho who kills because he played GTA too much as a kid.