Haven't seen it yet, but Tarantino is amazing. His combination of gore and cutesy self-referential irony can get to be a bit much sometimes, but he is a master at putting together non-linear narratives. I am always amazed at how he can show you the end, so you know what happens, but keeps the film tense because it isn't until you see the same event from a myriad of perspectives that you are finally able to make the connections.
I just don't know what to do with Tarantino. I like his films. Aesthetically, I've never seen a director who can actually make violence look graceful (for example, the "Stuck in the Middle with You" ballet scene in "Reservoir Dogs"). But I feel guilty about liking his films, because I sense that they really do "normalize" violence. I don't see Tarantino trying to make social statements on the one hand ("look at the violence in our culture") or cynically portraying violence on the other ("what the fuck, we're violent people"). My sense is that the violence in his films means little to him except as an art form. And I find that unsettling.
But maybe I'm just being too prissy--especially since, of course, I plan on seeing his newest.
Oops--the message from "Jonah" is actually from me. I typed it on his computer and didn't change the setting (sorry, pal!). Actually, Jonah's a HUGE Tarantino fan, and would probably HUGELY disagree with my ambivalence.
Well, I'm just going to have to trust your judgment because: a) I *detest* Tarantino (and don't feel remotely guilty about it, he's one of the most pretentious f***s around); and b) I'm really, really bored with all the gunning down and blowing up of shit in the movies these days, whatever the gender of the people doing it.
And while I'm no care ethics fan, and I'm all for women expressing anger and aggression and all the other stuff they truly feel, in movies or otherwise, I do worry that your justification of this being a feminist film smacks a bit of the worse aspects of second wave feminism ("finally, the *women* get to solve problems with AK47s!).
But then again, I haven't seen the movie. Sigh.
I do worry that your justification of this being a feminist film smacks a bit of the worse aspects of second wave feminism ("finally, the *women* get to solve problems with AK47s!).
I don't think that is why I think it is a feminist film. And, I had exactly the same concerns as you going into the film. I think it is feminist because it breaks with conventions and in important ways that represent female characters in more complex, heroic roles. It is not merely hot women solving problems with AK47s.
That element is there, for sure. Another interesting aspect is that many of the characters look real--not air brushed, or rail thin. They are real women (still pretty atypical in their beauty), but a definite improvement over say, Charlie's Angels.
Spaz--That definitely sounds more interesting!
Actually, that film is a Tarantino-Rodriguez collaboration. While Hollywood grinds out movies that appeal to the bottom line, these guys are much more artisitic in their approach. And they take chances.
Women warriors show up in virtually every epic tradition from Virgil to Xena. Doesn't the comparative evidence suggest that the theme reflects an enduring male fantasy as much or more than the aspirations of women?
By the way, Tarantino's treatment of women strikes me as ambivalent. Especially in Pulp Fiction, the women call the shots. Stone cold killers drop everything to keep on the right side of their wives and girl friends, even though the women don't obviously merit the adoration. Tarantino obviously obsesses about women himself, but many of his works amount to a satire on the men who allow themselves to be pussy whipped (literally or figuratively).
I don't know if this is relevant to the feminist credentials of this film particularly, but strong female characters are not an uncommon trope in horror films generally. The character who survives to the end and defeats the bad guy/monster/whatever is pretty frequently a woman.
Of course, in classic horror if there's a female hero, she's almost always sexually inexperienced (the sluts generally get killed off, often while in the process of being slutty), so there's definitely dubious stuff going on in a lot of classic horror, but an absence of strong women per se has not traditionally been a flaw of the genre.
Most people forget, or don’t realize, that B horror films from the 50’s to the 70’s were popular because they reflected the cultural currents of the times. Invasion of the Body Snatchers, for example, was a thinly veiled attempt to depict how Communism could take over the country. . . . Grindhouse not only parodies Hollywood B horror films, but also parodies those films as reflections of political and cultural moralities. . . .And by so doing, Grindhouse makes a political statement about where we are, today. . . . I think this film purposely tempts its viewers to say that Grindhouse is ‘feminist’ because female characters are given the roles of heroes and avengers in the film. And the extent to which viewers give in to this ‘temptation’ reflects the extent to which feminism and feminist theory are minimized in contemporary society. Just as street protests have lost their significance because they have become ‘institutionalized’ (note the fact that at political conventions, nowadays, a specific location is cordoned off for ‘protesters’, thus ‘building’ protest into the political agendas of the parties), so the notion that films depicting female heroes and antagonists are ‘feminist’ reduces the impact of feminism on society by limiting it’s expression in movies and films, instead of in real life. Indeed, it ‘fictionalizes’ feminism as an ideal that “could only happen in Hollywood movies”. Is the impact of feminism limited to changing Hollywood scripts? Getting movie producers and script writers to cast females more prominently in leading roles as protagonists and antagonists? . . . These are the questions that Grindhouse leads us to think about. . . .
"It's like the female Jack Bauer. Why doesn't she exist?"
She did. Her name was Sydney Bristow.
I can't work up the nerve to go and see this movie, because I can't deal with some of the images I've seen in the previews, including the chick with the assault weapon attached to her leg. I'm all for cyborgs, but jeez. Generally, I've stopped exposing myself to so much violence, particularly violence against women, in movies and on TV. I am increasingly disturbed by it.
The day that I first saw Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" still sticks in my mind like a splinter. The shock value of that movie desensitized me (probably past the point of repair). Since then, I have seen every one of Tarantino's films, including his latest collaboration with Rodrieguez in "Grindhouse" and have enjoyed every one. Yet, like Jonah, after I see his films I am always questioning the pleasure I receive from watching content that mirrors terrible acts in the world (in particular the recent shootings at VT).
For me, all films are an escape. Yet, there are many studies, documentaries, experiments, etc., that try and pin violent media as the cause of school shootings and the like. Yet, there are supposedly less violent issues in countries like Japan where their anime productions exploit similar issues as our video games about gang violence. Animating issues like rape seem to take the matter more lightly than a movie, like "The Lives of Others" or even "Pulp
Fiction," which portray the severity of rape in its own brutal light.
The matter of guns in America seem just as important in influencing young people to bear arms. In order to receive this message, all a student needs to be taught is the Constitution.
These violent films are enjoyed by young minds and intellectuals alike, i.e., the author of this blog site. If violent entertainment can be appreciated by people all along the intellectual spectrum, why is it the most attacked scapegoat. The media may be much more developed but all someone forty years ago would have to do to escape into some violent entertainment would be to pick up "The Bible" and read the book of Judges.
I saw this situation a lot with some feminist coworkers in college.
A crappy movie would use the maligned morally superior but violent action hero device (sp?) and my coworkers would cite it as an example of all that is unfeminist and wrong with the world.
Then a rare movie comes that uses the same device, but with an actress instead of an actor. While nobody calls the film 'feminist" it is "good" to see an "empowered" female character taking the situation into her hands.
The lesson I learned back then, that I knew before but turned off for some reason when dealing with women feminists:
Don't let other peoples judgments influence your feelings about what you do. For your own advantage hear everyones view's, evaluate the facts and decide for yourself no matter how much of a stink other people make.
FWIW, I can't think of the last time I saw an action hero film. I guess people do grow out of them.
Commenting by HaloScan
