Re: [AML] Re: AML-List Digest, Vol 31, Issue 16

On Sep 18, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Eugene Woodbury wrote:

> But there'll be a half-dozen Takashi Miike and Kiyoshi Kurosawa
> (not related to Akira) films next to it, the kind of edgy,
> nihilistic, Tarantino-esque, "art house" films that we've all come
> to assume belong in that category.

Tangent alert. I don't think Tarantino makes nihilistic films. I
think he co-writer of Pulp Fiction, Roger Avary, does. As can be
witnessed by his films without Tarantino. (i.e. Zilling Zoe and The
Rules of Attraction - I'm not sure what to make of Silent Hill as it
sounds like a typical cheesy horror film) But all Tarantino films
have a pretty solid core underlying value. The guy himself may be an
amoral cokehead. But his films always have a very strong moral
center usually focusing in on an act of atonement of some sort.

Now heaven knows there are tons of nihilistic directors out there and
far too many during the 90's simply parroted Tarantino. And I fully
agree that nihilism is the by-word of the art house scene for reasons
I don't fully fathom. And, for the record, I have little desire to
see a Miike film precisely because of that.

To me the difference is very much like the end of the Jaredites or
the end of the Nephites. One could make a very nihilistic take on
that or one could do the opposite. I think in these sorts of stories
that is true as well. The end of Pulp Fiction for instance ties
everything together. The Samuel L. Jackson figure has a religious
experience and denies the life of crime to try and be a peaceful
person. The John Travolta figure doesn't and dies in an almost
random way. The Bruce Willis figure also has that moment of
atonement and forgiveness. Overall it's very much a morality play,
albeit done in a very unusual fashion. This was doubly true for
Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. Even Kill Bill arguably is about
the futility of revenge and so forth. (The "Klingon" quote at the
beginning sets it all up)

Clark