Quantcast

Comments about ‘Quentin Tarantino and his films are part of the problem’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 9 2013 6:45 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

One of the best movies I’ve ever watched was perhaps the most violent. I’m referring to Saving Private Ryan. But the difference between the treatment Spielberg brought to D-Day on Omaha Beach and what Tarantino does with graphic violence is like day to night. As Reservoir Dogs hit the threshold for Jim Bennett, Pulp Fiction was the one that made me say enough with regard to QT films.

How many Mormons would want to watch a graphic historical epoch of the mob storming Carthage jail? I could trust Spielberg to handle that material responsibly and with sensitivity. But if Tarantino were to take on that project, no one could get me to go near the theatre.

WhyNotThink
North, UT

I find it interesting that Hollywood joined the fight against tobacco use. They were not forced to abandon the use of these products they simply choose to do something good. I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a result.

I don't think regulation is the answer. But it seems that Hollywood (if they really cared) could use thier art to do a better of job of condemning violence in the same way they condemned tobacco.

Now a couple of questions: Don't you hate it when SUV's, airplanes, knives, water and guns kill people? More importantly don't you hate it when actions have consequences? Don't you find it is *so* much easier to blame inanimate objects? You don't have to understand the people acting upon those inanimate objects. You don't have to understand the root cause of the event. Don't you like easy?

eastcoastcoug
Danbury, CT

JustinJ,

Spoons that can feed us tons of calories in a minute should be outlawed. So should semi-automatic weapons. Bad analogy, my friend...

For the rest of you who want all your 'personal freedoms' but don't like the consequences (and don't like any of the rest of us complaining), we are fed up with having to live with you taking no responsibilities for your actions. Violence as entertainment, combined with broken families, combined with unlimited access to violent weapons equals frequent massacres of innocents.

Oatmeal
Woods Cross, UT

John Charity Spring:

Violent films are the efforts of a "left-wing organization bent on destroying every traditional moral value that forms the basis of this Country's historic greatness?"

Uh, no. Violent films have been produced by various conservatives from Arnold Schwarzenegger to Chuck Norris and Bruce Willis. Gun-toting conservatives have always loved violence in films. It justifies the phobias they cling to while they clamor for concealed-carry permits and more armed guards in schools.

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

Read the Book of Mormon and the Old Testament. Tarintino has nothing on the violence and sex in those books.

anti-liar
Salt Lake City, UT

Hmm, a number of Tarrantino and -- video-game -- fans here.

@Free Agency

"The bigger problem for our society is that these films desensitize us--including our youngest citizens--to human suffering."

I agree, and that's the point I was trying to make earlier, in citing the scene from Tarrantino's "Reservoir Dogs" (which I don't recommend watching). The accompaniment of a torture scene to a cheerful, major-mode pop song may help desensitize viewers to a level of violence that any normal person should find repulsive.

And to others, here, no one is seeking to take away Tarrantino's free speech rights. Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that Tarrantino, too, and others like him, ought to be taking some personal responsibility for what they choose to produce.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

WhyNotThink:
[Hollywood joined the fight against tobacco use.]

No, the tobacco industry just stopped paying for product placement. Now Hollywood only shows tobacco use when its relevant to the story (Mad Men).

anti-liar
[The accompaniment of a torture scene to a cheerful, major-mode pop song may help desensitize viewers to a level of violence that any normal person should find repulsive.]

No, it's juxtaposition. By accompanying a torture seen with an upbeat song, the extremity of the situation is underscored... literally. It was the same idea as playing Classical pieces to violent scenes in A Clockwork Orange (1971). Tarantino was just copying Kubrick.

Also, in A Clockwork Orange, the main character, a violent sociopath, is "rehabilitated" by chemical torture while watching violent scenes and listening to. This caused him to become physically ill when engaged in violence or when he heard Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

Very "meta".

Tarantino isn't gonna stop making ultra-violent films. It's what got him where he was; it's his gimmick. If you take away the violence and swearing, you're left with a bunch of inane conversations which no longer can be juxtaposed against the extremes.

Bifftacular
Spanish Fork, Ut

Not surprising at all to see the Tarentino supporters come out with sharpened claws. Anything that infringes on THEIR right to view violence, pornography...whatever is going to be met with stiff resistance. And what is the most common argument? "I've viewed violence etc all my life and I would never shoot a human being". And that's true - the vast majority of people that view that stuff even for a long time are not going to become serial killers which is also true of the majority of people that can be around guns - even assault weapons. But what isn't good for the goose apparently is for the gander in this instance. Everything we see, hear, and read affects us ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. To deny that is disingenuous.

WhyNotThink
North, UT

Mukkake
"No, the tobacco industry just stopped paying for product placement. Now Hollywood only shows tobacco use when its relevant to the story (Mad Men)."

So your saying that big tobacco wanted to stop people from smoking so they quite advertising through the film industry? Interseting thought process.

Demisana
South Jordan, UT

I find it funny that the same people (Hollywood) who produce such films and work in the industry, who claim it has no effect on anyone, are also pouring billions into advertising, along with every other industry. If what we see and hear has no effect on us, then we really need to eliminate all that useless advertising. Surely we could just send it to Obama via the IRS and let him spend it more wisely.

infoman
Cedar Hills, UT

I've only seen one Tarantino film that I know of - Pulp Fiction. I still count it as the worst movie I've ever seen. I haven't been able to figure out why so many people still think of it as one of the greatest movies of its time.

bored
Lindon, UT

@JustinJ - Dismissing comments by saying that these type of movies are simply "part of our culture" is akin to saying that shootings such as those in Sandy Hook and Columbine are also part of our culture. The same logic would apply. That is the danger of rationalizing our behaviors. Anyone who doesn't believe that these things have a negative effect on our society is a fool. (As a matter of complete disclosure, I have to admit to enjoying the occasional violent movie...but I've had to limit my exposure as well, since I recognize the effect it has on me.)

bored
Lindon, UT

@KJB1 said: "Is it easier to pretend that Newtown and Aurora are all his fault instead of asking hard questions?" Did you really not read the article? The studies he cites in the article are exactly that - they ask the hard questions about what violence in the media does to people. The fact that the author uses QT movies as an example is beside the point.

It's surprising to me how some folks tend to grab one small piece of an article and get offended, or defensive, and tend to miss the whole point. This comes from another widespread problem our country faces - lack of sufficient education.

vanwarmer
Sandy, UT

I disagree with the idea that all enriching art can be shown to children. Some art requires complex thinking and context that can't be understood by a third-grader. Whether you like Tarantino's films or not, some art can be harmful for children but not for adults. To suggest otherwise is lazy at best.

Mukkake
Salt Lake City, UT

WhyNotThink:
[So your saying that big tobacco wanted to stop people from smoking so they quite advertising through the film industry? Interseting thought process.]

Do you understand the history of tobacco litigation/legislation over the last several decades at all?

adam05
USA, ID

To single out Tarantino as being part of the problem (the problem being mass murder, or murder in general) really shows a lack of willingness to delve deeper into the heart of these issues. Bennett, I'm sorry that your Tarantino experience was Resevoir Dogs and that the amount of profanity ruined it for you. I'm also sure watching it with the objective of counting all the profanity also created a bit of a bias against the movie. I am a fan of his work "Inglourious Basterds" that has far less profanity and is thought provoking but this is not the only criterion by which a movie should be judged. Tarantino, while he has put out quite a bit of content that could considerably be called crass by many people, I'm sure he does not advocate such violence and would not produce it for the intent of inspiring mass murderers. I agree that morals need to be displayed but a simple IMDB search could help you avoid movies that would make you feel bad. I can never understand why so many people try to excuse other's actions by attributing their decisions to violent video games or movies.

LValfre
CHICAGO, IL

@Craig Clark

"How many Mormons would want to watch a graphic historical epoch of the mob storming Carthage jail? I could trust Spielberg to handle that material responsibly and with sensitivity."

Responsibly and with sensitivity? What is that supposed to mean?

I would hope Spielberg, or any director, would handle a historical event with accuracy and honesty. A Columbus film showing the real atrocities he caused is a good example. As kids we were taught the pleasant song, had a day off school, and read about his positive endeavor. Milk before meat ...

WhyNotThink
North, UT

Mukkake

You must not have an answer to my question since you brushed it aside. Have you watched any old movies that used cigarettes as props? Most of the time, no brand was associated with the prop. Many of the old westerns had the hero rolling his own cigarette. Why would a company pay for that without having brand recognition?

Yes, it was Hollywood that voluntarily linked smoking on the big screen to increased usage. They acted responsibly and spurned the big tobacco industry. You must be quite young or you would know this. I did follow the smoking litigation of this industry. But I also followed the champagne efforts of communities, states such as (Washington where I lived), the medical community, the press and multiple industries to voluntarily help people understand the physical effects of smoking. I had many friends that had taken up smoking when it was *cool* to do so who later went through the pains of quitting.

Looking at the *whole* historical picture is enlightening and opens the mind to significant possibilities when it comes to methods of reducing violence in our society. Some of Hollywood are on board. It will grow.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

Another editorial on Tarintino. Okay D-News, guess what? He is not the only one that makes violent movies.

But anyway, let me get this straight, a guy walks into a school packing real guns, and proceeds to pump real bullets into real children, and the D-News editorial staff decides they are going to talk about Terintino for the next two months. Really?!

Violence in movies is responsible indirectly for real life violence, huh?

Okay, you want to talk about something that has been shown again and again to have a direct impact on causing violence in unstable people (and stable, quite frankly)? Let's talk about religion, should we? Let's have a conversation about how much violence has been committed historically and currently around the world that can be directly attributed to religion. Let's have that discussion, shall we?

SaguaroJack49
Phx, AZ

Quent Tarantino's strange. A strange agent, as if spying on us earthlings to take information back to the mother ship.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments