Yes, "bad." A complex moral position in a Tarantino film. He's really wrestled with the definition of "bad," hasn't he.One of these days he'll make a movie where the hero kills a kid. And if it gets cut from the final release, he'll hang on to a copy so he can run it in his home theater, and sit in the middle of the room with a bucket of popcorn in one hand and his personal pink crayola-stub in the other. James Lileks' Bleat
The truth beyond this is that Tarantion would see to it that sooner or later this was released as the Director's Cut. And, of course it would be wildly successful. American's wince at the costs of a real war, but shell out gladly for carnage simulated to a super-fine level of granulation. Didn't see that decapitation clearly enough? Hey, here it is from another angle in slow-mo.
Depressing as it may be, the reality is that we've finally, in our search for a perfect and secular world, walked blithely into the land where a great many internally driven moral compasses point in only one direction -- Down.
One of the many dubious fruits of an ever-expanding search for the limits of personal liberty. Why there is a search is curious. Certainly it is well-known that liberty has no limits in present-day America beyond "Your right to smoke ends 150 miles from where my nose begins."
A smoke-free society that shells out hundreds of millions for simulated-snuff films. Yes, that's the goal. Isn't it?
Posted by Vanderleun at October 16, 2003 7:59 AM