Postmodern?
Top5 Publications
: So, what do you think the point of the whole postmodernist thing
: is? Is QT just a 'natural' postmodernist, or is it intellectualized
: to a greater degree than I have picked up on?
Good question, Brian, and an intelligent one at that -- a rarity for this
newsgroup.
I think that the postmodernist aspects of Pulp Fiction are a by-product
of Tarantino's love for kitschy pop culture, as well as his love for
films, both current and in the past, that have a postmodernist feel to them.
Although I don't presume to think for Tarantino (although maybe that's
not such a bad idea :-) ), my guess is that he incorporates these
elements into his films merely because he thinks they're cool. I'm not
sure much thought goes into it beyond that.
However, that having been said, it's that very same tip-of-the-hat to
postmodernism that is responsible for all the critical praise of Pulp
Fiction. I don't think that the critics were taken in by the story, but
rather by the manner in which it is delivered. The mise-en-scene, from
set production to costuming, and the soundtrack are both drenched in
post-modernist touches.
I'm not sure if that answers your question or not. I think that these
things in the film to achieve a desired effect, but I'm not sure that QT
was aware of what he was doing, other than making a "cool" film.
Awaiting flames with baited breath...
CW
AP DAVIES
>
> Pulp Fiction contains many elements that place it into the
> loose category of postmodernism - recontextualization of existing
> images and formulaic stories, a blurring of the past and present,
> creating art out of the 'garbage' of society, laughing at the
> absurdity of life and horror, etc. My question is
> whether QT does this deliberatly to make a postmodernist artistic
> comment, or more simply because it is fitting for the dominant 'pulp'
> tone of the film. That is, do you think QT uses past references and a
> postmodern format because a '90's audience (and himself, presumably)
> will respond to it and understand the kitch humour, or do you think
> there is a more 'serious' agenda behind this?
> Other filmmakers, most notably David Lynch, have used similar
> methods to make tongue-in-cheek critical comments regarding contemporary
> society and its apparent inability to progress without contextualizing
> itself in terms of the past (Blue Velvet, Wild at Heart). Tarantino
> has me a bit confused on this point, though. The characters exist in
> this past/present environment, but is this just QT's fantasy funny
> movie environment, or is he saying something about this environment.
> I'm not sure how to take this aspect of his work mostly because of his
> obviously genuine adoration for pop culture of all forms, even the
> absolute lowliest (exploitation flicks, kung-fu, etc. - no offence
> intended to fans! :) ). If QT is simply expressing his love for this
> sort of thing in his films, and not suggesting any of the potential
> trappings of doing exactly what he does - using past works to
> synthesize a new one - then I'm not sure I'm as big a fan as I
> thought, at least in principal, anyway.
> So, what do you think the point of the whole postmodernist thing
> is? Is QT just a 'natural' postmodernist, or is it intellectualized
> to a greater degree than I have picked up on?
>
>
>
>
Say again???!!!!
Andrew
RI MOFFAT
I agree with the philosophical elements of Brian's thesis, there are certainly
postmodernistic conventions and suggestions littering the film's conceptually
sophorific subtext of individualistic (and one would contend ribald anarchical)
inferences, so much so that the combination is constantly subjugating the overall
atmospherics of, what one could contend, was the cornerstone of the panoplic film
movement of the mid part of the current decade-ual extravagances. The onomatopeoic
individualism expressed in the antidisestablismentarianism of the
intellectualized post-modernism verifies all the pre-conditional interpretations
of the (what you could call) entymologists numismatism in regards the controvertial
moralizations and theatrical ramifications of the so-called destabilization of
modern culture as we know it. ;->
S: Vocabulary-tastic, mate.
N: Not 'arf!
Rob.
AP DAVIES
Taken from a philosophical standpoint your verbose argument carries with it a degree of rational credit, although bearing in mind the neo-philosophical undercurrents of such a post-Raphaelite existentialist art form as we are discussing it would appear to me that you neglect to include an intepretation of the socio-political extravagances on display in the said work of Messrs Tarantino and Avary and the ramifications of such a drastic conceptual ommission has led to this perversly created manifesto whose i
mplications in a pre modernistic global enviroment could lead to strong reactionary agendas from various factions attending the centre of passive praise for the afore mentioned 'artists'. I can only conclude therefore that this discussion has in it's entirity metamoprhosed to the form of a gland containing the, as it were, very seed of life and it would be wholly benificial to the social/political sub community if communicae regarding the said topic were negated enabling the honourable members to pursue th
eir chosen passtime in a relaxing state of total ambience, whilst at the same time avoiding any illicit intake of outlawed substances.
Andrew....I think i need to lie down now..Nurse!!!
SMF User
I don't think that it really matters whether or not QT "intends" to
be pomo inasmuch as it's not really possible to determine his
intentions. It doesn't matter to me whether or not he knows that he's
making postmodern moves. Postmodernism can be and is used as a
_reading_ strategy and I read QT as embodying many elements of pomo.
Dan