Pulp fiction: watch, pray and shoot

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Pulp fiction: watch, pray and shoot

K.G. Fyodorova

“Pulp fiction” is an American black comedy neo-noir crime film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. It is a buzzing, blooming confusion, presenting a variety of subcultures, races, lifestyles, religious and non-religious worldviews and moral perspectives. Given such a world, how are we to figure out what is right and what is wrong? This article is an attempt to study this question and to analyze the movie from the philosophical and religious points of view.

Key words: philosophy of cinema, violence, nihilism, God.

«Криминальное чтиво» - американская чёрная комедия, нео-нуарный криминальный фильм режиссера Квентина Тарантино. Это - гудение, цветущий беспорядок, представляющий множество субкультур, гонок, образов жизни, религиозных и нерелигиозных мировоззрений и моральных перспектив. Находясь под воздействием такого мира, как мы должны выяснить то, что является правильным, а что неправильным? Эта статья является попыткой изучить этот вопрос, а также проанализировать фильм с философской и религиозной точек зрения.

«Кримінальне чтиво» - американська чорна комедія, нео-нуарнийкримінальний фільм режисера КвентінаТарантіно. Це - гудіння, квітучий безлад, який представляє безліч субкультур, гонок, способів життя, релігійних і нерелігійних світоглядів, а також моральних перспектив. Перебуваючи під впливом цього світу, як нам з'ясувати, що є правильним, а що неправильним? Ця стаття є спробою розглянути це питання, а також проаналізувати фільм з філософського і релігійного поглядів.

Cinema is a very plastic genre, open for a social, public and cultural perspective, various technical novelties and language experiments. From the moment of its emergence, cinema drew to itself attention of researchers and served not only as a material for the analysis, but also as a base on which new concepts of aesthetics are built. The well-known phrase of Hegel that arts are peculiar “bodies of philosophy” in which the primary intuitions prove themselves, today has a new “cinema life”. I think that nowadays an interest in an essence of the cinema as to cultural practice and difficult audiovisual language, an observation over the modern film process in combination with possession of opportunities of philosophical approach to a language of film images allow us to answer topical issues of an aesthetics. tarantino pulp fiction

To my mind, it is necessary to say some words about the essence of the philosophy of a film. What was the problem with identifying this field? The question that dominated early philosophical inquiry into a film was whether the cinema could be regarded as an art form. There were two reasons why cinema didn't seem worthy of the honorific designation of an art. The first was that as a popular cultural form, film seemed to have a vulgarity that made it an unsuitable companion to theatre, painting, opera, and the other fine arts. A second problem was that film seemed to borrow too much from other art forms [2: 97]. In order to justify the claim that film deserves to be considered an independent art form, philosophers investigated the ontological structure of film. The hope was to develop a conception of film that made it clear that it differed in significant ways from the other arts. For this reason, the question of film's nature was a crucial one for theorists of film during what we might call the classic period. For example, Hugo Munsterberg was the first philosopher who wrote a monograph about the new art form, sought to distinguish film by means of the technical devices that it employed in presenting its narratives [1: 181]. Flashbacks, close-ups, and edits are some examples of the technical means that filmmakers employ to present their narratives that theatre lacks.For Munsterberg, the use of these devices distinguished film from the theatre as an art form. But then such philosophers as Bergson, Krakauer, Benjamin, Metz, Bazen, Delyoz have paid attention not only to the structure of the film and its difference between other art forms, they have made a great contribution to the development of philosophy of cinema. For all of them cinema became a peculiar territory of conceptualization of new aesthetic and epistemological phenomenon. The philosophy of cinema has become a significant area for philosophical and aesthetic research. Philosophers have concentrated both on aesthetic issues about film as an artistic medium -- the philosophy of film -- and questions about the philosophical content of films -- films as philosophy. To my mind, today film can be and might be studied as a source of knowledge and, even, as potential contributor to philosophy itself. So that's why I want to make some philosophical analysis of “Pulp Fiction” to show that movie can also have its philosophical value and significance.

Nihilism is a term which describes the loss of value and meaning in people's lives. “God is dead” is a well-known phrase of Nietzsche but in my opinion which was incorrectly interpreted. We seek to see a personal position of Nietzsche in words about the death of God, and we forget Heidegger's parting word: “it is necessary to read Nietzsche's works, incessantly questioning to the history of the West”. In this “historical” view the thesis “God is dead” is not the point of view of the thinker in a religion question, it is an attempt to point to show a hard ideological situation in the West [6: 115].

Given the centrality of religion in our lives for thousands of years, once the moral code is lost and not replaced, we are faced with the abyss of nihilism: darkness closes in on us, and nothing is of any real value anymore; there is no real meaning in our lives, and to conduct oneself and one's life in one way is just as good as another, for there is no over-arching criterion by which to make such judgments. And speaking about “Pulp fiction” in the context of nihilism, Mark Conard declared that this film is about American nihilism [4:3]. More specifically, it is about the transformation of two characters: Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Butch (Bruce Willis). Conard recognizes that the constant and seemingly trivial dialogues, for example between Jules and Vincent on the question of BurgerKing products in Amsterdam, actual disclose to the audience the implicitAmerican nihilism in contemporary society. Though they are silly, they are “no mere comic relief'. Conard points out that “this is the way these characters make sense of their lies: transient, pop cultural symbols and icons. This is why pop icons abound in the film: these are the reference points by which we understand ourselves and each other, empty and ephermal as they are” [4:16] This is most evident when Jules quotes Ezekiel 25:17: “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee”.

Jules quotes this just before he kills someone. The point is that the passage refers to a system of values and meaning by which one could lead one's life and make moral decisions. However, that system is missing from Jules' life and so the passage becomes meaningless to him. The Old Testament doesn't matter more for him anymore. And with no other criteria available to them by which to order their lives, Jules and Butch fall into a hierarchy of power, with Marsellus Wallace (VingRhames) at the top and themselves as henchmen below. Things come to have value in their lives if Marsellus Wallace declares it to be so. What he wants done, they will do. “Pulp Fiction” is a movie which delights some of its audience and disturbs others. Either way it is for the same reason: it toys with their expectations and mixes humour and violence.nAnd I think that it is also very important philosophical aspect in the movie because violence, terror, wars connected, first of all, with the release of aggressive or erotiko-aggressive instincts of the person which have taken an important place in the 20^th century under the influence of Nietzsche's philosophy and researches of Freud and Freudians. The powerful stream of violence is proved in modern life by the psycho-cultural and aesthetic factor: it is considered that the image of violence in art (especially in mass art forms -- cinema, television, mass reading) promotes eradication in the audience of aggressive instincts on the aesthetic level -- in the act of an art catharsis.

There are three different forms of cinematic violence when analysing visual violence: ritualistic, symbolic and hyper-real [3: 302]. Ritualistic is the type of violence which is utterly banal, predictable and quite often stereotypical and can be seen in the movie franchises such as “Terminator” (Cameron 1984) and “Die Hard” (McTiernan 1988). Where ritualistic is an end in itself, symbolic violence shakes everything up and attempts to give meaning to moral dilemmas in movies such as “Unforgiven” (Eastwood 1992),“Platoon” (Stone 1987) or “Schindler's List” (Spielberg 1993). PulpFiction contains hyper-realviolence which consists of two other types of violence, and it“exploits the seam side of controversial issues. This is a violence that appeals to primal emotions" and can be considered a“guilt-free humour" [3: 304]. Delivery of violence in this film is presented through strange situations which make the audience less horrified by it, and the violence loses its seriousness along the way. One of the key techniques of Tarantino's hyper-real violence is the play between hope and fear: the threat of violence is offset by the hope that everything will be resolved peacefully which often leads to moments of comic relief amid the overall menace. In the breakfast scene, Tarantino exemplifies this pattern through rapid cuts, change in dialogue topics, random conversation prior to the killing, discovery of the briefcase, lightning and banal decorations, which suggests normality. Let's look at the scene that we analyzed before from the other side - violence. Indeed Tarantino keeps toying with our emotions through the scene by using a hope/fear pattern to give us an emotional ride on a roller coaster. For example, when Jules and Vincent enter the room (fear) but then speak nicely to Brett and his friends “Hey kids" (hope), Jules takes a bite out of Brett's burger (fear) but then admits that his girl friend forces him to be a vegetarian (hope). At the end where Jules demands to know where the briefcase is (fear) but then Vincent finds it and declares, “We're happy" (hope). Here they could leave, but then all the tension would be in vain. The audience would not learn that, as Jules says: “Marsellus Wallace doesn't like to be fucked by anybody but Mrs. Wallace". The contradiction between “fucked” and the politeness implied in “Mrs.” makes the line comical and very ironic as Marsellus ends up being raped by another man [5: 11]. So what can we see? One moment, you follow Jules and Vincent who you would expect to talk about generic gangster topics; instead they are talking about completely random topics. The next moment, they commit murder. The same happens where Mia (Uma Turman) is lying on the floor, dying, and they begin to debate who should use the needle and how to use it. It builds up tension and when you expect something to happen, it completely goes in the other direction. By doing this, the audience experiences suspense, relief and the ability to laugh at the hysterical elements

Tarantino has carefully placed into the scenes. Both scenes also deal with a life and death situation and the audience still responds with laughter. Tarantino successfully dulls the violence on screen by shifting the focus to the bizarre and humorous elements injected into the scenes.

This way because the violence is hyper-real, the audience doesn't have to relate to the violence but simply enjoy it.

To sum up, I'd like to say that Pulp fiction is essentially an exploration of morality. Unlike the typical religious, or religiously ambiguous subject, Tarantino's subjects are notably lacking any sense of morality. They epitomize a prominent American Nihilism, although the film doesn't itself represent or advocate nihilism. Rather, it presents it as a striking reality in a largely postreligious society, and discusses the implications of embracing such nihilism while illustrating personal transformations within a moral context. Except moral and religious aspect, there is another important aspect that plays significant role in this film - violence. But as I have already noted violence in this film, it is an instrument of influence on our mind. The violence in “Pulp Fiction” is characterized as hyper-real violence and Quentin Tarantino plays with the audience's feeling of suspense and relief in order to make the violence comical and entertaining. So, what is the answer on the question that I raisen in the beginning of the article - Given such a world, how are we to figure out what is right and what is wrong? I think that it is an open question on which Tarantino doesn't answer. He drew a world of confusion, lost and violence of which we have to find a way out.

REFERENCES

1. Allen R., Smith M. Film Theory and Philosophy / Murray Smith, Richard Allen. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. - 515 p.

2. Arnheim R. Film as Art / Rudolf Arnheim. - Berkeley, 1957. - 212 p.

3. Henry G. Pulp Fiction and the Culture of Violence / Giroux Henry.- Harvard Educational Review, 1995. - № 65. - Pp. 299 - 319.

4. Mark T. C. Symbolism, Meaning & Nihilism in Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction / Conard Mark T. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. - 27 p.

5. Silas L. Pulp Fiction: Violence and its guilt free humour/ Lauritsen Silas. - Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. - 15 p.

6. Новик И.А. Идея о смерти Бога в философии Ницше / И.А.Новик // Философия. - № 7. - 2003. - 110 - 123с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru