I think you're vastly overthinking this.Nasir007 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:08 amI agree with what someone said above - that for a guy who uses so much violence, Tarantino has no theory behind it. He just thinks it's entertainment. There is no attempt to deal with it or question it or question its impact on the viewer. He is supremely uncurious about it. He just thinks it is cool and fun. Even someone like Noe questions it more and challenges us. Haneke too. These images are not just meant to be consumed in an orgiastic burst of pleasure, there should be engagement with the premise and predication and consequences of violence. Other it is just dumb mutilation of human flesh.
While I understand what you're arguing from a philosophical and moral perspective I don't think your concerns necessarily move past that. Not because they're bad questions but that people at large really don't seem to care. I know this because in spite of individuals like Richard Brody admonishing the film American audiences gave Tarantino one of his largest box office openings ever in spite of numerous controversies. They don't seem to mind and at all. And while butts in seats is absolutely not a sign of quality it is a sign that the public at large has no issue supporting it, at least on a topical level. The questions you're asking are very serious and frankly something audiences (Particularly Americans) need to look at more but I don't think people are going to have deep moral epiphanies at something like this. This is all "permissible" because at some basic fundamental level, audiences saw it as entertainment. I will never argue this is a marker for morality as I have my own grievances against say, the Saw franchise but I don't think it's exactly morally reprehensible that audiences consume media that has violence, even tasteless violence in it. I think people simply want to be entertained for a certain amount of time and that's it. To reiterate posts before me. It's a movie and that's it. And no one knows that more than Quentin Tarantino. I realize I may appear to be arguing that your points don't have real world merits but I want to reiterate that they very much do. But I think there are better springboards for discussion for it. Not everything needs to be a deep dive into mankind's dark and unpleasant nature.
It's interesting that you mention Haneke though, another filmmaker I admire. Haneke is also known for graphic violence and particularly unsettling graphic violence at that. How do you feel about films like Funny Games, which Haneke has essentially crafted as a way to admonish the viewer for looking at? Do you consider this more permissible? How about the fact that he remade it FOR American audiences only to have it bomb? Does that say more about him, or Americans?