By David Poland email@example.com
Tarantino HIp Hops Around Actual Questions About Django By An Actual Journalist
This is why I haven’t gotten a Tarantino DP/30, though ironically, I would never press a DP/30 guest – especially a first timer – this hard on something about which they were uncomfortable talking.
The thing is, he doesn’t really want to talk about it. And I have always suspected that it’s because he really has nothing to say on these issues. Critics have allowed him to through iffy spin, like “The reason that made me put pen to paper was to give Black American males a western hero…give them a a cool black folkloric hero that could actually be empowering and actually pay back blood for blood.”
Of course, when pushed for thoughtfulness he hides behind the notion that he’s said all this before. But he hasn’t. And he does have a responsibility, not answer for the violence in his movies, but to explain intent. But “it’s cool” diminishes the critical legend about who this genius is.
I don’t even think he needs to answer about societal impact. I would be happy to accept “it’s a movie, man,” with some passionate discussion about how violent movies have always been around and how he feels cleansed by them and continues in that tradition… or some such thing. His reality.
But he’s like an animal trapped by his creation. His status has a lot to do with the hyper-fanboy-rationalzation of many otherwise serious critics, trying to tell people he is doing something important… after they laugh their ass off at a movie that engages racism in a rather flippant, entertaining way. Just being the most brilliant collage artist ever to put film through a camera is not enough. And it’s a shame for him, because in interviews like this – rather rare and only in other countries – he comes off as a petulant ass, when it seems he’s really just a bot over his head being of such “cultural importance.”