Thursday, March 28, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Tarantino exposes, not espouses, racism

By Daily Bruin Staff

Oct. 20, 1994 9:00 p.m.

Tarantino exposes, not espouses, racism

By Steven Miller

This article is in response to Mike Horowitz’s review of the new
movie Pulp Fiction that ran in the Arts and Entertainment section
of the Daily Bruin on Friday, Oct. 14. More specifically, I wish to
comment on Horowitz’s allegations of racism toward Quentin
Tarantino, the filmmaker.

Horowitz claims that just about everything Tarantino has worked
on movie-wise contains "evidence" that he is racist. He is certain
that the "sheer number of epithets on-screen" not only "perpetuate
bigotry," but are "demeaning" and "less than intelligent" as well.
The following four points will show both why this reasoning is
farcical and why an opinion like this doesn’t belong in a movie
review.

1. The racist epithets that Horowitz refers to are more than
just words and phrases ­ they are scenarios, reactions and
confrontations. Tarantino portrays his lowlife criminals as racist,
a factor often associated with equally lowlife morals. The
inclusion of racism in the character development of these criminals
provides a clearer, more well-rounded image of the "bad guy".
Overlooking this racist aspect in the mindset of his characters
would mislead people into thinking that these crooks should be
judged solely on their wit, charm, looks, cool dispositions, etc.
They are scum. Their racist attitudes profusely displayed in movies
such as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction illustrate this fact and
are there to remind us of this fact so that we, the audience, don’t
ultimately forget it.

2. There is a difference between "getting away" with racism and
exposing racism in a movie. When (in Pulp Fiction) Ving Rhames’
character (an African-American gangster) is raped by a sick, racist
redneck, are we to assume that this is just another excuse for
Tarantino to perpetuate bigotry? Horowitz would have us believe so.
The fact of the matter is this: In one of the most blatant, vivid
and to-the-point scenes in movie history dealing with the subject,
Tarantino condemns racism as the lowest form of stupidity.

3. Whether or not Tarantino himself is a racist is a non-issue
when it comes to a film review. Frankly, Horowitz’s statement that,
"quite simply, Tarantino’s racist," is libelous. Horowitz bases
this statement on Tarantino’s artistic endeavors. This, to me, is a
cowardly move. A film review is an opportunity to espouse one’s
opinions on the subject film, not to take cheap shots at the
artist’s supposed personal beliefs or values behind his or her
back.

4. All this, and contradictions too. After all, the reader will
remember that Horowitz, the defender of all that is politically
correct, dismisses Samuel Jackson’s performance as "good" while
long-windedly praising John Travolta and Bruce Willis. I defy
anyone to refute that of the three main characters, Jackson’s is
the most diverse and dramatic. So why does Horowitz not give credit
where credit is due? Maybe it’s because Jackson is … well … I
guess I’d better keep that opinion to myself.

For all of you staunch Mike Horowitz fans out there who don’t
buy any of my arguments so far, chew on this slice of hypocrisy: At
the end of the third paragraph of his article, Horowitz says that
"Tarantino should be elected God." Why would anyone want to elect
someone who so blatantly exploits an artistic medium to broadcast
his or her racist attitudes to be God? I rest my case.

Miller is a senior sociology student.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts