From his new book, "Cinema Speculation" (boldface added):
[T]he Pod People transformation is closer to a rebirth than a murder. You’re reborn as straight intellect, with a complete possession of your past and your abilities, but unburdened by messy human emotions. You also possess a complete fidelity to your fellow beings and a total commitment to the survival of your species. Are they inhuman? Of course, they’re vegetables. But the movies try to present their lack of humanity (they don’t have a sense of humor, they’re unmoved when a dog is hit by a car) as evidence of some deep-seated sinisterness. That’s a rather species-centric point of view. As human beings it may be our emotions that make us human, but it’s a stretch to say it’s what makes us great. Along with those positive emotions—love, joy, happiness, amusement—come negative emotions—hate, selfishness, racism, depression, violence, and rage....
Imagine in the fifties, when the [first "Body Snatchers"] film was made, that instead of some little town in Northern California (Santa Mira) that the aliens took root in, it was a horribly racist, segregated Ku Klux Klan stronghold in the heart of Mississippi.
Within weeks the color lines would disappear. Blacks and whites would be working together (in genuine brotherhood) towards a common goal. And humanity would be represented by one of the racist Kluxers whose investigative gaze notices formerly like-minded white folks seemingly enter into a conspiracy with some members of the county’s black community. Now picture his hysterical reaction to it (“Those people are coming after me! They’re not human! You’re next! You’re next!”).
Posts
49 comments:
alternative reading
Pssssttt......I'll let you in on a secret. It's a re-make.
He thinks like his films look. Stupid leftism with a touch of violence.
Along with those positive emotions -- love, joy, happiness, amusement -- come negative emotions -- hate, selfishness, racism, depression, violence, and rage.
I can tell you fancy, I can tell you plain: You give something up for every thing you gain.
Without passion, nothing advances, nothing retreats.
I think QT peaked with "Jackie Brown." I don't really like many of his films after that, but I absolutely love hearing him talk about movies. He has a really interesting perspective, and he has certainly watched almost everything.
It is basically the same take as several notable comic book supervillains: because you peasants are all messy with your emotions and feelings and otherwise not conforming to what I think the world should look like, I'm going to brainwash you for your own good. I mean, sure, yes, human extinction would end human racism, same as being thrown into a woodchipper would reduce a person's therapy bills, but at that point you really need to reconsider your motives.
Literally everything human beings do is abhorrent to someone, so this line of thinking could be used to justify literally anything. It is basically the same stupidity used in the second Wonder Woman movie, when the climax is dependent on everyone renouncing their wishes, the problem being is there is going to be a non-zero number of persons who would rather die and let all of humanity die than give up their wish. It reflects a lack of empathy.
The Snatchers (thus the title) force you to change. Your free will is removed.
Tarantino is a philosophical gnat.
Very interesting take...but that's why he's a successful, rich story-teller and I'm not : )
Reminds me of the video parodies where somebody re-cuts and adds peppy music to something like 'Alien' and turns it into a comedy movie...
“As human beings it may be our emotions that make us human, but it’s a stretch to say it’s what makes us great. “
Jesus Christ. Let’s give Fetterman a chance. Poor guy has not even been sworn in yet. ☺️
>>>>He thinks like his films look. Stupid leftism with a touch of violence.
Not even close. Besides, Tarantino so the Great White Whale that Film Twitter would love to cancel and they've never connected a single punch.
Michael K said...He thinks like his films look. Stupid leftism with a touch of violence.
CA good, The South bad.
Tarantino makes great scenes, but they don't add up to a movie. And they're too self-indulgent (In Inglorious Basterds, the plot to kill Hitler actually works; in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the Manson murderers are foiled; and Pulp Fiction--where to begin?).
Don't look for deep thinking, just fun violence and snappy dialogue.
That's fun. But I have a quibble. (Actually many, but one will do.)
You aren't reborn. You're dead, and another entity assumes your identity to escape detection. So in his version, all the black (and white) people have been murdered. You go from terrible racism to genocide. Kind of takes the shine off the old pod, doesn't it?
The standard film school interpretation of 'Body Snatchers' for years was that the pod people were a stand-in for the Communist Hive Mind. So he's saying that communist conformity of thought would be a Good Thing?
It's a fun alternate reading, I might have to read this book.
Within weeks the color lines would disappear. Blacks and whites would be working together (in genuine brotherhood) towards a common goal.
:)
Ants work together in a common goal.
Not exactly on point but this post reminded me of one of my favorite Key & Peele skits, Racist Zombies. Watch for Kevin Sorbo cameo!
So who said humans are great, anyway? And how is greatness measured in a species, so we could come to a conclusion?
I'm old-fashioned and don't find much of interest in the works of those like QT, whose entire mental and intellectual framework is Movies.
“ Pssssttt......I'll let you in on a secret. It's a re-make”
Read it again. He’s talking about multiple movies then stresses the first one
“You aren't reborn”
There’s more in the text and he begins by explaining his rebirth and not death theory. I didn’t want to copy too much.
This material is in a footnote in a chapter about Dirty Harry
Freeman Hunt said...
You aren't reborn. You're dead, and another entity assumes your identity to escape detection.
No blue check-mark for you!
You’re reborn as straight intellect, with a complete possession of your past and your abilities, but unburdened by messy human emotions.
I'm not a doctor but I think that's actually the definition of a sociopath.
What happens to sociopaths is they have to fake emotions.
They have to lie, lie, lie. They have to pretend to have emotions.
This makes them monstrous, particularly to the people who have emotions.
I'm not a doctor, but my feeling on this is that every human being has emotions.
Many of us pretend like we don't, because they are messy and get us in trouble. So we repress emotions. And we control them.
All that does is send your emotions underground, where they are screaming to get out!
Jesus Christ must have spent half his ministry on the importance of emotions.
I think religious people who are talking about angels and demons are often talking about emotions.
We have good emotions (love, hope, optimism, courage) and those might be angels helping us out. And we have bad emotions (anger, fear, hate) and those are demons dragging us down.
If you are a religious person you recognize this possibility and you guard against it. It's called a spiritual battle and it's very important for your soul.
You're not going to repress your way out of this, smart guy.
In the early 80s there was an actually funny and clever SNL skit based on "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." I think at the time the original from the 1950s had been re-released. The pod people in the skit had become Reaganites, and were saying things like "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." The ones who had not yet become pod people were aghast, and petrified at the prospect that they might get "podded" also.
Recall that this was shortly after Reagan carried both MA and NY. Of course the intent was to belittle the Reagan converts, but it was funny anyway.
2997 Inglourious Basterds (2009) In a way, it's like a propaganda movie. Nazis are portrayed as effeminate, smart, and sneaky. The British (and a few Germans) are portrayed as proper, brave, and civilized. While Americans are portrayed as uncivilized savages who view violence as sport and are completely callous. So it's kind of a bizarre propaganda movie, actually, in that it portrays Americans as the most brutal people on the planet. Propaganda is usually designed to inspire a nation. This is sort of like propaganda that is designed to scare the other guy. You don't want to mess with us!
I would rate this movie quite a ways down from Saboteur or Across the Pacific or Air Force, these amazing propaganda films Hollywood was churning out for World War II. If Tarantino made this movie in 1942 he would have been booed out of Hollywood. His heroes aren't heroic enough. They're not human, they're not likable, they're not emotionally engaging. In one scene a captured German solider acts civilized while the Americans are monstrous, using not just torture but murder to get information. And while we engage in this brutality, we bark like we're at the Coliseum.
Yet Brad Pitt gives an immensely likable performance. It's a winking performance. What his performance says to me is that we're not supposed to take any of this seriously. When he gives a pep talk, it's like he's a football coach. A bad football coach. "I want a hundred scalps by halftime." And then the Americans start scalping Nazis and carving swastikas into Nazi foreheads.
It's a film about propaganda and about heroes. A German soldier is portrayed as a hero in the film, a hero and a nice guy. The Nazis have shot a propaganda film about him. "He's the German Sgt. York." But it turns out that he's not a nice guy after all. That's just a facade; underneath he's a rapist. So perhaps Tarantino means his film as an attack on propaganda films. All those heroic figures in Hollywood movies? They don't exist. In reality, heroes are brutal and enjoy brutality and it's the most brutal people who win the wars. Tarantino's film suggests this and suggests too that brutality is likable and fun.
Yet this is complete crap, really. Brutality is likable and fun in movies, not in real life. In reality, people don't enjoy brutality, it appalls us. Just like war appalls people. So if we are skewering propaganda as fake while making a realistic film about the brutality of war, we would be making something akin to Saving Private Ryan. In that film ordinary soldiers capture a German soldier and discuss whether they should shoot him or let him go. They choose the nicer option, and later pay a price. Spielberg's movie works so well because it seems authentic. It captures both the brutality of war, and our desire to be nice and good. I think Tarantino's movie is several miles removed from this sort of realism.
Inglourious Basterds is a kind of remake of Robert Aldrich's The Dirty Dozen, which itself is a skewering of classic war films. Aldrich's movie was released in 1967, in the midst of Vietnam, our most unpopular war. The Dirty Dozen, like Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, skewers old-fashioned notions of right and wrong. The heroes are bad guys. In Aldrich's film they are convicts, rapists, murderers. What makes that movie fun is how these bad guys redeem themselves and become heroes. In Tarantino's revision, the actual lesson is there are no heroes. Bad guys win wars. You want to win a war? You got to be bad. If you're fighting Nazis, you got to be worse than Nazis.
As propaganda it's pretty bizarre. Only in the movies. And this is a major criticism of Tarantino, I think, how divorced his art is from reality. He's always making movies about movies. And movies about movies about movies. But he has very little to say about reality, it seems to me. I mean, we are in the midst of a war with radical Islam. We are fighting people who kill Jews in wheelchairs, who throw them into the sea. We could use a hero or two to inspire us. But how ridiculous would it be to make a movie about Jewish CIA agents who carve crescent moons into the foreheads of terrorists? That would be obvious propaganda. It would be over the top, simplistic and absurd. It would inspire some of us and make the rest of us recoil.
Propaganda has a bad reputation, and it should. Politics is evil. And it's a horrible thing when art is reduced to politics. But sometimes art needs to pay attention to politics, to what is going on in the real world. And some of our finest art--Casablanca, Saboteur, Across the Pacific--is indeed propaganda for a cause. But these films are not crass. They're not crude. They're not mocking with ironic commentary. The issues are too important and the artists are too engaged for that. These films are brilliant art made by artists who are speaking out on the issues of the day, uniting and inspiring our people.
Tarantino's art doesn't have this sort of popular response because it's so disengaged from reality. As talented as Tarantino is--and his visual sense is always amazing--his films often make you feel nothing. It's a cool and vacuous experience.
Here’s a clue, the movie ends before the murders happen, the murders are not foiled.
"[T]he Pod People transformation is closer to a rebirth than a murder. You’re reborn as straight intellect, with a complete possession of your past and your abilities, but unburdened by messy human emotions".
Asperger syndrome generally involves:
Difficulty with social interactions
Restricted interests
Desire for sameness
Distinctive strengths
Strengths can include:
Remarkable focus and persistence
Aptitude for recognizing patterns
Attention to detail
"Tarantino makes great scenes, but they don't add up to a movie. And they're too self-indulgent (In Inglorious Basterds, the plot to kill Hitler actually works; in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the Manson murderers are foiled; and Pulp Fiction--where to begin?)."
Self-indulgent? All artists are self-indulgent, in that they paint the pictures, write the songs, and write the stories they want to see, hear, and read. Those changes in historical reality (in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood) were the point of those movies. Tarantino wasn't interested in telling these stories as they happened--we know how they turned out, and they've been retold many times reiterating the historical reality--he was interested in telling stories in which the historical realities never happened, in which the bad guys were thwarted in their historically successful crimes.
"The Snatchers (thus the title) force you to change. Your free will is removed."
Yes, well...Tarantino's question is: is free will necessary, or beneficial?
Ants and bees are examples of very successful creatures who possess a "hive mind," in that the members of each colony or hive are focused only on doing their part working to further the overall survival of the group existence. Animals of prey and hierarchy have free will to greater or lesser degree, and, while they work together toward common goals, they also fight among themselves, wounding and killing each other, hoarding access to food and resources, etc., all of which works against the goal of the benefit and survival of the pack as a whole, leading to the collapse of the entire herd in the worst cases.
From the perspective of the universe, what great benefit is gained by individuality?
Okay, it's an interesting take. Here's another interesting take: the movie is not set in the Deep South during the Fifties, but rather Moscow during the Purges. Here's the horror: nobody notices the Pod replacements, or, if they do, they think it's a good thing. Pod people become aspirational, like Stakhanovite workers. The Pod people fit seamlessly into the established society and they all live happily ever after.
"You aren't reborn. You're dead, and another entity assumes your identity to escape detection. So in his version, all the black (and white) people have been murdered. You go from terrible racism to genocide. Kind of takes the shine off the old pod, doesn't it?
You're being a literalist. Metaphorically, the pod people are reborn versions of the originals...possessing all the memories and objective knowledge of their world and of each other as the originals...but lacking the emotions and individual egos the original versions possessed. Art is metaphor. "Born again in Christ" is a metaphor for the changed consciousness of the person who has decided to follow in Christ's path. Christians are different versions of their prior selves, as are all religious converts. As people grow and go through life, many or most are constantly being reborn as different versions of themselves, through education, life experiences, trauma, exposure to new environments, etc.
I was raised in LA and the Manson murders occurred on my birthday, so Once Upon A Time is a personal favorite. It's also his sweetest film. His only one, I think. And to stay on topic - Charlie & crew were definitely pod people.
The point of the films, both original and remake, is that once individuals are all absorbed into the collective, the invader need not maintain human forms. Or human civilization. Or anything other than the original thread-like slimy spores that started the takeover.
Lose your individuality, lose all.
"As human beings it may be our emotions that make us human, but it’s a stretch to say it’s what makes us great. Along with those positive emotions—love, joy, happiness, amusement—come negative emotions—hate, selfishness, racism, depression, violence, and rage...."
Mindless self-preservation vs. emotions and all they entail? I'll take the latter, thanks.
No emotion, no need fot Quentin Tarantino movies.
Power Points as far as the eye can see.
Here's a bit I cut out that explains the rebirth theory:
"If you’re one who believes that your soul is what makes you you, then I suppose the Pod People are murdering the Earthlings they duplicate and replace. However, if you’re more of the mind that it is your intellect and your consciousness that make you who you are, then the Pod People transformation is closer to a rebirth than a murder."
I always understood that the movie was about communists. Your friends and neighbors were still the same but suddenly evil. And the evil needed all to be converted.
The remakes had a more horror focus.
The scariest thing in the remake was Donald Sutherland. Didn't his character make a crack in the remake about voting Republican being a sign of becoming a pod person?
- D'you wanna go see my friend David Kibner?
- The psychiatrist?
- Not like that. Talk to him. He would put things into perspective.
- I'm not crazy.
- No, no, no. I'm serious. He would eliminate whether Geoffrey was having an affair, or had become gay. Whether he had a social disease, or had become a Republican. All the things that could have happened to have made you feel he had changed. D'you know what I mean? You wanna go see him?
What Tarantino is saying isn't so different from what people always say about the only way to stop humans fighting with each other is to have earth invaded by aliens. We know now, that that's probably not true. Somebody will always think the aliens have a good point and deserve to prevail. Judging by his comment, Quentin might be one of those people, but what he's saying here is that we will be united when we become the aliens.
What he's saying also fits into the current mood, when we are also considering whether humanity will ultimately be superseded by the machines we have created. It also fits with fears that humans are become more docile and easily led by those in authority. Would that really be better? Authority seems to think so.
QT has race on the brain, since his mother had bunch of black boyfriends. I think he looks at Morgan Freeman and Samual Jackson as a sort of father figures. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that, but its atypical.
Anyway, he's a good director and a bad thinker. People in Hollywood - the artistic types not the hardnosed execs - aren't much for book larnin' or deep thinking. QT seems to have gotten most of views on life from TV/Film. Not books.
Probably his best film is "Jackie Brown" where he brilliantly casts Pam Grier (absolutely great) and Jackson in roles that were "WHite (jackie)" or "Light skined" in the Novel "Rum punch". Michael Keaton is cast against type as Cop, while De Niro is excellent as a dumb ex-con. Almost forgotten Robert Forster plays the "Good guy". Because QT is working off a novel, he can't engage in his usual cartoonish antics.
You can't say the same about Inglorious besterds its an dextremely weird, but engaging, WW II comic book fantasy whereby a Jewish girl escapes a Nazi Jew hunter and ends up killing Hitler and Gobbels (sic) in a Paris movie theater with the help of her black boyfriend. I'm sure Harvey weinstein loved it. (Although not as much as ejaculating into potted plants). Brad Pitt and the Americans are just a bunch of bloodthristy oddballs who scalp people. Its says a lot about the average 'murican that they weren't insulted by the portrayal of GIs.
Tarantino - commentary
[T]he Pod People transformation is closer to a rebirth than a murder. You’re reborn as straight intellect, with a complete possession of your past and your abilities, but unburdened by messy human emotions."
Said the man emotionally driven to make movies that are social commentaries.
Anyone thinking that he's looking for a deeper and more true meaning to Body Snatchers needs to consider that he was just thinking How can I redo this differently and especially portray people in a bad light? and from there came up with his "insight".
One should also consider that he ignores the fact that it's not a "transformation", the victims are replaced and disappear and the podsters only live five years.
So no, no rebirth.
Enjoyable as it was, Inglorious Basterds also pulled off the trick of getting the audience to root for suicide bombers who slaughter a theater full of humans.
Blogger John Christopher said...
>>>>He thinks like his films look. Stupid leftism with a touch of violence.
Not even close. Besides, Tarantino so the Great White Whale that Film Twitter would love to cancel and they've never connected a single punch.
So, I guess you liked "Pulp Fiction. I did too in a sort of half nauseated way. Didn't see the others. Different strokes...
Rhinoceros by Ionesco is the upscale French version of the idea.
I always understood that the movie was about communists. Your friends and neighbors were still the same but suddenly evil. And the evil needed all to be converted.
If Tarantino had any balls he would make it about Woke Children.
My beautiful child went off to school!
What has happened to her mind?
We could call it...
Pussy Hats
He probably roots for the Borg as well.
I don't think anyone in 50s who made "Invasion of the body snatchers" was thinking about Race or black poeple.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is great, in my opinion. I gave it an A- in my movie book. Right up there with his first two.
Stoned guy with a dog versus the fookin' Manson children?
Are you kidding me?
Also I liked the pushback on the Bruce Lee mythology.
All artists are self-indulgent, in that they paint the pictures, write the songs, and write the stories they want to see, hear, and read. Those changes in historical reality (in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood) were the point of those movies. Tarantino wasn't interested in telling these stories as they happened--we know how they turned out, and they've been retold many times reiterating the historical reality--he was interested in telling stories in which the historical realities never happened, in which the bad guys were thwarted in their historically successful crimes.
Spot on analysis from Cookie.
I would add Django to that list. Spike Lee was furious that movie was made, and ranted about it like he owned the past and nobody else can make up stories about it. It is (of course) a light-hearted vision of a black hero freeing the slaves in the racist South. Spike was like, "Those are my ancestors!" But as far as I know, a lot of black people got a kick out of the movie.
Personally I've always thought Spike Lee is a natural comedian. His Nike ads are hysterical, and his best movie in my book is his first one, She's Gotta Have It.
One of the problems with Spike's art is that many of his characters are symbolic rather than real people. For instance, Radio Raheem, the guy who dies in Do The Right Thing, isn't a character at all, he's a plot device.
Spike Lee's father is the jazz musician Bill Lee. Some of the racist rants in Spike's cinema against white people (see Jungle Fever, for instance) are really Spike ranting against his father.
When Spike came to my film school, I asked him if he saw Crash and whether he liked it (he did).
I just discovered Spike Lee directed the pilot of Shark, which is James Woods playing a prosecutor. Inspired by the O.J. acquittal, apparently. I kinda have to see that so I just bought season 1.
No way it's better than My Cousin Vinny, which has the finest courtroom battle I've ever seen. Paul Newman in The Verdict is good, Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men is also good. But Joe Pesci remains the man.
I also just realized that I don't own To Kill a Mockingbird, and the way our culture is going, you better buy it while you can. So I bought that DVD, too.
$20 for the two DVDs, paid for in blood. (They gave me a $20 gift certificate for my blood when I gave blood).
Robert Cook said...All artists are self-indulgent, in that they paint the pictures, write the songs, and write the stories they want to see, hear, and read. Those changes in historical reality (in Inglorious Basterds and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood) were the point of those movies.
I suppose that’s the difference between a fan and a not-fan. The fan is willing to make excuses for the nonsense. The non-fan isn’t (or, at least, not so much).
"Enjoyable as it was, Inglorious Basterds also pulled off the trick of getting the audience to root for suicide bombers who slaughter a theater full of humans."
Ha...Yes! It shows that acts of mass violence can be perceived as either heroic or monstrous according to the perspective of observers of the act. (The reality is that acts of mass violence are monstrous, always.)
Post a Comment