What would Leo Tolstoy think of Quentin Tarantino? This is an interesting question because Tolstoy’s 505-page “What is Art?” (1898) is probably one of the most significant and influential works establishing our current contemporary definition of art. Tolstoy needs little introduction, but Tarantino does because time is likely to forget him. Quentin Tarantino is an American film director active in the late 20th and early 21st century. He has received fame and wide critical acclaim for a series of hyper-violent films. His work “Inglourious Basterds” teaches us that the solution to fascism is to kill them all. His later “Django Unchained” teaches us that the solution to racism is to kill them all. Through all his movies, the scenes of hyper-violence are punctuated with scenes of clever and entertaining dialogue and thick characterization. In the words of Quentin Tarantino: My favorite hero in American history is John Brown. Hes my favorite American who ever lived. He basically single-handedly started the road to end slavery and the fact that he killed people to do it. He decided, If we start spilling white blood, then theyre going to start getting the idea. [1] Would Tolstoy consider Tarantino’s works to be art? For Tolstoy a work of art must communicate feelings, it must infect others with feelings, and it must be made with sincerity. Quentin Tarantino’s films certainly infect the audience with feelings and the films are made with sincerity. The audience can feel that Tarantino needs to tell these stories, and it’s not just a scheme to get rich. Tarantino’s storytelling is infectious. The audience feels rage at injustice then release and satiation with the scenes of retribution and violent justice. But for Tolstoy sincerity and emotional infectiousness are necessary but not sufficient to make something art. The subject matter is also important. It needs to bring people into harmony with one another. It should unite people and there are only two ways to do this; 1. share feelings flowing from the perception of a person’s relationship with God and the common humanity of all people, and 2. share simple feelings of common life. The subject matter must do one or both to be art because in the end, for Tolstoy, the purpose of art is to bring people together. Tarantino’s themes and subject matter are characterized by pure hatred, evil that cannot be saved or redeemed, and a glorification of violence and brutal murder as a form of ultimate justice. And Tolstoy? He was a Christian whose writings on nonviolent resistance had profound impacts on Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Tolstoys “The Kingdom of God Is Within You” convinced Gandhi to avoid violence and espouse nonviolent resistance. This strategy liberated nearly a billion people from colonial subjugation. There is no way Tolstoy would consider Tarantino’s movies to be art. And I agree with him. It’s junk food; pleasure and maybe even beauty, but not nourishment. [1] Wikipedia reference, An hour with Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino about his film Inglourious Basterds. August 21, 2009. Charlie Rose, charlierose/view/interview/10567
Posted on: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:43:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015