At the symposium, a philosophical work by Plato, a man named Alcibiades tells Socrates that he presents his arguments in the most vulgar way and in his speeches He points to donkeys, blacksmiths, shoemakers, tanners, etc., as if "repeating the same thing over and over again." At first glance, this claim seems wrong, because Socrates talks about piety, justice, courage, and various questions such as "Why should we behave morally?" He spoke. But all of Socrates' questions could be reduced to one: "How should we live?"
What is the subject of Tarantino's
films about? "I'm making the same movie over and over
again," Quentin Tarantino said in a 2004 interview. At first
glance, this claim seems misleading, as his films look very
different: Reservoir Dogs is about a broken jewel, Pulp Fiction is
about two professional assassins and their boss, Jackie Brown.
Brown) is about a woman cleverly plotting to steal money
from an illegal gun dealer and kill Bill (Kill Bill) is
about a woman taking revenge on her ex-girlfriend. What do
these films have in common?
- 10 Quentin Tarantino films from Worst to Best
The first and most obvious common denominator that comes to mind is that In all of these films, the normal course of life of a ruthless, violent, and hostile man is disrupted by unwanted actions by others or their inadvertent inattention. In water dogs, the plot to steal jewelry is foiled because an undercover police officer has informed other police officers. In the popular story, a few young and inexperienced criminals fail to pay their debt to a stubborn criminal, and shortly after, a professional boxer blames him. In Jackie Brown, two of Ordell Robbie's subordinates, gun dealers, are caught by the police for illegal activities, and Ordell is worried that the two will testify against him for his release or reduced prison sentence. Kill Bill, Bill's mistress (Bill himself is the leader of a group of professional assassins), tries to distance himself from Bill by marrying the owner of a second-hand record store, and this decision makes Bill very angry.
The second thing these films have in common is that disrupting the lives of these violent men leads to violent behavior. As Bill kills Bill at the end of the second part, "I'm a killer. A bastard killer. You know this. "Breaking the heart of a bastard killer has consequences." When the anger of these violent men is expressed, many people suffer; Whether sinful or innocent. Most of these men's violent acts lead to their own death, but not always. Jules Winnfield and his boss, Marsellus Wallace, do not die in the popular story, and Mr. Pink is caught in the waterfowl, but he does not die (although he may be sentenced to death for participating in such a deadly robbery).>
What usually happens to the good (or at least the better) people in Tarantino's films depends either on luck (good or bad) or the hard-hearted intentions of angry and ugly men. Butch Coolidge is lucky, because when he enters his apartment to pick up his valuable watch, he finds that the killer who was sent to kill him was in the bathroom. Mr. Naranji, the same secret policeman mentioned in the water dogs, is unlucky, because a woman who wanted to steal her car to escape the crime scene, carried a gun in the hood of her car and used it to shoot Mr. Naranji in the abdomen. Jackie Brown is lucky because when Ordwell's assistant, Louis Gara, finds out that Max Cherry, the legal guardian who knows Jackie personally, is with him when he moves money to the grocery store, he does. Do not be suspicious. He is also lucky in another way, because he kills Ordell's mistress, Melanie, and this prevents Melanie from hearing the information she has about exchanging money.
The last thing Tarantino's films have in common is that the stubborn, hard-hearted, and immoral characters in these films sometimes show fountains of morality. Mr. Sefid shows mercy to the orange dogs when he sees that Mr. Naranji has been shot; While driving to a warehouse where he is supposed to meet the other criminals involved in the robbery, he takes her by the hand and tries to calm her down with his words. When they reach Anbar, Mr. Sefid hugs Mr. Naranji, reassures him again, and assures him that he is not going to die. In the popular story, after Vincent Vega takes Marcel's mistress Mia out one night, he tells himself in the bathroom that he should just have a drink and then go home, because he's behind him. It is a test of loyalty, and "loyalty" is important. In the same film, Jules Winfield kills a couple who rob a restaurant where he is eating with Vincent. Kill Bill, Part 1 Bill tells Elle Driver not to kill the "bride" because "slipping into his room like a dirty mouse and killing him in his sleep" is a sign of "inferiority." In the same film, the bride and Vernita Green, when they see that Vernita's daughter has returned from school, stop fighting so that the psychotic girl does not get into it. Besides, he clearly loves his daughter from the bottom of his heart and treats her with kindness.
Tarantino claimed in 2004 that he was constantly making the same film. This claim may seem strange given the differences between his films, but similarities could be found between Tarantino's films (at least until 2004), such as: Disrupting the life of a violent and hard-hearted man because of the carelessness and negligence of others. Occurrence of violent behavior of these men due to disruption of their life process. moral and honorable treatment of people who are not expected to do so
In Tarantino's films, the "good guys" in the story sometimes show great courage and behave morally. In the popular story, Butch returns to save his criminal boss, Marcellus, who wants to kill Butch, from deviant people who want to rape and torture him. Butch does it because he thinks it's right; However, it also puts his life at risk. In the water dogs, the policeman who took Mr. Blond hostage refuses to tell him that Mr. Orange was a secret policeman who revealed them to the police; Even when tortured and with nothing left to burn alive. Thus, Tarantino, in a sea of savagery and immorality, still portrays people, good or bad, who behave admirably and express positive human emotions.
Can we in Tarantino's films Learn something about the nature of humanity?
Can we learn a lesson about real humans by watching Tarantino movies? Perhaps one of the lessons we learn is that wicked and hard-hearted people will eventually be punished for their actions (even Marcellus is beaten and raped; Mr. Pink is arrested), unless they change their delinquent approach (like Jules Winfell). In the popular story of Biatrix Kido, kill Bill). However, one cannot be sure of this, because the message that Can be gleaned from a series of films does not necessarily reflect the writer or director's thinking about real human beings. Perhaps the creator of the work is presenting a point of view that he himself does not believe in.
Besides, even if Tarantino had these beliefs about real people, did his films help establish the truth? The American philosopher Noel Carroll argues that no one Can prove that humans are really taller than apes by showing a film in which humans are taller than apes. So how Can a film prove that doing bad things in the long run is not in the best interest of the people who do them? Perhaps such a film reminds us of something we have forgotten, or is in the background of our minds; Something that supports such a view.
For example, it may remind us of a statistic we have read that states that "bad guys" often get caught by the police or fall victim to other "bad guys". However, What we do not remember is news in the newspaper or on television about a delinquent who has been punished, and such evidence, based solely on personal observation, is never sufficient evidence to prove that anyone who enters the realm of transgression is destined. It will not be sinister. The news does not mention the cases in which the perpetrator managed to escape and was not punished for his actions, so the news and statistics obtained from it do not represent the whole truth.
It Can be said that Tarantino's films express pragmatic advice: For example, it is better to think carefully about the consequences before committing cruel and violent acts, because it may ultimately do more harm than good. The torment you will eventually experience, or the lives of human beings that will be lost, will ultimately carry a heavier weight than the joy of revenge or justice. But even in this context, the correctness or incorrectness of this advice will depend on the likelihood of you being arrested in the real world or feeling a sense of torment/conscience/regret after an ugly operation. The fact that some of the villains in Tarantino's films retaliate for their evil deeds is not evidence that all, or even most, villains in the real world will suffer the same fate.
In Tarantino films, criminals usually see the opposite result, though not in a preaching way. However, for some characters who decide to stop being cruel, it's a happy ending; Like Jules Winfield in the popular story Kill the Bride in Bill.
Do Tarantino's films follow a particular philosophy?
Do Tarantino's films have a philosophical burden or do they raise an important question? As I argued in another context, a film that lacks clear philosophical reasoning cannot justify a philosophical statement of the whole. When a philosophical thesis is presented, one example Can be used to refute another, but these examples alone cannot support the philosophical thesis. A film that contains some philosophical dialogue Can establish a general philosophical thesis, but it must state a set of clear arguments. Fictional films Can also address philosophical questions - like What the Matrix does - but this is different from justifying general philosophical statements. These general points Can be seen in Tarantino's films, as they raise philosophical questions about miracles and morals. Took. In the film, a man jumps out of the bathroom where Vincent and Jules have entered to get into debt and fires six rounds at them from close range with large, deadly weapons, but none of them hit them. Jules thinks the reason for the bullet not hitting them was "divine intervention." For Vincent, the reason behind this was simply "luck." Later in the restaurant, Jules and Vincent talk about What happened that day. When Jules asks Vincent What a miracle is, he replies, "When God makes the impossible possible, but I do not think it Can be attributed to What happened this morning." 10 Tricks Quentin Tarantino's repetition that never gets boring
In general, for philosophers, a miracle is the violation of the law of nature (like the law of gravity) by a divine being. For a miracle to happen, then, God must make something that is physically (and not logically) impossible. There is no contradiction behind the idea of turning water into wine - contrary to the idea that the circle is also rectangular; This is a contradiction - but the transformation of water into wine in the scientific context of chemistry is contradictory. So if a divine being really turns water into wine or brings a dead person back to life, he has performed a miracle.
To answer the question of whether believing in a miracle is rational, one must first To answer the question of whether it is rational to believe that a divine being caused something to happen that contradicts the law of nature (and not What is supposed to be the law of nature). Even if Jules and Vincent agree on the definition of a miracle, they do not agree on What happened to them or not. Vincent thinks What happened to them was a chance, and Jules thinks it was a miracle, but he refuses to question whether it makes sense to believe that it's a miracle. "You're misjudging this," he tells Vincent at the restaurant. I mean, maybe God stopped the bullets, or changed Coca-Cola to Pepsi, or found the key to my car. One does not judge these events by value. Now it does not matter whether What we experienced was a miracle by the definition of his dictionary or not. The important thing is that I felt the effect of God. God got himself involved.
Jules thinks he has left behind religious experiences and is not interested in judging What happened on the basis of "value," or evidence. Thus, the discussion in the film about the nature of miracles and whether believing in the occurrence of miracles is rational is too short and insufficient to support the nature of miracles or the rationality of believing or not believing in them. For example, it does not seem that the source of the miracle must be God himself. For example, if Satan exists, is it not possible for him to do an evil deed that is contrary to the laws of nature? For example, shaking a tile on the ceiling to kill someone who is walking under it. Isn't this also a miracle? Besides, Can it be rational to believe in the occurrence of a miracle (at least in the case where the only available evidence is the testimony of one person)? Does anyone in Jules' position have the right to believe that not being shot was a miracle? Or is Vincent right that he thinks shooting them was a sign of luck? The popular story raises these questions, but makes no effort to answer them.
Tarantino's films are not directly philosophical, and the philosophy that runs through them is nothing more than the work of ancient Chinese philosophy in a kung fu film. However, one of the few cases in which Tarantino directly addresses a philosophical debate in his film is the debate over miracles and luck in popular fiction. Jules believes that not being hit by a bullet is a sign of a miracle and divine intervention, but Vince considers it merely a coincidence. Which one is right?
Another interesting philosophical question that the film raises is What it means to have morals, even if the morals we have are not right or logical. Vincent apparently follows a moral system in which loyalty is paramount, and throwing someone off the fourth-floor balcony for massaging your spouse's foot or killing someone who scratches on your car is a logical punishment.
There are views on the morality of having people, and according to all of these views, Vincent follows ethics. The English philosopher John Stuart Mill says of the concept of "wrong": "We only call something 'immoral' when we want to implicitly refer to a person who If he did, he should be punished somehow. If his punishment is not in the context of the law, then all his fellow human beings should punish him with their negative opinion of him. If the negative opinion of the others is not possible; His own conscience must bother him. "
Allan Gibbard has recently changed his mind about the concept of blame:
" When "To blame for doing something means to be rational if he has a guilty conscience and is angry about doing it." This means that if a person's mental state does not justify What he has done, he should be blamed for What he did. For example, if someone offers me condolences over the death of a loved one and I respond rudely, I may not deserve to be reprimanded for being too sad. But if I was in a normal state of mind and still talked to someone rudely, it could be said that I did something wrong and I deserve to be blamed. Apart from sadness, ignorance, anger, depression, extreme hunger or extreme tiredness Can also justify bad deeds. In general, it is thought that sometimes being in a state of emergency or lack of awareness of certain things Can justify wrongdoing. He does not always overlap with an act that we consider immoral, with an act that is illegal in our opinion. For example, if someone parked their car in the wrong place, we might think they deserve to be fined legally, but someone does not consider their work "immoral."
Let's assume that it is necessary to have It is ethical to make moral judgments. That is, if there were circumstances in which it was permissible to judge someone's morals, we would do so. According to Gibbard's theory, Vincent is a moral person if he judges those who have done evil; In the sense that in the eyes of that person should have a torment of conscience and the rest should be angry at him. For example, if that person massages his feet or draws a line on someone's car without his wife's permission, there is no acceptable justification for his work and according to his mental state. Although Vincent never speaks directly to show that some people think he should have a guilty conscience and others should be angry with him, he approves of his boss's job (throwing someone from the fourth floor of the building to massage his wife's foot). . . - .
. . . (R.M. Hare) (Universal Prescriptions) . . ( ) . .
. . . .
. . .
. (Universal Prescriptivism) . .
. . . . : . . - .
(David Hume) . :
(Self-love) . . . . .
. . . .
Source: Quentin Tarantino and PhilosophyTags: what, subject, tarantino, films, can, moral, lesson, learned, m