Gregg Easterbrook might to take a week or two off. First came his well-thought out blog entry about rape, now he's awkwardly apologizing for anti-Semitic comments made earlier this week in his entry regarding "Kill Bill." The apology starts thusly:
Nothing's worse, as a writer, than so mangling your own use of words that you are heard to have said something radically different than what you wished to express. Of mangling words, I am guilty.
The passage to which he refers, from his October 13 blog entry (titled "Take Out the Gore and 'Kill Bill' is an Episode of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers'"), goes like this:
Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.
Slagging Easterbrook these days seems about as sporting as shooting those staked-down rabbits in Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit of the Year" contest, but he doesn't help his case with crap like that. Many were understandably pissed off at Mr. Easterbrook (Meryl Yourish had some choice words for him, despite agreeing with his take on Tarantino). The apology has satisfied a number of his critics, and if he says he's sorry for his ill-thought comments, or that they were part of a larger examination of how those with faith in God could rationalize profiting from movies glorifying violence, so be it. There are still plenty of dubious assertions in his October 13 entry to discuss:
All of Tarantino's work is pure junk.
This is how the piece begins. No hyperbole here. Nevertheless, we'll soldier on.
Set aside what ["Kill Bill"] says about contemporary Hollywood culture that the supposed liberal progressives of this city now ceaselessly mass-market presentations of butchering the helpless as a form of entertainment, even, as rewarding self-expression.
I'm trying to think of all the people killed in that movie and damned if I can come up with anyone who was "helpless" or (as he goes on to describe them later) "innocent." Uma Thurman's character is an ex-assassin, who goes after a bunch of other assassins, all of whom fight back pretty impressively. It's a minor nitpick, but he brought it up.
UPDATE: As kodi pointed out in the comments, there are a few of the honored dead who could certainly qualify as "innocent." I hadn't remembered them, so I'm clarifying here. I still don't agree that their deaths were at all "mass-marketed," however.
Next, Easterbrook attacks the supposed originality of Tarantino's screenplays:
Of course, the novelistic device may be used well or poorly, just as time-shifted cinema may be good or bad. Tarantino's out-of-sequence film moments are, uniformly, trite drivel.
Gregg's being redundant. I thought "all of Tarantino's work is pure junk?" All of them are, to an extent, non-linear as well. Maybe he's trying to make an exception of sorts for "Jackie Brown," because that film also kind of goes against his earlier statement that "all Tarantino has ever put on film" is preposterous violence.
I wonder if he's seen "Jackie Brown."
Tarantino must draw his prominence in Hollywood, and among film-buff culture, from the very fact of his phoniness. First, his career says that you can do nothing but wallow in preposterous violence--Hollywood's cheapest and least original aspect--and still be revered. Second, his career validates the idea that you can accomplish nothing at all in any meaningful sense and yet acquire fame. (emphasis Easterbrook's)
Because violence was never used in any other form of popular entertainment, ever, before Tarantino came along. Self-appointed custodians of cultural integrity really crack my ass up, especially those like Easterbrook - a guy who laments someone's use of violence to pander to Hollywood's vile instincts while writing an intermittently humorous football column liberally sprinkled with pictures of cheerleaders in lingerie and bikinis. Or those who assert that a director with an Oscar, a BAFTA, a Palme d'Or, a Golden Globe, an Independent Spirit Award, and the London, New York, and Los Angeles Critics Circle awards to his credit has accomplished nothing at all.
I'm not even that big a Tarantino fan, but Easterbrook comes across like the guy stole his girlfriend. That, or the guy is seriously jealous that a "hack" like Tarantino could enjoy such popularity while better, more serious "journalists" (like, say, Gregg Easterbrook) aren't afforded the recognition and adulation they deserve.
Disney's Miramax has been behind a significant share of Hollywood's recent violence-glorifying junk, including "Scream," whose thesis was that murdering your friends and teachers is a fun way for high-school kids to get back at anyone who teases them. "Scream" was the favorite movie of the Columbine killers.
And football was Henry Lee Lucas' favorite sport. Was there a point somewhere, aside from Gregg's inability to discern fact from fiction, I mean?
This is getting repetetive, but did Easterbrook watch "Scream?" The central theme was not that murder was an effective form of revenge against bullies, nice a fit as that might be into his Columbine theory.
Easterbrook gets to his anti-Semitic comments next, but by this point he's already proven himself to be completely bereft of credibility. He demonstrates his utter lack of understanding about the movies he's criticizing, and I'm not convinced he even watched "Kill Bill." His comments read like those of someone who checked out some reviews, watched the trailer, and - based on his prior experience with Tarantino's work - decided he was going to hate it.
Easterbrook should stick with "Star Trek" and swimsuit models, which are two subjects he seems to comprehend. And while I don't know where he stands these days with The New Republic, I'd just like to let them know I'm available. And I work cheap.
And I know movies better than Gregg f*cking Easterbrook.
NOTE: Lest anyone think I have some unnatural fixation on the guy, I should point out that his blog doesn't have a Comments feature, which is where annoying blather like this would normally go. That makes "Easterblogg" less a blog and more a column with no editorial control.
If you're counting the wedding party, I'd have to disagree, since we never actually *see* any of them getting attacked. Otherwise, to whom are you referring?
Yeah, the wedding party's a weird one. I was counting it, but it's your blog, so we'll knock it out. And it's totally possible that I'm misunderstanding or misremembering some of these.
I'm trying not to get too spoilish, so let me know if I need to clarify any of these. And like I mentioned, not all of these are deaths.
The guy at the bar with Go Go was probably innocent, and most likely helpless (buck teeth = helpless)
O-ren's mother appeared to be helpless, and I don't remember them saying anything about her not being innocent.
The American military guy riding in the car with the beauty contestants seemed fairly helpless, and may have been innocent.
The yakuza boss who mentioned O-ren's heritage seemed helpless enough, although you could chalk that one down to "outmatched" in the same way Pee Wee Herman wouldn't be "helpless" if he were in the ring with Mike Tyson.
The yakuza boss in bed seemed fairly helpless.
It seems to me the lawyer would have counted as helpless in the bar. The later acts probably doesn't count under your "not on screen" rule. It's possible to make a case for her being innocent in the "is it a crime?" sense, if not in the "What Would John Rambo Do?" sense.
Actions of a comatose woman who hadn't done anything wrong as far as those acting against her knew. (How graphic does this one have to be to count?)
Hattori Hanzo, like, totally threw something at his assistant's head, didn't he? Yeah, I think he did. (This is the trivial one.)
(Oh, just to clarify the math - I was counting all of them except the boss in bed as innocent, and all except Hattori Hanzo's assistant as helpless. Again, that's just what you could make a case for, given fairly inclusive definitions.)
(Oh, and I typed "Actions of a comatose woman" - that should read "Actions against a comatose woman.")
It was after I asked you to clarify that I remembered Go-Go's "friend" at the bar, so I'll definitely give you that one.
I'm iffy on the cartoon stuff. I could play lawyerball and say we never actually "saw" O-ren's mom...but nah.
I didn't get the impression the guy in the limo was innocent (and weren't those Mexican flags the motorcade was flying?), though that might be splitting hairs.
And since I stipulated innocent "or" helpless, I'm sticking to my guns on Boss Tanaka and the cartoon guy. Sophie...well, we did see her chatting on the phone while the Bride lay dying.
But good on ya, you were definitely right on two that I'd forgotten. I'll amend my entry to reflect that.
I think you're being overly nitpicky on the "contradictions" between "All of his work is crap" and the later exception. Speaking extemporaneously, I do that sort of thing all the time. I consider blogs in my the same vein and don't hold them to the standard that I would a published column or article.
As for the thrust of his argument, I'm more inclined to agree with Easterbrook than not. I really liked Resevoir Dogs and thought that Pulp Fiction was entertaining but perhaps the most overrated movie of the decade. While I don't have a real problem with bloody movies or violence, Tarantino's deployment of it is to a degree that once you scrape away at that and look at the actual plot, characters, and so on, there isn't my there there (IMO).
Fun bloody violent movies have their place, but I find it odd that Tarantino is credited for being a different kind of director when, at the least, I haven't seen it.
Yeah, I mean... Go Go's friend is definitely the best example. Everything else is further along the spectrum; I'd say most standards will give you 2-4 abhorrent acts against innocent, helpless people.
Does it strengthen Easterbrook's argument? Sure, if that argument is "depicting the suffering of fictional innocents is a moral wrong." That's a tough row to hoe.
Honestly, I think the best explanation for what went wrong in Easterbrook's screed is that he did not understand the movie, he does not understand movies, and he does not understand fiction. His analysis of Scream makes that pretty believable, if you ask me.
And now I've read his whole stupid thing three times, and I'm feeling kind of ill. Oddly, the sentence that gets me the most, every time through, is this: "The out-of-sequence technique Tarantino uses is praised as ingenious, yet every first-year film student is taught this device." Every time I start reading that sentence, I expect it to end in "Citizen Kane." And it never does.
Ironically enough, after watching Kill Bill, I didn't feel the slightest urge to butcher an innocent, helpless person. But after spending several hours thinking about Easterbrook's writings, it's the first thing on my mind.
As I said, I may have enjoyed "Kill Bill," but I certainly don't hold Tarantino in the upper pantheon of directors. I liked "Pulp Fiction" as well, but have found it doesn't hold up to repeat viewings. I suspect the same thing will be true of his latest.
Easterbrook has launched this offensive against movie violence before, I just happen to think (now, as then) that he's barking up the wrong tree. Tarantino's work has often favored style over substance, but it seems disingenuous to use him as the whipping boy for Hollywood's descent into the sewer. He's just the latest target.
Does Easterblogg really count as a weblog? My tendency has been to view blogs that don't enable comments as more like online diaries. In any event, it's linked from TNR's front page, and Easterbrook is senior editor there, which seems like it should require a little more accountability. If this is a personal effort, maybe TNR shouldn't host it.
I count it as a blog, because I tend to view all blogs as more like online diaries. Then again, I'm perfectly willing to accept that John Cage's 4'33" is music, so I probably don't count. As far as I'm concerned, blogs are fundamentally exercises in vanity; you can make more of them, but the barrier to entry is pretty low.
I agree with everything else you wrote on the topic, though.
Tarantino is a genre director and he seems content with that. My personal opinion is that he makes some entertaining movies on several different levels but his biggest contribution lately seems to be sparking interesting and dialogue on film and filmmaking with not only cineastes but with the general moviegoing public at large. This is no mean feat.
I think Reservoir Dogs was a fantastic film, especially in light of first films, and that his talent in the criminal genre was evident from that very first frame. However, I'm going to agree that Pulp Fiction is vastly overrated. Jackie Brown is his best work for me so far and most of the credit for that goes to Elmore Leonard. He gave him some great source material to work with and actually provided some more fleshed out characters to go along with his crime caper hijinks.
Kill Bill was a fun romp with a great soundtrack and some tremendous action. That's all I needed it to be, that's all I wanted it to be, and all of my expectations were met after it was all said and done. Volume 2 will go on my "must see" list for next year and I'm sure I'll enjoy that as well. I'm sure in February we'll all be talking about that film, this film, and how they both compliment or detract from each other. Again, that is Quentin's gift to us all.
Love the blog, by the way. Some nice insight and a truly hilarious commentary on the society we live in. I might just be a sucker for the Simpsons reference though.
Who you calling vain?
Oops, never mind.
And thanks for the kind words, Jeff. They come for the "cromulent," they stay for the chili. Or something.
Now Easterbrook has been fired by ESPN, and doing a search on Easterbrook returns nothing on their site. They have rendered him a non-person.
More quashing of dissent in John Ashcroft's America. Oops, Ashcroft wasn't even involved. We appear to have more to worry about from Disney/ABC/ESPN than John Ashcroft. Who'd a thunk that?
An opinion writer fired for writing his opinion. Nice going ESPN wankers.
ESPN fired Easterbrook because he insulted Michael Eisner, who just happens to be his boss. Whether Eisner actually ordered it or the network is just playing it safe remains to be seen. They're also probably a little leery of criticism so soon after the Limbaugh thing.
Easterbrook wasn't employed by the government, so saying he was fired for "dissent" is a little off the mark.
Mr. Block is right on the money, as Easterbrook has been unfairly and unjustly become a target for speaking the truth. He's been singled out by the Liberal Homo-Hebe Media.
According to reliable info from those patriots at www.JewWatch.com (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-controlledpress-folder.html), Michael Eisner is--get this--A JEW!!!
What more proof do you need that the Moneylenders of Israel (an offshoot of those in Zurich, natch) are in in collusion with the ESPN-Ashcroft-Rosicrucian-OPEC-Mafia bloc?
Dark times, my friends. Dark times indeed.
Depending on your definition of "innocent", I can think of up to 9 instances in the movie where there was some form of assault against a nominally innocent person. (One is trivial. Two are against the same person at different times. I'm counting instances, not people. A victim dies in 5 of the instances.)
I can also think of up to 9 instances where there was a successful, significant, assault without immediate provocation against someone who was not expected to be able to defend themselves. "Helpless" is even tougher to define, especially without getting spoilish. But I'd definitely stand by 6 of them pretty fiercely.