Fully agreed.
âThey think I should soften it, that I should lie, that I should massage,â the filmmaker said. âI would never do that when it comes to my characters.â
So Tarantinoâs basic argument is âauthenticityâ, showing his characters unvarnished racism. I get that - but for one, making films is not the same as
making documentaries. There is no greater demand on fictional characters to be authentic within their tale than necessary for the audience, the readers to believe in them. We need not the entire range of their personality facets to understand them, just what it takes to follow their trajectory within the narrative.
Relating to this, intersecting perhaps, is the question of what it takes to draw a racist, or a racist society. Tarantino uses the N word as shorthand, but is it supporting his narrative after the fifth, the 12th, the 50st time - or merely feeding his fixation on it? What are the 120 times in DJANGO supposed to achieve or prove?
And since Tarantino subscribes to a distinct 60s/70s creed of making independent entertainment films, isnât it odd that the directors and films he pays homage to often show a much more restrained use of this and similar language of profanity? Even if I pick out extreme examples, Russ Meyer films, or the SHAFT series, it would seem they all succeeded in bringing across their ideas without that amount of repetitive slurs Tarantino deems necessary half a century later.
Tarantinoâs use of the N word doesnât suggest to me a striving for authenticity. I feel itâs a schtick that may once have started out useful but long since turned into a travesty.
" Die Dosis macht das Gift " Paracelsus
Fully agreed.
And if he does not want to deny his characters that word - why does he always choose to depict only those kinds of characters anyway?
No, he thinks he is edgy and untouchable, and he wants to continue doing what he wants, ridiculously overrating himself.
And of course, he could not help embarassing himselfâŚ
And now that we stuffed our pockets letâs talk about cutting costs and jobsâŚ
He is an ego on legs.
Demanding nobody criticize him while openly declaring actors âweak sauceâ puts him dangerously close to the orange menace.
From the article:
Knight has just completed the script for the new James Bond movie. (When I ask him about this, itâs the only time he clams up. âI honestly canât say anything about it,â he says. âNot what stage itâs at, whether Iâve finished it, nothing. Letâs just say Iâm in the process. Iâm loving it, and donât feel any pressure. How could I? If I worry about it Iâm stuffed.â)
Weird they call it âcompletedâ when in the next line Knight is cited as not being able to say anything.
They probably mean a first draft.
Or they just donât have a clue.
Not a first and very likely not the last occasionâŚ
Guess âas deep as the graveâ = ânot very.â
Would he have wanted this?
âHis family kept saying how important they thought the movie was and that Val really wanted to be a part of this,â Voorhees told Variety. âHe really thought it was important story that he wanted his name on ⌠Despite the fact some people might call it controversial, this is what Val wanted.â
Supposedly Kilmer has been in touch with this project for a time already and his role has been written with him in mind. Did he really express a wish to play this as avatar? Phew, at least itâs not impossible. Actors will probably have to put respective passages into their contracts and last wills.
Kilmer doesnât strike me as typical candidate for a money grab publicity stunt though. So on balance itâs probably something heâd be okay with, especially since the production can use a little promo help from Kilmerâs name.
They do have it already, the studio and agencies just donât want that clause rememberedâŚ
Hereâs the thing, though: the assumption is that anything that looks like the actor is âgood enough.â Simulated Carrie Fisher, Peter Cushing, Val Kilmer are the same as the real thing because thereâs nothing an actor can add to the role through craft and inspiration and improvisation that you canât completely emulate by compiling a digital library of all the things theyâve done in past performances. Roger wouldâve raised his eyebrow here: raise AI Rogerâs eyebrow. Bette Davis wouldâve cried here: average together all her crying scenes and paste in something similar here.
If you buy into the idea you can be replaced after death, youâre admitting you can be replaced while alive, because youâre nothing more than the sum of your mannerisms and schticks.
All valid points. There will certainly have to be a reassessment of why and how a human performance is not the same as an AI simulation. Why do actors earn revenue when their likeness is used on toys or comics (when thereâs no âperformanceâ as such involved)? Why can Scarlett Johansson complain about ChatGPT using âherâ voice when it isnât hers?
We instinctively get these and further similar problems around AI use/abuse - but it will be a lot harder to put that grasp into civil laws that are up to a technology moving so fast and producing social change as it moves forward. Meanwhile, thereâs a generation now growing up that doesnât trust any photographic evidence any more. People who may possibly have no issue with AI because they never lived without it and they donât expect âauthenticityâ (in the sense of a ârealâ depiction) from their screens anyway.
Too many people still think that AI can do everything and better than human beings.
Itâs just a giant mix tape, folks (I want to scream into their faces), and if we donât contribute anything new in the next decades anymore, AI will remix the remixed and thatâs it.
But sure, in the arts itâs already been accepted with a shrug by the audience. The charts are filled with AI âperformersâ, music sounds like cobbled together with bits of past efforts. AI production entities get ready to flood the market with their âitâs only a toolâ-philosophy (although they really want to use that tool to substitute all other crafts).
Amazon soon might offer Bond films which are AI generated, tailored to the wishes of the audience (hey, would you like Bond to look like Connery, Moore, Brosnan or Craig? No problem, press enter!).