Wucher, J. (2015), “Let’s Get Into Character”: Role-Playing in Quentin Tarantino’s Postmodern Sandbox. J Pop Cult, 48: 1287-1305. [online]. Accessed 20 November 2021.
Word Count: 1,048 Words
The author of this article, Joshua Wucher, is a PhD in the English Department at Michigan State University, specialising in film and comics studies. His research interests include popular culture, film genre theory, specifically horror and superhero films. Joshua received his MA in Communication Studies from Baylor University. He currently works as an editorial assistant for the Journal of Popular Culture.
“Let’s Get into Character”: Role-Playing in Quentin Tarantino’s Postmodern Sandbox by Joshua is an article I consider important and relevant to my work. The article discusses postmodern cinema for contemporary filmmakers analysing the work of Quentin Tarantino, one director I genuine admire.
The article is divided into parts, Intertextuality and Nostalgia: Quentin’s reinterpretation of old movies with a mix of pop culture. Joshua defines his work and characters as pastiche. Getting Into Character: how Tarantino appropriates and intricately reconfigures generic styles to present new ideas. Playing with history: where Joshua analyses the Inglorious Basterds (2009) and Django Unchained (2012) films and talks about Tarantino’s cultural-historical recovery – where he tells a historical fact from the side of the oppressed and the oppressed wins that battle. I choose to analyse the first two pages of the article, the introduction, because it is an overall of the text. Joshua begins the article by mentioning the criticism Quentin Tarantino receives, such as lack o imagination, which refers to Frederic Jameson’s dilemma. Jameson state that artists and writers of the present cannot create new styles and worlds; everything has already been invented, and there is no “unique” creation anymore. He is an American literary critic, philosopher, and Marxist political theorist. He is famously known for analysing contemporary cultural trends, especially postmodernity and capitalism.
When I saw the author’s objection, I admit that it soon caught my attention because I already felt that way Frederic mentioned, thought that I would not be able to create something new. However, this text inspired me a lot, and it was fascinating to understand a little more about Tarantino’s work. Joshua’s analysis is didactic and explanatory, discusses essential points about postmodern work, and helps filmmakers to have a new vision of cinematographic art.
Joshua’s point in the article is to review and re-evaluate postmodern critique, and he validates his point by analysing Tarantino’s work. Jameson’s pronouncement delimits current artistic originality, meaning that artists today can only reproduce dead styles, when in fact, it is a generic reconfiguration that leads to creative films. Quentin is an innovative postmodern director. He appropriates and reworks film genres, in other words, he resignifies existing art. Joshua quotes postmodern philosophers and then analyses Quentin Tarantino’s work contradicting that statement to support his argument. For example, the author quotes a sentence from Jim Collins, where he points out that only an eclectic appropriation in itself is not individualising, but Quentin does not make an eclectic appropriation, he does collages. Quentin works with collages from his favourite film genres and creates unique visions to give a new look to that work he remarkably admires, he brings life to past films by his own eyes and a new story.
Tarantino’s creativity is most evident in his generic appropriation and transfiguration, his characters are clearly characters. The director insists that the viewer does not leave the viewer’s place. The viewer must understand that this is an audiovisual show. That is why these collages are so important; they refer the viewer to something they already know and then resignify. These intertextual appropriations oscillate between reference and true identity. In Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained, the nature of disguise and exploitation is clearer. His strategy confuses the audience by alluding to genre troops and then totally changing their experience against the traditional narrative form. He mixes fact and fiction, history and fantasy. Postmodern work can often contradict and break the cultural divide between low and high art to direct it towards something more significant. In the case of Quentin, he uses film to intervene in material history, he places his vision in the history of cinema.
To explain his points, Joshua mentions the films by Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. Anyone who has not seen the film may not understand the context of what is being told. However, I am analysing the introduction of the text where the author only mentioned the movie to explain his point. Throughout the article, Wucher explains in detail the parts and plot-important to his argument.
The way Joshua debates Frederic Jameson’s statement is very didactic and clear. That is precisely what caught my attention when I realised that the author mentioned a renowned name like Frederic and then debated on the subject and explained why he disagreed with his line of thought. Wucher managed to explain all his points very directly. The knowledge needed for this text is about the postmodern, cinema and Tarantino. However, by becoming familiar with just one of these three topics, the reader can understand what is being passed – which is a unique and inclusive way to write an article, as it makes the audience wider. Furthermore, the author cites around fifteen relevant references in his article, giving greater credibility and authority.
The article’s limitation is that Joshua only deals with Quentin Tarantino’s cinema to debate Jameson’s statement. He does not talk about postmodern cinema artists in general so that Tarantino can be an exception or the rule. The reader has to come to his conclusion. I believe that if only one person has done it differently, the argument itself is already wrong. However, I understand that what Frederic mentioned can often happen, but that is not the rule – that is the exception.
When I started to read the text, I saw myself divided. I did not agree with the criticisms made to director Quentin, but I also did not disagree with Frederic’s statement. However, Joshua managed to convince me that Jameson’s statement was wrong, especially regarding Quentin Tarantino. That gave me a lot of hope and inspiration for my future work. As I said on my blog home page, I love to resignify movies, I love to watch them and give them a new meaning, but until then, I only do it for myself, in my head, now I think it might be a new way for me to manifest my art.
marianasalek.uk 