Re: Tarantino and J.D. Salinger
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@geocities.com)
Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:22:01 +1000
> My mistake. I got distracted by your Warhol allusion. Warhol never ripped
off
> anything. He simply gave common everyday articles a new context and
> juxtaposition. I was under the impression that you had a fawning and
ebullient
> attitude towards Tarantino ...or do you, even though he just rips other
people
> off?
Why is what Tarantino does any different to what Warhol did? Both took
pre-existing things and recontextualised them to give them a different
meaning - it doesn't matter whether it was a picture of Marilyn Monroe or a
*film* by Marilyn Monroe, it's still the same thing. It's a new way of
following the Eisenstein concept of montage (that is, things only gain
meaning when juxtaposed with other things - therefore a hand knocking on a
door, a woman screaming and a shot of a graveyard make a narrative, while
the three images separately do not) - except the montage is formed from
pre-existing materials. 'm not fawning towards either man, although I
admire their work enormously. I'm sure they are/were both prize assholes in
real life
Anyway what has all this got to do with Salinger ??? (:
Camille
verona_beach@geocities.com
@ THE ARTS HOLE
www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/6442
THE INVERTED FOREST
www.angelfire.com/pa/invertedforest