ETS 3.1- Where I Disagree with James Spiegel
November 22, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Dr. Spiegel was kind enough to send his paper today, so I
can provide for you the example I took exception with. This has to do with
distinction #6- “a final distinction should be made between an artwork’s objective
content and an audience’s subjective response to that work.”
“Another example, this one moral in
nature, pertains to scenes from two films:
Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost
Ark and Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction. In the former there is a scene in which Indiana
Jones encounters an Arab wielding a long sword. The crowd parts in expectation of their battle. Exasperated, Jones pulls out a pistol and
causally shoots the Arab dead. At this
point, the audience viewing the film typically erupts in laughter. Consider now a scene in Pulp Fiction featuring John Travolta, who of course is every bit as
charming as Harrison Ford. Travolta’s
character, Vincent Vega, is conversing with a fellow hit man and their young
hostage, carelessly wagging his gun in the young man’s face. Suddenly the gun goes off in the man’s face
and he is killed. Vega’s response and
the ensuing situation are somewhat comical and at this point the film audience
again erupts in laughter. But here is
where the Christian catches himself and thinks, “I shouldn’t be laughing at
this.” It is also here that I have
known some Christians to walk out on the film.
But what usually goes unnoticed is that this scene is actually more
redemptive than the scene from Raiders
precisely because the latter elicits a self-rebuke for laughing at the death of
a human being. So here we have a case
in which the response of many (most?) Christians is superficial and overly
subjective and fails to take adequate account of the objective features of an
art work.”
I haven’t seen Pulp Fiction, but I don’t think this
disqualifies me from legitimately disagreeing here. While I wouldn’t have
justification to say Raiders of the Lost Ark is a morally superior film
(though I suspect it is), I believe I can make the case that it is (in general)
objectively moral and especially so in the particular scene in question (or
perhaps that the scene is morally ambiguous).
Perhaps the most compelling reason is that Indiana Jones is
a clear “good guy” in opposition to clear evil. While his motivations for doing
good may or may not be adequately justified, he is the one person who has the
ability to frustrate the plans of the evil Nazis. In this scene in Raiders
of the Lost Ark, the Arab is an obstacle to Jones’s progress toward his
end. He is therefore morally justified in his killing of the Arab, whether
through a grueling battle or quickly ending his life with one shot.
Furthermore, the scene itself, as with many scenes in
the Indiana Jones series, easily falls within the category of comedy. It brings
to mind cultural motifs of great duels between enemies, and shatters the motifs
by ending the duel quickly in an unconventional manner. The comedy of the scene
has less to do with the Arab’s death than it has to do with the portrayal of the
“great duel.” The audience (Christian and non-Christian) laughs because their
expectations are undermined. Thus, this scene is not objectively morally
deficient because the death of the Arab swordsman is morally justified and the
humor is not in his death but in the iconoclastic nature of the event.
Related posts:
- ETS 3: James Spiegel on Ethics and Art
- ETS 2006- James Spiegel: The Epistemic Ramifications of Behavior
- Book Review: The Benefits of Providence by James Spiegel
- Interview with James Spiegel
- Book Review: The Making of an Atheist by James Spiegel
- ETS 2008 – James Spiegel “Free Will and Soul Making”
Posted in Ethics, Main Page, Philosophy
content rss
November 21st, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Having seen both films and unashamedly believing that Raiders is the superior film — Tarantino is someone whose films I generally appreciate rather than enjoy, though Pulp Fiction has grown on me — I think Spiegel has an interesting point. What is interesting is that Pulp Fiction takes some of the comic-book or pulp violence found in films like Raiders and gives perhaps more accurate portrayals of the physical effects of such acts. Both films can be criticized, however, for desensitizing us to violence. But I digress.
I believe Pulp Fiction is gratuitious in many aspects. It does celebrate rather evil behavior, but to only see that celebration, is to miss a huge story arch: namely that the film contains several narratives of redemption. These stories of redemption are far and away stories of people leaving lives of violence. Jules walks away from being a hitman; Butch walks away from boxing and reconciles to a certain and twisted degree with his enemy Marsellus after they tried to kill each other. There are others, but I don't want to spoil the movie any further.
Many people do not get past the violence, language, etc. of Pulp Fiction and I can understand that — I couldn't the first time I saw the film. Those components of the film create a difficult barrier to see through to the redemptive stories. Pulp Fiction does not present a black and white world, but redemption does exist for its inhabitants.
November 22nd, 2005 at 12:34 am
Thanks for the insight Tyler. I will be watching it one of these days, since I'm going through my friend's DVD library (some 250) and watching many movies I haven't seen yet. I'll keep your comments in mind when I eventually get to it.
November 22nd, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Great post Roger. I very much agree with you. I agree somewhat with Tyler, that there are redemptive moments in Pulp Fiction; less so in other Tarantino movies. I think one key distinction consistent with your analysis is that violence in a movie makes sense if the violence serves a larger story. That is why I can say that the violence in Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart were legitimate, because they served something bigger than the violence itself. With Tarantino, despite some redemptive moment, it seems to me that violence IS the message and the larger story.
As an aside, and something I've seen asked about elsewhere, how is it the Nazis were operating in Egypt in the 1930s? The Brits had Egypt then, and, while not yet at war with the Nazis, I don't think they were chummy and open to letting Nazi soldiers and planes operate willy nilly.