<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ETS 3.1- Where I Disagree with James Spiegel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://afcmin.org/ateam/278/ets-31-where-i-disagree-with-james-spiegel/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://afcmin.org/ateam/278/ets-31-where-i-disagree-with-james-spiegel</link>
	<description>Helping plans come together, one post at a time</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 03 May 2015 14:00:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.9</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://afcmin.org/ateam/278/ets-31-where-i-disagree-with-james-spiegel/comment-page-1#comment-1120</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2005 03:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=278#comment-1120</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#039;ve seen  asked about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rpdynamite.com/2005/11/02/jessica-alba-wonders-about/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;elsewhere&lt;/a&gt;,  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&#039;t think they were chummy and open to letting Nazi soldiers and planes operate willy nilly.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.<br />
As an aside, and something I&#39;ve seen  asked about <a href="http://www.rpdynamite.com/2005/11/02/jessica-alba-wonders-about/" rel="nofollow">elsewhere</a>,  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&#39;t think they were chummy and open to letting Nazi soldiers and planes operate willy nilly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://afcmin.org/ateam/278/ets-31-where-i-disagree-with-james-spiegel/comment-page-1#comment-1119</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 05:34:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=278#comment-1119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for the insight Tyler. I will be watching it one of these days, since I&#039;m going through my friend&#039;s DVD library (some 250) and watching many movies I haven&#039;t seen yet. I&#039;ll keep your comments in mind when I eventually get to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the insight Tyler. I will be watching it one of these days, since I&#39;m going through my friend&#39;s DVD library (some 250) and watching many movies I haven&#39;t seen yet. I&#39;ll keep your comments in mind when I eventually get to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://afcmin.org/ateam/278/ets-31-where-i-disagree-with-james-spiegel/comment-page-1#comment-1118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2005 04:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://afcmin.org/ateam/?p=278#comment-1118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Having seen both films and unashamedly believing that &lt;em&gt;Raiders&lt;/em&gt; is the superior film -- Tarantino is someone whose films I generally appreciate rather than enjoy, though &lt;em&gt;Pulp Fiction&lt;/em&gt; has grown on me -- I think Spiegel has an interesting point. What is interesting is that &lt;em&gt;Pulp Fiction&lt;/em&gt; takes some of the comic-book or pulp violence found in films like &lt;em&gt;Raiders&lt;/em&gt; 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 &lt;em&gt;Pulp Fiction&lt;/em&gt; 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&#039;t want to spoil the movie any further.
Many people do not get past the violence, language, etc. of &lt;em&gt;Pulp Fiction&lt;/em&gt; and I can understand that -- I couldn&#039;t the first time I saw the film. Those components of the film create a difficult barrier to see through to the redemptive stories. &lt;em&gt;Pulp Fiction&lt;/em&gt; does not present a black and white world, but redemption does exist for its inhabitants.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Having seen both films and unashamedly believing that <em>Raiders</em> is the superior film &#8212; Tarantino is someone whose films I generally appreciate rather than enjoy, though <em>Pulp Fiction</em> has grown on me &#8212; I think Spiegel has an interesting point. What is interesting is that <em>Pulp Fiction</em> takes some of the comic-book or pulp violence found in films like <em>Raiders</em> 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.<br />
I believe <em>Pulp Fiction</em> 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&#39;t want to spoil the movie any further.<br />
Many people do not get past the violence, language, etc. of <em>Pulp Fiction</em> and I can understand that &#8212; I couldn&#39;t the first time I saw the film. Those components of the film create a difficult barrier to see through to the redemptive stories. <em>Pulp Fiction</em> does not present a black and white world, but redemption does exist for its inhabitants.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
