Until today I had been so alienated by the idea of a feature about serial killers that I wouldn't watch "Natural Born Killers" but I did it today based on a recommendation from Cat. What I discovered was the most profound statement against the death penalty I've ever seen or heard.
Perhaps you think Tarantino made the movie to demonstrate the need to execute such people, that they're so incredibly-damaged there is no chance of rehabilitation so there's no option but to execute them. However, in Tarantino's own words: "I find serial killers so foul that, in my heart, I wish they could just be executed. The trouble with that is that it's making me go against what I believe in."
Tarantino also said he became sick of Mickey and Mallory pretty quickly. From that I take that after creating the demon, he had to see it through. Nevertheless, the result, in my view, was the best and most powerful piece of work I've ever seen from him and I already regarded him as brilliant. Dismissing his work as mindless violence is a failure to think about what motivated him to do it.
He said he didn't know if his disgust with serial killers and his wish he could execute them worked its way into the story. What I saw was a vivid portrait of two people without the faintest compunction against killing but at the same time with a profound and committed love for one another. The love did not appear to be based on their mutual desire to kill people but rather, as Mickey said, it was Fate. Tarantino went to, what appeared to me, great lengths to demonstrate what damaged them so much they could start acting as they did and, overall, I saw the treatment as highly-sympathetic.
How much of Tarantino's story remained after Oliver Stone's edits is something only they can know but Tarantino said, "It's not going to be my movie, it's going to be Oliver Stone's, and God bless him. I hope he does a good job with it. If I wasn't emotionally attached to it, I'm sure I would find it very interesting. If you like my stuff, you might not like this movie. But if you like his stuff, you're probably going to love it. It might be the best thing he's ever done, but not because of anything to do with me. [...] I actually can't wait to see it, to tell you the truth." (WIKI: Natural Born Killers)
What I also took from the movie was a deep contempt for what is considered 'murder' as this falls anywhere between devastating rain forests, anonymous predator drone executions, state-sponsored executions, or, as most recently reported, a Syrian resistance fighter eating the heart of one of Assad's soldiers. (CNN: Video: Syrian rebel cuts out soldier's heart, eats it )
Note regarding this reference: I have not watched the video but the simple fact that CNN presents it further illustrates Tarantino's original point of a profound bloodlust both in the execution by the soldier and by those who choose to watch the video of the event.
Given the extraordinary flexibility the state shows in justifying killing, it really doesn't seem all that surprising that serial killers would see little difference between that and the murders they commit. While Tarantino is clear on his revulsion for serial killers, his treatment and that of Oliver Stone is ultimately sympathetic as they 'get away with it.' The last scene shows them some years after escaping from the prison and they're in an RV with their kids with Mallory highly-pregnant.
In my own opinion, the ending doesn't reflect what Tarantino would have done as I very much doubt he would have permitted them to get away with it. The reason Stone ended it that way was to demonstrate their victory over the blood lusting media as this freed them to live as they otherwise would have chosen. In my view, this is utter rubbish is it was clearly demonstrated that they were profoundly damaged before the media had anything to do with it and successfully executing a killing spree could not possibly serve to cure that.
As a symbol of the freedom we all might enjoy if the news media channels reverted to informational tools rather than sources of entertainment, the ending serves well but it provides no message of any value as to what society should do with serial killers now. One can only infer from the rest of the movie that they're too dangerous to ever go free but the ending creates some ambivalence about that. What I take quite clearly from the rest of the movie is that capital punishment only serves to feed the desensitization of people regarding killing and further incites killing rather than reducing it in any way.
Notwithstanding any satisfaction or the lack of it in the final scene, the movie as a whole is an extraordinary piece of work and I was stunned by it.
Reference: "Quentin Tarantino: Interviews" edited by Gerald Peary
Perhaps you think Tarantino made the movie to demonstrate the need to execute such people, that they're so incredibly-damaged there is no chance of rehabilitation so there's no option but to execute them. However, in Tarantino's own words: "I find serial killers so foul that, in my heart, I wish they could just be executed. The trouble with that is that it's making me go against what I believe in."
Tarantino also said he became sick of Mickey and Mallory pretty quickly. From that I take that after creating the demon, he had to see it through. Nevertheless, the result, in my view, was the best and most powerful piece of work I've ever seen from him and I already regarded him as brilliant. Dismissing his work as mindless violence is a failure to think about what motivated him to do it.
He said he didn't know if his disgust with serial killers and his wish he could execute them worked its way into the story. What I saw was a vivid portrait of two people without the faintest compunction against killing but at the same time with a profound and committed love for one another. The love did not appear to be based on their mutual desire to kill people but rather, as Mickey said, it was Fate. Tarantino went to, what appeared to me, great lengths to demonstrate what damaged them so much they could start acting as they did and, overall, I saw the treatment as highly-sympathetic.
How much of Tarantino's story remained after Oliver Stone's edits is something only they can know but Tarantino said, "It's not going to be my movie, it's going to be Oliver Stone's, and God bless him. I hope he does a good job with it. If I wasn't emotionally attached to it, I'm sure I would find it very interesting. If you like my stuff, you might not like this movie. But if you like his stuff, you're probably going to love it. It might be the best thing he's ever done, but not because of anything to do with me. [...] I actually can't wait to see it, to tell you the truth." (WIKI: Natural Born Killers)
What I also took from the movie was a deep contempt for what is considered 'murder' as this falls anywhere between devastating rain forests, anonymous predator drone executions, state-sponsored executions, or, as most recently reported, a Syrian resistance fighter eating the heart of one of Assad's soldiers. (CNN: Video: Syrian rebel cuts out soldier's heart, eats it )
Note regarding this reference: I have not watched the video but the simple fact that CNN presents it further illustrates Tarantino's original point of a profound bloodlust both in the execution by the soldier and by those who choose to watch the video of the event.
Given the extraordinary flexibility the state shows in justifying killing, it really doesn't seem all that surprising that serial killers would see little difference between that and the murders they commit. While Tarantino is clear on his revulsion for serial killers, his treatment and that of Oliver Stone is ultimately sympathetic as they 'get away with it.' The last scene shows them some years after escaping from the prison and they're in an RV with their kids with Mallory highly-pregnant.
In my own opinion, the ending doesn't reflect what Tarantino would have done as I very much doubt he would have permitted them to get away with it. The reason Stone ended it that way was to demonstrate their victory over the blood lusting media as this freed them to live as they otherwise would have chosen. In my view, this is utter rubbish is it was clearly demonstrated that they were profoundly damaged before the media had anything to do with it and successfully executing a killing spree could not possibly serve to cure that.
As a symbol of the freedom we all might enjoy if the news media channels reverted to informational tools rather than sources of entertainment, the ending serves well but it provides no message of any value as to what society should do with serial killers now. One can only infer from the rest of the movie that they're too dangerous to ever go free but the ending creates some ambivalence about that. What I take quite clearly from the rest of the movie is that capital punishment only serves to feed the desensitization of people regarding killing and further incites killing rather than reducing it in any way.
Notwithstanding any satisfaction or the lack of it in the final scene, the movie as a whole is an extraordinary piece of work and I was stunned by it.
Reference: "Quentin Tarantino: Interviews" edited by Gerald Peary
2 comments:
Food for thought, thank you!
I appreciate that you feel that. Thank you!
Post a Comment