The source I have chosen to use is Peter and Will Brooker's article Pulpmodernism: Tarantino's Affirmative Action, taken from Pulping Fictions: Consuming Culture across the Literature/Media Divide.
The keyword I have selected is Kaplan's Identity Pp.123-127.
Brooker and Brooker's article covers both the positive and explores negative views of Tarantino's work. It is a solid base for examining his work and trying to grasp an understanding of postmodernity when exploring notions of identity with relation to the characters.
Kaplan mentions W.E.B. Du Bois's 'double conciousness' which is important when looking at the dualities of Tarantinos characters and their changing attitudes throughout the narratives, though the non-linear aspect of Tarantino's allows for multiple angles for interchangable stories. Kaplans notion of 'Identity Politics' is interesting considering the postmodern aspect of my focus with characters playing roles they see as required.
Questions to consider regarding this presentation could be; how are the identities of Tarantino's characters potentially postmodern? What is the difference between a gangster and someone playing a gangster? And how/why do dualities and double conciousness define or alter characters identities?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(Since I haven't been in Winchester since Monday afternoon, I'm unable to collect/see the article until first thing Thursday - however, I'll do my best with the questions 'blind' and based on Kaplan mostly)
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in Kaplan's reference to Du Bois as I've always thought that the double consciousness was a warring duality; in effect a foot in both camps but often with a struggle to justify the whole, either self identified or seen by others...so I'm not sure how that plays into Tarantino's characters...
With Kaplan's piece I can see where there could be a tie-in with Tarantino's films as far as performativity and "ready made subjects" as from what I've (briefly) seen, Tarantino seems to play with his characters.
To turn the questions back - as far as the postmodern, is he perhaps asking us to check if he means these characters in the obvious way they come across? And someone playing a gangster is more overtly stylised, giving those filmic signifiers which we all (sometimes unconsciously) see? From what Olly has said previously, some characters seem to come across as a straight identifiable character but have a quirky or flip side to their nature which has you questioning your own ideas of identification - but I'm interested to hear more about double consciousness in the presentation perhaps!