Quote:
Originally Posted by OLS
But see I DON"T buy what Tarantino says, he of all people should know what was in the briefcase,
since he freaking wrote it. Anyone else that wants to posit a theory can say that crap, but from
him it's just a copout.
|
I never bought the whole "soul" interpretation for what's in the briefcase, because then, how the hell would a bunch of douchbags like Brent and his friends get ahold of some bad@ss gangters soul? The lack of explaination for what is in the briefcase has never bothered me though, the movie is too brilliant on so many other levels for me to get bogged down into "what does it mean?" I think Tarantino is one director where it's dangerous to try to search for depth or symbolism. Pulp Fiction is one of my all time favorite movies, but honestly, Tarantino's ouevre is Pop art, pure style over subtance and sure, it is entertaining as hell, the craft and cinematography are streamlined and beautiful, and it has some of the most brilliant dialogue writing you'll ever see, but looking for depth and substance in a Tarantino film is like looking for depth and substance in a creme brulee dish; all that's there is a delicious layer of fluffy sweet entertainment. That's the big problem I had with Inglorious Basterds, it just seemed wrong to make such a fluffy, vapid revenge flick out something as terrible as the holocaust and WWII. Sure, it was good time, but I felt a little dirty afterward
