The Soviets and other totalitarian systems had a societal vision too, for the “betterment of all,” and in the name of ideology, they recommended the sort of censorship Roy Chacko’s article seems to be recommending for Tarantino’s work.
theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/…
theguardian.com/film/2019/jul/…
“This” meaning Tarantino’s films, “has to stop,” Chacko says. Exactly how does one stop an artist from expressing himself, however vile someone else may find that artistic vision?
This sort of call to censorship in a newspaper, no less, is the height of ironic hypocrisy. Might be online, but it’s still the damn @guardian!
Rhames who was raped in Pulp Fiction, or @chris_waltz in Inglorious Bastards, or the guy who got eaten by dogs in Django.
Tarantino is boring, derivative, and one-dimensional. It’s violent B-movies with better production values and A-listers as stars. It’s celluloid pulp fiction, no pun intended.
Even if Tarantino does suck and does glorify violence against women, men, minorities, repentant Nazis, or whatever, censoring him or suggesting he be stopped is NEVER the answer, although it’s all too frequently suggested by left and right these days.
Educate people, give them alternatives, cultivate higher standards, make them see through Tarantino, if you’re not into him, but do not suggest he or any artist be stopped, because he or she offends any current or past sensibility.
Freedom of expression is about defending the rights of expression for those whose messages we find abhorrent and it cannot ever be compromised. A truly free society always errs on the side of expression, not censorship. 
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
