already anticipated in my previous post on this subject that not all analysis of the star of Kill Bill match. For example, Mark Conard also makes a psychoanalytic reading of the film in his article "Kill Bill: Tarantino's Oedipal Play" (2007) but their interpretation is very different from Waites. Let's take the word
In Kill Bill Volume 1 "bride" goes from in a situation of absolute lack of power (bedridden in a coma) to acquire enough power to carry out his revenge. The cost of this transformation is the renunciation of her feminine nature. In the first step of this process should be pursued Hattori Hanzo sword (phallic symbol of power) which shows that for women the power to act like a man. But in doing so acts as an alienated, reveals his psychic deformity. Therefore all women in the film are powerful, but they all act as true psicópatas.El true power lies in the visually absent but omnipresent Bill, the father almighty pulling the strings of history from the shadows.
In Kill Bill Volume 2 everything changes. We went from a framing narrative in the genre of martial arts to a terse spaghetti western. The sword is no longer a decisive weapon. The star is lost at the beginning of the film. With it loses all its power and is buried alive by Budd failed (using a firearm loaded with salt). Before closing her casket gives you the option of being buried blind or with a flashlight and she picks up the torch (a symbol of enlightenment, wisdom, knowledge). Underground undertakes a mystical journey through a flashback that shows us his apprenticeship with the master Pai Mei. The first thing the teacher was making fun of his sword skills and teach them that their power and strength lay in their hands. She remembers (learn in a Platonic sense) does not need the sword (the symbol of masculinity) to be powerful. Can be without sacrificing their femininity, and without the mental strain that this repression generated. After the flashback "bride" uses his hands to break the coffin and leave the tomb. He is risen. Is able to wield power and be a woman at the same time (something that it was not possible before.) So in the next scene will know its first name: Beatrix Kiddo. Has regained its lost identity during the first of the films. The fight with Elle is resolved not by the sword, but with your hands. Beatrix tears the eye he had left and leaves tumbling in Budd's trailer. Completely blind, a symbol of blind servitude to a male conception of power (and Bill, his teacher). Beatix and does not serve anyone but herself, she has reconnected with her femininity, with its true nature. Is able to deal with Bill.
Kill the father means killing the power over us. To do this we must stop seeing him as a god, we must reject the images that we forged during childhood, we must humanize. This is what Tarantino does with Bill in the second movie. Shows him as a man with their traumas, their strengths and weaknesses. The viewer comes to sympathize with him. As with the father figure, as we mature we begin to see it as it really is and it can kill you: you lose your power over us. Once the Bill is demythologized (we see to prepare a sandwich for her daughter) is vulnerable and can kill Beatrix.
As Beatrix is \u200b\u200breunited with her identity and does not need the sword to kill Bill. When the sheaths his sword attacks with the case he brought, neutralizes the vagina penis in the battle, the woman as a woman beats a man. With her hands enough to break her heart (another master Pai Mei teaching only conveyed to her.) The film ends with Beatrix transformed into mother, but still be strong and powerful women always has been. Has managed to kill the father (male throw off the yoke) without the unhealthy and self-destructive consequences that Oedipus had to suffer. WORKING SETPOINT
- Which of the two interpretations (Waites, Conard) agree?
- Look for some new arguments to support their interpretation and hang it as a comment before Thursday 28 October.
0 comments:
Post a Comment