@mrjyn

mrjyn dailymotion videos

8.04.2010

QUENTIN TARANTINO KINKY FOOT FETISH discussion


QUENTIN TARANTINO

KINKY

FOOT FETISH 

discussion

Incidentally, I wonder what this still from “Go Go Tales” by Abel Ferrara says about his psyche…


So when Michael Haneke makes a film about incest, sadomasochism, pornography and has his lead actress draw a used tissue from the bin in a porno booth, he’s an artist.
When Q.T. expresses sexual fetishes in films that obviously aren’t intended to be sophisticated arthouse, and he is bold enough to ADMIT they are HIS fetishes, not just those of characters he directs and plays, he’s a nasty person and a pervert.

What friggin’ bullshit some people talk.

The biggest joke? This thread should be about someone like Catherine Breillat, not Quentin Tarantino.

If there is anymore evidence required “cultured European” filmmakers get a free pass and Q.T. cops the abuse on this forum, this is it.

Are people so vanilla, they can’t even accept WOMEN’S FEET as attractive?

Women WANT you to find their feet attractive…why do you think they wear those high heels and open toed shoes with the forty dollar pedicure and glitter polish?

To impress their elderly Aunt Zelda?

Am I lying?




Maybe this is why so many men fail to impress women: they’re all about tits and arse. I guarantee you if you kiss a woman’s soles it’ll excite the hell out of her…unless she’s a boring stale prude who has no feeling in her body from her toenail to her scalp.
And take a quick look at your hands and feet: fingernails get dirtier more quickly and easier than your toenails!
Also, think about the millions of germs inside a woman’s mouth…hmmm?
Ever see “Belle Du Jour”? Oh, sorry, LUIS BUNUEL gets a free pass, because he’s artsy, you know…he has Catherine Deneuve tied up, flogged and soiled with mud. He even has an inexplicably high number of shots depicting WOMEN’S FEET walking around shown in the film (a fact noted even by the biggest fans of this film and his work in general).
And I’ve got enough steel in my balls to defend something nobody else has defended in particular: golden showers. You folks probably don’t know, maybe don’t WANT to know, but a woman ejaculates (and can do so forcefully, if she’s talented enough) vaginal fluid from her urethra, the same small orifice through which she urinates. So when you’re going down on a lass, all that fluid is coming from you-know-where. And if she happens to relieve her bladder while you’re down there, don’t fret, that means she REALLY likes you.
I think you all need to stop dating uptight girls, really.
DEN:
If this thread doesn’t get “moderated” for your welcome visual contribution, you must walk on water.

The full clip is available online; I saw this at the cinema, and it just struck me as one-upping the scene with the woman and the canine in “The Real Blonde”. No big deal in my opinion. After all, it’s not like Asia Argento ate a DOG TURD, right?
Why, thank you for your endorsement, Kyle!
Now all I have to do is overthrow the Queen and make Australia a republic, and…
Actually, I have enough trouble getting elected for local council. My city is so vanilla.
“So when Michael Haneke makes a film about incest, sadomasochism, pornography and has his lead actress draw a used tissue from the bin in a porno booth, he’s an artist.”
Ummmm… yeah!
Haha, Fandorin…
Fandorin, cutting a clip of a real pornographic film into your movie and having a catatonic middle aged women inhale a tissue she’s pulled from the bin doesn’t make you an artist, it makes you “desperate” for a “shocking” moment. That doesn’t exite me, it doesn’t shock me, it just makes me wanna twirl my finger in the air all hom-hum like.
Things like this are pornography for repressed wankers who don’t have the guts to walk into a real porno cinema or share these kinks with another real human being, so they head for the arthouse instead and “project” onto a character with all these kinky fetishes in a “respectable” arthouse film.
Film Buff #1: What did you see?
Film Buff #2: “The Piano Teacher”. What about yourself?
Film Buff #1: I saw Q.T.’s latest film.
Film Buff #2: Oh, I can’t stand him, he’s SUCH a pervert! He is ALWAYS projecting his dirty kinks into his films!
…Irony?
Jarrod, don’t laugh at his non-humour. I find it funnier you are grossed out by something as benign as women’s feet.


And the point stands, Jarrod: this thread should be about Catherine Breillat and others moreso that Q.T.
No, no irony, because you just made that up ; )
So by that rationale Taxi Driver is for people who don’t have the guts to shoot some pimps?
The Piano Teacher is a character study. There is nothing pretentious or wannabe-shocking about it, it just shows you a person. You can judge this person however you like. Haneke has clearly made more shocking films and if you are that upset about himI shudder to think what character traits you might “discover” in Noé…
And unlike some other esteemed members of this site, Mark, I was not trying to be funny ; )
Marl your misunderstand the entire point of this thread…i don’t in anyway find women’s feet to be gross, i just find the fact that Tarantino displays what he finds to be arousing for no other reason than the fact that he is aroused by it. Example, Jackie Brown, he had bridget Fonda in a bathing suit but focused entirely on her feet.
I find feet pretty gross, but that’s just me. I’m also afraid of roller coasters.
Fandorin: it’s a hypothetical Q and A argument based upon the attitudes expressed by yourself and others like you.
There really are people out there, F.S., who will defend Haneke and bash Tarantino for the same reasons they like Haneke. And vice versa. It takes diff’rent strokes to move the world. F.S.
But if you want to pretend a similar conversation could never or hasn’t taken place, knock yourself out.
F.S. said:
“So by that rationale Taxi Driver is for people who don’t have the guts to shoot some pimps?”
F.S., now you’re talking B.S. and being totally ignorant.
The world is FULL of people who use movies as a catharsis. I’m not saying films MAKE people go out and shoot folks, ‘cause if they wanna do that, they’ll do it, movie or no movie. However, a film CAN be a catharsis for some people.
I have a friend (who shall remain nameless) who gets VERY worked up at these sorts of films (and yes I do worry about him a little). he even yelled out, at the end of “Dirty Harry”, and I quote:
“DIE, YOU RAPIST BASTARD!”
In a crowded cinema full of about 400 people, F.S. After some films the guy will be shaking and almost weeping. And he knows martial arts too, so if someone upset him, he wouldn’t screw around.
Beside that though, he’s a lovely guy.
F.S., I’ve met plenty of seemingly normal people who see these sorts of films and say “I wish I had the guts to kill those scumbags”.
You think people who watch violent movies for catharsis don’t exists? Guess again. Not every person, but a lot do…even ones who would never go around shooting pimps, it’s still possibly cathartic for them.
And believe me, for SOME people, if they could, they would. That’s the thin line that separates people from thinking and doing, F.S. Obviously you have no idea how a disturbed mind works, which is why you buy into the “reality” of Michael Haneke (insert wink here).
But I guess you never heard of Wade Frankum or others of his type, F.S., so you are welcome to live in your fantasy world.
Something else to ponder:
What’s the bigger difference?
a) Watching a porno film or watching “The Piano Teacher”?
b) committing murder or watching “Taxi Driver”?
Less difference between the two in example A. People get much closer to living out their fantasies with “The Piano Teacher”. People don’t even come close with “Taxi Driver”, but it can be cathartic. You’d be surprised.
EVERYBODY defends “Piano” as a character study. That’s a pretentious wank right there.
Never said I was shocked by him, F.S. Learn how to read. I find Haneke’s “Piano” superficial and ho-hum. He’s a try-hard shock artist and that’s boring and laughable. What I am saying though, is if people find Q.T. shocking, so too, should they find Haneke disturbing.
And I’m not the one who finds women’s feet disgusting, F.S. I thought that was the topic. So if you’re going to have a laugh, maybe aim it at people who are too insecure to accept a normal human body.
I don’t have that problem.
I thought you guys would get a kick out of this. It’s Tarantino on the Tyra Banks show touching women’s feet and “rating” them.
Jarrod said:
“yeah but being into girls butts is ok…but a foot, choking, and pee fetish? I love Tarantinos flicks but the dude just seems like one nasty mofo…”
Okay, so you said it yourself…

Gut, jah? (Welcome to the thread, Katja Kassin…Fandorin-San, if you were any kind of patriot, you would’ve beaten me to it)


Bad, no?
So an arse fetish is good, a foot fetish is bad. I’m only going on what you said.
And my point STILL stands: why pick on Q.T.?
Between the several hundred people on these forums, and all the directors discussed, the biggest offender we can find is Q.T.?
Get real. What about Pedro Penelope-Ben-Dovar, Catherine Breillat, et al?
Re-read my Jolie picture post. It says it all.
I haven’t seen the films in question so maybe I shouldn’t comment, but it seems to me that just because Quentin will showcase a woman’s foot from time to time doesn’t make him a pervert. I have seen some of his earlier films and films he wrote that were directed by others that could easily lead a person to believe he is racist. I don’t think he is, particularly when you look at some of his casting choices. Now getting back to the question of feet and pee and whatever other nonsense he throws into his conversations, they are just that, subject matter and nothing more. For the record, I feel there is no part of the female body that isn’t beautiful and just as subject matter.
I love it how angry you become right away… But no pictures this time, what’s the matter? EDIT: Oh, there is a picture. I apologize…
As for the Taxi Driver thing, I simply took what you said and exaggerated it. Reducing a shocking element in a film to supressed personal desires of the viewer or filmmaker is, for lack of a better word, stupid.
You clearly understand what I wanted to say, but if you’d rather tell one or two of your amusing anecdotes, be my guest…
“Obviously you have no idea how a disturbed mind works, which is why you buy into the “reality” of Michael Haneke (insert wink here).”
The novel was written by Elfriede Jelinek, who is an acclaimed Austrian novelist and winner of the Nobel Price for literature (yes, I know, that’s not saying anything, just a bunch of snobs giving out awards etc, spare me…). Haneke is a renowned filmmaker and his work is admired by a lot of people (on this site and in the world). Clearly all of them have no idea how a disturbed mind works and all live happily in a shared dreamworld.
“EVERYBODY defends “Piano” as a character study. That’s a pretentious wank right there.”
Why? It is a character study. Just like Die Hard is an action film. What’s your point?
“And I’m not the one who finds women’s feet disgusting, F.S. I thought that was the topic.”
Listen, you brought Haneke into this discussion. So don’t act like it was me or someone else who went off-topic all of a sudden.
Try to contain your anger, if you can, but if you don’t have anything constructive to say, please don’t, because I don’t feel like turning this into a ping-pong game.
Quentin likes feet; big deal. I’m not into feet sexually, but I like hips. If I ever become a director (not likely), I’m going to linger over the female hip like nobody’z biznizz, and then I’m going to crawl over to this site so I can read a thread about how I’m a perv for hips, not an artist.
And with that…the Phantom departs.


I just saw the youtube clip Liubei posted and I stand corrected.


See what i mean Strawdawg? I don’t find what he does as being exactly nasty, just completely unnecessary. I feel like the only reason he does it is for the gratification of himself and nothing more.




i think that picture was taken in a sushi bar in hollywood. I mean how can you say thats not perverted, to be sucking toes in public, and getting off on it.


Although I possess a general lack of enthusiasm for the man’s films, I have no issues with Tarantino projecting his fetishes and desires onto his cinema.


Jarrod: What kind of fetish do you have? If you were a filmmaker (and a successful one at that), wouldn’t you put forth some of those fetishes in your work? I’m convinced if I ever made a film, the lead actress will definitely wear black-rimmed glasses at some point.


Well I do have fetishes, but I don’t think I would be able to display my favorite one in my movies…but on the note of black rimmed glasses, I thought I was the only one that had that fetish, haha. But yeah I suppose I would also work in a woman with black rimmed glasses…


According to Freudian theory, only MEN can be fetishists. Based on my life experience, I would have to disagree.
What do the rest of you think?


I hope you excuse my curiosity regarding your above statement Dr. Tomasula. oh my!


Some people like feet – QT shoots them in an interesting way that ads artistically if you agree. When you see a woman’s bare feet in his movies I often get the feeling of how vulnerable they are (the women, not the feet). I commend him for being able to draw on sexuality of women without objectifying them (not that there’s anything wrong with a little objectification).


Frank, PhD. – I’ve read Freud ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ and I never got the impression he was saying only men can have fetishes. Even if he WAS saying it I would completely disagree.
I can see both sides of this – is it really necessary for QT to live out his fetishes publicly in his films? Does it add to the quality of the film?
But I also think society has a double standard – women or gays explore fetishes, they’re ‘empowered’. Straight men explore fetishes and they’re degenerate perverts. It seems the standard liberal platitude of ‘whatever turns you on, as long as you don’t hurt anybody’ doesn’t apply to straight males.

Popular Posts

Dogmeat Page Facebook