Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy by Richard Greene, K. Silem Mohammad Page B

us, if we still have such an obligation even after they harm us? Wouldn’t we then just have an obligation not to harm in any circumstance? And isn’t that just pacifism? Thus it seems that, if one wrongs us, we are morally permitted to seek revenge; the obligation not to harm has been lifted. 47
    Given that we have found no convincing argument against it, and have seen a convincing argument for it, it seems that revenge can be justified.

Are We Going Too Far?
    I can tell you with no ego, this is my finest sword. If on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut.
    —Hattori Hanzo, Kill Bill Volume 1

    So, it seems, western philosophy makes room for Tarantinian revenge. But perhaps Tarantino goes too far. fter all, with revenge, there is no limit to the punishment’s severity and its severity is determined by the avenger alone; this entails that the punishment could end up being much worse than the offender’s original crime. In Pulp Fiction , Lance tells Vincent that punishment for keying someone’s car should be death. “No trial, no jury, straight to execution.” In Jackie Brown , Louis kills Melanie in the parking lot of the Del Amo Mall because she won’t stop bugging him. (The final straw is her making fun of him for forgetting where he parked.) And such actions seem wrong.
    I tend to agree, and would suggest that revenge that “oversteps its bounds” in this way is not morally justified. So I offer my defense of revenge with this caveat: not all acts of revenge are morally justified, but revenge can be morally justified if the inflicted punishment reflects the original crime—in other words, if the punishment is “due.” But Tarantino’s films offer this caveat as well. I don’t think that the above examples are portrayed as praiseworthy. Notice also that, in Pulp Fiction , when it is suspected that Marsellus Wallace dropped Antwan Rockamore (a.k.a. Tony Rocky Horror) down four stories into a greenhouse for giving his wife a foot massage—even though Vincent suggests that Tony was “playing with matches” and should have expected to get burned (PF)—both Jules and Vincent acknowledge that he went too far.
    JULES: Now look, just ’cause I wouldn’t give no man a foot massage, don’t make it right for Marsellus to throw Antwan off a building into a glass motherfuckin’ house, fuckin’ up the way the nigger talks. That shit ain’t right. Motherfucker do that shit to me, he better paralyze my ass, ’cause I kill the motherfucker, you know what I’m saying?
    VINCENT: I ain’t sayin it’s right. But you sayin’ a foot massage don’t mean nothing, and I’m saying it does.
    Even though “undue punishment” is frowned upon, one might complain that Tarantino’s view seems to suggest that under certain circumstances the killing of innocents is morally justified. After all, Tarantino suggests through the voice of Hattori Hanzo:
    When engaged in combat, the vanquishing of thine enemy can be the warrior’s only concern. This is the first and cardinal rule of combat. Suppress all human emotion and compassion. Kill whoever stands in thy way, even if that be Lord God, or Buddha himself. ( Kill Bill Volume 1 )
    This quote is often attributed to Rinzai, “a ninth-century Chinese monk who developed a school of Buddhism that focused on ‘sudden enlightenment’” 48 and would seem to suggest the killing of innocents is justified if innocents stand in the way of due punishment. But I don’t think that Tarantino’s view really takes things that far (nor does the quote entail that one should). Beatrix does take this advice to heart when she fights the Crazy 88s, but this is only because the Crazy 88s are not innocent; they are sworn protectors of O-Ren. If they had simply refused to protect O-Ren she would have not touched them. (In fact, in the movie she offers this way out to Go Go, and in the original script she makes the same offer to Mr. Barrell—O’Ren’s #2 who doesn’t appear in