People use location as a language in films, and Quentin uses action as a language in his films. There's really not a lot of violence. It's more of an emotional beat than it is a physical beat.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think there's as much violence, in a way, as a scene with two women having a cup of coffee in a Ruth Rendell novel - in terms of emotional violence and the violence you can inflict with language - as there is in the most graphic kind of serial killer/slasher novel you can think of.
Violence is used to portray what happens in a film. It only helps portray the actors and what they do. I think it is more about the story, when you have something to play off of.
Physical violence is always a bore in films today. We don't see how much it hurts. We don't learn the true consequences of it.
It's not that the film is violent, it's that people have an issue with violence right now.
I don't think violence on film breeds violence in life. Violence in life breeds violence in films.
Mental violence is as bad as physical violence. You don't see that very often in movies, so it was a good subject to tackle.
When I use violence in a movie, it's just to express the power, the impact of it.
I think violence in a cinematic context can be, if handled in a certain way, very seductive.
Violence has been a part of films since the beginning of time. It's been a form of entertainment.
From the director's point of view, it's infinitely easier to do violence than to do a good dramatic scene.