Baudelaire, Balzac, Dumas, Delacroix & Hugo Get a Little Baked at Their Hash Club (1844–1849)

Club des Hashischins

Hôtel de Lauzun, the meet­ing place of the Club des Hachichins

It may be cliché to say so, but there does seem to be a strong cor­re­la­tion between exper­i­ments with mind-alter­ing chem­i­cals and some of the most intrigu­ing exper­i­ments in lit­er­ary style. Samuel Tay­lor Coleridge, Arthur Rim­baud, William S. Bur­roughs, Hunter S. Thomp­son…. Of course, it is nec­es­sary to point out that these tal­ent­ed writ­ers were already that—talented writers—substances or no. As one of Rim­baud’s mod­ern chil­dren, Pat­ti Smith, declares, drugs are “not real­ly how one access­es the imag­i­na­tion. It can be a tool, but when that tool starts to mas­ter you, you’ll lose touch with your craft.”

This seems to have hap­pened to Smith’s lit­er­ary idol. One of Rimbaud’s lit­er­ary heroes, Charles Baude­laire, also even­tu­al­ly suc­cumbed to his exces­sive use of lau­danum, alco­hol, and opi­um. But at one time, Baude­laire dab­bled with a much less destruc­tive drug, hashish, along with a coterie of oth­er artists, includ­ing Alexan­dre Dumas, Gérard de Ner­val, Vic­tor Hugo, Hon­oré de Balzac, and painter Eugène Delacroix. The French greats gath­ered in a goth­ic house, from 1844–1849, under the moniker Club des Hachichins and par­took of the drug, intro­duced to it by med­ical doc­tor Jacques-Joseph More­au and writer and jour­nal­ist Théophile Gau­ti­er. Writes The Guardian:

…rit­u­al­is­ti­cal­ly garbed in Arab cloth­ing, they drank strong cof­fee, lib­er­al­ly laced with hashish, which More­au called dawamesk, in the Ara­bic man­ner. It looked, report­ed the mem­bers, like a green­ish pre­serve, its ingre­di­ents a mix­ture of hashish, cin­na­mon, cloves, nut­meg, pis­ta­chio, sug­ar, orange juice, but­ter and can­tharides. Some of them would write of their “stoned” expe­ri­ences, although not all. Balzac attend­ed the club but pre­ferred not to indulge, though some time in 1845 the great man cracked and ate some. He told fel­low mem­bers he had heard celes­tial voic­es and seen visions of divine paint­ings. 

Baude­laire declared the hash admix­ture “the play­ground of the seraphim” and “a lit­tle green sweet­meat.” And yet, like Balzac, he “rarely, if indeed ever, indulged.” Gau­ti­er would write of the poet, “It is pos­si­ble and even prob­a­ble that Baude­laire did try hascheesh once or twice by way of phys­i­o­log­i­cal exper­i­ment, but he nev­er made con­tin­u­ous use of it. Besides, he felt much repug­nance for that sort of hap­pi­ness, bought at the chemist’s and tak­en away in the vest-pock­et.”

This “repug­nance” did not keep Baude­laire from oth­er drugs. And it did not keep him from writ­ing a short book in 1860 on hash and opi­um, Arti­fi­cial Par­adis­es (Les Par­adis Arti­fi­ciels). The Paris Review reprints an excerpt of one sec­tion, “The Poem of Hashish”—not in fact a poem, but a descrip­tive essay. Trans­lat­ed by Aleis­ter Crow­ley—anoth­er writer whose exper­i­ments with chem­i­cal excess con­tributed to some of the strangest books writ­ten in English—Baudelaire’s prose is almost med­ical in its pre­ci­sion. In part a response to Thomas de Quincy’s 1821 drug mem­oir Confession’s of an Eng­lish Opi­um Eater, the sym­bol­ist poet’s trea­tise does not draw the con­clu­sions one might expect.

Though he writes stun­ning­ly vivid, almost seduc­tive, descrip­tions of hash intox­i­ca­tion, instead of prais­ing the cre­ative effects of drugs, Baude­laire dis­par­ages their use and warns of addic­tion, espe­cial­ly for the artist. At one point, he writes, “He who would resort to a poi­son in order to think would soon be inca­pable of think­ing with­out the poi­son. Can you imag­ine this awful sort of man whose par­a­lyzed imag­i­na­tion can no longer func­tion with­out the ben­e­fit of hashish or opi­um?” Baude­laire rec­og­nized these sti­fling effects even as he lapsed into addic­tion him­self, describ­ing in with­er­ing terms the search “in phar­ma­cy” for an escape from “his habitac­u­lum of mire.”

You can read an excerpt of the Crow­ley-trans­lat­ed “The Poem of Hashish” at The Paris Review’s site and the full trans­la­tion here. Those who have indulged in their own cannabis experiments—legally or otherwise—will sure­ly rec­og­nize the poet­ic accu­ra­cy of his hash por­trait, so per­fect that it’s hard to believe he didn’t par­take at least once or twice at the all-star Club des Hachichins:

Hashish often brings about a vora­cious hunger, near­ly always an exces­sive thirst … Such a state would not be sup­port­able if it last­ed too long, and if it did not soon give place to anoth­er phase of intox­i­ca­tion, which in the case above cit­ed inter­prets itself by splen­did visions, ten­der­ly ter­ri­fy­ing, and at the same time full of con­so­la­tions. This new state is what the East­erns call Kaif. It is no longer the whirl­wind or the tem­pest; it is a calm and motion­less bliss, a glo­ri­ous resignèd­ness. Since long you have not been your own mas­ter; but you trou­ble your­self no longer about that. Pain, and the sense of time, have dis­ap­peared; or if some­times they dare to show their heads, it is only as trans­fig­ured by the mas­ter feel­ing, and they are then, as com­pared with their ordi­nary form, what poet­ic melan­choly is to pro­sa­ic grief.

via The Paris Review

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Carl Sagan Extols the Virtues of Cannabis (1969)

The Cof­fee Pot That Fueled Hon­oré de Balzac’s Cof­fee Addic­tion

Reefer Mad­ness, 1936’s Most Unin­ten­tion­al­ly Hilar­i­ous “Anti-Drug” Exploita­tion Film, Free Online

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Shakespearean Actor Brian Cox Teaches Hamlet’s Soliloquy to a 2‑Year-Old Child

Per­haps you’ve seen Scot­tish actor Bri­an Cox in block­buster films like Brave­heart, The Bourne Iden­ti­ty, or Troy. Or, if you’re lucky enough, you’ve seen him per­form with the Roy­al Shake­speare Com­pa­ny in crit­i­cal­ly-acclaimed per­for­mances of The Tam­ing of The Shrew and Titus Andron­i­cus. But there’s per­haps anoth­er role you haven’t seen him in: tutor of tod­dlers. Sev­er­al years back, Cox taught Theo, then only 30 months old, the famous solil­o­quy from Ham­let, hop­ing to show there’s a Shake­speare­an actor in all of us. Lat­er, Cox talked to the BBC about his “mas­ter­class” with Theo and what he took away from the expe­ri­ence. Watch him muse right below:

Relat­ed Con­tent:

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

Orson Welles’ Radio Per­for­mances of 10 Shake­speare Plays

Pink Floyd’s David Gilmour Sings Shakespeare’s Son­net 18

Free Online Shake­speare Cours­es: Primers on the Bard from Oxford, Har­vard, Berke­ley & More

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 3 ) |

Hōshi: A Short Film on the 1300-Year-Old Hotel Run by the Same Japanese Family for 46 Generations

Hōshi is a ryokan (a Japan­ese tra­di­tion­al inn) locat­ed in Komat­su, Japan, and it holds the dis­tinc­tion of being the 2nd old­est hotel in the world, and “the old­est still run­ning fam­i­ly busi­ness in the world” (per Wikipedia). Built in 718 AD, the ryokan has been oper­at­ed by the same fam­i­ly for 46 con­sec­u­tive gen­er­a­tions. Count them. 46 gen­er­a­tions.

Japan is a coun­try with deep tra­di­tions. And when you’re born into a fam­i­ly that’s the care­tak­er of a 1300-year-old insti­tu­tion, you find your­self strug­gling with issues most of us can’t imag­ine. That’s par­tic­u­lar­ly true when you’re the daugh­ter of the Hōshi fam­i­ly, a mod­ern woman who wants to break free from tra­di­tion. And yet his­to­ry and strong fam­i­ly expec­ta­tions keep call­ing her back.

The sto­ry of Hōshi ryokan is poignant­ly told in a short doc­u­men­tary above. It was shot in 2014 by the Ger­man film­mak­er Fritz Schu­mann.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

285 Free Doc­u­men­taries Online

Ear­ly Japan­ese Ani­ma­tions: The Ori­gins of Ani­me (1917–1931)

Hand-Col­ored Pho­tographs of 19th Cen­tu­ry Japan

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 7 ) |

David Ogilvy’s 1982 Memo “How to Write” Offers 10 Pieces of Timeless Advice

david-ogilvy_unpublished

Nobody ever went broke writ­ing a read­able guide to writ­ing in Eng­lish, espe­cial­ly those that rise to the ranks of stan­dard rec­om­men­da­tions along­side Strunk and White’s The Ele­ments of Style and William Zinsser’s On Writ­ing WellBoth of those books endorse and exem­pli­fy the virtue of brevi­ty, but even such short vol­umes take a great deal longer to read and inter­nal­ize than this emi­nent­ly to-the-point Eng­lish style guide by the “Pope of Mod­ern Adver­tis­ing,” (and, for his part, a fan of Roman and Raphael­son’s Writ­ing That Works) David Ogilvy, orig­i­nal­ly com­posed in the form of an inter­nal memo.

Ogilvy sent it out on Sep­tem­ber 7th, 1982, direct­ing it to every­one employed at Ogilvy & Math­er, the respect­ed ad agency he’d found­ed more than thir­ty years before. “The memo was enti­tled ‘How to Write,’ ” says Lists of Note, “and con­sist­ed of the fol­low­ing list of advice:”

1. Read the Roman-Raphael­son book on writ­ing. Read it three times.

2. Write the way you talk. Nat­u­ral­ly.

3. Use short words, short sen­tences and short para­graphs.

4. Nev­er use jar­gon words like recon­cep­tu­al­ize, demas­si­fi­ca­tion, atti­tu­di­nal­ly, judg­men­tal­ly. They are hall­marks of a pre­ten­tious ass.

5. Nev­er write more than two pages on any sub­ject.

6. Check your quo­ta­tions.

7. Nev­er send a let­ter or a memo on the day you write it. Read it aloud the next morning—and then edit it.

8. If it is some­thing impor­tant, get a col­league to improve it.

9. Before you send your let­ter or your memo, make sure it is crys­tal clear what you want the recip­i­ent to do.

10. If you want ACTION, don’t write. Go and tell the guy what you want.

And since we all send out more writ­ten com­mu­ni­ca­tion today than we would have in 1982, the points on this list have only grown more advis­able with time. “The bet­ter you write, the high­er you go in Ogilvy & Math­er,” Ogilvy adds. “Peo­ple who think well, write well.” Amid all this prac­ti­cal advice, we’d do well not to for­get that essen­tial con­nec­tion between word and thought. I like to quote a favorite Twit­ter apho­rist of mine — and, per Ogilvy’s warn­ing, I’ve checked my quo­ta­tion first — on the sub­ject: “Peo­ple say they can’t draw when they mean they can’t see, and that they can’t write when they mean they can’t think.”

For more on the meth­ods of Ogilvy the self-described “lousy copy­writer” (but “good edi­tor”), see also Lists of Note’s sis­ter site Let­ters of Note, which has a 1955 let­ter where­in he lays out his work habits. A seem­ing­ly effec­tive one involves “half a bot­tle of rum and a Han­del ora­to­rio on the gramo­phone.” Your mileage may vary.

via Lists of Note

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stephen King’s Top 20 Rules for Writ­ers

Ray Brad­bury Offers 12 Essen­tial Writ­ing Tips and Explains Why Lit­er­a­ture Saves Civ­i­liza­tion

Kurt Vonnegut’s 8 Tips on How to Write a Good Short Sto­ry

Writ­ing Tips by Hen­ry Miller, Elmore Leonard, Mar­garet Atwood, Neil Gaiman & George Orwell

Col­in Mar­shall writes on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, and the video series The City in Cin­e­maFol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

The First Photograph Ever Taken (1826)

first_photograph_home_trans

In his­to­ries of ear­ly pho­tog­ra­phy, Louis Daguerre faith­ful­ly appears as one of the fathers of the medi­um. His patent­ed process, the daguerreo­type, in wide use for near­ly twen­ty years in the ear­ly 19th cen­tu­ry, pro­duced so many of the images we asso­ciate with the peri­od, includ­ing famous pho­tographs of Abra­ham Lin­coln, Edgar Allan Poe, Emi­ly Dick­in­son, and John Brown. But had things gone dif­fer­ent­ly, we might know bet­ter the hard­er-to-pro­nounce name of his one­time part­ner Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, who pro­duced the first known pho­to­graph ever, tak­en in 1826.

Some­thing of a gen­tle­man inven­tor, Niépce (below) began exper­i­ment­ing with lith­o­g­ra­phy and with that ancient device, the cam­era obscu­ra, in 1816. Even­tu­al­ly, after much tri­al and error, Niépce devel­oped his own pho­to­graph­ic process, which he called “heli­og­ra­phy.” He began by mix­ing chem­i­cals on a flat pewter plate, then plac­ing it inside a cam­era. After expos­ing the plate to light for eight hours, the inven­tor then washed and dried it. What remained was the image we see above, tak­en, as Niépce wrote, from “the room where I work” on his coun­try estate and now housed at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas at Austin’s Har­ry Ran­som Cen­ter.

niepce1_large

At the Ran­som Cen­ter web­site, you can see a short video describ­ing Niépce’s house and show­ing how schol­ars recre­at­ed the van­tage point from which he took the pic­ture. Anoth­er video offers insight into the process Niépce invent­ed to cre­ate his “heli­o­graph.” In 1827, Niépce trav­eled to Eng­land to vis­it his broth­er. While there, with the assis­tance of Eng­lish botanist Fran­cis Bauer, he pre­sent­ed a paper on his new inven­tion to the Roy­al Soci­ety. His find­ings were reject­ed, how­ev­er, because he opt­ed not to ful­ly reveal the details, hop­ing to make eco­nom­ic gains with a pro­pri­etary method. Niépce left the pewter image with Bauer and returned to France, where he short­ly after agreed to a ten-year part­ner­ship with Daguerre in 1829.

Sad­ly for Niépce, his heli­o­graph would not pro­duce the finan­cial or tech­no­log­i­cal suc­cess he envi­sioned, and he died just four years lat­er in 1833. Daguerre, of course, went on to devel­op his famous process in 1829 and passed into his­to­ry, but we should remem­ber Niépce’s efforts, and mar­vel at what he was able to achieve on his own with lim­it­ed mate­ri­als and no train­ing or prece­dent. Daguerre may receive much of the cred­it, but it was the “sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly-mind­ed gen­tle­man” Niépce and his heli­og­ra­phy that led—writes the Ran­som Center’s Head of Pho­to­graph­ic Con­ser­va­tion Bar­bara Brown—to “the inven­tion of the new medi­um.”

Niepce Reproduction

Niépce’s pewter plate image was re-dis­cov­ered in 1952 by Hel­mut and Ali­son Gern­sheim, who pub­lished an arti­cle on the find in The Pho­to­graph­ic Jour­nal. There­after, the Gern­sheims had the East­man Kodak Com­pa­ny cre­ate the repro­duc­tion above. This image’s “pointil­lis­tic effect,” writes Brown, “is due to the repro­duc­tion process,” and the image “was touched up with water­col­ors by [Hel­mut] Gern­sheim him­self in order to bring it as close as pos­si­ble to his approx­i­ma­tion of how he felt the orig­i­nal should appear in repro­duc­tion.”

Relat­ed Con­tent:

See The First “Self­ie” In His­to­ry Tak­en by Robert Cor­nelius, a Philadel­phia Chemist, in 1839

Har­ry Tay­lor Brings 150-Year-Old Craft of Tin­type Pho­tog­ra­phy into the Mod­ern Day

Alfred Stieglitz: The Elo­quent Eye, a Reveal­ing Look at “The Father of Mod­ern Pho­tog­ra­phy”

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

What is the Self? Watch Philosophy Animations Narrated by Stephen Fry on Sartre, Descartes & More

If you’ve fol­lowed our recent phi­los­o­phy posts, you’ve heard Gillian Ander­son (The X‑Files) speak on what makes us humanthe ori­gins of the uni­verse, and whether tech­nol­o­gy has changed us, and Har­ry Shear­er speak on ethics — or rather, you’ve heard them nar­rate short edu­ca­tion­al ani­ma­tions from the BBC script­ed by Phi­los­o­phy Bites’ Nigel War­bur­ton. Now anoth­er equal­ly dis­tinc­tive voice has joined the series to explain an equal­ly impor­tant philo­soph­i­cal top­ic. Behold Stephen Fry on the Self.

These four videos draw on Socrates’s work on what it means to know one­self (and the lim­its of one’s knowl­edge); Erv­ing Goff­man’s (The Pre­sen­ta­tion of Self in Every­day Life) Shake­speare­an obser­va­tion that we all play roles on this stage of a world; Rene Descartes’ famous dec­la­ra­tion “I think, there­fore I am”; and Jean-Paul Sartre’s con­cept of human exis­tence pre­ced­ing human essence (which, if it sounds a bit fog­gy, the video will clar­i­fy). Whichev­er of these thinkers’ claims sound most plau­si­ble to you, you’ll come out feel­ing a bit sur­er that, what­ev­er con­sti­tutes our selves — if indeed we have them — it isn’t what you might have assumed going in.

If the notions that we know noth­ing, that we have no fixed iden­ti­ties, that we cre­ate our­selves (and/or our selves) by our own actions, and that a trick­ster demon may be con­trol­ling your thoughts even as you read this seem too detached from every­day expe­ri­ence to eas­i­ly grasp, at least we have a sen­si­ble Eng­lish voice like Fry’s to guide us through them. The stereo­types may say that the peo­ple of that prac­ti­cal-mind­ed land don’t go in for this kind of talk. But I pro­pose a refu­ta­tion: specif­i­cal­ly, a refu­ta­tion in the form of a return by Fry to talk about two of his fel­low Britons, David Hume and George Berke­ley. They had a few things to say about the self — to put it mild­ly.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Down­load 130 Free Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es: Tools for Think­ing About Life, Death & Every­thing Between

A His­to­ry of Ideas: Ani­mat­ed Videos Explain The­o­ries of Simone de Beau­voir, Edmund Burke & Oth­er Philoso­phers

How Did Every­thing Begin?: Ani­ma­tions on the Ori­gins of the Uni­verse Nar­rat­ed by X‑Files Star Gillian Ander­son

What Makes Us Human?: Chom­sky, Locke & Marx Intro­duced by New Ani­mat­ed Videos from the BBC

Has Tech­nol­o­gy Changed Us?: BBC Ani­ma­tions Answer the Ques­tion with the Help of Mar­shall McLuhan

How Can I Know Right From Wrong? Watch Phi­los­o­phy Ani­ma­tions on Ethics Nar­rat­ed by Har­ry Shear­er

Col­in Mar­shall writes on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, and the video series The City in Cin­e­maFol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Slavoj Žižek Calls Political Correctness a Form of “Modern Totalitarianism”

Opin­ions on what we gen­er­al­ly mean by the phrase “polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness” vary wide­ly. Does it refer to the ways we try to main­tain basic polite­ness and com­mon decen­cy in what we like to think of as a plu­ral­is­tic, egal­i­tar­i­an soci­ety? Or is it a form of Orwellian, state-spon­sored mind con­trol that squash­es dis­sent and ban­ish­es unpop­u­lar ideas from pub­lic dis­course? On the one hand, sto­ries of unac­cept­ably abu­sive behav­ior in work­places, class­rooms, and gov­ern­ment build­ings abound, seem­ing to require plac­ing rea­son­able lim­its on speech. On the oth­er hand, extreme exam­ples of ram­pant “trig­ger warn­ings” and oth­er such qual­i­fiers—on col­lege lit­er­a­ture syl­labi, for exam­ple—can seem hyper­sen­si­tive, patron­iz­ing, and sil­ly at best.

In the Big Think video above, Marx­ist the­o­rist, cul­tur­al crit­ic, and pro­fes­sion­al provo­ca­teur Slavoj Žižek approach­es the term as a kind of enforced nice­ness that obscures oppres­sive pow­er rela­tion­ships. He begins with an exam­ple, of a so-called “post­mod­ern, non-author­i­tar­i­an father,” who uses a sub­tle form of emo­tion­al coer­cion, play­ing on feel­ings of guilt, to enforce love and respect for a grand­par­ent. This mod­el, says Žižek, is “par­a­dig­mat­ic” of “mod­ern total­i­tar­i­an­ism”:

This is why the for­mu­la of mod­ern total­i­tar­i­an­ism is not “I don’t care what you think, just do it.” This is tra­di­tion­al author­i­tar­i­an­ism. The total­i­tar­i­an for­mu­la is, “I know bet­ter than you what you real­ly want.”

“In this sense,” says Žižek, “I am hor­ri­fied by this new cul­ture of experts.” In his typ­i­cal­ly ani­mat­ed style, he leaps from case to case—the ban­ning of pub­lic e‑cigarette smok­ing, for example—to show how con­cerns about pub­lic health or racism give way to mean­ing­less, cul­tur­al­ly stul­ti­fy­ing mor­al­iz­ing. His point that polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness can be a humor­less “self-dis­ci­pline” is per­sua­sive. Whether his exam­ples of “pro­gres­sive racism”—or the social release valve of obscene or racist jokes—translate to an Amer­i­can con­text is debat­able. (Trig­ger warn­ing: Žižek drops a cou­ple n‑words).

Does the uncouth Žižek get a pass because he dis­avows per­son­al prej­u­dice, even as he makes light of it? Is there real­ly a “great art” to the racist joke that can bring peo­ple clos­er togeth­er? Do we need a “tiny exchange of friend­ly obscen­i­ties” to estab­lish “real con­tact” with oth­er peo­ple? I for one wouldn’t want to live in a soci­ety with­out obscene humor and hon­est, open con­ver­sa­tion. But whether all forms of polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness— what­ev­er it is—are “mod­ern total­i­tar­i­an­ism,” I leave to you to decide. It does seem to me that if we can’t have polit­i­cal debates with­out fear and shame then we real­ly have lost some mea­sure of free­dom; but if we’re unable to debate with good will and sen­si­tiv­i­ty, then we’ve lost some impor­tant mea­sure of our human­i­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Slavoj Žižek: What Full­fils You Cre­ative­ly Isn’t What Makes You Hap­py

Slavoj Žižek on the Feel-Good Ide­ol­o­gy of Star­bucks

Slavoj Žižek’s Pervert’s Guide to Ide­ol­o­gy Decodes The Dark Knight and They Live

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Quentin Tarantino Supercuts Explore the Director’s Stylized Use of Sound, Close Ups & Cars in His Films

It’s not sur­pris­ing per­haps that we are in a film nerd super­cut gold­en age. After all, all film stu­dents have access to video edit­ing soft­ware, almost all movies are avail­able dig­i­tal­ly, and web­sites, like this one, are per­pet­u­al­ly hun­gry for new con­tent. Great super­cuts reveal some­thing new or unno­ticed about a great direc­tor, like how Yasu­jiro Ozu uses hall­ways or Kubrick favors one-point per­spec­tive. Edi­tor Jacob T. Swin­ney, who won the inter­net last month with his video “First and Final Frames,” just released the third out of a promised four-part super­cut on Quentin Taran­ti­no.

The direc­tor of Pulp Fic­tion and Death Proof is, of course, known for his dia­logue – razor-sharp, obscen­i­ty-laden repar­tee crammed with ref­er­ences to pop cul­ture or obscure movies. What is a Taran­ti­no movie with­out a rant about the true mean­ing of “Like a Vir­gin,” say, or a lengthy dis­course on the dif­fer­ence between McDonald’s menus in Amer­i­can and in Europe? Swin­ney strips away all that dia­logue to explore some of the recur­ring visu­al and audi­al motifs that lard Tarantino’s films. What you real­ize after watch­ing these is just how styl­ized his movies are. Taran­ti­no loves expres­sion­is­tic sound effects, flashy insert shots, gen­er­al­ly aping the look and feel of his cin­e­mat­ic heroes like Ser­gio Leone or King Hu. You can watch the first film above and the next two below.

The first film called “Hear­ing Taran­ti­no” is about all the pun­gent, styl­ized sounds the QT has used. As you can imag­ine, there are lots of gur­gling of blood and clank­ing of swords. What you might not have noticed is how many car­toony whoosh­es and zings he has fold­ed into the sound mix.

The sec­ond vid, “Tarantino’s Extreme Close Ups,” shows lots of eyes bear­ing expres­sions some­where along the ter­ri­fied-pissed off spec­trum.

And the third piece, “Taran­ti­no: Dri­ving Shots,” shows just how much of his movies take place in cars.

The fourth film has yet to come out, but I hope it’s on Tarantino’s not-at-all creepy obses­sion with women’s feet. You can prob­a­bly fill a cou­ple min­utes just on Uma Thur­man’s alone.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Quentin Taran­ti­no Lists the 12 Great­est Films of All Time: From Taxi Dri­ver to The Bad News Bears

Quentin Taran­ti­no Tells You About The Actors & Direc­tors Who Pro­vid­ed the Inspi­ra­tion for “Reser­voir Dogs”

Watch Free Online My Best Friend’s Birth­day, Quentin Tarantino’s 1987 Debut Film

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.