The Man Who Would Be King Hu

Quentin Tarantino and Miramax/The Weinstein Company

Quentin Tarantino is one of Hollywood’s most recognizable directors. Often referred to as a ‘postmodern’ director (Boggs & Pollard 2001; Kleinhans 2003), his films mix genres and influences from a wide array of films and filmmakers. Successful, controversial, and outspoken, Tarantino has never failed to make himself or his films centers of attention.

Tarantino is perhaps unique among Hollywood directors for the degree to which he both incorporates non-Hollywood films into his own directorial style as well as advocating their value to viewers. His own films are packed with what he calls homages to directors of many nationalities, and he is a seemingly tireless promoter of films with little or no recognition among mainstream American audiences. However, his relationship to these films is not purely philanthropic, and his acknowledgment of influence far from exhaustive. He and his employers profess to be devout supporters of Asian cinema. While they may cast themselves as a self-appointed advocates and benefactors of these films, a critical examination of their relationship reveals several problematic aspects.

The present study examines the actions of Quentin Tarantino and his employer, The Weinstein Company (TWC), formerly Miramax, as specific and specialized discourse and practices regarding the appropriation and exploitation of tropes of cultural difference that shape the political economy of both Hollywood and Asian filmmaking, with a particular emphasis on Hong Kong’s film industry. I argue that Tarantino and his employer practice a form of exploitative appropriation that minimizes or obscures the original producers, subjugates these films in service of their own, and perpetuates the marginalization of Hong Kong cinema as an oddity, a resource, or inferior.

These actions are especially noteworthy in that they are often claimed to spring from philanthropy and advocacy while they instead contribute to the maintenance of current power imbalances and biased perceptions rather than altering them. Tarantino and Miramax/TWC, while claiming to increase recognition of Hong Kong and Asian films, in fact impede recognition of both those films and the persons involved in the production of them. Their self-proclaimed advocacy and benevolence conceals an attempt at market monopolization and maintenance of a lucrative gatekeeping role that is vigorously defended. In broad terms, these behaviors contribute to the ongoing dominance and exploitation by Hollywood of foreign cinemas, whose resources are utilized while the creators of those resources are brushed aside.

Ringo Lam: City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs

Charlie Rose: I don’t know of anybody else who I think automatically could make Reservoir Dogs, or would have made it.

Quentin Tarantino: Yeah.

Previous studies have examined cultural appropriation as it pertains to Native American culture (Deloria 1998; Huhndorf 2001; Root, 1996; Ziff & Rao, 1997). Cultural appropriation as a sign of whiteness in martial arts films, Tarantino’s among them, has also been examined (Tierney, 2006). However, the present study is not concerned with appropriation in Tarantino’s films as much as his appropriation of films. It is imperative to state at the outset that the present study acknowledges the interrelated nature of film; obviously cinemas of the world are greatly influenced by, and borrow from, one another. Tarantino “learned to make films by watching them, and he knew only too well how many movies stole from their predecessors” (Clarkson, 1995, p. 130). However, Tarantino’s selective lack of forthrightness about his sources of ‘inspiration’ as well as his complicity in obscuring the sources of his own work, as well as that of others, makes it possible to characterize his behavior as appropriation rather than homage; it is not contested that Tarantino indulges in borrowing. Instead, the present study takes issue at his selective admission of the sources from which he borrows. In addition, and for the same reasons, similar behavior by his employers is better characterized as appropriation rather than promotion, which it is often claimed to be.

Root (1996) defines appropriation as “not only the taking up of something and making it one’s own but also the ability to do so... [appropriation is] entirely different from borrowing or sharing because it involves the taking up and commodification of aesthetic [and] cultural... forms of a society” (p. 70). This definition provides a useful starting point for a political economy analysis. Tarantino’s films have previously been examined in terms of appropriation and copyright (Pang, 2005), but the present study seeks to examine his appropriations in terms of honesty and promotion.

Tarantino first achieved recognition when his 1992 film Reservoir Dogs became a critical hit for Miramax, launching the director into stardom and the company to prominence. In the film, Tim Roth plays an undercover policeman sent to infiltrate a gang of jewel thieves planning a robbery. He takes part in the heist, which goes wrong. He is shot in the stomach, and brought to a warehouse by another gang member, played by Harvey Keitel. At the warehouse, the gang argue bitterly about the presence of an undercover in their midst. Keitel’s character defends Roth during a ‘Mexican standoff’ in which several characters simultaneously point pistols at one another. Shortly thereafter Roth, as he expires, confesses his true identity while the police rush in.

Tarantino, a former video store clerk, was lauded for the “startling originality” (Kennedy, 1994, p. 29) of his debut film. In interviews, Tarantino spoke openly about many of the many films that influenced him. He acknowledged that Reservoir Dogs was influenced by directors such as John Huston, Joseph Sargent, and Stanley Kubrick (Kuntzman, 1995). The screenplay for Reservoir Dogs thanks Jean-Luc Godard, Andre DeToth, Chow Yun-Fat, Leonard White, Roger Corman, and Timothy Carey. Two people conspicuously absent from that list are Ringo Lam Ling-Tung and Shum Sai-Sing, director and screenwriter respectively, of the 1987 film City on Fire, produced in Hong Kong, for which Lam won Best Director and Chow Yun Fat Best Actor.

In the film, Chow plays an undercover policeman sent to infiltrate a gang of jewel thieves planning a robbery. He takes part in the heist, which goes wrong. He is shot in the stomach, and brought to a warehouse by another gang member, played by Danny Lee. At the warehouse, the gang argue bitterly about the presence of an undercover in their midst. Danny Lee’s character defends Chow Yun Fat during a ‘Mexican standoff’ in which several characters simultaneously point pistols at one another. Shortly thereafter Chow, as he expires, confesses his true identity while the police rush in.

In late 1993, the English film magazine Empire ran a story about the similarities between Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire entitled “My Life as a Dog.” The article uses eight distinct examples, both visual and narrative, between the films: “the basic premise of [Tarantino’s] legendary movie bears a remarkable resemblance to that of Ringo Lam’s” (Dawson, 1993, p. 107). In 1994, a film student named Mike White read the Empire article and made a short film, Who Do You Think You’re Fooling?, that splices together scenes from Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire, making a filmic version of the Empire article. White’s film was the subject of a number of stories in the press (Beale 1995, Briggs, 1995, Dargis 1995, Fine 1995, Fleming 1995, Kennedy 1995, Kuntzman 1995,) and a segment on MTV News. The film was originally scheduled to air at the 1995 New York Underground Film Festival, but was canceled by festival organizers. Many felt that Miramax, a company known for its confrontational manner (Biskind, 2004), pressured the festival into removing the film to avoid a negative impact on Tarantino. At the time, he was nominated for several Oscars for his second film, Pulp Fiction (Kuntzman, 1995). Organizers denied that Miramax was in any way responsible for the cancellation (Fleming, 1995). Festival organizer Todd Phillips had, however, contacted friends at Miramax to alert them to the press interest Who Do You Think You’re Fooling? was getting even before it was scheduled to be screened (Kuntzman, 1995).

Tarantino had made no mention of City on Fire during interviews about Reservoir Dogs, interviews in which he expounded on the numerous other films that had ‘inspired’ or influenced him. When queried about City on Fire after similarities were noted, Tarantino’s response was to state “I’ve got the poster right here. That’s Danny Lee. Ringo Lam is like my second, after Jackie Chan, third favorite of all the Hong Kong directors” (Kennedy, 1994, pg. 31). This is as close as Tarantino would come to acknowledging Reservoir Dogs’ similarity, or debt, to City on Fire; he publicly dismissed such claims at the 1994 Cannes film festival (De Vries, 1998). Tarantino became, in fact, “particularly defensive” about the allegations (White, 2002, p. 340). Miramax’s Marcy Granata claimed Tarantino had always acknowledged the movies to which he was making homage, including City on Fire (Beale, 1995; Dombrowski, 2008), but such acknowledgments have yet to be verified.

More than a decade after Tarantino’s film was released, he admitted “being influenced by City on Fire, but he denies ripping it off” (Suellentrop, 2003, para. 5). Such a concession, however, has little supporting evidence. In 2002, Artisan Entertainment released a 10th Anniversary Special Edition DVD of Reservoir Dogs. Included in the disc’s bonus materials was the “Reservoir Dogs Directors Tribute,” a “focus on the filmmakers and actors who influenced Quentin Tarantino’s indie masterpiece.” (Reservoir Dogs DVD cover) It is interesting to note that while Andre deToth, Jean Luc Godard, Jean Pierre Melville, and even John Woo are discussed, Ringo Lam is not. Given the two films’ similarities, and Tarantino’s admission (while discussing Woo) of being “so influenced by Hong Kong cinema”, Ringo Lam’s exclusion is significant. He is mentioned, albeit briefly, in one of the commentaries provided by film critic Peter Travers, who defends Tarantino’s appropriation: “There’s the famous Ringo Lam City on Fire [issue]... [that film] is also about a diamond heist and didn’t [Tarantino] just steal these characters and this idea from them? I always say that no matter where it comes from... it depends on what you do with what you steal.” This is, from one perspective, not just a characterization of theft rather than homage, but also a rather bald-faced assertion that the ends justify the means, that disingenuous theft is acceptable. City on Fire is mentioned in another of the DVD extras, a textual reference called “The Film Noir Web,” which says the film is “often cited as a major influence on Reservoir Dogs.” These citations, however, come from seemingly anyone except the director of Reservoir Dogs. In 2007, a 15th anniversary disc again omits any mention of Ringo Lam by Tarantino.

As previously noted, Chow Yun Fat, the star of City on Fire, was thanked in the Reservoir Dogs screenplay, while Tarantino was just one of thousands of struggling filmmakers. When queried about Chow after having established himself as a prominent Hollywood director, Tarantino states in the “Reservoir Dogs Directors Tribute” that he is “not really a fan of [him] anymore. I’m kind of, like, over him now.” This significant shift in estimation had actually begun earlier. In 1998, little more than five years after Tarantino’s acknowledgment in the Reservoir Dogs screenplay, Chow Yun Fat starred in his first American film, The Replacement Killers, with Tarantino’s then-partner Mira Sorvino. Tarantino, who claimed that Chow “sucked” and “ruined” the movie, offered some advice for the actor: “the next time he decides to make an American movie with an actress as good as Mira, he better learn some fucking English” (1998).

Such admonition is especially noteworthy coming from a man who only six years earlier had been so impressed by the actor: “After I saw Chow Yun-Fat in John Woo's A Better Tomorrow, Part II , I immediately bought a long coat and glasses and walked around with a toothpick in my mouth” (Playboy, 1994). It should be noted that this was part of an answer to being queried about “Skinny ties, white shirts, black suits and sunglasses. How do you feel about the appropriation of the Reservoir Dogs look?” (ibid.) Tarantino prefaced the above quote by saying “I think it's great. If an action movie is doing its job, you should want to dress like the hero.” (ibid.)

The heroes of Woo’s A Better Tomorrow and its first sequel wore skinny ties, white shirts, black suits and sunglasses. It may then be said that if an action movie is doing its job for Tarantino, it will make him want to dress the heroes of his films like the heroes of the films he watches. After all, the same man who denied ‘ripping off’ City on Fire responded to a question about people remaking his films with “I loved it when Hong Kong ripped off Reservoir Dogs” (Christopher, 2007, para. 15).

If, as Tarantino states, Hong Kong’s film industry ripped off Reservoir Dogs, but he did not rip off City on Fire, it is a coincidence that the wardrobes of the protagonists of Reservoir Dogs and A Better Tomorrow are indistinguishable from one another, as it is coincidental that many of the plot premises of Reservoir Dogs and City on Fire are the same. It would also be a coincidence that Tarantino’s ironic juxtaposition of violent behavior and seemingly innocuous music in Reservoir Dogs (during the scene in which Mr. Blonde tortures a police officer was) was preceded by Ringo Lam’s use of a Muzak “Joy to the World” during City on Fire’s car chase/gun battle after the jewel heist goes wrong.

Thus, it might better be said that Hong Kong may have ripped itself off, or that a theft had come full circle. This would, however, require an admission from Tarantino that he has assiduously avoided for more than fifteen years. In that same interview, Tarantino calls his latest film, Death Proof, “the first script I’ve written since Reservoir Dogs where I came up with a brand-new story idea” (Christopher, 2007, para. 13).

John Woo, by comparison, readily admits the sources of not only his narrative structures but even the sources for some of his best-known stylistic signatures. Woo’s simultaneous use of two pistols, which is now a common feature in action film, comes from Robert De Niro’s use of same in Taxi Driver; Woo’s depictions of two people pointing pistols at each other’s heads actually comes from Mad magazine’s Spy vs. Spy comic strip. This distinction is important because in a 1998 interview, Tarantino seemed unhappy about the perception “[t]hat I ripped off my Mexican stand-offs from John Woo. That’s not the way it is” (Keough, 1998, para. 19). As Empire and Mike White have shown, Tarantino is telling the truth; the Mexican standoff occurs not in John Woo’s film, but in Ringo Lam’s.

The Weinstein Co., formerly Miramax, holds the American distribution rights for City on Fire and many other Asian films. City on Fire is available in the United States, but the DVD does not have the original Cantonese audio, substituting a dubbed English soundtrack that includes the Jerry McGuire catchphrase “Show me the money!” The 20^th anniversary of City on Fire in 2007 year did not warrant a DVD release, special edition or otherwise. Miramax/The Weinstein Co. have a dismal history of mishandling the Asian films they acquire for distribution, often re-cutting the films before distribution and frequently not distributing them at all (Rosenbaum, 2000, Biskind 2004). Tarantino’s intransigence on the issue and Reservoir Dogs itself are examples of how appropriation “incorporates the objects and sensibilities [of other cultures] into the dominant, Western-based culture, sometimes by domesticating and sometimes by erasing the origins of these objects” (Root, 1996, p. 78).

The Shaw Brothers Film Studio: The ‘Mandarin Kung Fu’ Film and Kill Bill

A further, and more current, example of Tarantino’s willful obscuring of the origins of his work is the “Mandarin language Kung Fu film” he speaks of wanting to produce in the wake of Kill Bill: “"My next movie is gonna be another kung fu that's gonna blow your asses off... The next movie will be in Mandarin. I enjoyed shooting all the Japanese stuff in Kill Bill so much that this whole film will be entirely in Mandarin” (Borne, 2004, paras. 2-3) He has discussed wanting to make the film as recently as 2007 without reference to the Shaw Brothers Film Studio (Carroll, 2007).

Hong Kong’s Shaw Brothers Film Studio was at one time the predominant force in Asian cinema. Vertical integration allowed the Shaw studio an unheard-of symmetry and control: actors lived in the Shaw dormitory in Clearwater Bay, acting in the adjacent backlots and interior sets. The film was processed in-house, and copies of prints were shipped globally, all under direct Shaw control. In Asia, Shaw films played in Shaw Theatres until the next Shaw film took its place. The Shaw Brothers Film Studio held a position of unparalleled dominance in Asian cinema that ended only with the rise of independent production companies in Hong Kong in the 1980s. Their catalogue contains many of the most important Chinese films of the last fifty years and were an integral part of the globalization of Chinese cinema.

Tarantino’s ‘Mandarin Kung Fu film’ would in fact be a remake of a Shaw Brothers film The majority of these films, although shot in Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong, were originally Mandarin-language. The Weinstein Co. has purchased the remake rights to several of the studio’s films from Celestial Pictures, among them The 36 Chambers of Shaolin (Oriental Daily, 2003), The One-Armed Swordsman (sina.com, 2007), Avenging Eagle (Logan, 2007), and King Hu’s Come Drink With Me (Kilday, 2007), all of which have been named (by others) as films Tarantino would remake. Tarantino’s admission of remaking a Shaw Bros. film rather than creating his own have so far been only to Chinese-language media, to whom he mentions it as early as 2003, but does not say so in interviews with Western media as recently as March of 2007 (Billington 2007; Morris 2007; Tyler 2007, Utichi 2007). As early as 2003, Harvey Weinstein had foreshadowed these events, albeit obliquely, when he said of the agreement, “The Shaw films are a terrific source of fresh story ideas for new movies... I've had my eye on some of these films for many years” (Rooney, 2003, para. 6). Tarantino has already drawn heavily on the Shaw legacy; Kill Bill Volume 1 opens with the Shawscope logo used by the Shaw Brothers in their studio’s films. It is the most direct acknowledgment of the studio’s influence on Kill Bill: “I want each reel to play like it’s a reel from a different movie, all right? You take this reel from ‘Death Rides a Horse’, and this reel from ‘Zatoichi's Revenge’ and then that reel from a Shaw Brothers film.” (Ansen, 2007, para.13).

Tarantino prepared for Kill Bill by watching Shaw Brothers films in order to assimilate their cinematographic style for his own use: “I wanted to immerse myself so much in that style of filmmaking so that the things that they did would be second nature to me. It would be my style of filmmaking as far as this movie was concerned. I wouldn't have to think about it. I wouldn't have to be self conscious about it. I would've just known exactly how they would have done it and I would decide do I want to do that too?” (Screenwriter’s Monthly, 2004, para. 11).

During the shooting of Kill Bill, Tarantino often used Hong Kong films, and the people that made them, as a basis for his own originality: “I would think of a cool moment when Sammo Hung for example did some original and exciting and use that, sure, but over the course of the year and all of the re-writing it developed into something original” (Tiscali 2007, para. 1). The creation of something original by constantly reworking an existing idea is part of Tarantino’s unique style: his original is “recycled with a twist. It's me doing it, you know? With my point of view on it-which has never been done because mine is unique, all right? Not good or better. Just unique” (Ansen,

2007, para. 14). Tarantino’s acknowledged, appropriative relationship with the films, as well as his belief in his mastery of the skills that produced them, shows how the “unveiling of the mysteries of an unknown space becomes a rite of passage allegorizing the Westerner’s achievement of virile heroic stature” (Shohat & Stam, 2000, p. 146). Tarantino says of Kill Bill, “Everybody knew I was making the greatest action movie ever made” (Waxman, 2003, para. 23).

In hearkening back to what he had previously described as “the glory of ‘70s chopsocky movies” Tarantino (1994) may be attempting to pay homage to the Shaw studio with Kill Bill. In Volume 2, a sequence featuring Gordon Liu as Pai Mei replicates the dialogue, cinematography, and action of the Shaw Brothers studio films. Through replication of the Shaw style, Tarantino seeks to ostensibly honor this cinema that ‘inspired’ him. If so, it is strange that one reviewer finds the film “revels in Pai Mei and the sequence’s hilarious parody of 1970s chopsocky films” (Murray, 2004, para. 9). But the sequence also replicates the films as they were viewed by Tarantino.

So-called ‘chopsocky’ films, which often played in ‘grindhouse’ theaters in the United States, were frequently dubbed into English and the prints, having traveled more than halfway around the world and been shown innumerable times, were in poor condition, with scratches, cuts, and color degradation. The condition of the prints, and the dubious quality of the voiceover, contributed to the relegation of the films to the realm of ‘low-culture’ (Gans, 1974), a perception which continues into the present. The Shaw Brothers studio was one of the main sources for these films, most of which never received legitimate video releases in the United States. Instead, they were distributed on pirate video, whose frame cropping and multi- generational copying of degraded film prints contributed even more to the films’ audio-visual degradation. Tarantino drew on these versions while writing Kill Bill: “I own all of those movies. Not these beautiful, Technicolor restoration prints, but like, my seventh generation bootlegs from New York's 42nd Chamber of Shao Lin in Time Square. That's where I had them all, and when I was writing this movie, I had the fortunate fun of being able to watch at least one Shaw Brothers movie a day, if not three” (Screenwriters Monthly, 2002, para. 11).

Tarantino’s derogation of restoration prints is a significant statement considering that TWC own the American distribution rights to them. In 2002, Celestial Pictures purchased the rights to 760 of the Shaw Brothers catalog. Shortly thereafter, Miramax entered into an agreement with Celestial for the American distribution rights to the restored films. The films have been laboriously restored, digitally re-mastered and returned to their original condition whenever possible. The films feature the original Mandarin and Cantonese soundtracks and removable subtitling in English and other languages. Celestial has been releasing these films in a staggered schedule since December 2002. The difference between the re-mastered films and their 1970s American versions is profound. To view these films in their original versions, with restored language, new subtitles, correct aspect ratio, and no print degradation is to see a cultural artifact that is difficult to refer to by a pejorative, racist nickname, and much more difficult, if not impossible, to perceive as ‘low culture.’

The Shawscope logo used in the opening of Kill Bill is not the pristine, restored version. It is instead visibly scratched. In the slavish reproduction of the well-traveled prints of Shaw films that played in America in the 1970s, Kill Bill vol. II’s Pai Mei sequence “views the Orient as something whose existence is not only displayed but has remained fixed in time and place for the West” (Said, 1994, p.108). Tarantino’s homage praises the American incarnation of a cultural phenomenon, an interpretation greatly at odds with, and in many ways inferior to, the original (and now restored) artifact. Kill Bill is paying homage not to the actual Shaw Brothers films or filmmakers but to the Americanized versions Tarantino consumed as a young viewer. It is therefore possible to postulate that perhaps he is not paying homage to the Shaw Brothers as much as he is paying homage to his experience with them, or to himself. Contrary to the assertion that Tarantino is helping to heighten awareness or is a philanthropic supporter of the Shaw Brothers catalog, it can be seen that “much of the supposed interest in difference ends up being self referential” (Root, 1996, p. 197).

By revitalizing and re-commodifying the altered, Americanized version of these films, and referring to them in language such as ‘chopsocky,’ Tarantino also contributes to the perpetuation of the stereotype of Hog Kong film as sub-par, cheap, or amusing: while speaking of his planned Mandarin-language film/Shaw Brothers remake, he states that “there would be a long version of it, with subtitles and all serious. Then I would cut another version way down, like they did in America, and dub it! Not to make it look silly, but you can't help but benefit from its humorous quality” (Carroll, 2007, para. 33). Tarantino would indeed benefit; Hong Kong film and/or those of Chinese ethnicity would likely not benefit from a re-invigoration of racist, stereotypical manifestations in (and of) film.

Tarantino’s use of the Shawscope logo at the beginning of Kill Bill certainly shows how “the marketed version of culture explicitly refers to the uncommodified version through a rhetoric of authenticity” (Root, 1996, p. 81). But it must be noted that the Shaw Brothers films remain, at least in America, a mostly un-commodified version because Tarantino’s employers have not released very many of them. In 2003, Miramax purchased the DVD rights to 50 Celestial-remastered Shaw films as well as remake rights to two films (Rooney, 2003). The Weinstein Company began releasing these DVDs as part of their Dragon Dynasty DVD label in 2007, five years after signing the contract. As of July 2008, they have released six Shaw Brothers titles; King Boxer, The One Armed Swordsman, My Young Auntie, Heroes of the East, and The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, and Come Drink With Me. Other films released by Dragon Dynasty include Chen Kaige’s The Promise (2005), based on a wuxia romance written during the Tang dynasty. Bought by The Weinstein Company in 2005, it was re-titled Master of the Crimson Armor and had over twenty minutes excised before it was sold to Warner Independent Pictures. Feng Xiaogang's The Banquet (2006), loosely based on Shakespeare’s Hamlet, was released as Legend of the Black Scorpion.

It should be noted that as of July 25, 2008, Come Drink With Me (1966), which Tarantino has been cited as remaking, reads “N/A” for Director. The film was directed by King Hu, whose works are considered landmarks of wuxia cinema and recognized globally; A Touch of Zen (1971) won the Technical Prize at Cannes in 1975. Come Drink With Me, which greatly influenced Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Cheng Pei Pei’s appearance in Ang Lee’s film is due to her starring in Hu’s), is considered a classic in both Hong Kong and martial arts cinema. In a press release announcing the launching of the Dragon Dynasty line, it is noted that “Quentin Tarantino, who is well recognized for his passionate interest and broad knowledge of Asian cinema, will actively work with the Weinsteins in all aspects of brand development for Dragon Dynasty” (Weinstein Company Builds, 2006). It is therefore difficult to understand how a brand created by people who insist that they are advocates of these films find the identity of such a well-known director not applicable. The blatantly Orientalist nature of the enterprise’s name, as well as the re-titling of films in the interest of marketing, however, are evidence of the marginal spatialization of these films. Rather than attempting to dismantle preconceptions about Asian cinema, Tarantino and TWC instead both reinforce profit from the perpetuation of these stereotypes, encouraging the perception of these films as low-culture entertainment.

Wong Kar Wai and Chungking Express: PRESENTED BY/directed by

As a successful and influential director, Quentin Tarantino has the ability to command attention through use of his name; because of his considerable fan base, his name has significant market value. In July 1995, Tarantino, qualified by “his experience as a celebrated filmmaker,”(Chungking Express DVD)launched Rolling Thunder Productions, a subsidiary of Miramax, through which he intended to distribute films that he admired and which, he claimed, were unavailable in America except for his largesse: “We’re here to bring back the glory of ‘70s chopsocky movies, Italian crime films, blaxploitation… We’re treating this like a philanthropic enterprise that we might make some money on” (Tarantino, 1995).

In releasing these films, Tarantino’s aim was ostensibly to provide viewers with some of the films that inspired him, as he has stated. It might also be argued that he was seeking to promote these films, as well as the directors and cinemas that produced them. It is interesting to note therefore that on all of the packages, the largest print is reserved for Tarantino’s name. In the case of Chungking Express, Tarantino’s name dwarfs that of the film’s title. The name of director Wong Kar Wai is the smallest print on the cover. An interesting blurb on the back of the slipcase heralds “Another must-see cinema favorite from maverick filmmaker and Pulp Fiction creator Quentin Tarantino.” Simply from a grammatical standpoint, the use of ‘from’ and not ‘of’ is not only confusing but suspect, and one might reasonably be unsure of which ‘must-see’ Chungking Express is following . A photo of his face, as large as any of the actors, is also included on all DVD covers.

Christopher Doyle, the cinematographer on Chungking Express and DP on Zhang Yimou’s Hero, is less than awed by his benefactor’s work: “If you want a good night, you come with me; if you want to go to the supermarket, you go with Quentin. That’s how that guy works - aisle four for Citizen Kane, aisle eight for kung fu. But maybe that’s not so bad. Maybe in this iconoclastic age you need that kind of bullshit.” (Cox, 2004, para. 16)

Yuen Wo Ping: Iron Monkey and Kill Bill

In 2001, Miramax released Yuen Wo Ping’s 1993 martial arts film Iron Monkey in theaters in the United States. Miramax’s version of Iron Monkey uses rewritten subtitles that significantly change the narrative, excises footage and deletes a musical cue that holds deep cultural resonance for the film’s original Hong Kong audience, whom Tarantino refers to as unsophisticated peasants in an interview on the DVD of the film (Iron Monkey DVD). Director Yuen Wo Ping’s name did not appear on the promotional poster or DVD case for Iron Monkey. He is referenced in large print which credits the film to “the acclaimed action choreographer of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” but does not name him as director. Miramax had previously omitted directors’ names from promotional materials as a punitive action (Biskind, 2004), but in this case they most likely felt that Yuen’s name recognition was so low in the United States that there was no reason to use it (thus ensuring that recognition remains low). Yuen’s name is included in the credits on the rear of the case, but is no larger than that of the cast or crew. Featured at the top of the promotional material is “Quentin Tarantino Presents.” Thus, the only director named is Tarantino, who was “aboard the project as a director presenting another director's work, hence the byline ‘Quentin Tarantino Presents’ where I see myself as a director by proxy” (Reid, 2002, para. 10).

Yuen’s credit on Tarantino’s Kill Bill vol. 1 was as ‘martial arts advisor.’ Unlike other directors, Tarantino did not allow Yuen, acknowledged by Tarantino himself as the best and “most imaginative Kung Fu choreographer of all time” (Iron Monkey DVD), to design and direct Kill Bill’s action sequences. Tarantino instead attempted to do all of it himself, including acting as cameraman. According to China’s Mei Ri Xin Bao newspaper, Tarantino thought that Kill Bill would bring the martial arts film to the ‘next level’ (2004).

In terms of financial and time expenditure, it succeeded. Tarantino underestimated the length of time required for filming action scenes, believing their conception and execution to be fairly simple. This was attributed to a combination of Tarantino’s inexperience in directing martial arts as well as his overconfident belief that viewing numerous martial arts films qualified him to direct one. Given the particulars of the situation, one might be tempted to call it a case of Iron Monkey see, Iron Monkey do.

Tarantino, however, felt that such expenditures were justified, not simply because he felt he was making the penultimate action film, but because “I didn't want to shoot the Hollywood way. I wanted to shoot the Chinese way. That's why I went to China. They do the best action films because the schedule's not important. They shoot until it's over” (Waxman, 2003, paras. 22-23). However, Hong Kong’s film industry and personnel, who have participated in virtually all notable Chinese action films, are in fact known for their speed and efficiency; the average Shaw Brothers production time was several months from writing to theatrical release, while Iron Monkey was filmed in approximately four weeks.

Yuen’s role and his advice were a source of no small friction on the set of Kill Bill. He and his crew often found Tarantino’s fight choreography, designed to sync up with the music used in the film, ‘absurd’ and ‘ridiculous’ (Mei Ri Xin Bao, 2004). All of Yuen’s fight choreography was subject to (dis)approval by Tarantino. Yuen was consequently angered that Tarantino frequently dismissed his ideas and suggestions. The on-set relationship between the two was strained. Yuen’s credit on Kill Bill Vol. II is Fight Choreographer.

Zhang Yimou: Hero

Zhang Yimou’s Hero opened in Asia in December 2002, setting box office records and becoming the highest grossing film in China’s history. The film’s American distribution rights had been bought by Miramax in the same year: “I have always tried to expand the boundaries of film and broaden the audience for non-Hollywood fare, not ghettoize it... “Every step in this brave new world of bringing Asian cinema to a wide commercial audience is an experiment” (Variety, 2004, p. 15). Miramax failed to release Hero in 2003, thereby disqualifying it for the 2003 Academy Awards, after China submitted it for competition. The film was not released in the United States until August of 2004, after Tarantino’s Kill Bill films had finished their theatrical run. Tarantino was asked by Miramax if he would allow his name to be used in the film’s promotional campaign (‘Hero a gem’, 2004). He agreed, but stipulated the film should be released in its original form. Director Zhang acceded to Miramax’s request, stating “It is only natural that they use an American way for marketing, for each region has its own way of marketing” (Zhang, 2004). Harvey Weinstein had wanted to cut twenty minutes of the film he thought were “too Asian and confusing” (Sokolove, 2007, para. 6) for Western audiences.

Tarantino received a producer credit, as well as the additional name exposure. The promotional materials for Hero omit or minimize director Zhang’s name, instead emphasizing “Quentin Tarantino Presents.” This phrase is the first thing seen in the Hero trailer which Tarantino attached to his own Kill Bill films. The name substitution led to the misunderstanding by some that Tarantino was in fact the director of the film. Zhang agreed to have Tarantino’s name added to the film after visiting the set of Kill Bill in Beijing where, in Zhang’s words, “I found out that his staff is mostly the staff of Hero, and I joked with him that he is using my people” (ibid.). Zhang also concedes that the name association was in some ways necessary: “Making that association was very useful for getting the film out to an American audience” (‘Hero’ Soars’, 2004). This renaming process continues into the present; “Quentin Tarantino Presents” is used on the DVD cover for the Thai film Tom Yung Goong, released by TWC’s Dragon Dynasty DVD line as The Protector.

One can see how an ‘attention economy’ of film consumption is manipulated by and very beneficial to Tarantino and TWC. By making sure that his martial arts films appear first and more widely than others, Tarantino and TWC effectively expend a great deal of the audience’s appetite for such films. ‘Genre fatigue’ may occur when film consumers tire of, and therefore cease consumption of, films in any given genre. Having already seen, or been given the opportunity to see Tarantino’s films, how much of the same audience is then willing to watch another similar film, even one ‘presented’ by Tarantino?

Hero was released to 2,031 screens in the United States; by comparison, Sony Pictures opened Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid to 2,905 screens on the same weekend (Biskind, 2004). Kill Bill was released to 3,102 screens. It has been speculated that Miramax wanted to avoid any deleterious effect Hero may have had on Kill Bill’s box office returns (Biskind, 2004). Others have noted that Miramax was under pressure from Chinese officials to fulfill its’ contractual obligation to release Hero theatrically (Holson, 2004). Miramax’s parent company, Disney, who were at the time engaged in the construction of Hong Kong Disneyland, disbursed funds specifically for this purpose (Hoberman, 2004). It has also been speculated that by the time Hero was released, many people who had any interest in martial arts films in general had already seen Kill Bill, and those who wanted to see Hero in particular had had two years to either import a DVD or download a pirate copy of the film, especially those seeking to view the film in its original, unaltered state. The subtitles of the Hero DVD are not those used in the film’s theatrical prints; they were more freely translated into Western idioms by Miramax.

Miramax’s repeated delays in releasing Hero, in addition to their stated intention to edit it for domestic release, had many in the United States to seek out the original film on DVD, which was widely available in other countries. In December of 2003, Marc Pollard, webmaster of Kung Fu Cinema, received a cease-and-desist order from Miramax’s legal affairs department, demanding that he cease sale of Hero on DVD. Pollard did not sell DVDs, but linked to HKFlix.com, a US-based distributor who had been selling Hero. They had ceased distributing Hero six months earlier, making the link useless for purchasing Hero. According to Miramax’s Matthew Hiltzik, “The letter served its purpose because Mr. Pollard stopped linking to the sites... By removing these links, he's making it more difficult for people to purchase these films, thereby allowing us to protect our interest in these properties” (Dean, 2003).

Miramax was well within their legal rights to halt unauthorized distribution of Hero by US-based distributors. However, their efforts were more comprehensive in scope and ambition. The cease and desist order sent to Pollard further “ordered [him] to stop referring readers to retailers outside of North America who sell legally manufactured import versions of the movies that Miramax has distribution rights to... According to a legal representative of Miramax Films who spoke with [him], the company also claims that individuals caught importing a film into the U.S. that is owned by Miramax could face legal action.” (Pollard, 2003). Note that these intentions are directed at readers and individuals, not distributors. This is significant because it is at this point that Miramax clearly exceeds their legal entitlement. Miramax sought in essence to direct internet traffic away from websites conducting legitimate and legal business by demanding removal of hyperlinks. But in a 2000 ruling, federal judge Harry L. Hupp, in the Central District of California, ruled that hyperlinks to another website (in this case the Hero page within an overseas DVD distributor’s website) did not constitute violation of copyright (Cocks, 2000).

Miramax’s threat of legal action against individuals importing Hero, however, is not only more egregious but extralegal. United States Code Service (USCS) Section 602 (a) (2) allows “importation, for the private use of the importer and not for distribution, by any person with respect to no more than one copy or phonorecord of any one work at any one time, or by any person arriving from outside the United States with respect to copies or phonorecords forming part of such person's personal baggage” (US Copyright Office). Anyone may legally import one legitimate copy of any film into the United States for personal use. Miramax’s intentions in this instance exceeded their legal boundary and, in admittedly seeking to impede any importation whatsoever, infringed on the lawful rights of individuals to import a copy of the unadulterated, non-Miramax version of Hero or other films.

This kind of market manipulation and/or intimidation, and the motivations behind it, are an example of how the “availability of the arts of another culture in the West means that somebody...has decided that these forms should be available to Western consumers… the aesthetic forms have been captured by the market in advance of their availability to a mass audience, which means that potential consumers will tend to see the commodified versions of the culture first” (Root, 1996, pp. 73-74). While some might postulate that if these ‘obscure’ films were ‘as good as’ Tarantino’s, they would have been able to compete, this begs the question of who is responsible for these films’ and directors’ lack of distribution and ongoing obscurity.

Stephen Chow: Shaolin Soccer

Miramax acquired the American distribution rights for Stephen Chow’s 2001 film Shaolin Soccer, at the time the highest grossing film in Hong Kong history. Over a three year period, the film was edited, dubbed, and re-subtitled but not released; Miramax never seemed to be able to find the right time, or version. Much like Hero, the film’s audience had likely already seen the film through means legal or otherwise; Wired.com noted that it was one of the top ten most-downloaded films in 2003 (Dean, 2003). Much like Hero, many people saw this as a way to see the film in its original state.

Miramax released the film in April of 2004, subtitled but with 20 minutes excised, to 14 U.S. theaters. The DVD release of Shaolin Soccer offers the original, uncut version of the film as a ‘bonus feature.’ Had Miramax released this version in a timely fashion, it would be unnecessary. The film’s theatrical run grossed less than US$500,000 in the United States. Worldwide, it had grossed over US$40,000,000. Like Zhang Yimou’s next film after Hero, House of Flying Daggers, Chow’s follow-up to Shaolin Soccer, Kung Fu Hustle, was released in the US by Sony instead of Miramax.

Implications

The appropriation of City on Fire and Tarantino’s continuing denial of its influence, and his discourse about his ‘Mandarin kung fu’ film that is in reality a remake of a Shaw Brothers film are examples of a deceptive appropriation that contributed to launching his career in 1992 and continues into the present. Tarantino’s failure to admit to these appropriations is evidence of what Gourgouris (2006) calls “the denial of the constitutive encounter with the other” (p. 13).

Unfortunately, appropriation and obfuscation in Hollywood are far from unique to Tarantino or his employers. This practice reaches to the highest levels of Hollywood. Infernal Affairs, the 2002 Andrew Lau Wai Keung film, was acquired by Miramax the same year. It was one of Hong Kong’s highest-grossing films in box office history. Its success spawned two sequels and a plethora of awards, and was credited with re-vitalizing cinema viewing in Hong Kong. In September of 2004, almost two years later,

Miramax theatrically released Infernal Affairs in the United States to five theatres in New York City. The DVD cover features a scantily clad woman holding a pistol who does not appear anywhere in the film. In 2003, Warner Bros. paid US$1.75 million dollars for the remake rights to Infernal Affairs, originally written and directed by Andrew Lau Wai Keung and Alan Mak.

The Departed, directed by renowned American director Martin Scorsese, won the Academy Awards Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Screenplay of 2006. Yet Scorsese was willing to downplay the function and status of the original film, saying as early as 2005 that The Departed was “not a remake. It’s inspired by Infernal Affairs.” (Utichi, 2005, para. 4) As Tarantino and many others have shown, ‘inspiration rights’ are free for the taking; Warner Bros., having paid the remake rights fee, would likely take issue with Scorsese’s statement. The director was, after all, inspired to replicate the original film to a very recognizable degree. This is also the case for Infernal Affairs’ two sequels, plot devices from which are also evident in The Departed. The remake rights for these films, however, were not purchased, perhaps validating their status as inspirations. Dragon Dynasty’s DVD release of Infernal Affairs contributes to its’ minimization, calling it “The motion picture that inspired The Departed.” Obfuscating discourse such as this is not only disingenuous but inherently dishonest. The lack of recriminations for such blatantly deceitful words and actions implicitly make statements about Hollywood’s relationship with Hong Kong (and other foreign) cinema and the sensibility that informs how Hollywood interacts with and subordinates them. The treatment of Infernal Affairs, and of its director and writer, by both Miramax/Dragon Dynasty and one of Hollywood’s most well-known and respected directors, is an example of how “particular kinds of images of colonized cultures are carefully and habitually maintained as sources of what gets called ‘inspiration.’ Within Western aesthetics other cultural traditions have been assigned the role of artistic resource, to be harvested pretty much at the pleasure of the colonizers” (Root1996, p. 19). Adding insult to injury, the voiceover during the Academy Awards incorrectly identified Infernal Affairs as a Japanese film. The reality of the film industry is that it is indeed an industry. It is unrealistic to expect parity between foreign and domestic films, especially when foreign films are not as successful at the box office. Yet this reality is perpetuated by persons who loudly profess to love, promote and assist these same films. TWC owns many more Asian films than they distribute (Rosenbaum, 2000), often keeping a film on the shelf simply to prevent its acquisition or distribution by a competitor, for fiscal reasons, or to avoid competition with other of their own films. In their effort to bring Asian cinema to America, Miramax released Hero, but did so only after Tarantino’s Asian-influenced Kill Bill had run its course. Miramax released two of the highest grossing films in Hong Kong box office history to less than twenty American theaters combined.

By seeking to be the gatekeeper through which viewers pass, Tarantino and TWC hope that the audience will not bypass them; their status as benevolent ambassadors is reinforced, as is their involvement in Asian film distribution. In addition, Tarantino’s role as gatekeeper certainly functions to increase his own fame and recognition. The obfuscation of the origins (and originators) of the films Tarantino ‘presents’ serve not only to ensure that he remains the arbiter of experience but that the American audience never becomes overly familiar with those creators, potentially bypassing the gatekeepers. As Tarantino notes, “what is nice and it definitely happened with Robert and his El Mariachi movies as far as their connection with spaghetti westerns and my Kill Bill movies in connection to the kung fu movies is fans might discover them through us, and then they want to see more and we have the titles and we explain them. They get to go on and educate themselves” (Gilchrist, 2007 para 51).

The rationalization that Tarantino’s name has more marketability than these ‘foreign’ directors reinforces the criticism being made rather than undermines it. As shown, Tarantino’s employers are themselves part of the problem. Tarantino’s name is more marketable because TWC (and likely Tarantino) wants it that way. Again, this is easily understood simply as sound business. But to attempt to gloss over it with assertions of Asian film advocacy when the reality of the situation is so diametrically opposed borders on the farcical: “Bob and [Harvey] are extremely passionate about Asian Cinema and have always been enormous fans of Asian filmmakers from Akira Kurosawa to John Woo. (Weinstein Company Builds, 2006, para. 10).

Given the economic inequalities between Hollywood and Hong Kong cinema, it is difficult to either postulate a solution or to call for any form of change or resistance. One include a clause ensuring that any film produced as a result of these purchased rights always be referred to as a remake. It is certainly a logical stipulation; in what other industry can one purchase the rights to a process or object and then proceed to conceal, deny, or re-name the legitimizing transaction as ‘inspiration’?

A similar clause pertaining to the presence and size of directors’ names would likely result in some of those films being passed over for distribution; as shown with Hero and Iron Monkey and The Protector, marketability (the distributor’s role in the marketability of the directors notwithstanding) trumps philanthropy. While on one hand this is simply sound business, it is also a rather stark example of the reduction of non- Hollywood films and filmmakers to raw material resources for Hollywood’s use, profit, and ‘inspiration.’

References

Apple, M. W. (1998). Foreword. In Kincheloe, J.L., Steinberg, S.R., Rodriguez, N.M., & Chennault, R.E. (eds.). White reign: Deploying whiteness in America. St. Martin’s Griffin: New York, NY.

Austin, A. (2005). Doing Race and Class. Journal of African American Studies (formerly Journal of African American Men) Volume 8, Number 3 / Winter 2005 52 - 61

Marimba Ani, “YURUGU: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior,” Africa World Press. Sixth reprint 1996.

Auletta, K. (2002). “Beauty and the beast.” The New Yorker - December 16, 2002. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from World Wide Web: http://www.kenauletta.com/beautyandthebeast.html

Basu, D. & Werbner, P. (2001). Bootstrap capitalism and the culture industries: A critique of invidious comparisons in the study of ethnic entrepreneurship. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 24, 236_262.

Beale, L. (1995) “Charges of ‘Theft’ still ‘Dog’ Tarantino. USA Today, March 16, 1995.

"Malibu's Most Undercover Guru": Deconstructing Race thru a Comical Pedagogy of Whiteness. Authors: Brayton, Sean Source: Topia (Wilfrid Laurier University Press); Fall2005 Issue 14, p57-72, 16p

Bush, M. E.L. (2004) Breaking the code of good intentions: everyday forms of whiteness (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield).

Carr, L. (1997) Color-blind racism (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).

Carter, R. T. & Helms, J. E. (1993). White racial identity attitudes and cultural values. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 119_131). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Clarkson, W. (1995). Quentin Tarantino: Shooting From The Hip. London: Piatkus Publishers.

Chan, J.M., & Ma, E. (2002). Transculturating Modernity: A Reinterpretation of Cultural Globalization Joseph M. Chan and Eric Ma. In Chan & McIntyre (eds): In search of boundaries: Communication, nation-states and cultural identities. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Cox, Z. (2004). Not just a pretty picture. 28/09/2004 http://news.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&targetRule=<br%20/>10&xml=/arts/2004/09/28/bfhero27.xml Oct. 1, 2004.

Daniels, Jessie, White Lies: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality in White Supremacist Dis-course, New York/ London 1997

Dargis, M. (1995). West looks east: City on Fire and Reservoir Dogs. L.A. Weekly, vol. 17 no. 16, March 17-23.

Dawson, J. (1993). My Life as a Dog... Empire, November 1993, no.53, p.107.

Dawson, M. C. (1999). Dis beat disrupts: Ideology and the politics of race. In

M. Lamont (Ed.), The cultural territories of race: Black and white boundaries. (pp. 318_342). Chicago: University of Chicago.

Derber, S. (2000). The pursuit of attention: Power and ego in everyday life. Oxford University Press: New York, NY.

Dimitriadis, G. (2001). Performing identity=performing culture: Hip hop as text, pedagogy, and lived practice. New York: Peter Lang.

Deloria, P.J. (1998). Playing Indian. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dyer, R. (1997). White. New York: Routledge.

Flagg, B. (1997). ‘Was Blind, but Now I See’: White Race Consciousness and the Requirement of Discriminatory Intent. In Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (Editors) Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the Mirror. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

Fleming, M. (1995) Dogs bark at Tarantino. Variety, March 6-12.

Foster, Gwendolyn Audrey, Performing Whiteness: Postmodern Re-Constructions in the Cinema (Suny Series in Postmodern Culture), New York 2003

Frankenberg, R. (1993). White Women, Race Matters : The Social Construction of Whiteness. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN

Frankenberg, R. (Editor) (1997). Displacing whiteness : Essays in social and cultural criticism. Duke University Press, Durham.

Gallagher, C.A. (1997) “White racial formation: Into the twenty-first century.” In Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (eds.) Critical white studies: Looking behind the mirror. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Gallagher, Charles. 2003. Color-blind privilege: The social and political functions of erasing the color line in post race America. Race, Gender & Class 10 (4): 22-37.

Gans, H. (1974). Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation of Taste. New York: Basic Books.

Henry A. Giroux's book Breaking in to the Movies: Film and the Culture of Politics

High Contrast: Race and Gender in Contemporary Hollywood Film by Sharon Willis

Film Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Winter, 1998-1999), pp. 51-52

Hurtado, A., & Stewart, A. J. (1997). Through the looking glass: Implications of studying whiteness for feminist methods. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell, & L. M. Wong (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power and society (pp. 297–311). New York: Routledge.

Guerrero, E. (2002). Interview. In Julian, I. (director), BaadAsssss Cinema: A bold look at 70s Blaxploitation films. Documentary: IFC Entertainment.

Hall, S. (1990) The whites of their eyes: racist ideologies and the media, in: M. Alvarado

& J. O. Thompson (Eds) The media reader (London, British Film Institute), 7–23.

Hill, Mike, After Whiteness: Unmaking an American Majority, New York/ London 2004

Hobgood, Mary Elizabeth, Dismantling Privilege: An Ethics of Accountability, Cleveland 2002

hooks, b. (1997). Representing whiteness in the black imagination. In

Frankenberg, R. (Ed.) Displacing whiteness: Essays in social and cultural criticism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Huhndorf, S. M. (2001). Going native: Indians in the American cultural imagination. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Jackson, R. L. II. (1999). white space, white privilege: Mapping discursive inquiry into the self. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 85(1), 38_54.

Kennedy, L. (1994). Quentin film geeks: Tarantino on race, plagiarism & Abbot & Costello. The Village Voice, Oct. 25, 1994.

Keough, P. (1998). Independents’ daze: Quentin Tarantino and Gus Van Sant on playing Hollywood’s game. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/archive/movies/98/01/01/VAN_SANT_TARANTINO.html. Sept. 10, 2004.

Kollin, Susan. "Toxic Subjectivity: Gender and the Ecologies of Whiteness in Todd Haynes's Safe." Isle: Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 121-39, Winter 2002.

Kuntzman, G. (1995). ‘Dogs’ has fur flying. The New York Post, 3/15/95.

Lamont, Michele, The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, Chicago 1999

Lee, S. (2001). Interview: Getting Spikey The Context interviews Spike Lee, director of Bamboozled. http://www.thecontext.com/docsi/2942.html

Lewis, Amanda E. 2004. “What Group?: Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of Colorblindness.” Sociological Theory 22(4):623–46.

Lipsitz, G. (1998). The possessive investment in whiteness: How white people profit from identity politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

MacCannell, D. (1976). A new theory of the leisure class. NewYork: Schocken.

Mills, J. (2002). Catch me if you can: The Tarantino legacy. Bright Lights Film Journal, April 2002 Issue 36.

Mitchell, E. (2002). Interview. In Julian, I. (director), BaadAsssss Cinema: A bold look at 70s Blaxploitation films. IFC Entertainment.

Mooney, J. (1994). Interview with Quentin Tarantino. Movieline-August 1994, pp.51, 53,54,88,90

Morrison, Toni. 1993. Playing in the dark: Whiteness in the literary imagination. New York: Random House.

Murray, C. B. & Smith, J. O. (1995). White privilege: The rhetoric and the facts. In

D. A. Harris (Ed.), Multiculturalism and the margins (pp. 139_153). Westport,

CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Muller, Reto, Manufacturing Whiteness, 2001

Murray, S. (2004). Kill Bill: Vol. 2. Movie review. Cox News Service. http://www.dailyadvance.com/movies/content/shared/movies/K/killbillvol2.html August 31, 2004.

Pfeil, Fred, White Guys: Studies in Postmodern Domination and Difference, London/ New York 1995

Root, D. (1996). Cannibal culture: Art, appropriation and the commodification
of difference. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Root, D. (1997). White Indians: Appropriation and the politics of display. In Ziff, B., &

Rao, P. (1998). Borrowed power: Essays in cultural appropriation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. pp. 225-233

Rose, C. (1994) Interview with Quentin Tarantino. 10/14/94. http://www.industrycentral.net/director_interviews/QT02.HTM August 28, 2004.

Said, E. (1994). Orientalism. Vintage: New York.

'Style,' Posture, and Idiom: Tarantino's Figures of Masculinity Willis, Sharon Gledhill, Christine (ed.); Williams, Linda (ed.). 2001. Reinventing Film Studies. (pp. 279-95). London, England; New York, NY: Arnold; Oxford UP, xvi, 464 pp.

Shohat, E. & Stam, R. (2000). Unthinking Eurocentrism : Multiculturalism and the media. New York : Routledge.

Sleeter, C.E. (1993). How white teachers construct race. In McCarthy & Crichlow (eds.) Race, identity, and representation in education. Routledge: NewYork, NY.

Sorrells, K. (2002). “Embodied Negotiation: Commodification and Cultural Representation in the U.S. Southwest. In Collier, M.J. (ed.) Intercultural Alliances: Critical Transformation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Suellentrop, C. (2003). Quentin Tarantino: He brought back Travolta. He revived Pam Grier. Can he resuscitate himself? http://slate.msn.com/id/2088322

Tate, Greg. 2003. Everything but the burden: What white people are taking from black culture. New York: Broadway.

Tarantino, Q. (1992). Reservoir Dogs. Motion picture; director.

Tarantino, Q. (1994). Pulp Fiction. Motion picture; director.

Tarantino, Q. (1994) Rolling Thunder. L.A. Weekly. 6/14/94.

Tarantino, Q. (1997) Jackie Brown. Motion picture; director.

Tarantino, Q. (1998). Phone call, The Howard Stern Radio Show: 5/7/98.

Tarantino, Q. (2003). Kill Bill Volume 1. Motion picture; director.

Tarantino, Q. (2004). Kill Bill Volume 2. Motion picture; director.

Terry, R. (1975). For whites only. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids.

Tierney, S. (2006). Themes of Whiteness in Bulletproof Monk, Kill Bill, and The Last Samurai. Journal of Communication, 56 (3), pp. 607-624.

White, A. (2003). See Quentin Kill. New York Press: 10/10/2003.

R. Wiegman. ‘My Name is Forrest, Forrest Gump': Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity. Multiculturalism, Postcoloniality, and Transnational Media. Ed. Ella Shohat and Robert Stam Rutgers University Press, 2003: 227-255.

Williamson, F. (2002) Interview. In Julian, I. (director), BaadAsssss Cinema: A bold look at 70s Blaxploitation films. Documentary; IFC Entertainment.

Young, R. (1990). White mythologies: Writing history and the west. London: Routledge.

Ziff, B., & Rao, P. (1998). Borrowed power: Essays in cultural appropriation. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.