Keeping it reel

Alex Coolman

“So as you can see, it’s got a lot of sex, a lot of physical violence, a

lot of emotional stress, a lot of blood, a lot of profanity and a lot of

immorality.”

Arthur Taussig is running through a review he’s written of “Pulp

Fiction,” cataloging the offensive details that pepper the 1995 Quentin

Tarantino flick like brown spots on a bad apple. Then he raises his thick

eyebrows behind his tortoise-shell glasses, and offers a slightly

mischievous smile.

“On the other hand,” he says, “I still think it’s a very good film.”

Taussig is a man who doesn’t mind making complicated judgments about

movies. The 58-year-old Orange Coast College professor thrives on

discussing the moral and symbolic nuances of films and delving into the

archetypal structure underlying popular Hollywood cinema.

Unfortunately, Taussig says, there are many people who aren’t comfortable

with such a subtle approach to moviegoing. Many critics would prefer to

condemn a film like “Pulp Fiction” altogether, citing its violence, drugs

and morally dubious vision of life instead of admitting what Taussig

thinks is patently obvious: that the movie, if experienced by an

appropriately mature viewer, can be an aesthetically and intellectually

rewarding experience.

The Costa Mesa resident has recently launched a Web site, o7

www.filmvalues.comf7 , to help moviegoers, especially parents, decide

what films would be appropriate for a given age of viewer and what will

be merely traumatic. The site evaluates movies based on their tendency to

present the lewd and crude behaviors mentioned above, but it also treats

each film in an essay of about 500 words.

“This film is not included here because it is recommended viewing,”

Taussig writes of “Pulp Fiction” in his treatment of the movie, “but

because most teenagers will go to great lengths to see it ... it has

become for the ‘90s what ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show’ or ‘Harold and

Maude’ were for previous generations of teenagers -- a cult film.”More

than 700 reviews are posted on the site; films ranging from

family-friendly fare, such as “Aladdin,” to much darker material, such as

“8mm” and “The Blair Witch Project.” Taussig says he is adding new

reviews on a daily basis, and a feature on the site also lets parents

request critiques of specific movies.

The discussion of the films attempts to give readers a sense of the

ethical content of their plots. Taussig not only notes whether a movie

features criminal behavior, but also records whether such behavior goes

punished or unpunished. His treatment of “Home Alone” points out that the

physical violence experienced by a pair of housebreaking burglars needs

to be understood as punishment for the fact that “they are the ‘bad

guys.”’

“Parents must point out that in the real world, this type of violence

hurts and is not acceptable,” he writes.

Maxine Gaiber, director of education for the Orange County Museum of Art,

where Taussig is an adjunct film curator, praised his offbeat approach to

interpreting movies.

“He’ll find things beneath the surface about, you know, the role of women

that he thinks are more dangerous than the violence,” Gaiber said. “He

really probes into the psychological aspects of films. Nobody else I know

of really looks at films that way.”

Taussig’s Web site is only the latest effort he has made to promote a

sensitive, useful discussion of the moral components of movies. He

published a book in 1997, “Film Values/Family Values: A Parents’ Guide”

that reviews more than 300 movies in a format similar to that used on the

Web site. Taussig is also the former publisher of a newsletter, “The Film

Analyst,” a periodical that wasn’t aimed at parents but that featured his

characteristically sensitive dissection of film themes.

The electronic approach to doing the reviews is appealing to Taussig

because of its potential reach.

“I would like [the Web site] to become the No. 1 place where responsible

parents go for intelligent, levelheaded, useful film information.”

And the instantly “update-able” format of the site also lets Taussig

offer some features he couldn’t provide in the print format, such as

schedules and reviews of upcoming movies on television.

But scrambling to review all kinds of new releases and old classics is a

labor-intensive business, and it’s one that Taussig tackles on top of his

work at OCC and OCMA.

The motivation for all the work, he says, is simple: he is concerned that

if a moderate voice isn’t heard in the debate over movies, extremists

will be the only ones setting the cultural agenda.

“I’m worried about what’s happening to kids,” Taussig said. “And I’m

worried about people media-bashing who have no idea what they’re talking

about.

“My fear is of a very protective parent who doesn’t let their kids watch

any television or movies. What happens to [their children] when they

leave the house? They’re awash in media.”

And movies, more so than books or plays or other forms of media, have a

power to persuade, Taussig said. The immediacy of the viewing experience

is such that children can be very rapidly and vividly exposed to harsh or

shocking aspects of life.

“In the old days, when people told stories, you’d watch the kids, and if

it got tense you’d change the story,” Taussig says. “You don’t have that

option now.”

But just as movies can portray the terrifying side of life, Taussig said,

they can also do an unparalleled job of telling stories about virtue,

grace and love.

“They can be more everything,” he said. “If films are sometimes

horrifying, they have equal potential to be positive.”