I'd agree that both are trying to evoke reactions but I feel that Kieslowski is giving me space to project myself into the film instead of simply assault me with everything going on. I like that assault sometimes. It's certainly the reason why I like Alien and Reservoir Dogs.
I like the angle you are taking OAD. With your Tarantino/Kieslowski comparisons I feel like the level of 'manipulation' you feel is in part due to the film-maker but perhaps more due to the content: the immediate impact (and the severity) of violence (pain, death etc.) is of more concern than long-lasting feelings of freedom, love, grief, insecurity etc. The 'hit' is right now and this urgency is reflected by the film-maker.
This is an interesting way of putting it.
Just to be sure I understand what you're saying, do you mean that what I'm feeling about Tarantino seems to have to do with the instant, and transitory, experience (of violent, painful content) he gives me in the movie theater - and that that experience can be contrasted to what I feel with someone like Kieslowski who gives me an experience that lasts beyond the immediate moment of the theater because the content is more resonant with, say, what it means to be human (and is therefore more long-lasting)?
(Sorry, that was a convoluted sentence - hope it makes sense. Btw, I need to get some sleep, so I may not be able to answer you 'til tomorrow if you post again tonight.)
That may be one reason, but I think Tarantino is a filmmaker who likes to elicite very certain reactions from his audience, and usually very visceral ones, which makes some of his movies hard to love(I have trouble, for all it's genius, loving Pulp fiction). It's fantastically crafted, but the response he wants is strong. However, Kieslowski is a much more delicate filmmaker, he allows his films to speak for themselves and creates worlds which make you react but never tries to shock you, but instead makes you think yourself about what you've just seen.
I agree, sam and 'Noke. And it seems like this makes my (our?) objections to Tarantino come down to a matter of taste? - I ultimately prefer the Kieslowski kind of film where I can participate more actively on both an emotional and intellectual level in what's happening on screen and where the themes or ideas and/or beauty (not necessarily beauty though) resonate in my life long after the film is over.
I do love a film that takes me on a ride; I love Jaws and Alien, for example, but I think when a film is so violent (like Reservoir Dogs for me), I want it to have a very good reason for that violence, a reason that's fundamentally related to something else besides the rush of that violence.
I'm not sure if I feel as strongly as you do, but I do think that Tarantino is a hard director to love because of those reasons. Because his violence is not for reveling in, he's always been a director who does not want to gloss over violence for the sake of cool, but also one who just puts scenes out there and says "How do you feel about that?"
However, I do think that what surprised me about IB is that with all the bits of shocking violence (Scalps, drawings on foreheads) here is also a lot of very nice emotional moments, most notably With Kruger and the shoe, with Lauent and Maurice, and especially those end scenes with Fassbender. "You know, there's a place in hell for people who waste good scotch." The way that's delivered just breaks my heart.
(I know I have more to say, but I have to go quickly. maybe I'll have more thoughts for tomorrow.)