Skip to main content

Half a million dollars will always be missed.

Jackie Brown
(1997)

(SPOILERS) Commonly cited as the most underrated Tarantino film, Jackie Brown is usually simultaneously congratulated for being his most mature work, his picture that has heart (in that sense, it occupies a similar position to the Coen Brothers’ Fargo). This view has gained such traction, the picture is now, perversely, in danger of being overrated. Despite extruding a familiar pop-cultural dressing, this is where the director studiously proves he isn’t just a lot of flash and swagger, yet the result reveals a different set of weaknesses to those he has betrayed since.


You’d have thought, with the geek-fan casting of Pam Grier (Tarantino changed Jackie's surname from Burke, in order to invoke Foxy Brown) and Robert Forster, this would follow suit and turn into one long elaborate homage. But, as with Travolta in Pulp Fiction, his actor fetishes also show an incredibly good eye for unsung, or unfashionable, faces. Grier and Forster are the centre of the movie, and the entire reason Jackie Brown works as well as it does; it’s evidence of the director’s cachet at this point that he wasn’t merely casting has-been stars in lead roles, but never-really-were ones and getting carte blanche with it.


Grier wasn’t exactly known for her acting chops, while Forster had mostly inhabited B-movies during the ‘70s and ‘80s. There’s an alchemy here, though, as the two actors gel in a very natural, unpressured way, Tarantino shepherding a growing relationship rather than excitedly jumping up and down, eager to gabble on to the next scene. The director was in his mid-30s when this came out, and appears to have regressed in terms of his character work since. Certainly, nothing has exhibited the same deftness, insight and willingness to allow a relationship to evolve. These are two characters conscious of the pressures of time and age, albeit in different ways (Grier is playing a half decade younger, an air stewardess who at 44 can feel life passing her by, while Forster’s Max Cherry confesses only to a concern over his disappearing hair, but has clearly been marooned by habitual behaviour patterns).


The result is a bittersweet romance between a couple who express their mutual affection by collaborating on a plan to hoodwink both the ATF (Michael Keaton’s Ray Nicolette) and small-time arms dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L Jackson). Jackie has been smuggling money for the latter, and as a result is under pressure from Nicolette and Michael Bowen’s LAPD detective Mark Dargus to cooperate.


At every stage, Jackie is revealed as an outstanding schemestress, joining the ranks of other uber-confident Leonard protagonists (see also Get Shorty and Justified), manipulating the law and the criminal fraternity to her own ends, aided, advised and abetted by the impressed and devoted Max. Tarantino’s familiar stylistic devices and adjustments of timeframe interpose very naturally here: the initial trial-run bag switch, where a third participant is revealed, and the later beach towel bag switch played from three different perspectives.


Max, meanwhile, is the picture of level-headedness; he knows his job and takes unseemly altercations in his routine-worn stride. The interactions with the self-regarding Ordell are particularly enjoyable, Forster underplaying effectively to Jackson’s instinctive camera-hogging. Early on, there’s a fine scene where Ordell requests a second bond (this time for Jackie, having disposed of Chris Tucker’s Beaumont on the back of the first), and Max explains his indifference to Ordell’s activities (“Whatever you’re doing you seem to be getting away with it, so more power to you”) while spurning his “white guilt” trip (“Ordell, this isn’t a bar, you don’t have a tab”). Later, pre-showdown, the nonplussed bail bondsman is threatened by Ordell, exhibiting persuasively unimpressed steeliness.


Jackie and Max’s plan goes off with out a hitch, but the lack of happily-ever-after feels entirely appropriate. While they do finally kiss, he demurs the offer to accompany her to Spain. Max knows she doesn’t care for him as much as he does her (her invitation is almost an afterthought), added to which he admits to being a little scared of her (she’s supremely capable, legalities be damned). And, despite wanting to get out of the business, he’s too stuck in his ways; his mould is set. There’s more resonance here than in any of Tarantino’s other pictures put together, simply because he prefers Sturm und Drang over softly-softly emotional content.


It’s fortunate then, that the peripheral characters and incidents aren’t too distracting or overwhelming; they remain just that, peripherals. The downside is, this does mean you notice just how laboriously Tarantino is servicing them. Most of his pictures fly by, but while Jackie Brown never becomes inert, you definitely feel its two-and-a-half-hour running time.


The director scores with Bridget Fonda’s withering, bored, sarcastic stoner Melanie (“He moves his lips when he reads. What does that tell you?” she asks Louis regarding Ordell), meeting an untimely end after subjecting Robert De Niro’s Louis Gara to scorching derision one too many times (lost in the car park, she asks Gara “How did you ever rob a bank? Did you have to look for your car too?” It’s a hilarious, entirely deserved wind-up).


Keaton’s Nicolette, pulling double duties the following year in Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight, as the same character, marvellously delivers the ATF agent’s faux-naïve density, no match for Jackie’s plotting.


I’m less impressed by Ordell and Gara. Jackson and De NIro are suitably diligent, the former pulling off his latest ‘do with aplomb as a “ponytail wearing motherfucker”, the latter inhabiting possibly the least likable, dishevelled scumball of his career (I haven’t yet seen Dirty Grandpa). The problem is, as bad guys, we have no desire to spend time with them the way we do the very best Tarantino villains and anti-heroes. Ordell feels like a derivation of characters the director has already done, while Gara sucks all the energy out of the room (it’s ironic that Tarantino gets acting legend De Niro, then gives him one of the least prolific roles of his – then – career; apparently Stallone turned it down, and it’s easy to see why).


It’s also the Ordell side where the cracks of trad-Tarantino dialogue and geekiness show through, including the oft-selected but unrepresentative and rather irritating Ak47 scene (“The Killer had a 45”) and Fonda watching her dad on TV.  Other elements, such as the “Three minutes later” cue card for the perfunctory sex scene, actively work against the “respectable” card the director seems to be keen on playing. In contrast, when Jackie goes through her record collection and discusses CDs, it’s an actual conversation (even though we know it’s a Tarantino fave subject).


Characters talk about music more than movies here, from Ordell on his car stereo, instructing Gara not to adjust the levels, to his suspicion over Max playing the Delfonics (Max’s tribute to Jackie, which he keeps playing and playing; one wonders if Tarantino had been watching Chungking Express). Bobby Womack’s Across 110 Street is particularly well-used, bookending the picture first as an introductory anthem for Jackie, and then reprised to suggest an air of melancholy as life goes on regardless.


Despite it’s many estimable qualities, I don’t feel Jackie Brown is underrated; I’m definitely in the camp that sees it as a tad over-praised. It’s a long time since I last watched it all the way through, and I feel much the same as I did the first time. At points, it’s over-studied on its director’s part, suggesting he’s out to prove something to his critics by adapting a work of literature (Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch). Which he certainly does in terms of pulling off the lead characters, the reverent (read: slow) pace, and relative restraint of the content (curiously, for a director so enamoured by gore of late, this film’s deaths happen either out of frame or direct line of sight).


But the allowing of the thing to breathe leads to too much ambling. The third film by Quentin Tarantino lacks bite, the most unlikely charge one might level at his oeuvre. Ironically, given my biggest complaint regarding his post-Jackie output is that he over-indulges himself, and that the typical Tarantino elements here stand out like sore thumbs, Jackie Brown could have done with more integrated, with being more of his own thing. As it is, it pales in comparison to the next year’s Leonard picture, the vibrant, vital, deliriously-scored Out of Sight (Steven Soderbergh hasn’t come close to a film that good since, alas).





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa