Skip to main content

Do you like to get pie after you see a good movie?

True Romance
(1993)

(SPOILERS) The track record for others adapting Tarantino’s early screenplays isn’t so hot – the prosecution offers Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Til Dawn – but Tony Scott’s envisioning of True Romance, made before the director went stratospheric with Pulp Fiction and after Quentin politely turned Tony down when he made it known how much he’d like to direct Reservoir Dogs himself, is nigh on perfect. Scott ironed the director’s tricksy structure into something linear, and brought with it an upbeat ending, because he knew that if you’re onboard with Clarence (Christian Slater) and Alabama (Patricia Arquette), you don’t need bells and whistles and foisted tragedy. And he managed to make a classic as a result, the best film of his career.

Tarantino is winningly unguarded on the commentary track he volunteered for the DVD release (he says he’s 36 on it, so it must have been recorded around ’99) It doubtless helps that he’s a gushing fan of the director – with his eclectic tastes, he cites Days of Thunder as a great movie, which is… generous – but he sounds entirely genuine in his admission that Scott’s decisions were perfect for the picture (“I gotta say I think Tony’s ending is better for the movie Tony made”), and he also hones in on just why that was, which is revealing of his own strengths and limitations as a purveyor of a self-styled oeuvre.

Tarantino recognises the idea that “the movie hadn’t earned a tragic ending” (in which Clarence dies; this can be seen on the Blu-Ray extras) and that under Scott “it became much more of a romantic fairy tale” than he had envisaged. And it’s true. True Romance is hopelessly romantic, cued as such by Hans Zimmer’s gorgeous, enchanting re-envisioning of Carl Orff’s Gassenhauer – used in Badlands by Terrence Malick and informed there by Sissy Spacek’s narration, both devices an inspiration here – and capped by Alabama’s sunset bliss in Mexico with an eyepatched Clarence and their young son Elvis.

Purportedly, Harvey Weinstein was kicked off the picture for suggesting Slater was too good-looking for Clarence (an altercation that led to the Weinstein-Tarantino-Miramax legacy). Which he is, but the casting serves to underline the fairy-tale element; we don’t have to pretend this is legitimately a real world where Slater actually is a nerd who goes to see back-to-back Sonny Chiba movies, who marries a hooker – I mean, call girl – procured as a birthday present on only her fourth client (because that means she retains her relative purity), who is manly and confident enough, despite being a nerd, to stand up to her pimp and blow him away, and then engage in a high-stakes drug deal. It’s a fully-formed Tarantino fantasy of himself (he admits Clarence is him, and Clarence comments “I’m basically a pretty resourceful guy”), the guy who is self-aware but also self-aggrandising (who will bitch slap someone to prove his masculinity, and shut interviewers butts down when they disrespect him).

You have to be on board with the contradictions to love True Romance. Clarence, who wears a Travis Bickle jacket during the Detroit sequence, was told by Scott to watch Taxi Driver to get Clarence’s attitude right… And Scott wanted a romantic ending? Perhaps he didn’t think Bickle was a sociopath? Or perhaps he was doing the only thing that could legitimately be done with such material – buying into the all-things-to-all element, that Clarence, with his ghost-of-Elvis (Val Kilmer) guidance figure, could be someone who wouldn’t bat an eye at killing someone (even a Drexl), leaving a trail of destruction wherever he goes in pursuit of his selfish desires (did his father, Elliot Blitzer, or even Lee Donowitz really deserve to die?) AND you should like him for it all, and want him to win out (as Alabama says when he comes back from Drexl’s, “I think what you did was so romantic”). Uma Thurman suggested to Tarantino, of Pitt’s stoner, “Floyd is telling us how to enjoy this movie” (not taking it all that seriously and just absorbing whatever appears), and that sounds about right.

Slater and Arquette are perfect (they “make a really cute couple”), it should be emphasised. The former still hasn’t come close to this and Heathers since (and indeed, aspects of his life have been decidedly cautionary, of the do not take Clarence’s ethos into the real-world aspect). The latter meanwhile, is supremely sympathetic and hilarious, with the caveat that, by dint of what this movie is, she is a wish-fulfilment fantasy on the writer’s part, Arquette managing to bring something more to the lack of substance and objectification that brings. Her standoff with James Gandolfini’s hitman Virgil remains the dramatic high point of the movie, an expertly structured sequence in which Alabama is battered and beaten but emerges triumphant through using her wits (rather than – and I know I said this was a fantasy, but I also said it’s also all things to all – foisted movie brute strength). The most triumphant element of True Romance is that it gets the leads so right, but then it also has the extraordinary supporting cast to feast upon.

I’ve mentioned Gandolfini’s hitman, curiously sensitive as he explains to Alabama how one gradually becomes desensitised to killing. Then there’s Oldman, the dreadlocked pimp who thinks he’s black (“He must have thought it was white boy day”), the briefest of Samuel L Jackson cameos (memorably talking about eating pussy, pussy dialogue, of course, being an early period Tarantino mainstay), Kilmer as an Elvis whose face you never quite see, and Brad Pitt as stoner Floyd, watching Freejack and doing his level best to ensure, through completely zonked dimness, that Blue Lou Boyle’s goons catch up with Clarence. Michael Rapaport is endearingly unaffected as Dick Ritchie, cluelessly aspirant actor (a part in TJ Hooker beckons) and best friend to Clarence. Bronson Pinchot’s priceless as Elliot, gopher to Saul Rubinek’s apoplectic Joel Silver riff Lee Donowitz (“Don’t give me the finger! I’ll fucking have you killed!” he screams at a passing motorist: also, “I’ve got more taste in my penis”). Chris Penn and Tom Sizemore are narc cops having a really good time providing a running commentary on their sting operation (“Get a hold of yourself, you fucking cissy!” screams Sizemore of Elliot, while professing how much he admires Clarence).

Best of all, though, and the scene of the movie, is the conversational standoff between Dennis Hopper as Clarence’s dad and Walken as Blue Lou’s consigliere Vincenzo Coccotti. Hopper knows from the moment Walken walkens in that’s it for him, so takes the opportunity to indulge a racist anecdote about the origins of Sicilians, much to Vincenzo’s simultaneous amusement and ire. It’s a perfect scene, and remains possibly the best thing Tarantino has ever written, so proficient is it with competing emotions, tensions and pathos (“If that’s a fact, tell me, am I lying?”) As Tarantino observes, it’s almost too good for the movie, as any other picture would subsequently collapse by being unable to compete.

It’s also to Tarantino’s credit that, even if Clarence has unbelievable beginner’s luck, much of the plotting is based on amateurs failing to get the better of professionals, yet sometimes sidling on by them despite themselves. After dad is killed, in a moment worthy of Midnight Run, one of Coccotti’s henchmen finds Clarence’s contact details on the fridge. After beating Alabama to within an inch of her life, Virgil finds the suitcase of drugs under the bed. Floyd, as mentioned, is an unguarded font of information on their whereabouts. Elliot manages to put a sign around his neck saying “coke fiend, arrest me”. And the grand climax finds flying bullets between professionals who won’t back down a great leveller on both sides of the law.

That scene has the transcendent image of the shot Wurlitzer (Michael Beach) collapsing on a sofa of enveloping feathers, and throughout, Scott and DP Jeffrey L Kimball (a veteran of three Scott movies) conjure gorgeous visuals of colour and pop and fizz. It’s there in the costumes of Clarence and Alabama, and the contrast of the shift from frosty Detroit to fiery LA. It also bears noting, given the Coens-esque call to fidelity of a Tarantino script, how much improv was said to have been allowed, including several lines in the Sicilians scene, the repartee between Penn and Sizemore, and also ideas from Pitt and Pinchot. Elsewhere, Scott came up with the rollercoaster setting (rather than a zoo). The changes aren’t all great, though: the song choices just aren’t in the same league as Quentin’s typical hit picks.

Tarantino confesses that this didn’t all come from nothing, but it was the first screenplay he had finished, culled from the mammoth The Open Road that incorporated Natural Born Killers (it sounds like Roger Avery should have got more credit for his involvement, but Quentin’s never backwards in coming forward). Thus, there are riffs from fallen projects (My Best Friend’s Birthday), and the movie-centric elements that encompass everything from Badlands – in one account of The Open Road plot, True Romance is the Hollywood version a screenwriter completes while trying to evade Micky and Mallory, which gives it an almost Black Freighter sounding quality – to Play it Again Sam (the Elvis/Bogart mentor). As with the director’s best work, though, the homage elements coalesce to form their own distinctive, polished gem.

True Romance is probably the Tarantino picture I’ve revisited more than any other, so it may say something about my lack of true acolyte status that it’s one he didn’t direct himself, and that it leaves me with the lingering feeling that his subsequent career may, at times, have benefited from removing himself from the equation a little more. What Scott brings to the material, and Slater and Arquette, is – ironically given the Tony’s soulless Simpson/ Bruckheimer rep rep at the time – heart, meat on the bones of what could easily have been rendered little more than a trite adolescent fantasy.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This is one act in a vast cosmic drama. That’s all.

Audrey Rose (1977)
(SPOILERS) Robert Wise was no stranger to high-minded horror fare when he came to Audrey Rose. He was no stranger to adding a distinctly classy flavour to any genre he tackled, in fact, particularly in the tricky terrain of the musical (West Side Story, The Sound of Music) and science fiction (The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Andromeda Strain). He hadn’t had much luck since the latter, however, with neither Two People nor The Hindenburg garnering good notices or box office. In addition to which, Audrey Rose saw him returning to a genre that had been fundamentally impacted by The Exorcist four years before. One might have expected the realist principals he observed with The Andromeda Strain to be applied to this tale of reincarnation, and to an extent they are, certainly in terms of the performances of the adults, but Wise can never quite get past a hacky screenplay that wants to impart all the educational content of a serious study of continued existence in tandem w…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.