Skip to main content

When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I’ll be waiting.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1
(2003)

(SPOILERS) It sometimes seems as if Quentin Tarantino – in terms of his actual movies, rather than nearly getting Uma killed in an auto stunt – is the last bastion of can-do-no-wrong on the Internet. Or at very least has the preponderance of its vocal weight behind him. Back when his first two movies proper were coming out, so before online was really a thing, I’d likely have agreed, but by about the time the Kill Bills arrived, I’d have admitted I was having serious pause about him being all he was cracked up to be. Because the Kill Bills aren’t very good, and they’ve rather characterised his hermetically sealed wallowing in obscure media trash and genre cul-de-sacs approach to his art ever since. Sometimes to entertaining effect, sometimes less so, but always ever more entrenching his furrow; as Neil Norman note in his Evening Standard review, “Tarantino has attempted (and largely succeeded) in making a movie whose only reality is that of celluloid”. Extend that to an entire directorial career.

It's easy to put the existence of Kill Bill down to Tarantino’s foot fetish for/infatuation with Uma, which isn’t often the recipe for success (habitually casting a muse, that is, rather than getting titillated by tootsies, but that too). It may be an unpopular view, but I don’t think Thurman really carries the picture(s). I’m not singling her out either; this is probably the least inspiring cast Tarantino has assembled – certainly this side of Death Proof – and when combined with material more focussed on showcasing his technical prowess than plot and character, the results are quite ponderous and threadbare at times.

You can only really justify a four-hour movie if you have a lot of story or you’re Sergio Leone, and despite his incessant use of Ennio Morricone, Tarantino can lay a claim to neither. I can’t help feeling the reason he goes back to Morricone so much is that the composer papers over an emotional hole that Tarantino, in his glibness, can’t help but leave gaping. And, while I’m generally on board with his musical choices, regardless of my view of the overall movie, Kill Bill is one where the quirkiness of his choices occasionally get on my wick (the Green Hornet Theme, for example). Of course, one person’s cute/cool is another’s unwarranted indulgence.

Is Quentin a good action director? Undoubtedly. But not as good as, at his best, he is a screenwriter. The House of the Blue Leaves sequence is very impressive… until it doesn’t know when to quit. Even with its comic arterial spurting, Tarantino’s unable to summon the giddy stylistic excess of a Raimi or Jackson. Instead, it’s in the one-on-ones – schoolgirl-styled Chiaki Kuriyama from Battle Royale, for example – that he engages visually the way he can dramatically, rather than trying to outdo all who have gone before (the same kind of hubris that leads to a roundly slated lead performance on Broadway).

For me, the entrance of O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Lui) and her select guard, to the strains of Tomoyasu Hotei’s Battle Without Honor or Humanity, is the most resonant visual in the movie(s), and it’s the kind of simple but effective composition that goes back to Reservoir Dogs. Elsewhere, Quentin’s overcome by his rampant homage mode, with zooms imitating dodgy unfinessed techniques from the exploitation movies he adores. Which is fine, and fun, and the clash of serious performance (Thurman) with a director intent on doodling works to a degree, but it’s never as muchfun as it could be. I don’t find myself enjoying spending time with Kill Bill’s characters (by which, I don’t mean I need to like them), with one exception, so pretty much all there is to savour in its place is his action (and doodles).

Is Quentin consciously ripping off Lady Snowblood? Well, it’s difficult to believe that, with his encyclopaedic knowledge, he isn’t conscious of where his influences lie in every one of his films. I don’t actually think his being the ultimate magpie is a biggie, since he’s a director who so expressly makes everything his own. I just wish that, in this case, the appropriations were in aid of something more impressive. As Jonathan Rosenbaum noted, Kill Bill consists of “hyperbolic revenge plots and phallic Amazonian women behaving like nine-year old boys”.

Is there much I do like here? Julie Dreyfus makes an impression as Lui’s lieutenant, much more so than the larger roles Lui, Thurman and Daryl Hannah have. But Kill Bill has no wit, either in character or structure. Nor has it any restraint, but complaining about that when Quentin’s expressly invoking grindhouse, martial arts, spaghettis westerns and Blaxploitation is rather redundant; one might argue the depraved anime sequence is Tarantino holding back when it comes to illustrating the depths he’s willing to take his story. I rather see it as evidence of why it isn’t always beneficial to feed your twisted imagination. This is the seediest and most tawdry the director has been since his adolescent From Dusk Til Dawn script, populating the corners of his picture with rapists, misogynists and deviants, yet perversely believing he, with his faux-alpha posturing, is justified via positioning a progressive feminist warrior at the centre (in a retro Bruce Lee tracksuit, and with a whole scene about her toes).

Peter Biskind, in Down and Dirty Pictures, had it that, following Pulp Fiction, Tarantino was “almost paralyzed by the vexing question: What next?” and that “It was Welles after Citizen Kane” (which as lofty as that sounds, is actually kind of true. Quentin would surely go along with that kind of mythologising). Except that Welles didn’t get stoned off his face and boast about bitch slapping Don Murphy. Plus, Orson was a good actor. The resultant second guessing may be why Jackie Brown is good but not great, caught between the stools of serious literary adaptation and Blaxploitation riff (notably, Harvey Scissorhands thought it was half an hour too long, and he was probably right, although he wasn’t saying that when it came to the prospect of releasing one movie as two).

Certainly, there’s something besides simply the dashing of his acting dreams behind the six-year filmmaking hiatus following Jackie Brown; Biskind suggests the Elmore Leonard adaptation “seemed to be a disappointment to him”, that Quentin’s antennae were no longer tuned “to the twitches of the zeitgeist, aquiver with each ripple of the culture”. And then, the Kill Bills arrived. And they were successes, but not on the level one might have expected of a beloved filmmaker who’d done little of note in more than half a decade. Tarantino’s response? He doubled down on the most dubious element of his new movie(s): the grindhouse homage.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Everyone wants a happy ending and everyone wants closure but that's not the way life works out.

It Chapter Two (2019)
(SPOILERS) An exercise in stultifying repetitiveness, It Chapter Two does its very best to undo all the goodwill engendered by the previous instalment. It may simply be that adopting a linear approach to the novel’s interweaving timelines has scuppered the sequel’s chances of doing anything the first film hasn’t. Oh, except getting rid of Pennywise for good, which you’d be hard-pressed to discern as substantially different to the CGI-infused confrontation in the first part, Native American ritual aside.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

That woman, deserves her revenge and… we deserve to die. But then again, so does she.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2  (2004)
(SPOILERS) I’m not sure I can really conclude whether one Kill Bill is better than the other, since I’m essentially with Quentin in his assertion that they’re one film, just cut into two for the purposes of a selling point. I do think Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has the movie’s one actually interesting character, though, and I’m not talking David Carradine’s title role.

That's what I think of Mr J Evans Pritchard.

Dead Poets Society (1989)
(SPOILERS) I’ve been up and down on Dead Poets Society over the years, initially impressed by the picture and subsequently finding it rather lacking. As such, I hadn’t been minded to revisit it in a good while, but this occasion found me resolved somewhere between those two positions. On the one hand, Tom Schulman’s screenplay is often simplistic in its character and thematic content while sporting a veneer of substance and maturity. On the other, director Peter Weir imbues the proceedings with an immersive, tangible flavour of time, setting and atmosphere. It’s Witness all over again, basically, just slightly less satisfying in the final reckoning.

Check it out. I wonder if BJ brought the Bear with him.

Death Proof (2007)
(SPOILERS) In a way, I’m slightly surprised Tarantino didn’t take the opportunity to disown Death Proof, to claim that, as part of Grindhouse, it was no more one of his ten-official-films-and-out than his Four Rooms segment. But that would be to spurn the exploitation genre affectation that has informed everything he’s put his name to since Kill Bill, to a greater or less extent, and also require him to admit that he was wrong, and you won’t find him doing that for anything bar My Best Friend’s Birthday.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.