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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

The protocol actually says that most Tersies will say this has to be a dream.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)
(SPOILERS) The Wachowski siblings’ wildly patchy career continues apace. They bespoiled a great thing with The Matrix sequels (I liked the first, not the second), misfired with Speed Racer (bubble-gum visuals aside, hijinks and comedy ain’t their forte) and recently delivered the Marmite Sense8 for Netflix (I was somewhere in between on it). Their only slam-dunk since The Matrix put them on the movie map is Cloud Atlas, and even that’s a case of rising above its limitations (mostly prosthetic-based). Jupiter Ascending, their latest cinema outing and first stab at space opera, elevates their lesser works by default, however. It manages to be tone deaf in all the areas that count, and sadly fetches up at the bottom of their filmography pile.

This is a case where the roundly damning verdicts have sadly been largely on the ball. What’s most baffling about the picture is that, after a reasonably engaging set-up, it determinedly bores the pants off you. I haven’t enco…

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.

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.

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…

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008)
(SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanleywas well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley, our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“too syrupy”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog. 

Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has cause to be, as does any re…

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…