Skip to main content

Where’s the commode in this dungeon? I gotta have a squirt.

Reservoir Dogs
(1992)

(SPOILERS) I’m not shy to admit that I fully bought into the Tarantino hype when he first arrived on the scene. Which, effectively took place with the UK’s reception of Reservoir Dogs (and its subsequent banning from home video), rather than the slightly tepid post-Sundance US response. That said, I think I always appreciated the “package” more than the piece itself. Don’t get me wrong, I admired the film for what it achieved, shrewdly maximising its effectiveness on a limited budget by, for example, making a virtue out of notshowing the all-important heist. But its influence was everything, more than the sum total of the film itself – that slow-motion parade in cheap matching suits (not so much Chris Penn’s track one), the soundtrack CD that was a fixture until, basically Pulp Fiction came out, the snatches of dialogue, most famously the “Like a Virgin” monologue, even the poster, adorning every student’s wall for the next half decade – so I wouldn’t quite say I fell in love with it.

Whereas Pulp Fiction was, and remains, an instant masterpiece. True, both are, at points, put onto a back heel by the director’s multihyphenate tendencies failing to draw the line at writing and directing – those deadly lofty acting ambitions – but at least that’s limited here. It’s nevertheless an amusing sign of the director’s vanity that he assembles the cast he does and then assigns himself the first “signature” Tarantino scene (“What the fuck was I talking about?”), as a means both of massaging his egoic thespian aspirations and showing he can play with the big boys (he knowshow to deliver his own dialogue, sure, but there’s never any doubt that he’s in the shallow end of the pool wearing arm floats). Mr Brown does get probably my favourite line in the movie (“… that’s a little too close to Mr Shit”), though, and unlike Pulp Fiction, after Like a Virgin, he’s largely insignificant.

What’s most noticeable from revisiting Reservoir Dogs – which I saw at least twice on the big screen, possibly more, given its extended period excluded from home entertainment circulation – is the extent to which Quentin plays his debut straight. Sure, there’s his de rigueur movie and music nerd tics, from The Lights Went Out in Georgia to Lee Marvin to Silver Surfer, but the picture has more genuine emotion in it than – well, I was going to say anyof his other movies, but that isn’t fair to Jackie Brown, in its own low-key way.

Its heartbeat is that of the old hand/apprentice relationship, with a twist, between Harvey Keitel’s Mr White and Tim Roth’s undercover cop Mr Orange, the latter bleeding out from a gunshot wound to the gut (one of the director’s many neat but unshowy twists is revealing this is nota result of the heist, but a carjacking that sees the driver shooting Mr Orange, the cop then shooting the woman dead in instinctive response). And even by his next film, Tarantino was indulging in movie-indulgent self-awareness (rear projection), much keener on glorifying the medium than finding “truth” in it.

It’s undoubtedly the case that there’s a lack of finesse at times in the stage play-esque manner Tarantino circles his subject matter; he returns to the matter of the possible rat repeatedly and breaks up the present tense with flashbacks that sometimes stray into the over-extended or inessential – you can sense him deciding he could simply spitball these riffs between Mr White and Steve Buscemi’s Mr Pink and Michael Madsen’s Mr Blonde all day – but with the performers he has, these interactions are never less than watchable, and at their best, they’re riveting. In particular, Roth and Keitel iron out the cadences of the director’s dialogue into something more earnest and intimate, such that, come the final scene in which White has killed his partners and effectively been killed in return, the cruelty of learning he was wrong is supremely affecting. Although, I’d never noticed before how much Roth sounds like Bobcat Goldthwaite when he’s in agony.

The picture’s infamy is, of course, based on Mr Blonde and the ear-lopping sequence, rather than, say, the more visceral impact of Orange slopping around in his own bloody outpourings. The irony is that Tarantino shows a “tastefulness” here – panning left when Blonde moves in for “the kill” – that would later be entirely foreign to him (the scalpings in Inglourious Basterds, for instance). It’s long enough since I last saw the film – and I’d experienced the fatigue, as with Pulp Fiction, of knowing it too well – that the moment where Orange decisively stops Blonde from inflicting any further damage on the cop becomes a masterfully cathartic moment once again… only to be promptly undercut by Lawrence Tierney’s Joe blowing away Marvin (Kirk Baltz).

Good as Roth and Keitel and Madsen and Penn and Tierney undoubtedly are, my favourite performance is undoubtedly Buscemi’s Mr Pink. In my head, I think I had him down for several other Tarantino pictures, probably because he was in so many indies around that period, but this was it, aside from his waiter cameo in Pulp Fiction (he was earmarked for the Tarantino role). He perfectly encapsulates the weaseliness of Pink, from the first scene about tipping, where he fails to have the courage of his convictions, to his attempts to be the peacemaker between White and Blonde after bad mouthing the latter. On the other hand, he’s goodat being a weasel; when he says he shot his way out, we see he actually did (unless he’s an unreliable narrator), he’s the one who hid the jewels, andhe’s also the only one to survive (albeit arrested). Imagine if Tarantino had played the part as he originally planned. Or try not to.

I don’t think you can really talk about purity when discussing Tarantino, since he’s a self-confessed magpie (or homage merchant), but Reservoir Dogs is definitely a picture that feels bracing in its directness when set against his subsequent wilful meanders and indulgences. It may have spawned a thousand imitators, and itself been influenced – by the Taking of Pelham 123 and City on Fire amongst others – but it carries weight beyond merely being “cool”.






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

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

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

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism