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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.