General Chat / Kill Bill

I posted this as a response at FluxD (yeah I still check that site once every 3 weeks or so) but I thought I'd post it here too. I have a feeling people there won't understand my post as I meant it and just blow off my comments as those of someone who "has too much time on their hands". Well stating a point of view is not meant to put other people down, it's meant to force other people to really examine their own thoughts and thus start a discussion. So keeping that in mind, here is my opinion on the new Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill. I do recommend people go see the movie if only so they could contribute to the discussion.

I'm not disappointed by the movie, it was exactly what I expected it to be, but I'm disappointed by all the praise it has gotten. QT is well known for borrowing scenes and moments from other films. Kill Bill takes this to a new level. It's great that QT loves movies so much that he wants to remake them all himself and it's great that he's reached a position where he can afford to do what he wants to do. I'm happy for the guy, he's so enthusiastic and energetic and actually loves what he does. On the other hand, the guy is just selling us our own pop culture and he's getting praised for it. Kill Bill is a film made by a director who knows all of the tricks and stylizations available to him who ultimately has nothing to say. So he recycles an old plot, dresses it up with lots of flashy action and obscure refrences which will mostly go undetected and makes an homage to kung fu action movies. Why does anyone think this movie is significant in any way? People keep saying 'either you get it or you don't'. What is there to get? It's style over substance taken to it's extreme. There is nothing here except flashy fight scenes between characters with silly names. Oh yeah and a helping of anime too because we've all seen the Matrix so now Anime is hip too. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs were significant. Since then QT seems content to satisfy himself by re-making every movie he's ever loved. I did like the sword fight that ends the movie (as I like all good sword fights) and a lot of the imagery was memorable and well-crafted. I just wish Tarantinto would devote his time and talent on a project that actually matters instead of furthering the cult of postmodern chic.

Oh and another thing. There seems to be a lot of attention focused on the violence in the movie. Well limbs do get hacked off and blood does spray on the camera but the violence is only an afterthought really. The way the violence is delivered is very black comedy and it would be hard to really be offended by it. The only people who might find this movie offensive are people who thought 'Death to Smoochy' and 'Throw Momma From the Train' were offensive. In the case of Kill Bill the violence is just another way to distract the audience from realizing that there isn't really a movie anywhere in there. It's just another stylization.

I saw it too... still trying to decide whether or not I like it better than Finding Nemo for my #1 so far this year.

You bring up some good points, and since I don't feel like writing a long ass answer right now... I'll do this.

- Reservoir Dogs is easily his worst film. Not bad by any means, but the whole thing fails as anything but a pretty well done exercise in cool. It showed what type of talent Tarantino has, but alone it wasn't great.

- Jackie Brown transcended the blaxploitation genre much more than you give it credit for (infact you don't even mention it at all).

- QT does not make important movies, he just makes good movies. I too would like to see him branch out every once in a while, but we have so many other good directors to do important movies, what is wrong with someone who does what QT does.

- QT and M Night Shyamalan are very comparable. Both take campy genres and make well-done and oft times very emotional movies and thoughtful movies out of them.

- I also think you overlook the great character moments in Kill Bill that moves it beyond what you see it as. Like O-Ren asking for forgiveness before the final part of their duel.

- You also seem to completely miss the point of the anime scene. It was brilliant and in no way done to simply fit in with a fad. The blood through the sheets shot is one of the most beautiful and disturbing things yet this year.

- What Kill Bill lacks in importance, it makes up for with craftmanship. The man is so good at storytelling (even when there really is no story as the case here) that it is unbelievable. Also, his ability to use music to enhance a scene is second to none.

- Neither Pulp Fiction nor Reservoir Dogs were significant. Thinking otherwise is letting your nostalgia get in the way of reality.

I'll adress QT's other movies later because that's a whole can of worms I'm not ready to open up yet. Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir Dogs are problematic and it'll take me some time to explain why. And I think Reservoir Dogs is by far Tarantino's best film so obviously we disagree on a fundamental level about this. I would like to reply to your comments about Kill Bill though while it's fresh in my mind.

There are no character moments in the film because there are no characters. The Bride is not a character - the film jumps from action scene to action scene without showing any background. The character is implied but this relies on what we know about the films Tarantino is ripping off. Nothing in the movie itself gives her character any kind of motivation other than revenge. Vivica A. Fox isn't in the movie long enough to have a character. And O-Ren Ishii has a background but it couldn't possibly be more generic. Her parents were killed by gangsters and she hid and watched the whole thing. Sure, Tarantino is a genius.

The anime sequence has no place in this movie. The blood dripping down from the sheets may be a powerful image but it's not made stronger by the fact that it's anime nor is it in any way an original image. I don't think QT did anime because it's a fad, I think he did it because it's another style of film that he loves but doesn't understand. I don't know enough about anime to really discuss this issue but I saw nothing in that sequence that was brilliant. Tell me how the anime sequence was brilliant.

QT as a storyteller? The non-linear structure was an unnecesary distraction in this movie. In Reservoir Dogs it cotrolled our perceptions of the characters. In Pulp Fiction it gave each scene greater weight because they didn't fit into the whole narrative until the film'c conclusion. In Kill Bill we see the first fight scene before the characters have any meaning at all. What was the point in that? And I'm no longer impressed by QT's use of music. Having made films myself I can tell you that using music is the cheapest and easiest way to generate emotion. You pick a song with the emotion you want and you play it over the scene. Sure there were good songs in the movie but Tarantino relies on the songs to tell the story too much. This is not good filmmaking, it's lazy filmmaking.

When you say that Tarantino and Shyamalan use campy genres you overlook the fact that everyone uses campy genres now. The genre films are the big budget films and what used to be A films are all packed in to the end of the year for Oscar consideration. Star Wars is a B film. Indiana Jones is a B film. Almost all of the box office leaders are B films. And if you're suggesting that Kill Bill is thoughtful in any way than I might as well give up this discussion right now. Kill Bill reminds me of the movies I made in High School. The storytelling is stylized and highly informed by film history but empty of any intellectual concepts. Is there a theme to Kill Bill? Yeah, revenge. Again, genius.

And lastly there's the defense of Kill Bill as a fun movie, a B movie. Well I'm not arguing with that at all. What I'm arguing with is the fact that critics and audiences have elevated Tarantino as a great filmmaker. You're right that he doesn't make important films. And I was wrong when I said Kill Bill isn't significant. It is just as significant as Pulp Fiction because of how it represents our culture. My own opinion is that American culture today is popular culture. What you know about TV, popular music, movies, and similar cultural capitol defines your place in this society. Knowing key details of a popular sitcom from 10 years ago will gain you more respect than analyzing the significance of the Peloponnesian War on early philosophy. That kind of knowledge will make you an outcast. Tarantino has tapped into the obsession with popular culturew and used it to make a name for himself. I say Tarantino can have his fun and make whatever movies he wants. Film history is constantly changing to meet new trends and Tarantino's films are significant because of their culltural relevance. I find it very distressing that I live in a culture that elevates Kill Bill as a brilliant movie.

Tarantino has a very distinct film-making style: the French New-Wave, meets every single B-Grade picture ever made (from Film-noir to Kung Fu and far, far, far beyond). And much like both styles, the styles have immense cinematic importance - the actual films have very little.

Well, I guess that's somewhat unfair. There are films from the New-Wave which could be viewed as important - the 400 Blows and Breathless especially - and there are even a few B-movies that are important - D.O.A. and Touch of Evil for two more examples - in fact, the French New-wave wouldn't hav e existed without the B-picture (so in that sense, Tarantino is just continuing the French New-Wave into modern times - and with a distanctly American slant).

But, I guess what I'm trying to get here is that Tarantino is inspired by movies which offer style over substance, a great deal of cinematic brilliance in their style and a great deal of silly fun. As such, if you expect any more out of a Tarantino movie, you should be shot. And it better kill you.

Not to say he can't make a film that is more than that (Jackie Brown is a wonderul film, filled with brilliant characters, a wonderful story, and it is all pulled off beyond amazingly well from all involved) but, I don't think he nessecarily cares about doing anything more than that.

So really, neither should you.

I'm waiting till me and my mother go to the movies and can't find a film we both can agree on. So she goes off to see her movie, and I go off to see mine. Which will be Kill Bill (or maybe School of Rock - yes, I know its a big-budget studio comedy staring Jack Black - but its also from the director of Slacker, SubUrbia, Before Sunrise, Waking Life, Tape, etc - so it can't possibly suck!).

The French New Wave was a modernist film movement. Yes it shifted genre conventions and added a whole lot of self reflexivity but what's significant about films like Breathless and 8 1/2 is their existential bent. Tarantino has taken style from these films without any of the substance that made that style relevant. This is typical of all postmodern filmmakers. What he did not do was continue the French New Wave. That movement is long since dead and will remain that way unless modernism makes a resurgence (which it very well might - although the modern version of existentialism is merely nihilism).

The French New Wave was a modernist film movement. Yes it shifted genre conventions and added a whole lot of self reflexivity but what's significant about films like Breathless and 8 1/2 is their existential bent. Tarantino has taken style from these films without any of the substance that made that style relevant. This is typical of all postmodern filmmakers. What he did not do was continue the French New Wave. That movement is long since dead and will remain that way unless modernism makes a resurgence (which it very well might - although the modern version of existentialism is merely nihilism).

Too many isms for my taste.

Personally, I cannot see an existensial bent to any elements of the French New-Wave, and I've seen an enormous amount of the French New-Wave. In fact, it is in many ways the cinematic equilivalent to the musical New-Wave (Punk, Post Punk, etc) - or Pop art.

And I do believe that Tarantino continues the tradition of the French New-wave, in a distincintly American way. I also feel Film-school has rotted your brain - turning the cinematic experience into nothing more than theory and bullshit.

Go and fucking quit it! And if you're not in film school - stop talking like you are!

i just go to films to enjoy them, not to critique

French New Wave is existentialism! If you haven't noticed that than you don't know what existentialism is. And I don't think those movies make any sense without existentialism. Film school has not taught me that, my own brain taught me that because I've read a lot of existential novels and the connections are there. I think school is bullshit but knowledge is not. Modernism is very real, it's not some meaningless ideological construct. It can be seen in all media. The main charcter in Breathless is even named after the main character in The Immoralist. It doesn't get much more blatant than that.

And I do love movies. I love a lot of movies. I wouldn't do what I do if I didn't love movies so much. But I've seen enough great movies that I expect more out of them. When I do see a great movie though I'll bet I enjoy it more than most people would. My criticism of Kill Bill though stems from my interest on sociology. Postmodernism is a broad area of study and I've been studying it a lot recently not because I have to but because I want to understand the world I live in. I'm trying to help you. I tell you what I don't like about the movie and you can decide if that makes sense or not. I'm challenging you to see my point of view. Remember that western society was founded on the principle of debate. Why is it that having a strong opinion makes me a bad guy? Then again, Socrates was killed for being more intelligent than everyone else so I suppose there is a precedent. I don't want to be condescending. I don't want to be pretentious, but I don't want to be ignorant either. Surely there must be some middle ground.

French New Wave is existentialism! If you haven't noticed that than you don't know what existentialism is. And I don't think those movies make any sense without existentialism. Film school has not taught me that, my own brain taught me that because I've read a lot of existential novels and the connections are there. I think school is bullshit but knowledge is not. Modernism is very real, it's not some meaningless ideological construct. It can be seen in all media. The main charcter in Breathless is even named after the main character in The Immoralist. It doesn't get much more blatant than that.

And I do love movies. I love a lot of movies. I wouldn't do what I do if I didn't love movies so much. But I've seen enough great movies that I expect more out of them. When I do see a great movie though I'll bet I enjoy it more than most people would. My criticism of Kill Bill though stems from my interest on sociology. Postmodernism is a broad area of study and I've been studying it a lot recently not because I have to but because I want to understand the world I live in. I'm trying to help you. I tell you what I don't like about the movie and you can decide if that makes sense or not. I'm challenging you to see my point of view. Remember that western society was founded on the principle of debate. Why is it that having a strong opinion makes me a bad guy? Then again, Socrates was killed for being more intelligent than everyone else so I suppose there is a precedent. I don't want to be condescending. I don't want to be pretentious, but I don't want to be ignorant either. Surely there must be some middle ground.

Kill the man!

"Western Society"

Dear jolly sir, science has no way of yet knowing if there is a western hemisphere, much less an intelligent society living there. But if there is, you can be sure we will not rest until we convert all the pagan scum.

"Western" civilization starts with Ancient Greece. That's what I meant. The word "Western" is arbitrary and does not imply any real geographical area. It's just a contrast to "Eastern" civilization which starts in China and spreads throughout the Far East. I'm just typing all of this because I'm at work and I'm bored but I can't leave.

"Western" civilization starts with Ancient Greece. That's what I meant. The word "Western" is arbitrary and does not imply any real geographical area. It's just a contrast to "Eastern" civilization which starts in China and spreads throughout the Far East. I'm just typing all of this because I'm at work and I'm bored but I can't leave.

Lighten up dude.

Way to float the topic ED.

And I don't think those movies make any sense without existentialism.

I don't think they make any sense even with existentialism - I don't think they're meant to make sense. The new wave is pure filmmaking - the new wave is all light, camera, action - the new wave isn't about stories, or people (although they can be about stories or people) - its about the art of filmmaking.

When you watch a new wave film, you're not being told a story - you're watching a film - which may or may not have a story (usually not).

The new wave is not about isolation, it is not about freedom, it is not about responsibility. It is about movies! That is really all it is about. Existentialism comes into play, not in all of the new wave, but in very particular films - if it shows up at all (and it rarely does - from what I can tell).

I can't wait until you loonies start critiquing (close enough) "The Matrix Revolutions", so I can make fun of you all really badly.

Look, if you read a novel you want to think about what it means right? What the themes are, what the authors intent was, and how it fits into the overall cultural fabric. On one level you could just read Harry Potter or something and enjoy it for the characters and the events in it. On another level you could read a heavier book like Heart of Darkness and think about the messages expressed in the book. Well both types of reading are equally valid but I get more out of reading a book when there are themes expressed within in it that I can think about. It's the same with movies. A movie experience (and watching a movie should be an experience) is more fulfilling when it engages your brain as well as your senses. So that's why I think about movies when I see them. It makes the experience better for me. And what good are opinions for if you don't share them? I see a lot of connections between Kill Bill and what I've been studying on my own so that influences the meaning of the movie to me. I'm sure you're all saying 'duh' and 'why are you so square?' but it seems from your comments sometimes that this is hard to understand and furthermore I think rational discussion is undervalued in our society. What is so wrong with thinking?

Look, if you read a novel you want to think about what it means right? What the themes are, what the authors intent was, and how it fits into the overall cultural fabric.

No, when I read a novel I want to read a good novel. Art shouldn't be picked apart, creativty shouldn't be reduced into little more than an intellectual exercise - the more you deconstruct art, the more you destroy it.

I know this first hand, at one point I felt exactly the same way as you. However, I eventually discovered that just sitting down and experiencing, say, 'Eyes Wide Shut' is infinetly more enjoyable than trying to figure out what it all means.

Trust me on that one... okay?

Oh for chrissakes. Now you're preaching to me about art? I'm not saying you have to analyze everything, I'm just saying that a book that has that kind of depth will ultimately be more enoyable. If you don't want to look for the meaning in a book, that's fine too but those themes are there whether you acknowledge them or not and they do affect your experience. A book without any themes will not affect you in the same way whether you realize that or not. So what if I want to consider why a book affects me? I get a lot of enjoyment out of it too. You think I'm some kind of stone wall or something, that I feel no emotion. What's with the condescending "trust me on that okay...?". Like I've never really enjoyed something? Stop being so full of yourself. You're just hiding from the real issue. I know that sometimes it's better to just enjoy art on it's own without thinking about why. When I love something I don't need to explain why. But when I hate something there's usually a good reason. But I don't have to explain myself to you. Your argument doesn't even make sense. Don't blame me bcause you're too afraid to think for yourself. Knowledge can be painful but I've accepted that and while ignorance may be bliss, choosing knowledge over ignorance is an ethical obligation. But nevermind. I don't expect you to understand that anyway. You're too busy staking your claim on what is hip to care about what actually matters.

Here's what I really think about Kill Bill. I've only seen one half of a movie and a non-linear movie no less so I can't really judge the film yet as a whole. On the other hand, it's pretty clear by now that I value original ideas highly and Tarantino just doesn't have any. As good as he may be, he's just recycling cinematic history and that gets old fast. He does have energy in his films which is genuine and uncommon. He also can be a good writer though I thought all of the dialogue in Kill Bill was over-written and awkward. The line "Trix are for kids" springs to mind particularly. So I couldn't really have fun watching it because I kept getting this supposedly hip dialogue shoved in my face that was terrible. Everytime someone opened their mouth it totally took me out of the movie. But I'm withholding judgment on Kill Bill until I've seen part two. Most of my animosity toward Kill Bill comes from how much praise it has gotten. Somebody has to take the other point of view and as a general rule I find that the minority opinion is commonly the better one. If anyone can give me a good reason to like Kill Bill that outranks all of my reasons for not liking it than I'll change my mind.

haven't seen it. Looks like typical QT fanfare, to be sure.

Relax, Ed. Take a load off. Look over there!
...
...

...



*runs*

I go through alternating phases of being agitated and then feeling calm. It just so happens that I'm much more vocal when I'm in an agitated state. This site lets me blow off some steam from time to time and that makes me feel better. vTd and cg, thanks for playing along.