jazzbo Posted October 16, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 (edited) Interesting. . . I don't think that it "Aestheticized" violence at all for me. I was cognizant all the time of the violence, and fascinated at the unfolding, and fascinated that I was fascinated with it. Nor was it numbing . . . I twinged and turned away and felt sickened by it. . . but fascinated as well. I'm not flaming at all, I just had a different reaction. I kept wondering WHY this film was so centered in violence, why Tarrantino was so obsessed with it. . . but I thought of my wife when she was very very very angry (and psychotic), and some friends that I have seen very very upset . . . . It's made me think that there are those for whom this is probably a cathartic fantasy. And it's made me think of the administration I now work for, who are using the public's money to hire their friends as employees or contractors, who are demolishing the careers of dedicated workers to bring in sad sacks, who have no compassion or sense of responsibility to mission, and I recognize them in the Lucy Liu character and her roundtable of hoodlum overlords. . . . I think there is plenty of character demonstrated there. . . unsavory character. I'm interested to see the conclusion and a further clarification of the motivation for Black Maamba's revenge. . .but I'm not at all unclear about why she is so obsessed with revenge. Anyway, this movie has made me think. I don't think it was geared to, or that Quentin would have guessed that I would. But it has made me think, and the cinematography impressed me and I am considering seeing it again to further drink in the art of the filming. Edited October 16, 2003 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Feel free to flame away. Abuse is located in the Political Forum; this is Arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Great, thanks to jpmosu and jazzbo... Now I simultaniously have absolutely NO interest in seeing "Kill Bill"... ...and I also can't wait to see it, perferably as soon as this weekend!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmosu Posted October 16, 2003 Report Share Posted October 16, 2003 Some interesting points in the recent posts: 1) I'm actually happy (is that the right word?) that Lon didn't find the violence appealing on any level, but rather fascinating, but I still contend that Tarrantino attempted to make it as stylish and beautiful as possible (imagine limbs being lopped off in silhouette if you haven't seen the film). (I also like Lon's analogy between the Viper Assassination Squad--or whatever their name is--and what I presume to be the Texas State Gvt.) Maybe, I'll come around to this movie after all! 2) I love the reference to the "Argument Clinic" Monty Pyton sketch from JazzMoose. But here's the really relevant Monty Python reference. If anyone's ever seen *Sam Peckinpah's Salad Days,* then you've got a good idea of what you're in for with *Kill Bill!* Fountains of spurting blood and all! For what it's worth, I railed against the film in a couple of my classes this week, and about a dozen students have since approached me with all of the reasons why they love the film. So I'm clearly in the minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted October 17, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2003 J, I guess in thinking harder I can see your point about 'beautifying' the violence. It's really hard to deny that his happening on some level. Also however I see this as part of what fascinates me in his work, truly given even more dazzling treatment here. With this story line the violence is the heartbeat, and to me the characterization reinforces that: all we really know about her is that she was nearly killed, her hope of a family was destroyed as well, and she is exacting revenge with relentless drive and focus. I've never ever been in such a situation, and I am certain that I would not take THIS path. But that too makes this an interesting movie for me: I enjoy seeing how people interact with their realities, and boy is this one that is compelling to see unfold. Perhaps I'm becoming more and more voyeuristic, perhaps as I make my own attemps to piece together stories I am more intrigued by how others do this, but I found this a tale that was riveting. I'm going to have to see it again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 I missed Reservoir Dogs way back when (in the theatres), and I don't really rent stuff all that often (nor do I watch movies on TV all that much). Should I go back and see Reservoir Dogs sometime??? I like Harvey Keitel quite a bit - so I should probably check it out sometime. Yes?? No?? Yes. If you're a Keitel fan, Rooster, you should most assuredly check out Reservoir Dogs; he's one of the main characters, and he's great in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted October 18, 2003 Report Share Posted October 18, 2003 We saw KILL BILL VOLUME ONE (or was it FUCK BUCK?) last night and found it a very entertaining film. Regarding the violence, I kept saying to my wife, "He is so OBSESSED with blood! What's the deal?!" Each scene became incrementally more comical until it finally reached the equivalent of slapstick. How could that be? Well, for one, the gore was so exagerated and unrealistic, that it seemed to affect everyone in the theatre in the same way by the end. Laughter. The anime was probably the most violent portion of the film in my mind. Absolutely shocking. More emotional than the actually filmed scenes, to me. Often, I wondered why such a self-parody? In hindsight, I still have this question. This isn't exactly tongue in cheek. KILL BILL VOLUME ONE is a lot of fun and a cinematic experience in and of itself and I will definitely go see KILL BILL VOLUME TWO, then rent the set and watch them back to back to soak in the entire experience, but I will still wish that Quentin Tarantino took himself more seriously. As Lon points out, the cinematography is gorgeous. The final fight scene is fantasy. Definitely not a disappointment to this household. And a quick ps to the 5,6,7,8's. You girls rock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catesta Posted October 20, 2003 Report Share Posted October 20, 2003 I finally saw this movie yesterday. It's no Pulp Fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted October 20, 2003 Report Share Posted October 20, 2003 It's not self-parody. It's a very pure post-modern pastiche of every film genre that Q.T. likes. To learn the references, start with the following: The Legend of Fong Sai-Yuk parts 1 & 2 The Bride Wore Black (the Truffaut film - the basic plot of Kill Bill comes from this) Tokyo Drifter & Branded To Kill - two films by Seijun Suzuki, stylized yakuza films available on Criterion DVD, and really good. The moment in the big fight where suddenly it is Silhouettes against blue is essentially taken from one of these films, but I forget which. And for 'fountains of blood" check out any Kurosawa samurai film - Yojimbo, Sanjuro. For it in color, check out later ones. I can't remember whether Ran has it, but I think Kagemusha does. There are lots of other samurai films that begat the final fights - I'd have to look up titles. But the American Cinematheque in LA has a festival of such films once a year. If you go to their site and look up "Films by series," you can find the last such festival and look at titles there. As such, there is no "need" for real characters - it's all about references to other films. You just get to decide whether you are entertained by the way he has put it all together. I was. But it's not a "great" film. It is much more the next step from Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is totally different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmosu Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 As such, there is no "need" for real characters - it's all about references to other films. You just get to decide whether you are entertained by the way he has put it all together. I was. But it's not a "great" film. It is much more the next step from Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is totally different. This is precisely where I get off the Tarrantino express: *Pulp Fiction* was thoroughly postmodern (my favorite allusion is to the great 1955 Robert Aldrich film noir, *Kiss Me Deadly*--a film even more sadistic than *Kill Bill!*). But the difference: *Pulp Fiction* still had a narrative and characters and *Kill Bill!* doesn't (not in Pt. 1, anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 As such, there is no "need" for real characters - it's all about references to other films. You just get to decide whether you are entertained by the way he has put it all together. I was. But it's not a "great" film. It is much more the next step from Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is totally different. This is precisely where I get off the Tarrantino express... You and me both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted October 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 (edited) You both should see Jackie Brown. It has what Kill Bill doesn't along the line of narrative and character development. Arguably more so than Pulp Fiction. Edited October 21, 2003 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 You're right. I should see Jackie Brown. Something tells me I might appreciate it more than the others, though I do like his first one. As for the comparison to Pulp Fiction, that thing had next to character development in my opinion so anything would be an improvement. I had the same problem with the Coen's The Man Who Wasn't There. Looked great. Beautiful eye candy, but I could have cared less about any of the characters in that thing. Bored me to tears. And that's difficult to do because I like slow b/w films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted October 21, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 (edited) Well, I don't feel the same way about Pulp Fiction, and didn't like Resevoir Dogs, but I think you'll enjoy Jackie Brown; in my estimation it is probably his best. Edited October 21, 2003 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted October 21, 2003 Report Share Posted October 21, 2003 It's not self-parody. It's a very pure post-modern pastiche of every film genre that Q.T. likes. To learn the references, start with the following: Look, there's a reason I prefer e. e. cummings to T.S. Elliot, okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted October 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Really? For me it's Elliot, no contest! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Christmas Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Actually it's Eliot. And I loved this movie for no particular reason that I can muster. I think it was the blood. And Uma's feet. And that dishy little Gogo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmosu Posted October 22, 2003 Report Share Posted October 22, 2003 Actually, I love *Jackie Brown* AND T.S. Eliot. The former because its source is Elmore Leonard, and he's written so much great stuff. Eliot I love because he's the only poet I know that annotates his own work (see "The Waste Land"). My students find that completely obnoxious, but I love it, because "difficult" poets ensure my continued employment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Burke Posted October 31, 2003 Report Share Posted October 31, 2003 Tarantino is making a serious ass out of himself on 'Conan O'Brien' right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted April 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Saw Volume Two yesterday. Quite a thrill ride! Ultimately I would say I liked the first one a hair more, but this had a different feel, a surprise or two, and a nice conclusion. I think Tarrantino is not someone I really admire as a person in any way, but he makes interesting films. I'm not going to pretend that I don't squirm here and there, but I'm also not going to be a snob and say he doesn't bring anything of his own to the game. Wonder what's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTMX Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Possibly a WWII movie called "Inglorious Bastards" or a Vega Brothers movie (Victor/Masden and Vincent/Travolta). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.