After finishing inglorious basterds, I'm left with a sense of confusion. What is Tarantino's purpose in making this film? Its features a random and chaotic exposition, the story through out is convoluted and confusing, and the wrap up is, for lack of a better term, random. In my opinion, this film had too little of an explanation, paid too little attention to facts (yes, it did bug me that they changed WWII history), and lacked any overall purpose. I like to see films and walk away with a flavor, a thought, preferably not a political statement, but some sort of a taste for what the movie was about. With Tarantino's latest, I walk away with little more than an indifferent opinion on liking or disliking the movie; little more than confusion on the movie's purpose in its place on the shelf.
As far as your analysis of the movie, I couldn't agree more. It was random, convoluted, and lacking any coherent purpose. However, due to the fact that I actually enjoyed the film, I'm guessing all that didn't bother me as much as it did you. I've only previously seen the Kill Bill movies so I'm not certain, but it seems to me as though over-the-top stylization is Tarantino's thing. In the case of this film, stylization means turning a historic tragedy into an action thriller with some comedy, and with no respect to history or audience expectations. I think it's an example of what happens when a director has the freedom to do whatever he wants with his film, like a pure form of auteurism. What I mean by that is, I highly doubt Tarantino had extensive back-and-forths with his cohorts about how the film should end or whatnot. There's no way a group of minds would ever agree on a plot so disagreeable. I suppose whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer... I kind of enjoyed having my expectations repeatedly dashed for two and a half hours. It was painful, but fun.
I dont know if its because I am not as much of a film fanatic or artistic critic as you two or I just have a very different taste in movies, but i actually rather enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. Yes, it is now where near historically accurate and yes the story line is rather disconnected, but not every WWII film has to be dramatic and meaningful, aren't there enough of those movies out already? This movie seems to be made for more entertainment value than anything else with its over the top violence and comedic stereotypes of various nationalities. Maybe Tarantino thought it would be nice to make a less serious movie to try and soften the actual events of the second world war. Maybe he just wanted to create the idea of America being the hero of the war against the Germans and show how America would have acted had it been in control of ending the war. Either way, I get the feeling this movie isn't meant to provoke great levels of thinking, its entertainment in Tarantino's odd, violent way.
I would have to agree with Dylan in some cases. Tarantino, as a well known director, has the ability to pretty much whatever he wants with his movies. I have also seen an interview with him on I think Conan's older show (not the one he was just kicked off), where he confirms the rumors that Brad Pitt was drunk when he agreed to do the film. Although he and Tarantino were both drunk, because they were at Pitt's vineyard in France. But nevertheless, this movie was just an example of Tarantino pushing the limits of violence in movies without the movie ever being about that violence. Like my fellow group members, I have trouble deciding what this movie is actually about...
Also, I found it interesting how even though the movie was pretty much an ensemble cast with no real main figure head character and therefore no real supporting characters, Christopher Waltz's character Col. Hans Landa was nominated for best supporting actor. Though he did an outstanding job playing a cocky, arrogant character, there where others who could have just as easily been nominated for the role as well. Just found it interesting...
First off, let me just say that Tarantino is a very odd man. Now if you want to talk about lack of purpose, confusing and random story line and unnecessary gore, I think Kill Bill takes the cake. I takes half the movie to even understand that black mamba was attacked at her wedding, but you never find out why she was attacked or who she was marrying, or anything. All we ever really understand of the story is that she was beaten to death by four of her former associates and is now out for a very very bloody revenge,but even that information is diced up by tarantino's use of chapters that he seems to have in all of his movies.
Regarding Tarantino being an odd man, does anybody remember this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2ukSJFgCM
Anyways, I don't know if you've already seen Kill Bill 2 or not, but it all gets explained. In fact, its probably not very wise of us to try and dissect them separately, but I guess that can't be helped. I've seen them both many times and I can tell you that the storyline makes sense, and Tarantino is very deliberate in mixing up the order of the "chapters". The jumbled order may have the downside of leaving you confused the first time you see it, but it really does have its advantages the second or third time you see it. For example, the movie starts with Beatrix killing Vernita Green, even though chronologically this should come at the end of the movie (after she kills O-Ren Ishii). I think Tarantino did this for two reasons. One, its a great scene for characterizing Beatrix - we learn she's merciless but also rational ("I'm not going to murder you in front of your daughter"). And two, we're introduced to what I think is the central theme of the movie (which Tarantino actually mentions in the aforementioned youtube video): revenge is messy. Little Nikki's speechless face as she stares at her dead mother and then at Beatrix is our first taste of that messiness. Beatrix got the revenge that she deserved, but she made herself a new enemy in the process, little 4 year old Nikki.
As long as we're looking at this scene (which I'm finding is a great scene for analysis as I type this) it's also worth mentioning that it has a lot of that female empowerment that's so central to this movie, and I don't just mean the knife fight. I think it was very intentional that Vernita's child should be a little girl and not a little boy. Beatrix says to Nikki, after killing her mother right in front of her, "When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting". Feel free to disagree with me on this, but I think movies don't tend to depict females as having any capacity for animosity. But Kill Bill gives women their due credit in many ways, and here is a great example. In spite of having just killed her mother, Beatrix pays respect to Nikki by speaking to her as an equal, despite her age, and acknowledging her right to hold on to hatred and seek revenge. Can you imagine this character being a son instead of a daughter? So much meaning would be lost, I think it had to be intentional.
Just one more observation and then I'm done ranting (sorry, I have a lot to say about this movie). Obviously there's a LOT of blood, but did anybody else notice something suspicious about the amount of male blood versus the amount of female blood? It seems like whenever a man is killed, there's buckets of blood gushing from his body. Think Matsumoto, Crazy 88's, the Japanese boss that O-Ren beheaded, the pervert who gets his tongue bitten off, etc - all of these deaths included fountains of gushing blood. On the other hand, whenever a woman is killed, blood is shown sparingly and tastefully. Think O-Ren Ishii, who's bloodshed is a clean stroke of red against white snow, like a brushstroke. Sofie was hidden from view as she was mutilated. Vernita had only a reasonable amount of blood. I could continue on with examples but I think the pattern is clear. Male blood is splashed around carelessly like water, while female blood is treated with respect. It's one more thing that, whether you noticed it or not, adds to the female empowerment theme of the film.
Jeez. where to start. Kill Bill was strange, gory, random, and unexplained. I still don't understand what the purpose of the main conflict was...but I'll go with it. I have to say that I liked this movie better than Inglorious Basterds for reasons unknown, but I believe it's because of the interesting cinematography and editing in the final killing sequence (high contrast b/w, blue backlighting, and more different techniques used). The gore really was over the top, with blood literally spurting out of people. In response to (Dylan?), I did not notice real difference in gore between men and women, but I did notice a greater number of men being killed. Why the heck blood was spurting out of them, I still don't know. Why anyone was attacked, I also don't know other than the main character (....black mamba?) was attacked at her wedding.
Well, you'd have to watch the second to really understand more of the plot behind of it all, so I won't ruin it for you. As for all the things that you think are random... Well, first off, Tarantino made this film as a sort contribution to olde time film-making of japanese action films, which is why many of the elements in the film were intentionally made to look fake or overdramatized, such as as the blood spurting out like crazy, the cheesy music and extreme close-ups of the eyes before a battle, the opening scene being black and white, etc.. and even the scene where she's flying over japan and looks at the city... If you look closely, it's actually a fake model city. This was done not because tarantino was lacking a budget or anything, but simply because he wanted to acclaim the techniques used in older movies that resembled the style of kill bill. Actually, even the story itself I believe is a very generic plotline taken from older films of that style. What tarantino was trying to accomplish with this film was to create an artistic masterpiece that honored those old film elements, only with a modern twist and deeper, more complex characters to make it far more appealing. He was mixing old with the new, and I'd have to say he did phenomenal job. I've seen it many times before, and have to say it's one of my favorites, few films are masterfully mixed together using so many creative cinematic techniques, sounds, music, style, and plot.
I suppose I can understand where he's coming from with that, but I still feel it was strangely random... for example, Kurosawa doesn't have the extreme shooting gore in his movies. While I can appreciate parts of his artistic effect, such as the forementioned scenes, I still firmly believe that he could have the same effects and style without the spurting of blood in every direction. Also, what was with the sound? Was the goal to use cartoon-like sound effects as an 'old time' japanese movie would have..... ? Perhaps this is just ignorance on my behalf, but I don't understand why he chose the sounds he did. That said, there were many sounds which I believe were a magnificent addition, such as the blade moving slowly across leather to give a slight ring in an otherwise silent scene ( when she's at the first person's house in the beginning ); or the perfectly timed doorbell sound effect from the same scene.
Overall, as I previously stated, there's something about the movie that I liked, and a lot that bugged me from stylistic choices... but its the hint of a liking that I didn't have after Inglorious Basterds that makes this movie stand a little further out in my opinion.
I actually had never noticed that before, Dylan. The whole female empowerment concept, but now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. In fact, this pattern follows throughout even the second film, with the exception of Bill and his brother who wore both killed by something other than the sword, so massive amounts of blood would be illogical. I do believe Tarantino showed the female dominance very purposefully with all the examples you pointed as evidence. Also, (I'm starting to talk more about the second one here, but they're so closely related, they may as well be one in the same), take note that Beatrix's and Bill's daughter is also a girl. Could you even imagine her being a boy instead? It would greatly change the significance of the matter. Not to mention that the protagonist is a female character. As I said in my response to Matt, this film follows many conventions, techniques and plot devices as olde time action films... But one thing that has been manipulated is that the female character is the one that has all the power, and the only male character who seems to have any real power is Bill. Even after Beatrix kills him in the end, he's the only she showed remorse or any pity to.
Oh, and another thing I thought I might mention. Did you know that Tarantino actually intends to make a sequel to this story? He wants to use the same girl who played Nikki, only he actually wants to wait a few years till she grows up to start filming it. Of course, it's going to focus on revenge for the death of her mother. But I think Tarantino's decision to actually use the same actor is highly unique to his style of film-making... And I think, in a way, this also relates back to an older style of film-making. Perhaps back in the day they actually waited for actors to get older to use them again in movies where their characters are supposed to older? Just an assumption. I'd need to do research.
Following Tarantino's style of film-making, Pulp Fiction is certainly an interesting and unique piece. Breaking the movie down into chapters that play around with the chronological order, a mess of complex characters whose fates all somehow end up getting intertwined, long takes on seemingly pointless topics irrelevant to the film, careful use of sound, some sort of deep philosophical meaning behind nearly every scene, and of course, the obscene amounts of blood and unusual violence all contribute to another successful, iconic film by the master of strange films. It's definitely interesting to follow several sets of characters as they all progress through their ordeals. Each chapter usually focuses on a character, or usually a couple of characters. Each chapter, in a way, is also kind of a short film in itself, with a rising action, a climax, and a descending action, with the following chapter usually either being a sequel or prequel depending on chronology. For example, the final chapter, which actually takes place chronologically right before the first scene in the film, involves Jules and Vincent getting out of the apartment of the men they just killed and took their collection from. They took the one survivor along with them. After leaving, Jules accidentally kills the young boy, and blasts his brains inside the car. Now they're in trouble and need to get rid of the body, so they resort to help by going to the Wolf, who helps them get rid of the corpse. Afterwards, the scene jumps to the familiar restaurant setting at the beginning of the film, and the film ends with the continuation of that same sequence that was left as a cliff hanger at the beginning of the film in the first chapter. Again, a brilliant, artistic element stylistic of Tarantino. The chapter clearly demonstrates characters going through a short period of development, the same characters involved in some kind of conflict, and a conclusion of those characters finding a resolve to that conflict. Every chapter in the movie follows that same pattern. It also seems that as the chapters progress, each character is trying to find their own escape. Even from the beginning, this theme is established when the two thieves at the diner decide to rob the place and escape. They want independence. Butch the boxer also seeks independence and runs away with his lover by the end. Jules realizes that he too was seeking independence, and that's why he decides to quit working for Wallace. Mia wanted independence from Wallace as well, and almost risks having an affair with Vincent. Almost every character somehow is seeking their own independence one way or another, figuratively or literally. Overall, I'd say the film has a very deep message about people relations intertwined within its bizarre, sadistic, and overall sarcastic plot.
Brilliant artist chapters ... um .. well, that's not how I'd phrase it. I'd say more like brief, random moments of completely unnecessary and extreme violence or drug use. now, granted, I suppose that's what that name implies . . ."pulp fiction" . . .like the old stories and what not, but was half of the stuff on the screen needed? In fact, I feel like the so called plot ( if it can be so called) was more of a side note to all of the random action that was going on in the movie.
Now, all that said, I have to say that in order to make a really solid opinion here (like or dislike), I'd need to watch the movie again; which I may do in the near future. For the time being, I lean very much so in the middle. I have things I liked (such as the choreography in some of the fighting), or the wrap around plot style (that was hard to get because of the presentation).. but there are dislikes that are pretty strong, like the random drug use.
Just because you don't like the notion of "drug use" I don't feel it detracts from the film at all, in fact, it adds a lot to it. What you think is unnecessary is actually a crucial plot device. And yes, there is a plot, a very thorough and well thought-out one. If you failed to catch throughout watching the movie, then yes, I strongly suggest rewatching it. I don't feel that anything was really random. I feel that you could probably actually sit for hours analyzing every last bit of this film and making connections to everything to uncover Tarantino's hidden meanings. Or I could be wrong, but I feel that someone who puts so much effort into making some of the greatest and most unique films out there (at least in my opinion) then everything is indeed quite intentional.
I still am slightly bothered that it was "important" to have characters sniffing cocaine or injecting it every couple minutes to the point where you almost kill a person, but maybe I really missed something important about how you just couldn't have done that in a more effective manner ..... which I somehow don't believe is a false. If you're implying that I'm missing something, then you're mistaken ---
in retrospect, I do understand how nothing was "random", but what you're missing is how random it all was. Much of what was shown was there simply to show it, ie. it was random and unneeded to aid the plot. It was simply there for some self-fufilling effect, and it seems to be the most common factor connecting all of Tarantino's films. That, and blood. That man has issues. .... its almost as bad as me making fake blood ..... oh well. All in all, while it may be intentional, it doesn't really appeal to me personally, and I feel as if there are more ways he could have skinned his cats.
In response to Matt's original comment on Pulp fiction I would have to agree with him. I like Tarantino's bloody,chaptered plot style, but i feel like in this movie there really was no point to the series of smaller stories. Even with Tarantino's usualy use of excessively bloody deaths, i feel like there was always a point on way this character had to die, or why this one killed that one. I dont see any of the in Pulp fiction. Most of the people who died in the movie didn't really seem to have anything to do with the supposed plot of the story, or were killed for no apparent reason. I feel like this movie is told from the persepective of an alcholic who has been mind blowingly drunk the last day and is barely sober when someone asks him to describe what he did the last twenty four hours. He is confused, goes on tangents, eveything is randomly out of order, random unimportant things are remembered while imprtant events that would actual give his day a timeline/plot are varely grazed over.
To David's last comment, I dont really feel that the excessive taking of drugs was necessary at all. Yes it prvoided us with crude entertainment and spurned actions that developed a very twisted, confusing, weak plot line, but i feel that those actions could have been egged on by an action that would give the film more meaning then just a drug and violence film. And as to hundreds of small meanings, honestly I would like to know what the over all point of the story was and why it was significant in any why before i start ripping apart each individual event. I do agree that Tarantion's films are quite unique and some of them are great, but not every film produced by a talented film maker with such a heavy style is going to be "great".
Again, I disagree. I don't think any of it was really that random. Tarantino used the chopped up narrative to add another layer to the story. Every one of the major sequences in Pulp Fiction ends with a character being saved or redeemed. If the film were shot in order this wouldn't be possible without being repetitive. Shooting it out of sequence keeps the audience interested.
@ Matt
In case you forgot, the drugs were crucial... Had Mia not taken them from Vincent, he would not have to go through the trouble of saving her and risk getting killed by Wallace. But also if she had not taken them, there was the chance that Vincent and Mia could've had some sort of affair that night. In a way, the drugs redeemed Vincent.
Basically, by saying that drugs are irrelevant and unnecessary, you might as well say that the guns depicted in the movie are unnecessary as well. They serve no purpose. Actually, they serve probably one of the biggest purposes in the film. A gun can be used as a tool to either destroy or redeem a character. Same can be said for the drugs. Drugs almost destroyed Mia, but they redeemed Vincent. Therefore, it is just as crucial a plot device as the guns. I hope that makes more sense now.
Also, you have to take into account that these are people who work for a drug lord during a rather radical time period. Just another point to argue your sentiment that the drugs are irrelevant. If anything, they stylize the characters, the setting, and the time period.
This is my seventh year teaching film, and ninth overall. I got my B.A. in journalism in 1998 from the University of Minnesota, then worked as a sports writer at The Star Tribune for awhile. I eventually went back to the U for my master's degree in English education, and started teaching in 2001.
I live in Minneapolis with Susan (wife, works at General Mills), Jack (son, born in August '08), and Gunnar (dog, a PBGV -- look it up).
20 comments:
After finishing inglorious basterds, I'm left with a sense of confusion. What is Tarantino's purpose in making this film? Its features a random and chaotic exposition, the story through out is convoluted and confusing, and the wrap up is, for lack of a better term, random. In my opinion, this film had too little of an explanation, paid too little attention to facts (yes, it did bug me that they changed WWII history), and lacked any overall purpose. I like to see films and walk away with a flavor, a thought, preferably not a political statement, but some sort of a taste for what the movie was about. With Tarantino's latest, I walk away with little more than an indifferent opinion on liking or disliking the movie; little more than confusion on the movie's purpose in its place on the shelf.
(In response to Matt's comment)
As far as your analysis of the movie, I couldn't agree more. It was random, convoluted, and lacking any coherent purpose. However, due to the fact that I actually enjoyed the film, I'm guessing all that didn't bother me as much as it did you. I've only previously seen the Kill Bill movies so I'm not certain, but it seems to me as though over-the-top stylization is Tarantino's thing. In the case of this film, stylization means turning a historic tragedy into an action thriller with some comedy, and with no respect to history or audience expectations. I think it's an example of what happens when a director has the freedom to do whatever he wants with his film, like a pure form of auteurism. What I mean by that is, I highly doubt Tarantino had extensive back-and-forths with his cohorts about how the film should end or whatnot. There's no way a group of minds would ever agree on a plot so disagreeable. I suppose whether or not that's a good thing is up to the viewer... I kind of enjoyed having my expectations repeatedly dashed for two and a half hours. It was painful, but fun.
I dont know if its because I am not as much of a film fanatic or artistic critic as you two or I just have a very different taste in movies, but i actually rather enjoyed Inglorious Basterds. Yes, it is now where near historically accurate and yes the story line is rather disconnected, but not every WWII film has to be dramatic and meaningful, aren't there enough of those movies out already? This movie seems to be made for more entertainment value than anything else with its over the top violence and comedic stereotypes of various nationalities. Maybe Tarantino thought it would be nice to make a less serious movie to try and soften the actual events of the second world war. Maybe he just wanted to create the idea of America being the hero of the war against the Germans and show how America would have acted had it been in control of ending the war. Either way, I get the feeling this movie isn't meant to provoke great levels of thinking, its entertainment in Tarantino's odd, violent way.
I would have to agree with Dylan in some cases. Tarantino, as a well known director, has the ability to pretty much whatever he wants with his movies. I have also seen an interview with him on I think Conan's older show (not the one he was just kicked off), where he confirms the rumors that Brad Pitt was drunk when he agreed to do the film. Although he and Tarantino were both drunk, because they were at Pitt's vineyard in France. But nevertheless, this movie was just an example of Tarantino pushing the limits of violence in movies without the movie ever being about that violence. Like my fellow group members, I have trouble deciding what this movie is actually about...
Also, I found it interesting how even though the movie was pretty much an ensemble cast with no real main figure head character and therefore no real supporting characters, Christopher Waltz's character Col. Hans Landa was nominated for best supporting actor. Though he did an outstanding job playing a cocky, arrogant character, there where others who could have just as easily been nominated for the role as well. Just found it interesting...
First off, let me just say that Tarantino is a very odd man. Now if you want to talk about lack of purpose, confusing and random story line and unnecessary gore, I think Kill Bill takes the cake. I takes half the movie to even understand that black mamba was attacked at her wedding, but you never find out why she was attacked or who she was marrying, or anything. All we ever really understand of the story is that she was beaten to death by four of her former associates and is now out for a very very bloody revenge,but even that information is diced up by tarantino's use of chapters that he seems to have in all of his movies.
Rian-
Regarding Tarantino being an odd man, does anybody remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L2ukSJFgCM
Anyways, I don't know if you've already seen Kill Bill 2 or not, but it all gets explained. In fact, its probably not very wise of us to try and dissect them separately, but I guess that can't be helped. I've seen them both many times and I can tell you that the storyline makes sense, and Tarantino is very deliberate in mixing up the order of the "chapters". The jumbled order may have the downside of leaving you confused the first time you see it, but it really does have its advantages the second or third time you see it. For example, the movie starts with Beatrix killing Vernita Green, even though chronologically this should come at the end of the movie (after she kills O-Ren Ishii). I think Tarantino did this for two reasons. One, its a great scene for characterizing Beatrix - we learn she's merciless but also rational ("I'm not going to murder you in front of your daughter"). And two, we're introduced to what I think is the central theme of the movie (which Tarantino actually mentions in the aforementioned youtube video): revenge is messy. Little Nikki's speechless face as she stares at her dead mother and then at Beatrix is our first taste of that messiness. Beatrix got the revenge that she deserved, but she made herself a new enemy in the process, little 4 year old Nikki.
As long as we're looking at this scene (which I'm finding is a great scene for analysis as I type this) it's also worth mentioning that it has a lot of that female empowerment that's so central to this movie, and I don't just mean the knife fight. I think it was very intentional that Vernita's child should be a little girl and not a little boy. Beatrix says to Nikki, after killing her mother right in front of her, "When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting". Feel free to disagree with me on this, but I think movies don't tend to depict females as having any capacity for animosity. But Kill Bill gives women their due credit in many ways, and here is a great example. In spite of having just killed her mother, Beatrix pays respect to Nikki by speaking to her as an equal, despite her age, and acknowledging her right to hold on to hatred and seek revenge. Can you imagine this character being a son instead of a daughter? So much meaning would be lost, I think it had to be intentional.
Just one more observation and then I'm done ranting (sorry, I have a lot to say about this movie). Obviously there's a LOT of blood, but did anybody else notice something suspicious about the amount of male blood versus the amount of female blood? It seems like whenever a man is killed, there's buckets of blood gushing from his body. Think Matsumoto, Crazy 88's, the Japanese boss that O-Ren beheaded, the pervert who gets his tongue bitten off, etc - all of these deaths included fountains of gushing blood. On the other hand, whenever a woman is killed, blood is shown sparingly and tastefully. Think O-Ren Ishii, who's bloodshed is a clean stroke of red against white snow, like a brushstroke. Sofie was hidden from view as she was mutilated. Vernita had only a reasonable amount of blood. I could continue on with examples but I think the pattern is clear. Male blood is splashed around carelessly like water, while female blood is treated with respect. It's one more thing that, whether you noticed it or not, adds to the female empowerment theme of the film.
Jeez. where to start. Kill Bill was strange, gory, random, and unexplained. I still don't understand what the purpose of the main conflict was...but I'll go with it. I have to say that I liked this movie better than Inglorious Basterds for reasons unknown, but I believe it's because of the interesting cinematography and editing in the final killing sequence (high contrast b/w, blue backlighting, and more different techniques used). The gore really was over the top, with blood literally spurting out of people. In response to (Dylan?), I did not notice real difference in gore between men and women, but I did notice a greater number of men being killed. Why the heck blood was spurting out of them, I still don't know. Why anyone was attacked, I also don't know other than the main character (....black mamba?) was attacked at her wedding.
(In response to matt)
Well, you'd have to watch the second to really understand more of the plot behind of it all, so I won't ruin it for you. As for all the things that you think are random... Well, first off, Tarantino made this film as a sort contribution to olde time film-making of japanese action films, which is why many of the elements in the film were intentionally made to look fake or overdramatized, such as as the blood spurting out like crazy, the cheesy music and extreme close-ups of the eyes before a battle, the opening scene being black and white, etc.. and even the scene where she's flying over japan and looks at the city... If you look closely, it's actually a fake model city. This was done not because tarantino was lacking a budget or anything, but simply because he wanted to acclaim the techniques used in older movies that resembled the style of kill bill. Actually, even the story itself I believe is a very generic plotline taken from older films of that style. What tarantino was trying to accomplish with this film was to create an artistic masterpiece that honored those old film elements, only with a modern twist and deeper, more complex characters to make it far more appealing. He was mixing old with the new, and I'd have to say he did phenomenal job. I've seen it many times before, and have to say it's one of my favorites, few films are masterfully mixed together using so many creative cinematic techniques, sounds, music, style, and plot.
I suppose I can understand where he's coming from with that, but I still feel it was strangely random... for example, Kurosawa doesn't have the extreme shooting gore in his movies. While I can appreciate parts of his artistic effect, such as the forementioned scenes, I still firmly believe that he could have the same effects and style without the spurting of blood in every direction. Also, what was with the sound? Was the goal to use cartoon-like sound effects as an 'old time' japanese movie would have..... ? Perhaps this is just ignorance on my behalf, but I don't understand why he chose the sounds he did. That said, there were many sounds which I believe were a magnificent addition, such as the blade moving slowly across leather to give a slight ring in an otherwise silent scene ( when she's at the first person's house in the beginning ); or the perfectly timed doorbell sound effect from the same scene.
Overall, as I previously stated, there's something about the movie that I liked, and a lot that bugged me from stylistic choices... but its the hint of a liking that I didn't have after Inglorious Basterds that makes this movie stand a little further out in my opinion.
(In response to Dylan)
I actually had never noticed that before, Dylan. The whole female empowerment concept, but now that I think about it, you're absolutely right. In fact, this pattern follows throughout even the second film, with the exception of Bill and his brother who wore both killed by something other than the sword, so massive amounts of blood would be illogical. I do believe Tarantino showed the female dominance very purposefully with all the examples you pointed as evidence. Also, (I'm starting to talk more about the second one here, but they're so closely related, they may as well be one in the same), take note that Beatrix's and Bill's daughter is also a girl. Could you even imagine her being a boy instead? It would greatly change the significance of the matter. Not to mention that the protagonist is a female character. As I said in my response to Matt, this film follows many conventions, techniques and plot devices as olde time action films... But one thing that has been manipulated is that the female character is the one that has all the power, and the only male character who seems to have any real power is Bill. Even after Beatrix kills him in the end, he's the only she showed remorse or any pity to.
Oh, and another thing I thought I might mention. Did you know that Tarantino actually intends to make a sequel to this story? He wants to use the same girl who played Nikki, only he actually wants to wait a few years till she grows up to start filming it. Of course, it's going to focus on revenge for the death of her mother. But I think Tarantino's decision to actually use the same actor is highly unique to his style of film-making... And I think, in a way, this also relates back to an older style of film-making. Perhaps back in the day they actually waited for actors to get older to use them again in movies where their characters are supposed to older? Just an assumption. I'd need to do research.
Movie: Pulp Fiction
Following Tarantino's style of film-making, Pulp Fiction is certainly an interesting and unique piece. Breaking the movie down into chapters that play around with the chronological order, a mess of complex characters whose fates all somehow end up getting intertwined, long takes on seemingly pointless topics irrelevant to the film, careful use of sound, some sort of deep philosophical meaning behind nearly every scene, and of course, the obscene amounts of blood and unusual violence all contribute to another successful, iconic film by the master of strange films. It's definitely interesting to follow several sets of characters as they all progress through their ordeals. Each chapter usually focuses on a character, or usually a couple of characters. Each chapter, in a way, is also kind of a short film in itself, with a rising action, a climax, and a descending action, with the following chapter usually either being a sequel or prequel depending on chronology. For example, the final chapter, which actually takes place chronologically right before the first scene in the film, involves Jules and Vincent getting out of the apartment of the men they just killed and took their collection from. They took the one survivor along with them. After leaving, Jules accidentally kills the young boy, and blasts his brains inside the car. Now they're in trouble and need to get rid of the body, so they resort to help by going to the Wolf, who helps them get rid of the corpse. Afterwards, the scene jumps to the familiar restaurant setting at the beginning of the film, and the film ends with the continuation of that same sequence that was left as a cliff hanger at the beginning of the film in the first chapter. Again, a brilliant, artistic element stylistic of Tarantino. The chapter clearly demonstrates characters going through a short period of development, the same characters involved in some kind of conflict, and a conclusion of those characters finding a resolve to that conflict. Every chapter in the movie follows that same pattern. It also seems that as the chapters progress, each character is trying to find their own escape. Even from the beginning, this theme is established when the two thieves at the diner decide to rob the place and escape. They want independence. Butch the boxer also seeks independence and runs away with his lover by the end. Jules realizes that he too was seeking independence, and that's why he decides to quit working for Wallace. Mia wanted independence from Wallace as well, and almost risks having an affair with Vincent. Almost every character somehow is seeking their own independence one way or another, figuratively or literally. Overall, I'd say the film has a very deep message about people relations intertwined within its bizarre, sadistic, and overall sarcastic plot.
Pratially @David
Brilliant artist chapters ... um .. well, that's not how I'd phrase it. I'd say more like brief, random moments of completely unnecessary and extreme violence or drug use. now, granted, I suppose that's what that name implies . . ."pulp fiction" . . .like the old stories and what not, but was half of the stuff on the screen needed? In fact, I feel like the so called plot ( if it can be so called) was more of a side note to all of the random action that was going on in the movie.
Now, all that said, I have to say that in order to make a really solid opinion here (like or dislike), I'd need to watch the movie again; which I may do in the near future. For the time being, I lean very much so in the middle. I have things I liked (such as the choreography in some of the fighting), or the wrap around plot style (that was hard to get because of the presentation).. but there are dislikes that are pretty strong, like the random drug use.
@ Matt
Just because you don't like the notion of "drug use" I don't feel it detracts from the film at all, in fact, it adds a lot to it. What you think is unnecessary is actually a crucial plot device. And yes, there is a plot, a very thorough and well thought-out one. If you failed to catch throughout watching the movie, then yes, I strongly suggest rewatching it. I don't feel that anything was really random. I feel that you could probably actually sit for hours analyzing every last bit of this film and making connections to everything to uncover Tarantino's hidden meanings. Or I could be wrong, but I feel that someone who puts so much effort into making some of the greatest and most unique films out there (at least in my opinion) then everything is indeed quite intentional.
I still am slightly bothered that it was "important" to have characters sniffing cocaine or injecting it every couple minutes to the point where you almost kill a person, but maybe I really missed something important about how you just couldn't have done that in a more effective manner ..... which I somehow don't believe is a false. If you're implying that I'm missing something, then you're mistaken ---
in retrospect, I do understand how nothing was "random", but what you're missing is how random it all was. Much of what was shown was there simply to show it, ie. it was random and unneeded to aid the plot. It was simply there for some self-fufilling effect, and it seems to be the most common factor connecting all of Tarantino's films. That, and blood. That man has issues. .... its almost as bad as me making fake blood ..... oh well. All in all, while it may be intentional, it doesn't really appeal to me personally, and I feel as if there are more ways he could have skinned his cats.
In response to Matt's original comment on Pulp fiction I would have to agree with him. I like Tarantino's bloody,chaptered plot style, but i feel like in this movie there really was no point to the series of smaller stories. Even with Tarantino's usualy use of excessively bloody deaths, i feel like there was always a point on way this character had to die, or why this one killed that one. I dont see any of the in Pulp fiction. Most of the people who died in the movie didn't really seem to have anything to do with the supposed plot of the story, or were killed for no apparent reason. I feel like this movie is told from the persepective of an alcholic who has been mind blowingly drunk the last day and is barely sober when someone asks him to describe what he did the last twenty four hours. He is confused, goes on tangents, eveything is randomly out of order, random unimportant things are remembered while imprtant events that would actual give his day a timeline/plot are varely grazed over.
To David's last comment, I dont really feel that the excessive taking of drugs was necessary at all. Yes it prvoided us with crude entertainment and spurned actions that developed a very twisted, confusing, weak plot line, but i feel that those actions could have been egged on by an action that would give the film more meaning then just a drug and violence film. And as to hundreds of small meanings, honestly I would like to know what the over all point of the story was and why it was significant in any why before i start ripping apart each individual event. I do agree that Tarantion's films are quite unique and some of them are great, but not every film produced by a talented film maker with such a heavy style is going to be "great".
@ Rian
Again, I disagree. I don't think any of it was really that random. Tarantino used the chopped up narrative to add another layer to the story. Every one of the major sequences in Pulp Fiction ends with a character being saved or redeemed. If the film were shot in order this wouldn't be possible without being repetitive. Shooting it out of sequence keeps the audience interested.
@ Matt
In case you forgot, the drugs were crucial... Had Mia not taken them from Vincent, he would not have to go through the trouble of saving her and risk getting killed by Wallace. But also if she had not taken them, there was the chance that Vincent and Mia could've had some sort of affair that night. In a way, the drugs redeemed Vincent.
Basically, by saying that drugs are irrelevant and unnecessary, you might as well say that the guns depicted in the movie are unnecessary as well. They serve no purpose. Actually, they serve probably one of the biggest purposes in the film. A gun can be used as a tool to either destroy or redeem a character. Same can be said for the drugs. Drugs almost destroyed Mia, but they redeemed Vincent. Therefore, it is just as crucial a plot device as the guns.
I hope that makes more sense now.
Also, you have to take into account that these are people who work for a drug lord during a rather radical time period. Just another point to argue your sentiment that the drugs are irrelevant. If anything, they stylize the characters, the setting, and the time period.
Sorry, that's my last rant. I'm done.
Post a Comment