[ADMINISTRATOR'S NOTE:
Jeffrey here. This thread was originally part of the Kill Bill vol. 2 discussion, but quickly became a discussion of a larger question: If we justify or excuse the violence in Tarantino's Kill Bill films, what exactly are we saying? What are the consequences of such a justification? Are we just making excuses for the films because we think they're "cool"? Here's Dan Buck's post that set the fire...

Okay, just caught the first one and my big question is this?

How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood just because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?

I know I'm late into the game but this is how I feel. I keep waiting for him to grow up, but he doesn't. I'm not a stickler about violence. Check out some of my favorite films Things to Do in Denver..., Usual Suspects, The Professional, but this film is UNQUESTIONABLY a celebration of gory, horrible deaths. In fact, the switch to anime felt like his effort to be even more violent than real life would allow. I almost stopped the film twice. There was very little redeeming value in these horrific images. I love the sushi bar scene, I love the titles, costumes, score and overall artistic direction, but I was so annoyed at the unrelenting artery spurt. It was like watching some one with Beethoven's skill addicted to playing Richard Marx.

I've skimmed throught the TEN PAGE thread on the vol 1, which was as much about the Matrix, which was just as annoying, without the skill. But nobody has given me a satisfactory answer to why anyone should have to endure Tarantino's sadism. (I know, I know, its him at his most masochistic...)

Dan.

Have you seen (m)Leary's Review? Satisfactory answers are therein.

-s.

DanBuck wrote:
: How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood just
: because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?

Isn't that kind of like forgiving Chaplin his vulgar below-the-belt humour just because his timing was outstanding and his films appealed to our sentiments?

: I keep waiting for him to grow up, but he doesn't.

Why on earth would you wait for a thing like that? Especially when the film in question is explicitly going in the opposite direction to his other, more mature, films?

QUOTE

Have you seen (m)Leary's Review? Satisfactory answers are therein.

Is this a joke? All I found was an explanation of many genres. But this film had more violence than and gore than all these genres combined.

QUOTE

In a brilliantly graphic anime sequence

This was all I could find. Leary, I always love your reviews, but why is it brilliant? Because its graphic?

QUOTE

DanBuck wrote: : How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood just : because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?   Isn't that kind of like forgiving Chaplin his vulgar below-the-belt humour just because his timing was outstanding and his films appealed to our sentiments?

Okay, I'll bite. Yes. I'd rather Chaplin be brilliant with mature subject material. Why is that wrong? Because he's cinematic canon? Is he untouchable?

QUOTE

: I keep waiting for him to grow up, but he doesn't. Why on earth would you wait for a thing like that?  :)  Especially when the film in question is explicitly going in the opposite direction to his other, more mature, films?

Apparently my hopes are misguided. But I still haven't HEARD why its okay that he's descending into a celebration of dismemberment?

QUOTE

DanBuck wrote: : How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood just : because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?   Isn't that kind of like forgiving Chaplin his vulgar below-the-belt humour just because his timing was outstanding and his films appealed to our sentiments?

Did Chaplin ever produce any film that remotely approached a level of vulgarity even facetiously comparable to the level of gore and violence in Kill Bill Vol 1?

Had Chaplin made Freddy Got Fingered, would it have been a film we would warmly embrace?

Dan, everything I've read suggests Volume 2 is far removed in tone from Volume 1, so your respite from arterial spray seems to be at hand. And there's way more of that in Volume 1 than in his other films-- RD has the persistently bloody Mr. Orange, and PF has the "brain detail" scene, but those films are nowhere near this one. Jackie Brown has no blood, to my recollection, and very little violence. So, there's some variation in violence content there.

It was a funny moment explaining to my wife last night that the dance club scene switches to balck and white because the MPAA couldn't allow that sort of blood content be shown in color. Watching the trailers afterward, I think they altered the color of the stains on the yellow jumpsuit to brown to get that sort of general audiences approval.

My wife cringed at some of the violence, but told me this morning that she really dug the film and will be envious of my friend and I seeing the second part on Friday. If only our seven month-old was ready for a babysitter.

Dan, I can't argue you into accepting this "bloody, empty bliss." (Edelstein) If you don't see in it the sort of exuberance in movie-loving and genre storytelling that I do-- the sort of archetypal coolness that is what movies have always (for better or worse) been about, then reading ten pages of me telling you why I love it isn't going to do anything for you.

I'll readily admit that if I loved movies with this level of violence with any degree of regularity, I'd have some concerns. And my wife and I talked some about the circumstances of liking a movie like this. I don't know if there's a good way to distinguish parody violence from real violence. I might have some more insight, though, after I watch it again tonight!

David Poland--that joker! His objections to Volume 2 seem to center around the lack of quotable dialogue. The ability to throw out hip phrases of ironic movie dialogue is the hallmark of our generation's cinephilia. Shouldn't the lack thereof represent a maturation? Get back to your intricate box office projections and hit us with that secret review that will make the Matrix sequels make transcendent sense, Dave.

I appreciate your patient response to my hot-headed frustration but I can't help but wonder...

If you can't defend your taste for the film beyond "it's coolness" perhaps, you SHOULDN'T like the film. Even genre/filmmaking love doesn't justify this film's violence. No genre ever was THIS gory. Westerns, kung-fu, etc.

Well, I did (defend my enjoyment of the film beyond the coolness factor). That's what the ten pages of the other thread were.

I'll go read your comments again.

QUOTE

This was all I could find.  Leary, I always love your reviews, but why is it brilliant?  Because its graphic?

Totally legit question. I tried to answer the "why" question so hard, but don't think I even come close. I just liked the film. It conjured up all those sunny Saturday afternoons spent watching cheesy, heroic, formulaic, meta-mythic action flicks. Somehow, Tarantino taps perfectly into the holy trinity of these B-film classic genres: Spaghetti Western, grindhouse Martial Art, and Blaxploitation.

But still, this doesn't come close to an apology for the sort of violence we find in any of these genres, and thus in Kill Bill. I can't think of one. We could probably think of films that do the same thing Kill Bill does with less gratuitous violence.

I do think we can say this is a good film though for the following reasons:
1. Tarantino really is an artist. This is spectacular filmmaking.
2. Tarantino is an insightful cultural critic. He is exposing to us viewing processes that are latent in 90 precent of his viewing audience. I think am into his focus on genre because this is the same thing Godard did in the 60's and it really broke open the way popular audiences began to see these films that were informing everyday social practice totally unbeknownst to them.

So, at the very least, it is unfair to say that this film is "nothing other than the result of an adolescent blood lust." There is so much more than that going on in the film. AND we haven't seen the second half yet. This wouldn't excuse the level of violence in the first part, but we can't judge the visual intentionality of the scenes in the first half responsibly until we have seen the whole thing.

If we are waiting to see Tarantino to grow up, I think one could make the case in this film that he has. He is admitting the generic influence B-film has on his understanding of "what film is" and he is wearing it on his sleeve. My problem with things like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs is that they toe the line. They try to keep one foot in each world. Kill Bill is like the first step of a 12 step meeting for cinema-addicts-who-make-films.

Oh, and the anime sequence is brilliant visually, not intellectually. It shimmered and effervesced with blood and gore.

I hope never to convey the impression that I'm unconcerned with on-screen violence. Heck, the other night I was unhappy with the explosions and gunfire while watching Castle in the Sky.

This is a very unique take on genre films, genre characters and genre images made by a very derivative but still (to my mind) distinctive filmmaker. I don't know how much of this boils down to liking or disliking the Tarantino oevre as a whole. I wish I could tell you...

QUOTE

Dan, everything I've read suggests Volume 2 is far removed in tone from Volume 1, so your respite from arterial spray seems to be at hand.

Well... uh... no, there's not much of a respite at all. There's no GEYSER-FORCE blood, but there's blood aplenty, and the most graphic instance of onscreen dismemberment yet in a Tarantino film.

PLEASE DO NOT ELABORATE ON THIS POINT, THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN IT. THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A MAJOR SPOILER.

Just wanted to make sure we're all clear on that.

There is a lot more talking and "humanity" in this episode, but the showdowns between the Bride and her remaining opponents are every bit as sensational as we've come to expect.

I don't think the film is first and foremost a "celebration of dismemberment." I think it's a celebration of a tradition, of a series of sub-genres, in which bloody bouts and the bread and butter of the medium. It is definitely worth questioning the validity of continuing such stuff as "entertainment." But there is a lot more going on here as well. I think Tarantino goes out of his way in both 1 & 2 to wink at the audience (literally, in Vol. 2) that this is done in a self-aware, tongue-in-cheek fashion... letting us know that he's trying to take a genre that is typically bloody and fill it with something more significant. I do sympathize with Dan Buck to some extent... I wish it wasn't so indulgent in its violence and in the staging of such spectacles of cruelty. This is eye-for-an-eye storytelling told for the visceral thrill of violent justice being delivered on the heads of spectacularly bad villains.

But what I do love is the other focus of the film... the revelry in excellence of performance, cinematography, music-and-imagery in perfect fusion, creative and colorful spectacle, humor, strong characterization... the kind of stuff that is so lacking everywhere else. I always come away from Tarantino's film saying "THAT'S what is possible in the typical two-hour framework... Now if he would only apply his talents to a truly meaningful story, he'd be one of my favorite directors." In the meantime, I'm just giving him credit for the limited genius that he does deliver, while I still wish he took pleasure in something more redeeming than cartoonish bloodshed and exhibits of exaggerated badness being met with an equal and opposite reaction.

I think i kept up with the 1o page thread about as well as i'm keeping up with this, but this statement in particular i emphatically disagree with:

QUOTE

If you can't defend your taste for the film beyond \"it's coolness\" perhaps, you SHOULDN'T like the film.

That is, if you replace the word "coolness" with "style." There are definite films that are to be appreciated on the merits of style alone, and if Kill Bill doesn't fall into that category nothing will.

Quoted from the "Tips of the Hat" section from my year-end Top 10:

QUOTE

There were moments this year in which the imagery lept from the screen and bit us in the face. While lacking the solid infrastructure that the films in the above list boast, these still deserve honorable mention.   Christoffer Boe’s Reconstruction, Michael Polish’s Northfork, Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill, and Gus Van Sant’s Elephant were all films that should be listed solely because of their style. While Kill Bill brought new creative violence to an artistic high, Elephant showed the root of nihilism at the heart of creative violence in general. Both films dealt with destructive human agendas, but Tarantino’s violence was purely for purposes of entertainment...

It's not ancient Rome, Dan. It's a movie. And there are as many reasons to appreciate a film as there are reasons to tear one down. I personally think that the gore of Kill Bill 2 was done with such finesse that i can't resist appreciating it on the merits of its imagery alone. There are others who could come up with a great philosophy for other things Tarantino is trying to accomplish, and i think Leary is onto something in that realm. But i don't think it's necessary.
I don't go into A Tarantino film with the same expectations that i have when i rent Maya Lin: A Strong Clear Vision. And i think anyone with a slight Tarantino knowledge that chooses to still attend one of his films and comes out the exit door with complaints about its violent content is a bit hypocritical.

In short, if you know anything about film at all, then you know what you're getting into from the moment you go into a Tarantino movie. Violence is the last thing that should be complained about when you come out the other side.

-s.

WARNING: Kill Bill, VOLUME ONE spoilers (Not Two)

It is also worth noting that the VILLAINS are just died-in-the-wool evil, and they admit it. What distinguishes the person we're cheering for is that she has seen the light. She has chosen a better life. She wants to be a mother. She knows this goes against her baser nature, but she wants to be better for the sake of her daughter. Thus, her bloody revenge quest is her desperate attempt to fight her way out of the pit she's lived in. The exaggerated suffering is the cost of, in this case, doing the right thing... getting her daughter out the world that she openly acknowledges is THE WRONG WORLD TO LIVE IN.

Sure, Tarantino's enjoying the conventions that come along with portraying that world, but I certainly wouldn't say he's glamorizing in that folks will come away saying, "I wish *I* lived in that world. I wish *I* had the Bride's existence."

Upon reflection, I'd love Volume 1 as much if there weren't spraying arteries and limbs severed. They're certainly not integral to my enjoyment of the film or the story. I suppose I have to ask whether (1) they should penalize an otherwise well-told story and (2) whether the sprayings and severances become the story by their nature.

And now the Village Voice review...

WARNING. SEVERAL REVIEWS, including this one, HAVE ALREADY SPOILED WHAT THE BRIDE'S REAL NAME IS.

Jeffrey, was there any substantive or thematic or purposive reason for the Bride's named to have been treated thus in Volume 1 that is fulfilled or revealed in Volume 2, or was it just a lark?

Just a lark.

Ahhhhhhh! I'm suposed to be running a rehearsal I can't keep up.

That's the Power of the Boards: You Snooze, You Looze.

-s.

QUOTE

I hope never to convey the impression that I'm unconcerned with on-screen violence.  Heck, the other night I was unhappy with the explosions and gunfire while watching Castle in the Sky.

Funny you should mention this. So did I, and very recently. I don't see you as unconcerned about violence.

here's something you said in the other thread: (I told you I;d read it again)

QUOTE

Take it to the present day. Take a bunch of movies from this past summer that you saw. X-Men 2, Terminator 3, Bad Boys 4, LXG. All movies where violence is a significant part of the way the story is told. All movies that employ film language that was not widely in use fifty years ago. Some of them films where the depictions of violence have been scrubbed and polished just enough so that thirteen year olds can see them. And, I'd wager (and I'll have to guess, because I haven't seen any of them), all films where the depictions of violence glide so easily into one's subconscious, into one's categories of drama-processing, that they cause hardly a ripple. Nary a disturbing, lingering sight among them. Now, those movies might or might not have had a higher actual body count than Kill Bill (the restaurant scene is quite ambitious), but I'd guess that there's a similar ratio (in film running time) of action/violent scenes to exposition/dialogue scenes, and I wonder in what sense is this easily-digestible violence better or safer than Tarantino's bloody violence?   On any level?

It is not the existence of violence in stories that bothers me. It is the Fourth of July grande finale of blood that I can't stand. Its as though he's adding violence to the most violent genres and depicting that violence in an even more bloody manner than ever before. Is it safer or better? No, but it is more necessary to the story than it is gratuitous gore for the sake of being "hip."

JO:

QUOTE

I always come away from Tarantino's film saying \"THAT'S what is possible in the typical two-hour framework... Now if he would only apply his talents to a truly meaningful story, he'd be one of my favorite directors.\" In the meantime, I'm just giving him credit for the limited genius that he does deliver, while I still wish he took pleasure in something more redeeming than cartoonish bloodshed and exhibits of exaggerated badness being met with an equal and opposite reaction

This is my sentiment EXACTLY!!!

I've heard these answers:

1. It's a celebration of sub-genre/cliche's hip chic yada yada yada - I have no problem with that. But show me ANY film in ANY of those genres that so exhuberantly revels in its bloodshed and my point will be nill. Tarantino is turning the violence and gore "up to eleven."

2. What did you expect from the film? That it wouldn't be violent? - NO! I expect violence, but its the purposes behind it with which I take issue. I feel as though its violence purely for arousal sake. The fact that its set amidst fanstastic filmmaking doesn detract from the fact that this guy's got a hard-on for dicing folks up.

[quote="DanBuck"][quote]

here's something you said in the other thread: (I told you I;d read it again)

[quote]Take it to the present day. Take a bunch of movies from this past summer that you saw. X-Men 2, Terminator 3, Bad Boys 4, LXG. All movies where violence is a significant part of the way the story is told. All movies that employ film language that was not widely in use fifty years ago. Some of them films where the depictions of violence have been scrubbed and polished just enough so that thirteen year olds can see them. And, I'd wager (and I'll have to guess, because I haven't seen any of them), all films where the depictions of violence glide so easily into one's subconscious, into one's categories of drama-processing, that they cause hardly a ripple. Nary a disturbing, lingering sight among them. Now, those movies might or might not have had a higher actual body count than Kill Bill (the restaurant scene is quite ambitious), but I'd guess that there's a similar ratio (in film running time) of action/violent scenes to exposition/dialogue scenes, and I wonder in what sense is this easily-digestible violence better or safer than Tarantino's bloody violence?
On any level? [/quote]

It is not the existence of violence in stories that bothers me. It is the Fourth of July grande finale of blood that I can't stand. Its as though he's adding violence to the most violent genres and depicting that violence in an even more bloody manner than ever before. Is it safer or better? No, but it is more necessary to the story than it is gratuitous gore for the sake of being "hip."[/quote]

Well, I'm not sure how they line up on an accounting of acts of violence or actual blood content, but the Shaw Bros. grindhouse movies he's referencing were comically bloody. There's that exploding head thing they used to show before the Five Questions segment on The Daily Show that was from a grindhouse movie.

What I was getting at lo those many months ago, Dan, was that perhaps we should always be bothered by violence in stories, and perhaps we should question its role in communication forms. My point has been that while a film like Volume 1 may serve as a lightning rod for lots of people's jeremiads, I wonder how much more insidious those other ways of telling violent stories can be, where we don't blanche at the ways that we are allowing violence to be used as a cinematic language.

DanBuck wrote:

: : : How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood
: : : just because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?
: :
: : Isn't that kind of like forgiving Chaplin his vulgar below-the-belt
: : humour just because his timing was outstanding and his films appealed
: : to our sentiments?
:
: Okay, I'll bite. Yes. I'd rather Chaplin be brilliant with mature subject
: material. Why is that wrong? Because he's cinematic canon? Is he
: untouchable?

Of course not. Nothing is untouchable. But in both cases you are imposing a dichotomy between form and content that distorts the merits of both filmmakers.

FWIW, when I wrote that question, I had this essay by William Paul on 'Charles Chaplin and the Annals of Anality' (which can be found in this book) in mind specifically; to excerpt the relevant bits of his argument from pages 114, 115 and 127:

There is an honorable body of important art generally decried for its vulgarity if it is noticed at all. Occasionally works previously embraced by the masses are taken up by official culture, but when this happens the greatest appeal they held for the masses somehow vanishes. Although Charles Dickens achieved an early and extraordinary popularity, it took a good deal longer for his stature as a writer to be acknowledged. And even then, his work was transformed by critical reception so that he is viewed as great in spite of his sentimentality. "In Dickens," Dwight MacDonald cautions, "superb comedy alternates with bathetic sentimentality, great descriptive prose with the most vulgar kind of theatricality" (7). What for a nineteenth-century audience might have been key reasons for reading these novels becomes something for us to overlook. We of course possess discriminatory sensibilities the masses aer incapable of, even though the masses probably did discriminate in favor of Dickens's "sentimentality." But by throwing out those qualities that made the novels most appealing to their audience we can congratulate ourselves on our ability to locate the "true" merit of these works. This kind of "discrimination" is as conformist in its aims as the mass audience it deplores is supposed to be. . . .

The general critical reception of Charlie Chaplin has always recognized the vulgar sources of his material, although usually to point out how much he transcends them. As with Aristophanes, the vulgarity is often acknowledged in order to be dismissed. Chaplin is most often praised for his abilities as a mime, his pathos, his subtlety of expression, his humanism, and, whenever the comedy is addressed specifically, most especially in his later films, his satire. As far as I know, no one has ever thought to praise him for the anality of his humor. A point that touches on this might be mentioned in passing but always in a way that ends up containing it; this aspect of Chaplin's humor is simply not regarded as fit for praise, certainly not to be made central to his art. In effect, there's a kind of censoring here of the lower bodily stratum. This censoring represents an astonishing distortion of his films. . . .

The Tramp is most at home in the world of material values; he is a character most fully defined by appetites, which accounts for the great emphasis on hunger in most of his films and the countless gags about eating. Yet the Tramp's appetite also extends to a hunger for the spiritual, which has enabled critical appreciation of Chaplin to emphasize the spiritual over the material, a clear distortion of much of the impact of Chaplin's comedy. The vulgar humor is not merely decoration necessary for an artist who sought widespread appeal; in fact vulgar humor is close to the essence of his work. The kind of material-spiritual opposition that can be found in Chaplin has made it possible for critics to excuse his vulgarity. In focusing on the vulgar roots of Chaplin's art, the delight it takes in exploring the lower body, I have tried to establish that there are values inherent in the vulgarity itself.

Quite frankly, I wonder sometimes if the speechifying in Tarantino's films is, itself, an attempt to make his films rise "above" the genres that inspire them -- I wonder if he pours on too much "satire" and "irony", both of which Mr. Paul argues have been considered superior to "lower" forms of laughter since the Romantic age. But when you think about it, it is precisely that tension between arch, hip, "higher" forms of comedy (combined with "higher" forms of theatricality, such as the deep emotion that Uma Thurman brings to her character) and gross, vulgar, "lower" forms of entertainment that makes Kill Bill so interesting.

SDG wrote:
: Did Chaplin ever produce any film that remotely approached a level of
: vulgarity even facetiously comparable to the level of gore and violence in
: Kill Bill Vol 1?

Irrelevant. I am saying that A + B = C -- that is, I am saying that the equation Vulgar Elements + Critically Laudable Elements = Critics Overlooking Vulgar Elements To Laud The Other Elements applies to Charlie Chaplin as much as it does to Quentin Tarantino.

I am establishing an equation, I am not discussing the values that we assign to the respective variables.

: Had Chaplin made Freddy Got Fingered, would it have been a film we
: would warmly embrace?

Irrelevant question, since the film's merits (or lack thereof) are to be found in the film and not in the filmmaker.

Russell Lucas wrote:
: Upon reflection, I'd love Volume 1 as much if there weren't spraying
: arteries and limbs severed.

I don't think Vol. 1 would have been as funny if it didn't have them. I mean, the KIND of "spraying arteries" we see in that film are so obviously fake, you can't really complain about the film rubbing your face in "realistic" gore the way that you can about The Passion.

[quote]SDG wrote:
: Did Chaplin ever produce any film that remotely approached a level of
: vulgarity even facetiously comparable to the level of gore and violence in
: Kill Bill Vol 1?

Irrelevant. I am saying that A + B = C -- that is, I am saying that the equation Vulgar Elements + Critically Laudable Elements = Critics Overlooking Vulgar Elements To Laud The Other Elements applies to Charlie Chaplin as much as it does to Quentin Tarantino.

I am establishing an equation, I am not discussing the values that we assign to the respective variables.[/quote]
And I'm saying that the values matter. Drinking Water + Arsenic = People Accepting a Certain Level of Impurity for the Sake of Adequate Hydration, but that doesn't mean that if someone expresses horror at the level of arsenic in a particular glass, it makes sense to say, "Big deal, we drink arsenic all the time." To compare Dan's misgivings about overlooking the violence in Kill Bill to overlooking the vulgarity in Chaplin is, I think, facile.

[quote]: Had Chaplin made Freddy Got Fingered, would it have been a film we
: would warmly embrace?

Irrelevant question, since the film's merits (or lack thereof) are to be found in the film and not in the filmmaker.[/quote]
Oh, come on, don't make me explicitly parse all this out. If a film of Freddy Got Fingered level vulgarity had been made by Chaplin, bringing to it his level of skill as a filmmaker, would that make it a film to be warmly embraced?

SDG wrote:

: : Irrelevant. I am saying that A + B = C -- that is, I am saying that the
: : equation Vulgar Elements + Critically Laudable Elements = Critics
: : Overlooking Vulgar Elements To Laud The Other Elements applies to
: : Charlie Chaplin as much as it does to Quentin Tarantino.
: :
: : I am establishing an equation, I am not discussing the values that we
: : assign to the respective variables.
:
: And I'm saying that the values matter.

Of course they matter, when we APPLY the equation. But the equation itself either stands or falls on its own merits. And any equation which justifies distorting the intent of the filmmaker when critically evaluating the film is a bad equation. DanBuck seems to think we have been merely "forgiving" Tarantino all this time. My point is that we have not.

: Drinking Water + Arsenic = People Accepting a Certain Level of Impurity
: for the Sake of Adequate Hydration . . .

This is a false comeback, because what you are presenting is not a set of variables arranged in an equation but, rather, specific values (at least where "Arsenic" is concerned -- "Water" and "People Accepting a Certain Level of Impurity" could be basic enough to be variables).

: To compare Dan's misgivings about overlooking the violence in Kill Bill to
: overlooking the vulgarity in Chaplin is, I think, facile.

I am saying that he is wrong to talk about "overlooking" anything in the first place. In that sense, he is just as wrong to "overlook" the violence in Tarantino as he is to "overlook" the vulgarity in Chaplin. The violence and the vulgarity are very much part of the whole point.

: If a film of Freddy Got Fingered level vulgarity had been made by
: Chaplin, bringing to it his level of skill as a filmmaker, would that make it
: a film to be warmly embraced?

I will let you know if and when Chaplin ever does make such a film. For now, it is not at all clear to me where or how we would draw the line between "vulgar" content and the "level of skill" with which Chaplin might make use of such content. You are asserting or assuming a dichotomy when the whole point of a filmmaker like Chaplin or Tarantino is to explore what happens when we bring the two sides of such dichotomies together -- and since neither you nor I have any SPECIFICS at our disposal, it is really impossible for us to discuss the matter.

[quote]Of course they matter, when we APPLY the equation. But the equation itself either stands or falls on its own merits. And any equation which justifies distorting the intent of the filmmaker when critically evaluating the film is a bad equation. DanBuck seems to think we have been merely "forgiving" Tarantino all this time. My point is that we have not.[/quote]
At this point I'm thoroughly confused what you were trying to say, whether you think of your equation as a good one or a bad one, whether you mean to distinguish between "forgiving" (Dan's word) and "overlooking" (the word you used in your equation) or not, etc.

To me, it looks like Dan said, "Yikes! The level of violence in this film is alarming, and I'm a bit freaked out that everyone seems cool with it!" And then you replied along lines not entirely unlike the following: "Dan, that's like saying that no one should ever watch Chaplin!"

[quote]: Drinking Water + Arsenic = People Accepting a Certain Level of Impurity
: for the Sake of Adequate Hydration . . .

This is a false comeback...[/quote]
Having realized my failure to grasp the point of your original equation, I withdraw my attempt to offer a parallel.

[quote]: To compare Dan's misgivings about overlooking the violence in Kill Bill to
: overlooking the vulgarity in Chaplin is, I think, facile.

I am saying that he is wrong to talk about "overlooking" anything in the first place. In that sense, he is just as wrong to "overlook" the violence in Tarantino as he is to "overlook" the vulgarity in Chaplin. The violence and the vulgarity are very much part of the whole point.[/quote]
I think DAN'S point is that the violence in Kill Bill is a much, much bigger, more flagrant, and more troubling part of "the whole point of Kill Bill than is the vulgarity of a Chaplin film.

[quote]: If a film of Freddy Got Fingered level vulgarity had been made by
: Chaplin, bringing to it his level of skill as a filmmaker, would that make it
: a film to be warmly embraced?

I will let you know if and when Chaplin ever does make such a film.[/quote]
Yeah, see, I wouldn't be able to say that, because I'm pretty comfortable saying I'd have no interest in seeing such a film in the first place no matter who did it.

I guess I'll hijack the discussion, but I found something interesting about a future release of both Vol 1. + Vol 2:

First up, according to the latest issue of Video Business, director Quentin Tarantino has big plans for both Kill Bill, Volume 1 and Volume 2 on DVD. The director has been quoted as saying that he cut an alternate version of Kill Bill, Volume 1 for release in Japan, that will be released in the States eventually. This version contains both new footage and omissions. He also plans to assemble a complete 4-hour version of both films together for art house theatrical screenings. Look for a multi-disc "major special edition" of both films on DVD, which may include significant deleted scenes (including the original introduction to the character of Bill, who originally fought Michael Jai White, as well as the original scene at the wedding chapel). Tarantino is also reportedly considering releasing additional stand-alone supplemental discs after the main DVD release. He was apparently inspired to do this by Universal's recent American Pie: Beneath the Crust DVDs.

The Japanese version that they are talking about involves the black and white scene in Vol. 1. It had the scene in full color.

Peter you have utterly confused me. If I'm not supposed to overlook the gratutious, rediculous violence... well then... the film is crap. Immoral, horrific valueless garbage.

Just because a society once liked the basal elements of Chaplin's work and now history has revealed better reasons to like it means it SHOULD have liked the basal parts too?

Huh?


EXPLAIN THIS TO ME LIKE I'M STUPID (not just Peter, here) - How is a film that is obviously having a grand old time in its blood and guts a good thing? Not with rediculous explantions of long-dead genres having a cinematic voice to empower this generation to see the folly of its own self indulgent love of violence. So far it all just sounds like rhetoric aimed at justifying the fact that you think the film is cool.

SDG wrote:

: : DanBuck seems to think we have been merely "forgiving" Tarantino all
: : this time. My point is that we have not.
:
: At this point I'm thoroughly confused what you were trying to say,
: whether you think of your equation as a good one or a bad one . . .

I am saying that I reject DanBuck's equation when it is applied to other films and filmmakers, so therefore I reject it when it is applied to Tarantino.

Note: This is not about the violence and whether or not it is justified. This is about DanBuck's assertion that the only way we can appreciate the film is by "forgiving" or "overlooking" the violence. I am saying no that is not true. And indeed, I would say this not only to people like DanBuck who are so turned off by the violence that they turn off the film, but to people who say in their reviews that they like the film IN SPITE OF the violence.

: To me, it looks like Dan said, "Yikes! The level of violence in this film is
: alarming, and I'm a bit freaked out that everyone seems cool with it!"

Actually, what DanBuck implied was that we were NOT "cool with" the violence but were, on the contrary, "forgiving" or "overlooking" the violence. Since his specific question is now two or three pages old, I shall quote it again: "How long do we forgive Tarantino's adolescent obsession with blood just because his cinematography and storytelling is outstanding?"

: I think DAN'S point is that the violence in Kill Bill is a much, much bigger,
: more flagrant, and more troubling part of "the whole point of Kill Bill than
: is the vulgarity of a Chaplin film.

That may indeed be DanBuck's larger point, but the specific attitude I am trying to nip in the bud is the one which says that those who like the film must obviously be ignoring or overlooking or "forgiving" the film's violence while focusing on its "outstanding cinematography" etc.

: : : If a film of Freddy Got Fingered level vulgarity had been made by
: : : Chaplin, bringing to it his level of skill as a filmmaker, would that
: : : make it a film to be warmly embraced?
: :
: : I will let you know if and when Chaplin ever does make such a film.
:
: Yeah, see, I wouldn't be able to say that, because I'm pretty comfortable
: saying I'd have no interest in seeing such a film in the first place no
: matter who did it.

Irrelevant. Your question concerns how we would evaluate the film. The question therefore presupposes that we would have seen it first. You can't back out of your line of questioning now by saying that you would never have seen it so the question is moot anyway etc.

Well, okay, obviously you CAN decide to abstain from whatever discussion you prompted by asking that original question, but you can't pretend to be involved in actually finding an ANSWER to your question simply because you abstain from the discussion thus.

DanBuck wrote:
: If I'm not supposed to overlook the gratutious, rediculous violence... well
: then... the film is crap. Immoral, horrific valueless garbage.

It is most definitely NOT valueless. Tarantino's films almost always reflect some sort of moral sensibility, much more than his critics often allow. Kill Bill is no exception.

: Just because a society once liked the basal elements of Chaplin's work
: and now history has revealed better reasons to like it means it SHOULD
: have liked the basal parts too?

"Basal"? And what is it, exactly, that makes these other reasons "better" to the point of excluding the original reasons for liking his films?

: How is a film that is obviously having a grand old time in its blood and
: guts a good thing?

I would say the burden of proof is on those who would assert that it is a BAD thing. No doubt those of us who like this sort of thing all have different reasons for doing so.

Forgive me for coming in late on this one...

I don't have it on me right now, but Entertainment Weekly's cover story is on Tarantino. Take note of his influences--he names names (and I'll write them out here when I get the chance). In other words, he lists the films that inspired him.

Most of the films he mentioned were obscure, foreign, cult-trash films. I find it highly unlikely that any of us have seen them. If that is the case, it is just as likely that QT did not over-exaggerate the blood-letting, but merely reflected the same amount of blood-letting that these previously made films had.

So until these other films are seen and judged, we must be careful not to accuse QT of overdoing the violence. AFAIK, there are plenty of really violent and gory films that came out in the 70s that really tested one's tolerance. Without referring to QT's list, I would put A Clockwork Orange, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, Blood-Sucking Freaks, Eraserhead, Pink Flamingoes and The Wicker Man as part of this category.

Make no mistake, When I get the list of QT's referred films, I will print them out here. Or perhaps his website has them listed.

Nick

What are the long, drawn out, particular, and sometimes very graphic battle scenes in The Two Towers and The Return of the King if not "fireworks displays" of violence and blood?

Orcs get arrows through the eyes.

One orc is ripped to pieces by the orcs and EATEN, his entrails flying into the air... for laughs.

An orc stands over a fallen Gondorian and plunges a spear through him, for all to see, for effect.

Orcs are trampled by oncoming horses.

Men and horses are lifted from the ground and cast down.

We watch men fall from high places in Gondor, crashing into pieces of the castle on the way down.

Etc. Etc.

And it gets an A+ from SDG, praised as a pinnacle of cinema spectacle.

And yet, the question of "revelry" or the indulgence in mayhem did not seem such a problem there.

I also note that Dan Buck has listed Fight Club as one of his favorites.

So I have to ask... what is it that justifies these visions of graphic, bloody violence in Fincher and Jackson's films?

Would those films have had the same effect without such scenes of carnage? Without occasionally going for a laugh in the midst of violence, and even with violence? What purpose does such stuff serve?

I will cautiously offer the argument that it reminds us that this is a movie, not something to be taken as real life, and that we are to separate ourselves from it and see it for the charade that it is.

Okay, I know somebody's gonna jump in and say, "How can you possibly compare Kill Bill and the Lord of the Rings films?" Well, I'd be the first to argue that the Jackson films carry much deeper levels of meaning and significance. OF COURSE. I'm not saying they're the same thing. But I think there *is* meaning, to some extent, in Tarantino's work. And I don't believe he's reveling in violence in the sense that he loves *real-world* violence. Rather, he's skilled in, and enjoys, assembling a big screen spectacle of violence as the context in which he will cast his morality play.

But I really don't think the purpose of the Kill Bill films is to revel in blood and gore. I think one of the purposes is to stage even more spectacular duels and clashes to spoof (some of the time) and mimic the conventions of a certain... rather empty... genre. But further, within that, he draws attention to the underlying themes of those genres, which may have been only a feeble pulse in those movies, but have a pretty strong pulse here. (Granted, you don't really feel that pulse strongly in Kill Bill until the revelations of Volume Two.)

Tarantino grew up on that stuff, so I'm not surprised he's putting it in his own movies. But he is investing those rather empty conventions with something more, something that invigorates the struggle. (And I really don't think you'll know what I'm talking about fully until you see the whole thing... parts one and two.) He is telling the story of a woman who embraced the foolish, ego-driven, empowerment-oriented path of an assassin, and then had a serious wake-up call when she became pregnant. (Pay close attention to the flashback scenes in KB2 when the Bride discovers her pregnancy, and then her speech to Bill about what changed in her when that happened.) She has turned against that life, and now is fighting out of necessity to get out of that life. In a way, Tarantino is subverting the genre even as he fulfills its standard qualifications and even surpasses them.

In that sense, Tarantino's violence, while I personally would have dialed it back a few notches, is in his own way of staging the kind of big screen lunacy he appreciates. This is the language that he knows... an immature language, a faulty and even offensive one, but I think he's wrestling with something significant in what he expresses, and I for one find value in paying attention. Tarantino acknowledges, several times throughout both films, that it is, indeed, lunacy. (Uma even winks at the camera.) It's a big bold-lettered sign: "This is Artifice!" A charade. And he surprises us by bringing a certain realism to the things that are more important, more relevant... namely, parent-child relationships, trust, the paths we choose to follow in our lives. The closer the Bride gets to her true goal in this film, the more human she seems to become, and some of the scenes near the conclusion have a lot of heart in them.

Fight Club was a very violent movie that drew a large crowd largely because of spectacularly staged bouts of bloody violence. But it was purposeful. The violence was staged convincingly, outrageously, graphically, and, it could be argued, rather indulgently. But there was something else going on as well... a storyteller that stood off to the side drawing our attention to the fact that such events arerather ridiculous and superficial... and more, drawing our attention to a story that has some redeeming value.

This is why I defend Pulp Fiction, not as a great film that everyone must see, but as a thoughtful film that will bring some good to an audience that has come for the violence. It is why I defend Fargo and its wood chipper. Blade Runner and its eye-gouging. The Godfather and its prolonged scenes of men being bullet-ridden, its leisurely scenes of men wallowing in power and making violent decisions for the good of their families... wretched wretched behavior, masterfully filmed so that we can discern good from evil and appreciate the aesthetics in which it is all presented.

Personally, I think the story of Ehud in the Bible would still have packed a wallop even if the Scripture had refrained from informing me that he shoved the knife all the way into that villain "and the refuse spilled out." OH, thank you very much, but NO thank you... didn't need that information. Still, it's a detail that sticks with you. You certainly don't want to be THAT guy. Similarly, in Kill Bill, the heroes suffer mightily, but rise up and overcome. The villains suffer mightily, and die in the consequences wrought by their own evil. It's big, bloody, eye-for-an-eye storytelling (now I'm really repeating myself, I know), and that kind of storytelling has its place. Tarantino's universe is far from amoral.

I would love to see a similar thread on pride and ego... movies that focus on men who behave egotistically or sarcastically. Gangster flicks revel in expensive attire, gunplay, gambling, shady dealings. Those are no worse than the smackdown matches of the Kill Bill world. It's important that films portraying wicked behavior portray, just as vividly, the ugly consequences... whether we're in a realistic war film or a cartoon world.

(Looney Toons have portrayed spectacular consequences to the delight of children and grownups everywhere. Kill Bill's mix of realism and cartoonishness requires a more mature and discerning audiences, but it serves a similar purpose. Pulp Fiction maps out several character arcs that provide us with varying examples of choices and consequences, from men who die from foolish evil to men who rescue their enemies and men who give up "the life" in order to serve God.)

What is just as important as questions of excess is the question of choices and consequences. If the movie is going to show the squalor and glamour of gangster life or casino life, it had better show the cost of those choices. And that cost isn't pretty. Likewise, if Tarantino's going to make a film about smooth-talking, egotistical, self-centered assassins, he'd better show that such choices have consequences... bloody consequences. I may not completely agree with the balance that he finally strikes, but it's a better balance than many other filmmakers working in the same genre.

And the things he gets right are so, so right that I cannot just write him off. Just as I cannot write off David Fincher, who thrives on adrenaline, the young Steven Spielberg who reveled in hard-hitting chase scenes and dinosaur violence, George Lucas who reveled in the choreography of dogfights, or Peter Jackson, who thrives on the chaos of battle and who I am sure will revel in the mayhem of King Kong. Tarantino deals in conflict that shows the blood... the consequences of violence that Lucas covers up, Spielberg covers up, and even Jackson (to some extent) covers up. His work has its place...

...even if I would quibble with him over just how far he sometimes goes.

[quote]So until these other films are seen and judged, we must be careful not to accuse QT of overdoing the violence.[/quote]

I have not read the specific article that you're referring to, but I have read other articles and interviews in which Tarantino lists many of his favorite films, films that influenced Kill Bill. I haven't seen all of them, but I have seen some of them, and films like Duel To The Death, The Streetfighter, Chinese Super Ninjas, the "heroic bloodshed" films of John Woo, and the Lone Wolf And Cub/Shogun Assassin series have just as much bloodshed and violence as Kill Bill does, and are filmed in just as stylish and glossy a manner.

Having seen some of the movies that Tarantino lists as influences, I can assure you that, despite their gratuitous films are often very bleak. Films like the Shaw Brothers classics often used themes of honor and revenge as the core components of their storylines - and more often than not, these films were bleak, bleak, bleak. Sure, they're full of adrenaline-pumping fight scenes and many an arterial firehose, but when all is said and done, the "heroes" in these movies are often left with little to nothing in the world. They've either been completely alienated from the world they knew, have been driven insane, or are dead. If anything, many of these movies are ultimately about the price and weight of seeking honor and revenge.

Of course, there are many exceptions, and some certainly drown in their excess. But I think it's not entirely accurate to criticize these movies (and I'm not saying that anyone here has done so) for being merely stylistic excesses of bloodshed, especially considering their often downbeat and tragic endings.

Tarantino is bringing nothing new to the screen in terms of the amounts of artfully-filmed violence that are depicted in movies, nor is his fascination with revenge anything new. He'd probably be the first to agree, and then send you off with an armful of Shaw Brothers and samurai flicks. However, he's certainly bringing it to a much wider and more mainstream crowd... which is fuelling much of the debate on here, I think.

Also... I posted this in an earlier Kill Bill, Vol. 1 thread, but HKFlix has re-posted their "Kill Bill Study Guide", which lists many of the cinematic references and influences in Tarantino's film. This might be of some help.

http://www.hkflix.com/coupons/hkflix_03-10-10/

BTW, excellent post Mr. Overstreet. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: What are the long, drawn out, particular, and sometimes very graphic
: battle scenes in The Two Towers and The Return of the King if not
: "fireworks displays" of violence and blood?

Bingo. Brilliant post, Jeff.

Indeed, it has occurred to me that Tarantino shows more restraint than Jackson in some ways. I mean, Jackson really seems to relish the sight of Gondorians falling to their deaths -- his camera lingers on a few of those special-effects shots, and he does seem to "celebrate the violence" as Atom Egoyan might put it. Contrast that with the flashback to the wedding-chapel massacre in Kill Bill Vol. 2. Tarantino introduces us to some minor but sympathetic characters, and when it comes time to kill them, the camera backs off. In both cases, we are dealing with incidental characters in whom we don't have much invested, beyond the vague notion that they are somehow "on our side" -- but Jackson makes a point of showing HOW they die whereas Tarantino knows it is enough to just let us know THAT they died.

: He is telling the story of a woman who embraced the foolish, ego-driven,
: empowerment-oriented path of an assassin, and then had a serious
: wake-up call when she became pregnant. . . . She has turned against
: that life, and now is fighting out of necessity to get out of that life.

Well, sort of. She actually tried to abandon Bill without a fight, but after he came and killed her groom and she lost her baby, I don't think she saw herself as "fighting to get out of that life" so much as she was going to turn that life against itself and get her revenge. There is a fatalistic air to the entire film -- except perhaps in that very interesting closing sequence.

: Tarantino acknowledges, several times throughout both films, that it is,
: indeed, lunacy. (Uma even winks at the camera.)

BTW, I cannot help but wonder, when did this post-modern wink-at-the-camera thing begin? I know Hitchcock ended his final film, 1976's Family Plot, with just such a shot. Does it go back any further?

: The closer the Bride gets to her true goal in this film, the more human
: she seems to become, and some of the scenes near the conclusion have
: a lot of heart in them.

Very much so. And it's not just at the end of the film that we see her act human -- the scenes that take place before the wedding-chapel massacre also show The Bride at her most human, presumably because she is unaware that her true goal is about to be taken from her.

: Personally, I think the story of Ehud in the Bible would still have packed
: a wallop even if the Scripture had refrained from informing me that he
: shoved the knife all the way into that villain "and the refuse spilled out."
: OH, thank you very much, but NO thank you... didn't need that
: information. Still, it's a detail that sticks with you.

That's actually always been one of my favorite biblical details.

BTW, just to clarify my "burden of proof" remark a few posts back -- my point, I think, is partly that it makes about as much sense to ask someone to justify their love of make-believe violence as it does to ask someone to justify their love of strawberry ice cream. Some people just like that stuff. Some people are just fascinated by that stuff. And whether your motto is "Harm none, do what you will" or "Love God and do what you please," I just don't think such tastes need to be "justified" at ALL; I like a certain degree of blood and gore in some films, and other people do not, but hey, it's all a matter of personal taste and personal tolerance levels, no biggie. No, the burden of proof rests on those who would assert some standard by which make-believe violence or strawberry ice cream must now be considered taboo, suspicious, off-limits, etc. Of course, an unbalanced diet of nothing but make-believe violence will be bad for people, the same way an unbalanced diet of nothing but strawberry ice cream will be bad for people, but to say that one can have too much of a good thing is not at all to say that what one regards as a good thing is actually a bad thing.

I finished the last haf hour of the film last night (I stopped it the previous night to go to bed and picked it up again last night to finish) and I watched the interview w/ Tarantino and came to these conclusions.

He's common. And I mean that in the most insulting way possible. He luxuriates in the cheesiest and most rediculous elements of pop culture, that (God willing) will be forgotten in thirty years. I heard him talking about how much he loved these schlocky kung-fu and spaghetti western films in conjunction with witnessing his obvious obsession with American Idol I realized he's a very clever man with truly horrible taste. He even claimed that he wanted to see how far he could take the film into the excesses of these sub-par mediums. And I was reminded about the very heart of what frustrates me. As JO observed earlier, he puts his formidible to talents to almost meaningless uses (Although JO, it seems has of late found more value in his films). I know, I know, its a revenge/redempion story, but come on! I had the same problem with Pulp Fiction. The payoff for the suffering I have to endure just isn't there. It's like he's making an impressive bank building out of Pez candies. He knows Pez candies, he loves Pez candies, and he can do amazing things with Pez candies, but why can't he find a better building tool? And in the end, do we really need another bank?

This discussion, like most of mine with Peter, has brought us around to the nature of criticism again. Can we make judgments about the values of films/filmmakers? Peter, it would seem, would say no. Or rather, we can all make judgements about them, but we can not assess each other's judgements as more or less valid. I disagree. I believe in absolute standards of good and evil, right and wrong, and even aesthetics. Do I have an entirely clear picture of these standards? No. Does that mean I shouldn't make them? No. Do I think Tarrantino's film and all his films (and yes, I've seen them all) are well-crafted? Yes. Do I think that the overall value of the films is worth enduring extensive sodomy, dismemberment, drug abuse, comotose-phelia(yes I made this up - maybe somaphelia would be better)? No.

To address some of the pointsmade here:


Peter: Okay. So don't eat too much strawberry ice cream and don't watch ten minutes of any Quentin Tarrantino film. I know you'll say the levels of excess are relative to the consumer (of said ice cream or said death), but I think its rediculous to equate consumption of a dairy product with the witnessing of human massacre.

Jeff: This is the language that he knows... an immature language, a faulty and even offensive one, but I think he's wrestling with something significant in what he expresses, and I for one find value in paying attention.

This is an excellent "boil-down" point for the issues at hand. I believe he detracts from his "something significant" with his language, and ultimately, don't believe he's got anything that significant to say. Except "Look at this cool beheading to the tune of this obscure chick rock band I found. Oh... and revenge is bad."

LOTR and Fight Club have gore and violence for a purpose. They demonstrate the brutality of war, or self-abuse in vivid color. Kill Bill shows violence for no greater purpose than to have fun with the spurting blood, I'm not saing that there's no greater purpose to the film, just to the level of violence he obviously enjoys. And yet, in the first half of the film it depicts this violence happening in front of or to children. LOTR and FC MAY go too far and do more to revel in the violence than portray it for sobering impact. So... shame on them. But they're accomplishing greater purposes than QT could ever understand.



By the way, in the interview with QT he mentioned his "War Epic" - anybody know more about this?

[quote]By the way, in the interview with QT he mentioned his "War Epic" - anybody know more about this?[/quote]

I believe he's talking about Inglorious Bastards, which IIRC, will be a Dirty Dozen-style WW2 film. You can find more info here.

[quote]I know, I know, its a revenge/redempion story, but come on! I had the same problem with Pulp Fiction. The payoff for the suffering I have to endure just isn't there.[/quote]

Well, this is a case of "for you it's not edifying, for me... at times... it is."

[quote]LOTR and Fight Club have gore and violence for a purpose. They demonstrate the brutality of war, or self-abuse in vivid color. Kill Bill shows violence for no greater purpose than to have fun with the spurting blood,[/quote]

In view of the whole epic, I definitely disagree. Kill Bill's violence is for a purpose every bit as much as the others. And at times, like the others, it gets too preoccupied with the specifics of that violence. It is excessive, yes, meaning there's too much of it at times. But I cannot say that violence is not an essential and necessary part of this story.

[quote]But they're accomplishing greater purposes than QT could ever understand.[/quote]

Wow. I have no idea how you can presume that. Tolkien was interested in old mythologies, and Middle Earth's epic is a pastiche of past mythologies infused with new invention. Tarantino is paying tribute to the mythologies he grew up with, just as Tolkien did, and he's infusing it with new invention as well. Sure, I find more merit in Tolkien's mythologies than with Tarantino's pop culture, but I can't blame them for the environments in which they grew up or the media that their cultures submerged them in.

Thank you.

[quote]Sure, I find more merit in Tolkien's mythologies than with Tarantino's pop culture, but I can't blame them for the environments in which they grew up or the media that their cultures submerged them in.[/quote]

Turn off the tube, Quentin, and read a freaking book.

Jeffrey,

You make some excellent points. Since you've seen KB2 and I haven't yet, I can't fully respond to everything you've said, but I can make a few provisional comments, framed as an extension of the discussion prior to KB2.

First, for me at least, the fundamental difference between the violence in LOTR and KB is that in LOTR the story is bigger than the violence, and in KB the violence is bigger than the story. With LOTR, I care about the story and I believe in the heroes' cause, and therefore I accept the violence as a necessary part of their effort and this story. With KB, at least as of the end of v1, I don't really care much about the story, and I certainly don't believe in anyone's cause, and the violence seems much more the point rather than a necessary part of something larger.

Second, granting the validity of much of what you say about Tarantino's violence as a cinema of homage to his favorite pulp genres, there are at least three scenes in KB1 that seem to me outrageously and gratuitously sadistic, and do not fit this wink-wink genre-appreciation approach to the film. And of course we all know what they are.

Just to recap, one is the scene where the Bride wakes up, discovers that she has been the unconscious victim of longterm serial rape by a queue of customers as well as their pimp, and winds up slamming the hospital door repeatedly on his skull. The other two are the scenes in which a mother is murdered before her daughter's eyes, most egregiously the anime scene in which the daughter hiding under the bed sees her mother's blood pool on the underside of the mattress above her face and begin to drip onto her face.

If there is a moral to these episodes, and I'm skeptical of that, but even if there is, whatever it may be, I don't believe it is sufficient to justify this level of sadism. One may reasonably expect a certain ratio or balance between the degree of discomfort and unpleasantness a film asks a viewer to endure and the rewards that one receives for doing so. A serious art film about the Holocaust that profoundly illuminates the nature of evil or the dignity of the human person may reasonably expect the viewer to go to hell and back for the sake of that illumination; a light popcorn entertainment with far less to offer may not reasonably impose a similar level of unpleasantness on the audience. If I go to Universal Pictures and take in the Waterworld stunt show, it's reasonable that I may get a bit wet. If you're going to pour acid on me, or cut me with a scalpel, you'd better have a much better reason for doing so. So far, I don't see KB as having that better reason.

If three good scenes can make a good movie, as Howard Hawkes said, perhaps three reprehensible scenes can make a bad one. If so, for me at least, KB1 is that bad movie.

Is there a redemptive or moral aspect of the world Tarantino has created? I'm sure there is, but how significant is it? Here are some questions I sometimes ask myself when contemplating whether to give a film a positive moral rating: Does the moral aspect of the film become an important enough element in the film that it becomes part of the reason I like the film? Does it actually engage me personally on a moral level -- am I edified, challenged, or inspired by it? Do I think other people are likely to be edified, challenged, or inspired by it? Would I consider recommending the film specifically for that aspect?

I ask these questions because it seems to me that just as a certain level of over-the-top violence is to be expected in a film of a certain sort, in the same way a certain level of good-vs-evil is to be expected in a film of a certain sort -- and neither is particularly morally meaningful one way or the other. A certain "baseline" of good vs. evil is simply part of a certain sort of story, just as a certain level of violence is part of a certain sort of story, and viewers typically will be no more edified by the former than the will be disturbed by the latter.

Take the movie A Bug's Life. This is a film that does have a certain moral dimension, to the extent that Bullies are Bad and Community is Good. However, for my purposes I consider the film "basically harmless" from a moral perspective, not morally positive, because that sort of moral is an expected part of this sort of story, and A Bug's Life doesn't really go beyond this "baseline" morality in any meaningful way. Nothing about the film especially edifies, challenges, or inspires me, and I don't expect many viewers would report a radically different reaction.

OTOH, the Harrison Ford Fugitive is a film that does go beyond the moral "baseline" or default moral level in which we're expected to root for Kimble because he's innocent and in the right, and against the one-armed man because he killed Kimble's wife, in that Kimble himself is consistently willing to put himself at increased risk in order to help someone else in need. His willingness to do this is a significant aspect of what I appreciate about the film; it makes me root for him all the more, and therefore I care more about the story and the film. It also makes me hope I would be that heroic under similiar circumstances.

Judging KB1 in itself, it seems to me that cruelty and sadism of the three scenes I mentioned above is far in excess of the level of violence that can fairly be expected in a genre homage film of this sort. OTOH, while there may be a moral dimension, I don't see that it rises above the baseline morality that might be expected in a story of this sort. Of course KB2 might change all that, but I don't see this story suddenly getting so edifying and inspiring that the sadism witnessed to date is suddenly redeemed.

Getting back to Hawkes's definition of a good film, the complete definition is three good scenes, no bad scenes. So perhaps we might define a bad film as one with three reprehensible scenes and no edifying or inspiring ones. By that definition, considering KB1 on its own, I would say it's a bad film. But I'll have to see the sequel to know for sure.

Peter, I wonder if you agree with Jeffrey's assessment that Tarantino's vocabulary is immature and even offensive?

[quote]I would love to see a similar thread on pride and ego...[/quote]
Indeed. FWIW, I think I've done my share of railing against films and filmmakers that seem mired in, e.g., egocentrism and self-gratification (e.g., Charlie Kaufman, at least until Eternal Sunshine). I'm the last moralist in the world to limit the discussion to sex and violence.

[quote]Just to recap, one is the scene where the Bride wakes up, discovers that she has been the unconscious victim of longterm serial rape by a queue of customers as well as their pimp, and winds up slamming the hospital door repeatedly on his skull. The other two are the scenes in which a mother is murdered before her daughter's eyes, most egregiously the anime scene in which the daughter hiding under the bed sees her mother's blood pool on the underside of the mattress above her face and begin to drip onto her face. [/quote]

In the case of the first scene, most especially, I agree with you. There are places in both films where I think Tarantino steps way too far over the line of decency. The hospital scenes in KB1 are completely uncalled for. What is more, they're not even creative. They're just dumb and gross.

Having said that, I'm glad that Tarantino is interested in portraying these conflicts in which women stand up for themselves against the kind of crimes that are, as horrifying as it may seem, frequently committed against them. Even if it is in a pop-culture/comic book sort of way.

The anime sequence, as graphic as it is, makes sense as the origin story for the Lucy Liu character. In a way, it's a sort of allegory for the creation of terrorists in the world. We cannot excuse Liu's character for her behavior... we have the Bride's character as an alternative model, someone who chose to work hard to become something different... a wife, a mother, a non-violent sort. But the anime origin story is a hard-hitting way of showing the crucible that would create a life lived in wrath and violence. It's a commentary on how witnessing real life violence can damage a child and incline them toward committing that kind of violence. The most violent people in the world are often people who grew up seeing violence done to people in their own lives, and they're desensitized by it.

Having said THAT, it really grieves me to say that I saw parents bring their approx. five-year-old son to Kill Bill 2 the other night.

Let me reiterate... Kill Bill 2 is not a film I recommend. It is a film that I have an appreciation for. But if I could, I'd prevent it from becoming easily accessible via video stores and retail. It's hard alcohol, and it's going to play before the eyes of too many children. It's a prime example of everything that's wrong... not with artmaking, but with art distribution and controls in our country. It's illegal to take a child into a bar, and especially illegal to take them into a bar and serve them Jack Daniels. It should be illegal to take them to Tarantino films.

ARRRRRRRRRGH. I hit "submit" and my computer crashed. Here goes again.

DanBuck wrote:
: He's common. And I mean that in the most insulting way possible.

Yes, this is what "vulgar" means -- hence, St. Jerome's translation of the Bible into Latin was called the "Vulgate" because it was in what was then the "common" tongue.

: He luxuriates in the cheesiest and most rediculous elements of pop
: culture, that (God willing) will be forgotten in thirty years. I heard him
: talking about how much he loved these schlocky kung-fu and spaghetti
: western films in conjunction with witnessing his obvious obsession with
: American Idol I realized he's a very clever man with truly horrible taste.

Be that as it may, I have to say there is something exhilirating about a guy who KNOWS what he loves and LOVES what he loves and isn't afraid to say so. As Screwtape wrote in his 13th letter to Wormwood:

The man who truly and disinterestedly enjoys any one thing in the world, for its own sake, and without caring twopence what other people say about it, is by that very fact forearmed against some of our subtlest modes of attack. You should always try to make the patient abandon the people or food or books he really likes in favour of the "best" people, the "right" food, the "important" books.

To which I would add C.S. Lewis's remark that he was afraid to read children's books when he was young because he was afraid he would not seem very grown-up, whereas now that he was an adult he read children's books openly because he had put childish things away, including the fear of not appearing sufficiently grown-up. As with childhood, so with adolescence -- I do think it is lamentable that our culture as a whole tends to drag out adolescence far beyond what it should, but I don't begrudge Tarantino, as an individual, the right or opportunity to revel in such things at all.

: This discussion, like most of mine with Peter, has brought us around to
: the nature of criticism again. Can we make judgments about the values
: of films/filmmakers? Peter, it would seem, would say no.

I don't know where you're getting that from. I make value judgments all the time.

: Okay. So don't eat too much strawberry ice cream and don't watch ten
: minutes of any Quentin Tarrantino film. I know you'll say the levels of
: excess are relative to the consumer (of said ice cream or said death) . . .

Well, yes, people have different digestive systems, etc.

: . . . but I think its rediculous to equate consumption of a dairy product
: with the witnessing of human massacre.

So do I. But we are not talking about witnessing human massacre. We are talking about witnessing make-believe violence. And it is because I believe in absolutes that I believe absolutely that there is an absolute difference between make-believe violence and real violence. Apparently you do not? I would be interested in hearing you tease this out further.

: Turn off the tube, Quentin, and read a freaking book.

He does. They're called comics. Though it seems he reads the odd James Bond novel once in a while, too. In any case, to quote Lewis again:

BRIAN ALDISS: There might have been a time when science fiction and comics were weighed together and found wanting, but that at least we've got past.

KINGSLEY AMIS: I see the comic books that my sons read, and you have there a terribly vulgar reworking of the themes that science fiction goes in for.

C.S. LEWIS: Quite harmless, mind you. This chatter about the moral danger of the comics is absolute nonsense. The real objection is against the appalling draughtsmanship. Yet you'll find the same boy who reads them also reads Shakespeare or Spenser. Children are so terribly catholic. That's my experience with my stepchildren.

To which I would add that the "draughtsmanship" has gotten a lot better in the past 40+ years.

SDG wrote:
: Just to recap, one is the scene where the Bride wakes up, discovers that
: she has been the unconscious victim of longterm serial rape by a queue
: of customers as well as their pimp, and winds up slamming the hospital
: door repeatedly on his skull.

I myself find this scene a little squirmy, if only because rape is such a volatile subject, but I wonder if, in some way, it might be structurally necessary to the story. That is, the Bride has just come out of a coma and is about to go and track down several extremely powerful assassins, and before we see her take on the "pros", we need to see her "warm up", as it were.

: The other two are the scenes in which a mother is murdered before her
: daughter's eyes . . .

On the first of those two occasions, though, I do not believe we see the girl until just after the mother has been killed -- in other words, we are not being encouraged to get off on the sight of a girl watching her mother's death in any way, but rather, after the mother has been killed, we suddenly notice the girl and say, "Whoops, that was unfortunate."

In other words, the girl witnessing the death of her mother is part of the STORY but not part of the FILM so much. And I find myself wondering how this might compare to e.g. Newt being the traumatized sole survivor of the terraforming colony in Aliens.

: Take the movie A Bug's Life. This is a film that does have a certain moral
: dimension, to the extent that Bullies are Bad and Community is Good.
: However, for my purposes I consider the film "basically harmless" from a
: moral perspective, not morally positive, because that sort of moral is an
: expected part of this sort of story, and A Bug's Life doesn't really go
: beyond this "baseline" morality in any meaningful way. Nothing about the
: film especially edifies, challenges, or inspires me, and I don't expect
: many viewers would report a radically different reaction.

That's interesting, since in my review of A Bug's Life, I mentioned that one of the reasons it failed to satisfy me -- morally and in other ways -- was that it never got beyond the simplistic us-vs.-them mentality.

: Peter, I wonder if you agree with Jeffrey's assessment that Tarantino's
: vocabulary is immature and even offensive?

Heck, I think I even agree with DanBuck's assessment that Tarantino's obsession with blood and gore is "adolescent". I just don't see that as being a problem.

As for "offensive" -- well, I am not offended by it myself, but I can see how others would be.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: The anime sequence, as graphic as it is, makes sense as the origin story
: for the Lucy Liu character.

[ nod ]

And it bears mentioning that Tarantino has indicated he'd like to make a sequel based on the other girl who witnessed her mother's death -- after that girl grows up.

: Having said THAT, it really grieves me to say that I saw parents bring
: their approx. five-year-old son to Kill Bill 2 the other night.

Yeah, man, what are they THINKing? That reminds me of the time I saw a man leave a Steven Seagal movie with a five-year-old boy in tow -- a movie with a fair bit of nudity and profanity in addition to all the violence. It always boggles my mind that anyone would do that.

[quote]SDG wrote:
: Just to recap, one is the scene where the Bride wakes up, discovers that
: she has been the unconscious victim of longterm serial rape by a queue
: of customers as well as their pimp, and winds up slamming the hospital
: door repeatedly on his skull.

I myself find this scene a little squirmy, if only because rape is such a volatile subject, but I wonder if, in some way, it might be structurally necessary to the story. That is, the Bride has just come out of a coma and is about to go and track down several extremely powerful assassins, and before we see her take on the "pros", we need to see her "warm up", as it were.[/quote]
Yeah, SOMETHING may be necessary here. But not this. It's just sick -- and manipulative, making Buck as revolting as possible so the audience will really really want to see his head get slammed in the door.

But I know what you mean about the need for a warm-up act. I've often thought that Darth Maul should have had the opportunity to knock off a few sand people before crossing sabers with Qui-Gon.

My two cents:

I loved Kill Bill. I was one of the few people here who put Kill Bill Vol. 1 on my year end Top Ten. Pretty much everything that Peter, Jeffrey and Russell are saying fits with my feelings about the film.

My only thing that I want to add, and I think I said this in the thread for the first film, is that Kill Bill is NOT the most violent film I've ever seen.

Heck, speaking of LOTR, Peter Jackson's earlier films, especially Dead Alive are incredibly disgusting. What about Sam Raimi's Evil Dead films (I like that parallel because in each case the excessive, read "unrealistic", portrayal of violence is played for laughs)? What about the recent Dawn of the Dead remake? What about The Passion while we're at it? A case could be made that all of those are more violent than Kill Bill.

[quote]
Be that as it may, I have to say there is something exhilirating about a guy who KNOWS what he loves and LOVES what he loves and isn't afraid to say so. [/quote] I see your point here. And this is what keeps me coming back (for four films now). But every time I leave his films with a metalic taste in my mouth. Have I been biting my lip on my moral qualms, or did I just get hit with some spatter from the screen?

[quote]
I would put A Clockwork Orange, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Black Christmas, Blood-Sucking Freaks, Eraserhead, Pink Flamingoes and The Wicker Man as part of this category. [/quote]

I was kinda shocked when I went back to TCM and watched it. It's a lot less bloody than I remembered. Tobe Hooper noted the same thing...especially with the violence of later films. I don't recall the Wicker Man being all that violent. I do remember the weird song and dance of a naked Britt Eklund...but I don't recall it being that violent. I always found the film a bit disappointing in some of it's logic but interesting in it's pitting pagans vs Christians. And who won in the end. But that is for another thread.

[quote]
Personally, I think the story of Ehud in the Bible would still have packed a wallop even if the Scripture had refrained from informing me that he shoved the knife all the way into that villain "and the refuse spilled out." OH, thank you very much, but NO thank you... didn't need that information. Still, it's a detail that sticks with you. You certainly don't want to be THAT guy.[/quote]

Don't forget how it points out the guy was so overweight, the fat closed around the handle and concealed the weapon!

[quote]Don't forget how it points out the guy was so overweight, the fat closed around the handle and concealed the weapon! [/quote]

Heh... when I was a Sunday School young 'un, that was my favorite part of the story.