|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.61.172.236
In Reply to: Sometimes, the master chef likes to add heavy sauces for the second course posted by Bambi B on August 26, 2005 at 01:48:58:
You are thinking way too much. These films were more about the joy of film making, and Tarantino's paying homage to two film genres he loves, karate and spaghetti western films, than about logic. The scene in KBI in which Thurman fights off what seems like hundreds of men is clearly his wink to the audience that any logic need not apply here. It was clearly his homage to those scenes in traditional karate films in which the hero fights off countless of bad guys, taken to the nth degree. If you did not smile, throw logic to the winds, then you took the film too seriously. Frankly, I would rather smile than think during a film, as I am busy thinking all day at work, and doing so again while watching, what it supposed to be entertainment, is not my first preference.KBII was more the western portion of the epic. These films were really designed as one story. How many theaters would book a five hour film? They make their money on concessions, and getting more butts in the seats makes for more popcorn sales. I suspect he broke one film into two largely for this reason. So I am not sure why Tarantino was supposed to do anything different in KBII than he did in KBI with respect to characters, stunts, etc, other than there were not that many karate chops in spaghetti westerns. Consider it one long film, with two acts. How many films, even great films, have such changes within the same film?
Follow Ups:
jamesgarvin,I don;t disagree that with this kind of movie, one should really sit back and ,let this kind of movie wash over us. And I suspend this kind of analytical (and you can't spell "analytical" without "anal") for certain movies- especially movies that are affectionate takes on other genres. I think of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in this way- pure entertainment that anyone can understand, and if you can allow yuorself to just let it roll on by- enjoy.
However, my sense with "Kill Bill" is that it aspires to much more, there is so much attention to scenario, camera placement, dialogue and facial expression, and editing, and the interspered scenes, it calls attantion to the craft and philosophical aspects and -for me- triggers thinking about the structure and so on. The genres he wants to evoke do not have these sophistsicated structures for exposition - or not too often. There is a fine line too in "KB" as his homage reaches the level of satire often and satire has a slight condescending component.
I like yourr characterization of the two volumes and what makes the differences. As I say, I think these two are just amazing achievements- I only wanted a bit more consistency in maintaining the suspension of disbelief.
Yes, I smiled a lot through Kill Bill- the violence is just so extreme and palpably portrayed- like the closeup of Uma stepping on the eyeball she has just plucked out. Homage a la "Un chien andalou"?
Cheers,
There are plenty of guys that take violent revenge on women; newspapers every week have stories of guys who shoot their wives, kids, and commit suicide.
Bill is a crime lord, with a violent streak of his own. As for his minions doing his bidding, there seems to have been some bad blood, some competitive thing between them before the wedding attack.
I agree with James G that these movies are fun but I think they DO hold together logically within the world they create.
I'm also going to re-visit Jackie Brown because I really need another "fix" of Sam Jackson and DeNiro's characters--- and Bridget Fonda's.
I hear he's trying to get his WWII epic going now but that SPR intimidated him for awhile.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: