• Gerardo Valero in Mexico City
It's hard to come up with many directors willing to take the leaps of faith that Quentin Tarantino does in every scene of his every movie. It's even harder to come up with any who have the talent to back-up even trying. The biggest reason Tarantino has such a huge following may be how he goes all-out with seemingly little or no concern for crashing -- which, amazingly, he never seems to do.
This idea of the fearless filmmaker brings to mind a picture I watched last year called at Ebertfest called "You, the Living," in which Roy Andersson spends 90 minutes throwing twenty-some vignettes at the audience with a certain attitude of indifference as to whether they catch the humor in them or not. In some cases you end up laughing out loud; in others you find yourself cringing out of concern for the guy. That these kinds of doubts never cross our minds while watching a movie by Tarantino tells you everything you need to know about him. One would not advise anybody to choose this same approach, as for most it would be like trying to fly without wings.
Everyone who knows a little about the history of "Kill Bill" is well aware that the film was split in two. The introduction to the first volume refers it as "Quentin Tarantino's fourth film" but this detail was omitted in the second, so it's evident that the director considers it a single entity (and so do we for reviewing purposes). Still, the halves couldn't be more different, which makes it hard to blame Tarantino for splitting them in the first place. The first part is basically an homage to the martial arts films he loves, the second one to Spaghetti Westerns (among other genres), and together they chronicle a woman's long "roaring rampage of revenge" against the team responsible for a massacre at her wedding and putting her in a coma. Even though "Kill Bill" it is made up of only nine, seemingly simple chapters, Tarantino (as usual) can't help but avoid telling them in a straight-ahead way. As the Hanzo character says: "the road to revenge is never a straight line." No road ever seems to be with this guy.
The characters of "Kill Bill" aren't precisely three-dimensional, nor should they be. Regardless of their diverse races, cultures and genders, their common denominator is that their words feel like they spring directly from Tarantino himself, which means they are all great cinematic personalities. The otherwise valid notion (from my "Michael Clayton" review) that a movie is better if its characters speak as if an individual writer had worked on each part, just doesn't apply here.
The assassination squad girls' personal descriptions don't require too much detail: they are all great looking, great at fighting, and even better at snappy comebacks. Each new one we meet seems more menacing than the one before (as usual in these kinds of movies). Each has a deadly specialty. The leading role belongs to Uma Thurman's Barbara Kiddo, aka "Black Mamba," a woman of few notes but enough eccentricities and funny quirks that make it easy to cheer for her. Thurman has been referred as Tarantino's muse, and what's evident on-screen is his unusual fixation with her -- revealed by the countless close-up of her face and (somewhat) odd hands/feet.
Darryl Hannah's Elle is the meanest woman in this or just about any other movie in memory, enough to make you feel sympathy for the cruelest of Kung-Fu masters (Pai Mei) who falls victim to her poisoned "fish-heads." Her eventual fate will be just as gruesome as that which Kiddo barely eludes a little earlier and Hannah plays it in a way that leaves us thoroughly unsettled: the delicate mermaid from "Splash" is erased into oblivion with her over-the-top performance here. The other two hit-girls are Vivica A. Fox's Vernita Green (a homemaker on the side) and Lucy Liu's O-ren Ishii, the (occasionally) sweet boss of the Japanese mafia.
The title character, known simply as Bill, may be the devil incarnate but he's also the kindest and most considerate character in this film. He's never frivolous about the pain he inflicts but rather just can't seem to to help it. As hard as it is to imagine anybody but David Carradine playing him (especially for those of us who grew up watching "Kung Fu"), it seems to me that he is much more interesting in the earlier sections of the film when shown on screen only partially or briefly; once we see him in full, endlessly uttering his life philosophies and making sandwiches for his daughter, he ends up losing most of his aura.
His brother Bud (no last name available either) initially seems like an under-achieving bouncer/janitor but Michael Madsen is able to convince us that such a lowlife can still be great at dispensing evil without getting too worked up, while even enjoying it (a task at which Madsen seems to succeed in so many of his roles).
At the heart of "Kill Bill" are the sensational fight scenes, which begin right from the start with little explanation or character motivation, but this doesn't make them any less exciting. The clearest evidence of who exactly wrote this particular screenplay is the fact that the characters constantly talk before, during and after each one of these sequences. Throughout the four hour running time we see Kiddo facing dozens and dozens of opponents in several sequences but each one manages to be at least a little different from the one before. Each has its own little oddities (think of Thurman sizing up the competition by the reflection on her sword), which is why, even when she faces a team such as the "Crazy 88" in a scene consisting of more than 10 minutes of continuous action, it is never boring.
"Kill Bill" is a film of great and small scope. It has very elaborate scenes like the setting prior to the "Crazy 88" duel with its complicated, DePalma-esque overhead shots, and seemingly insignificant details such as the small artifact in the snowy fountain which emits a clanking sound when releasing water. They all add to the movie's flavor. Every cinematographic technique and style imaginable is used for specific purposes, be it B&W and shadow photography for making the fights more diverse and interesting, Animeé for toning down the ugliness in images of child brutality (and for entertainment's sake of course) and the use of unnatural color tones that give some parts a fantastic, dream-like feeling, as in the scene of a plane landing in Tokyo which on my first viewing made me question whether I was really in a conscious state.
Numerous sound effects are also used to immerse the audience in the experience, ranging from the silliness of incredibly fast-moving humans (and a certain character's white beard) to the use of the surround sound that accentuates the claustrophobic feeling of what has to be the most painstakingly detailed depiction ever of a person being buried alive (done in real time, no less). The film also uses the constant repetition of wild tales to make them all the more fascinating, like the fabulous virtues of a Hatori Hanzo sword which, just like that infamous "Pulp Fiction" wallet, currently has some 55 copies listed on Ebay and, yes, for far less than a million dollars (the nice, round figure mentioned constantly in the movie).
I do believe "Kill Bill" has a big problem in its last chapter which is much too long, has too much dialogue, gives the audience more Bill than we really need and, after witnessing some of the most elaborate fight scenes ever put on screen, doesn't fulfill our expectations with what is supposed to be the main event, concluding the proceedings with a rather flat duel that lasts only a few seconds. The whole México sequence feels like an altogether different movie and is not at the same level with the rest of the chapters, but that doesn't hurt the film so much that it can no longer be considered great.
I often wonder how any director could have gotten away with material as offensive as that in "Kill Bill." Here we have images depicting extreme violence in front of a child, the abuse of a comatose woman by a hospital orderly and even an animated shot of child abuse (to name a few), yet Tarantino always seems to get a free pass from most of his audience. The reason might be that the whole enterprise avoids taking itself even remotely seriously and its humor always succeeds in being right on target. Tarantino can make an homage to what basically are countless "B" movies and always find a way to raise them to an altogether higher level. These abilities set Tarantino apart from just about any other director working today. I'm sure he enjoys the fame and fortune his films have brought him but what's most evident while watching "Kill Bill" is a sense of a filmmaker working for the love of making great cinema.
Arguably the most enjoyable film I've seen, except for Pulp Fiction. The secret of it's hypnosis is hard to pin down and maybe not necessary. It is composite in it's unique brand of aesthetic. It's the way the words are spoken, not what is spoken, dumbness and sav-vyness at the same time, as though words spoken posses taste and drawing the last ounce of flavor from each uttered syllable. It's parody all the way, god knows of what. May his tribe endure!
It's rather obvious to present Tarantino as a great stage manager who arranges all the pieces of the puzzle, particularly his craft with visuals, in a highly entertaining and dynamic pace, yet you seem to completely miss the point that what Tarantino still needs to master is the deliverance of a well-built story. Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Basterds are fine promises, full of potential, but with Kill Bill you decided to dwell in the thrilling vibes oh his adolescence.
I have mixed feelings about the film (and Tarentino generally), but I want to defend the concluding confrontation. At that point, the last thing we need is an elaborately choreographed, extended fight scene.
The crux of that confrontation is emotional, not physical. Kiddo's killing of Bill, as the title tells us, is her entire motivation, so we know it's coming. But all of her other killing is essentially dispassionate. She shows some professional courtesy towards Fox's character, and on some level respects Liu's O-ren Ishii, but she moves through the plot as an implacable force, barely more emotional than she had been in the coma.
But that facade (and it is a facade) crumbles with Bill, whom she trusted and on some level loved. The massacre inflicts physical wounds on her (and cost her her chance of a conventional, domestic, post assassination-squad life), but by the end we see the deepest wound is that caused by Bill's betrayal. That is what really hurts. And on some level it hurt Bill, too, and changed him. We need to see him "making sandwiches for his daughter." The massacre ironically forced him to adopt the domestic, care-giver role of which he deprived Beatrice.
On a more practical level, Bill is an older man who clearly couldn't take on any of his underlings in a physical fight. He only defeats the man who challenges him by ignoring the conventions of dueling -- by cheating, in other words. (I'm not saying he's wrong to cheat, just that Tarentino indicates strongly that at this point in his life, his chief weapon is guile.) Kiddo should defeat him in seconds. Anything else would be silly.
The point, though, is not the secret death-strike or whatever the hell it's called. The point is what brings Beatrice to the point where she uses it, instinctively, without deciding to. Yes, she has planned to kill him all along, but the conscious "Now I'll do it" is beyond her. She kills Bill the only way she can. As soon as she does -- and we see Tartentino's cleverness here in setting up a weapon that effectively kills Bill while still allowing for a few final lines of dialogue and the chance for him to willingly embrace his own death -- her character changes. She has tears in her eyes. She speaks to Bill tenderly, with far more love than we presume she ever felt for the poor schlub she was going to marry. Talk about catharsis! In that moment, she recovers her humanity. Meanwhile, Bill -- who in effect stole Beatrice's humanity even if he didn't want it -- recovers his dignity and meets death on his own terms.
As I said, I have mixed feelings about the film, but the ending seems perfect to me.
@Gerardo: good article, except for your thoughts on the final duel Beatrix vs. Bill. I won't retort, though, since Richard has done so already.
@Richard Nanian: I am a 100%-Tarantino fan. But other than that, I completely agree with you, your explanations on the themes behind the final duel are right on the money. Plus, I think it is a matter of not repeating himself for QT: we had the elaborate Chanbara-style swordplay duel (O-Ren), we had the Chanbara/HK-"heroic bloodshed" standoff against a ridiculously huge army (the Crazy 88), we had the harsh, but stylish knife-duel cut short by cheating (Vernita), and we had the knock-down drag-out ultraviolent catfight (Elle). QT had his versions of classical B-movie showdowns (although I think he missed the opportunity of having a spaghetti-western gunslinger duel Beatrix vs. Budd) crossed out from his list, no point in doing something like that again when more is at stake, emotionally speaking.
@SM Rana: "It's parody all the way, god knows of what." I think the best way to put it is: "Kill Bill" is QTs meta-cinema. It's the kind of movie Vincent Vega or Mr. White would watch when they go to the movies.
A very entertaining review, Gerardo. I revisited "Kill Bill" before watching "Inglourious Basterds" in 2009. I had a great time with it, and I jokingly called it "Style and Substance". Vol.1 is an exuberant exercise on stylish violence. Tarantino makes some bloody gruesome violence acceptable as entertainment, and it was really exciting to watch its terrific action scenes - this is a pure fun. Vol. 2 is relatively calmer, but it is also as exciting as Vol.1 while becoming a little more serious.
By the way, I think its relatively somber finale is a right choice. It is surely rather anti-climatic(yes, like the shark in "Jaws", Bill is less menacing when he fully appears on the screen), but it reveals the personal feelings inside the broad characters. As former lovers, they want to get their matters straight before settling score, while not disrupting a little girl’s bedtime. In addition, as we expect from Tarantino, their conversation is interesting; I especially enjoyed Bill's interesting talk about the superheroes and their costumes.
You never know the effect a movie will have on someone. My husband likes to play the pan pipe music theme from this movie in the car. As a result, my son now insists on learning to play the flute. When taunted by his sister that "only girls play the flute", the lad replied, "when you play music it doesn't matter what you are, no one can tell."
I suppose the same could be said for killing people. As long as you are well trained, death is death.
The Bride's first name is Beatrix not Barbara.
"Roaring rampage of revenge" eh? Well, I see someone has been spending a little time on TvTropes.
That's ten chapters, fella.
'aka' aint no word, fella.
Jesus, what movie did you WATCH, man!? Aint no Barbaras here!
Great analysis except I, too, completely disagree with the author's statement about the final act being weak or somehow weird. Richard nailed it, the somber, and almost ironic, tone was necessary to show who Bill and Beatrix (not Barbara, btw) are. They love(d) one another and despite the horrendous act, each would have always been one of the most important person in the other's lives. A wham bam duel with Beatrix killing Bill mercilessly would lessen the impact.
Her name is Beatrix.
Shortest of shortest summations of the two films:
Volume 1: Testosterone
Volume 2: Estrogen
PS, loved 'em both, particularly after watching them back to back.
Good review, Gerardo. And good comments.
I am an unabashed fan of Kill Bill 1 & 2. I think of them as split only for time, due to commercial constraints of going to the theater. They are a whole.
What ties it all together for me is style. Many different types of scenes - from the mass battle with the 88 to the delicate snowfall in the garden scene with Liu - but all with incredible style. Each shot thought out and cared for. A well-told story of revenge, to be sure. But, more than that. Style.
I also love the setups / payoffs. Two most notable: the training with her master making her strike the wood with her fingertips that pays of when she is buried, and the scene in the desert with Bill when he tells the story of the death strike that she later uses to kill him. Masterful.
Interesting that you mention "You, the Living". I loved that movie at EbertFest. I sat up too close that night and was nearly traumatized by Pink Floyd's "The Wall". What a contrast the Swedish movie was. It may have been my first foreign movie with subtitles. What characterizes that movie as well is style. So many vignettes, tied together with themes like last call at the bar. Themes of misery and most importantly resignation - given the ending.
Kill Bill is essentially vignettes as well. Each revenge in a different movie genre. Held together by the director's sense of style. I'm a fan. Can't see it too many times.
It's Beatrice Kiddo, not Barbara - as you are writing when you introduce her.
I grew up media-wise in the late 60's / early 70's, so I should also mention that I appreciate that Tarantino revitalized the careers of 70's stars like Michael Parks - with two roles in Kill Bill. I remembered him from "Then Came Bronson" back in the day. He does a fine job here with Ranger Earl McGraw.
Isn't Mr. Tarantino making "Kill Bill III" now?
@Seongyong Cho: "I especially enjoyed Bill's interesting talk about the superheroes and their costumes."
That is (for me at least) the smartest and nerdiest dialogue in the movie - because you have to be a Comic book fan to get its deeper meaning. The point is that Bill doesn't get Superman at all. But the way in which he fails to understand him tells us a lot about Bill as a person.
For anybody who isn't familiar with Superman comic books, here goes:
Bill says that Superman is Superman all the time, an all-powerful alien who can do whatever he pleases. "Clark Kent", according to bill, is the costume - a bumbling, weak idiot. Bill thinks that is how Superman sees mankind, that the Clark Kent persona is "Supermans critique of humanity".
Any Superman reader can tell you that is completely wrong. Superman is REALLY Clark Kent, a decent, deeply moral, caring "boy scout" raised in Kansas. And why wouldn't he be? He came to earth as an infant, he was Clark Kent long before he realized what he can do.
That is the core of his personality, "Superman" is just a costume, a symbol for the example of hope and goodness he wants to set. He sees his powers as a gift he has to share with humanity, and he would never consider himself superior to ordinary people just because he has them and they don't - it's just not how he was raised.
But I think Tarantino knows that. Here in Germany, we have a proverb that, roughly translated, means "You subconsciuosly suspect others to be as bad a person as you are yourself". And my guess is this might be what we're dealing with here - when Bill describes Superman as this "superior" being that looks down on everybody who can't do what he can do, he actually talks about himself.
This review lost quite a bit of credibility when it referred to "Beatrix Kiddo" as "Barbara Kiddo."
"Roaring rampage of revenge" is a quote from the movie. Know what you're talking about before you attempt to post diminutive, condescending comments. Just a suggestion.
First I want to say something about what you said last time I commented, which was you said that I was part of the "Tarantino generation." But, really, my knowledge came from it because the only thing I used to do when I first got the internet was read screenplays (because there were parental controls and that was the only thing I could think of to do). So, the reason I knew so much about Tarantino was because I read his screenplays and from THERE is where I noticed all the things that he kind of keeps doing in his movies; I probably wouldn't have noticed these things so much if I didn't see it so many times in writings...things like all the times he uses a concealed handgun to be used later on....he kind of does a lot of things a lot and, I think, kind of riffs on them. Who I was also drawn to was David Lynch probably starting from kind of the bands that were on the soundtrack. Then I started reading the script and didn't really realize, until recently, that what I was reading was kind of considered great art. Something was just interesting about him...I went to his website or somewhere and saw a quote by him that said that he wished he could exist in a dreamworld all day. I found that kind of scary..but then thought, no, that's actually pretty interesting. Also, when I bought the cassette tape for the "Lost Highway", I listened Angelo Badalementi and thought forget the bands...this is great." So, I don't really think of myself as the "Tarantino Generation" and I'm not really too sure what that means. I mean, he was very influential and kind of did things, that I think only novelist did, I'm sure, but kind of made it a new genre, it seems, which is the genre of changing the time around to, say, where a character from the beginning will appear later on. I was reading a novel by Ed McBain where I think even he does a little bit of a Tarantino (the novel is "Money, Money, Money"). (edit: more added here) But speaking of this "Tarantino Generation", maybe there might be something else to it, that you might not have even thought of: and I haven't thought of until recently reading what Kevin Smith has been saying of his new movie "Red State." Kevin Smith was saying that, because of Tarantino's talking (...and talking, as you correctly said) about pop culture in his movies, he felt it was okay for him to talk about things like Star Wars and comic books in his movies. (In his new movie he takes....Tarantino influenced....liberties, to say the least...it's kind of an anti-movie). Anyway, I only knew about so much of Tarantino because I read his scripts (and others) and it made things pop out a little more because of the layered level of learning and making the different neural connections of seeing it on text as well as on screen; so seeing something in writing like "concealed handgun" and then seeing it on screen....again and again...you notice it pops up again and again. He does kind of noticeable things again and again. Like you mentioned with how seeing Bill later on kind of ruined what your expectations of him were. But hiding the villain is kind of the smart way, or maybe, iconic as well, way to present them: like in "Pulp Fiction" where for a while you just see the back of Marsellus Wallace's head at first. I guess it's kind of a way to state that there is something unspeakable about evil: which goes back to that animated scene you talked about. And I also want to say something about that that I noticed. I think Bill is the guy who kills O-Ren Ishii's father in the animated sequence....because he is wearing the same ring as Bill...and he has long hair...and in the animated scene he is holding the sword in the same way as in life-action, when you don't see his face...it just shows him holding the sword the same way and you see him wearing the same ring. (edit: done with going back and adding stuff to this part)
Okay, so I do read other things like interviews or whatever, which brings me to this....
Tarantino said in an interview that he thought Bud was the most sympathetic character in the movie (not Bill, who you say is the most kindest and considerate in the film). And I can see what he means. For instance, the very flawed way Bud says, in referring to himself, "we deserve to die." It sort of comes as a shock because all of the other bad guys kind of see themselves as your typical villains, which is that, they don't really see what they are doing as wrong, and probably in fact as something that is right. Like the kind of glamorous way Bill describes the basis of their relationship, which is no accident that he says it in direct opposition to working at a record store, when he says ""As opposed to jetting around the world, killing human beings, and being paid vast sums of money?" I think Tarantino makes it sound, on purpose, no different than a teen girl falling for the bad boy motorcycle kid in high school or something.
About last fight scene, leading up to, I forgot it was even a Kill Bill movie. I guess because, once again, it played out like a normal couple just having normal couple problems. So, I don't think there was too much dialogue, because it was more of a metaphor, as all movies are pretty much. So, I don't think the film was operating in the typical end-boss fight mode, as would typically be done in these kinds of movies which are not usually so character-driven. I don't think there was too much, because in that last scene we finally get to see what the whole movie was about or why exactly she had to kill him. And I think this explains what you are talking about in your last paragraph when you say you don't see how Taratino gets away with what he gets away with. The reason is that he is giving a reason for the violence on the screen so it is not just violence for the sake of violence (which he is criticized for doing); why show the child abuse? To explain why she kills the guy who attempted child abuse on her (and was successful on others) and maybe why she became an assassin, having done it at such a young age. Why the guys molesting her in comatose? To explain why she kills them when she wakes up (kind of dark comedy as well). So, no, I don't think it's a free pass at all. He's showing these things to explain why the violence is being committed against them. Also, Jet Li said about the violence in Kill Bill, that you felt that it really came from the heart, and I guess meaning that there were very deep emotions and reasons for their choosing to commit violence.
@Richard Nanian....well said, as usual
But I want to say what I think of that last fight and her use of the...death strike. Well, I guess on one level, maybe with storytelling (and perhaps life) there needs to be that element of inevitability or can't-be-any-other-way, or maybe a kind of pre-determinism (and I kind of mean that as a way of thinking) which is kind of a spiritual thing or maybe just a kind of necessary way to a higher level of thinking; so I guess what I'm saying is that she had more faith than Bill and that's what allowed her path to go on that higher trajectory than his, where she learned the trick and he didn't. So, what the scene ends up feeling like, using Bill as the vehicle, I guess you could say for it, is "Of course it had to be this way." It kind of plays out where Bill is rolling his eyes and thinking "Of Course, it had to be this way." And then what does he do....he's "ready" for his death. See how everything is going in a can't-be-any-other-way type of way? So, that death palm thing just revealed that she's got "it" and that's why she was able to do just what she wanted to do. Other people that she killed didn't have that "it." Bud didn't have enough of "it" to think that she or anyone would be able to get out of the coffin underground. Vernita Green felt that she Should Have been Black Mamba...but she didn't have "it"..that kind of faith or whatever. The Daryl Hannah character seemed to be one walking bit of resentment....she hated Beatrix..which is also not a form of having "it" or faith. Bill with as much as he had, he still didn't have enough "it" to believe that anybody might be able to be taught the exploding heart technique....and to have that exploding heart technique, by the way, probably takes some "it" to learn in the first place which is why Pei Mei passed it on to somebody else to where it would mean something. He was special and she was special because they both had the faith in the special...I guess.
Dear all: My apologies, I finished my review of “The War of the Roses” shortly before this one and the name Barbara stuck more than it should have. At least I didn’t call her Oliver.
@S M Rana: This film couldn’t be more different than “Pulp Fiction” but let’s face it, if you watched both of them, along with another thousand movies; you’d have no trouble telling which two were written by the same person.
@Mario Zavala: As disorganized as Tarantino’s stories might scene, at the end of the day I think they end up making sense in their own way so no, I don’t think he “still needs to master is the deliverance of a well-built story”.
@Richard Nanian: Yours is a truly great comment and I believe that, theoretically speaking, the last chapter of “Kill Bill” makes all the sense in the world, that said, by the end of the movie I had lost all interest in the Bill character and when the final duel was over, my sole reaction was: is that it? . I wouldn’t say the Bride vs. Bill confrontation had to be the longest or most elaborate, but it had to be the best.
@Marcus Heine: “It's the kind of movie Vincent Vega or Mr. White would watch when they go to the movies”………You do realize that Mia practically describes to Vincent the complete “Kill Bill” plot during the diner scene in “Pulp Fiction”?
@Seongyong Cho: You are right on the money with the “Jaws” comment Seongyong. Curiously, I’m using the exact same analogy (for a different movie and character) in my next review.
@nmr: Nothing wrong with the movie inspiring anybody to play the flute, it’s the 55 hanzo swords on Ebay that concern me.
@Ben: For me, over-length was definitely a factor in the film’s final chapter.
@HJ: What about volume 3? Tesostrogen?
@Randy Masters: It’s hard to explain but I believe the film is better appreciated if you were raised during those particular decades you mention (just as Tarantino was). Perhaps it is because you’d be bound to be more familiar with the film’s inspirations, lead actor, etc.
@Eric Rhein: According to the IMDB, there indeed is a “Kill Bill III” in the works. Personally I’d rather not have to see an eye-less Elle Driver. A prequel doesn’t sound like such a bad idea.
I HATED THIS MOVIE! To quote Ebert I HATED, HATED, HATED, HATED, HATED, HATED, HATED, THIS MOVIE! I HATED the thought that anyone could possibly be entertained by this film! Out of all of the films that I have seen in my life "Kill Bill" is certainly not the worst. But it is the only movie that I wish I could erase from my memory.
Ever since the first time I watched the film back in 2003 it has constantly gnawed on my mind what it was that had offended me about the film. I couldn't exactly put it into words, but it felt as if my sensibilities as a film goer had been violated somehow. After thinking about it over several years I think I have narrowed down the reasons why.
Over his career Quentin Tarantino has proved to be very masterful not just at presenting on-screen violence, but he is very masterful at evoking pain; physical pain, emotional pain, the pain that comes from acknowledging the harsh callous indifference the universe has in regard to our suffering. In "Kill Bill", Tarantino seems to display a harsh callous indifference to his own characters.
In “Kill Bill” every stab, every gunshot, every slice, every kill is extremely painful to watch. The Bride executes Vernitta Green in front of her daughter, and then it goes to the Bride smiling and acting like a silly tourist in Osaka. The anime sequence which some find incongruous because its animated, I find incongruous because it it just so painful to watch as O-Ren Ishii’s parents are executed in front of her eyes. Then that scene cuts to “lets get these piggies wiggling”. He shows a woman riving around on the ground, screaming in agony and its supposed to be funny because blood is shooting out of her like a garden hose?
Many people may not consider Tarantino a filmmaker who focuses much on philosophy, but I believe he is one of the most morally centered filmmakers of our time. “Reservoir Dogs” dealt with issues of masculinity, “Pulp Fiction” the existential search for meaning, “Jackie Brown” the mid-life crisis, “Death Proof” I see as a feminist revenge fantasy, and “Inglourious Basterds” examined power relations and ethics in times of war. All of these films have moral themes but the script never insist upon them. Compared to all of those films "Kill Bill" is just incredibly nihilistic.
Consider the way the movie ends, when the Bill mentions “Superman” in the long drawn out finale of a conversation that ends Volume 2. You may see it as an obligatory pop-culture reference but I don’t consider it overextending the observation by seeing it as a sideways reference to the Nietzscheian concept of the “superman”. An ideal twisted by the Nazi’s into a warrant for genocide, as the superior men had the duty to exterminate the inferior races of the earth. Now go back to the beginning, the Bride, a blond haired blue eyed Aryan, kills Vernitta Green, a black woman, in front of her daughter. What justification does the Bride have? Because they took away her chance of being a mother. But it turned out her daughter was alive the whole time. The whole film ends with Beatrix smiling and laughing with her daughter as the little Green girl has to grow up without a mother, and the film never reflects on this.
Another thing that pisses me off royally about the film is the “House of Blue Leaves” scene and how people comment about what a great action set piece it is. It is NOT! When it comes to directing action Tarantino is completely incompetent. He has no concept of rhythm, style, and flow when it comes to choreography. First off he uses a Kung-Fu choreographer for a fight with samurai swords which are not made for that style of combat. Because of the bevy of decapitations and dismemberment in the sequence he relies staccato rhythm which disrupts the flow of the choreography.
As one of the few people who admired “The Matrix Reloaded” that same year it was released I grew tired of people making comparisons saying Tarentino didn’t use CGI, well the Wachowskis have a far better understanding of what makes action choreography appealing even if the fighters are rotoscoped. In fact I can point to several independent, action directors who release their work directly to YouTube right now who blow Tarantino out of the water in this department. I would encourage all readers to look up "The Stunt People" based in San Francisco, "Lazy Brown Productions" based in Chicago, and "Westhavenbrook Productions".
The "Stunt People" have produced many shorts and a handful of features (their films "Undercut" and "Contour" are new classics of this emerging indie action movement) they are currently in production of a new feature which will be released next year called "Rise and Fail." (http://youtu.be/CQ9blze5S24) "Westhavenbrook", headed by director John Allen Soares, has been producing serialized action shorts for some time (check out the comical and irreverent "Sockbaby" and "Go Sukashi" series) he is currently in production of an action serial called "The Danger Element," which is really good. (check out the first episode here: http://youtu.be/yHi05mnsMFQ) "Lazy Brown" have produced mainly shorts and action demonstrations, their martial-arts/noir feature "Those Who Go To Hell" appears to be in development hell. Their work can be found on YouTube under the username "spidermexican."
*Much of my criticism above I copied-and-pasted from another lengthy criticism of the film I wrote in response to an episode of the "Auteurcast" podcast. Which you can find at the following link:
http://auteurcast.com/2011/06/18/auteurcast-episode-004-quentin-tarantinos-kill-bill/#comments
I don't think there's any other meaning to what Bill said about Superman other than exactly what he says. He basically is saying that she is who she is and by marrying this guy and doing all of that "lower-level" stuff (which, if you look at my last comment, is really quite the contrary....she is quite "higher level" stuff...and Bill seems to think you're not just because of the job you have or something) and that Superman is not being himself when he becomes Clark Kent. And he was juxtaposing that normalcy (also, I guess, because, once again, he kind of glamorizes what he does...kill for money etc.) with her normalcy to state that both of these images of normalcy are not the real picture, where as with other Super-heroes, they were normal at some point and then Became super-heroes; so kind of like in "Pulp Fiction" where they Jules says foot messages are not the same league or the same sport or same ballpark as adultery....Bill is saying that Beatrix is not in the same league or sport or whatever as "normal" and that she was always destined for better things. I think maybe there's some immaturity with Bill in thinking you need to have a certain occupation in life and he's probably projecting some of that insecurity or whatever onto her.
How can you get a main characters name wrong in such an extensive article? Its like writing about GoodFellas and calling the main character Harry Hill. lol
I have to admit on the first few viewings of Kill Bill, the final act did seem a little out of place, but it's rather warmed on me in the last couple of viewings. The final scenes with Bill may actually be the most touching and clever Tarantino has ever written and filmed. He literally transposes the villain and the hero, making Beatrix seem the heavy handed bloody one and Bill the wronged. The next scene in the hotel, as her daughter sleeps, Beatrix's weeping is incredibly touching, to my mind, creating an incredible amount of complexity where, in some respects, the heroine seemed as one-dimensional as kung-fu movie heroes often are.
This is why I think the movie didn't work as well together in two pieces. You don't get the full arc. The Beatrix/Black Mamba of part 1 is basically a superhero, but in part 2 she is portrayed as a mortal, easily damaged in a number of different ways.
Of his films, only Death Proof could be described as somewhat mixed in quality. I found it, at its full length, to drag on a bit, a little too in love with its own style. It didn't have the immaculate pacing of his other films.
I find your "Aryan superman" reading of Kill Bill a little over the top, not something I"d read into the film. And the big central fight scene in the House of Blue Leaves is a glorious send up to all the 1960s and 1970s Hong Kong martial art movies. I'm not sure what you mean by rhythm, but if the Bride isn't dancing in those scenes, I don't know what you call it. At any rate, as a guy who spent a good chunk of his adolescent years feasting on even the worst Oriental martial arts films, I have to see the Crazy 88 takedown is gloriously brilliant action nonsense.
"The anime sequence which some find incongruous because its animated, I find incongruous because it it just so painful to watch as O-Ren Ishii’s parents are executed in front of her eyes."
Tarantino always explains why violence is committed. The scene where O-ren's parents are executed--well, first, they are not executed "in front of her eyes" as you said, she was under the bed. But that explains why she kills the molester as well as becomes as assassin; she killed at an early age and lost her parents etc. Also, there's irony in that scene because the guy who kills her parents is Bill (look at the ring he is wearing...and camera makes a point to show it in the same way as when Bill is talking in live-action, face unseen, holding the sword the same way etc).
"He shows a woman riving around on the ground, screaming in agony and its supposed to be funny because blood is shooting out of her like a garden hose?"
(edit: I went back and saw this part you are talking about..I'll mention it again at the end of this paragraph) I don't really remember that part or if that particular thing is supposed to be funny, but the comedy I remember from that part is the women slipping on the blood all over the floor as she is trying to leave. About this blood-spraying, that is part of the homage of the old sword-fighting movies in the 70's; whenever people lost limbs in those movies, blood sprayed in the same way. So, I don't think that's necessarily used for comedic effect; it's more of homage; but there is one part where it used for comedic effect when O-ren decapitates that guy and you think the blood-spraying has stopped and then there are more squirts that just keep going; even in that scene, I don't think it was the spraying of blood that was funny...it was the squirts afterwards. (here's the scene, 2:20 into it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2tD3uDqEUg )
(edit) About that scene where she loses her arms and is screaming, no, I don't think that part is meant to be funny. That again is homage to the old sword-fighting movies of the 70's where, when people lost limbs, blood would squirt out in that way.
I already mentioned Superman in my other comment (well, two now). I'm not going to get into subtext, because as Tarantino has said in an interview (on Craig Ferguson) that the subtext can be whatever you want it to be. Tarantino talked about how in a movie he was in he talked about how Top Gun was really about homosexuality.
"Another thing that pisses me off royally about the film is the “House of Blue Leaves” scene and how people comment about what a great action set piece it is. It is NOT! When it comes to directing action Tarantino is completely incompetent. He has no concept of rhythm, style, and flow when it comes to choreography."
This is kind of going to be two part, but with fighting, what you actually want, as Bruce Lee said, is broken rhythm...or changes in rhythm etc.: as people have said about his fight scene with Chuck Norris where he stop his "rhythms" of his Chinese boxing and instead fights like a boxer using broken rhythms to undermine the rhythm of "rehearsed routine"(here is the youtube scene where he says "rehearsed routine lacks the flexibility to adapt"...go to 5:20.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6T9y7CKbFA) I don't think Tarantino really does do that broken rhythm in the fighting, but he does pace the fighting, with the kind of pauses before or during the fight, to where there kind of is some of that broken rhythm as the when the fight starts/resumes it is breaking the kind of rhythm of the silence. But also, in these movies, they are all about that kind of musical way of fighting, and I think Tarantino does actually use those same kind of rhythms. About style, I don't think he's really going for any style; he's just going for fighting; there's no display of any certain type of martial arts style, such as the Mua-Tai style with Tony Jaa or Hapkido with Steven Seagal etc; or the break-dancing flair of Donnie Yen or whatever other kind of flair. About flow, I think there is some flow and it is kind of the flow of those 70's rhythm as I said, but punctuated with a kind of pacing with dramatic pauses.
"Because of the bevy of decapitations and dismemberment in the sequence he relies staccato rhythm which disrupts the flow of the choreography."
(I think this is going to be a 3 part comment; this is part 2) There's actually not that many dismemberments in that scene and the part that really does have a lot of it is when she is spinning around on the floor sort of like break-dancing (which actually is quite a flowing movement). So, that particular basis for it doesn't seem to match, and I don't just disagree about that but also about the use of staccato. But I do kind of see what you mean about the last part about how there is a disruption of flow (not in choreography though...just in the flow) and that might be (sometimes) because swinging a sword is dangerous and maybe they had to be a little careful sometimes when Uma was swinging a sword at someone; usually in realistic kung-fu movies they keep the flow going, but you can see that they are like 1 foot away from the target and it is obviously fake (because if they get too close and hit, it hurt them very badly and might even kill them).
"As one of the few people who admired “The Matrix Reloaded” that same year it was released I grew tired of people making comparisons saying Tarentino didn’t use CGI, well the Wachowskis have a far better understanding of what makes action choreography appealing even if the fighters are rotoscoped."
Actually, Yuen Wo Ping was the fight choreographer for both of these movies. Although, when he arrived and saw that Quentin didn't actually need his help, he said "What do you need me for?" So, Tarantino actually does know his stuff, but he didn't actually do too much hand-to-hand combat and maybe that's what you were expecting to see, or what was "appealing" to you. But back to this quote..by you....
"First off he uses a Kung-Fu choreographer for a fight with samurai swords which are not made for that style of combat."
To get back to the 70's Kung-fu movies, these were movies that were like dances but also, I think that Tarantino wanted to do something new, because we haven't really seen a samurai fight in that kind of style before (which is the kind of 70's style...usually in the 70's kung-fu movies they would use the broadsword): or maybe there has been some other kung-fu movies that used samurai swords in that style before and I just haven't seen them. Anyway, it's kind of all part of the musicality, I guess.
" In fact I can point to several independent, action directors who release their work directly to YouTube right now who blow Tarantino out of the water in this department. I would encourage all readers to look up "The Stunt People" based in San Francisco, "Lazy Brown Productions" based in Chicago, and "Westhavenbrook Productions".
The "Stunt People" have produced many shorts and a handful of features (their films "Undercut" and "Contour" are new classics of this emerging indie action movement) "
I have the movie "Contour" and haven't watched it yet, but I just put it into the dvd player on my computer. And watching it, those fights seemed too rehearsed and the flow wasn't ever really broken. It seemed more like a dance as well. And in this I think Tarantino has got it more right, with the pacing and everything. The way they do it, it just seems too routine. Although the choreography itself does look pretty good and has a lot of very good flair...how it will go from blocks to kind of grappling and things like that. But I would say Tarantino has a little more flow for rhythm than them, because with them it seems too routine and with Tarantino he has that pacing with the pauses that kind of break up the fight a little bit.
I haven't seen the other people you mention, but I disagree about the Stunt People, because it seems too routine.
i agree, tarantino's complete fearlessness is admirable. his movies are never straight ahead genre pieces, they are a mish mash or blaxplotation, samurai films, gangster films, hong kong films, war films etc etc. its never 100% brilliant IMO, but most of it is brilliantly unique, ironically, in its attempt to replicate earlier b-movies tarantino loved.
agree though, regarding the end of KB2. the lack of action and the setup is just ineffective. the dialogue reeks of trying too hard, it just FEELS wrong and an unsatisfying conclusion to an epic story.
A mistake often made is the assumption that the end of Kill Bill Part 2 is supposed to echo the end of Part 1. It's not. It's supposed to echo the first chapter of Part 1. It is exactly the end it needs to be.
Another mistake often made is the assumption that not liking something means it's bad. Just because something doesn't suit one's tastes does not mean that thing is bad.
That's what I didn't care for about the first one (I haven't seen the second). All style, no substance, which isn't unusual for a Tarentino movie. That's not always bad, but I just didn't buy into it.
I agree with everything that is said about Tarantino. And having watched him talk in special features sections on DVD, and on the Charlie Rose show, he is not just a terrific director (one of my favorites), but one hell of a character. He talks so loud and so wildly you actually want to spend an evening just listening to him.
Tarantino belongs on a list of directors who have perfected the type of movie I call KICK ASS CINEMA. These are usually action packed films that go so incredibly over the top in action and are almost entirely about style. Tarantino does this with the KILL BILL films, as well as his movie segment of GRINDHOUSE: DEATH PROOF. (Of course, the entire theatrical experience of GRINDHOUSE is Kick Ass Cinema, and Robert Rodriguez belongs in it as well.
In addition to KILL BILL and GRINDHOUSE there are other movies that belong in the Kick Ass Cinema. Rob Zombie's THE DEVIL'S REJECTS, Robert Rodriguez's MACHETE, John Woo's HARD BOILED, Zack Snyder's 300, and that Canadian filmmaker who made the most over the top Kick Ass Cinema movie of the year: HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN. (I love that title, it is one of the funniest movie titles I've heard.)
@Ray: Don’t worry, if there’s one movie that was not made for every taste, that’s certainly KILL BILL.
@Pete: I’m not sure what this essay’s extensiveness has to do with me having made a mistake with the first name of Uma Thurman’s character. That said, unlike Henry Hill, she’s called by several aliases throughout the film which is my guess why her name didn’t stick well enough with me, even after several viewings.
@keith carrizosa: This is the first time I’ve seen comments to an essay that are longer than the essay itself (let alone 2).
@A. Clausen: I still can’t blame Tarantino for splitting the movie. Over four hours of anything tend to become too much of a good thing.
@Xajow: I disagree, the end of Kill Bill 2 is “supposed to echo” the last 8-9 chapters, not just #1.
Some people agree with me about the problems with the end of KILLBILL 2, some don’t. I can live with that.
@JEREMY COWELL: In Kill Bill there’s also influence from, believe it or not, director Clint Eastwood. If you watch SUDDEN IMPACT you will notice Sondra Lock crossing the names of those who did wrong to her from a notepad, one by one, as she gets rid of them.
@keith:
"Also, there's irony in that scene because the guy who kills her parents is Bill (look at the ring he is wearing...and camera makes a point to show it in the same way as when Bill is talking in live-action, face unseen, holding the sword the same way etc)."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! I've seen those movies at least ten times and I never noticed!
Thanks, and bravo!
It truly would be nice if they released this movie in theaters in its entirety. Although I must say, I have never enjoyed kill bill nearly as much to the extent as part two. However, I believe by far the greatest scene in both movies is when she is training with the master and then learns how to get out of the grave from it.
Her name is "Beatrix" Kiddo, NOT BARBARA!!!!!!!
I love the movie. (Spoilers ahead)
*
*
*
I like the fact that the last scene was not a huge confrontation, and I also liked how a lot of questions remain: why did Pai Mei teach her the five-point-palm-exploding-heart technique and why didn't she tell Bill? Did she always know?
And Bud is probably a bit more discerning than we give him credit for. He is the only one who manages to grind Beatrix down when she (thinks she is) surprising him. Maybe she, like everyone else, underestimates him? And why did he lie about pawning his Hanzo sword?
I stopped reading at "Barbara". It is obvious that accuracy is not a priority of this next-gen blogger person. Neither, it seems, paying attention to the film in which said person professes to love.
Ebert: Everybody makes mistakes. His points are excellent.