The Tarantino Talkies

In complete disagreement with you on this one jim. Maybe it comes down to personal taste but I'd rather have thoughtfully constructed dialogue that rarely slips into interminability than the vast majority of mainstream actioners wherein the dialogue gives one the impression there wasn't actually a script to begin with and the actors ad-libbed the majority of their material while under the influence of liberal doses of cocaine (read: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, G.I Joe, and last years The Reader).

JE: Well, jeez, just because some of Tarantino's writing rubs me the wrong way doesn't mean I'd prefer THOSE -- three of the most ridiculed and disparaged scripts of the last year!

In your P.S., do you mean the shot where Michael Madsen is making margaritas in his blender, and he pulls glasses out of the cupboard to serve them in? Aside from the obvious answer, it's one of many shots showing the state of his living situation (a filthy trailer in the middle of the desert).

Why haven't you seen Kill Bill?

JE: I've been meaning to see it for... a few years, I suppose. Just never got around to it. I was wondering because I didn't think the shot showed us anything we couldn't have seen in the previous shot, so I wondered why the movie was hitting us with that sudden emphasis. Maybe there's something else going on in that scene that explains the strategy (there's also the insert of Madsen pouring). Is QT breaking up the scene to add tension? I won't know until I see it, but Tarantino doesn't usually waste energy with unnecessary cutaways.

I go back and forth on QT's dialogue, but I definitely feel your pain - I think it is, at least, the most overrated aspect of Tarantino's work. Having said that, you really ought to see KILL BILL: it's his least chatty work to date, and though I think volume one is fairly weak sauce (Seitz put it best when he said the big battle scenes feel like watching other people play a video game), volume two might be my favorite thing he's ever done - very character-driven and expertly paced.

I'll spoil the suspense...that shot of the glasses has no payoff, but it does add tension, and it's funny you mention it, because it's one of the many moments in Kill Bill Volume 2 that I love. Something about that lime marguerita has always made me thirsty, but the fact that Budd serves them in JARS really emphasizes his living conditions. It's a wonderful detail in my opinion.

There is something else going on in the scene, yes. I won't ruin it for you, though. :)

I'm not good at dissecting films shot-by-shot, seeing what each shot tries to tell (I will always think of such analysis as Mamet style, because it was Mamet's book that introduced me to this way of looking at movies), but I think QT might have just liked the juxtaposition of objects in the cupboard, and used them to establish Budd's character- we find out that he's a guy who thinks nothing of putting his chili powder in the same cupboard as his margarita glasses. Or maybe he just liked the label- I always thought the apartment scene in Pulp Fiction had several shots of the Kahuna Burger bag for a similar reason.

Also, "the Pulp Fiction shooting scene?" Could you be any more vague about which scene you're talking about? That's like saying you liked the brawling scene in Fight Club, or the scene in Transformers with all the explosions. I'm going to assume that you meant the scene I was talking about earlier, with the Kahuna Burger and the glowing briefcase and Samuel L. Jackson asking for a sip of the small-time hood's Sprite before drinking the whole thing in front of him.

In that scene, the "talk-talk-talkers," as you call Jules and Vincent, aren't very interesting; their talk is mostly rote tough-guy shtick and references to their earlier conversation (Royale with cheese, metric system, etc.). But neither Travolta nor Jackson makes any attempt to punch up their dialogue or make it interesting, or anything but the rote tough-guy talk it is. This provides a metatextual comment on the familiarity of this sort of scene in the movies, but it also shows that Vincent and Jules are going through the motions- they're doing a standard job that they're so used to, it long stopped providing them with anything approaching a sense of novelty or excitement. Their bland recitation of tough-guy banter gives the scene a loose, comedic feel, right up to the point where Jules casually leans over and shoots one of the hoods (the one laying on the couch) in the face.

When that happens, it jerks the audience awake. The complete indifference with which Jules shoots the man (who doesn't even get a chance to flinch before he's dead) underscores the seriousness of the action beneath the cliched banter. At this point, we're ready to take Jules and Vincent more seriously than if their dialogue had been tense and serious the whole time, and this puts the audience in the right frame of mind for Jules's fiery Old Testament recitation and subsequent slaughter of the low-on-the-food-chain drug dealers. The dialogue may be flat, but that's by design- Tarantino uses the audience's knowledge of this type of scene to lower its defenses, then shocks it with the sudden shift in tone, which earns the effect a lot better than playing the whole thing straight.

Nothing in that montage from Kill Bill vo. 1, and I'm not surprised: it's his best film. There's a lot of tongue-in-cheek voiceover there, but comparatively little winded banter: Tarantino keeps the exchanges quick and sharp, and it's by far the tightest film he's composed.

Don't worry if you're disappointed with it the first time through. The curious thing about Kill Bill is that you need to finish volume 2 in order for the deeper layers of volume 1 to surface - so make sure to rewatch volume 1, because even seemingly straightforward dialogue suddenly holds new meaning. Once those new layers surface, the first film's tighter construction and complex variations on a single set of themes win the day. Not to mention the anime!

Volume 2 is looser and messier, which is fine, but it doesn't appeal to me as much.

Jim, I agree with your 'building tension' guess. The shot tells us not to be lulled by the conversation between Elle and Budd. Like the snake hidden in Elle's suitcase, these two are primed to strike. It's similar to the shot in Pulp Fiction of Jules picking up the Big Kahuna Burger while talking to Brad/Brett.

You could argue that the cutaway shots are building tension and foreshadowing potentially unexpected dangers for the Madsen character. Bo Derek's character represents a lethal threat to anyone she interacts with (except Bill, probably) and she's not above setting traps.

Following comment on PS ...

Maybe QT felt we should know that Budd only has jam jars for glasses. It takes a paticular kind of person to use jam jars for glasses.

Jim--

per the Madsen scene. If I'm recalling the scene correctly, then yes, I'd say all the extra cuts were for tension. Something happens in that scene, I'll say, and the odd, seemingly mundane cuts make a nice juxtaposition to "what happens" a few minutes later.

I walked out of the first Kill Bill the first time I saw it. I just found it dull, and he made some stylistic choices here and there that didn't make any sense from a storytelling standpoint...just a wanking standpoint. I saw it on DVD later and liked it quite a bit. It's a lot like a mash-up album, like Girl Talk's "Night Ripper" if you know that form of music. His influences are obvious (and he tips his hand on them in such a way that suggest he WANTS you to recognize them), but the way he threw them together can be exhilarating. That said, I have little desire to see it a third time.

As for the scene, if I remember correctly, Michael Madsen meets his end there in a fairly unusual way that has to do something (that appears) ordinary in the trailer. The specific shot of the cupboard might be a nod to "Race with the Devil," where a character finds a nasty (and similar) surprise in the cupboard of his RV. But then again, maybe not.

Sorry if that was a bit spoiler-ish, but if you haven't seen it yet then I doubt you care about the actual plot that much. Plus, the movie isn't called "Let Bill Live," so you have a good idea what happens.

I enjoyed "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction", but "Kill Bill" and "Death Proof" annoyed the living daylights out of me. It was like watching movies dubbed by a 70's TV nerd - every character had the same "voice" - they were channeling QT, and I wished they would have shut up once in awhile. Kill Bill also was way too hung up on showing off QT's obsession with all the things he obsesses about. Too much winking at fans of genre material. There was a scene with a car chase when suddenly the annoying theme from "Ironside" starts playing. Fine for anyone too young to watch that 70's show, but it took me right out of the movie, like someone turned on a TV in the background. Was it supposed to be funny or cool? Ironic or homage?
Open letter to Quentin Tarantino:
Dear Quentin, I grew up in the 70's and it was not as cool as you think it is. Here's a challenge for you - make a silent movie. Bet you can't!

Have you seen any of Tarantino's Skymovies segments that are kicking around YouTube? While a lot of what he has to say by way of introducing movies like "There Will Be Blood", "McCabe & Mrs. Miller" & "Taxi Driver" is interesting, they really do reinforce the image of him as someone in love with the sound of his own voice.

In one startling segment he explains how he sees his "good friend" Paul Thomas Anderson as a friendly rival, and he sees himself as Marlon Brando to Anderson's Montgomery Clift, in the sense that each made the other's work a little better by virtue of their existence. He says "Inglorious Basterds" will be all that much better because "There Will Be Blood" was made before it.

I was kind of stunned by the hubris.

i haven't liked anything Tarantino's done since Pulp Fiction. i got the feeling, after that movie came out and he was practically labelled as the new Jesus Christ of filmmaking, his ego got to him and he wound up making the stories fit his dialogue rather than his dialogue fitting the stories. both Dogs and Fiction are extremely dialogue heavy, but i found it to be great dialogue, whereas the insipid stuff in Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, and especially the painful Death Proof (which got many walk-outs and boo's when i saw Grindhouse in theatres), is just painful. so i'm really hoping for a return to classic Tarantino here, where his ego side-steps things, he realizes that not every character has to reference old kung fu movies and make jokes about their feet, and he simply lets us be as smart as he clearly thinks he is.
cheers
KZ

About the P.S.: you've got it right, Jim. Without giving too much away, the lack of background music, exaggerated sound effects, Daryl's ominous dialogue, and insert shots are all to build tension for the climax of the scene.

I agree in that it seems like QT is using his characters to speak for him, rather than for themselves; sometimes the actors go so far as to adopt his breathless pace. To be sure, convo hijackers can be annoying in the real world, but I find it much easier to take, even entertaining, in QT's work. I think it's the possibility to completely disengage with that person after a two hour stretch. Not to mention the fact that QT's films don't seem to aspire to realism. Boors can be completely entertaining when seen as a hypothetical.

I think that there are two conflicting points of view from which to approach QT's use of dialogue compared to dialogue in most other films. I believe its a fair criticism to say that QT's dialogue draws a great deal of attention to itself and can in some circumstances cause the audience to disengage from the film as a whole. His dialogue which can yes at times feel over-written reminds us that we are watching a movie with actors reciting from a meticulously crafted script. To this point I believe there are two counterpoints. The first and simpler point is that I don't think QT ever wants us to forget that we are watching a movie. If not through his dialogue he is constantly using other means to remind us that we having a cinematic experience. I don't think that a profound level of emotional immersion has ever been a goal of films. Second, I believe the argument could be made the dialogue in many films suggests that the thoughts of the characters are exclusively motivated by whatever is happening with the plot. This too can serve to remind us that we are watching a movie in that we notice the absence of trivial discussions and chit-chat that are commonplace in real life interaction among people. The point being, that even when the dialogue in a QT feels produced, it still adds a degree of relatability to the characters that is lacking in most other films.

Jim,
You may not really want to acknowledge this, but you are exhibiting a mental block that is perfectly acceptable - as long as you are not professionally a movie critic. Going seven years without seeing Kill Bill is like Roger Ebert seeing The Wild Bunch for the first time in 1975, or Andrew Sarris seeing Out of the Past in 1954. You know that wouldn't have happened - they took and still take movies that were even marginally important to the world of cinema seriously enough to see them, even if they really didn't feel like it. Like it or not, Kill Bill is far more important to the world of cinema than the VAST majority of movies out there, whether it's any good or not. This is a good example of ghettoizing behavior - I strongly suggest you join the wider world (and I am NOT talking about lowering your standards, but instead giving yourself a chance to apply them whenever professionally appropriate).

I respect you enough to want to respect you more,
Mark

JE: It's complicated. But, yes, I would definitely have seen the "Kill Bill" movies when they came out if I had been professionally obligated to review them. I think I was between jobs, walking dogs when the first one came out and I wasn't terribly interested. How "important" these movies are is arguable (some critics dismissed them as trivial), but I still want to see them. Even minor films by minor directors can be worthwhile. But I do admit I'm not a fan of martial arts movies, though critic friends tell me "KB" isn't really one of them. I have the DVDs in my house. I just haven't been in the mood to pop them into the machine yet. Perhaps I can use "Inglourious Basterds" as motivation!

"Death Proof" scared the hell out of me when I saw it. I always knew Tarantino loved the sound of his characters talking, but up until that movie I thought he was too smart to sacrifice the quality or believability of any of his movies just to hear his own voice. I can't believe any of the female characters, even the stunt woman, would devote that much time to talking about "Vanishing Point," and even if they would, not in such an artificially cutesy way. I don't think Rose McGowan's character would know what "CGI" means, or at least be that familiar with the term to use it so quickly. To me it seemed like a writer/director so shut-up in his own brain he just couldn't come up with any voices that weren't his own.

But up until that point I was 100% on board. I don't mind his pop-culture references or his "winking," I like that he's constantly in your face because it makes you more aware of the artifice, but in a totally watchable, entertaining way. Tarantino is usually the first director that gets people in my generation thinking about what a director actually does, what his job is. I think that's because Tarantino is so starved for attention he almost wants to sit beside you as you're watching the movie, hold your hand, laugh with you, scream with you, and so on. He's not casual about anything.

His characters would be more tedious to listen to if he wasn't so good at finding interesting actors with real, palpable presences (I think the same is true of Mamet and Allen, many of their movies live or die by the actors in them). Maybe that's why "Death Proof" stunk for me, it's possible the actors just couldn't sell the dialogue. That's probably the main reason I'm really nervous about "Inglourious Basterds." I want to like it, it looks like the kind of movie I usually like, but I don't want to be taken right out of the movie with flat deliveries about Fritz Lang or von Sternberg by actors who probably don't know who they are.

I agree to some extent.

For me, no matter how ingenious it may be, no matter how fun and quirky or dead on to reality it may seem (and ultimately it is verisimilitudinous: scripted, or the result of research-informed ad lib by actors), DIALOGUE cannot be the engine of the movie; the engine of the movie is the image---visual rhetoric is more important than any other form of rhetoric in a movie going experience.

AND, that is precisely why after discovering Tarantino I jumped boats and began watching his influences' (Scorsese, Leone, DePalma) work more than his.

So, to some extent I can agree with Jim---
"Sometimes I wish the writer would just shut up and let the characters speak for themselves. But that's because, to me, everybody in the movie sounds like QT, and not like individuals (see countless latter-day Woody Allen movies where half the actors just do Woody Allen impressions). That may be a deliberate artistic choice, or a solipsistic one. I don't know."---
But I wouldn’t consider the solipsism a negative by any means at all --- after all, are we not at the center of our own universes?

In HIS movies everyone DOES in fact sound like him---they act like him too (thus the overkill on the gesticulations); just as well, the ones who survive the hell fire and violence usually LIKE what he likes (a la DEATH PROOF, where the girls who are cock-teases and music buffs are the ones to get slaughtered and the girls who are more strong willed and actually apart of the film industry are the ones who overcome the evil force that is Stuntman Mike).

To me, Tarantino's work is as personal as Scorsese's, Tarr's (if you want to throw out a wild card), Allen's, the Andersons' (Wes and P.T.), Kubrick's, Hitchcock's, etc. I find his personality to be this unconquerable, pervasive force throughout the movies he makes, every last one of em. And, it’s not dissimilar to the highly personal, if not just downright autobiographical, films of Federico Fellini. 8 1/2 is praised as being the apotheosis of the meta-film genre and I suppose it is insofar as, yes, there is the filmmaking context within the film, but it is more of a personal, autobiographical tour de force than anything else.

Tarantino has always stayed true to himself: he is a man who is overtly (yes, even publicly) obsessive when it comes to the topic of films and, actually, that is all his films are ABOUT.

The argument that Tarantino is a “self-as-the-only-reality-type” is, for me, unfair insofar as we consider it a negative term. The language of the cinema has the capacity to be universal, no doubt, but the content and the style render it very personal --- a man’s mold.

Everyone has their preferences, but even I, who doesn’t quite appreciate the incessant dialogue of Tarantino as much as I did when I first discovered his films, won’t dock his craftsmanship and the axiomatic Q.T. personality exuding from his films. I think most agree an artist’s work, though open to interpretation and deconstruction, is first and foremost an extension of his personality, his psychology, and/or his ideology. Maybe the how and the what are inseparable in art.

I haven't seen any of these movies in a while.

0:18 - 0:40
being more specific-allowing reason to penetrate generalization.

0:41 - 1:10
deducing the characters's stance through their actions...then stating what they deduced

1:13 - 1:38
familiarizing us with the overlooked minority or minority opinion. "kiwi" was nice touch

1:40 - 2:15
Putting sh!t into context

2:16 - 2:52
Putting sh!t into context OR differing opinions(a "agree to disagree" sentiment)

2:53 - 3:11
OMG the characters have brainz and can analyze toooo!

3:12 - 3:46
the way it looks from the outside(generalization) VS a little technicality that makes it something else in reality.

3:47 - 5:00
clearing sh!t up, in an entertaining way.

5:01 - 5:25
Hostile Rosario, being that she's narrow-minded, sees something that is not there(racism). The hillbilly guy is simply being candid and knows that there's nothing wrong with being black, this in a peculiar way makes his ideology the "higher" one. I say both him and Keitel are on the same level, not in their knowledge but in their realist approach. While Dawson and Mr.Pink are the same in being unconsciously muddled down in society's rules and stigma, while consciously protesting regional societal rules.

5:26 - 6:07
Exceptions.
1st clip:"But I didn't know I was coming to america!". Plus, is it me or are the 2 trees at the sides like "it'd be great if they shut up..."

2nd clip: Usually a person ending up in the same place you did is considered stalking, but "chance" makes this an exception(I know he was actually following them, but we don't know that yet).

6:08 - 7:15
"what do you think it is?"
"Divine intervention b!tch!"

7:16 - 8:38
"Somebody listen to meeee and my world view!!"

8:39 - end
rational productive discussion, very rare, amen.

I'd appreciate it if you threw a chocolate chip cookie my way, sir. I will keep my mouth wide open from now until you approve my comment, in anticipation for said cookie.

JE: Don't forget to chew.

I think QT uses those cutaways pretty often... I've always noticed them sprinkled about in Kill Bill and also Jackie Brown. Short, pointed, insert shots. (much like that last sentence) which I guess either are used to create tension, or show us a close up of some "unimportant" action. I think, they often happen in kitchens, or around food.

I completely disagree with you on this one. One of the reasons why Quentin Tarantino is possibly the best director of his generation is BECAUSE of his charming dialogue. Its his careful construction in creating the characters and thee way that they speak that makes us feel intimate with them on screen. Take, for example, the opening scene of Reservoir Dogs in the coffee shop. The viewer feels that he/she is PART of the conversation, we feel like we're sitting right there at the table with the crew. Tarantino draws the viewer in from the opening scene, using the art of dialogue; an art that has quickly been vanishing in today's standards of non-stop explosions. That's a skill rarely demonstrated in today's Hollywood. I urge you to rethink your opinion, but if not, we agree to disagree.

Believe me, I had serious doubts going in to see this last weekend but it blew me away, I'm still recovering. I just posted my initial thoughts on the film at my site and the first thing I thought of coming out of the cinema was There Will Be Blood. Now I see the Sky clips on Youtube of QT praising the film. They're a bizarre combo but it fits - looking forward to hearing your take on it all Jim.

Jim, I really think your Woody Allen reference is unfair.

Years ago I had the "Woody"-role in the stage adaptations of "Midsummernight-Sex-Comedy" and "Sleeper". I never tried to be a stand in for Woody Allen or tried to copy him. Many people told me they liked my performance but they thought I was impersonating him. I was shocked.

It's his writing. His writing is so strong it guides you to a special delivery. Just like doing iambic verses there often is only one way for the rhythm, for the pauses, for the pronunciation and for the attitude of your delivery. The writing also guides you into a certain direction for your body language.

So I never thought for example Kenneth Brannagh was impersonating Woody Allen in Celebrity. He would have been a very bad actor in doing so. The dialogue told him what to do. Thats how actors work. (I'm not a professional actor - my wife is).

Really, try for yourself to deliver any Woody Allen writing, essay, joke, script in the best possible way and you will see.

I don't know if this applies to QT, but it could be.

Markus Ponto
(Hope my english makes the point - i'm german)

Jim - It's clearly a love it or hate it thing for some but I really do find QT films refreshing - an odd statement given that his films are essentially a post-modern mash-up of cinematic trivia. Have you ever seen the Youtube video mash-up of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Ric Astley? The feeling I had when I watched that video is similar to the one I get when I see a new QT film. It's a combination of "I can't believe someone would even think of doing that" with "I can't believe that this actually works as well as it does" (especially when it shouldn't).

Kill Bill is probably his most explicit mash-up - highly recommended but Vol. 1 is so drastically different from Vol. 2 that you may get whiplash. However, one of QT's best monologues (re: the nature of Superman) appears near the end of Vol. 2 - it's irreverent but Carradine's delivery is really good.

Jim, you sum up exactly how I feel about the monolog, cinephile-with-eclectic-tastes-trying-to-show off rambling in dialogue in "Death Proof". Aside from some of the stuff in the bar early on, there isn't a moment of dialogue there that feels remotely genuine... Alright, maybe the "I like 'Pretty In Pink' line" from the airhead but that's about it...

That said, I think the dialogue is fabulous in all his other films, even if I sort of agree with some of your observations/ what you're hearing... I think it's important to remember that 1) friends sometimes talk alike (Jules and Vincent) and 2) people living in a a certain area or belonging to a certain family or culture can talk alike... Also, perhaps, helping explain "Pulp Fiction" to a degree... I think that the characters do talk alike could be interpreted as a stylistic choice. (And, hell, you know what? I think all directors have a way their characters tend to talk... I'm sure somebody could make this case about The Coen Bros. if they listened into it...)

I think you oughta see "Kill Bill"... But, wait, are you saying you saw "Volume 2" without first having seen the first half? To me the movies are one big movie cut apart for distribution reasons that have nothing to do with art and Tarantino was heroic and how he made them both able to stand on their own despite the original intention to have them together... But I wouldn't jump to the second half before the first...

By the way, I read this article a little after it was posted then sent it to all my film friends... Then you posted this. I love Matt's closing line.

There might be another reason for the insert shot in that scene, but it's a little spoilery. I think Tarantino is deliberately echoing the opening of volume 1, which involves a conversation in someone's kitchen, with the counter separating the two (so the framing in sorta similar). One of the characters starts reaching for food and utensils, and the tension in the scene relates to whether that character is really trying to reach for a weapon. For example, there's an insert shot as she reaches into a drawer full of cutlery - is that important? In that moment, very much so, although it turns out to be a different setup than expected. There's a bit of bait-and-switch going on.

So the insert shot in the Madsen scene of volume 2, I think, is meant to evoke that moment, both to mimic the potential for violence and to show the difference in the characters and situation by how differently it resolves.

On the issue of dialogue, it's hard to make a sweeping statement about what's wrong or right with Tarantino's, because those general rules have so many exceptions: some screenwriters have characters who don't talk in distinctive voices and it's okay; some have characters that all sound like the author and it's okay; some have characters that sound far too smart or witty than they should be and it's okay; etc. What it boils down to, as frustrating as this sounds, is whether it 'works'. The only time Tarantino stopped working for me was Death Proof, where I no longer cared what anyone was talking about, because I couldn't find a way to justify it (not by plot, by characterization, or even by interest.)

I think there's some over-reading here of the cutaway shot business. They're punctuation: all those quick little close-ups of fingers on doorbells, thumbs on cigarette lighters, and so on - think periods, commas, semi-colons. Just little throwaway bits to keep the rhythm interesting (or maybe add some extra character stuff, like the jars-for-glasses deal).

Frankly, I loved DEATH PROOF and think the dialogue fits just right. It's all buildup to the climactic chase and to the "I'm okay!" moment.

We get to know and sort of like the first group of girls, enough to assume they'll be the main characters. Then QT kills 'em all. When the next group starts getting established in the same detail, it seems he's gearing to do the same thing. So the chase has more of a feeling of genuine peril than it would otherwise, and when it gets flipped around, it's all the more satisfying.

On top of which the dialogue does often serve plot purposes- the whole anecdote about Zoe surviving an accidental fall into a ditch at a concert, for one. If the movie showed that, we'd know to anticipate her surviving being thrown off the hood in the same way- it'd be too obvious. But as it's just part of the conversation, it gets filed away.

The payoff is entirely worth it. Plus, I don't get how you see this film and not get the pants charmed off you by Zoe Bell. It seems weird to complain about how "artificial" all the dialogue is when that's pretty much her being her.

I'd have to give some serious thought as to whether all of QT's characters actually sound the same. I mean, of course, most are well-versed in popular culture, and sometimes given to monologues, but I kind of felt that, say, Harvey Keitel's Wolf character in "Pulp Fiction" had a very particular way of speaking that distinguished itself quite a lot from the other characters in the film...short, curt, and to the point. Thurman's Mia spoke in a more elusive, elegant manner than any of the boys. Butch and Fabienne (one of the most underrated sequences in PF) had a cute, self-mocking quality to it, whereas Jules and Vincent were mostly shooting the s**t with a layer of macho bravado. It may be down to the different delivery of the individual actors, but in many cases, the tone and context of scenes really shape the style of the dialogue. Subtle variations, perhaps, but it doesn't all sound the same to me.

Anyways, the wide variety of European and American actors in Inglourious Basterds would compel me to think that QT will adopt of number of different styles in which the characters relate to one another. That said, Jim, despite the misleading advertising, all reports suggest the film is 90% talk, 10% action. Which is not to say it won't have visual, action-oriented punch...only that you'll have to wait for it. Glenn Kenny counted only 16 (!) individual scenes in the entire 2 1/2 hour film (most 2 hour movies have around 50).

Regardless, you don't strike me as someone who's easily offended (by questionable thematic material), so at least righteous indignation likely won't be a part of the future conversation about the film, here.

"Bo Derek"? Surprised no one has commented on this. Derek would have been interesting, at least in theory.

I say it should have been Sibyl Danning. It would have suited Tarantino better.

Why is somebody who hasn't seen Kill Bill writing an article critiquing QT's style?

JE: Because he's seen his other movies, excerpts of which are included in this video piece?

A few comments; 1)I regard the first Kill Bill as a masterpiece and one the best films of the past decade. It was exhilerting, was exquisetly shot and directed, featured some wonderful QT touches and had arguably one of the finest and most shocking closing scenes of all time. The second Kill Bill film, however, disappointed me. I wasn't impressed by it, partly because it lacked the exhileration of the the first film, but also because I found it to be far too referential.

I don't really have a problem with films which are referential (and BTW I regard QT as truly unique) but I sometimes get the impression that QT is really a film snob, which I have no time for. He's not a snob because he's seen Bergman and you haven't, but because he's seen a b-grade Ozploitation flick which never made it to the cinemas, and you haven't. Kill Bill Vol. 2 to me epitomised that; plus it was an example of style over substance (not always a bad thing) where the style wasn't particularly attractive and IMO was often extremely illogical.

Regarding his dialogue, I've always loved it. I think it's disctinct to his characters (BTW, I loved Jules's dialogue after shooting the guy; I thought it was incredibly inventive), I think it provides real heart and soul for his films and I love the idea of a director who loves dialogue. Think about it; two hitmen arrive at a place to do a job, but realise they're late so they continue talking. Which other director would do it? Most directors would have them come in straight away; QT didn't.

I don't agree that all of his characters sound like him; Jules sounds IMO as different from Mr Wolf and Bill as one can get. As I said, I love his dialogue; there's a real joy to it and IMO a real love for the English language. A wonderful filmmaker IMO.

In reaction to Dan's comment, I found Vol. 1 to be more referential and style over substance than Vol. 2, which had richer and more involving characterization (and more dialogue). I would agree that Vol. 1 was more exhilarating from an action standpoint, but Vol. 2 fleshes everything out in a way that adds more substance to the first installment, substance which it lacks on its own.

My favorite QT film by far is Reservoir Dogs (though I haven't seen Jackie Brown). And even though I generally prefer image-driven movies - from Raiders to Rashomon - the wonderful dialog is the main "engine" in a movie like this. For example, I don't quite know why I love the argument on tipping, but Tarantino was a brilliant at dialogue that seems pointless, but IS the point (if that makes sense).

Also there's the dialogue-as-percussive-music in a line like "I know Joe, and me sayin' he definitely
had nothin' to do with it is ridiculous.I can say I definitely didn't do it,'cause I know what I did or didn't do.But I cannot definitely say that about
anybody, 'cause I don't definitely know."

Later in PF, it felt more self-conscious. When the Travolta character says of the restaurant "It's like a wax museum with a pulse" it's clever, but there's a feeling of "Here I am, delivering the latest QT gem, gift-wrapped for the audience's pleasure", IMO.

Mike F. Yes, Kill Bill Vol. 2 had more dialogue, however I don't necesarilly think that more dialogue equals more substance. I found Kill Bill 2 to be incredibly annoying, not just in terms of its referencing but also stylistically. The beeped name, for example, which was prominent in the first name, was arguably more pronounced in the second film. But it's more than that. The first film was about style; that's fine with me as I don't believe that great films need to be about substance, and the first film's style was IMO absolutely extraordinary. I think it is brilliantly shot and directed, with amazing fight scenes and performances, and its final scene was IMO absolutely shocking. I couldn't believe it; it stunned me.

With the second film, QT decided to focus less on the martial arts and fighting and more on the character and story. That was fine, although to be honest, it wasn't my cup of tea, however I was willing to embrace it. The problem for me, was that with the exception of the wonderful Superman speech, as well as the great speech detailing what the master did when someone ignored him, it didn't really tell me anything that that was interesting or insightful. Rather it was incredibly annoying, especially stylisticallly, such as when they revealed her name and it was irrelevant. The characterisation bored me and wasn't particularly interesting, especially since QT provided hints but didn't exlpore them; e.g. Bud's relationship with his brother (he lied about selling the sword.) I think the first film was richer, and inversly I would argue that the first film gave more substance to the second film.

IMO the first Kill Bill film was a masterpiece; however the second one was quite disappointing, and much more so if divorced from the first one.

Dan wrote: Rather it was incredibly annoying, especially stylisticallly, such as when they revealed her name and it was irrelevant.

OK, the classroom scene revealing The Bride's name was not only annoying and irrelevant but embarrassing. It actually made me cringe a little. And I can't disagree with you about the merits of Vol. 1, but I just cared more about the characters and outcome in the 2nd film. I like how one movie enriches the other.

But I wonder what kind of movie we'd have if "Kill Bill" had been released as one film as originally intended? I can imagine a lot of Vol. 2 being jettisoned. I once read Tarantino was planning to do a combined version for DVD but I'm not sure if he intended a pared down edit of the two movies as one, or a reorganized but complete version of both. For curiosity's sake, I'd like to see the former.

I agree with you, it would have been fascinating to see the two films edited as one!

As much as I appreciated Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in my youth, now that I'm old and jaded I just can't stand Tarantino's newer films, and yes, it's true, that awful dialogue is what's really driving me out of the theater. Thing is, I can't tell if Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction suffer from the same problem. (I've seen those two movies so many times that I'm immune to their flaws, I guess.) In deference to that fact, I've chalked up QT's recent dialogue failures to the fact that his "divided monolog" sounds particularly wrong when it's placed in the mouths of female characters. In other words, QT just can't write women. (And feel free, Jim, to skip Kill Bill. I wish I had.)

However, as bad as QT can be, in my view the worst offenders in the "written dialogue" sweepstakes are Kevin Smith and Diablo Cody. Please: someone make them stop.