tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post4468260074651092528..comments2024-01-30T04:32:47.585-05:00Comments on The Cooler: Boys Will Be Boys: GrindhouseJason Bellamyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-46290186750745123612009-08-25T13:00:14.126-04:002009-08-25T13:00:14.126-04:00Actually, I may be wrong on a detail as well. Firs...Actually, I may be wrong on a detail as well. First we see Vincent and Jules standing before the door arguing over whether or not Vincent's upcoming outing with Mia Wallace constitutes a date; then their "man on the inside" -- the black kid -- opens the door for them. We don't actually see them knock, so they may have just been waiting for the kid to open the door at the designated time.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-33155767725087148892009-08-23T10:57:19.276-04:002009-08-23T10:57:19.276-04:00Thanks for the further comments everyone. If nothi...Thanks for the further comments everyone. If nothing else, QT always makes for great conversation, and it's wonderful to have such thoughtful comments.<br /><br />A few replies ...<br /><br />JD: Well, Rodriguez is probably more faithful to the whole theory. That's true. But, yeah, zombie movies just aren't my preferred genre.<br /><br />Joshua: Wow. That's a serious takedown of <i>Pulp Fiction</i>. I don't agree with it. But I applaud it. Don't hear that argued much. As for this line though: "It seems all he could remember writing was the coffee shop scene." That gets to the heart of many of my Tarantino complaints across many of his films.<br /><br />Jeff: That's a great take. I admit that I've only read David Foster Wallace's shorter pieces, but I can see where you're coming from. Interesting. Regardless of how he does it, QT certainly as a knack for getting us to bond with characters we might otherwise despise.<br /><br />Craig: So they don't even have their guns out? Well, fuck! The spirit of my argument still holds (maybe I should have applied it to the moment they pull the guns out of the trunk). But I do hate getting the details wrong.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-50433003235701351802009-08-21T18:14:22.301-04:002009-08-21T18:14:22.301-04:00And I should have read your reply more carefully. ...And I should have read your reply more carefully. Disregard last transmission.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-29770706086663286252009-08-21T18:13:03.934-04:002009-08-21T18:13:03.934-04:00Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but they do bus...<i>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but they do bust into the apartment with their guns out.</i><br /><br />Actually, they knock and walk in leisurely. That's what makes the scene unsettling from the get-go. Jackson doesn't reveal to the kids in the room that he's armed until he suddenly shoots "Flock of Seagulls" who's lying on the couch. We don't see Travolta unveil his piece until halfway into Jackson's monologue.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01450775188328918558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-64809622174105969762009-08-21T10:08:49.423-04:002009-08-21T10:08:49.423-04:00"...convinced that all he needs to establish ..."...convinced that all he needs to establish truth is a shitload of details."<br /><br />QT fascinates me, and likely many others, for the very reason that the "shitload of details" work. As the one year anniversary of David Foster Wallace's death nears, I've begun to wonder whether there are strong similarities between these two priests of words, because they establish authority so quickly for themselves and their characters. And I think it has to do with ethos. <br /><br />Movies, commericals, books often use two methods of persuasion. Pathos, the appeal to emotion, or Logos, the appeal to reason and logic. But there is a third method, Ethos, establish an authority figure by demonstrating that the figure shares your culture and your values, by creating someone you trust, and, perhaps, admire. But where I believe DFW and QT excel is the understanding that you don't have to show a character as an authority on the primary subject. Instead you can have a character demonstrate knowledge in an area (or many areas) shared or just admired by their audience. That gains the viewer or the reader's trust, then they can be as outrageous or as selfish as they desire, and we'll follow happily along, as if we're acolytes to a higher power. <br /><br />So after Jules and Vincent tell us what we know about foot massage, and what we don't know but intuitively know is right, they become our expert guides for the rest of the movie.Jeff Carrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06306052265035847583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-40880350312528679052009-08-21T09:36:09.014-04:002009-08-21T09:36:09.014-04:00I agree with plenty of your review, Jason, especia...I agree with plenty of your review, Jason, especially the comments regarding Abernathy and the general imbalance of his conversations. However, my distaste for QT extends further than yours, all the way back to Pulp Fiction, which I think suffers from a lot of the same failings his later work does. I will never understand how someone had struck such a delicate balance of reference, reverence and absurd creativity with Reservoir Dogs was able to follow it up with the messy, inconsistent and often downright intolerable Pulp Fiction. It seems all he could remember writing was the coffee shop scene, and so is unable to write any of the great, tense, emotionally complex moments in the warehouse. My only real exception is Kill Bill, which is still a thrill ride for me even if it is vastly inferior to RD.<br /><br />Great post, I'm looking forward to the conversation with Ed.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02455492676909216509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-11393441107488409122009-08-21T09:33:59.424-04:002009-08-21T09:33:59.424-04:00I have always felt that PLANET TERROR was much mor...I have always felt that PLANET TERROR was much more successful in achieving the aims that the filmmakers set out for themselves than DEATH PROOF. If the goal was to pay homage to and basically create modern Grindhouse-style film than DP does not work. It is basically Tarantino making one of his trademark films with conversations that go nowhere, his foot fetish and endlessly quoting from other films.<br /><br />To me, PT is much more successful because it achieves the goal that these guys set for themselves. It is a balls-out horror film filled with all the cool stuff you want from a film like this: cool action heroes, despicable villains, gooey zombies, sexy women, and loads of action. What more do you want? Altho, if you look at it, Rodriguez seems to paying homage more to genre films from the 1980s, most specifically John Carpenter, which is maybe why I love his film so much more than Tarantino's. While it's all cool and such to reference a film like VANISHING POINT, DP isn't half the film that one is. Whereas, PT could easily slide into Carpenter's body of work and almost feels like a lost film of his.<br /><br />But I guess it really boils down to matter of personal preference.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08164105442273577128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-65275756649922611002009-08-21T08:29:25.530-04:002009-08-21T08:29:25.530-04:00FilmDr: Good thoughts. Tarantino is a slippery one...FilmDr: Good thoughts. Tarantino is a slippery one to define, for sure. <br /><br />On this ...<br /><br /><i>One little quibble, though, Jules and Vincent did not bust "into an apartment with guns blazing." They talked at length with their prey, in effect toying with them, and that sense of casual sadism mixed with old testament judgment makes the scene all the more effective.</i><br /><br />Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but they do bust into the apartment with their guns <i>out</i>. Yes, they talk at length -- it's a QT movie, of course they talk! So what I was thinking of in referring to that scene is the beautiful way that those guys talk about daily minutiae right up to the point that they draw their guns and -- just like that -- put on their game faces. They don't shoot immediately, because they don't have to (and in a Tarantino movie, they never would). But they're ready. I should have written it "guns drawn" -- but when Vincent and Jules first enter the apartment, it's with the sense that they're ready to fire away, and that's what I was trying to capture.<br /><br />So, fair quibble, but that's where I was coming from.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-37416257472012523072009-08-21T08:23:44.848-04:002009-08-21T08:23:44.848-04:00Anthony: Thanks for the comment. Those are terrifi...Anthony: Thanks for the comment. Those are terrific arguments, and in many respects I agree with them. Another thing I dislike about my <i>Grindhouse</i> review is its implication that Tarantino shouldn't be allowed to continue making personal films.<br /><br />However, while the presentation of these characters can be easily defended looking at <i>Death Proof</i> (and <i>Grindhouse</i>) alone, it doesn't erase that the archetype that Tarantino so often runs to is one of his own creation: The Tarantino Character, if you will.<br /><br />For many of his fans, I realize that's the whole joy of it. They love living in the "Tarantinoverse," as Ed calls it in our still-unfolding Conversations piece. But the effect it has on me, actually, is similar to the one you describe with Norman Bates in <i>Psycho</i>. The more that Tarantino develops the Tarantino Character, the more the lines blur between them and the "character" becomes overexposed.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to see De Niro do a Travis Bickle monologue in each of his films, for example, as that would take some of the magic off the one in <i>Taxi Driver</i>.<br /><br />Put yet another way, there was a moment in <i>Seinfeld</i> once when Jerry invites Elaine to see him do his comedy act. "You doing any new material?" she asks hopefully. "No," he says. And she groans, suddenly uninterested. <br /><br />Tarantino has every right to keep making Tarantino Movies, and there are many ways in which I'm grateful that he does just that. Alas, when some of his characters go into their rants, it's hard to escape the feeling that I'm all too familiar with their routine.<br /><br />I'd say more, but Ed and I get into this in our upcoming conversation. So I hope you'll check that out when it posts at The House Next Door in a week or so and join the discussion there.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-11021048159961171402009-08-21T08:23:06.272-04:002009-08-21T08:23:06.272-04:00I find it interesting that you have mixed feelings...I find it interesting that you have mixed feelings about your review, because I had a hard time reviewing <i>Grindhouse</i> for the newspaper and am still reluctant to post it. I admire <i>Pulp Fiction</i> so much, my responses to other Tarantino films get filtered through that, and I tend to respect Tarantino (or the <i>idea</i> of the guy) more than especially liking much of his work. I had one main problem with <i>Death Proof</i>: in terms of structure, it's like <i>Psycho</i> cubed in the way it kills off principal characters early on and then replaces them, but one can still enjoy the leisurely chatty scenes in the bar or the convenience store regardless of the larger weaknesses in the plot. I didn't get much of anything out of <i>Planet Terror</i>, and I agree that the main problem with <i>Grindhouse</i> is that it is hard for the audience to enjoy the movies as much as the directors did. <br /><br />One little quibble, though, Jules and Vincent did not bust "into an apartment with guns blazing." They talked at length with their prey, in effect toying with them, and that sense of casual sadism mixed with old testament judgment makes the scene all the more effective.The Film Doctor https://www.blogger.com/profile/03073505923746994988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-36158012128684024192009-08-21T00:07:41.199-04:002009-08-21T00:07:41.199-04:00"When Pulp Fiction was released in 1994, scen..."When Pulp Fiction was released in 1994, scenes like that one were praised for the witty juxtaposition of two tonal opposites – detritus and death. But most recently, in the Kill Bill pictures and Death Proof, Tarantino is undermining his own legacy. There are only a handful of signature phrases in Tarantino’s previous films that couldn’t work in Death Proof. In Tarantino’s world, the only real character is the screenwriter himself."<br /><br />Actually: I found stuff like the above movingly honest. That QT would lay so bare his intentions and directly appeal to a "entertainment-loving cinema audience" make it a stronger film than I think most people realize. Aside from the fact that I'd (and possibly a few other internet comment-bombers) argue Group of Girls #1 and #2 are actually radically different but in subtle ways – aside from that, DP isn't really about defining character the way, say, Kieslowski does: DP isn't about QT's lack of ability in creating rich, fully-flushed 3-D characters; it's both an exercise in style and a different philosophy of story-telling – one with archetypes or mythic figures or even representative ones. <br /><br />What's so startling (& wonderful!) about Pulp Fiction isn't something like the final scene where Jules finds "his path" but the audacity of everything leading up to (and away from) moments like that. To expect a QT film to work in the same way as any other director is (1) foolish, obviously, because they're different kettles of fish and (2) impossible, because he has different goals for his films, which goals, I believe, are evident from the precision and purpose in everything he's directed.<br /><br />Kubrick never, if you really get down to it, I think, wrote out traditional 3-D characters either: he was always driving at something more strange and at the same time interesting. Welles: same story. <br /><br />A movie like DP would be gawdawful if its characters were like you or me; and it would be especially awful if they had "motivations" or "character" to get into. <br /><br />Like Roger Ebert said of Psycho (the movie which DP is obviously riffing on): the ending is the only misstep – nobody needs to know the details of Mrs. Bates' son's problems – the psychiatrist talks too damn much; the movie works better when it's left ambiguous and thus more menacing. It can then become pure screen presence, something QT has been in his mind re- and re-shaping since he started working as a video clerk.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14448374101386551246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-37005703180084844652009-08-20T23:36:03.660-04:002009-08-20T23:36:03.660-04:00One more thing. The line that makes me cringe is: ...One more thing. The line that makes me cringe is: "Women who talk like this exist solely in Tarantino’s imagination."<br /><br />When I wrote it, I was applying it to all the women and all of their conversations in <i>Death Proof</i>, but that's not the way it reads. So pathetic writing on my part.<br /><br />Now, that's not to say that you can't still disagree with my poorly articulated take that these women are merely Tarantino clones and are fantasy figures rather than convincing characters. But that's the argument I was attempting to make, and I hope folks can see how that fits into the general theme of my other objections in the above review.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-56317210606284607512009-08-20T23:25:28.981-04:002009-08-20T23:25:28.981-04:00And right out of the gate, someone identifies one ...And right out of the gate, someone identifies one of the lines I'd like to take back entirely. Or at least rewrite.<br /><br />Anna, that's a great point. Really, what didn't ring true to me was that <i>Abernathy</i>, as presented by Tarantino, would refer to <i>Pretty In Pink</i> that way. The way it's written in my review makes it sound like "no girl would ever say that," which I don't think is true. But I wanted to remain faithful to my original review, despite its flaws.<br /><br />(Side note: In my sort-of defense, I hope we can recognize that Hughes' recent death has given the phrase "John Hughes movies" more clarity among the <i>average moviegoer</i> than it had a few years ago, when his films were talked about as nostalgic stand-alone entities more often than they were referred to as the collected works of a major auteur.)<br /><br />Is there sexism to be found in my objection? You didn't outright accuse me of it, but, rest assured, Ed makes that argument in our upcoming Conversations piece. On that point, I hope that within the context of that larger conversation it becomes clear that my objection here is that these women seem to be stand-ins for Tarantino, rather than individual characters, which is an argument I also make in relation to Tarantino's male characters.Jason Bellamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18150199580478147196noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1163321594858726822.post-43992285591998798172009-08-20T22:37:28.274-04:002009-08-20T22:37:28.274-04:00"having Dawson’s Abernathy refer to Pretty In..."having Dawson’s Abernathy refer to Pretty In Pink as a “John Hughes film.” That might be the way he would have said it, but it’s not the way she would have. "<br /><br />Why on earth wouldn't she talk about it that way? That's how me and my [female] friends refer to any of Hughes' ouvre.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698744429336171815noreply@blogger.com