Episode 004: Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill”
A discussion of Quentin Tarantino’s 2003/2004 film, “Kill Bill”.
With the release of KILL BILL, filmmaker Quentin Tarantino sealed his reputation as a master of genre and pop culture in modern day cinema for a whole new generation. What was originally conceived as one film, its distributor, Miramax, found it fitting to separate the narrative into two volumes.
Volume one released in the fall of 2003, was a film that embraced its influences of samurai and anime films by creating a certain level of violence that some would consider excessive, while others considered it to be appropriate for the genre.
Juxtapose with volume two, released six months later in the spring of 2004, a film that took a shift into something more character based by taking its cues from Chop-Socky Kung-Fu flicks and Italian Westerns from the 1960s.
As one four hour+ film, KILL BILL would be Tarantino’s longest and most expansive film to date. Was KILL BILL an exercise in a filmmaking technic that emphasized genre? Or was KILL BILL an overblown, spectacle, not as good as the sum of its parts?
Quentin Tarantino’s KILL BILL is the subject of episode 4 of the AuteurCast….
Hello Rudie,
Catching up on the auteur cast. I’d like to add to the criticism of “Kill Bill” as it is quite possibly the only movie that I wish I could erase from my memory! It is not that I don’t care for Tarantino’s indulgent genera exercises, I actually liked “Death Proof” and “Inglourious Basterds” a lot. What I found offensive was then ends in which it was used, especially in Volume 1. Not only does he have the talent to display scenes of stylized physical violence and gore, but also pain.
In “Kill Bill” every stab, every gunshot, every slice, every kill is extremely painful to watch. Same thing can be said about all the films he made previous to “Kill Bill” but “Kill Bill” exploits it to no end. 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?
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:
And finally what disturbs me most about the film that I don’t see many people latch onto, is its philosophical nihilism. Many people would not look at “Kill Bill” and believe that Tarantino is approaching it with any kind of philosophical outlook in mind, but I do see him as a profoundly moral filmmaker. “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.
Tarantino has stated that the Volume 1 has more eastern influences and Volume 2 has more western influences. It is not difficult to see Hatori Hanzo with his shaved head representing Buddha and his message of “cutting God” on the Brides path reflective the Zen idea of “Killing the Buddha” on the path to enlightenment. And Pai Mei with his white beard, explosive temper and vindictiveness representing the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition. So I don’t think he is unconscious of these things any more then any other of his pop-culture references.
Where the film really gets me is 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.
This may seem over blown but as I said “Kill Bill” is the only film that I wish I could erase from my memory. I try to take every opportunity to expound on my grievances with this film. Hope this has added to the dialogue.
Thanks and keep up the good work.
Liking the show a lot but this episode begs for a quest who likes this film.