Sometimes a film is just a film - the Tarantino/Rodriguez movies were just … movies.
Sometimes criticism is just post-hoc malarkey - critics imposing their issues onto someone else’s work. Looking for meaning in Tarantino’s work is like looking for nutrition in cotton candy - futile.
As for looks and Bell: I don’t see a disparity: link. And the women weren’t “dressed to the nines”: link
I have to admit I suffer from the same confusion. Characterizing Zoe Bell as an ugly duckling is just… it simply doesn’t fit my observation of what was on screen. I can see that the cheerleader’s strikingly different in appearance from the other three in terms of her manner of dress, but Zoe Bell is a strikingly attractive woman and has a body most women would trade theirs for and throw in some cash besides. What makes her stand out to me is that she’s technically playing herself, though you could miss that fact if you didn’t know Zoe Bell really is a stunt actor IRL.
You can certainly make some valid arguments that disagree with the OP, but a sweeping dismissal of “meaning,” to use your word, in ALL of Tarantino’s work smells like willful ignorance.
At best, one might argue that Tarantino’s work operates at a higher level only in that he seems to have an agenda about existing genres - either bringing them back a la Deathproof, or trying new ideas, say in terms of nonlinear narratives as in Kill Bill.
My sense of it is that if Tarantino has a point, it is an internal narrative about genre.
It’s not so much willful ignorance as not agreeing that anything deeper is being said. Tarantino is a film geek, not a cultural commentator, not a window into the soul of American culture. Tarantino is a film geek who gets to make actual films.
Dude, just because you don’t see it–whether by choice, or apathy, or whatever–doesn’t mean it isn’t there. And recognizing the “surface” agenda about genre and film in general does not preclude another level. Tarantino’s not the greatest filmmaker of his or any other generation, but he’s hardly unique in working on multiple levels. He’s made some thin stuff–I’m not really going to debate this particular OP, frinstance–but* Pulp Fiction*, for just one example, is a feature-length meditation on moral relativism, brilliantly (his only “brilliant” film, IMO) framed as a genre mashup. So dismiss the OP on its merits, but to simply refuse to acknowledge it’s worthy of discussion by preemptively rejecting the basic premise that Tarantino is capable of working on more than one level is, frankly, to indicate your lack of qualification to participate in the discussion. Not meant as an insult; if you deny the subject exists, you can hardly discuss it intelligently.
I agree with everything you’ve said about Tarantino, lissener, except this:
I think Reservoir Dogs was also brilliant, in a Rashomon kind of way. You get the multiple POVs that reveal that the truths one character relies on to make important, life or death decisions are based on nothing but wishful thinking and faulty recollections. It’s an interesting look at people’s motivations and identities, and the meaning of loyalty. I also loved the atmospheric use of the soundtrack, the snappy dialogue, and I’m a sucker for his multiple POV technique. I’ve always thought there was something Faulknerian about the Tarantino oeuvre.
So . . . you disagree with the entire quote? Or only the parenthetical bit you specifically address?
I think your analysis is a bit off base.
Most of the dialogue and banter bewteen both sets of girls was probably written just because QT thought it sounded cool.
He cast Zoe Bell because he liked her work as Uma’s double in Kill Bill and he wanted someone who could actually ride on the hood of the car.
In terms of any sort of behavior pattern, the first group of girl were clearly more vacuous. Not only were they drunk and stoned, much of their conversations and behavior revolved around seeking validation through their sexuality. The whole lapdance thing and the radio bet leading up to it. Rose McG’s character accepting the ride home. Typical horror movie where the immoral and permiscuous characters get offed.
The second group of girls, more assertive and enpowered, with the exception of the cheerleader, who gets left behind.
Maybe the final confrontation between the girls and Stuntman Mike represents a shattering of the old gender roles. Maybe QT just thought it would be funny to have Kurt Russle screech like a girl and get his face kicked in my Rosario Dawson.
I disagree that Tarantino’s only brilliant film is Pulp Fiction. I think Reservoir Dogs is brilliant also. I agree with your reasoning otherwise.
So, to clarify, when you say–
–I can skip over that? Or do I need to defend it?
You need not defend it. The only part I disagreed with was the parenthetical statement about PF being his only brilliant film. Otherwise, we are in utter accord on your other points.
K. Sorry, when you say “I agree with everything . . . except this:”–I naturally read the following item as something you disagree with.
Hijack over.
i think the whole point of deathproof and grindhouse as a whole is that it isnt really only homage, its got a lot of critics in it too. like in planet terror when they’re running away from the gas facility and there are random explosions… for no reason at all… to show how people were attracted by these sensacionalist scenes, and because of that they happened all the time, even if there was no explanation to it.
