I know a lot of those scenes are tributes, or homages, or whatever you want to call them, like the House of Blue Leaves fight scene as well, which I heard somewhere was replicated from another film Tarantino likes. It was a very striking scene in itself. But same point. It just seems like too much all thrown at the wall at once.
If the studio has control, yes.
When you have an auteur, however, whatever gets the movie into a form he finds acceptable is what happens.
I rewatched KB Vol. I about 3 months ago, and enjoyed that section: colored lights, B&W, lights out section, assertive “Nobody” on the soundtrack.
It was like a pop song bringing in new instruments for each verse. Adding some back ground singers. Taking it slow for a few measures.
Tarantino isn’t interested in believability. Nobody over 11 believes prisoners would hide a watch up their ass for years. (Bury it in the dirt for God’s sake.) However, the notion retains the fascination that it might hold for a 10 year old boy.
Taking “pulpy” ideas and seasoning them for intelligent adult tastes is one of Tarantino’s strengths. I can enjoy a boxer refusing to take a fall and instead killing his opponent, if it isn’t presented too seriously. The archetypal power is retained, but the melodrama/corniness is subverted.
It’s cool to watch Beatrix Kiddo swordfight 88 crazy opponents. No way she actually wins, and no way the event actually takes place. But the pre-adolescent part of my brain thinks it’s neat – and also knows it must look like she fights 88 people. It can’t be a 30 second scene.
It had to be a long sequence and it had to contain several reminders that it wasn’t real. So… tricky lighting and pop soundtrack. Tarantino had to retain the power of the fight and simultaneously remind the viewer that it wasn’t real.
Most of the reasons I like Tarantino films have already been mentioned, but I think the point he epitomises rather than satirises genres is an important one.
Interestingly, of all the Tarantino films, the only one I really didn’t like (and therefore do not own a copy of) was Inglorious Basterds. When I heard he was doing a WWII film, I thought “Awesome. Awesome to the max.”, but when I saw it I wasn’t impressed with anything besides Christoph Waltz’s outstanding performance.
My recollection is that Travolta’s career had already rebounded with the talking baby movies in the late 80s. His roles after Pulp Fiction took a definite turn away from family comedies, though.
He was still considered enough of a has-been that The Simpsons took a jab (“Yeah, ‘looks like’”), though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjzzI2fX5aM. Oddly, that episode aired months after the Cannes screening of Pulp Fiction and just 12 days before US release.
Another impact of Pulp Fiction, and one that has looks to have gone unremarked in this thread, is upon many following films. The years after saw the production of several seedy crime films with eccentric characters, interlocking plots, and bizarre dialogue. It didn’t end with stuff like Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead and Two Days in the Valley, either; you can still see the influence in films like Killing them Softly. I’d also say that this “Tarantino Effect” is not a bad thing, if it did indeed contribute to the inspiration for films like Grosse Pointe Blank and Snatch.
Absolutely. It didn’t quite kill, but definitely struck a blow, to the Lethal Weapon-style action movies. Buddy cops trading snappy one-liners in the midst of one main linear plot suddenly felt dated.
Yeah, it hadn’t rebounded as much as it had taken a half-hearted mini-bounce for a year or two, only to continue on it’s downward trajectory via 2 really desperate sequels.
There’s a reason why virtually everyone credits Tarantino with rejuvenating Travolta’s career, and that reason isn’t John Travolta’s “people”.
I watch KB1 over and over and over just for this scene. In my opinion, it’s one of the most perfect scenes ever committed to film. It’s freakin’ PERFECT. Even though it’s shot in color, the only colors in the scene are black and white except for Uma’s bumblebee suit and Lucy Liu’s blood at the end. Stark contrast, pulling your attention to the few bright spots of color. And that little bamboo fountain! That thing punctuated the scene and set the pacing. Even when the music started up as the fight intensified, I could still imagine I could hear that fountain – clunk, bloop bloop bloop bloop – keeping time like a metronome. I LOVE THAT SCENE!
Each of the six parts of KB is a separate homage to a different kung fu movie, with other references woven in. That’s why there’s anime, black and white, etc.
I saw another comment about Deathproof wherein the women don’t talk like that. I dunno about the women you know, but I related to that movie so much, and yes, I have had many conversations that sounded JUST like that. (And I always seem to be the Jungle Julia who has to bring up some obscure musical reference that nobody else has ever heard of. Her little speech about that song she requested at the end totally sounds like something I’d go on and on about.) What I love about Deathproof is it really is a study in feminism.
In the first half, the women act like they are strong and empowered, but they really aren’t. They reveal their weaknesses and insecurities. Example: Insisting on a girls-only weekend, yet Jungle Julia keeps texting a guy trying to get him to come out. The girl who is visiting gets talked into making out with a guy in his car even though she doesn’t really want to and she gets shamed into doing the lapdance for Stuntman Mike, even though she initially told him no and that she was afraid of him. Rose McGowan’s character plays the bitter girl who talks shit about her “sisters,” who she presents as “mean girls”, alleging that Jungle Julia bullied her in school. All of these women pay for these flaws with their lives. Stuntman Mike targets them, tracks them, and winds up killing them.
Contrast those women and how they talk to and about each other with the women in the second half of the film. Truly, these women are empowered and they live their lives for themselves – except for the cheerleader who is in there for contrast. The idea behind this film is that some women are leaving the first-half’s patriarchal dynamic behind and that is visually represented when they leave the cheerleader with the dude who owns the car, as “collateral.” Stuntman Mike also spotted and stalked this second group of women, but when he caught up with them, you didn’t see them begging for their lives. Nope. Kim whips out her gun and starts shooting at the guy. And they weren’t satisfied with “I’m sorry, it was a joke,” oh no. They dragged his ass out of the car and beat the everlovin’ shit out of him. They were strong, they were skilled, and they weren’t taking a bunch of bullshit from some dude who went around scaring and harassing (and killing) women for kicks and giggles.
That’s not a very articulate analysis (and I read one somewhere on the internet that was far better written than what I just put up there), but my point is: taken at face value, Deathproof is a stupid movie. But when you think about what this movie is trying to say about women – who are the central characters in the movie – it’s about a lot more than just chicks turning a car-movie concept on its head. Stuntman Mike represents patriarchy and the movie is an arc showing how some women are just not playing the old-school game anymore.
I’m not sure if there is a term for it, but Pulp Fiction was one of the first movies I remember with snappy dialogue that humanizes and somewhat trivializes the day-to-day lives of fringe-of-society characters. I see the same sort of thing in The Venture Brothers or Archer, they go all around the world on dangerous missions and live very unusual lives, and yet they obsess about trivial everyday matters just like everyone else. It’s an amusing contrast.
I’m curious about those of you in the thread who are real fans of Tarantino’s work. I am by no means a “sophisticated” movie watcher; I just enjoy what I enjoy. And Basterds is my favorite of the Tarantino films (I think the only one mentioned in this thread I haven’t seen yet is Death Proof). So if it’s not too much of a sidetrack here, what is it that so many of you didn’t like about the film?
As an aside, related to the Robert Downey, Jr. comments, I didn’t become a fan of his until I saw Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, a movie that very few people I’ve met have even heard of, let alone seen. Now he’s one of my favorites.
One thing I do tend to criticize is Tarantino’s dialogue, sometimes. Some speeches sound to me like QT had an axe to grind about something and stuck in a little of himself in one of the character’s lines. An example I can think of is in Kill Bill 1, right at the end, when Sophie is telling Bill what happened. Uma’s character voices over, “As I said before, I’ve allowed you to keep your life for two reasons…” That entire speech – people just don’t talk like that. Tarantino talks like that. So I think sometimes he has trouble separating himself from his characters within the dialogue.
Makes me wonder how batshit he is hanging around his own house. Does he have multi-person conversations with himself? He must be a really weird dude to live with.
He’s actually pretty well known for this. Just about every film he does has a speech by a character that’s one of his wacky theories or opinions about something, usually pop culture. In Reservoir Dogs it was the speech about Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” In Kill Bill it was the speech by Bill about Superman’s take on humanity. The speech in Pulp Fiction was cut from the film because he felt some recent films had similar dialogue - it has Mia Wallace asking Vincent Vega to answer three questions before they head out for the evening. In True Romance, I suspect it’s the “Fuck Elvis” bit early in the movie.
So how many times has Tarantino killed himself off in his movies? I can offhand think of two occasions.
I will say I enjoyed – and often quote – the coffee speech in Pulp Fiction, right before they start cleaning up the mess Vincent made in the car. Every time someone tells me my coffee is good, I launch into it. 
Because I feel exactly the same way about coffee.
The French dialogue. Seriously.
Usually in American films, French dialogue is done either by Canadian writers and/or Canadian actors, so when something sounds kind of weird you just ignore it 'cause that’s just how Canadians speak, it’s no problem. Or it’s Americans trying to speak French, which is always funny and wrong but it don’t make me no nevermind.
But in Basterds, it’s France French actors portraying 40s French people speaking lines that either make no sense at all, or sound overly dramatic and stilted as hell when they’re supposed to be friend and coworkers. I’m thinking in particular of the “I’m going to set fire to the theatre” scene where the actress says, verbatim, “I am going to destroy this theatre by (the) fire, Maurice”.
Does that sound weird to you ? Sound like something anybody would ever say ? Cause it doesn’t to me and it took me right out. And I still don’t get how or why the actors didn’t tell anyone “guys, this doesn’t work at all. I’m serious, whoever wrote this dialogue and told you they could speak French should be shot.”