Intellectual Defenestration

It seems we've got a case of style over substance, in all likelihood. But so what? That can be the most purely fun kind of movie--look at "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock etc." for proof of that. I doubt Kill Bill is going to break any new cinematic ground, or have anything especially profound to say about, well, anything, but I'm sure it's going to look and sound cool and make me want to fight a million ninjas with a sword and clever repartee.

I'm not opposed to style over substance (Ocean's 11 remake was great). Its the style = gore + gore + gore * blood that I'm more wary of.

Maybe Kill Bill will be great and this article was just paranoid. But I do think that there is a limit to the amount of gratuitous violence that is acceptable and it sounds like KB is at least approaching it.

Right! I'm with you there. I was mostly disagreeing with that reviewer about what can constitute the foundation or core of a movie.

ahhh ... all is clear

In his New Yorker review of "Bill", David Denby argues that decontextualizing violence means dehumanizing it. "The prolonged fight has the exciting madness of a binge. And yet, entering into the spirit of Tarantino’s video-store fantasy of martial arts, we may still have a little problem. It’s this: a filmed image has a stubborn hold on reality. An image of a rose may be filtered, digitally repainted, or pixilated, yet it will still carry the real-world associations—the touch, the smell, the romance—that we have with roses. Tarantino wants us to give up such associations, which means giving up ourselves... Coming out of this dazzling, whirling movie, I felt nothing—not anger, not dismay, not amusement. Nothing."

Which is also my problem with Guy Ritchie's films, with Mel Gibson's "Payback", with a variety of other industrial violent fantasias. It's not that I don't like these movies. I just don't like myself for liking them.

The benefit of fantasy -- which all films are, really -- is that it opens the human imagination, opens up spaces for the conception of God. But when a film's fantasy is about the joy of violence -- about the different ways a man's head can be split -- it seems to me that our imaginations are in some way being closed down, that we see less by viewing more. A fantasy is beautiful because of the ways it connects to reality, about how, as ol' Clive said, real woods seem more magical after trips to the fantasy woods. Does real death seem more meaningful, more spectacular, more elevated, after a Tarantino film? (This is a real question.)

I think so. Take a look at Pulp Fiction: it was the spectre of death (almost getting shot) combined with the conviction that God wanted him to live, that made Jules re-evaluate his career and lifestyle choices. Looked at broadly, seeing death so personally helped redeem him from the destruction which got Vincent Vega so soon afterwards.

As somebody possesing a copious amount of "style", I do find myself leaning heavily towards the "substance" side of things when it comes to my taste. No, really, I didn't say that ironically.

But anyways, I understand I'm going up against the hard-core beliefs of Gosey on this one when I say, humbly, that I didn't quite get what was so great about Pulp Fiction. Yes, it was landmark in a sense. Yes, it had some moments of hilarity, but I can't help but feel that there's something a little...off...by the filmaker purposely not wanting you to "feel" anything when you watch a movie.

Ah, but you say, the feeling is like you said Gose, of wanting to fight a hundred ninja's. Perhaps much like when I watch the Matrix I wanna put on some tight vinyl and/or leather and make out with Keanu. No, really, I didn't say that ironically.

I suppose then, that I could concede "Kill Bill" will be alot of fun. But are we allowed to believe that there's just something...kinda sorta better about say a film like Mystic River (also coming out this weekend, and supposedly a masterpice already) than any given Tarantino flick?

Note: I'm not shooting for some broad labeling of whiz-bang films like Lock Stock & Kill Bill as crrap. I really enjoy those movies as the best that "style" films have to offer. I just wonder of it's ok to say that the division between say all those films Lost in Translation-like are perhaps more gooder than style films.

Peace out

I definitely think it's right and appropriate to draw a distinction between "Lost in Translation"-like (still haven't seen it, dammit), substance films and stylish, escapist flicks. F'r instance, I think a film like "Saving Private Ryan" is better on an absolute scale than something like "Die Hard." It's better morally, thematically, etc. etc.
BUT, I don't think that means that I can't enjoy seeing John McClane throw the terrorists off the roof, or see Uma Thurman whipping up on a bunch of kung-fu fools. It's like reading Michael Cricthon or eating popcorn: it's not good for you, but it sure is good while you're doing it.
And, I think in order fully appreciate the art of cinema, it's good to experience both the substance films and the style films. Whether or not the style films take it too far (blood, gore etc) is a matter of taste and opinion. after all, it's just a movie, skip it if you don't want to see it.

As far as Pulp Fiction goes, I don't really know what Tarantino wanted me to feel coming out of it, but I thought it was a story of redemption and hope at the core. granted, it's hidden pretty well. I didn't like it the first time I saw 'cos some of the characters were so depraved, but the more I thought about it the more I appreciated it.

I think the review in the New Yorker showed more of Denby's lack of knowledge on the genre of film than anything else. Having just watched Kill Bill for the second time I think it's an even greater piece of work than I did after seeing it for the first.

Asking what remains of a revenge flic when you strip away the violence is on about the same pseudo-philosophical level as asking what remains of a CD when you strip away the music.

The movie is visually stunning, the blending of genres, references and soundtrack are practically perfect, it's a masterpiece.