Kill Bill: Volume One

[Mesh]

....entire Vivica A. Fox scene seemed thrown in there and with only a little of the wit that Tarantino is capable of.....

That scene's nowhere near as disposable as you claim it is.  Also, its domestic nature is part of Tarantino's genius in storytelling.

Uma confronts Vivica on psychologically important turf:  Uma's unborn child was killed and so she exacts her revenge on Vivica in the place where it'll hurt most—her domestic setting, her home, the place where she raises her child.  This scene economically tells of Uma's rage at having her child stolen from her: Vivica's life is everything Uma lost on her wedding day (such a wrenching irony, too).

Your assertion that the scene plays out for cheap "strangeness" is totally unconvincing: Vivica's child shows up at exactly the strongest narrative moment. She enhances the tension between the fighting women, she illustrates that Vivica has escaped from vigilante life into "Soccer mom" life, and she allows us to see that there's a touch of mercy in Uma's revenge, simply because she regrets having killed the child's mom right in front of her.

Not cheap laughs or oddness:  Masterful storytelling.

edit:  To state my point more concisely:  Uma is out for revenge on those who stole her married life and motherhood.  What does Tarantino show us early on?  The revenge Uma exacts on the very mother who helped steal motherhood from her.  Brilliant.

[Alethia]

....entire Vivica A. Fox scene seemed thrown in there and with only a little of the wit that Tarantino is capable of.....

That scene's nowhere near as disposable as you claim it is.  Also, its domestic nature is part of Tarantino's genius in storytelling.

Uma confronts Vivica on psychologically important turf:  Uma's unborn child was killed and so she exacts her revenge on Vivica in the place where it'll hurt most—her domestic setting, her home, the place where she raises her child.  This scene economically tells of Uma's rage at having her child stolen from her: Vivica's life is everything Uma lost on her wedding day (such a wrenching irony, too).

Your assertion that the scene plays out for cheap "strangeness" is totally unconvincing: Vivica's child shows up at exactly the strongest narrative moment. She enhances the tension between the fighting women, she illustrates that Vivica has escaped from vigilante life into "Soccer mom" life, and she allows us to see that there's a touch of mercy in Uma's revenge, simply because she regrets having killed the child's mom right in front of her.

Not cheap laughs or oddness:  Masterful storytelling.

edit:  To state my point more concisely:  Uma is out for revenge on those who stole her married life and motherhood.  What does Tarantino show us early on?  The revenge Uma exacts on the very mother who helped steal motherhood from her.  Brilliant.

beautiful.

[Weak2ndAct]

Very good post Mesh.  Yeah, just look at Uma's face when she sees that kid.  You can see her heart breaking.

[Gold Trumpet]

Mesh, to counterpoint your identification of the scene as a deep one, I identify it as just a general hallmark of the genre. I see no great drama or any special meaning at all. It is a ploy only. An idea of "dramatic context" in which to push the story forward, a story of just swirling action. Its the kind of dramatic note that is accepted by most fans as cheesy. It also is what closest alligns these kung fu movies to porns: in purpose to push to plate on sex with a story, a dramatic idea is introduced with absolutely no credibility really given to it.

To explain better. The scene is the first one. In keeping tone with movie in identity by the director as a "movie movie", the stage to the action is highly out of realism. Surbuban cliche is played up and everything in the house and on the lawn is three shades brighter in color than usual. With the meeting of Thurman and Fox, quick montage of past fighting and shared history is shown in mere seconds and like that, the identification of them as bitter enemies is shown. To say the scene physically is dramatic is true. But really, it can't help itself from staying away from self mockery: the scene of the kid coming into the house, seeing the mess is played up as a joke. That should be known considered it was the most highly used scene during the advertising rush. Then they go into talk of who did wrong to who and Thurman kills Fox for revenge and, out of the samuari tradition, tells her kid she can come looking for her someday as well.

The movie is really just acting in an exploitation genre. Everything that comes after this scene is excuse for an over the top action film. You can argue that Uma's near death scene and tramautizing is highly detailed, but what is the pay off of that? A run to Japan to kick some ass. In dramatic weight, the movie really has none because it isn't operating for the idea of this woman losing her kid and husband and everything. Thats just the starting point for an action film. For the drama to really be given credibility, the world in the film must be shaped for the ideas and forwarded to bring them to center attention. I think what you got is a very superficial story of a woman losing her kid that through out the film, you see a revenge story and we follow along to it. The only thing that is effective in the story that effects us is the revelation (spoiler) at the end that her kid is actually still alive. As a revelation, its again in genre framework.

And I don't really discredit all of it. I think as a building tool to what we see in Japan, the scene is worthy. I think that just Fox's character and everything else outside of Japan could have been done away with. Just take all the trademarks of the genre in that beginning part and apply it to a Japan setting that allows the film to fully satisfy on seeing out one world. The first two chapters are way too imbalanced the with second two that both ultimately are unsatisfying. I would liked it all closest under one roof and able to have been fully searched. Japan focus only, basically.

~rougerum

[Mesh]

Mesh, to counterpoint your identification of the scene as a deep one, I identify it as just a general hallmark of the genre. I see no great drama or any special meaning at all.

Re-read my above post.  I never said it was deep, I just said it was an instance of economical storytelling.  I just gave you its "special meaning."  Are you ignoring that?

It also is what closest alligns these kung fu movies to porns: in purpose to push to plate on sex with a story, a dramatic idea is introduced with absolutely no credibility really given to it.

No one's claiming that KB has a believable story, or even a complex one.  I was just showing how that Vivica/Uma scene is more than just a cheap, pointless fight scene.  In porn, the sex scenes rarely inform the narrative; in this fight scene from KB, the revenge narrative is bolstered by virtually every detail.  It's no accident that QT puts the fight between two "mothers" first.  You're just bllind if you don't see that.

I think that just Fox's character and everything else outside of Japan could have been done away with.

And my post was an argument against that very viewpoint and you are ignoring it.  I told you why Vivica's scene was there; you're not listening.

I would liked it all closest under one roof and able to have been fully searched.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Not one syllable of your post refutes anything I said above.

GT, serious question, maybe one you've answered before:  Is English a second language for you?

[Mesh]

In dramatic weight, the movie really has none because it isn't operating for the idea of this woman losing her kid and husband and everything. Thats just the starting point for an action film. For the drama to really be given credibility, the world in the film must be shaped for the ideas and forwarded to bring them to center attention.

And then this. How many times have we heard GT go off on a movie for "not being about ideas"?  Jesus.  Let it go, for God's sake, not all films need to be intellectual exercises......Did you really pay your admission to Kill Bill hoping it'd be all about a "woman losing her kid and husband and everything...."?  If you wanted to see a tear-jerking, emotional exploration, you should have rented one.  Don't rip KB for not being one!!!!!!

Let me say it again:  An action film should never be criticized for not being "credible" or for not focusing on "ideas."  You don't criticize apples that don't taste much like oranges, do you?

My god, GT, you are so frustrating......

[Jeremy Blackman]

Kill Bill may not be about concrete, graspable ideas, but it definitely has ideas. I think most of them are in Tarantino's visuals. It's not in what he says, but how he says it.

And you can find a few concrete ideas. There's the strange collision of ancient samurai things with modern things (suburbia, motorcycles)... which kind of suggests that the revenge story is universal.

And let's not judge Kill Bill as a whole before the we've seen the second half. It's like complaining that the first half of a movie doesn't make any conclusions. Well, it probably shouldn't.

[Gold Trumpet]

In dramatic weight, the movie really has none because it isn't operating for the idea of this woman losing her kid and husband and everything. Thats just the starting point for an action film. For the drama to really be given credibility, the world in the film must be shaped for the ideas and forwarded to bring them to center attention.

And then this. How many times have we heard GT go off on a movie for "not being about ideas"?  Jesus.  Let it go, for God's sake, not all films need to be intellectual exercises......Did you really pay your admission to Kill Bill hoping it'd be all about a "woman losing her kid and husband and everything...."?  If you wanted to see a tear-jerking, emotional exploration, you should have rented one.  Don't rip KB for not being one!!!!!!

Let me say it again:  An action film should never be criticized for not being "credible" or for not focusing on "ideas."  You don't criticize apples that don't taste much like oranges, do you?

My god, GT, you are so frustrating......

That makes so little sense to your point agaisnt mine. You examined the specific scene to carry a high depth. I said originally the entire movie is superficial and great mostly for what it is. All I am saying is that scene really isn't that deep, but a hallmark scene of the genre. You were arguing depth, I wasn't and attacked your very depth worthy interpretation of the scene.

Still, I think Kill Bill is a fantastic movie mostly. Its just much of the beginning is so off weight to the rest that it hurts the film. Of all things to complain about the film, I complain about that. I do think a necessary build up to Uma Thurman losing her kid, husband and nearly herself is required for build up to the action, but the USA/Japan difference of action is way too off setting. Prolly just try to wrap it all better under one umbrella.

~rougerum

[Gold Trumpet]

And you can find a few concrete ideas. There's the strange collision of ancient samurai things with modern things (suburbia, motorcycles)... which kind of suggests that the revenge story is universal.

How does this collison express any ideas? How does it show differences between two cultures and the shortcomings of one or the other of? At best, I see Vivica A. Fox's character hanging it up and trying to make a new life as a mother with family and running into her past for past wrongs. This doesn't suggest any difference not general though. An example could also easily be of a samuari giving it up and being a farmer in that same world. He still may have to face past wrongs.

And let's not judge Kill Bill as a whole before the we've seen the second half. It's like complaining that the first half of a movie doesn't make any conclusions. Well, it probably shouldn't.

I'm not sure if anyone is complaining about the conclusions. Maybe I missed it. My complaints, likely the reason for your remarks here, are of a tonal issue for the entire film. Yes, I understand it will continue to be off balance in the next volume. I still keep with my argument because of satisfaction and potential of Tarantino, he doesn't go far enough with both worlds shown, the USA/Japan difference running through the film. The USA part, imo, is little thought out compared to the Japan difference that I rather the entire film have been explored on the Japan setting so one world could have equaled Tarantino's potential.

~rougerum

[Jeremy Blackman]

How does this collison express any ideas?

... which kind of suggests that the revenge story is universal.

I'm not sure if anyone is complaining about the conclusions. Maybe I missed it.

Well, usually movies like to use conclusions to crystalize ideas. And... you were complaining about ideas. So I guess I'm saying we can reasonably expect more ideas at the end of Volume II.

My complaints, likely the reason for your remarks here, are of a tonal issue for the entire film.

The tone? Please tell more.

[SHAFTR]

I think I liked Kill Bill more than Pulp Fiction.

[Gold Trumpet]

The tone? Please tell more.

With the Japan scenario, a set up and situation is followed through the entire way. Beginning with the story of Lucy Lui's character and the revenge of Thurman, a specific story is told. With the USA scenes, the idea of revenge for Thurman is there, but the pay off is always different for each scene. There are a lot of distractions. With the hospital break, a good deal is focused on an odd rape scene really out of nowhere and kinda left there as a good ploy. With investigation of the murder scene by the texas cops, the scene seems to wander just to observe the odd interaction between the two cops. Two cops really of little identity to the overall story. Through in these scenes, things can be deciphered meaning to the higher plot, its focus of story if off. Most of the scenes feel like vignittes out for their own interest. When the Japan part begins, all the scenes are pushed for the final payoff and kept tonally in order to make it all work.

~rougerum

[Jeremy Blackman]

There are a lot of distractions. With the hospital break, a good deal is focused on an odd rape scene really out of nowhere and kinda left there as a good ploy.

That was probably there to magnify The Bride's tragedy. More fuel for revenge.

With investigation of the murder scene by the texas cops, the scene seems to wander just to observe the odd interaction between the two cops. Two cops really of little identity to the overall story.

That scene was there to prove that it was an incredible job done by professional assassins.

Most of the scenes feel like vignittes out for their own interest.

That's Tarantino. Take it or leave it.

When the Japan part begins, all the scenes are pushed for the final payoff and kept tonally in order to make it all work.

What do you mean by "the scenes are pushed off"?

[Gold Trumpet]

That was probably there to magnify The Bride's tragedy. More fuel for revenge.

The massacre during her wedding is the fuel. Your defense is rationalization. With your logic, she could have been kidnapped by stoners and taken on a cross country road trip with them in the back of a van and repeatedly raped. After the dope was all smoked, she woke, discovered the violation and killed them with their bong. That also would have been fuel for the fire. Not necessary and played out to self interest in the oddness of the scene.

[That scene was there to prove that it was an incredible job done by professional assassins.

Why not just show the massacre and talent obviously from it? With the cops talking, dead bodies are everywhere but the only identification of talent in killing is just them saying it. Considering they are local sherriffs in some little known place, talent in identifying a good massacre and not a good one seems hardly likely. With showing the massacre, the scene plays out the destruction of her wedding and life with at least some directness.

That's Tarantino. Take it or leave it.

Considering most of the movie doesn't play for interest of each scene, I'll leave it.

What do you mean by "the scenes are pushed off"?

They are all pushed for the final fight. It's all build up.

~rougerum

[picolas]

What do you mean by "the scenes are pushed off"?

They are all pushed for the final fight. It's all build up.

sorry to budge in here, but how is this a criticism?