Final Reflection

Looking back, I can confidently say that this independent study has been a very educational experience. More educational than I expected, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I feel that I have grown significantly as a film critic. In just the past few weeks, the time it took me to write a review went down by about half, though I was writing up to twice as much (although this could be partially due to Kubrick's and Tarantino's films being more interesting than Capra's). Not only do I feel more articulate in my film reviews, I have a more enhanced critical understanding of films. Also, the mise en scene analyses, which I had never done before, were a good challenge and opened me up to a new method of film interpretation. In addition to the educational aspect, the independent study was a great opportunity to watch so many movies that would have otherwise taken me a long time to see. It was exciting to watch them all in such a concentrated time period, and I think the blog was a much more effective medium for review-writing than simply writing in a journal. All in all, I had a very fun time in this intensive, and would most certainly consider doing something like it again. As a matter of fact, when I return from Africa, I plan on starting to watch all of Peter Weir's and Martin Scorsese's films, and if I feel up to some productivity I may publish reviews in this blog. However, it would likely be without answering the questions. I said some productivity.

Quentin Tarantino

Quentin Tarantino has quickly established himself as one of the best writers in the business, and one aspect of his writing that really shows his skill is the way that he introduces characters. He knows that more often than not our first impression of a character will stick with us, so most of the time he introduces them in ways that will be memorable while still allowing us to see the changes in the character throughout the film. In "Reservoir Dogs," we are introduced to all of the important characters on the day they meet. We don't see the moment they meet, but we arrive while they're eating breakfast, chatting like regular people because they are regular people. And then Tarantino shows us how they act under stress. In "Pulp Fiction," we meet Jules and Vincent in a similar way; just talking, about relatively trivial things. That impression remains, however, when they turn into cold-faced hitmen. We meet Butch at a moment where he appears to be at the end of his rope, wanting to put up a fight but finding himself too weak, which is exactly what Tarantino wants us to see in him. And Mia is kept a very mysterious character until even after Vincent meets her. In "Jackie Brown," we meet all of the characters one by one, just going about their daily business. Nothing exciting seems to happen for the first twenty minutes, because nothing exciting does happen in their lives until then. In "Inglourious Basterds," the opening scene slowly unveils Col. Landa's menace, which allows his haunting demeanor to grow exponentially throughout the movie. In addition to character introductions, Tarantino thinks carefully about each piece of background information, and decides (almost always correctly) which method to use to reveal it: through conversation, or flashback. For example, in "Pulp Fiction," we learn all about Vincent's time in Europe through conversation, because QT knows that it is not only easier, but more fun. In "Kill Bill," the only character with any sort of in-depth life story is O-Ren (shown in an animated flashback), because not only is it necessary, but it would be awkward to describe just in a conversation. Similarly, the only "Inglourious Basterds" character with a story is Shoshana, for the same reasons. More than most writers, Tarantino puts a large, yet crucial amount of time and effort into character development, and it has helped skyrocket him to fame.

Stanley Kubrick

After having watched his films in this independent study, Stanley Kubrick has become my favorite director and my third-favorite screenwriter. What he is most well-known for in his writing style is heavy use of cynicism and ironic pessimism, often with seemingly heartless characters. With the exception of "Killer's Kiss," this can be seen from very early on in his career. In "The Killing," none of the men get away. "Paths of Glory" is quite pessimistic, although it has a different and unexpected sort of happy ending. "Spartacus," which Kubrick did not even write, has a very bittersweet ending. The characters in "Lolita" are very irrational but seem terribly realistic in all other respects. "Dr. Strangelove," well, if you've seen it you know what I mean. In "2001: A Space Odyssey," humans are presumably replaced by computers as the foremost emotional beings. "A Clockwork Orange" ends fairly ironically, as does "Barry Lyndon." Nothing in "The Shining" even makes sense. His last films have nothing short of pessimistic climaxes and ironic endings. Often, especially since the 1960s, particularly cynical sequences are contrasted with pleasant classical music, another of Kubrick's ingenious trademarks. Especially in "2001," the statement he makes with all of the negativity is left very ambiguous in his films, which makes one wonder if he actually wanted his movies to be controversial and debated. One of the things I love so much about Kubrick is he dedicated himself to his work. Not just to individual films (although he did), but he spent the majority of his life working with the same theme, a statement about people, tweaking it and inserting it into as many different settings as he could, always with some of the most interesting characters to ever appear in films. All put together in the end, it's a life's work to be proud of.

Frank Capra

In a time before CGI, what made films entertaining was the acting. Perhaps more than any other director, Frank Capra worked tirelessly to get the very best out of his actors. His films brought Academy Award wins to Clark Gable ("It Happened One Night") and Claudette Colbert ("It Happened One Night"), and nominations to May Robson ("Lady for a Day"), Gary Cooper ("Mr. Deeds Goes to Town"), H.B. Warner ("Lost Horizon"), Spring Byington ("You Can't Take It With You"), James Stewart ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "It's a Wonderful Life"), Harry Carey ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), Claude Rains ("Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"), and Peter Falk ("Pocketful of Miracles"). To Capra, the most memorable aspects of films were the performances. His films were not bleak and cynical like some later filmmakers, but focused rather on the goodness in people, so he made sure that his central characters were loud and proud. But his perfectionist reach did not go only this far. Capra was one of the very few directors of his or any time to care so much about extras. Okay, so maybe he didn't go to the Tarantino extreme of naming them all, but any person that appears in a Capra movie contributes something. There is no extra that looks uncomfortable or out of character. This can be especially seen in Capra's use of mobs. The mob of broke farmers in "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," the townspeople in the run on the bank scene in "It's a Wonderful Life," the John Doe followers in "Meet John Doe;" there is not a face among them that feels out of place. As a bit of a perfectionist myself (although also lazy) and an aspiring filmmaker, I hope and plan to get as much out of my actors.

Kill Bill

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2003, 2004
Genre: Action
My rating: 4 and three-quarters out of 5 (Vol. 1: 4 and a half; Vol. 2: 5)

This 4-hour revenge saga was split into two volumes for time interests, but play as one film. They follow a character known as The Bride (Uma Thurman), the deadliest woman in the world, as she seeks vengeance on her former colleagues in the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, led by an old flame, Bill (the late, great David Carradine). The Squad broke in on the pregnant Bride's wedding to a Texas record store owner, killed the other eight people present, beat the Bride within an inch of her life, and Bill put a bullet in her head. She wakes up four years later with a metal plate in the side of her head, a plan having been aborted to kill her in her sleep. After killing a couple of rapists in the hospital, she takes an orderly's truck and meditatively regains muscle control. She then sets out to take her revenge. Her targets are: Japanese gangleader O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), Bill's brother Budd (Michael Madsen), and one-eyed martial arts master Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). The beginning of Vol. 1 shows her confrontation with Green (codename: Copperhead), and the rest is told in flashback. While the Bride (codename: Black Mamba) is regaining muscle control in the truck, there is an animated sequence describing the rise of O-Ren (codename: Cottonmouth) to powerful Yakuza leader. The Bride travels to Okinawa, Japan, and meets a charismatic sushi chef and retired swordsmith named Hattori Hanzo (Sonny Chiba). Though he has sworn an oath to never make another sword, the Bride convinces him, and stays in his upstairs room for a month while he works. Then she travels to Tokyo to confront O-Ren, killing about 100 people in the process. Vol. 2 continues the story, adding more depth to the characters, as she hunts down Budd (codename: Sidewinder), Driver (codename: California Mountain Snake), and the mystical Bill (codename: Snake Charmer).

The idea for "Kill Bill" was probably born from the "Fox Force Five" discussion from "Pulp Fiction" crossed with Tarantino asking himself, "How much fun could I have with a million gallons of fake blood?" It blossomed into an expertly told saga that makes one feel as if they've seen all the old films that QT tries to emulate, which he does successfully. What makes the film so intriguing is how it works on many different levels. Images are so important to Tarantino here that each tells a story in and of itself. I have a theory that if there was no sound (save Bill's dialogue), the story would be just as easy to follow. And yet, Tarantino adds a whole new layer to the film in the way that sound and dialogue is used to complement the action. As opposed to most of his works, action forms the frame of this story, and sound is placed (either carefully or recklessly, I'm not sure which) to enhance it. So engaging is the action that we hardly notice when some changes are made. For example, the film often switches between color and black and white, but ten seconds after it has switched we have forgotten. The change is fleeting, it is the action we are concerned with. Or take the differences between the two volumes. The first introduces us to the deadliest people on the planet, showing us their skills at fighting and Tarantino's skills at directing action scenes. Then the second adds more dimension, showing us the heart and the rationality of the characters and pointing out which are evil and which are angry and which are confused. We see that Tarantino has mastered character development in his own way. We only remember what he wants us to remember from Vol. 1, and it meshes with Vol. 2 to create a truly unforgettable film.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It pretty much sums up the point of the movie, and Tarantino probably liked the rhyme.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
It sort of starts in the middle of the whole timeline and expands both ways.

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
We are often reminded of events, through flashback or dialogue.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Yes, most certainly. There's a very prominent soundtrack, and some overemphasized action sounds.

How does the film use color or light/dark to suggest tone and mood in different scenes?
It switches between color and b&w a lot, but I'm not sure if it is supposed to suggets tone and mood.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
I noticed a few, but I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Many of the shots in the film could be considered striking.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
A few, but Tarantino's working on a Vol. 3, so these will probably be addressed.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
Well, it's a Tarantino film. He's the best of storytellers, but there's no message. This pays tribute to numerous film genres, particularly martial arts films.

Jackie Brown

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 1997
Genre: Crime comedy-drama
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Like many a great crime film, "Jackie Brown" involves the characters all deceiving each other. However, not many great crime films have the capacity for both comedy and intelligent characters. Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) is a smalltime gun dealer about to hit $1,000,000 and retire. When he learns that one of his workers, Beaumont Livingston (Chris Tucker), has been arrested and may agree to become an informant, he arranges for his bail with bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster). Ordell goes by Beaumont's place later and convinces him to help with a deal in Koreatown, but instead murders him. He confides in his old friend and cellmate who was recently released, Louis Gara (Robert De Niro). However, Ordell was too late. Beaumont had given information to the police, allowing A.T.F. agent Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and L.A.P.D. Detective Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen) to catch flight stewardess Jackie Brown (Pam Grier), who smuggles Ordell's money into California from Mexico. She initially refuses to make a deal with them, and is sent to prison immediately when they discover a bag of cocaine that she didn't know of with the money. Ordell arranges for her bail and attempts to kill her as well, but she turns the tables on him and they make a deal to get him $500,000 of his money by pretending to help the authorities. With Nicolette and Dargus she arranges a sting, but will actually pass the money off to the woman Ordell lives with, Melanie Ralston (Bridget Fonda, performing a billion times better than she did in "Monkeybone"). Meanwhile, she plots to keep the money for herself with the help of Max Cherry, who struggles to mask his attraction to her.

Having not seen the old blaxploitation films that Tarantino had on his mind while working on "Jackie Brown," I may be missing another important aspect of the film, especially given the fact that in the novel, Jackie is white. However, what I did pick up on was definitely above average. I noticed that Tarantino ventured a bit away from his style in some ways. For example, the dialogue is often less indulgent than in his other films in favor of being more realistic. When the characters do open their mouths it's a long ways off from boring, but he implements more moments of silence and fewer monologues than usual. Speaking of which, Samuel L. Jackson does not find room for any Ezekiel-like speeches, yet still manages to show us a colder and greedier version of "Pulp Fiction"'s Jules. What Tarantino has really honed his skills at here is timing. Everything is perfectly choreographed and falls into place without us knowing where it will land until it does. Pam Grier's career-revitalizing performance helps with us, as we are sometimes completely unsure who she is really helping. Every scene is so consistently convincing that we want to believe whatever she does at any moment. Another example of the expert timing can be seen in how Tarantino saves Robert De Niro's lines for later in the film, knowing that for the first half he can get some smiles by just sitting there. Robert Forster's Oscar-nominated performance, also career-revitalizing, is one of those performances that is so subtly flawless that most people often overlook it. And they clearly did, as he was not nominated for a Golden Globe. However, the Academy, in one of its brave and shining moments, acknowledged him for the freshly original chemistry between Max and Jackie. It's a shame they did not acknowledge the film for its other accomplishments.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
Tarantino changed the title to "Jackie Brown" as a reference to "Foxy Brown," in which Pam Grier starred.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
The opening sequence is similar to that of "The Graduate."

Are there any repeated scenes, images, dialogue, etc.?
The money exchange is seen from three different perspectives, so some moments and dialogue are repeated to help line it up chronologically.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Soul music is played prominently.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
Not as much as in other QT films.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
Max brings Ordell to his office, telling him the money is there.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
I'm not quite sure, actually. It's not as unexpected as Tarantino's other endings. Even if it's how the novel ended, I don't think he was afraid to change it.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film is an homage to 1970s blaxploitation films. It's similar to Tarantino's other films in that it doesn't have a distinct message and is more about the experience of watching.


Mise en Scene:
Louis and Ordell argue while sitting in a parked van after the money exchange.

Dominant: Where is our eye attracted first?
Ordell, whose face we can see. We can only see the back of Louis' head.

Lighting key: High key? Low key? High contrast? Some combination of these?
Mostly low key, but it's pretty bright outside the van.

Shot and camera distance: What type of shot? How far away is the camera from the action?
The camera sits almost in the center of the back seat.

Angle: Are we (and the camera) looking up or down on the subject? Or is the camera eye level?
Eye level.

Color values: What is the dominant color?
Ordell's yellow jacket stands out.

Subsidiary contrasts: What are the main eye-stops after taking in the dominant?
We may look at Louis in case he turns his head.

Composition: How is the two-dimensional space segmented and organized?
Louis is in the driver's seat on the far left looking out the windshield, and Ordell in on the right in the passenger's seat looking across at Louis.

Framing: Tight or loose? Do the characters have no room to move around or can they move freely without impediments?
Tight.

Death Proof

Director: Quentin Tarantino
Written by: Quentin Tarantino
Year: 2007
Genre: Thriller
My rating: 4 and a half out of 5

Released as the second half of the double-feature "Grindhouse," Quentin Tarantino's action thriller pays tribute to 1970s slasher B-movies. It opens with three friends, Arlene (Vanessa Ferlito), Shanna (Jordan Ladd), and radio disc jockey "Jungle" Julia (Sydney Poitier), celebrating Jungle Julia's birthday at Guero's Taco Bar in Austin, Texas. They chat like any friends would, and the audience is neither bored nor left behind. Eventually, the group moves on to The Texas Chili Bar, where they are joined by at least six others. Sitting at the bar is aged Hollywood stunt double "Stuntman" Mike (Kurt Russell), a sadistic psychopath who stalks young women and kills them with his "death proof" stunt car. He offers a ride home to a woman at the bar, Pam (Rose McGowan), who eventually accepts. After he has a few particularly well-acted and well-written interactions with Arlene and Shanna and Julia, the three women and one of their friends head out to Shanna's father's cabin. Mike and Pam depart in his 1970 Chevy Nova, and he quickly turns from charming teetotaler into homicidal maniac, swerving the car at extreme speeds and slamming on the brakes so she is beaten to death on the dashboard. He then drives off to catch up with the other four women and slams into their car head-on. Mike wakes up in the hospital later, and we learn from a discussion between two rangers that all of the women died and Mike was cleared of criminal charges due to lack of evidence. The film jumps forward 14 months to Lebanon, Tennessee, as Mike tracks his next victims, Kim (Tracie Thoms), Abernathy (Rosario Dawson), Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), and Zoe (Zoe Bell), who are enjoying their days off from working on a movie. Mike doesn't know how to respond, however, when they decide to turn the tables on him.

There are few movies with as much guts as this one, and I don't mean that in a gory sense. And in the hands of the visionary, B-movie fanboy Quentin Tarantino, there are few as entertaining. The film showcases all of his talents, and proves yet again that he's the go-to guy for blending humor and drama and rip-roaring action, with some expertly placed music, into an edge-of-your-seat thriller the likes of which the world has never seen, even in the old movies he adores so much. Here, he also shows that he can write and direct female lead roles as confidently and effectively as he can males. Some viewers don't enjoy being taken for a ride in movies (no pun intended), but it can be a very enjoyable experience if the filmmaker knows what they're doing. Tarantino here puts the characters into such an unbelievable situation that we are willing to go along with just about anything he might decide to throw at us. At times, we even forget who's the bad guy and who's the good guy. Speaking of which, the film also marks Kurt Russell's return to the role of badass that made him famous, in one of those comeback performances that take advantage of the actor's age. Russell proves himself a well-rounded actor, and shows us the different sides of Stuntman Mike that make him all the more menacing and interesting. By the time "Death Proof" is over, we are reminded just how fun watching movies can be, which is what I think Tarantino was going for. However, we may not feel like driving for a while.


Structure/Form:
What does the title mean in relation to the film as a whole?
It refers to Mike's car, and how he views himself.

Why does the film start in the way that it does?
To add to the "old double-feature" atmosphere.

Is sound used in any vivid ways to enhance the film?
Yes, in that Taratino way of making the action more fun.

Are there any striking uses of perspective?
There are a few interesting shots, but I don't think they relate to a meaning.

What specific scene constitutes the film's climax?
The last scene. Specifically, the moment when "The End" appears.

Does the film leave any disunities at the end?
Yes, but it ends at the perfect moment.

Why does the film conclude on this particular image?
I think it's a further homage to old B-movies. Also because Tarantino's brilliant.


Theme:
How does this film relate to the issues presented or developed? What questions are evoked by the film? Does the film present a clear point of view on an issue? How?
The film is a tribute to muscle cars and 1970s slasher movies. I don't think it has much of a message, though.