Aging SWM director seeks kickass F, great feet a must

"A tall (maybe 6ft) Amazonian Mulatto goddess walks down her hallway, dressed in a baby tee, and panties that her big ass (a good thing) spill out of, and her long legs grow out of. Her big bare feet slap on the hard wood floor. She moves to the cool rockabilly beat as she paces like a tiger putting on her clothes." – Death Proof screenplay, final draft 2/14/06 It was about halfway through Death Proof that I found myself wondering – why exactly did an overwhelming number of critics shower Grindhouse with heaps of praise? Re-reading a handful of reviews, I realized that there was very little in the way of critical analysis of either Tarantino’s Death Proof or Rodriguez’s Planet Terror. More often that not the approach was form over content – from the basic premise of two directors paying homage to bad cinema, to the (now-questionable) decision to pair the two films into a 191-minute double feature. Grindhouse afforded critics the opportunity to wax nostalgic about their own experiences with sticky floors and bad popcorn, while at the same time legitimizing their admiration for cinematic schlock. It's a shame few took a closer look at the actual films contained within. It was at the end of Death Proof that I came to the following conclusion – Quentin Tarantino needs a girlfriend. "A dateless wonder is a guy who thinks about girls alot but doesn't have much social skills. So he doesn't go out alot. But he's not like his geeky friends, or his fat friends, or his confused sexualitys friends, he goes out... every once in a while. Every once in a while he gets the balls to ask a girl out. Now dateless wonders usually make it a point to ask girls out of their league. Since they don't expect to get the date anyway, why not aim high. And every once in a while, they get their shit together long enough to be charming enough, to get a pretty girl to say yes. And you're that pretty girl." – Arlene, Death Proof screenplay, final draft 2/14/06 It’s one thing for Quentin to present us with a bunch of middle-aged guys sitting around a table, hanging out in a hotel room, or driving around in a car engaging in lengthy dialog liberally seasoned with pop-culture references – everything from Like a Virgin, fast food menus, Kung Fu, The Man From Rio, or AM radio hits. These are Tarantino’s geeky obsessions writ large. Yet in Death Proof, black suited guys are replaced by hotties in baby tees and tight pants, and the results come off as little more than male geek fantasy – gorgeous young women sitting around dropping references to Zatoichi, obscure British rock bands, and 70s cult cinema. It’s unbelievably juvenile, and more than a little pathetic. [NB: Spoilers follow.] Simply stated, Tarantino can't write dialog for women to save his life. Listening to the palaver of the two disparate groups of women in the film – be it about making out or muscle cars – you'd think the screenwriter had never actually spent time with women. This isn't Quentin trying to write intentionally bad dialog, à la The Cheerleaders – the style is identical to that of his earlier films, except that unlike the nameless hoods of Reservoir Dogs, or the multitude of characters in Pulp Fiction, the women in Death Proof aren't characters at all, they're merely character types;  agents for Tarantino's excursions into violence and vengeance. In past films, even minor characters (Gogo Yubari, Honey Bunny) had a certain three-dimensional quality to them. None of that is to be found here. (Unless of course you consider liberal use of "Nigga' please" as character defining.) Several of the lengthy dialog scenes go absolutely nowhere, fizzle out, or are otherwise pointless. For example, Kim and Zoe's story about the ditch in Thailand – neither funny, revealing, nor particularly interesting, its function (as far as I can tell) is simply to prepare us for Zoe's miraculous survival later in the film. Where's the payoff we've come to expect from such setups? I don't agree with those who labeled Death Proof misogynistic – Quentin doesn't hate women, but I do find his particular brand of feminism somewhat questionable. To wit: it's perfectly acceptable to terrorize and brutally kill one group of women as long as another steps in to kick some ass. However, looking at the dynamics he created for the two groups says quite a bit. Jungle Julia, Butterfly & Co. are hedonists – they lounge around, get high, and spend their nights getting drunk in dive bars – and die horrible deaths. Abernathy, Zoe, Kim and Lee are all professionals, and in the movie industry no less. On top of than that, we learn that Abernathy (Rosario Dawson) is a mom, a fact unnecessary to the plot, but of major importance to the fatherless director (cf. Kill Bill). The actress, stuntwomen, and makeup artist hang out in coffee shops and discuss Vanishing Point, while the others dance in bars and give lap dances. Is Tarantino passing moral judgment with this obvious good girl/bad girl dichotomy? Check out this bit of descriptive text from the screenplay: "Jungle Julia, pint of beer in one hand and lit cigarette in the other, does a very sexy dance to the bluesy rock classic. For the audience in Huck's, as well as the movie theatre she's putting on a one-ho-show." This is followed by bartender Warren (Tarantino himself) threatening to hit her "upside the head with a horse cock" if she doesn't put out her cigarette. Am I alone in finding it embarrassing that a 44 year-old white director feels the need to use the expression one-ho-show? And is it even necessary? I'm also not entirely comfortable with Tarantino's handling of Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the John Hughes-loving actress in the cheerleader outfit (labeled Vipers, natch) who is left behind by her friends as rape bait for hillbilly Jasper (Jonathan Loughran, who played the would-be rapist of comatose Uma Thurman in Kill Bill.) It's a bit of nastiness that, while closer in spirit to a genuine grindhouse film, doesn't quite work with everything leading up to it. It's inconsistent, which ultimately is my biggest complaint with the film. Now I'm sure some will no doubt be saying, "But it's meant to be offensive/sexist, it's a grindhouse film!" Except....it's not. Death Proof is too self-congratulatory and self-aware to work as either pure exploitation or even homage – in fact, it's Tarantino paying tribute to Tarantino more than anything else. He seems unable to distance himself from his auteurist self in order to create something worthy of the grindhouse moniker. It's more adolescent than sleazy, and lacks the salaciousness of, say, a Russ Meyer film, whose unique flavor of girl power Tarantino co-opted. Too self-satisfied with the characters he created, he lacks the conviction to gaze upon them the way Meyer did. What we're left with is neither fish nor fowl; too conscious of itself to adhere to the genre, but not clever enough to subvert it. Interestingly enough, the films Death Proof directly references – Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary Crazy Larry – are not even grindhouse films, they're both straight-up 20th Century Fox releases. Rather than tossing $60 million in their direction, the Weinstein's should have given Tarantino and Rodriguez each $100,000, a limited crew, and an aggressively tight shooting schedule – maybe then we'd see something resembling those cheesy B-pictures we secretly adore. Regardless, Quentin Tarantino needs to find a new source of inspiration that informs his screenwriting. Like a hyperactive child, his desire to share his encyclopedic knowledge of cult and fringe cinema has gone from supplementing and enhancing his cleverly written screenplays to becoming the sole purpose for their existence. Yes, Quentin, we know you've seen every Chia-liang Lu and William Rotsler film. Time to move on.

Comments

[Ketan L]

Where did you get that Death Proof script? Can you post it please?

[Keith Uhlich]

I hope you'll come over to The House Next Door, Filmbrain, and take in Matt and my Tarantino conversation, freshly published.

http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2007/04/my-tarantino-problem-and-yours.html

I'm in love with "Death Proof" (and Tarantino in general), and while I see all your points here (many of which Matt echoes in our convo) I get the sense this is more a review of Tarantino's script than his final product, which I think is much more complicated than his, admittedly, problematic descriptors. He does himself no favors with his public persona, but I think his movies show him to be much smarter and intuitive than perhaps even he himself realizes.

I explain my feelings about "Death Proof" and QT in the convo; hopefully with more insight than in the recent reviews you've read. Be well.

[Filmbrain]

Synchronicty, Keith. I just minutes ago finished reading that wonderful dialog between you and Matt. Great stuff. I'll comment over there.

[Filmbrain]

Ketan - some kind soul emailed it to me. I thought about posting it, but I honestly fear the wrath of the brothers W. Drop me an email if you'd like me to send it to you.

[Justin Slotman]

Doesn't Kim and Zoe's story about the ditch mark them as hedonists as well? Plus the whole car-surfing and joyriding. Just hedonists with a different set of superpowers, which gave them the ability to take down Stuntman Mike.

I found Lee really perplexing. I mean, I never thought a Tarantino movie would wander into Kevin Smith territory but there she was, an actual Pretty In Pink-loving woman in the Reservoir Dogs diner scene. (Yeah--there's a million car movies referenced in that scene, plus the very not-"grindhouse" Pretty In Pink. How odd.) She's the dimmest of the second set of girls; she's the only one who doesn't get to avenge the first set's deaths, and she's actually getting sacrificed so said vengeance can take place; she's the only actress among the second set--everyone else is a behind-the-scenes movie professional. I'm not sure it all adds up. Obviously Tarantino wants to invoke cheerleaders movies, with all the buttshots and crotchshots and closeups in the first half and Winstead's costume in the second, but I feel like he wants to invoke them just so he can dismiss them, via the slasher genre in the first half and the female revenge picture in the second. (Her actually saying the word "gulp" I thought was the funniest bit in Death Proof, by the way.)

[Filmbrain]

Interesting comments, Justin.

Kim and Zoe are, in a way, like The Bride from Kill Bill: women with great ass kicking/survival skills, though they use it legitimately in their employ (as opposed to being part of an assassination squad).

Tarantino has only two types of female characters: the "pretty girls" (read: victims), or tough women (i.e., every woman in the Kill Bill saga.) You'd think he could come up with something else.

What bothers me about the Lee character is that, unlike the "pretty girls" of the first half, she's nothing more than a cheap plot device -- a way for the other two three to get the car.

You're right -- it just doesn't add up.

[Donna Fadoushbag]

QT probably does need a girlfriend. But with that puss of his, it may never happen. He looks like a mongoloid fuck baby. And he's jittery to boot. Not exactly the beau hunk you want to take home to meet mom and dad.

[sleeper]

(spoilers - and apologies for the long-windedness)

Is it giving QT way too much credit to suggest that maybe Zoe et al.'s cavalier thrill-seeking is meant to be a wee bit troubling underneath the surface pleasures it provides to the audience?

Is it entirely off-base to suggest, for example, that the other three's willingness to ditch Lee with the horny redneck dude is meant to cast them in a not-entirely-flattering light? And that this is in keeping with their (esp. Zoe's) unequivocal excitement (amusing, but also disturbing) about chasing down their attacker and getting lethal revenge? Notice how Zoe never seems particularly *angry* after she's nearly killed - she seems happier than ever, like she's been given a chance to do something she never thought she'd have the opportunity to do.** Notice also how the women, in their single-minded pursuit of their "prey," seem pretty clearly at one point to cause the death of a hapless motorcyclist who's in the wrong place at the wrong time (looked like a fatal accident to me, anyway). And, of course, notice how readily and premeditatively they're willing to beat a man to death in the name of revenge. I'm not seeing anger during that final scene - I'm seeing joy. During that final "yay!" freezeframe, I may be amused and even elated, but somewhere underneath I'm also disturbed, and I think that's intentional - it's something you see in one way or another in most, if not all, of the violence in QT's films.

QT clearly idolizes these women, but I think he's also shared shitless of them. I think he probably feels the same way about black men, honestly. And about violent people and violence in general. And I think consistently throughout his filmography you can see his attempts to grapple with these kinds of conflicting feelings, if only somewhere on the periphery, and with varying degrees of success. He covets the things he fears, and vice versa.

Also, I gotta ask: have you (Filmbrain) watched RESERVOIR DOGS recently? That diner scene at the beginning...yeesh. Placing it next to its gender-switched doppelganger scene in DEATH PROOF does the former no favors at all. Attractive stuntwomen talking about VANISHING POINT may have an element of geek fantasy, but at least there's an attempt being made there to establish real characters at the same time that QT gets his rocks off; on the other hand, I can't watch that DOGS scene and see anything but QT thinking "No one ever wants to hear me talk about possible interpretations of 'Like a Virgin,' but they'll listen if it's a badass snappily-dressed gangster!"

**I also see this in the PULP FICTION scene of Bruce Willis choosing and rejecting various weapons before settling on that samurai sword. He's not just going on a rescue mission - he's enamored with the sudden opportunity to actually Kill in the Name of Justice, and he's carefully choosing the weapon that best completes the image he has in his mind of himself kicking ass. On the one hand, to quote UNFORGIVEN, "it's a hell of a thing, killing a man," but on the other hand...well...killing a man must be quite something. And I think Tarantino is one of the few contemporary filmmakers who acknowledges the validity of both feelings.

[Filmbrain]

Sleeper -- there are some directors who skillfully use the art form to grapple with issues they are conflicted about -- who create films that pose questions/challenges not only to the audience but to themselves.

I've never thought of Tarantino as one of them.

You may very well be right about QT, but I don't see it. I see nothing but a man-child indulging in whatever he finds cool and/or interesting at the moment. If there is fear on his part -- of powerful women, violence, or black men -- then he's doing a tremendous job of hiding it.

Just as I don't think Tarantino "gets" women, I feel the same way about his approach towards black people. Isn't Kim really just a female version of Jules from Pulp Fiction? Several times in the Death Proof screenplay, Tarantino uses the following line:

Kim does her Sam Jackson pimp laugh

Can he not think of any other way to describe it?

To answer your question, no, I haven't seen Reservoir Dogs in quite some time, but I still think there's something wonderful about a scale of masculinity that ranges from Steve Buscemi on one end, to Lawrence Tierney on the other, discussing tips and Like a Virgn (among other things). There's an absurdity to it that's absent from Death Proof.

[sleeper]

Also:

"Tarantino has only two types of female characters: the "pretty girls" (read: victims), or tough women (i.e., every woman in the Kill Bill saga.) You'd think he could come up with something else."

Where, other than DEATH PROOF, does Tarantino set "pretty girls" up as "victims" per se? I'm running through his other films in my head, and I can't think of any examples. Melanie in JACKIE BROWN is ultimately murdered, but it's kind of a stretch to say that reduces her entire character to a mere "victim." Fabienne in PF certainly isn't anyone's idea of a "tough woman," but what exactly is she a victim of?

I'm not being facetious here, and I'm not saying the "pretty [or maybe more accurately, 'girly'] girls" / "tough girls" accusation is entirely unfounded. (Although I'm curious what side of the dichotomy you'd put Mia Wallace on.) It's just that this "pretty girls (read: victims)" thing is something I don't see in any of his work prior to DEATH PROOF.

[Filmbrain]

Sleeper --

Honestly, I only had Death Proof in mind when I wrote that comment -- I should have qualified that.

But now that I think about it, I wonder how much of Pulp Fiction come from Avery. Could (or would) Quentin write a Fabienne on his own? I wonder...

Putting aside Jackie Brown, which is an adaptation, leaves only KB and DP. Is there a single female in KB who isn't a killer? Oh yes, the aptly named Sophie Fatale, the tri-linguist who has most of her limbs chopped off.

[Looker]

Great critique, Mr. Brain.

[Filmbrain]

Why thank you, Lawrence. I also enjoyed your post about the pre-Disneyfied Times Square. Glad to know your first experience on the Deuce ended well. Mine, in 1979, ended with me and my friends getting mugged in front of the army recruiting station. Yet even that wasn't as horrifying as the Italian cannibal film we had just emerged from.

[Steve]

You guys are all missing the point. The second half of DEATH PROOF is really an elaborate metaphor for QT's desire to get pegged, especially by black women. Think of all the anal sex references aimed at Kurt Russell.

[sleeper]

Filmbrain - just so you know, even though I'm going on at such length here, I'm really not trying to be combative, and I hope it doesn't come across that way (you haven't said anything to indicate it does - I just get paranoid). Honestly Tarantino isn't even close to one of my favorite directors - all his films are to some degree compromised by their self-indulgent unevenness (interesting though I may find it - just 'cause something's interesting doesn't mean it works), although only RESERVOIR DOGS fails to "work" for me overall. It's just that I just saw DEATH PROOF last night, and its structural and tonal oddities got me thinking more deeply about what he might be trying to do - in that film, and by extension in all his films - than I have in the past.

"there are some directors who skillfully use the art form to grapple with issues they are conflicted about -- who create films that pose questions/challenges not only to the audience but to themselves."

I don't think any of his films are expressly created to pose these questions. I think it's just something that's happening, unobtrusively, along the way. I think at heart the guy just wants to entertain - but at the same time, it seems as though he does want the food for thought to be there, if you look for it (except in KILL BILL - I don't really see that one as saying much of anything about anything). I'm not sure that he's even aware he's doing this, but it's certainly something I've felt in his work, and I'd like to think that's valid - I don't feel like I'm coming to his work predisposed toward liking it. If anything I'm always surprised to find I like his stuff - based on my general tastes in film, I always kind of expect to find his films insufferable. In a way, I wish I did - then I wouldn't have to do this much thinking about them to figure out why the hell I like them.

"I see nothing but a man-child indulging in whatever he finds cool and/or interesting at the moment."

I see that man-child, too - it's impossible not to, really. The up-front-ness is part of what fascinates me, I think - I can't think offhand of another director who's simultaneously so blatantly, embarrassingly, grotesquely self-indulgent and yet so committed to and fascinated by the sheer craftsmanship of filmmaking. It's like some unholy amalgam of Alfred Hitchcock and Kevin Smith. (I can't stand Kevin Smith, by the way - that's a case where I look and really can't see anything beyond the man-child, and it's just icky.) Picture Hitchcock deciding to make some kind of JAY-AND-SILENT-BOB-STRIKE-BACK-style meta-sequel starring Tippi Hedren and Anthony Perkins as their BIRDS and PSYCHO characters, *and* actually making it work to some degree, and I think that's the kind of mindset you're looking at when you look at Tarantino. Sort of.

"If there is fear on his part -- of powerful women, violence, or black men -- then he's doing a tremendous job of hiding it."

You say "hiding it," I say "sublimating it," I guess.

"Just as I don't think Tarantino "gets" women, I feel the same way about his approach towards black people."

I agree, but again, I think that's something that's acknowledged in various ways within the work itself. Look especially at Robert Forster's character in JACKIE BROWN. There's a reason that performance is more deeply felt - more real - than any other in the movie. He's struggling to tell himself he's comfortable with Jackie - who is a woman, and black, and tough, and ultimately quite a badass - that he could see himself as her equal, and be with her as an equal - but in the end he's too much in awe of those qualities, and finds her about as approachable as the monolith from 2001. He's not up to the task.

"Several times in the Death Proof screenplay, Tarantino uses the following line:
Kim does her Sam Jackson pimp laugh
Can he not think of any other way to describe it?"

I haven't read any of Tarantino's scripts, and it's quite possible they'd "ruin" the movies for me to some degree. I know that my increasing dislike of DONNIE DARKO stems at least partly from listening to Richard Kelly's commentary track, and hearing how lame and dopey his explanations of the film's intended "meaning" are. Since you've read the script for DEATH PROOF, it makes sense to me that you look at the finished product and see, well, Kim doing her Sam Jackson pimp laugh - and it is certainly dispiriting to hear it referred to that way, the same way it would be to discover, say, a script direction in TOUCH OF EVIL calling for Charlton Heston to "really Spic it up" or something like that. I guess Tarantino is just somehow a more interesting director than he seems capable of being or even "deserves" to be - a Tom-Hulce-in-AMADEUS kind of deal. Not that I'm even remotely calling Tarantino a modern-day Mozart - let's not get crazy.

Did you read the script before or after you watched the film, BTW? Just curious.

"But now that I think about it, I wonder how much of Pulp Fiction come from Avery. Could (or would) Quentin write a Fabienne on his own? I wonder..."

A very good question (I always forget about the Avary factor, as most people seem to). I guess watching KILLING ZOE might provide some clues, but do I really want to do that? Somehow I can't muster up much enthusiasm...

Anyway, thanks for bantering with me about this - it's given me some stuff to think about. If nothing else I feel as though I should re-watch that opening scene in RESERVOIR DOGS.

[Justin Slotman]

"Not that I'm even remotely calling Tarantino a modern-day Mozart - let's not get crazy."

sleeper, you may enjoy the first paragraph of Walter Chaw's Grindhouse review in light of that statement (if you're not already referencing it. One of Walter's best, though I think he's way too hard on Planet Terror.)

[Filmbrain]

Sleeper --

Not to worry -- I don't take it as combative at all. I've really enjoyed your comments.

I think ultimately our feelings about Tarantino aren't that different. I'll be the first to admit a love/hate relationship. I get terribly angry at his films, and frustrated, but I own them all on DVD. I admire his craft -- the man does have talent. I just wish there was something that could help distance him from work.

Jackie Brown is easily his most mature work, and I'm sure that has to do with the fact that it's an adaptation. Perhaps he should do a few more of those before trying something original.

It's as if he wants to please everybody -- fanboys and cinephiles alike -- and that's where he runs into trouble.

As for Kevin Smith, at least he's honest about who he is: a grown man who still finds dick and fart jokes a riot. So be it.

To answer your question, I saw the film before reading the screenplay, which I'm happy about. My guess is that in the new cut, at least the cut of Death Proof that will be at Cannes, will probably re-instate many scenes in the screenplay that were (thankfully!) left out.

A quick rundown of other cultural references in the screenplay that didn't make it into the film:
Tyra Banks, Sammy Hagar, Junior Bonner, Ibsen, T. S. Elliot, The Jeffersons, Moesha.

Ibsen and Elliot -- QT's gettin' all highbrow!

There's also a foot-fetish scene where Stuntman Mike secretly strokes the feet of a sleeping Abernathy, and a ridiculous bit of dialog about buying a copy of Italian Vogue that is truly awful.

[John Figler]

I sketch out an observation or two about Tarantino's lousy movie, particularly its dialogue, here:

http://figskin.blogspot.com/2007/04/does-grindhouse-cheat-you-fair.html

I put the failure down to bad acting, not worse-than-usual writing.

[mike]

off topic but rest in peace to Barry Nelson one of the great character actors of all time. Mr. Nice guy.

[Donna Fadoushbag]

Barry hired Jack to look over The Overlook.