Buffista Movies 4: Straight to Video
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Jim -- Yeah, I know we hear shots, but I don't think it's certain that he's killed. (I mean, I tend to think so, but it's not definite). I'm also not sure about Mamet being much of an influence on Tarantino back in 1990.
Nutty -- To be fair to JB, I was lazy & didn't retype the whole paragraph. Part of his argument is that it's not operating in anything like a realistic universe, and that the story is designed to keep the audience off-balance and maximize the shocks. So I think he means that stylistically it's got a lot more in common with horror movies than heist/gangster movies, even if it's using plot elements from the latter. I agree with you about honor in the movie, but I think his is an interesting perspective, too. I like new angles.
But I should look at the essay again when I get home, because I could just be making stuff up.
Jim -- Yeah, I know we hear shots, but I don't think it's certain that he's killed. (I mean, I tend to think so, but it's not definite). I'm also not sure about Mamet being much of an influence on Tarantino back in 1990.
If I remember correctly, we hear a burst of shots and then silence, indicating that he is, indeed, dead.
And yeah, it's definitely not operating in the real universe. Of all of QT's movies, Reservoir Dogs feels the most stagey. I'd have to see the essay to get the main point of the argument, I guess, but I think of horror films as mostly relying on shocks along with the gore, and RD seems to rely more on trust and distrust. The gore is almost beside the point.
Of all of QT's movies, Reservoir Dogs feels the most stagey.
I think it was designed that way, so that the budget wouldn't be a major consideration (i.e. as few sets as you can, etc.). I seem to remember reading that QT had come into some money (for selling TRUE ROMANCE, I think, or possibly FROM DUSK TIL DAWN) and was prepared to shoot it guerilla style if he had to, but that a deal came together because of Harvey Keitel and Monte Hellman.
I'm with Nutty and Corwood. I think horror movies work out various anxieties about body horror: disfigurement, dismemberment, the undead, transformation, etc. Morality isn't the point since they're passion plays designed to jerk the lizard brain around in the uncanny valley.
But QT always has a brutal moralism in place. It's not just honor, but professionalism and loyalty. Marcellus, for example, suffers a major humiliation but is partly redeemed by his ability to honor what Butch does for him. And Butch is also redeemed because he doesn't just leave Marcellus to his fate, even though he's on the run from Marcellus and the rescue is dangerous. Those kind of scenes are a constant in Tarnatino's films.
My brother tried to convince me Episode III won't suck by using this review from Kevin Smith. I did some research to show that he's dumb, and I came up with this review of episode II. Sadly, he's not online for me to laugh at him, so I'm sharing with you.
It's gonna suck.
I finally saw Episode II last night. Dear heavens, that was awful. Django Fett was the only character I really liked in the whole thing, and of course they killed him off.
I'm hoping Anakin won't whine so much once he turns evil.
I'm hoping Anakin won't whine so much once he turns evil.
I'm thinking he probably doesn't turn evil until 2 hours into the movie. So I don't care if he does stop then.
If I remember correctly, we hear a burst of shots and then silence, indicating that he is, indeed, dead.
I just checked -- we hear tires squealing and sirens and a lot of shouting in the distance. I can barely hear it with the volume at "deafening" so whatever's going on certainly isn't meant to be clear.
I think of horror films as mostly relying on shocks along with the gore, and RD seems to rely more on trust and distrust.
Heh, that is actually the argument, now that I've got my reference book handy:
It outwardly resembles things we've seen before, but it works like a horror film: its first goal is to surprise and shock. [...] Part of the fascination of Reservoir Dogs is that you never know exactly what genre you're watching, or where it could possibly be going, and yet you know that a train wreck is in progress, so you excuse every betrayal of traditional storytelling.
Again, he's not saying it's a horror movie in terms of theme or plot. I think he's commenting on the style and effect. And I'm doing the piece a disservice if I'm making it sound like that's all he talks about; it's a few paragraphs out of about 20 pages.
But QT always has a brutal moralism in place.
I'd agree with that in his other movies, but in RD? The characters demonstrate varying degrees of honor & loyalty, and they all die brutally for it. I don't think we're left with any kind of moral system at the end.
