Listening to:
iTunes

Brace Yourself Or Run Away
All that to say that, yes, I finally made it to see Kill Bill Vol. 2 this past week, and I was a bit muddled as to what I thought. I foolishly read this before going to the cinema, and subsequently found myself trying to come up with alternate theories throughout the film (or at least, during the scenes I wasn't flailing my arms, or shreiking, or trying to look at the screen from between my splayed fingers - why do I even bother with the gross-out movies when I know I turn into a spaz? Because I wish I enjoyed the gross-out scenes, that's why, and because I like to discuss them later and sound like I know what I'm talking about, and how can I do that if I don't actually see them? Hm?). I got stuck on the whole female role (which is uncharacteristic of me, since usually in essays and such, I will put myself through any number of inconveniences to avoid answering a question on "the female"), and why the Bride had to be as violent as she was. If the whole thesis of the film is that women are instinctual killers/protectors, then what is up with the structure of the killings? Chronologically, she kills O-ren first, and then Vernita Green*, before going after the characters in Vol. 2. But in the film, we see her kill a fellow mother first, before going after a character who has made a surrogate family for herself. Come to think of it, she only ever kills people with family, letting Elle kill Budd for her, and leaving Elle in pain and flailing in Budd's bathroom. She kills Bill in the end both because he has a family that should have been hers (well, should have been only hers), and because, as an instinctual killer, she used her secret move on him out of instinct. Which, I guess, is why they are all snakes in the first place, venomous killers who strike out not out of self-defence but out of instinct. And I suppose the woman-as-snake image would appeal on a baser level, too.

I guess you could argue that the structure is to build up momentum, so that we can all see what a bad-ass she is. But then why have it out of order in the first place? Why not just have her kill them in the shown order, instead of shuffling it around? Is that some kind of throwback to the Pulp Fiction days, or is there something more to it? Perhaps the idea is that chronologically she kills a lost daughter first, and then a mother, ie someone who has no one depending on her first before working herself up to making an orphan out of someone. But did she even know Vernita had a daughter at that point? I don't remember the first film well enough to be sure.

If that's the case, then perhaps that explains her ridiculous name. Beatrix Kiddo as some sort of mother/daughter mesh, since she wants both to be reading Beatrix Potter books to her kid (I know, that's an iffy theory, but I'm in an iffy mood), and to return to a pre-violence innocence. And hence why she falls for a father figure. The fact that she's simply "The Bride" puts her in that transitional spot for us at first, but why reveal her name at all in that case? Because really, the joke's not very funny.

* Neither is this. Argh. Thank you, Mr Tarantino, for giving me a headache. I get it. She's green, she's fertile, the Bride is jealous of her family. Blah blah. I do not need your little jokes drilled into my scull!

Anyway, I quite enjoyed the film, and I am sorry I had to write all of this out where you will be able to read it (you didn't have to, you know. When you see me get theoretical you can just shake your head and come back another day if you want. I don't mind.), but my cinema companion wasn't very analytical so I had to rant somewhere. Sorry if I spoiled it for you. But if you hadn't seen it by now, were you ever going to? I think not.

The thing is, though, the very idea of Tarantino being a genius filmmaker is repulsive to me, because while flashy vignettes are all trendy and postmodern, I don't think collage should be considered an art form. Recontextualization is lovely and amazing when done right, but when you appropriate images you have to do something with them to make me care about why you chose it. The Kehr article lists a number of "tributes", but their inclusion only serves to make you think of the original movies themselves, not anything new. The flute Bill uses in Vol. 2 only serves to remind you of his Kung Fu character and nothing else. To argue that it's supposed to show you how he unites the East and the West is ridiculous, because that was the point of the cited series, not the anything you get out of the appropriated image. Watching a Tarantino movies often makes me feel like I'm just flipping channels on the television instead of watching something with any artistic intent. But right, yes, I was going to stop writing about this and get back to my studying, because hey! I only have a few days left until exams, so why am I spending my precious time writing an almost-essay about this?

Next