Kill Bill explained to folks who are accused of "not getting it"

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Don't feel bad, lots of folks don't "get it" the first time either. Also, tons of folks will say they get it, and maybe they do, but can't really explain it. I am like that, but I will try anyway here to explain it.


William Faulkner ? Cubistic style ? the point of view and point of time change through out his novels

Pablo Picasso ? Cubistic Style ? the point of view changes, for example you see the same subject from different angles, and the dimensions change, you may see the subject in 1,2, or 3 dimensions

Quinto Tarantino ? Cubistic style ? the point of view changes, for example some times it is from Uma, sometimes Lucy Lu, etc? The perspective changes between 1st person and 3rd person, for example the opening scene is of Uma 3rd person, during her coma it is 1st person from Uma (in the my name is Buck scene)
Then the ?movie? he shows us changes, in the same sort of cubistic style. For example, sometimes we are watching a John Wayne Film, then sometimes we are watching a Bruce Lee flick. Like if Picasso not only shows us a guitar from different perspectives, some times it is also different guitar, but the ?subject? is still a guitar, or maybe the subject is music and our ideas about music, so by obfuscating the guitar, we will jump back and see the "real subject," music. This also implies, multiple "subjects." So, different movies are like different guitars, but the ?subject? is still Kill Bill. And, this also implies that the important part is not so much the subject; i.e., the guitar, but the dynamics between the changes in perspective. Picasso also tells us, "Guitars" are important things in our lives with many meanings. So, Kill Bill has a week plot, but that isn?t the point, as in my guitar example maybe the subject isn?t even really ?Kill Bill? as that story is so obfuscated, forcing us to jump back and see the subject is maybe ?movies.? But, the point of the film is the perspective and dimensional changes. He also tells us that "movies" are important things in our lives with many meaning, and in particular in his own life, as he grew up watching and loving these movies, and is now him self a film maker. Picasso might do a self-portrait in one of his paintings or a paintings of a painting. For example, Uma doing the square is both a self portrait , a Tarantino film (implying "I am the movies I make"), and a movie of a movie.
 

guyver01

Lifer
Sep 25, 2000
22,135
5
61
i still dont get it.

For example, Uma doing the square is both a self portrait , a Tarantino film (implying "I am the movies I make"), and a movie of a movie. :Q

 

royaldank

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2001
5,440
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see...but who is bill and why must he die?

I think I heard he was the leader of a Charlie Angle's type group. She wanted out. He said, "You're free to leave." So, she left. Short time thereafter, the massacre in Austin during the wedding goes down.
 

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see...but who is bill and why must he die?

Bill is my second cousin twice removed, and he is the one responsible for the dell 4600 incident therefore he must die!
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: royaldank
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see...but who is bill and why must he die?

I think I heard he was the leader of a Charlie Angle's type group. She wanted out. He said, "You're free to leave." So, she left. Short time thereafter, the massacre in Austin during the wedding goes down.
Um, I've not seen the movie, so the massacre in austin during the wedding doesn't really have a LOT of relevance to me :)

 

new2AMD

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
5,312
0
0
I dont know how they split the movie but I know it all gets explained. It comes near the end. The reason she tried to get out and the reason he tried to get rid of her and what has happened in the time between.
 

royaldank

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2001
5,440
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: royaldank
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see...but who is bill and why must he die?

I think I heard he was the leader of a Charlie Angle's type group. She wanted out. He said, "You're free to leave." So, she left. Short time thereafter, the massacre in Austin during the wedding goes down.
Um, I've not seen the movie, so the massacre in austin during the wedding doesn't really have a LOT of relevance to me :)

Yeah, probably not. You'll see that is the starting point for all the stuff going down in the movie.
 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: guyver01
i still dont get it.

For example, Uma doing the square is both a self portrait , a Tarantino film (implying "I am the movies I make"), and a movie of a movie. :Q

Look at this picture:
http://www.nrm.org/
It is both a painting of a painting, and a self portrait.

If Rockwell does a painting (1) of a painting (2), and that painting (2) is also a Rockwell painting, it is both self-referential, because painting (1) is of painting (2), and a self-portrait, because it is a Rockwell of a Rockwell. This also says, "I am my paintings."

Uma makes the square with her fingers in Pulp Fiction.
So, doing it in "Kill Bill" is self referential, a movie of a movie.

It is also a self-portrait, a Tarantino film of a Tarantino film.
This also says, "I am my movies." (It also says, "You the movie audience think of my movies when you see my name. To you, I am the movies. But, I, Tarantino know that I am NOT just my movies, my perspective is different.)

It is a self-portrait of Uma, as The Bride in "Kill Bill" doing herself as Mia Wallace in "Pulp Fictoion."
It also demonstrates how the perspective and dimensions are changed:
The Bride to Mia Wallace (character to character)
Uma to Mia Wallace (actress to character)
The Bride to Uma (character to actress)
Uma to Uma (actress to actress)

 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
Uhg. Can't people just enjoy good soundtracks, good acting, and gratuitous violence in a movie anymore without writing a freaking thesis on some psychobabble about the camera angles?!?!?!?

 

glen

Lifer
Apr 28, 2000
15,995
1
81
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Uhg. Can't people just enjoy good soundtracks, good acting, and gratuitous violence in a movie anymore without writing a freaking thesis on some psychobabble about the camera angles?!?!?!?

Of course! I loved Bad Boyz II. And, its main point was action and humor.

I loved "Kill Bill" which has action and humor. And, I loved the action and humor. But, if you are trying to explain to folks that the action and humor are not the point of "Kill Bill" <Ricci Ricardo> Lucy... You got some splaining to do! </Ricci Recardo>
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Actually I would characterize this film as post modern, more than cubist. Every moment is derrivative of something. What's fascinating is that this doesn't detract from the value of the film. Kill Bill is tremendous *because* it's such a deftly constructed amalgimation of eastern fighting cinema.

I really don't think there's anything cryptic about this film. It's amusing to catch all the references, but recognizing them is hardly a prerequisite for "getting the film". On the other hand, there are probably a fair number of people that don't posses the somewhat aquired taste for this genre. As a cinemaphile, I was very, very impressed with this film.
 

LAUST

Diamond Member
Sep 13, 2000
8,957
1
81
I still don't see why so many scene's had to draw out so damn long... I could have got up and left 37 times and when I came back it would be in the same scene and I would'nt have missed a thing... showing points we know already have to happen, and then extending it on with worthless pauses and crap till you got glossed over. This could have just been one movie instead where everything just got to the POINT instead of FILLERS forcing two movies.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I see...but who is bill and why must he die?

The summary....

Uma was involved in an assassation group called DIVAS. She wanted out to get married, the leader 'Bill' agreed to this (this is not shown in the Vol. 1 but it's not really a spoiler since you know almost within the first 20 secs he is at fault).

Thing is Uma was pregnant (with Bill's baby)....anyways during her wedding (which is not shown) her and everyone else 'including that old black man that plays the organ on sunday'....total massacre.

However she didn't die, but rather was comatose for four years. She wakes up and the whole movie is a funny / graphical account of her revenge of the 3 other DIVAS, Budd (a male assassin in the groups possibly or just a hired gunman) and of course Bill.

None of it is supposed to be 'real' otherwise it'd have been much easier for Uma to simply buy a hand gun or automatic weapon....she makes the journey to Japan for a sword, a specifically created sword.

It's all about the pride that was in Kung Fu and the other 'crazy' things like the hero taking on 1000 fighters and not only living through it, but relatively untired. Almost every scene is a tribute to some movie, story, plot, etc from another classic, sometimes obscure movie.

The anime scene which no one seems to care for is due to the fact in America anything having to do with showing pedofile type stuff will get an automatic NC17, yet alone a scene involving sex, a child of 11 with a old man, and a brutal massacre by her upon him and his bodyguards.
 

new2AMD

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2001
5,312
0
0
Originally posted by: vi_edit
Uhg. Can't people just enjoy good soundtracks, good acting, and gratuitous violence in a movie anymore without writing a freaking thesis on some psychobabble about the camera angles?!?!?!?

I agree. Not to mention there is a second half to this movie. Why not wait to see the whole thing before analyzing it? I read the script so I already know how it ends and what happens. Seeing vol. 1 only gives you part of the story.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: LAUST
I still don't see why so many scene's had to draw out so damn long... I could have got up and left 37 times and when I came back it would be in the same scene and I would'nt have missed a thing... showing points we know already have to happen, and then extending it on with worthless pauses and crap till you got glossed over. This could have just been one movie instead where everything just got to the POINT instead of FILLERS forcing two movies.

I don't agree. I thought it was masterfully paced. There was a tremendous amount of content for 90 minutes.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
I think a lot of the complaints are more about tarantino's incongruous style than anything else. This film is a mosaic, there's no question, and it's also not nearly as character driven as most mainstream hollywood flicks. It's not a traditional film. Obviously if you assume that's what it *should* be, you're going to find all sorts of problems.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
you mean you poeple watched it for the plot?

And Moby Dick was not about some old whaler after a fish...It was about man vs the unknown/nature and the self discovery and all that other bullsh!t

Melville wrote a book about a guy catching a big fish(it swims in the ocean). Tarantino wrote a movie about revenge. Nuf said
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
you mean you poeple watched it for the plot?

And Moby Dick was not about some old whaler after a fish...It was about man vs the unknown/nature and the self discovery and all that other bullsh!t

Melville wrote a book about a guy catching a big fish(it swims in the ocean). Tarantino wrote a movie about revenge. Nuf said

not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment, but does the word "allegory" mean nothing to you?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
81
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
you mean you poeple watched it for the plot?

And Moby Dick was not about some old whaler after a fish...It was about man vs the unknown/nature and the self discovery and all that other bullsh!t

Melville wrote a book about a guy catching a big fish(it swims in the ocean). Tarantino wrote a movie about revenge. Nuf said

not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment, but does the word "allegory" mean nothing to you?


I think my English teacher was talking about that while I was engrossed in reading Billy Bud, was it important or more of the same tripe about writers intentionally creating symbolisms, hidden meaning and the like whenever they penned a story?
 

MaxDepth

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2001
8,757
43
91
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Easier explanation...

Quentin gets higher than a kite, writes a script

While watching 200 hours of kung-fu and spagetti westerns.
 

isaacmacdonald

Platinum Member
Jun 7, 2002
2,820
0
0
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
you mean you poeple watched it for the plot?

And Moby Dick was not about some old whaler after a fish...It was about man vs the unknown/nature and the self discovery and all that other bullsh!t

Melville wrote a book about a guy catching a big fish(it swims in the ocean). Tarantino wrote a movie about revenge. Nuf said

not that I disagree entirely with your sentiment, but does the word "allegory" mean nothing to you?


I think my English teacher was talking about that while I was engrossed in reading Billy Bud, was it important or more of the same tripe about writers intentionally creating symbolisms, hidden meaning and the like whenever they penned a story?

Look, I don't think there was anything really allegorical (it was mostly referential) about kill bill. Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with symbolism, metaphors, or allegories. Life would be boring and imprecise if we always expressed everything literally.