Scattered Thoughts

             The KKK

                So today was the last day that the class talked about Django, and I am not happy for two reasons. One, I was actually comfortable talking about the film because it was the only Quentin Tarantino movie I had seen, so now I have to play catch-up again. Two, because we did not even discuss my favorite scene of the movie! We discussed Stephen and how he was such an interesting character, the class talked and read about Broomhilda and how she does not show how a strong negro woman would have been like during that time, we even discussed the historical accuracy of the film and if it was really important for Tarantino to be right when it came to the facts portrayed and played out in the movie; however, we did not analyze the mock KKK scene and I feel like the class could have had fun analyzing that scene.

I honestly think that the mock KKK scene was the best comedic part of the movie. The scene brought a light edge to the film and gave viewers a chance to laugh at the characters and relate to the bickering of all the farmers. After reading some articles about Django, especially the article Simrill gave to us to read that discussed the “Django moment,” I got the feeling that some people were disturbed by some white supremacy scenes during the film. The KKK scene gave viewers the chance to relax and all relate to the stupid white men that could not see anything through their flour bags.

The discussions the farmers/clanish members have could occur during any century. Anyone’s wife could have made something for a group of friends that was not appreciated and it leads to an argument. I loved this scene because it was so ridiculous yet so true when it comes to social situations.

There are many facts about the KKK that Tarantino did not care about getting wrong. The first fact depicted in Django that was incorrect was the year this raid took place. The first known KKK organization was founded in 1866 by a group of former confederate soldiers in Pulaski, Tennessee. The location where the organization was founded caught my eye because I think that was a location where Django and Schultz traveled to. Now I am not certain if this location was where the mock KKK scene took place, but that would be an interesting twist/foreshadowing of some kind if this were true. Why would Tarantino use the wrong time period but the correct place where the organization was founded? That would be something interesting to look into.

After doing some research on the scene, I found a review about Django unchained in the LAtimes stating, “He showed a cut of the film — minus the scene — to executives at Sony Pictures, which co-financed the movie with the Weinstein Co. He said Sony honcho Amy Pascal acknowledged the movie worked without it but asked him to put it back in because it was a major reason she even greenlighted “Django” in the first place.” What would Django be like without this scene? Would audience members leave with the same feelings, or would a more serious movie cause viewers to not enjoy the film as much?

During one class session Simrill asked us how we though Malcolm X would feel about this film being directed and written by a white man. This thought stuck with me. How would people from the past watching this scene react? If a black man from a time when the KKK scared people and sort of “ruled” saw this scene would he laugh because these dumb white men controlled the way he lived, or would he be embarrassed that this is the way the KKK is portrayed?

A lot goes into this scene and it would definitely be cool to read more about it and go through the script to see the changes Tarantino made to the scene and maybe why he made those changes in the first place.

History’s Mysteries

            In every great movie, there are always many characters with complex pasts that keep a viewer guessing even after the movie is over. Honestly I feel like almost every character in Inglorious Basterds has this sort of audience appeal. Quentin Tarantino, in my mind, creates an incredibly deep story for each character in his scripts and films. His thought processes keep his viewers on their toes and certain plot twists can cause someone to be “mind-blown” after viewing one of his films.

Hans Landa is arguably one of the most complex characters in Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds. Each scene that he is in he is portrayed as this intimidating creature that somehow just knows everything about anyone he encounters. The fact that he orders milk with his second encounter with Shosanna causes a viewer to believe that he knows secretly who she is and it is like he is just playing a game of cat and mouse with her. His knowledge in every language spoken in the movie makes him even more intimidating because a viewer does not know of the depth of his smarts and what he is able to do with such knowledge; nobody is able to slip anything past him BECAUSE he is so smart.

As a viewer I would want to know more about Landa’s past and what caused him to become a “Jew Hunter.” Why, if he did not favor any sides, did he decide to work for the Nazi’s? Is it because he could use his wits to find the Jews and it would be an interesting job for him, or is it simply because they were the closest job for him? I was really intrigued when Tarantino discretely compared Hans Landa to Sherlock Holmes in the very first scene. The pipe he used to smoke and the air of knowledge and the way he showed his thought processes caused a viewer to think that he was as great of a detective as Sherlock Holmes. I think Tarantino did this because Holmes is such an intimidating character.

Another mysterious back-story that I would like to research would be Lt. Aldo Rain’s. The first time we meet him in the script we are to take notice of the scar that goes from one side of his neck to the other. In the movie it is a pretty prominent feature of Aldo’s that you see all the time. This is a crucial mystery to Aldo’s backstory because the viewer knows that he is American and from the south, but that is about as deep into Aldo’s past life a viewer will ever get. I wonder if Tarantino did not want viewer’s to know why he got the scar because it makes Aldo more intimidating in that sense. That man had to go through some sort of excruciating pain at some point in his life, and maybe because he had to deal with that pain he is okay with himself giving that sort of pain to all of the Nazi’s he finds. I also would like to know why Tarantino wanted to make him southern.

There are many other characters that are part of the Basterds that have mysterious backstories as well and I think it would be a cool essay topic to go over the script and movie and find cues that would lead to discovering parts of the character’s past that are not presented upfront to a viewer.

The layers of Mia Wallace

            Mia Wallace is the central topic to the second conversation that is introduced to viewers during the showing of Pulp Fiction. Vincent Vega continually asks questions about Mrs. Wallace to his partner Jules Winnfield, “What’s her name? How did her and Marcellus meet? Did she do anything that I woulda seen?” This dialogue sets the audience’s first impression of Mrs. Mia Wallace. We learn that she is an actress that starred in one pilot and on this show is where she met Mr. Wallace. We also learn the important rumor that a man named Tony Rocky Horror was gruesomely thrown out the window onto a glass greenhouse by Marcellus Wallace himself for giving Mrs. Wallace a foot massage. This first layer of Mia Wallace is her intimidation layer: from word of mouth she means a lot to Mr. Wallace and is painted to be a temptress that Vincent Vega needs to look out for.

The next scene Mia appears in is when Vincent is showing up at her house to entertain her for the night while Marcellus is away. We have yet to meet her, but we are allowed into the way she writes and sounds by a note on her front door addressed to Vincent. By the note she appears to seem cool, she doesn’t need to check to open the door for Vincent nor does she feel the need to lock her doors. Yet in the next shot we are finally able to see the silhouette of Mia from behind when she is in her room pretty much spying on Vincent through her security camera. Before we see her face her dark, red, protruding lips are shown, making her appear to be more of a temptress than before. Tarantino is showing many parts of her body before her face is ever shown, creating even more of a mystery.

During this same scene Mia is shown doing a large line cocaine, snorting it with a $100 bill and cutting it with a credit card. If a viewer were to look into her drug habits alone he/she may think that Mia Wallace is all about the money. Snorting cocaine with a $100 bill is pretty impressive, but it may also be Tarantino’s way of showing that Mia is worth a lot. We still do not see Mia’s face in the house scene, but as she is walking up to Vincent it is a close-up of her feet; the reason (that we know now) for why Tony Rocky Horror was thrown out of the window. It may be interesting to look up what cocaine does to a person, because honestly she seems pretty calm after snorting her line and I would think she would act a little differently; I also think that I should look up foot massages and see if they actually do have a sensual meaning behind them because she is barefoot for a lot of the time in the movie.

The scene when Vincent and Mia go out to dinner to a big 50’s diner really brings out Mia’s personality. If I were to choose I definitely think that she is an Elvis person. I may be ill-informed about the Beetles, but I just think she is more of an Elvis person, especially when her and Vincent enter the dance contest and she introduces him in an Elvis-like fashion. Viewers also get to see that Mia is a deep and thoughtful person, not just a silly bimbo that was a one-hit wonder. I really like her points on promises and how a person cannot promise to be offended by something because they do not know what to expect. I also think that her “uncomfortable silence” dialogue is interesting too because it almost seems like she is hitting on Vincent Vega with that phrase.

There are two more layers of Mia Wallace that interest me: when she is vulnerable as she is ODing, and when she finally decides to tell the joke to Vincent Vega. I think that Mia Wallace is a very interesting character and I love the scene where her and Vincent are dancing together, I think I can safely say that it is my favorite scene of the movie.

Samuel L. Jackson in Jackie Brown

Business vs. Pleasure

            After watching a couple of Tarantino’s movies starring Samuel L. Jackson I have noticed a certain pattern about the characters he portrays. There is a specific line that caught my attention today during the movie Jackie Brown that allowed me to make the connection between all of the roles Jackson plays.

The scene is about in the middle of the movie, Jackie Brown has already been arrested and has already threatened Jackson’s character, so a lot is at stake for everyone at this point. Jackson’s lover (or whatever she is) is getting high and Robert De Niro is just joining her when the woman asks Jackson’s character, Ordelle, if he would like a smoke. Ordelle then goes on to say, “See I get high later on when I come back, see I get high at NIGHT, when I get through with all my business.”

THAT line right there sets the tone for most of Samuel L. Jackson’s characters. He is a man that does not mix business with pleasure. He likes to keep his head straight and not let his mind get in the way of the job. I have not completed Jackie Brown so I cannot vouch for Ordelle the entire movie, but at this point in time for Jackie Brown Ordelle seems to have his eye on the prize and will not let anyone get in his way.

I believe that this quote describes Samuel L. Jackson’s character in Pulp Fiction as well. Vincent Vega is shown shooting heroine and getting high, but Jules NEVER is shown smoking weed, snorting crack, or doing heroine or any of the other drugs referenced in the movie. Yes, his character talks about doing drugs and how great it would be to go to Amsterdam, but he is always business, never pleasure.

The third movie that I recall Samuel L. Jackson starring in is Django Unchained as he plays the character of the house nigger, Stephen. Stephen definitely is all about protecting Candieland and the only time he is caught off-guard is after Mr. Candie’s funeral, when he believes the plantation is safe from Django. Even during this part of the movie he is not being selfish and putting himself before his work, he is just not prepared for what is awaiting him back at the house.

I think that Smauel L. Jackson would be a really interesting charcter to analyze and the fact that this line is so universal for all of the characters he plays that I have seen in Tarantino’s films makes me believe that this could be an interesting topic to research more.

Kill Bill

I have never seen Kill Bill, and after today I feel like I need to watch it at least 10 times to become remotely close to what the central meaning of the screenplay is. I feel like there are a lot of elements that are addressed throughout the film, and I need to read up on my cinematic techniques, but I am sure that there are a lot of differing techniques that Tarantino uses to keep the viewer entertained. An aspect of the movie that I found interesting was one that I would not have even realized if Professor Simrill hadn’t mentioned it.

At the very end of Kill Bill volume one Bill informs the audience that Beatrix’s baby was indeed still alive. This is a shock to everyone because one would think that after being shot in the head one’s baby would be dead in the womb…apparently not. It was this shock that Simrill noted when he said, “This was like in Star Wars when you find out that Darth Vader is Luke’s father.” Or I think that is the reference he made. I am not a big Star Wars fanatic…not to say that it isn’t a great story…it is just that I have not seen any of the movies so I do not know what reference it actually was.

I think that it would be a cool essay to compare the final minutes of Kill Bill volume one and the final minutes of whatever Star Wars movie it was and compare and contrast the way the situation is addressed to the audience. Like I said, I do not know how it was addressed in Star Wars, but in Kill Bill it is the last thing that I would have expected.

In this final scene Bill’s face still has not been shown, so the concept of Bill is a mystery in and of itself. At this point in the movie we do not know what Bill is in terms of what he does for a living (we can suspect but it has never been stated), why he has such a grudge for Beatrix, and the reason he tried to kill her. Bill always seems to be above everyone else, in the first scene when he is leaning above Beatrix and in the final scene when he is above the Japanese girl with his hand son her shoulders – I feel like this is an element that could be discussed.

I think that Bill is a very complex character and that comparing and contrasting his final scene with the Star Wars final scene could make for an interesting paper. Or even comparing and contrasting the first scene of Kill Bill Volume one and the last scene and see how he has changed/ has not changed throughout the movie.

What is a “True Romance?”

This past weekend I was home and I found myself describing this class to one of my mom’s friends one afternoon. The lady happened to be a Tarantino film addict and I knew she would be pleased that I was finally watching and appreciating Tarantino’s work considering nobody in my family has seen any of his films. I started naming off the movies that we had seen and what we were going to watch before the end of the school year and when I said, “True Romance,” my mom’s friend stopped me mid sentence to gush about how much she loved that movie.

This statement caught me off guard because honestly the movie did not make a HUGE impact on my life. The scene where Alabama gets beaten up was a little disturbing and I hated seeing her get punched and kicked, but other than that I just thought the movie was about a guy that was a little bit too passionate about everything that he did. He feels the need to kill a pimp that his wife worked for for not even a week…I mean what harm could he have possibly done to Alabama to make Clarence feel the need to kill the guy? Clarence is also kind of rude considering the first time he comes to his dad for years is just to ask him for a favor so he can get out of town; Clarence should be old enough to not be so immature. I felt like he had the mind of a sixteen year old boy honestly.

Anyways, so my mom’s friend gushed to me for a while about how True Romance was one of her favorite movies and how it was sooo romantic. After our conversation I got to thinking, “What is it about True Romance that makes a person think that it is so romantic? What are the aspects of the movie that are ‘Romantic?’” there is always the love at first sight aspect of the movie…but I have always thought that love at first sight was an accidental occurrence, not a planned streetwalker keeping a man company for his birthday. But maybe Alabama did not expect to be keeping the Clarence type company.

I can see how it is romantic in the final scene when everyone is shooting at each other and Clarence gets shot and Alabama risks her life in order to get Clarence out of there safely, that part of the film moved me, but up until the part of the movie when Alabama gets beat up she only seems like Clarence’s play toy. Like honestly having sex in a glass phone booth is NOT romantic.

I feel like I am sounding really judgy about Clarence and Alabama’s relationship and maybe it is the fact that they do not care at all what other people think as long as they have themselves is what makes True Romance “romantic.” I’m not sure but I am still searching for how this could be one of the greatest love stories someone has ever seen…