Scott on Grindhouse Revisited

[Guest blogger Scott revises some of the comments on Death Proof around here in his slightly longer argument about Grindhouse, and makes an interesting conclusion.]

First of all, I maintain that Grindhouse is a single film or at least a singular entity, bottom line being that both films must be viewed in the context of the other to be fully appreciated. This is especially true of Death Proof, which I will explain shortly.

Planet Terror is the least complex of the two and, as a result, the one most capable of surviving on its own, however, without Death Proof as its companion it is merely a fun homage to grind house films of the past (It also makes sense for Rodriguez to do the straight-up homage because he's more of a chameleon whereas Tarantino is much more of an auteur).

Death Proof is the more complex of the two films. Not only is it stronger on a technical level in terms of the actual filmaking; it is far more subtle. This isn't a recreation of grind house films like Planet Terror it is a deconstruction/revision of them (specifically the slasher, revenge, and car chase genres). This is why it relies on Planet Terror. If I say to the average movie go-er "Death Proof" is a revisionary narrative of grind house films" Their response would, most likely, be "Great! What are grind house films?" Few people today would have any idea what I'm talking about. Pop Culture Junkie that I am, even I don't know first hand what grind house is.

This is why Planet Terror (and, in my opinion, the trailers) are necessary. It acclimates the un-ininducted into the experience. Then, with Death Proof, something strange happens: The film begins to evolve. It's no secret that both Tarantino and Rodriguez grew up and drew inspiration from this kind of movie. The thing is, they took what they learned from these movies which were, let's face it, fairly disposable pieces of cheap, exploitative entertainment, not good for much more than a few laughs, and , in their own work, transform it into art (arguably, Tarantino is much better at this than Rodriguez). So, as Death Proof begins we are introduced to typical stock grind house characters only with greater depth and better dialogue (something Tarantino is famous for) but, still they remain characters rather than being real people. Jungle Julia and her crew are the typical victims in slasher flicks: they are 'doing bad things'; drinking, smoking pot, hooking up with/teasing guys. In other words, they're just asking for it.

Then, the change over, the film loses the faux aging and we're introduced to the second group of girls (by the way, the black and white segment in the extended edition adds nothing to the film other than another opportunity for Tarantino to display his foot fetish). This group is a departure, they are completely 'real' characters. It has been pointed out that they're all movie people but, so what, to Tarantino movie people are the real people in his day to day life. In fact, these might be the most believable, realistic characters that Tarantino has created. So, in the second half, he takes these 'real' people and puts them in a grind house situation. Still, take out the false scratches and such, the film can function on its own. Most people would still see it and 'get it'

The point that the film again changes is after the first leg of the car chase (which, by the way totally kicks ass and the use of traditional stunting and Zoe Bell as the star add a tension rarely seen in modern film making). Specifically, things go awry when, after Zoe emerges from the bushes unscathed, the point where any normal, rational person would say "Oh, Shit... we gotta call the cops!" a perky Zoe says "Phew, that was a close one... Let's go get 'im"

At this point, these 'real' characters begin a regression into the revenge seeking women of grind house cinema. Still, I'm buying it... I even buy the one chick shooting him. That's a plausible reaction. Where it falls apart (at least without the context provided by Planet Terror). Is the final few seconds where they drag Stuntman Mike from his car, knock the shit out of him and, ultimately, crush his head in.

So, these 'real', 'normal' characters have suddenly become cold blooded killers? It is also worth noting that during this sequence Abernathy's skirt, worn at a respectable knee length for the most of the film, is now worn at an exploitative point high up on her thigh. It is an, admittedly, cheap ending but it is a grind house ending. Death Proof has now taken us full circle back to the cheap thrill of Planet Terror. When viewed on its own, this ending makes no sense. However, as part of the larger Grindhouse film... project... whatever you want to call it. It makes perfect sense. In fact, in order for it to be a true grind house film. That's how it has to end.

So, in short... Planet Terror is a fun recreation of the grind house experience whereas Death Proof really makes you think about the genre (and all its various subgenres). Both films are great but I still see it as one big movie.

Death Proof

[This post would be a guest blog, by my friends Ximena Gallardo and Jason Smith, but they do not have time to write it up. So this is more of a report of a conversation we had the other day about Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof. To read my original posts on Grindhouse click the label at the bottom.]

I did not really like Grindhouse -- I did not think it worked very well as a package -- but I really liked Death Proof and picked up up on DVD as soon as I could. I wanted to see how I would feel about it, and its games with pacing, seeing it when it was not 2am with a restless audience, who had already sat through trailers, a movie, and more trailers. I took the DVD to my friends Jason and Ximena's house because they are the only people I know who know a fair amount about grindhouse revenge pics.

I was disappointed by their first reaction, which was that Death Proof was nothing special. They noted that, as in the typical horror film, all of the people who are about to die are all engaging in "bad behavior" for which they will be "punished" -- drinking, dancing, and smoking pot. This was too much and too obvious in their opinion. They also noted that, in the second wave of protagonists, the conversation sets Rosario Dawson up as the "virgin" -- she tells her friends that she has a relationship with the director of the film they are working on but that she refuses to go past hand-holding and kissing because she wants to really date him and not become one of his throwaway tramps. This is, as Ximena said, about as close to the "virgin" character as we are going to get in a contemporary movie. And, as is common in horror movies again -- it is the virgin, the "good girl," the "pure" one, who survives and who delivers the killing blow to the big bad. Both Jason and Ximena were not impressed by the total breakdown of the male aggressor either, since, it turns out, such a breakdown in common, in rape-revenge films of which this is a kind of revision (as it is also a kind of revision of the horror film).

Later however, Ximena grabbed me to let me know that they had continued to think about the film in the days that followed. She wanted to know what it was that set the second group of women apart from the first, what allowed them to survive. What she came up with was this -- the girls in the first round are all standard horror genre victim types. Their fate is sealed. But the second group are not stock characters -- they are, in opposition to the first group, "real people." What makes this interesting is the way Tarantino conceives of "real" -- they are "real" because, in Tarantino-world, the "real" people are the movie people -- the actress, the make up artist, the stunt woman (who plays herself and does her own stunts of course). As "real" people, as "movie" people, they stand above petty genre characters like the first wave of women and antagonist they face -- which is why they are able to turn the tables on him so fast and so thoroughly, much to his shock.

In an e-mail Jason had this to add: And now, seeing the discussion summarized like that, it occurs to me that Tarantino has (once again) made a movie about movies -- or more specifically a film that engages its own means of production (pun intended) and, simultaneously, how cinema has impacted the "real world." Postmodernism. Feedback loop. Baudrillard. Zizek. Yadda yadda yadda. But seriously, that we tell stories at all is the essence of "human" (we are the only mammals with a concept of before and after beyond a few moments). Other mammals can communicate "I am hunngry" but no other mammal communicates "I was hungry yesterday and that really sucked." So, if narratives make us who we are, then what Tarantino is "playing at" how we, as humans, are redefining ourselves through film (a relatively new narrative genre).


UPDATE: see the comments: I did not represent Jason and Ximena fairly here.

A Note on Grindhouse

Be sure to see Grindhouse this week if you want the intended experience. The film has been loosing a lot of money -- the running time is a turn off and the Village Voice ran an article about how it was badly marketed, not released to actual grindhouse theaters and grindhouse festivals if you can believe it. So it looks like it may be split into two films (which will cost you twice as much to see) and god knows what happens to the trailers; the DVD might also be split like this, so now may be your only chance. I give Grindhouse a B (because Tarantino's intentionally frustrating but brilliant pacing is hard to take after sitting down for so long before his film starts), "Planet Terror" a B, and Tarantino's "Death Proof" an A. I would not see Grindhouse twice, but will be first in line to buy "Death Proof" however it is packaged and watch it again and again. God bless Quentin Tarantino and everything he stands for. And ya gotta love both these guys and the Grindhouse film for just being nuts.

Grindhouse (Spoiler Free)

Kill Bill is my favorite movie, so I was at an 11:30pm show of GRINDHOUSE -- a double feature of Rodriguez's Planet Terror and Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof will added fake trailers. This review will be spoiler free, but I wanted to give it its own post so that spoilers can be in the comments thread, if people want it.

The first thing that strikes me about Grindhouse is that it seems like a bit of a joke on Rodriguez, like when two friends agree to shave their heads and then, the next day at school, the other guy doesn't do it: I know they are both friends and I am sure they worked together closely, but it feels a bit like they got together and said "Let's make a pair of Grindhouse flicks": Rodriguez exemplifies the genre, as his hyperbolic mode is only a parody in the sense that making an old fashioned movie like this, complete with missing reels and crackling sound, NOW pretty much HAS to be a parody; Tarantino, rather than exemplifying the genre as Rodriguez does, delivers ... something else. I cannot say what that something else is without ruining his film, but there is a reason the trailers are filled with images from Rodriguez's film, a reason a girl with a machine gun leg is the icon of the film.

A few warnings: I am not sure that the whole Grindhouse package sits well together. The fake trailers are fun, especially the one for Machete, but some of the others -- what did I expect from Eli Roth -- made that subtle shift from funny-violence to wrong-violence. I might be the only person that felt this way, but I enjoyed all the violence of Rodriguez's movie but wanted to get out of the theater during Roth's trailer. Not so much my thing. Also just about every great image in Rodriguez's entry you have seen on the trailer. Then after an hour and a half into Grindhouse you get Tarantino's film -- it is a GREAT film, but part of the way the film works is to spend time on seriously languid pacing and dialogue at more than one point before getting to the pair of action sets. On the one hand, of course, it is Tarantino. But as part of the Grindhouse package, that promises exploitation at every turn, my audience got VERY restless after sitting in the theater for so long. But it is worth the small to moderate frustration -- if unlike me you are not Tarantino obsessive and love every scene: Tarantino's film is exquisite.