Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2

Firstly, I think it is important, in examining these films, to do so as if they were one undivided whole. Tarantino has no presented this films in a temporal-linear fashion and one film without the other either lacks background or lacks resolution. I will be examining "Kill Bill" in its entirety through the lens of the portrayal of violence in mainstream cinema (which I believe Kill Bill fits under as it made $330,000,000 at the worldwide box office), and also slightly more specifically, the portrayal of women in violent roles in mainstream cinema. 

Tarantino is a prolific (some might argue, excessive) user of pastiche in his films, and has himself said "I steal from everyone!" The plot of "Kill Bill" is based upon a 1973 Japanese revenge-drama entitled "Lady Snowblood" and the 'stealing' doesn't end there. Tarantino essentially creates of collage of genre tributes ranging from Spaghetti Westerns, to Japanese Samurai to Chinese Wuxia. He interlaces this with an appropriation of characters and quotations from other films. 

It would be impossible to argue that "Kill Bill" is not a violent film, to the point perhaps of gratuity, and yet comparably violent films have barely had a modicum of the success that Kill Bill has enjoyed. I would argue it lies in Tarantino's very specific use of filmic techniques to either exaggerate the violence to the point of ridiculousness, desensitise the audience to the violence by limiting our sensory reaction or by gradually preparing us for a shocking act of violence. 

The first technique, exaggeration of violence is perhaps best seen with the Tokyo restaurant fight scene where 'The Bride' takes on the The Crazy 88 and Gogo. The rather cheap looking effects, the blood spraying the roof and walls, and over-dramatised moaning all tend to create a scene that is beyond the constraints of reality, thus limiting the impact of the violence. 

Secondly, Tarantino often removes one sensory aspect to decrease the impact of the violence playing out on the screen. This is seen in the very first scene when Bill shoots the bride in the head and the scene is in black-and-white, this serves a dual-purpose of paying homage to the spaghetti western genre of which Tarantino is so fond. We also see the same technique used again in the Tokyo restaurant when the lights are blacked and the scene is back-lit with a blue aura. While, every physical action is still visible the gruesome impact is far less. 

The other technique Tarantino uses, is perhaps best described as gradual preparation. Sort of like stretching our violence-enduring muscles. This is seen with O-Ren's gruesome back story, which is animated and then leads into her decapitation of the Yakuza crime boss who dares mention her heritage.

While the industry is undoubtedly improving and becoming more 'female-lead' friendly, it's naive to say that there is equality in the cinema world. Placing a woman in a violence-heavy lead role, instantly alienates a large portion of the possible audience, men who instantly feel emasculated by a woman chopping men to bits, and women who are so suppressed by their society that they themselves perpetuate these cemented gender roles. 

A number of cinematic scholars have described the woman's role in cinema as "passive" ("Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" Laura Mulvey 1975) or while 'men act, women appear' ("Ways of Seeing" John Berger 1972), it is this aspect of mainstream cinema that makes "Kill Bill's" success all the more surprising and wonderful. The character of The Bride challenges every aspect of this male dominated world, while of course Tarantino isn't the first to do so, his is an important example for one reason.

While it could be argued another important example of a strong female lead is found in Ridley Scott's "Alien" there is a striking difference. "Kill Bill" is overflowing with female characters (lead and supporting) who are of different races (Caucasian, Black, Asian) who engage in violence and do so without playing second-fiddle to a man. The exception might be found in the character of Elle Driver who follows Bill's commands without falter, although one could argue their relationship is resemblant of a General/obedient-Lieutenant, rather than a suppressed woman.  

It would be foolish to disregard the importance that this film played in helping continue society's lesson in cinematic equality and Tarantino's use of pastiche and genre-blending is undoubtedly intriguing. And if any one disagrees...

Some favourites

And now some classic sassy Robert DeNiro

"Some people will never like me, and I will never give a fuck."

Words to live by

Los Olvidados

“Los Olvidados” is a 1950 social-realist criticism directed by Luis Buñel. The film follows the life of Pedro, a young, destitute boy living in the slums of Mexico City, and who, despite being inherently good is unable to overcome nor escape the negative influences that surround him. The film begins with the release of Jaibo from a juvenile penitentiary who then rejoins his gang and seeks the young boy who put him into custody. Jaibo’s murder of the young boy and Pedro’s cooperation with the antagonist provide the action for the plot. 

It will be argued that Buñel’s film is a confronting look at the objective cruelty of life for a huge number of Mexicans, who at the time were left behind by a country on the brink of urbanisation as well as a deep criticism of capitalism’s failed attempts to modernise a deeply divided Mexico and the fake image portrayed by Mexican cinema. 

“Los Olvidados” was at best considered a challenge to the traditional Mexican cinema aesthetic, which exclusively incorporated folklore or national symbols, and at worst it was a subversive attack on the Mexican cinema naivety in regards to huge social issues faced by the country. 

Much like essentially all of Latin-America, Mexico has long suffered from huge economic disparity and nowhere is this more visible than in Mexico City, where one finds exorbitantly wealthy Bourgeoisie and also the characters whom “Los Olvidados” follows, the slum-dwellers. This social-realist look at 1950’s Mexico City is an important departure from the traditional international image perpetrated by Mexican cinema. 

It is not far from the truth to describe “Los Olvidados” as an assault on the viewer. In the literal sense, in the first scene a young boy, behaving like a bull charges towards the camera while snorting, meanwhile at the Farm School, Pedro launches an egg which collides directly with the camera and yolk runs down the lens. These two rather crude images are important as they bring the viewer into the violent and confronting world of the characters. 

It is especially important to note that general hardness and lack of emotion that the older characters display. Even Pedro’s own mother has been so hardened by her bleak existence that she essentially disowns him. This is also despite Pedro’s innate goodness and usually good intentions. Here Buñel comments on the objective cruelty of the world. One must ask the question, where in the cycle does Jaibo come from. Was he also once innately good, but was twisted by the unforgiving nature of the slums. We see Pedro unable to overcome the negative influence of Jaibo mixed with his entrapment in the slums. Meanwhile, even young Julian is killed and importantly, Buñel doesn’t allow really any time for pity or empathy. The same is seen with the death of Jaibo. Despite Jaibo hearing his mother’s voice when being shot, Buñel ensures we feel no pity for him as the frame instantly changes to Pedro’s body being carried away. 

Buñel’s clinical precision and documentary like story-telling give the audience a desensitised look at this type of life. We are not allowed to feel pity, or even empathy for the outrageously unfair existence these people have. Instead we are left in shock at the ability for cruelty of children and the lack of escape, even Pedro’s dream sequence is violence filled and traumatic. 

Through his use of surrealist film technique Buñel criticises many aspects of 1950’s Mexican society. The uneven impact of capitalist modernisation, the superficiality of Mexican cinema and the non-discriminating cruelty of life.

The Act of Killing

A slightly more politics focused look at this film. An extremely confronting look at the power of propaganda.

On October 1st, 1965 an armed group kidnapped six senior army generals, killed them and dumped their bodies. This was the culmination of almost 20 years (from 1945 beginning of the Indonesian revolution against the Dutch) of economic, political and ideological instability in the country. The PKI (Indonesian Communist Party) was blamed for the murders and the military, under direction of Suharto (then Commander of the Army Strategic Reserve) initiated a period of mass genocide and imprisonment of PKI members and sympathisers. 

The main issue for the victims of the 1965-66 genocide is revealed when trying to declare who is responsible. How can a victim find justice for a crime when the perpetrator and the vast majority of society don’t believe a crime was committed? At best we can identify the main actors involved and the role they played. 

Firstly, the Indonesian military, is the only actor who played a direct and indirect role. Despite not being scrutinised in the film,  it undoubtedly had the most direct role to play in the genocide. The minimal amount of investigations that have occurred, have attributed the majority of the killings to the military and its members. However, as seen with Anwar and his fellow killers, whose role was entirely direct, the military was involved in igniting low socio-economic, uneducated youths into killing and thus played an indirect role. 

Secondly, one must examine the genocide through its context. Set against the backdrop of the Cold War and the US government’s obsessive policy of containment and domino theory (as one state in a region came under Communism, others would too) Western governments had a huge (although technically indirect) role to play. 

The British government assisted the Indonesians with propaganda, finances and operations. The Australian government (an Indonesian neighbour) also assisted with propaganda. But in its own league of involvement was the US government. It provided the Suharto’s forces with weapons and finances, and a CIA list of Communist names who were to never be from again. 

The USA playing a role in mass-killings in developing nations is definitely not an unheard of phenomenon (e.g. Chile 1973, again against the Left: socialist Allende), however it does help explain the politics that have prevented this awful chapter of history from being more heavily scrutinised. 

Victims of violence or discrimination in the developing (2nd/3rd world) must almost exclusively rely on Western pressure on their own governments in order to receive apologies, compensation or justice, however, when the (arguably) World’s hegemon, (arguably) European hegemon, and (arguably) regional Hegemon were all involved in the deaths of 1 million people, and the illegal imprisonment of hundreds of thousands more its unlikely they will be pushing for scrutiny of the issue. 

Meanwhile, in Indonesian, the Suharto regime collapsed in 1998 yet little has happened since, despite media restrictions being lifted. In 2004 textbooks were published that did not describe the events of 1965 as a response to an attempted Communist coup and huge backlash ensued. All the textbooks were destroyed. 

Much of the acceptance of the events of 1965 has to do with Indonesia’s economic development following the ascension of Suharto. The changing nature of history would blame Sukarno (elected President 1959) and communism for Indonesia’s economic problems. Admittedly, Sukarno was far too concerned with the ideological journey of Indonesia and spent little time implementing economic policy. Meanwhile, other strongly contributing factors are ignored, including that Indonesia had been a Western colony (by definition economically abused), had only 15 years earlier completed a revolution and was suffering under a huge uneducated, agriculture-dependant population.

There exists a trickle down effect, which is what one sees with Anwar and his group. The secret to government honesty is a majority middle class who have education but also possess a social conscience. The lower class are frequently uneducated, without financial power and therefore voiceless, meanwhile the upper class frequently dwell there through abuse of the lower class and rarely want to share their position. In Indonesia, the uneducated, lower class made up the majority of victims of 1965-66 and in a cruel twist, now even believe that Suharto rescued them from the evils of communism. Meanwhile, the upper class (best friends of Capitalism) benefited greatly from the events of 1965 and thus no one is examining history. 

The main issue with “The Act of Killing” is that, while it brings attention to the genocide, the blame is misdirected. Even the results of Josh Oppenheimer’s experiment and Anwar’s emotion journey, the final breakdown and vomiting, are doubtfully honest reactions. One must remember, Anwar clearly thinks of himself as quite a star in his own way and is aware the whole time he is on camera. 

However, naturally, they are easy targets, so deluded by their own government’s propaganda that they will happily talk about the endless, gruesome murders they committed.  One must almost admire the ability of Suharto and the army to implement their regime with no backlash. Through outrageously excessive force they have implemented a legitimate political regime and Indonesia is now considered, positively, a regional power and symbol of stability. 

This however is the most confronting aspect of the film, even the director seems to consider Suharto’s power legitimate. And we are feeling outrage toward Anwar but none for the US government or the military or even the Dutch who used and abused the Indonesian nation, leaving them weak to such widespread violence.

Robin

Just thought I would mention the recent death of one of the most famous and perhaps prolific comic actors of all time, Robin Williams.

While some of his films could perhaps be considered crude or puerile or immature, there is no doubt that he has brought laughter and smiles to the vast majority of people around the world at one point or another.

With his death came an outpouring of tributes and wishes of peace. The most beautiful of these, in my opinion, was put into his own words.

"Make your life spectacular, I know I did."

Wadjda

An absolutely incredible movie and insight in the extremely insular Saudi Arabian society. The first ever full-length feature to be shot entirely in Saudi Arabia and the first to be directed by a Saudi woman.

It follows an outrageously charismatic 11 year old girl named Wadjda (played by Waad Mohammed) as she breaks down gender stereotypes and dreams of owning and riding a bicycle. Meanwhile her family is breaking apart as her father looks to marry a second wife.

The film won a slew of awards and has maintained hugely positive response on rating websites like Rottentomatoes and Metacritic and won can instantly see why.

As a social commentary the film is quite literally genius and I would wish that every child in a non-muslim country were made to see this film as you can't help but be taken away by the normality of this gorgeous, intelligent and hilarious girl! Well worth a watch!!!!

The Other Woman

This movie has received more or less exclusively negative reviews, and while I can't see it winning any major cinematic awards, the hatred definitely seems misdirected.

Reason #1

Admittedly, I find Kate Upton to be a ditzy idiot but in this film she is quite charming.

Reason #2

What is there not to love about Cameron Diaz, who at 41 still rocks it like when she was 25. Gorgeous and funny!

Also I don't know how anyone couldn't have enjoyed watching cheatees take revenge on some sleazy dirtbag. All in all it should be considered a perfectly empowering story headed by a very talented cast, particularly Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann.

So to all those people complaining about it being formulaic or faux-fem humour

Little Miss Sunshine

Such a perfect movie about our need to belong to something, anything. Some analysis..bit boring

In the 2006 film Little Miss Sunshine, directors Jonothan Dayton and Valerie Faris, explore our need to belong, through their use of satire and costuming, the importance of one’s notions of identity and sense of self in creating this sense of belonging. 

We see humanity's need to belong and the different ways in which this need can manifest itself; even with people who have passed away. Olive must come to terms with the sudden death of her grandfather; the person to whom she felt closest within her family. Through the use of dark humour in “I'd like to dedicate this to my grandpa, who showed me these moves” [...] “Where’s your grandpa now?” “In the trunk of our car”, the composers are able to disguise Olive’s feelings of loss while indicating the connection she still feels with him after his death through their dance and demonstrating her need to belong.

Human fragility and the result of which can be humans choosing not to belong is also seen in Little Miss Sunshine. Uncle Frank attempts to use suicide as a wayto escape the pain of losing his lover to another. In, “I fell in love with someone who didn’t love me back” followed by Olive’s reaction of “That’s silly” a contrast is drawn. Olive, who has experienced so little in her young life, has her innocence reflected onto Frank who is constantly dressed in white,.  Frank’s choice of lover who was not in love with him again demonstrates humankind’s need to belong despite the damage that can be caused by this need. Humanity needs to feel a sense of belonging and it is this need to belong that often has a huge effect on how one perceives oneself and that person’s notions of identity. In the 2006 film Little Miss Sunshine, the child- Beauty pageant arena is satirised, thus creating a microcosm of the whole of society and the way people change parts of themselves to feel a sense of belonging and how this pressure can affect both self image and worth. When Olive asks her Grandpa “Am I pretty?”, her questioning leads to a great sense of belonging being forged with the audience. We realise the lengths that people will go to belong and humanity’s need to feel a sense of belonging. In his response “I'm madly in love with you and it's not because of your brains or your personality,” through the repeated use of humour, an attitude rarely expressed yet commonly felt is represented. The importance of image over all else is examined and

we once again experience a jolt when shown the attitude that is rampant in today’s society.

"I'd like to dedicate this to my grandpa, who showed me these moves."