You Have To Make A Choice

In the original screenplay to Pulp Fiction, Mia (Uma Thurman) quizzes Vincent (John Travolta) on pop culture. As she puts it:

MIA: Now I'm gonna ask you a bunch of quick questions I've come up with that more or less tell me what kind of person I'm having dinner with. My theory is that when it comes to important subjects, there's only two ways a person can answer. For instance, there's two kinds of people in this world, Elvis people and Beatles people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis. And Elvis people can like the Beatles. But nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice tells me who you are.

(By the way, what makes this Quentin Tarantino dialogue are the lines about how you can like both. It's not just pop references, which anyone can do, but the insistence on the small things, that makes his stuff different. Most other writers would cut those lines to speed things up--or have them cut in the development process).

Anyway, Grindhouse--a tribute to the pulpy films of their youth--was a three-hour extravaganza that combined a complete film by Robert Rodriguez ("Planet Terror") and Tarantino ("Death Proof") along with some fake trailers for other films of that type. "Planet Terror" was sci-fi/horror and "Death Proof" a car chase film. Of course, the money spent on Grindhouse could have paid for a hundred of those original exploitation movies.

The concept was interesting, but the audience didn't bite. It was a huge flop. But it's acheived cult status on DVD. I suppose it might even go into the black some day.

But both films are quite different. And the question now is, which do you prefer.

Rodriguez's "Planet Terror" (since the films were released separately in Europe and are sold on DVD individually, maybe I should use italics) follows the exploitation style closely. It's got an absurd and absurdly violent plot with monsters and government conspiracies. It's essentially an old-style film done with money, so the effects and stunts are far superior to anything one could have seen in a cheapo theatre in the 70s.

Tarantino's "Death Proof" subverts the style (or you could say he cheats), allowing his characters long, talky scenes before getting down to the action. The car chase, however, is shot old school, with real stunts and no effects.

I have to go with "Death Proof." "Planet Terror" has its moments, but though it's fascinatingly gory, there's not really too much going on. As bad as they are, I think I'd prefer the old grindhouse films it's based on, since they're doing the best they can with little money, while he's condescending to a style.

Tarantino turns his shot into another Tarantino film, which is better. It's still got serious flaws. He's far too in love with his dialogue, and allows it to go on for too long. Often there's no forward plot motion underneath. He also has a bifurcated plot, killing off the main group only to replace them with another.

But when the dialogue is working--especially with the second group--it's pretty good. And Stuntman Mike, who turns out the be the villain, is a pretty interesting character. In general, even with all the teases, there's something going on beyond just action and violence.

And when he finally pays off with a lengthy chase, he's able to do the dream work that he and his audience always wanted to see in all those car films years ago.

"Death Proof," along with Tarantino's Kill Bill films, still suffers a bit from certain empty patches and weak characters papered over by empty virtuosity and tributes to the films of his past. But it holds up reasonably well, and shows at its best that he can handle action old school (which is still better than a cut a second).