I lay in bed thinking about this, so be kind: Quarantino's action at least in the Crazy 88 fight I'd characterize as cubist action, where the camera pov moves so much that we're as close to seeing the fight in every angle at once. I don't particularly like it from a genre stand point, since it disorients the viewer and dissipates the energy of the scene (both of which contribute to experiences of the viewer trying to re-position himself with respect to the action, which "costs" energy at expense of the action itself). In the end, it was too self-consciously Artistic for me to enjoy on a primary level.
Single-shot sequences, OTOH, allow the viewer to more faithfully serve as a spectator, with fewer mediating removes between him and what's going on. And from a rockistish viewpoint, protracted shots reduce the ability to hide the stuntdoubles from viewers -- meaning that Uma has to have trained a buttload. This verisimilitude is an important point to me, that a star is actually performing these acrobatics, and again building up the image of being there (e.g. less mediation). (Of course, Hollywood is the reverse of the HK system, where martial arts champs become actors, so here's an inherent problem (see: Uma's (sometimes visible) difficulty with her swordwork b/c of her height.).)
But the problem likely isn't solely with Quarantino per se, but Hollywood grabbing onto the udders of the HK cash cow?
― Leee (Leee), Sunday, 12 October 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)
except that HK directors are coming over here now, too...
― Kingfish (Kingfish), Sunday, 12 October 2003 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)
i had the same problem with the fight scenes, so when i saw it a second time i paid attention to the editing and I have to say it is done extremely well. there is a distinct cause-and-effect relationship between the cuts. I never felt like i didnt know what was going on or who was doing what to who. it goes fast but there is at least something being conveyed other than a random montage. i agree that style often obscures what it is trying to convey, but in this case i dont think it is the product of laziness in regards to the action.
― ryan (ryan), Sunday, 12 October 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)
Kill Bill may be the least intellectual film of the year (and I say that knowing full well what kind of crap has been purveyed this year), so I fail to understand the addiction some people have to try to justify the big mountain of gimmicky emptiness by spraying the slightly less odiferious (though no less empty) spray of intellectual approach and reconsideration. I say this very rarely, but, I want my friggin time back from watching it!
― Girolamo Savonarola, Sunday, 12 October 2003 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)
. I say this very rarely, but, I want my friggin time back from watching it!But do you want your time back from posting about it? You appear to have written more extensively on this movie than on any other.
― Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 13 October 2003 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)
Well, no, obviously posting to ILE is a good way to spend hours upon hours of time and not at all a massive waste of anyone's existance.
I'm turning into Jess but meaner wtf.
― Ally (mlescaut), Monday, 13 October 2003 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)
girolamo writes abt many other movies but a lot of it is on ILF, which many here do not read.
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 13 October 2003 15:27 (twenty-two years ago)