Death Proof

[Dan Warburton]

Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof, 2007

A few months ago I was moaning about this over at Bagatellen, but Al Jones's comments made me want to check out QT's 70s spoof exploitation car chase road movie again, so I did, on DVD. And I enjoyed it so much more this time I watched it twice.



Trawl around the web and you'll find plenty of strong reactions to this movie - more against than for it, from what I can make out - complaining that "nothing happens, twice" (ha, they said that about En Attendant Godot too) and that the dialogue sucks, etc etc. I complained that the dialogue sucked too, but it didn't bother me as much on a second or third viewing.

Much has been made of the verfremdungseffekt deliberate cuts, scratches, rips and tears, the "affectionate homage" to the DIY splicing of the old drive-in double bill (odd how they seem to disappear when the final car chase gets going - or is it that we don't notice them in the heat of the action? the only intentional (?) blooper I spotted there was a pair of cars that overtake the two Dodges at high speed at one point). Some have speculated that the dialogue is similarly deliberately bad, but I didn't find it bad at all this time round. Sure, we're not talking Joe Mankiewicz or Robert Towne, but as writers go, QT's better than average.

The only thing I found hard to believe was that the chicks in part one could even stand up after what they had to drink - margaritas, beers, shots of Chartreuse (yeurgh!) and Wild Turkey. Jaysus.

Anyway, anyone violently pour or contre this little bit of (h)armless fun?

[al jones]

pour, pour! but you know that already.

The blooper you mentioned, and others like it, indeed seem deliberate. One of the things I love about this film is how haphazardly it departs from an agenda -- and still manages to be incredibly entertaining. The verfremd...huh? scratchy stuff keeps with Rodriguez's sister film as a double-bill homage to 70's drive-in/exploitation stuff, but only in the scene involving the first set of characters.

I don't have much of a theory, but I've considered that DP ceases to be an exploitation film (a wonderfully, sloppily crafted one, at that) when the central locales (and girls) shift, at which point it starts over as a revenge flick, keeping a single line of familiarity for the viewer: the character of Stuntman Mike, his car, and his tendencies. It film becomes "clean" at this point, too: no splicing, cuts, stray hairs, etc. And I have no idea why.

It's possible that QT was running painfully late or over-budget at some point and never returned to it -- I've read that the final cut of Inglourious Basterds is a result of QT's own determination to screen it at Cannes. It could also be that the team was simply having too much with the project and later felt it unnecessary to "treat" it. Idunno. But it all works. I love that movie, dialogue and all.

[Dan Warburton]

Thanks for the input, Al. I haven't seen the original Grindhouse double bill with Rodriguez, but I absolutely hated From Dusk Till Dawn, and didn't get much out of Sin City either, so I'm not really tempted.

Cmon, IHF regulars, you guys must have seen Death Proof. Saywhat?

[mudd]

i'm no regular, but i'm fond of this film.

m

[Jesse]

I spent a significant amount of time in my misspent youth at drive-in theaters in the mid-western US-the last movie I recall seeing on a drive-in screen was the excellent revenge film Rolling Thunder. Anyway, having seen everything from soft-core (Naughty Stewardesses!), to the always available biker flick (Al Adamson!) on the large outdoor screens, I found Tarantino's homage skillful and amusing. Fetishistic, really, his attention to every detail of recreating drive-in fare.
As a talking head/interview subject, he is intolerable.

[al jones]

As a talking head/interview subject, he is intolerable.

[jcg]

I haven't seen the original Grindhouse double bill with Rodriguez

You should really see this then.



To me, with Planet Terror, Rodriguez signs one of the best tribute to 70s/80s exploitation/B-movies ever: gogo dancers, biological weapons, Bruce Willis, flesh-eating zombies, machine gun replacing amputed leg, rural Texas BBQ sauce, the head of Quentin Tarantino exploding, etc. Yeah it's really over the top but skillfully directed, tons of references very well digested (from Romero to Karate Kid through Texas Chain Saw Massacre or Invasion of the Body Snatchers) and a lot of fun. Even the fake trailer of Machete ("they just fucked with the wrong Mexican") has more quality than the whole Death Proof. After the disappointment of Kill Bill, I remember watching DP is what made me think: is Tarantino really finished as a film director or has he never been a film director? I haven't answered this question yet.

[mudd]

major flaw: (central) texas barbecue eschews sauce.

other than that it was fun but less so than death proof. to me.

m

[markt]

I felt pretty ambivalent about this one... it was entertaining but I don't usually like stuff that's 'so bad/cheesy that it's good' and it took me a while to realize that Death Proof wasn't exactly that (maybe a little... whatever)
I should really watch it again.

I never saw Planet Terror...
I think I dislike Robert Rodriguez a lot more than others on this thread, though.

(sidenote: we should have threads for single movies more often... I was going to start a "WTF! They're remaking Taking of Pelham 123 with hack actors like John Travolta and Denzel Washington??!?!" thread a couple days ago...)

[Dan Warburton]

After the disappointment of Kill Bill

Yes, I wasn't all that blown away either..

I remember watching DP is what made me think: is Tarantino really finished as a film director or has he never been a film director? I haven't answered this question yet.

Aww, come on, you've got the give the guy more credit than that. Tell you what, I'll try Planet Terror if you try Death Proof again (like you I was underwhelmed first time), on condition that I find someone to lend me a DVD, cuz I ain't spending any more moolah on Robert Rodriguez.. Sin City, with the three+ hours of babysitter, the cinema places and the obligatory huge glass of whisky afterwards to get the image of the hugely overrated Mickey Rourke out of my mind, cost me a bloody fortune.

we should have threads for single movies more often...

Your wish is my command!

I was going to start a "WTF! They're remaking Taking of Pelham 123 with hack actors like John Travolta and Denzel Washington??!?!" thread a couple days ago...)

Why don't you? I'll chip in to that. I love that movie and dread to think what a remake will be like

[anastasia vronski]

Death Proof seems funny to many people on blogs and forums but as a woman I am a bit suspicious that it seems often an opportunity to put beautiful women on screens and show laptop... and Mister W. you didn't chose pictures of stuntscars in Google images
But what really bothers me I feel it is often a pretext to show violence against womeneven if in Tarantino'sfilm they avenge.
This season in Cannes Festival Best Actress Prize was given to Charlotte Gainsbourgh in Antechrist (I find it difficult to understand an understudied role can win Best Actor Prize) . Once again violence against women and sexism.
I'm afraid cinema presents violence against women a normal way. Maybe it encourages it.
Also, no women has received Best Director Award (only 3 nominated) and in Cannes only Jane Campion.
She said: "The studio system is kind of an old boys' system. It's difficult for them to trust women to be capable. I have been very very lucky because some of our cinema is state sponsored so they have to be fair to both men and women ." She is lucky indeed because even in countries with state sponsorship anf grants like Quebec and english speaking Canada, France .. .maybe others it is unfair nonetheless.
Some are unaware of the stakes it seems like Isabelle Huppert Jury President, saying " Cinema is universal" and add ing "she was just happy to be one of the only 4 female judges since the Festival was founded" (contadiction)
It reminds me of a very intersting thread here on women in music.
Here are a few ideas I wanted to share because I like cinema and in the same time I feel it is sexist and machist very often and so not universal for half humane beings and not helping .Maybe only reflecting or worsening?
Excuse me if I being lenghty and boring.
Anastasia

[Dan Warburton]

Death Proof seems funny to many people on blogs and forums but as a woman I am a bit suspicious that it seems often an opportunity to put beautiful women on screens and show laptop...

Lapdance, you mean? Fennesz is laptop

and Mister W. you didn't chose pictures of stuntscars in Google images

When I'm posting here you're right, I do a Google image and tend to pick the first one I land on, if I like it. Can't I post a picture of a woman when talking about a film that's filled with them?

But what really bothers me I feel it is often a pretext to show violence against womeneven if in Tarantino'sfilm they avenge.

I see what you mean, but I watched it with my wife and she laughed her head off (maybe the wrong image to use there, haha..). Showing isn't necessarily condoning, or glorifying.. is it?

This season in Cannes Festival Best Actress Prize was given to Charlotte Gainsbourgh in Antechrist (I find it difficult to understand an understudied role can win Best Actor Prize) . Once again violence against women and sexism.

I know little about Antichrist other than what I've read online (the trailer is misleading), but remember Mr Von Trier's penchant for pissing people off. (See other thread here, somewhere)

I'm afraid cinema presents violence against women a normal way. Maybe it encourages it.

Again, presenting something doesn't necessarily mean approving of it. Does it?

Also, no women has received Best Director Award (only 3 nominated) and in Cannes only Jane Campion.

The President of the Jury this year was a woman though

She said: "The studio system is kind of an old boys' system. It's difficult for them to trust women to be capable. I have been very very lucky because some of our cinema is state sponsored so they have to be fair to both men and women ." She is lucky indeed because even in countries with state sponsorship anf grants like Quebec and english speaking Canada, France .. .maybe others it is unfair nonetheless.
Some are unaware of the stakes it seems like Isabelle Huppert Jury President, saying " Cinema is universal" and add ing "she was just happy to be one of the only 4 female judges since the Festival was founded" (contadiction)
It reminds me of a very intersting thread here on women in music.
Here are a few ideas I wanted to share because I like cinema and in the same time I feel it is sexist and machist very often and so not universal for half humane beings and not helping .Maybe only reflecting or worsening?
Excuse me if I being lenghty and boring.
Anastasia

I think this is an important and huge subject, and one worthy of a thread of its own. Personally, I'd like to know whether you think Death Proof specifically and Tarantino in general is sexist, and if so, where, when and why.

[anastasia vronski]

Death Proof seems funny to many people on blogs and forums but as a woman I am a bit suspicious that it seems often an opportunity to put beautiful women on screens and show laptop...

Lapdance, you mean? Fennesz is laptop
Yes a lapse

and Mister W. you didn't chose pictures of stuntscars in Google images

When I'm posting here you're right, I do a Google image and tend to pick the first one I land on, if I like it. Can't I post a picture of a woman when talking about a film that's filled with them?

Of course and I found you doing it moving cute boyish and it made me laugh

But what really bothers me I feel it is often a pretext to show violence against womeneven if in Tarantino'sfilm they avenge.

I see what you mean, but I watched it with my wife and she laughed her head off (maybe the wrong image to use there, haha..). Showing isn't necessarily condoning, or glorifying.. is it?

I agree but still I feel maybe it matters

This season in Cannes Festival Best Actress Prize was given to Charlotte Gainsbourgh in Antechrist (I find it difficult to understand an understudied role can win Best Actor Prize) . Once again violence against women and sexism.

I know little about Antichrist other than what I've read online (the trailer is misleading), but remember Mr Von Trier's penchant for pissing people off. (See other thread here, somewhere)

I'll do if piss off means make fun it is my point laugh makes it very difficult to speak against you look an old spinster if you do

I'm afraid cinema presents violence against women a normal way. Maybe it encourages it.

Again, presenting something doesn't necessarily mean approving of it. Does it?

No , that's not but it's not conscious

Also, no women has received Best Director Award (only 3 nominated) and in Cannes only Jane Campion.

The President of the Jury this year was a woman though

Give them something so it's not too obvious...

She said: "The studio system is kind of an old boys' system. It's difficult for them to trust women to be capable. I have been very very lucky because some of our cinema is state sponsored so they have to be fair to both men and women ." She is lucky indeed because even in countries with state sponsorship anf grants like Quebec and english speaking Canada, France .. .maybe others it is unfair nonetheless.
Some are unaware of the stakes it seems like Isabelle Huppert Jury President, saying " Cinema is universal" and add ing "she was just happy to be one of the only 4 female judges since the Festival was founded" (contadiction)
It reminds me of a very intersting thread here on women in music.
Here are a few ideas I wanted to share because I like cinema and in the same time I feel it is sexist and machist very often and so not universal for half humane beings and not helping .Maybe only reflecting or worsening?
Excuse me if I being lenghty and boring.
Anastasia

I think this is an important and huge subject, and one worthy of a thread of its own. Personally, I'd like to know whether you think Death Proof specifically and Tarantino in general is sexist, and if so, where, when and why.

I must read and think more about it :I have only seen Reservoir Dogs but imagine a remake of Death Proof with ugly or unsexy women how would you like it? How many times you would see it again?
I have a lot of problem with this quoting here maybe you won't understand me .Maybe in the end I succeded.
I really appreciate all you write in ihf . don't take it bad it's just ideas I have and it was not the most appropriate movie to tell them about;

[hatta]

Why I don't have any interest In Quentin Tarantino anymore:

I used to be pretty into his films and I'd still count his first three films as ones I like, but after Kill Bill I just lost interest. Why? Because he's not really interested in telling stories. Go look up some of his interviews and he tells you straight up what he's trying to do with each film: "I want to make a revenge film", "I want to make a grindhouse picture", "I want to make a "man on a mission" film" and so on. To me the best film (limited to narrative film here, I do like non-narrative films as well but that's not what QT is doing) begins with a story that the filmmaker wants to tell and they go about trying to tell it in their own style. Tarantino doesn't start with a story, he starts with a genre and a desire to create something that'd fit within a historical narrative surrounding that genre. That isn't storytelling, its trading on nostalgia and I just don't have much time for that.

[Dan Warburton]

I must read and think more about it :I have only seen Reservoir Dogs

I think you ought to see Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and both parts of Kill Bill then before making any sweeping generalisations about Tarantino's portrayal of women. (This "I've seen more of his films than you / I've got more of his albums than you therefore my opinion counts for more" argument is not something I normally subscribe to, but in the case of Tarantino, who hasn't made all that many films, I think I'm justified in using it).

imagine a remake of Death Proof with ugly or unsexy women how would you like it? How many times you would see it again?

I take it the "you" is general and not addressed to me in particular? You'd also have to provide me your definition of "ugly" and "unsexy" (what's this? the Susan Boyle effect?), because I'm not going to open that particular can o' worms. As it happens, I don't find all QT's "girls" in DP either beautiful or sexy, but maybe that's just me.

after Kill Bill I just lost interest.

Well, unless you count a guest slot on Sin City and a couple of episodes of CSI, the next thing QT directed after Kill Bill was Death Proof.. Or am I missing out on something here?

Why? Because he's not really interested in telling stories. [..] To me the best film (limited to narrative film here, I do like non-narrative films as well but that's not what QT is doing) begins with a story that the filmmaker wants to tell and they go about trying to tell it in their own style.

What do you mean by a non-narrative film? Warhol's Empire? What's interesting about your quote above is that "begins". Seems to be a rather traditional, dare one say, "old fashioned" way of thinking about cinema (though Hitchcock, Mankiewicz and Polanski would certainly agree). Do you make a distinction between "story" and "screenplay / script"? Can a film have a good script without telling much of a story? (I'd say it can, and Death Proof might be a very good example).

starts with a genre and a desire to create something that'd fit within a historical narrative surrounding that genre.

Isn't that a good description of much of the music you (we) like on this board?

That isn't storytelling, its trading on nostalgia and I just don't have much time for that.

I wouldn't recommend the new Margareth Kammerer trio album on Zarek then.

[jon abbey]

I wouldn't recommend the new Margareth Kammerer trio album on Zarek then.

yes, Robert didn't even pick up the Magic ID, so the Ruby Ruby Ruby jazz standard record (in my fave 20 or so releases of the year as of now) is even farther away from his interests, so no worries there.

[hatta]

starts with a genre and a desire to create something that'd fit within a historical narrative surrounding that genre.

Isn't that a good description of much of the music you (we) like on this board?

hurm, no definitely not. This isn't the music board but this is an interesting, even provocative statement. I can sort of see a possible reasoning behind your question in that a lot of the "music you (we) like" when looked at in terms of genre has reached a point where a lot of people are trying to make music in that (perceived) genre. This is something I've been mulling over of late (in terms of what I've been thinking of as the "third wave" of contemporary improv) but I'm not sure I'm ready to say much about it. But in essence I'd say I've not been so taken with the music that (I suspect) "starts with a genre and a desire to create something that'd fit within a historical narrative surrounding that genre". In the main the music that I'm really taken with is made from people who follow their muse wherever that may lead.

[Dan Warburton]

Thanks for this! Hey, looks like we need a new thread for that Ruby Ruby Ruby disc eh Jon..? I really didn't like it very much at all (and I thought I was one of the world's number one Margareth fans until this), and would be interested to hear just why you did.

[jon abbey]

Thanks for this! Hey, looks like we need a new thread for that Ruby Ruby Ruby disc eh Jon..? I really didn't like it very much at all (and I thought I was one of the world's number one Margareth fans until this), and would be interested to hear just why you did.

dunno, I can't really defend it much, I just like listening to her in most cases and dug the deconstructions of the jazz standards. "fave 20 or so releases of the year so far" from me isn't especially high praise, it pretty much includes anything I don't want to turn off before the end of one full listen out of boredom or disgust.

[markt]

Because he's not really interested in telling stories. Go look up some of his interviews and he tells you straight up what he's trying to do with each film: "I want to make a revenge film", "I want to make a grindhouse picture", "I want to make a "man on a mission" film" and so on.

I agree with this Hatta here, and I think this's a good way of putting it.
I remember feeling the same way a few years ago (before Kill Bill came out, I think) hearing, "Tarantino's going to make 'a war movie'".

I guess the 'war movie' is Inglorious Bastards which I just saw a trailer for.
I can't really decide whether I care or not on this one...