Don't get me wrong. I did. "Pulp Fiction" came out when I was 17, and it felt like everything I ever wanted movies to be for the rest of forever. Jules' Ezekial speech, the thing about the watch, Marvin getting shot in the face — the movie just felt both perfect and perfectly awful in a way that nothing else really had before.
I, of course, was pretty young and didn't realize exactly how much Tarantino was appropriating from previous films, authors, etc. Learning that lessened the impact a bit over subsequent viewings. I don't blame him for that — Tarantino was maybe the first major filmmaker to come out of our meta, hip-hop, sample-based culture, and his true genius lies in the way he can mash up everything that's in his head, toss it into a blender, and come out with something that, at its best, tastes startlingly fresh.
I still like Tarantino quite a bit (most of the time), and I would never presume to say that he's not a genius. But he's a flawed genius, for sure, and as I get older the flaws become more pronounced.
My problem with him is that, once you get past the sheer manic energy of his films there's just not a lot of there there. I don't get a lot of heart. There's so much amazing stuff happening, but it rarely transcends the level of schoolboy fantasy. He feels like the world's most talented 13-year-old boy. "Fiction" felt so fresh and alive to me at the time, but the power has waned over the years. Most of his work after that has been tug-of-war between the overwhelming genius of his use of language, the audacity of his vision... and the snarky little kid who just can't help himself.
Both "Inglourious Basterds" and "Django Unchained" felt like they were so close to reaching cinematic divinity (the opening scene from "Basterds" and the "white cake" scene from "Django" are two of the best things ever committed to film) and fell short because, in the end, his more juvenile instincts took over.
But in his first film, "Reservoir Dogs," this push-pull dynamic feels less like a war. All the recognizable Tarantino-isms are present and accounted for, but the balance is better. It's simple, streamlined, with not a second wasted. Even more than two decades later, it still feels like his most emotionally sophisticated film (I recently reappraised "Jackie Brown" and would call it a close second, but I think a lot of the credit for that one has to go to Elmore Leonard).
The difference here is in the characters — specifically Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr. Orange (Tim Roth). All of Tarantino's films take place in a show-offy, hyper-real MOVIE world, and "Dogs" is no different. But these two guys manage to provide a sturdy tent stake that keeps the whole thing attached firmly to the ground. Everything that's happening around them is heightened and over-the-top, but Keitel and Roth play it absolutely straight. There's a reality at the core their relationship — a brotherly bond, genuine affection, absolute betrayal — that is exhilarating to watch and heartbreaking all at once.
That last shot of Mr. White's face when he finally realizes... well, shit. It can still bring a tear to my eye.
There's a genuine, beating heart to this film. And that makes all the difference.
I saw "Dogs" shortly after seeing "Pulp Fiction" in the theaters, and at the time it felt like the smaller film to me. But, as the years have gone on and "Pulp" has diminished in my mind, "Dogs" just looms larger and larger.
This was the game changer.
No comments:
Post a Comment