Three Pronged Rant: Dogville, Scarface, Kill Bill

Three Blind Rants

Now, as it happens my last two film reviews have been pretty glowing, and there are more in a similar veign to arrive shortly, which is pretty much down to me being on a good run of films. But it's important to note that a) I don't like ALL films, b) I'm not unwilling to regard films I don't like and c) some films piss me off by proxy more than quality. I'm talking here about the laziness of the viewer, the lack of individual taste and, frankly, the general pretention of the films in general.

I've managed to find three that annoy me for differing reasons, including two that are insanely popular among film fans who never seem to find reasons to justify it. I will not pull punches. There's a few others I might have included, James Cameron's money making schemes pop into mind, but I'll leave that for another day.


Dogville

Dogville, from Dogme director Lars Von Trier, is the Dane's first foray into Hollywood filmmaking, backs a quality cast, a decent premise and story, and of the course the aforementioned Von Trier at the helm. So far so good.

I'm not reviewing this, so I'm just going to cut to the chase and express my fury at the level of pretention and false artistic enterprise on show here.

That would be because Dogville, a story of a mysterious woman who wanders into a peaceful midwest town, is a play. I mean that literally, as well. It's a play, it takes place on a stage, with few props and markings indicating buildings and such. Now, I know what you're thinking; I'm having a go at the beauty of stage acting, the purest form of performance. But I'm not. Consider that this is also a film, advertised as such, put in cinemas and on DVD, and most importantly never seen anywhere near live performances.

It's not daring, it's lazy. Why in the name of God's appendage would you go to a cinema to see a play? To turn the tables, it would be like going to the Old Vic to see Laurence Olivier play Henry VIII only for the stagehands to wheel out a giant TV and play a recording of an earlier work. Would you not feel cheated? The result is that we lose the best part of the play, being there in the flesh, because performances are even more impressive and magnificent when the actor is performing only a few yards in front of you.

Of course, you could always argue that it's all about the story. Well, it's difficult to really appreciate the story when the film has no sets, props, score, cinematography or anything else that a film really, really should have. On top of that, the story isn't the best. It works well on paper, but doesn't stand up when it's THE ONLY THING on show. Nicole Kidman is at her willowly worst, chanelling Natassja Kinski's annoying sombre performance in the film adapatation of Tess of the D'Ubervilles.

The worst part is that the pretentious, corrupt extravangance is brought to you by a man of undoubted talent as Von Trier, who could have taken us on an original journey but instead chooses this. The fact it's highly regarded despite it's cripplingly misguided idea makes matters worse. Somehow it manages to insult but stage-plays and cinema motion picture in one go. Bring out the fucking Oscars.


Scarface

Once again, there's an element of 'I know what you're thinking' with added 'Oh no, please God, don't!' about this entry. So for the record, I'm not going to tell you I hated this film, and no it's not an utter waste of time. It's a badly flawed but occasionally entertaining film which falls for me somewhere between 5 and 6 out of 10. This rant has more to do with how the film is perceived.

To open with, I'll point out the mentioned flaws. Namely a lack of substance to match the style, a rickety and overlong plot that relies too heavily on it's violence, and one of Al Pacino's weakest performances. This came during a bad stage of his career, namely the eighties. Sandwiched between the ill-judged Cruising and the disastarous Revolution that almost ruined his career.

And it's Pacino's poor turn that perhaps represents the film's biggest problem, being that Tony Montano is one of the most unlikable lead characters in any film. By way of example, Pacino played someone equally morally reprehensible in the form of Michael Corleone, but made him sympathetic through sheer pathos of performance and genuine personality. Montana is a charicature, as over the top as everything else about a film where Brian De Palma loses his sense of control. There's no real personality aside from a psychosis and a perverse determination to reach the top of the drugs trade. We never encounter the loss of soul, because he never had one, and as a result his rise and fall never interest the viewer on a personal level. No character development, it's just 'that Cuban asshole', who starts off as a poor underdog asshole, then becomes an all powerful, self made asshole and finishes up as a dead asshole.

This is where the problems begin, because I can leave the film alone if it weren't for the fact it's so highly regarded. I frequently hear people citing it as their favourite film, and these people are usually all connected by social groups in which personal opinion is rarely cited. I have an inkling that alot of these people haven't actually gotten round to watching it, but that's human nature and the deep seeded desire to fit in. It's as unlikable as big Tony's narcotically fuelled shenanigans orgy. Ultimately, Scarface ends up being a macho fantasy because it involves savage violence, drugs and Al Pacino (as the way in which to gain more credibility within their 'taste').

To hear somebody claim Montana is one of the greatest film characters, or that Pacino's acting is more than disappointing is pretty much disrespectful to great film characters and acting. The film's failings come from a badly written main character and a misguided lead performance. If you want to see a similar but superior film, catch Carlito's Way. De Palma, Pacino, Hispanics, Drugs, 10 years later, and a brilliant film with Pacino at his best and a lead character who feels like your buddy despite his murky origins and way of life.

But then again, you'd have to go against the crowd, so don't bother. Or you could always keep it quiet.


Kill Bill (Part I & II)

I've left the worst till last, because Kill Bill shares all the ingredients of the two previous entries: utterly misguided self-indulgence and insane popularity.

Now, the worst films are usually the ones where the man in charge is not given any restrictions whatsoever, everything gets lost in the temptation and frankly a mess ensues. Prime example here.

Tarantino is a fine, nay, great filmmaker. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown brought him from video store worker to the hottest thing on the market, a guaranteed box office pull. So naturally, the producers give him a big budget and full control to do whatever the hell he wants because it will sell. The result was Kill Bill.

I have an appreciation of silly, over the top entertainment, and I'm well aware that Tarantino's own personal tastes will occasionally slip into the league of obscure reference by way of converting the film. But he's at his best when he sticks to his cheerfully immoral stories and retains a grip on a common theme.

However, Kill Bill is, aside from perhaps Caligula, one of the most indulgent pieces of tripe I've had the pleasure of seeing. Tarantino weds together his love of classic Western, Far East martial arts, ironic juxtaposition, Hammer style violence and tangent in a rambling plot which also has the annoying trait of displaying deliberately wooden acting to move along. The clash of styles turns into a quagmire of boringly orchestrated katana fights, stand offs and plot twists as Uma Thurman (without the merest hint of charisma, despite her fine talents in this regard) makes her way across deadlands and Asian woodland to track down and kill her boss, the rarely seen Bill (David Carradine).

Give a film buff no limits and he will inevitabley throw in everything. Sure, he'll love watching it himself but the taste is subjective and even Tarantino diehards will double take. Or at least they should. To top it all off, it even comes in two parts with an abrupt ending to the first half, which is an utter luxury since so much time is wasted it could have fitted neatly in one go. The payoff is a bizzarely brief endgame.

Yet once again it is lauded, both critically and by fans, in a way that makes me wonder whether I'm missing the joke or possibly just crazy. For a film to drag during it's marquee action and fight sequences, in particular when Thurman's Bride fends off dozens of sword yielding suited bodyguards, is the sign of bad things being present. So, for me, it wastes time and shows a distinct lack of understanding of what makes a film great (from a man who most definetly has that understanding). And yes, like Scarface, I'm again sharing no sympathy, empathy or care for the lead character. And again, it's an utter travesty since the quality actor is there but the acting isn't.

So, all three succeed because despite being messy, hugely flawed and badly conceived, they escape from the prospect of flop by means that are an utter mystery to me.

Rant over.