If I was still an uncivilized and enlightened ignorant teenager when I watched "Kill a Dawn", then I have begun to consciously think about and taste the cleverness of this ghost director when I watched his "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill". Movies are still commercial films, and genres are still crime films or gangster movies. Quentin seems to have a special fancy for gangster movies, and his few films almost all revolve around here. This is a very interesting selection. What did he really value about this kind of subject? Is it the leisure and ease away from the temple, far from politics? Is it a human responsibility that does not carry social values and moral reasoning? Is it simply to reveal the truth of the marginalized person in society? Or do you want to show the eternal barbarism of mankind through this kind of naked killing as the highest standard? Maybe it's all a little bit. But the genre of films that love gangster themes does not mean that he continues his previous film style. On the contrary, in the gangster movie "Pulp Fiction", although there are grudges and killings between gangsters, those are no longer the main ones. In other words, the narrative or story is no longer the main thing. The reason for this is that quentin in "Pulp Fiction" he adopted a narrative style similar to the chapter back novel style, but there is not exactly similar to the chapter back novel style. At least for the chapter novel in the novel, his story is tightly continuous, a complete story.
However, in Pulp Fiction, this chapter narrative can only be completely combined at the end of the film. The restaurant robbery at the beginning is not directly related to the subsequent gangster murder played by Kovota and Jackson, and then Trovota and their boss's lover are a separate story, followed by another story between the boxer played by Bruce Willis and the gangster boss. These are three separate stories, and there is no connection between the stories except that the protagonists are connected to each other. Although the story is independent from the story, after watching the film, we still feel that it is a complete film. It's a very strange feeling, but it's a very real feeling. Because Quentin agrees at the beginning and end, although the middle story is independent, the first story at the beginning is complete at the end, and at the end of the film Quentin draws the circle completely. That's a novelty. In my opinion, previous films have always allowed the audience to get emotional satisfaction in the storytelling, but Quentin's films subvert this emotional satisfaction. He also satisfies the audience, but not emotionally but in thinking, in rational analysis. That is to say, he satisfies the audience with the part of form tightly.
I think the main meaning of Quentin's film is a revolution in film form, he is similar to Jameson's admiration of Brecht, deliberately opening up the distance between the audience and the film, so that the audience learns to pause in watching, wake up from hallucinations, and learn to watch the film from a distance, think about the film. As an illustration of this, it is the story or plot in the movie. In Pulp Fiction, there is a lot of dialogue, but the ridicule and dialogue that fills the picture space have no meaning to the story. For example, those two little bastards go to grab goods, and the long conversation on the road before killing people, you won't find any meaning in their conversation, the conversation has nothing to do with what they are going to do, they are just making small talk, and this kind of small talk can even be laughed at in between their killings. This is a different place from ordinary commercial films, but it is such a place that Quentin most thoroughly subverts the traditional concepts in the film, especially in the "content/form", the dialogue in the film as an important part of the content, the dialogue as the main means of promoting the development of the plot, once lost its proper meaning in the film, in Quentin's film, the meaningless behavior of dialogue is a revolution, first of all, the revolution of the story or content, and more importantly, the subversion of the entire film. In Quentin's Pulp Fiction, we can boldly claim that content, or story or narrative, exists as a form of cinema. As the cultural theorist Eagleton put it in Marxism and Form, the most revolutionary aspect of the text is the formal element. The most revolutionary meaning in Quentin's film is that the content and story have become part of the form, and they have become part of the revolution.
To say that Quentin's films mainly show traces of formalism may not be convincing. However, we gradually discover that more and more factors in its films prove that any form of film plays a role in his films. For example, the background music in the film is constantly changing, and the neglect of the content is becoming more and more serious, such as Quentin's emphasis on color in his films, which confirms that his film is already a kind of "formalist film".
For example, in the first part of his film "Kill Bill", which is called a tribute to the oriental action movie and the action superstar Bruce Lee, the massacre in the restaurant is brutal and bloody, the yellow sweatshirt Uma Thurman and the killers' black suits become a sharp contrast, and when the blood of the bright red plum blossoms in the killing is scattered, the color combination becomes a highlight of the scene, and at the same time, The music on stage that turns a blind eye to offstage killings becomes the best metaphor for the story: music is not the foil of the story, not the background of the story, but two parallel themes. The theme of the story is revenge, it is killing; while the theme of the music is nostalgia, it is passion. I have even been secretly thinking that if the story theme in the film is removed, only the background music, then the film is still valid, which is the charm of formalistic films. In the opening part of each part of "Kill Bill", Quentin uses black and white film to explain the reason for killing Bill, and the use of a single black and white symmetrical tone is not only the role of nostalgia, but also a clear role of implication, the role of contrast. For ordinary films, the previous story is also told in black and white film, but once it enters the orthodox narrative, the connection between black and white film and color film is treated with softer tones, such as gentle green and light white. But at the beginning of the two parts of "Kill Bill", after explaining the reason with black and white film, a very abrupt background tone appeared, giving people a sense of visual discomfort, but it is this visual stimulation effect that reminds you that the background use of a thick tone is not only the foil of the narrative, his existence is also the independent need of the film. Quentin seems to be extremely fond of thick tones, and the contrast of colors in each of his films, regardless of the use of the background or the dress of the characters, is that my interpretation of this preference is to speak with his color, to replace the real narrative of the film with his color. Of course, this is not to say that only color tells stories in his films. It can be said that in Quentin's film, except for the characters who do not tell the story, all the other forms, regardless of color, music, and the absentee, the camera is telling the story of the film in silent language.
That's what I understand as Quentin Tarantino's films, formalistic films, films without stories, films that tell stories in all their forms. Of course, if you want to get social value and spiritual recognition from the story of such a film, or if you want to read some kind of political insight, you may be deeply disappointed. But that doesn't mean there aren't political or ideological attitudes in his films. In fact, there is a saying that it has always been bad, that no political attitude is a political attitude in itself, and Quentin's films can also be viewed as such. But I don't think it's necessary to read the meaning of politics in Quentin's films. I think his antipolitical significance is even greater. What I love about his films is his ability to run all forms to tell the story of a film. In my opinion, no director can abandon the story in the film like this, and play with various formalistic elements. From this point of view, my film enlightenment may eventually mean that my interpretation of the film is destined to fall on an empty signifier.