Part 2 of Death Proof begins with the "Psycho scene," where an "authority figure" declaims, for the audience's benefit, the subtext of Part 1 -- Ranger Earl McGraw tells us what we've already grasped, that Stuntman Mike is a dangerous psychopath who crashes his "death proof" car into women's cars for his sexual gratification. The scene is a gentle dig at Psycho's famously inept coda, but Tarantino adds a couple of icky layers to it: first, he includes Dr. Block, a character from Death Proof's co-feature Planet Terror, and gives her a weird, violent reaction to kindly, wizened Ranger McGraw, a reaction that can only be appreciated by watching the other movie (Dr. Block having her own problems with men). Then, after McGraw has finished his spiel on Stuntman Mike and his sick pathology, he announces that he'd rather follow the Nascar circuit than investigate Mike's crimes, placing Mike's MO in the broader context of a national malaise: there are millions of people who find some level of gratification watching stock cars smash into each other.
( Read more... )
Todd Alcott
What does the protagonist want?
15 February 2009 @ 04:47 pm
Favorite Screenplays: Death Proof part 3
36 comments | Leave a comment
15 February 2009 @ 04:19 am
Favorite Screenplays: Death Proof part 2
It sounds like a strange comparison, but Tarantino, in one way, reminds me of Spielberg, in that his movies are always thematically quite dense. Death Proof, like, say, Jurassic Park, features a strong theme that resonates down to the smallest of details, from broad story outlines to the tiniest of gestures.
( Read more... )
13 February 2009 @ 08:15 am
Favorite Screenplays: Death Proof part 1
Quentin Tarantino's movies are explosions of meaning. They spew significance of many different kinds in every direction on a shot-by-shot basis. Every element of every shot is fraught with references, usually to other movies. As such, they invite multiple readings from a number of different points of view and philosophical schools. For instance, I just read a book-length monograph on Pulp Fiction that examined every aspect of the movie but one -- what the characters in the movie do and say.
I am not smart enough or cool enough to catch every one of the thousands of references that give Tarantino's movies their postmodern punch -- I've never seen a Shaw Bros kung-fu movie, for instance. So I will limit myself in this analysis to what I do understand: characters and their motivations. And I will leave the examination of angles, design choices, costumes, hairstyles, cultural freight and songs to others.
( Read more... )
20 August 2008 @ 10:03 pm
Heads up, people: when I get done analyzing the screenplays of Steven Spielberg's movies (hey, I've only got nine more to go!) I plan to move on to general analysis of some of my favorite screenplays. Some of these screenplays are universally acknowledged as masterworks of the form, others are simply my personal favorites, screenplays that, for one reason or another, changed my understanding of what a screenplay is, or could be. There are many, many screenplays I admire that are not on this list, primarily because when I think of those movies, I think of the movie first and the screenplay second. A movie like, say, 8 1/2, I think of first as a triumph of filmmaking and secondarily as a work of screenwriting. A movie like Alien has a very strong script and is a wonderful motion picture, but didn't open my eyes the way that its sequel did. A movie like Seven has a solid script and a phenomenally talented director who really elevated it into another realm. These movies, for me anyway, are more successes of interpretation than of writing, whereas the movies on my list below I think would have been excellent, or at least watchable, no matter who was directing them. A few of them I admire in spite of, or because of, their flaws. All of them are movies I keep coming back to in order to
In the order their DVDs happen to be in on my shelf:
( Read more... )
