The end of Kill Bill 2 devolves into an interminable gushy, talky mess, which is irritating enough. But what really ruins finish for me is the fact that the Bride ends up by murdering the father of her child. Which is supposed to be a happy ending.
Now, it’s true, Bill is a particularly vicious spousal abuser, who called out his team of assassins to kill his girlfriend and all her nearest and dearest because she decided to leave him. He’s a shit, and totally worthy revenge movie fodder. No objection there.
The problem is that Bill raised the Bride’s daughter for four years after he put her in a coma. He appears to have a close, loving relationship with her. He’s the only parent she’s known. The Bride proves in the first act of Kill Bill 1 that she’s happy murdering the parent of a four year old, if that’s the way the sword slices. But this isn’t just any four year old. This is her daughter’s father. The film acknowledges that the four year old daughter of Verneeta is going to be traumatized by her mother’s death. We see Oren-Ishii traumatized by her parents’ death when she’s around four. But somehow, the Bride kills Bill, and little B.B. is totally unfazed. She rides off into the sunset with her mom smiling.
The logic, I guess, is that kids have an automatic overwhelming connection with their mothers that’s way more important than any relationship with their fathers. Which is stupid and untrue and even kind of offensive, to dads and moms alike. Dads are real parents too; women don’t have some sort of mystical parent power.
Obviously, Kill Bill has lots of morally questionable things going on; the mass murder, the severed limbs, etc. etc. But it’s just hard for me to buy the happy ending when it’s predicated on the idea that a four year old doesn’t care that their dad just died.
I think the ending is predicated more on the idea that the four year old doesn’t understand what happened and is too young to perceive the parental trade-off. Whether that’s realistic or not is up for debate, but I really don’t see the film making any statement on the value of the mother over the father in ways that go beyond the specific details of the characters. I thought Oren-Ishii was older than four, but I may be mis-remembering.
It’s not up for debate if you’ve ever actually met a four year old. Four-year olds very, very aware of who their parents are. I think it’s gross that Kill Bill suggests otherwise. It doesn’t treat that kid as human.
What about Vernita Green’s daughter in vol 1? It’s been forever since I saw it, but I remember being upset by that… whereas Bill? Ha! No, no, no, You’re absolutely right that the 4 year old is tracking and understands, but for me that seems all the more reason to take him out, tbh. You cannot let dudes like that reign, bio dad/caretaker of 4 years or not. And some dads really don’t matter, from a more or less damage argument for the child. The damage was already done, I think. “Daddy tried to murder mommy,” I can hear Bill saying something to that effect. “To hurt,” maybe it was? You honestly believe he wasn’t murderous or “hurtful” otherwise? I don’t.
You said Vernita. My bad. Still, everything else holds.
Oh, no, Bill’s totally awful—I don’t think the movie really makes it clear enough how awful he is. There seems to be some suggestion that the Bride is cupable for breaking his heart or whatever.
The point is just that the kid would be terribly, horribly upset. Some acknowledgement that the kid would be terribly, horribly upset is basically all I’m asking for.
I guess she takes after her mom. ;)
May we all be graced with such divine PTSD resistance…
Fwiw, I hated the first volume (before the second had come out) pretty passionately for that reason, and one related. Kiddo is remarkably untraumatized and has all these skills that go unexplained. I hate it when people have unexplained master skill sets as if by magic.
Kill Bill only sort of has a happy ending because the movie starts rolling to credits before the kid can realize the father is dead. As far as we know the bride didn’t tell the kid what happened to Bill. Sort of like in Death Proof the credits start rolling after they murder the bad guy but before they have to deal with the consequences of ruining the car they borrowed and the fact they hunted down and murdered a bad guy.
I don’t think that invalidates your reading, but there’s the sense that the director is really twisting the story to artificially have a meta outcome.
This is interesting, and maybe worth considering at greater length, on the theory that the particular ways in which particular talented artists go wrong can help us better understand the parts where they go right.
Tarantino’s films don’t deal with real people (or what real people would do under the circumstances he sets up). They feature characters who talk like he thinks, and who act like people who accept their reality is a film playing upon other films. So I don’t expect his movies to be realistic. I just want them to work within their own logic.
I assumed Bill had sort of set Edie up to think it was all play. Probably, the kid thought she was just going on vacation with the mom her dad had always told her about.
That’s called a plot hole; you need to invent a story to make it work. I don’t think tha’ts working within it’s own logic.
Noah it’s really not clear that the kid knows her dad is dead. Parents tend to tell kids a sanitized version of the truth. (We saw Bill do this with the kid). It’s also suggested that the Bride’s happy ending will only be temporary, as she now has several characters who are still alive and potentially out for revenge on her, most notably Nikki. She’s only shielded from the consequences of her murder spree because we roll to credits.
I do think the film doesn’t really care about fatherhood, but Tavis’s explanation is a reasonable explanation for how it doesn’t care about fatherhood.
Yeah; I don’t really find that sufficient. Four year olds aren’t that dumb. She’s not going to be okay with never seeing her dad again. She’s not going to be all that happy with not seeing her dad the next morning. You can’t just remove a parent like that. Unless you don’t see children as people. Which often folks don’t, but which I think is a problem.
She’s a crappy character in general, is the truth. She’s just there to be adorable and make the Bride feel good. Barf.
I think I’ve said this here before, so apologies for repeating myself, but Kill Bill is the only movie I’ve ever walked out of because it offended me. Something about that guy’s attitude toward violence just really bothers me. He’s using scenes of murder, rape, and torture to be cool and edgy, yet in reality he’s a movie-obsessed geek who’s probably never been in a fistfight. I bet plenty of Tarantino fans were among the people who surrounded themselves with crying eagles and other kitsch when actual violence briefly threatened to intrude on their lives on 9/11. Murder isn’t so much fun in real life, is it guys? I doubt that movie violence has much of an effect on the real world (after watching Inglorious Basterds, I wondered whether Israeli soldiers would start carving swastikas on people’s foreheads, and of course they didn’t), but his particular depiction of violence strikes me as shallow and stupid. And of course, whenever interviewers question him about it, he throws a tantrum like a spoiled little shit.
Noah, the film makes it clear that Bill has been preparing his daughter to meet (and at least possibly go with) Kiddo. How exactly is left partly open. That doesn’t seem like a plot hole to me.
As to how Edie will feel in the future, that happens after the credits. Fuel for thought and the intended sequel, but not something Beatrix is yet concerned with, and the movie is basically focused on her perspective (and, finally, with the present–which is ironic and something we should question, given her obsession with the past and consequences, but also a momentary release we are supposed to share with her).
Jack’s comment is positively a sensual pleasure to read. The offended machismo (“probably never been in a fistfight”), the self hatred (“yet in reality he’s a movie-obsessed geek”), the attempt to double back into disinterestedness at the end (“his particular… strikes me a shallow and stupid”), the envy (“throws a tantrum like a spoiled little shit”).
I don’t even like Tarantino’s movies all that much – except for Death Proof, of which I love in the entire second half and every frame in the first half that doesn’t contain Stuntman Mike – but anybody who makes so many of the right people so angry is obviously doing something very right.
Which accomplishment, besides being satisfying in itself, also usefully raises the question: If you’re capable of getting so impassioned, allegedly about a filmmaker’s approach to violence, why so mum about truly evil hits like Braveheart and 24?
Revise that “except” – I love most of Jackie Brown too.
Hey, now; I don’t think anything’s validated by making Jack angry. I am in general pro-Jack, even when we disagree.
I think Tarantino makes violence uncomfortable. I like that about him, because too many films use violence without really thinking about it (on the other hand, I don’t think Tarantino thinks much about the girl in Kill Bill; he could have worked to make the treatment of her uncomfortable, but he settles for easy sentiment.)
I don’t know Jack, I just know Jack’s comment here. Maybe Jack spontaneously and temporarily turned into the right kind of person to make angry here, and wasn’t earlier this morning and won’t be this afternoon – if so, the point still stands.
It’s all discourses not people; cease to reify your opponents, or Foucault will appear in a hail of texts and bury you.
I should say, “cease to reify “your” “opponents” or “Foucault” will appear,” etc.
“Rim” “shot”.
Thanks, Noah. I’m not so much angry as hurt; hurt and more than a little disappointed in in Graham.
Graham, I don’t know whether this will detract from your sensual pleasure or enhance it to the point of literal orgasm, but I’ll admit that I’m even less macho than Tarantino. I’ve never been in an adult fistfight either! But I’m not the one making art that’s totally obsessed with bad-ass tough guys (and girls).
I’ve never seen Braveheart or 24, but my understanding is that some U.S. military personnel have cited the latter as having validated and encouraged their torture of terrorism detainees. If that’s true, it’s certainly had a more negative impact on the real world than anything Tarantino has ever done.
Scalia has cited 24 in defending torture (I think in an unofficial capacity, but still, jfc.)
Military officials actually approached 24 to ask them to tone down the torture because they felt it was having an adverse effect on treatment of detainees by military personnel.
‘hurt and more than a little disappointed in in Graham’ I’m somewhat alarmed by the implication that previous comments by me were more pleasing to you than this one, but gratified that at least now I’m as good as Tarantino! (Or at least “more than a little” way toward being as good as he.)
‘I’m even less macho than Tarantino’ You’re more macho than Tarantino. You think that it matters whether somebody who tells stories about violence has been in a fistfight.
‘But I’m not the one making art that’s totally obsessed with bad-ass tough guys’ Criticism is an art, so right now you’re making art that’s totally negatively obsessed with bad-ass tough guys.
Having been in at least one fistfight, I don’t think it gives me any greater insight into the act of killing or torture. Nor do I think anything I made about punching or being punched would necessarily be better than if Jack made something on the same subject. If Tarantino were to approach directing the way Deniro used to prepare for a role, that would be much more problematic than if he had never actually physically harmed anyone.
I’ve lost fistfights! Does that half qualify me?
How many?
I wasn’t seriously suggesting that you’ve disappointed me or that I’ve followed or taken pleasure in your comments.
I think that an author’s personal removal from violence often does matter when it comes to violent art. Can you imagine an actual Vietnam vet making The Green Berets? According to Chris Hedges, some hospitalized WWII veterans refused to speak with non-veteran John Wayne when he visited their hospital; they were angry that a man with no experience of war had spent his career glamorizing it.
Two! Though maybe it doesn’t count when all the punching comes from the other side (not for lack of trying on my side, understand).
Jack, I’m hesitant to say that veterans are somehow more likely to be anti-violence or anti-war (if that’s what you’re saying.) I don’t think that’s really true. I saw a documentary recently about veterans participating in Vietnam reenactments. I think there are certainly differences in the way you might represent war as a veteran, but I don’t think glamorize/don’t glamorize quite gets at them.
‘I wasn’t seriously suggesting that.. I’ve followed or taken pleasure in your comments.’
Great!
‘Can you imagine an actual Vietnam vet making The Green Berets?’ Well, “The Ballad of the Green Berets,” very much in the same spirit as that movie, was written by a Vietnam vet, so, yeah, I can.
…And now that I am following your comments, I get the impression that you’re kind of a jerk.
Well, I could be wrong about removal from violence making people more prone to glamorizing it. I’ll concede that some veterans have glamorized war, and I guess a lot of gangsta rappers have glamorized a violent street life that they’ve actually experienced. I just have a gut-level feeling that, in Tarantino’s particular case, his obvious pleasure in cinematic violence is linked to his removal from actual violence. The Tarantino character says, “I’m going to get some of my boys to go to work on him with a blowtorch and a pair of pliers,” and the thrilled audience laughs and cheers. That line isn’t going to seem quite as cool if one of your relatives was tortured to death by a Mexican drug cartel.
Fwiw, and in modest support of what I read to be Jack’s take on Tarantino, I was really disappointed and pissed off after Kill Bill, 1, too.
A semi-aside, I have an old friend who was most galled by Tarantino’s use of Moriccone in those films. (I think that’s when he started, and continued…) Not even music inspired by, just… Moriccone. There are some pretty cool composers out there. We don’t need recycled film music that’s already uber-iconic, do we? He claims Tarantino is a film DJ. I think there’s a great deal of truth to that. And that’s even OK, really, but it is a frame or constraint. I say none of this with any animosity. :p
@ Jack
Well, gee, I dunno, I didn’t call anybody “a movie-obsessed geek,” “shallow and stupid,” or “a spoiled little shit.”
Not that I object to calling artists names – if you’re now following my comments, maybe you’ve seen my appreciation of Michael Haneke. And I understand: You think you, the audience, is never wrong,. (Though you wouldn’t put it that way.) Well, guess what, you usually are (unless you’re me, of course), and if you give it, you’re not in a position to complain when you get it.
@ Nix 66
Eh…
Anyhow, the way IB uses, say, “Un amico,” is very different from the way it’s used in the film it was written for, and at least as good. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUFq3qFtEd0) As for “uber iconic,” come on, 99% of the people who saw IB had never heard that piece before.
And it’s not just Morricone – remember when Kill Bill, Vol. 1 had everybody whistling Bernard Hermann’s “Twisted Nerve” for a couple of years? (Well, maybe not where you were, but where I was.) And again, it was used in a way very different from the original movie, but very good in its own right.
I think Tarantino would agree that he’s a movie-obsessed geek; I called his portrayal of violence, not him, shallow and stupid; and anyone who wants to see an example of him acting like a spoiled little shit in an interview should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsJDy8VjZk (“This is a commercial for my movie”–no, it’s supposed to be journalism). Finally, I haven’t followed your comments outside of this thread, but I find your writing style here insufferable (“why so mum,” “being as good as he,” “You think you, the audience, is never wrong,” etc). I try to avoid flame wars, so I’ll end with that.
My enthusiasm for Tarantino the director does not extend to enthusiasm for Tarantino the interview subject, or at least it often doesn’t. I’d agree with Jack that he can be defensive and jerkish when pressed.
@ Jack
In other words, you’ll insult me again and then immediately leave.
(Instead of just not replying, or replying and leaving out the insults, which would be the honest things to do if you actually wanted to “avoid flame wars.” What you want is to win them without working.)
What, you want me to write “as him” instead?
Fine, if it makes you feel better, tell yourself that I didn’t call you all the things I’ve called you in this comment section. I just called your comments all those tings.
Read: “Please forgot when I actually said.” (“He’s using scenes of murder, rape, and torture to be cool and edgy, yet in reality he’s a movie-obsessed geek…”)
Hm