Psycho and QT's Death Proof (2007)
I' m a big fan of Quentin Tarantino("QT") and I find his connections to Hitchcock quite strong...even if QT seems to have been rather dismissive of Hitchcock's "trademark famous director status."
QT's films have been crime thrillers and Westerns and very little like Hitchcock's "sedate" films(Rebecca, Suspicion, To Catch a Thief), but both men certainly intersect in the ability to shock and excite audiences(Psycho/The Birds/Torn Curtain/Frenzy begat Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/Kill Bill.) Hitchcock had , and QT has, the ability to excite their audiences and fans into "can't wait" mode for the next movie. They were/are auteurs who blended the exploitational with the artistic.
QT works in a more violent age than Hitchcock did. Psycho and Frenzy merely "set the stage" for the gory excess of QT, and I have to take that gory excess with a grain of salt(I personally believe that QT has a screw loose in certain ways, and a sadism streak that he disguises as "violent action.")
---
I watched QTs "Death Proof" the other night on cable, and it was a bit of a revelation to me.
First of all, I realized that I had not seen "Death Proof" in almost 10 years -- since I first saw it in 2007(as part of a "exploitation movie double bill" with Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror." -- the package was called "Grindhouse";) I've kept up with reviewings of ALL of QT's other movies much more regularly than that -- either seeing them on cable, where they turn up a lot, or pulling out a DVD and watching it.
But I don't HAVE a DVD of Death Proof.
I think that Death Proof's being "attached" to Planet Terror(and some fake and gory trailers in between) is what kept me away from buying a copy. Did I want the entire Grindhouse double feature package? Did I just want Death Proof? Which VERSION of Death Proof did I want(the one I saw in 2007 is 27 minutes shorter than a later release.)
QT has said of his "Eight" films(which is somewhat off -- Kill Bill is two movies that QT counts as one) -- that "Death Proof" is the worst one. And I think he's right. But like they said of Hitchcock -- QT at his worst is better than most directors at their best.
My ten-year old memory of Death Proof is that, rather unfairly, the pages and pages of QT dialogue that he wrote for TWO sets of young multi-racial women was the least entertaining and most boring such dialogue QT ever wrote. Was it because women said the lines? Because NON-STAR women said the lines? Was it because QT couldn't write for women?(I reject that on the basis of Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown and Kill Bill alone)
Well, something went wrong, that's for sure.
"Death Proof" is Psycho-esque in several ways: Its about a serial killer(Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike.) The story "splits in two," with two separate casts in Part One and Part Two "linked" by a few people in both parts in both films (Norman and Sam in Psycho; only Kurt Russell in Death Proof.) And its ultra-violent -- as Psycho was considered in 1960 but as QT could hype to ultimate levels in 2007.
As much as a lot goes wrong in Death Proof(the dialogue among the ladies, says I, and some real problems with pacing)...a lot goes right. Kurt Russell for one thing -- that great unsung second tier star who is almost reaching Jeff Bridges' level of "unsung cult stardom"(Oscar is about all that's missing.) And, an absolutely fantastic final 30 minutes of car chase action, for another. Funny how after QT took a six-year break between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill 1, he came back as a great ACTION director. Maybe that's what he needed the six years to become.
(MORE)