Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) & Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

[Guest moongirl6]

Ministry88, you mentioned true art--what would you say true art is?

[Guest Ministry88]

...anything that exites your soul and drives you to your own creative acts. It also makes you want to be a better person and strive for better things. It also poeticizes (my word!) and puts in perspective every aspect of your life, and I don't mean just the good stuff, but the mundane and even painful and boring things. True art also enriches and makes more profound your outlook on life and teaches you something about yourself that can help you grow as a person and live a richer, more informed and examined life. Plus, above all, it gives you that unmistakable, yet undefinable, life-affirming surge of joy that just makes everything in your life OK and dignified (no matter how bad your life is), even if just for a few hours. Sounds a lot like love doesn't it? Ah, but I think it's better because you can always count on it (not that love isn't absolutely exhilarating and essential either). It will never let you down like people can -- art is always there for you and will always listen and not make you feel alone. Oh boy I'm such an incurable romantic:lol

Now, before you can say "BOY, what a pretentious sorehead!", let me say that although most things don't qualify as art, there is AMPLE room for pure escapist entertainment. I don't think I could handle a steady, exclusive diet of emotionally and spiritually supercharged art. It would just be too exhausting. Some of my favorite films, music, books, etc are purely escapist (and often downright trashy and cheesy), but there is a definite charm and skill involved in this too and I love many forms of escapist entertainment as dearly as the loftiest art. Both art and entertainment are great and essential, but as I've always said since the beginning of this thread, the real danger and sadness arises when an audience (and, dare I say, an entire generation) can't tell the difference between mere entertainment and art, completely missing out on the mental, emotional, and spiritual joys of art which is essential for spirtual and emotional growth and intelligence. Basically, this leads to an emotionally stunted generation denied the capacity for joy and adventurous living, which is a real tragedy.

So there is my answer moongirl. Thanks for the question!

[Guest sevenhooks]

Ministry88, you mentioned true art--what would you say true art is?

The most interesting debates are often sparked the simplest of questions, or so it would seem.

I can see this becoming something quickly deserving of it's own topic, so before we get carried away, please allow me to submit to you, my own personal answer to the querry originally posed to Sir Ministry88 courtesy of one Moongirl6...

"WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TRUE ART IS?"

Something purely subjective.

[Guest limubai2000]

Chinese Kung Fu philosophy - "You are your art and your art is you."

Think about that, then think about the movies that had great emotional impact on you, ex TRUE art films, then think about how they permanently changed you.

[Guest Markgway]

Art is Fart without the F.

[Guest limubai2000]

Art is Fart without the F.

Gee, Mark you certainly sound like an O _ _ F a r t... ?

[Guest Tosh]

Chinese Kung Fu philosophy - "You are your art and your art is you."

Now that's a saying I can live by.

And I'm with 7, art is truly subjective, here's a saying - One mans trash, is another mans goldmine.

[Guest moongirl6]

Thank you all for the input. I'd say you're right, that art really is subjective--what moves and impacts upon one person may not have an effect on another. I've been trying to come up with my own definition, but haven't really been able to put it into words, although I can think of a few things I've seen that I'd definitely classify as being NOT true art (example: once I saw a student film of a variety of people eating dirt--that's all, just people eating dirt. It didn't really strike me as art--just footage of people eating dirt. I think you could have a movie of people eating dirt that is art, but I don't think that this was it!)

[Guest Reincarnation Of Thundering Mantis]

Yeah art is subjective and people have there like and dislikes.

But I feel there are standards of quality and depth within art and things that attempt to be artistic. Stuff that is phoney and out to make it a quick buck may be enjoyed by millions. But it isn't always high quality (some times it of very poor quality but lots of people saw it anyway) or "art" per se.

Some people think that because a film makes more money than another film or is more well known than another film that it must be a better overall film and that lesser known films are rubbish cause nobody has heard of it.

I think Tsui Hark said something like "the audience is meant to feel and not undertsand". I think this is true to some extent.

[Guest jirpy100]

I've always wondered about other kung fu fans.... do any of you consider any SB films as art? Meaning, do you think they are on the same level as work by Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorcese, Akira Kurosawa, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francois Truffaut, or any of their other contemporaries?

I personally do not. I see them in the same vein as older Hollywood films or studio-based Hammer productions. They have merit, and the level of acrobatics & choreography is definitely something to consider, but ultimately I don't see any contemporary or past issues particularly well articulated or symbolised any more than other action fare.

Something like The One-Armed Swordsman does warrant a second-look, but ultimately I think any real creativity in terms of film technique and narrative was severely weakened by the studio system.

[Guest moongirl6]

I haven't seen too many Shaw Brothers films, but I can say that personally, I'm very partial to the films of Jimmy Wang Yu, and I think that the One Armed Boxer and Master of the Flying Guillotine are both great films overall. I don't know if I could compare them to the directors you mentioned, but I don't know how I would compare those guys to each other either. One Armed Boxer I think is superb, among other reasons, because I like the way the shots are put together (the way the actors are arranged and the way the camera moves). And MOFG I can go on and on because I love it so much, but I think it has a marvelous story that is really well put together. (I could elaborate more if anyone's interested in hearing it.) But I think that it's sometimes hard to compare different kinds of art if they're very different and that's why I feel it's hard to compare these martial arts films to other films/directors. I don't know if this is related to what I'm saying or not, but going back to the original topic in this thread, when I first saw Kill Bill, I was told by someone that it was a martial arts movie--but that's what made me disappointed in it when I saw it, because I didn't feel that it was a martial arts movie, despite all the fighting--I felt it was something else, not a spoof or a satire really, but something more like a caricature--but not a martial arts movie. So I didn't like it as a martial arts film, and I thought a number of parts should have been sliced right out because there was too much extra crap that dragged it down, but I also thought some parts were really good. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think a film can be as great as another film if it's as good as being the kind of film that it is as another film is at being the kind of film that that film is--well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hopefully you'll know what I mean!

[Guest jirpy100]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think a film can be as great as another film if it's as good as being the kind of film that it is as another film is at being the kind of film that that film is--well, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but hopefully you'll know what I mean!

To rephrase, you are saying that a martial arts film can be a great martial arts film, just as a drama can be a great drama, and then they both can be considered great films, regardless of genre. I agree to some extend, but remain a bit of a snob and believe drama to rule over all because of the inherent emotional content which captures part of the artists' souls.

[Guest rebelliousreign1]

I must say, I find Tarantino to be a confidence trickster myself. All flash and no great substance, borrowing liberally from other directors' work who are all less famous than he is. >:

[Guest peringaten]

do any of you consider any SB films as art? Meaning, do you think they are on the same level as work by Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorcese, Akira Kurosawa, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francois Truffaut, or any of their other contemporaries?

Yes - Li Han Hsiang at his finest.

[Guest RANDY1974]

Hey dudes, i haven't posted in a while.I posted this long rant/diatribe on www.newsarma.com the other week in response to Grindhouse trailer and hype about that..,

I used to post here often, and i must say this dissection of KILL BILL was very eloquent, i agree 100%..

Just wanted to drop in and add my two cents, like i said i posted this on newsarama the comics site a few weeks back

the only thing that bothered me about Tarantino is his directing abiility and not giving credit to his blatant ripping off/adapting elements of other films into his own...

Pulp fiction was pretty original film, influences were obvious.

Jackie Brown was adapted from a Novel and i thought a pretty solid film all around.

Resivoir dogs, bothered me in that he basically adapted City on Fire the HK film starring Chow Yun Fat, with even certain cinematic elements being swiped wholesale.he never publicly credits his influences or swipes, i mean every director has influences they don't cite but stealing scenes and shots which brings me to Kill Bill...

Kill Bill bothered me for a few reasons, he (QT) basically without credit used the origin of Lady Snowblood for Lucy Liu's character without permission or even the blessing of the creator of the manga series Kazuo Koike, in fact the fight scene in the snow was ripped from the 1970's film adaption of the japanese manga that starred Meiko Kaji as Lady Snowblood. Koike expressed his dismay (google it) that Quenton never bothered to contact him to even ask if that was ok ( koike created the characters of Ogami Itto, Retsudo, etc for the LONE WOLF AND CUB series. LADY SNOWBLOOD, SAMURAI EXCUTIONER, HANZO THE RAZOR! ... QT also borrowed from some obscure cinema like the Christina Lindhberg vengeance film THRILLER "They Call her One Eye" and some touches of Brian Depalma style scenes as well for Daryll Hannah's character.Mainly though the best scenes in the film in my opinion were his tribute to the Shaw Brothers kung fu and Wuxia films of the 1960's, 70's and 80's (the Pai Mei stuff) which featured Gordon Liu who as a younger actor was famous for Eight Diagram Pole figher among other films.Those scenes were cool and all, but my main complaint about Kill Bill was that he had the fanboyism to cast Sonny chiba, but made him comic relief...!!!!

Chiba is still fully capable as a true Martial Artist and consulted on the choreography, but man he starred in probably 100+ Samurai films and action spy, kung fu and other films as well as TV series in Japan too! Yagyu Conspiracy, Kage No Gundan, & more...

To not at least have him swing a sword in those films...Blasphemy!!!

If you really wanna see some good films that influenced tarentino but are better in every way... hunt down some old Samurai & Yakuza Classics by directors like Hideo Gosha or Kenji Misumi, bloodier and more realistic and technically better films all around...

The 6 Lone Wolf and Cub films will blow your mind if you ahve never seen them and they are domestically available as well...as is Shogun Assassin = the american cut re-edited and horribly dubbed in the 1980's version of the Lone Wolf and cub movies 1 & 2, with the story drastically altered.This was the film that Kiddo and her daughter watched before bed in Kill Bill 2...get the real films not SA, you'll be won over instantly

Some other good site for samurai films are..

www.ninjadojo.com

www.samuraidvd.com

www.kurotokagigumi.com

As for Grindhouse, i'll probably go see it more for the Rodriguez half, it looks like fun..but he's definitley the better director..i think Tarentino is a better writer and dialogue guy than anything..but it still looks like a fun tribute to drive in cinema..

Oh yeah & Rose Mcgowan i hottttt in this...even with the machine gun leg!

Randy (owner of Collectors Corner)

www.collectorscornermd.com

[Guest sevenhooks]

Resivoir dogs, bothered me in that he basically adapted City on Fire the HK film starring Chow Yun Fat, with even certain cinematic elements being swiped wholesale.

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

[Guest Dion Brother]

Did Ringo Lam ever credit Boorman's POINT BLANK for FULL CONTACT? Or Richard Stark's novels in general. Plagiarism works on both sides of the ocean.

[Guest Markgway]

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

The central idea of an undercover cop infiltrating a gang of jewel robbers and turning them against each other from the inside. If you know both films well the similarities are apparent. The much-touted standoff is really just the icing on the cake.

[Guest The Running Man]

Other than the mexican standoff at the end, exactly what was "swiped wholesale" from City On Fire?

The entire plot and the last quarter of the movie.

[Guest CASSANOVA72]

Just noticed something this weekend you guys know that wailing siren noise just before Uma confronts her foes was swiped from 5 Fingers of Death (King Boxer)...

[Guest Markgway]

Yes, and it was swiped by King Boxer from Ironside. :lol

[Guest D1 Ma]

I remember reading QT's interview to some japanese(?) journalist when KB-1 was out. In this Interview QT mentioned almost a dozen films from which he got his ideas. He never credited other directors IN the film, but he was quite open about borrowing ideas in his interviews.

Oh, yeah - here it is:

www.japattack.com/main/?q=node/79

[Guest bamboo]

They get a bad rap from lots of folks, but I love Kill Bill Vol. 1, and think Vol. 2 is pretty good.

[Guest sevenhooks]

They get a bad rap from lots of folks, but I love Kill Bill Vol. 1, and think Vol. 2 is pretty good.

I dug em both - very much so.

I just think a lot of fans of asian film (myslef included) are increasingly and inherently hostile toward any action films coming from western directors.

Why there so often seems to be such an immediate and vitriolic rush to condemn I'm not exactly sure.

Yes, most american action films nowadays suck.

But IMHO so do most asian action films nowadays.

I just sense that for the most part this hatred stems from a kind of raw, deep emotion and not from any sort of real critical perspective, and as a result, it's often uncalled for (Americans suck, the west is corrupt, etc.).

Seeing Kill Bill 1 in a NYC theater for the first time was a real fun treat, and a throwback to the good old days of my cinematic youth.

The closest I'll most likely ever get to recapturing some of that exhiliration and feeling I used to get going to see the "flicks".

Pretentious? Hardly.

Fun? F#ck yeah.

And really, innit what it's all about in the first place?

[Guest sevenhooks]

I've always wondered about other kung fu fans.... do any of you consider any SB films as art? Meaning, do you think they are on the same level as work by Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorcese, Akira Kurosawa, Bernardo Bertolucci, Francois Truffaut, or any of their other contemporaries?

I personally do not. I see them in the same vein as older Hollywood films or studio-based Hammer productions. They have merit, and the level of acrobatics & choreography is definitely something to consider, but ultimately I don't see any contemporary or past issues particularly well articulated or symbolised any more than other action fare.

Something like The One-Armed Swordsman does warrant a second-look, but ultimately I think any real creativity in terms of film technique and narrative was severely weakened by the studio system.

That's very interesting and I think you're right.

I definitely see some pictures in the Shaw cannon that rose above the typical genre conventions of the studio (Killer Constable, Blood Brothers, Tiger Killer, etc.).

But for the most part, the studio restrictions hampered a lot of potential creativity, there's no doubt about it.

Look at the music for example.

A film's soundtrack is supremely vital and is half of a film's identity.

Imagine Rocky, Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars, Cinema Paradiso, Shaft or any of the James Bond films without their respective original music soundtrack.*

The vast, vast majority of Shaw Brother film music was canned.

They had a music director who simpley picked what sound library cut would go good with a particular scene.

As a result, we often hear the same music used over and over again.

While that's also one of the many charms of the Shaw "vibe" for me, I also recognize it as one of the many reasons why these films are ultimately not regarded on the same level as stuff from Kurosawa, Kubrick, etc. and never will be.

But quite honestly, that's fine with me!

* I tend to look at the way Kill Bill was made and draw several comparisons to what are now considered to be obsolete, exploitation-style film making techniques.

The film's music soundtrack being one of them.

Like the film itself, QT cut and pasted his soundtrack with pre-existing songs from every genre imaginable.

This is a part of Kill Bill that is seldom talked about, but the film's music ultimately serves the same purpose as the images themselves... evoking other movies and genres altogether in some kind of cinematic symmetry.

I remember having a chuckle the first time I saw Snake In The Eagle's Shadow, when, after the opening credits finish, we're treated to an audio snippet of The Spy Who Loved Me before the first fight commences.

I thought, "how could they do this?", but they did it.

And did it they did, time after time.

Swiping soundtracks from western films in particular became a convention of sorts in asian cinema.

A necessity even, as the Shaw Brothers themselves demonstrated, WHO could afford their own composer?