Since Halloween and, with it, the horror movie season is upon us, I thought I would kick things off by revisiting something I wrote a couple of years back for Geoff Klock's blog. In it, I analyze Tarantino and Rodriguez's Grindhouse double-feature: Planet Terror and Death Proof.
It's fairly straight forward and simple and, hopefully, it will set the tone for the kind of discourse I expect from this site.
First of all, I maintain that Grindhouse is a single film or at least a
singular entity, bottom line being that both films must be viewed in the
context of the other to be fully appreciated. This is especially true
of Death Proof, which I will explain shortly.
Planet Terror is
the least complex of the two and, as a result, the one most capable of
surviving on its own, however, without Death Proof as its companion it
is merely a fun homage to grind house films of the past (It also makes
sense for Rodriguez to do the straight-up homage because he's more of a
chameleon whereas Tarantino is much more of an auteur).
Death
Proof is the more complex of the two films. Not only is it stronger on a
technical level in terms of the actual filmaking; it is far more
subtle. This isn't a recreation of grind house films like Planet Terror
it is a deconstruction/revision of them (specifically the slasher,
revenge, and car chase genres). This is why it relies on Planet Terror.
If I say to the average movie go-er "Death Proof" is a revisionary
narrative of grind house films" Their response would, most likely, be
"Great! What are grind house films?" Few people today would have any
idea what I'm talking about. Pop Culture Junkie that I am, even I don't
know first hand what grind house is.
This is why Planet Terror
(and, in my opinion, the trailers) are necessary. It acclimates the
un-ininducted into the experience. Then, with Death Proof, something
strange happens: The film begins to evolve. It's no secret that both
Tarantino and Rodriguez grew up and drew inspiration from this kind of
movie. The thing is, they took what they learned from these movies
which were, let's face it, fairly disposable pieces of cheap,
exploitative entertainment, not good for much more than a few laughs,
and , in their own work, transform it into art (arguably, Tarantino is
much better at this than Rodriguez). So, as Death Proof begins we are
introduced to typical stock grind house characters only with greater
depth and better dialogue (something Tarantino is famous for) but, still
they remain characters rather than being real people. Jungle Julia and
her crew are the typical victims in slasher flicks: they are 'doing
bad things'; drinking, smoking pot, hooking up with/teasing guys. In
other words, they're just asking for it.
Then, the change over,
the film loses the faux aging and we're introduced to the second group
of girls (by the way, the black and white segment in the extended
edition adds nothing to the film other than another opportunity for
Tarantino to display his foot fetish). This group is a departure, they
are completely 'real' characters. It has been pointed out that they're
all movie people but, so what, to Tarantino movie people are the real
people in his day to day life. In fact, these might be the most
believable, realistic characters that Tarantino has created. So, in the
second half, he takes these 'real' people and puts them in a grind
house situation. Still, take out the false scratches and such, the film
can function on its own. Most people would still see it and 'get it'
The
point that the film again changes is after the first leg of the car
chase (which, by the way totally kicks ass and the use of traditional
stunting and Zoe Bell as the star add a tension rarely seen in modern
film making). Specifically, things go awry when, after Zoe emerges from
the bushes unscathed, the point where any normal, rational person would
say "Oh, Shit... we gotta call the cops!" a perky Zoe says "Phew, that
was a close one... Let's go get 'im"
At this point, these 'real'
characters begin a regression into the revenge seeking women of grind
house cinema. Still, I'm buying it... I even buy the one chick shooting
him. That's a plausible reaction. Where it falls apart (at least
without the context provided by Planet Terror). Is the final few
seconds where they drag Stuntman Mike from his car, knock the shit out
of him and, ultimately, crush his head in.
So, these 'real',
'normal' characters have suddenly become cold blooded killers? It is
also worth noting that during this sequence Abernathy's skirt, worn at a
respectable knee length for the most of the film, is now worn at an
exploitative point high up on her thigh. It is an, admittedly, cheap
ending but it is a grind house ending. Death Proof has now taken us full
circle back to the cheap thrill of Planet Terror. When viewed on its
own, this ending makes no sense. However, as part of the larger
Grindhouse film... project... whatever you want to call it. It makes
perfect sense. In fact, in order for it to be a true grind house film.
That's how it has to end.
So, in short... Planet Terror is a fun
recreation of the grind house experience whereas Death Proof really
makes you think about the genre (and all its various subgenres). Both
films are great but I still see it as one big movie.
