People,
I occasionally lurk this list-serv, have seen the Kill Bill posts. I have a
question regarding the splitting of Kill Bill into two volumes. Is there
anything potentially valuable, in terms of structural design or thematics in
film, in splitting a movie like Kill Bill into two volumes? Did anyone get
the feeling that volume 1 was designed to end when it did? Or did the
ending seem arbitrary?
I'm asking this because of a momentary shot that was cut into the sequences
dealing with the Bride's message, communicated through one of her
victims, to Bill. The shot shows Uma Thurman in close-up. Her expression
shows none of the hardness, damage, or resolve that had characterized
perhaps every other shot of her that the film otherwise shows. She smiles
and says, I think, "How did you find me?"
It seems obvious that this shot is meant to anticipate volume two, just as
Bill's final lines are meant to. But the final shot of Bill, or rather his hands,
is visually and thematically harmonic with his previous appearences, while
that shot of Thurman is in strong contrast to her earlier appearences. To me
this suggests a formal suspension which would normally indicate that a
transition is taking place into a different "key", wherein some new element
of the story will be introduced, elaborated, and partially closed, with a sort
of cinematic grammatical cadance to mark the beginning of the next
section.
But this doesn't happen. The opening statement of a change of tone or
harmony is left to dangle unresolved.
Is this a move by QT suggesting that the film is supposed to be in two
parts, or is it suggesting that the film was conceived of as one meant to be
seen from beginning to end?
Paul Ryersbach
Senior Circulation Clerk
Biomedical Library
Sundays 4:15pm-Midnight; Mon-Thurs 10:00am-6:00pm
(215)898-5815
*
*
*
*
***
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
If you have any questions about salon membership then email: [log in to unmask]
***
|