Violence without Reason

Rating: 1/10 (3 December 2004)

I didn't enjoy this movie. First let me say that I watched it on video because it didn't seem like the type of film I would enjoy paying 15 bucks for (gotta love those New York City theaters). When I finally rented it, it took me three days to get through. Each day I would sit determinedly and try to appreciate Tarantino's work. Each day I would continue to try because I had friends, whose opinions I respected, who told me that it was "even better than pulp fiction" (and I loved pulp fiction). And each day I would find myself switching off the set, in some sort of knee-jerk reaction stemming from my own disgust. I'm not going to accuse Tarantino of plagiarism; I could care less (the greatest Artists throughout history have always borrowed). I'm not going to criticize the film for it's pace or filming (that was something I couldn't even gauge as I was distracted by my more guttural misgivings). I'm not even going to criticize it for it's rather shallow dialogue (people tell me that that is a style). All I want to know is why the excessive violence? Why do we revel in death (and not just in death but in horrible gory death involving geysers of blood and gore). I've always wondered why a film can be rated PG-13 and have scenes of rather graphic violence, but if there is even any reference to the sex act (the use of the word f*ck [I can't even use it here]) the film is rated R. Violence is a destructive act Sex is a creative one, why do we (Americans especially) find the former more offensive?
But of course, I've become sidetracked by my own sensibilities. Let me now make it abundantly clear that I have no problem with violence when it is used by a filmmaker (even in excess) to express a point. I loved Pulp fiction because the senseless violence was juxtaposed to the rather overly logical musings of it's characters, the fact that a deep discussion regarding divine intervention and miracles is immediately followed by, (without any segue way) "I just shot Marvin in the face!" I loved Apocalypse Now because the rather gruesome moments illustrated the sheer madness one encounters in an armed conflict: "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning..." But unless someone can tell me what point Tarantino was trying to make with the excessive violence of Kill Bill (and don't give me simple revenge, for that excessively meaningful rational I could just watch pro-wrestling) I, personally, refuse to classify this film (as so many have) as art. I would simply call it gratuitous, bloodlust-based entertainment no nobler than a public execution. And if you're into public execution than I apologize, but I doubt you and I will ever have a productive discussion of Aesthetic value.