Jackie Brown (1997)
Review by Zach Douglas ZACHD@HUB.OFTHE.NET HTTP://USERS.HUB.OFTHE.NET/~ZACHD
A lot of the reviews I read for Jackie Brown started to sound the same. Too long, bringing back Pam Grier like Travolta, yada yada yada. So I wrote my own thoughts down which I haven't had time to do in some time. I cut through a lot of crap like re-telling the plot which you already know if you watched it. Everyone said Jackie Brown was too long and self indulgent. Guess what - so is my criticism, read it or not!
First off, Tarantino didn't have to cast Pam Grier for this role. There were no other options. Pam Grier IS Jackie Brow. In my book it's a beautiful thing that Tarantino has written this role, better yet, this MOVIE for Pam Grier. Altering Elmore Leonard's original title of "Rum Punch" (What's that mean any ways?) and Jackie's last name to more closely fit Grier's persona as the 70's biggest female blaxploitation star (Actually, Grier was one of the biggest box office draws of the 70's - period). Jackie's description could be Grier's - Strong but aging, black and beautiful, still working but having seen better days. Grier plays Jackie with above all - determination. Like James Brown howled, "Got to get over, 'fo we go under" - Grier and Jackie both get over magnificently. Might as well stick to casting since the other characters DID have to be cast. Samuel Jackson as Ordell - excellent of course. I've read some people say, "He's pretty much like Jules in Pulp Fiction". No, he's not really much like Jules at all. Jules Winfield was the real thing. Ordell is a wannabee. Unlike the real Macks with a whole stable of 'fly ho's' Ordell's has three - a stoner, a simpleton, and an chubby loon. He put's on gloves like I used to do pretending to be David Hasslehoff in Knight Rider. He wants to be important, a player... and that is why he must surround himself with the likes of Lewis, Beaumont, Melanie, Sheronda, and Simone - they are less bright than he and thus to him he's the Man. Ordell's character is a lot closer to the one Jackson played in John Paul Anderson's "Hard Eight" - an up and comer who is pulling some strings, but can't close the bag (I'm speaking of the character of course, but the same might apply to Anderson). Robert Forster as Max Cherry. I'm unfortunately somewhat unfamiliar with Forster's 70's T.V. and B-Movies work. Nevertheless, it was all the more surprise to see such a great performance from this 'unknown'. Max Cherry IS a "Cherry" (Virgin) of sorts... I don't think we know if Max is single, divorced, or what, but it's obvious he has lived a calculated life somewhat removed from a more sexual or emotional existance... much too calculating to know what to do when he is smitten by Jackie Brown. Poor Max calculates until the very end, and as his time runs out he can't compute the options fast enough. Forster plays Max with the all the restraint required as his prominent role could have been easily overplayed. Keaton as the cop. It works I guess. In Tarantino's world cop's are generally a. White and B. Dorky and Keaton performs both with ease. He's fairly on the ball, but he like Ordell, has a long way to go - if you want to BE the man, you gotta BEAT the man right? Bridgette Fonda as Ordell's "Little Surfer Girl" Melanie. Perfect. Bridgette=Gidget? Good to see her do something substantial, Singles and Bodies, Rest, and Motion seem like eons ago. Maybe get a new agent? Chris Tucker as the short lived Beaumont Livingston - just fine - Tucker is perhaps the blackest of the young black actors. Easily black enough to hang with Jackson and Grier. If Chris Rock hadn't overexposed himself and done so many goofy commercials perhaps he would have been the one getting in the trunk? Last but not least - DeNiro as Lewis. I had some problems with this. I first thought, "DeNiro can't play such a looser!". Then I thought.. "But he played two of the greatest losers in film history". So what was the difference? DeNiro before played sick, angry losers. Here he is asked to simply to be a stupid, sad, looser in which some stupid, sad, looser should have been cast. The role was beneath Bob, but DeNiro gives Lewis all he possibly can muster with such a limited task. Ok, that's casting. Tired yet? Too bad. Now where? Direction? Tarantino's direction is a major break from his previous works. While Tarantino is still quite indulgent with the camera, he is more restrained than before. Absent are Tarantino's post modern tendencies - the "new" new wave tendency of drawing attention to the film itself. Gone are the prefabricated gaffes, stylized deaths, slowed motion, cartoon boxes drawn in the air, etc. Jackie harkens back to the 70's ultra realistic, slowly spun crime tales such as Friedken's French Connection or Lumet's Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, and the Anderson Tapes (Tarantino is no doubt a fan of all). And while Dogs and Pulp were comprised from so many different bits and pieces and styles - in Jackie, Tarantino invest in a singular style - (will this be called "his own" now?) which is something he really hasn't done before. I could find no distinguishable film references in Jackie in either dialogue or shots other than one mentioned later. One might say this was because it was an adaptation and not Tarantino's own writing - yet I believe this was a deliberate action by Tarantino to hush the loud mouths who said he has no talent as a director above and beyond homaging other's works. It wouldn't be that hard to make film references regardless of the source material... Danny Boyle took Irwin Welsh's Trainspotting and meshed a wide range of references from the likes of A Hard Days Night to a Clockwork Orange. Again, I believe it was a deliberate choice. One of Tarantino's smaller trademarks does survive... the POV shot from the car trunk now appearing in 4 Tarantino movies. Another difference is in the look of the film as Guilermo Navaro must have been a cheaper Cinematographer than Andrzej Sekula who worked on Dogs and Pulp. I liked Sekula better, but Navaro's images seem a little brighter and sharper which does work ok with the more realistic style of Jackie. Ok, what about those 2 obvious 'tricks' that Tarantino does use in Jackie? The Split Screen, and the repeated time sequence. The split screen job might be considered an all-purpose homage to 70's film making (see QT favorite De Palma use it in Carrie or Norman Jewison back in 68 in a probable QT favorite the Thomas Crown Affair). The shot is ballsy.. but masterful.. it would be difficult to envision the scene being done any other way after viewing it. Secondly, the repeated time sequence. I read others say it's similar to his previous non-linear time constructions. Again, totally different. Previously Tarantino has taken the entire story and shuffled it, overlapping small portions creating a disjointing effect on the narrative that takes multiple viewings or some brainstorming to figure out exactly what DID happen. In Jackie, the same small portion of the story is told exactly the same way, three times, from 3 different view points. This actually increases the amount of information received, instead of diminishing it (of course, not much to think about later). Prominent (and hard working) internet critic James Berardinelli likened it to Rashomon or more recently Courage Under Fire - yet those tales were repeated multiple times by different narrators and each narrator took his own liberties with the story and each version is told with direction to reflect the differences (well, at least Roshomon was). I think the sequence in Jackie to be much more akin to Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing" where a strictly objective camera captures a heist from multiple view points and angles. From one angle, a character is merely peripheral while the other character does HIS important task.. yet switch the angle to the peripheral character and now we see what HE is going through while the other character is now just a figure in the distance. Thankfully there is no narrator to explain things to us as was needed in the Killing, but Tarantino does include a (visible) 'stop watch' just as Kubrick provided an oral one to help out. I think it's a fascinating use of film technique to tell the story. Is it necessary? Of course not. Then again, what in film really is? They could have just filmed Jack Palance in an easy chair reading the story and it would be just as good right? The music - typical Tarantino fair? Again, not really. Not much of the surf and rockabilly of Pulp, and barely any of the 70's pop / rock which permeated Dogs. Tarantino has turned to some fine, fine soul music. More importantly, most (but not all) of the songs are used in a genuine manner - not as ironic counterpoint, as could have been expected from the guy who had a cop beat to Joe Tex singing "I Gotcha" and brutal assaults set to "Stuck in the Middle" and "Commanche". Tarantino treats these songs with much more respect and actually repeats songs as 'Themes' (every good hero should have one) for his characters which is something he has not done before. The Delfonics "Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time" scores the attraction between Jackie and Max. An incredibly nasty instrumental tune which I have no idea what the name or artist is (Since it's an instrumental AND since they left it off the soundtrack) plays when Ordell is laying forth his halfbaked but nefarious plans. Jackie's theme is "Across 110th Street" by Bobby Womack, incredibly telling for the character - "Pimps trying to catch a woman that's weak", "Doing whatever I had to do to survive, I'm not saying what I did was all right.." The movie opens and closes with the song and to those (like me) who hold such soul music near and dear to their hearts, Jackie mouthing the lyrics while departing haven risen above her predicament is a pretty stirring moment. This deep fried soul is no doubt much less accessible to the average Tarantino demographic from his previous two films but to those who have an appreciation for black music (and film) should really, really, really dig it. Well, I've just about covered most of the things I had in mind to say about Jackie Brown. Lastly, some small themes and or sub text I picked up. Usually it takes two viewings for this, so they are a bit scarce now. First is the somewhat obvious theme of "age" in the film. Looking back, Tarantino's previous films do touch on the subject... in Dogs everyone is to respect the Elder Joe Cabot who is referred to throughout as "Papa" or "Daddy". More so in Pulp Fiction - Marcellus tells Butch he is too old to realize any dreams of being a contender. Jules quits the business declaring "My ass is retired". Travolta gained pounds as it was important that Vincent also be a hit man past his prime. The Wolf is an elderly statesman, he tells his girlfriend she should "respect her elders". In Jackie, most of the 'bad guys' are aging. It's not so much sub-text because they talk about it openly, but it's an interesting theme nevertheless. Lewis coughs and is a bit too old for sex with Melanie (and on a separate thought.. has his incarceration made him more comfortable with front to back sex?). Max and Jackie talk about how they are getting old while listening to a selection from her vinyl collection (at this point there is also some clever innuendo concerning how "black coffee" would be fine). Any ways, I wonder if this theme of aging is something Tarantino has highlighted or created (perhaps some Allenesque paranoia exists in Tarantino?) or if this was merely part of Leonard's character traits that he chose to remain faithful to? Lastly, some symbolism in a reverse fashion from Reservoir Dogs (literally, fashion). In RD, the Dogs start the movie dressed immaculately in the super cool black and white retro-fitted suits made famous twice before by the likes of Godard and Woo. As the film progresses though, sunglasses are lost, jackets tossed, and white shirts come un tucked and blood soaked. Jackie Brown encounters the reverse - as her situation improves, so does her outfit. Jackie starts in her Stewardess uniform - nice enough, but a symbol of her, well, shitty commercial job. She goes downward to "County Blues" and bathrobes and other unflattering attire. But as Jackie is on the rise, she dawns a tight fitting red dress and is filmed notably more attractively. Finally, with the execution of her plan - she purchases a chic, 70's style pant suit - black and white - not so much unlike the black and white duds of both the Dogs (before they all got trashed) and of Jules and Vincent (before they had to dress like 'A couple of dorks'). This is no doubt nothing new to film as symbolic colors and wardrobe have always been important to the best film makers - but it's attention to such details that I believe will keep Tarantino among those great ones in the years to come. Was Jackie Brown too long? I can't hardly stand people objecting to the length of a film as a criticism for 'what's wrong with it'. A bad film can be too long. How can a good film be too long? Why do people go to spend big bucks on a movie, and then bolt from the theater like they have something better to be doing? I make it a point to get a seat before the trailers start. I love trailers. By the time they are through I'm already through a box of Jr. Mints. I watch the movie, I get comfortable, I focus on the whole screen and try and take it all in. I listen to the music, and then when it's over I WATCH THE CREDITS. Why not? Is there not music playing on a sound system that costs thousands of dollars? Aren't you in a comfy seat with a climate controlled environment? Don't you want to see the songs and artists? Do you know any of the people Tarantino thanked at the end of the credits?? Did you see the beautiful Jackie Brown logo in 198 point "Boogie" font scroll up the screen to close the credits? How about the inserts in credits of L.A. Confidential? Are you watching the movie because you like film or you are killing time? If you answer the latter, that's fine - we all need to kill some time. It's just disheartening for people like me to hear an artist's work criticized for being too long simply because some folks's inability to relax and let those 'important' things rest for a few hours and REALLY take in a movie. Overall, Jackie Brown is not a monumental film. It's almost as much pulp fiction as Leonard's novels are - entertaining, but somewhat forgettable. No one will quote Ordell or Jackie on a daily basis. The Simpson's won't have a homage to it. Furniture commercials won't start featuring soul music. But, it was a very, very good film and one that lets the load of 'what comes next' come down of his back. Hell, I feel more relief than he does now that's it's over and done with. It proves Tarantino is not a 'one trick pony'. It shows a great deal of consistency when fellow film makers who were declared "Auteurs" after one film are failing miserably on their second and third. It shows a definite turn towards a more serious style of film making, and perhaps, if he wants to make another, will lead to another monumental film.
Any comments or corrections are greatly appreciated.
Zach D. zachd@hub.ofthe.net
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews