The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

My own theory about Kill Bill


#1

Hi all, i’m new…i’v been a lurker for a long but now i decided to become a member of this forum, also because i can’t find a forum dedicated to Quentin in my first language…i’m italian so i’m sorry if my english is bad, but i’ll try to express my thought this great opus :slight_smile:



I think that the monologue about Superman that Bill pronunces at the end of vol.2 it’s a sort of explanation of the different stylistic registers of the two movies…why the vol.1 is so different from vol.2 and viceversa…i have my own idea…



I think that in a certain sense Tarantino gives us the explanation of this opus trough the Bill’s monologue about Superman: life and dream, or rather the dream life and the dreamed life. The everyday reality: a sandwich, tv cartoons, games, sons, and the life of superheroes, made of great exploits, of extremities, of life and death, of black and white, of swords and travels around the world.

Bill celebrates the superheroe’s life, the killer’s life, because he dreams that one…he doesn’t accept everyday life, he says that Superman criticises the disgust of what mankind gives him and he expresses it in the clumsy and failing figure of Clark Kent.

Beatrix instead accepts everyday life beacuse the pregnancy launched her inside it. the problem arises when Bill does’n want reality, he wants an “overthetop” life and he claims that also for Beatrix.

THe nodal point is: Which is the real life? Which one the easiest? Or nicer?

Superman helps the next one, the fellowman and he has got superpowers, but he is alone, he must protect steadily his big secret, so the killer.Instead Clark Kent can love, he could build his own family, could enjoy the little pleasures of life…it is what Betrix wanted to do.

At the end the roles capsize, the “protest” of Bill against real life is futile…he wanted that the splendid existence of Beatrix, killer for nature, could continue, and her, bloody-tirsty, keeps on killing people in order to come to him; instead his life changes in a normal life with her daughter, he becomes “The Dad” for B.B (also if B.B wants to watch Shogun Assassin and Bill largely indulges her, eh eh).

Beatrix reestablishes the order he wanted for her things, retwisting against Bill his dream and achieving her purpose and Bill accept it beacuse, after all, for him it’s a “dream death”, right because is (or becomed) a normal man.

One life with Bill and B.B. could never be possible for clear reasons, so the vengeance acquires significance and permits Beatrix to resume life from the same point she left it, before Bill’s intromission.



The skillfull characterization of the figures permits us to understand the thesis which Tarantino would support: both movies are exactly the superheroe’s life (vol.1) and the life of normal people(vol2), Superman and Clark Kent, and for this reason indissolubly connected in their meaning. In vol.1 the characters were burlesque, caricatural, like the action sequences, psichological introspection was almost absent, Bill has no face, The Bride no name, almost all lived and acted in an “overthetop” way. In the vol.2 some characters remain burlesque, like the one of Pai Mei (who anyway is a part of a flashback).

The characterization of Budd is the one who bringed me to this conclusions.

Budd lives a miserable penniless life, he doesn’t react anymore to the defiances cause life emptied him and it’s the first clue for the new depth that Q gives to his last movie.

Elle Driver and Budd talks about sentiments, and they prove them, beyond what they really can feel, in a certain sense they askthemselves what they feel, and they sit down and talk about it, something that wouldn’t be possible or immaginable in vol.1.

The first dialogue we see in tha chapel between Beatrix and Bill is static and based on feelings, but full of tension and suspance, pivoted of real life, not even bleak…The stylistic differnce, the change of register which it fells between the two parts it’s beacuse of this dualism, which is the fundamental thesis of Kill Bill…both movies are linked together in perfect way because thesis and demonstration of Tarantino assumption.


#2

Wonderful theory (though it is a bit hard to read). I agree with a whole lot of it, and a paragraph of my review for a website I write for sort of covers the same idea:



"Where volume 1 is a delicate balance of action, comedy, camp, and melodrama, volume 2 serves, and succeeds in spades, to provide context for all of this.



Where the characters of volume 1 are broad characterizations who are defined by their weapons, sins, or killer instinct, volume 2 stays true to its spaghetti-western form by revealing its principals through their dialogue and routine. We follow Budd, for example, into his strip club job and watch him get chewed out by his boss, and immediately after, to add insult to injury, instructed by a stripper to fix a clogged toilet. Elle Driver answers her cellphone as if Bill is the only one to ever call it and Googles all of her cold-blooded dialogue. She tries to pose while readying her sword in a confined space and hits a hanging lamp. Bill plays with toy guns and makes sandwiches for his daughter. These are the sides of movie villains that most movies won’t let you see: fathers, has-beens, and wannabes."



While not as in-depth or eloquent (disregarding language barriers) as yours, it does reinforce my belief that there are a lot of themes of a dualistic nature between the two movies, even though Tarantino didn’t have the idea to split up the movies until Weinstein came up with the idea. Bravo.