I do not reject this violent approach. I was prepared from the beginning. Watching this movie is also a challenge and a test of my acceptance of this style. The result is that I can accept this style, and there is no bad reaction; but I did not see what I wanted to see from it, which is really disappointing. I always thought that Europeans and Americans would not make horror movies, and they can only make disgusting movies rather than horror movies; but I did not expect that in terms of violent aesthetics, they would produce so empty. It can't be called aesthetics, at best it's nothing more than disgusting.
In general, there are two problems with this film. One is the unreasonable setting of the fighting level, and the other is the weak performance of violence. The unreasonable level of fighting makes the audience unable to truly enter the state and experience the battle; and the poor performance of violence makes it more difficult for the audience to experience violence, let alone the beauty of violence.
Action movies always have to face this question: how to set the fighting level? For the protagonist, it is generally gradual progress; for the supporting role, there are two types: group attack and boss singles. It can't be too simple or too strong, and it's generally gradual. But in "Kill Bill", the protagonist's victory is often unconvincing. For example, in a restaurant group frame, more than 20 people surround the protagonist. It can be imagined that the setting of the plot must be how these people are cut down by the protagonist. But in the course of the fight, the protagonist was panting to finish this one, and quickly jumped to the next place to chop the pose of the other one, and then hurry up... the protagonist’s actions did not look decent. Often they fall unjustly, and people have to sigh that the swordsmanship of the East cannot be done in a month, and the friendship and cooperation on the other side is really too blatant.
The same is true for boss battles. The first little boss, Guoguo, died the worst. She was facing the protagonist who hadn't killed a few people when she first came on the field (by the way, the first few people were considered to have died the most alike), and she was at the peak of her state and physical strength, and it should indeed be more difficult. But as soon as her meteor hammer came up, she was in absolute advantage, and it could be seen that the protagonist did not have the strength to defeat her. The outcome of this battle is not more powerful than anyone else, it is entirely determined by instinct and luck. In terms of strength, the protagonist has no chance to win the little boss.
The big boss battle is even more funny. Swordsmanship experience is only over a month. I have just been knocked down by a small boss several times, and I have slapped more than 20 underworld protagonists. Facing Ishii, who is waiting for work and is inseparable from the sword, the so-called end of the crossbow is better than Lu Jin. Scratched back is also normal. The strange thing is that Ishii would not wait for work, exhausting the opponent’s physical strength, and at the same time losing a lot of blood, letting the protagonist take his own demise; instead, he rashly shot and was confusedly injured his leg (picked off his right knee? It looks like), originally. The situation of being completely invincible immediately became evenly divided and even collapsed. The protagonist did not receive any respect for defeating Ishii. She could kill Ishii because Ishii had to accommodate and abolished martial arts because of the needs of the plot, rather than the fair treatment she deserves.
The only bright spot appeared at the beginning of the film. The one-on-one relationship between the protagonist and the rattlesnake was quite remarkable. It's just that, having said that the rattlesnake is an expert with bladed weapons, can she shoot so far through the box... But the protagonist threw the dagger with all his strength, but looked for the strongest sternum on the chest. Such dense bones can be pierced and killed in one blow, and there is no trace of blood yet, which can't help but feel strange. However, this paragraph is considered the most reasonable setting in my opinion, and it is much more serious than the later feeling of watching the protagonist's villain.
Another problem is the weak performance of violence. Inadequate performance of violence does not mean that it is not violent or bloody. In fact, an important means of this film to express violence is to focus on depicting the splash of blood. In the film, the human body is like a high-pressure balloon filled with blood, bursting out of a mouth. I haven't seen the actual situation of cutting limbs, but I think there is reason to suspect that this kind of splashing is over-exaggerated. Not to mention that almost everyone in the group rack of the hotel became a balloon, that is, the person Guoguo stabbed to death by the bar. I am afraid that his splashing effect is also to create a violent atmosphere.
Such a bloody scene is of course a strong stimulus to the audience’s senses; but if it does not look real, the effect may be greatly reduced. The result is that the audience feels that they see a lot of blood, but I am afraid that it may not necessarily be called that Violence. The counter-example is the rattlesnake and Ishii who are also in the film. They did not have any such splashes after their deaths, but they did not hinder the violent atmosphere. On the contrary, they may make people feel more violent. Another similar example is the protagonist who died in the hospital with the door. It is probably one of the most wonderful people in the film.
For the description of the bloody scenes, American directors must learn from the Japanese. The same is the animation depicting Ishii's past in the film, especially the period of revenge on Matsuda. I think it is the most violent and beautiful segment of the whole film. From breaking Matsuda's stomach to killing two followers like a civet, the beauty is conveyed vividly. The same is bloody, the scenes designed in the animation are far more thrilling than other parts. The pictures and emotions are conveyed to the audience at the same time, and the agitation is by no means comparable to simple superposition.
I remember that violent aesthetics is Wu Yusen's creation. And it seems that it is indeed the directors of the East Asian cultural circle who have a deeper understanding of it. Violent beauty is not a simple painting of blood, and the unreasonable setting of the protagonist's level will also greatly reduce the effect of the film. I think that in this regard, European and American directors can't just have a stick, they still have to learn more.
View more about Kill Bill: Vol. 1 reviews
