Not Coming to a Theater Near You

Grindhouse

Having missed the grindhouse era by twenty years and a thousand miles, I looked to this film for some insight—a lesson in the ways of dirt-cheap, thrills-without-shame cinema, as much of the 1970s “exploitation” crop is now available without scratches, crackling sound bubbles, or missing reels on VHS and DVD at the local library. Which takes away something, considering genuine grindhouse films were shown in dark, dank, cramped, uncomfortable theatres wedged between porno huts and sweltering alleyways; the closest thing I have to this sensation today is a small, outdated theatre back home with sticky soda floors and a bad speaker system. And there was an audience, always a throng of the willing and open-minded to bask in an evening of mindless, sensationalist entertainment.

Which makes the widespread reaction to Grindhouse so disappointing. Despite being praised by critics, the film has earned less than half its budget and never rose above third place at the box office. Perhaps it’s the three-plus hours of mind-numbing action—no plot, purposefully bad character development, endless gratuity—the generational cast, or maybe even the directors, but Grindhouse never seemed to catch on. An especially sad notion, considering this is the most fun I’ve had at a theatre for some time. Even the fake trailers, shamelessly amusing cameos and all, were well worth the price of admission.

by Adam Balz   on 25 Apr 2007 3:33 PM   Source: Dimension Films 35MM Theatrical Print

I’m probably not the right person to judge these films since I haven’t been fixated on this genre at any point in my life. I’ll fully admit I’ve already grown tired of most of the discussions surrounding these films and their success/failure (though I do recommend the discourse between Matt Zoller Seitz and Keith Uhlich over at The House Next Door) because they have little to do with the actual films and devote far too much energy on denouncing either the personality of the filmmakers, the concept behind the filmmaking methods being applied, or both. It seems that most of the people carrying on a conversation about these films have a heavy bias in their perspection and interpretation anyway. It’s idiotic to require everyone to be objective while evaluating a film, but I would rather avoid opinions that have been determined prior to watching a film and are adamant in having the viewing experience simply provide reinforcement of their own perspective.

Having said all that nonsense, I have to admit the most entertaining segments of this experience were the shamelessly cheesy trailers. I’ve never been a fan of Eli Roth’s films, but the man sure does know how to piece together a damn fine horror trailer, dripping with gore, admiration, and sarcasm.

Sadly, while Planet Terror has some well-earned moments, I enjoyed Rodriguez’s trailer for Machete far more than his feature. Truthfully, it appears that Planet Terror probably approximates the experience of watching a “grindhouse” feature better than its companion piece, simply due to its trashy subject matter and its stylistic flourishes intended to artificially recreate decay (they really are fun to watch). Unfortunately, Rodriguez’s feature never sustained my interest and often just became tiresome or annoying (someone has to remind Bruce Willis that he’s not actually an action-hero in real life). Also, while I really enjoyed Marley Shelton’s endless struggle, I couldn’t stand the cameos by the Crazy Babysitter Twins, which were even more pointless than Tarantino’s constant appearances (which is saying something). Perhaps some of my frustration was due to Rodriguez requiring so little of the viewer’s attention that it practically renders the film disposable. I’m sure such qualities adhere to the generally accepted perception of the genre and provide the film with an authentic, audacious, raucous charm that appeal to enthusiasts, but it’s also mildly exhausting and blatantly undemanding in its maddening superficiality.

Meanwhile, I remain unconvinced that Death Proof is actually entertaining, but I’m utterly confident that it’s intriguing and engaging as an exercise in attempting to explore Tarantino’s id. Much like Kill Bill (and I actually enjoyed Volume 1 much more than Volume 2), Death Proof is so primal, aggressive, and distasteful (and maybe even offensive) at times that it almost feels inappropriate to be strolling through Tarantino’s mind with such freedom, to the point where I wonder if Tarantino isn’t a cinematic masochist. Obviously the subject isn’t sophisticated, and the film isn’t entirely successful, but Tarantino at least makes the material feel personal, if only as a demonstration of the power that women hold within his psyche and his resentment and appreciation for that feminine death-grip.

Adam’s Thoughts

by Chiranjit Goswami   on 30 Apr 2007 6:35 PM   Source: Alliance Atlantis 35mm Theatrical Print

The genius artificial trailers notwithstanding, Grindhouse is a flawed film for its sheer smorgasbord of material. It’s more a celebration (and admirably so) of a type of exhibition, one that contemporary audiences (as Adam notes) have been largely disinterested in, than it is of a specific genre. It begins with Robert Rodriguez’s depthless Planet Terror. The film is all artifice, what with its digitally aged filmstock, the carefully considered missing reel, and even the glimpse of the camera crew in the opening credits. All of these elements are particularly ironic because they are staged and not the accidents, blemishes, or compromises that enhance films of this vintage. Rodriguez is admirably enamored by his inspirations – his appropriation of John Carpenter is faithful; the score, for one, is fantastic – but ultimately Planet Terror is absent of any terror.

Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof, by contrast, is a total thrill, elongated passages of dialogue and all.

Jit’s thoughts

by Rumsey Taylor   on 07 May 2007 12:47 PM   Source: The Weinstein Company 35mm print