Reservoir Dogs

It's hard to get your head around the fact that 'Reservoir Dogs' has been around for ten years. It's almost difficult to remember a time before Tarantino made such an enormous impact (good and bad) on movies, but I saw this movie first time round before the hype. All I knew was that, like another "dog" movie from the same era that I saw, 'Man Bites Dog', that it was supposed to be violent, funny and disturbing, and that it starred a long time favourite of mine Harvey Keitel, and Tim Roth, who I mainly knew from Greenaway's 'The Cook The Thief His Wife & Her Lover'. Okay, I hope it's good I thought as I waited in the cinema listening to some half remembered 70s A.M. pop and a strange conversation about Madonna's sex life (the cinema was playing the soundtrack album before the main feature, but what did we know). Then the movie itself, electrifying and fascinating from the word go. It's impossible to describe the impact of seeing this for the first time without knowing what to expect! Still one of my greatest movie memories. Ten years later I've seen it countless times so the surprise has obviously worn off, but it is still a brilliant movie because beneath the violence and wise-cracks of Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi - 'In The Soup'), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen - 'Thelma & Louise'), and Nice Guy Eddie (Chris Penn - 'At Close Range'), there is a lot of depth, that being the very human relationship between Mr. White (Keitel) and Mr.Orange (Roth). To me that is one of the things that elevates this above the many lame and unoriginal "Tarantinoesque" movies we've had to endure since 'Pulp Fiction'. His imitators just simply don't have a clue!

Simply brilliant cinema, and a modern classic. This is absolutely essential viewing!

Crime boss Joe Cabot brings together a group of criminals to perform a big one-off job. To protect each other, they all use colour coded names. However on the day of the job, the police ambush the gang and each makes their own getaway. As the gang comes together at their warehouse meeting point they realise that someone within the gang must have tipped the police or be an undercover. The accusations and suspicions escalate into violence in the confines of the warehouse.

When this film came out in the UK it caused an absolute firestorm of controversy over it's violence, even to the point that it was banned in the UK for a while. I still find this absurd and am very glad we have moved to a more tolerant society where generally the BBFC protect vulnerable groups but let adults decide for themselves. Looking at the media's adoring welcome for the ultra violent Kill Bill one can't help but marvel at how things have changed. Looking at Reservoir Dogs now (or even then!) it simply isn't THAT violent. However what it is is very sudden and all the more powerful for it.

Tarantino directs the film and writes the film in such a way that it was impossible to ignore him even if the film was only a cult hit. The dialogue is both witty at points but, more importantly, very tough and loaded with testosterone. It is the writing that makes us like these coffee shop jokers at the start before shocking us by suddenly throwing us into a backseat bloodbath. The entire job happens off camera, and only occasionally do we actually see the immediate effect of violence - usually we get the aftermath. It is incredibly tight and very tense throughout, I was about 16 when my father took me to see this film - it has stayed with me since and I still considered it to be one of the best `job gone wrong' films of my generation. It may not be original (there's a thin line between a homage and a rip off) but it is certainly effectively done.

The cast are excellent and turn the hardboiled dialogue into convincing scenes. Keitel is wonderful. His character is a father figure of sorts and he is wildly out of control at times and balanced at others. Likewise Buscemi is wide-eyed and freaking out for much of the film, but he does it well. Roth is more balanced but is still good for it; it is his job to carry the emotional weight of the film and he does it well, despite a wandering American accent at times. Madsen is great, maybe not the best character but wildly out of control. Tierney was a great piece of casting, as was Bunker. Penn is good but not the best of the cast.

Tarantino mercifully has little acting to do, but it is his film as writer and director. The flashbacks during the film was a brave way to do it but it really works well - mixing stories with flashbacks and so on. No matter what the time of the scene, it all keeps moving tensely towards the climax. It may be a homage and not as original as some films but so what - it is tight and tense, macho, violent, funny and very enjoyable.

From the opening moments of "Reservoir Dogs" you sense that you are watching a different kind of crime drama. The style and dialog of this picture bestows a level of intelligence upon it's characters that defies the reality of their chosen profession. Having said that,this movie is absolutely riveting in it's movements from the ordinary, to the grim, to the horrific aspects of a career criminal. Quintin Tarantino has written a tale of an almost corporate order to constructing a crime gang. The delight is in meeting these characters one by one. The particular crime is no more crucial to the film than a 7-11 stick-up. The crux of the movie is the portrayal of the rainbow of characters who find themselves involved in a life of crime. Much has been made of the violence in the movie, but it only serves to point out that all men are different......even the crooked. The director has included a number of very memorable scenes. This is not a linear film. The movie works more as a series of set pieces that weave together a story that is not as important as the individual parts that you have the pleasure of observing. This movie may take more than one viewing to truly appreciate.

... because the first time around I was somewhat disappointed. This was actually a commercial hit for Tarantino , and that usually means something that is appreciated on the first view.

It is great nonlinear storytelling. You first meet these guys in a diner having breakfast. And you learn lots about their characters just from this very mundane setting and some arguing about the philosophy of tipping. And you wonder why they are wearing suits and thin lapels with white shirts and skinny ties, like they borrowed the Beatles' 1964 wardrobe. It is never explained. And there is all of this 70s music, again, never explained.

Storywise it has been done a hundred times, maybe more. A heist gone wrong. But the gimmick is, you never SEE the heist. Most of the time I like for movie makers to show me not tell me, but this works brilliantly. You see this gang of people who do not know each other talk about the heist beforehand. You see the aftermath of the heist. You see the descriptions of the heist between this band of criminals not exactly matching up. And all of the scenes are mixed up chronologically. Where it shines is the crazy dialogue that happens between these hooligans. Their banter is ludicrous, villainous, and totally engaging. It's like Diner meets Dillinger.

And speaking of Dillinger, a really great touch is having Lawrence Tierney in a supporting role as Joe, mastermind of the heist. Tierney was an actual star of film noirs in the 1940s, and he lost that career because in real life he was somebody who would probably have been quite at home with the characters in this film. He got into lots of bar fights and altercations with the police to the point that no studio wanted to deal with him anymore.

I'd highly recommend this one, but you must pay attention to get the most out of it.

A great creative insight is to take things that we think of as separate and contained (like 'art', 'genius', or 'ideas') and realize how they are fluid and inter-dependent, conditioned by factors. This is not to expose anything as little, deconstruction for its sake; it's to show them to be doable, that a road leads up to them. (It's also one of the three main areas of Buddhist practice)

One obvious way to do this would be to take this and note the many influences. This has been done to death already, every bit that Tarantino hoped to keep packed or wanted us to find out has been laid out in the open. But this just gives us someone, genius or not, who stole from the right places.

Another way would be to see that it doesn't work the same way as it did when new because it has all been made ordinary by slavish followers, gobbled up by familiarity. The moments of simple banter away from plot, the fooling round with edges of story without showing the main center-piece, bleeding on a floor, following Mr. Blonde outside to pick up a can of gasoline; Tarantino was probably proud that he was being "real", making a radical break from Bruckheimer's Hollywood.

It's bits and pieces of Godard, Cassavetes, Altman, and others. To see it now shows how theatric it is, not "real" at all. (The least theatric acting is by the bound cop. Roth is just woeful.) It's The Killers, with the violence and gum pop visuals as typical to see as The Killers was typical without them in its own time.

Me, I'd like to settle for something else that brings us to real influence of a more elusive kind.

Everything you see here is coming from a young guy who was at the best possible time in his life, lifted from obscurity and everything was beginning to click into place beyond expectation. Can you imagine how giddy he must have been to hear yes from Keitel and here's a check?

It's Tarantino coming in from the outside as someone young and eager to make a dream come true; it's bursting with energy but disciplined, kept in check by not having everything at your disposal, being the new kid on set. It would be nothing without this energy.

And it's Tarantino being rooted in his own world as he brings the dream alive, suburban LA. None of the story has any outlet into real lives, it's all bounced around movie cutouts. Gangsters showing up before a heist for breakfast in tuxedos? But it's the video clerk's imagination cruising through his own world. He has guys exchange banter about a stripper from Palos Verdes, Roth improvise a story about buying weed the summer of '86.

So this is the most vibrant sense I get; someone making it, not having to prove himself because he's there, making a movie with name actors around town, relaxed and fired up at the same time. See if you can feel this off his screen presence (and what a stark difference from his surly presence now).

His next one would be the apogee of this path. It can also be traced to the 30 year old who had flown himself to Amsterdam to write away from home like a Hemingway, living the dream.