Battleangel

As usual, the Swedish cinema system is lagging a bit. But I finally got the opportunity to see Tarantino’s new supposed masterpiece on the big screen.

Tarantino plays a familiar game here. It’s “exploitation”. “Asiasploitation”. Some would call it a homage or a tribute. Or whatever. I would say it’s a bit of both actually. And Tarantino wouldn’t do all the quirky things he does unless he thought ppl would acknowledge him as the whiz of contemporary cinema. You almost sense a little pretentiousness at times. And some would even go so far as to call Tarantino a smug git on coke.

One thing that bugged me slightly was the way the “anime” sequence was done. I would much rather seen a traditional Japanese style drawing. It bugged me for a good five minutes until I got around to see that it too was homage to the genre. That was the entire point of the sequence. To use the asian theme and apply western (american) techniques. It is no different from the rest of the movie in the aspect.

Style is everything. I mean, we’ve already seen Steven Seagal do the same thing as Uma’s character. And badly I might add. The choreography is stunning, so is characters and sets. The actual dramaturgy (and by that I REALLY mean the plot) however is an entirely different matter.

There are some serious problems with this movie however. Apart from the weak plot.

I can’t understand why Tarantino constantly stoops to the portrayal of and reference to various sexual deviations. And why the word “fuck” is like the 3rd most used word in his movies. Believe me, I’m no prude, not after a decade being corrupted by mass media and the internet. But even I have limits. And I do have a thing for continuity and gratuitous sex. In essence I’m a rational person. If something feels out of place or unnecessary there is no way it’s going to get by me. Is a certain element vital to the story? Or is it just a crowd attracting space filler? A gimmick?

I am in no way an expert in asian cinema (although more so than most) but I find it hard to pinpoint where Tarantino found the inspiration for all these perverse references. Obviously I understand that the purpose here isn’t to make an exact duplicate or some parallel universe. It’s just that the rest of the movie is pointing in the copycat direction. So why trip and fall because of such a trivial detail? Has a certain someone had a little too much cocaine lately?

I suppose that someone could argue that the extreme violence is also gratuitous however. Which puts me in a dilemma here. But I have to stand by my initial gut feeling. The movie is worth seeing. Perhaps one of the best I’ve seen in a very long time. You just have to know what you are getting yourself into. And it would have been a better movie if they had gone easy on the perversions. A movie that would have been able to more effectively emphasize the seriousness of the story. Sometimes it works to this end but for the most part it’s like the “boy who cried wolf”. One or twice is acceptable but this was an endless revelling.

The absolutely worst thing about movies like this however is the immature audience that you have to endure. People who have to say out loud how bad they think the movie is and deliver a thundering laugh every time someone gets their arm lopped off. It’s bizarre. Probably their way of dealing with something that they can’t understand but nevertheless annoying.

That being said, I still feel deeply for this movie. Or at least moments of it. It was a fresh breeze in many ways, at least from the point of mainstream media.

About the soundtrack: I also have to say something about the soundtrack, which I’ve had in my possession for quite some time now but not bothered to listen thru. This has got to be one of the most original and downright brilliant soundtracks I’ve heard in a very long time. I just love Santa Esmerald’s classic “Don’t let me be misunderstood” and Nancy Sinatra’s “Bang Bang”. Other recommended tracks are “Battle without Honour”, “The Flower of Carnage” and “The lonely Shepherd”. Excellent selection.