QT Tolkien?

Just read a piece in the NY Times about the eagerly anticipated (including by yours truly) new Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill. I am now no longer as eagerly anticipating this film. As many of you know by now, QT and Miramax have decided to release this chop sockey epic in two parts, ostensibly due to its three hour running time, and because QT, touted by Harvey Weinstein as the man who helped build Miramax, was given carte blanche. All understandable, if a bit exaggerated, as QT's Pulp Fiction did make a ton of money for the once fledgling studio, helping usher it to the forefront of non-majors and probably helping to finance other, smaller indies. (Ever since Miramax was bought by The Mouse, though, and has become much more commercialized, it's hard to get all misty about its beginnings. But I digress. And Tarantino is certainly a God among indie filmmakers (okay, can we stop calling him indie now? Tully, now that's indie. Focus is indie. Kill Bill is a major studio film. But, again, I digress.) And it's admirable, or at least surprising, as the article points out, that Harvey Scissorhands didn't freak out about the running time and insist that QT cut it up (although I'll have an opinion on that, too, in a second).

But, what is this, Lord of the Rings, for Godsakes? It was irritating enough when The Matrix ReBloated came out and we had to deal with the wholly unsatisfying ending that left us all in a rabid froth eager for more, as starving dogs only given half a bone, then forced to sit through what seemed like fifteen minutes of credits to have the privilege of watching the coming attraction for the next and final (or... is it? [cue sinister music]) installment. But at least we knew what we were getting into long beforehand, and, maybe it's just the huge scale of the thing, but it's (a little) easier to accept The Matrix becoming a trilogy.

QT, meanwhile, issued a statement via indiewire, in which he says:

"It seemed pretentious like an art film meditation on a grindhouse movie, but two 90 minute movies coming out fairly rapidly, one after another, that's not pretentious, that's ambitious, that's the proper scale -- two 90 minute grindhouse movies."

We wouldn't want him to do do anything pretentious now, would we? Don't get me wrong, I like Tarantino, despite his many faults, because the guy knows how to make a movie that zings, because he knows his stuff, and because he's a character in an era that lacks just that. But, first of all, he was the one that made this film 3 hours in the first place.

And now we're all supposed to remain cynicism-free (bite tongue). Um, I was never great at math in school, but, hmm, let's see here, if people have to pay two separate entry fees to see a film's entire story arc through to its conclusion, then, let's see, hmm-mmm, la di da, carry the one, yep -- just as I suspected -- then that means the producers get double the money. If I was being cynical, then I'd think we were being gouged for Tarantino running over budget ($55 million and counting) and his inability to edit himself.

If I really wanted to go off on a tangent (and I don't, really I don't), I'd go into this whole, geriatric-sounding thing about how in the old days of movies, they used to get an entire (Gasp!) storyline into (Gasp!) 90 minutes or so. Back then they didn't call this being "grindhouse" -- they was just makin' movies. (Of course, another part of me acknowledges that back in the old days they also used to make a lot of running serials, franchises of sorts -- of which I remind myself when frustrated about the number of pointless sequels released these days. They're just serials! Of course, that first, more cynical side of me, answers back: Yes, but back then they were screened as part of double or triple-bills. You got your money's worth. Then I remember I'm only 34 and too young to remember any of this, so I shut up.)

Too bad about Kill Bill, QT and Miramax are going to let a real good opportunity to expand the director's audience go to waste in one greedy swoop. We can take heart in knowing there will be different versions available overseas, and eventually, of course, on DVD. (And if I was going to be cynical, I'd add to that, "yeah, but how many versions of DVDs will there be, released in a spread out pattern to make people buy, buy, buy" -- but I'm not, so I won't.)