Like ‘Hitchcockian’, ‘Lynchian’ and ‘Kubrickian’, fans of the author Quentin Tarantino have since regarded films reminiscent of his film style as ‘Tarantino-esque’. And Kill Bill: Part 1 is arguably the most Tarantino-esque film out there, making for the perfect drinking game: take in a shot as the camera zooms in on Uma Thurman’s feet. Take another one if a dialogue scene is longer than ten minutes. Before the end of the movie, you’re so far from reality that you think you’re drinking sake with Hattori Hanzō.
But at the same time, it is perhaps the biggest anomaly of his filmography. There are several unexpected cinematic techniques that Tarantino uses to great effect here, and it often resembles an art film or a product of the avant-garde. And this despite regular Tarantino actors like Michael Madsen popping up as part of the cast.
After Pulp Fiction (1994), which earned Uma Thurman a nomination for Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards, Kill Bill: Part 1 cemented her as a frequent collaborator of Quentin Tarantino. The acclaimed director even referred to Thurman as his “muse” during filming at one point. The recurring use of actors is a staple of this director’s filmography.
Tarantino’s style
Honestly, this might be the most ambitious film of Tarantino’s career. He implemented remarkable choices in filmmaking in every corner of the film, be it camera work, sound design, or even the structure of the story itself.
Of course, any Tarantino movie will have its fair share of directing trademarks. These are the qualities that the director has relied on since his debut Reservoir dogs (1992) — e.g., non-linear narratives and aestheticized moments of violence. Title cards for both characters and chapters. However, Kill Bill: Part 1 also has its own unique set of filmmaking quirks that have never appeared in a Tarantino movie before and still haven’t appeared since.
For example: throughout this first item, dialogue would be beeped out when a character uttered The Bride’s real name – Beatrix Kiddo. Perhaps what stands out the most Part 1however, was how Tarantino punctuated the live-action sequences with an animated sequence detailing O-Ren Ishii’s background. The main antagonist of this first entry, O-Ren was played by Lucy Liu and acted as one of the four members of the “Deadly Viper Assassination Squad” who attacked The Bride and kicked off the events of the series.
First success and reception
After his streak of crime films in the 1990s and entering the 21st century, Quentin Tarantino was among the most popular directors on the Hollywood block. Among Reservoir dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), ed Jackie Brown (1997), its films earned $291 million on a combined budget of $23 million. They also averaged 89.7% on Rotten Tomatoes, with an even more impressive 91.7% ratings.
With what is still the longest interim of his career, there was six years in between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill: Part 1. And after a decade (again – the 90s) of negative criticism of his stylistic examples of violence and controversial use of racial slurs in dialogues, Part 1 was his most overtly violent film to date.
But despite the controversy – especially regarding Uma Thurman’s unfortunate car accident – it grossed $180.9 million at the worldwide box office from Tarantino’s biggest budget to date: $30 million. The film also holds an 85% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with critics such as Roger Ebert awarding it four stars out of four. In addition, Thurman was nominated at the Golden Globes for Best Actress. Those are some high accolades for a martial arts movie.
His comparative legacy
Although filmed as a single project, and considered a project by Tarantino himself, the film was split in two as the studio felt the three and a half hour running time would be too long for modern audiences. And this film differed in quality from its sequel because with the latter, the audience more or less knew what to expect. The bride would probably kill Bill. It could have been a surprise that the death came in the beginning, but expectations were met when the murder scene acted as the film’s climax.
Of Part 1However, there was no telling how it would end. As the film’s end approached, it was clear that both The Bride and the titular Bill – who doesn’t even appear in this first movie aside from the occasional voice appearance – would survive until the sequel. Audiences probably saw that take off, if they thought about it, but what they weren’t expecting was the intense one vs eighty-eight fight scene that would follow at the end of Part 1.
The mass brawl is unrealistic, but that suits Tarantino’s style perfectly. Each sequence is over-the-top, full of gruesome dismemberment attacks and unexpected Wilhelm shrieks. It may just be the scene that movie fans think of as the name Kill Bill is mentioned, and the samurai-style one-on-one climax with O-Ren Ishii was the perfect capstone for this opening entry.
But also worth noting is the space this film left open for a sequel. Usually that’s a role that Part 2 would fill. But in here Part 1after the movie’s second scene where The Bride killed Vernita Green, fans have speculated endlessly that the latter’s daughter will rise up 20 years later to track down The Bride and avenge her mother’s death.
It’s mostly fun speculation, but it’s something the sequel never offered. And finally, the unique elements of filmmaking that Tarantino used here Part 1 — like, say, the O-Ren animated sequence — gave the movie a more exclusive look that hasn’t been replicated since.