RESERVOIR DOGS (1992, Tarantino)
Quick post today – man, it’s hard to blog when you’re busy! This is the classic less-is-more shot, famous from Tarantino’s debut film. I think it’s pretty unique moment from Tarantino, as there’s not a lot of “less-is-more” when it comes to violence in his work, to say the least. Think the forehead carvings in his thrilling Inglourious Basterds. (If you can think of any other don’t-show moments from Quentin, please chime in.)
UPDATE – Ah ha, this makes sense – according to my pal Carlos (comment below), and a few internet mentions I can find, such as the BBC‘s “the man who gave the world the X-rated Reservoir Dogs, which featured the now-famous ear-chopping scene,” the ear chop was indeed graphically filmed. Only when the film received an X rating did Tarantino go back and film (or edit in) the pan-away which I’m sure is far more famous and iconic than the gore effects would have been. Am I alone in the fact that when the foreheads get carved (which I love, by the way) in Inglourious, all I can think about is that it’s rubber. If anyone can confirm that original ear version with a link, please let me know.
Stuck in the Middle with Tarantino
Not only are such moments often more powerful than if the act of violence was shown, due to the viewers imagination creating far more effective imagery, but these moments are also much cheaper to film (perhaps in this very early part of his career, that was a leading consideration). Win/win. Reminds me of the shark in Jaws. All that money spent on the roboshark that wouldn’t work, and what finally made that movie terrifying and indelible? Not showing the shark.
Here’s the atypical look-away from the gore in a Tarantino picture at 1:16 –
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mCfzQOyANk&feature=related]
.
And of course, let’s not forget the spoof on The Simpsons.
Carlos
I can’t watch this on my phone, but I’m pretty sure this if when Mr. Blonde, sits on the cop and cuts his ear off. Did you know that this scene its actually a really? When the film was viewed for a film rating, it received an “X” rating. He was told the scene, which at the time showed the ear getting hacked off, was too gory and violent. Upset, he went back and re shot the scene, only this time he panned the camera. What ended up on the screen, was cinema magic. Not to mention one of the most violent scenes in cinematic history. Great lion kimo!
jsbfilm
Thanks, amigo – that’s awesome – updating…
Carlos
I’m gonna stop replying with my phone. I look and sound drunk!
Torsloke
From what Larry Fiorito, special FX man on Pulp Fiction, told me, this was a standard QT practice, inspired by a decades-old Hollywood tradition. To include the gore he wanted (which is what ended up in the film), he filmed gore he never had intention of including. That way when the MPAA returns its X rating, he can cut the superfluous gore, retain the scene according to his vision, and get the R rating the studio needs.
In the case of Pulp Fiction it was the exploding of Marvin’s head. Fiorito says he was shocked when QT told him to make a batch of fake blood and raw hamburger vileness to explode over the back seat of the car, knowing it would likely generate an X rating from the MPAA. Which QT told Larry was exactly the point. He didn’t want to lose the whole scene, so they filmed way more gore than was necessary, to give them a cut to appease the MPAA.
Mel Brooks did the same thing with Blazing Saddles, filming two or three lines of additional innuendo in the scene with Madeline Kahn and Cleavon Little in the dark, so that he wouldn’t have to lose “It’s TWUE! It’s TWUE!”
jsbfilm
Thank you for your excellent and illuminating post, Ry.