Reservoir Dogs

Dir: Quentin Tarantino

1992

*****

I haven't always championed the films of Quentin Tarantino but I have always enjoyed them. He wouldn't have gained a huge following or endured constant criticism if he weren't doing something right, and when I say 'doing something right' I mean that every director should strive to make a point, get a reaction and give the audience something to chew over. His films aren't just 'violence and swearing' and in any case, the violence and swearing that do exist in his films serve an important purpose. The same people who complained about the graphic violence in Reservoir Dogs are probably the same that didn't complain about the violence in Rambo or Rocky for instance. Now, Rocky is about boxing, it's a legitimate sport but that doesn't take away the graphic violence that is on show. Rambo is an action movie, it isn't about anything real or is even remotely realistic, it's a fantasy film, like that justifies the violence somehow. Reservoir Dogs is a realistic story, the violence shown should disgust you, it is never glorified, the audience witness the horror because that what real violence is. It's a great, but it never once glamorizes crime or violence, anyone who thinks it does clearly doesn't understand it. For me, Tarantino explores the banality of criminals, the ignorance, arrogance and delusions of grandeur. These are not lovable anti-heroes, they are not Robin Hood and his Merry Men and they don't represent something to inspire to become. Tarantino destroys the idea of the 'lovable rouge' with a vigorous swipe and it's something quite profound. It really is an actors film too in that it's pure character driven theatre. The media at the time would have you believe that it's all blood, guts and violence, but it is in fact Shakespeare. It marked the beginning of something new and cinema finally broke out of the 80s and into the 90s. Famous for it's violent crime, pop culture references, profanity and nonlinear storytelling, Reservoir Dogs was the start of a new genre almost, indeed every good film and certainly every independent film since has benefited and learned from it. Note that I say every 'good' film in that sentence. This new, new new-wave film was never really given a proper name, that's why nearly every film made since that features a gun in it is suggested as 'The next Tarantino' or 'Tarantinoesque', even though most of them aren't in the least bit similar in style, tone or story. They wish they were the next Tarantino. However, and it is a big 'however', there are many (and I mean many) elements of Reservoir Dogs and all of Tarantino's subsequent films that are familiar to other films. It is no secret that he is a huge film fan and spent his young adult life working (watching films) in a video store. His knowledge and repertoire of films is remarkable but could you accuse his films of plagiarism? I think you can but you need to look at it a little closer than that. Musicians sample other musicians music all the time, indeed, artists inspire other artists, it's part of the art process. According to Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs was influenced by Stanley Kubrick's The Killing. Tarantino once said: "I didn't go out of my way to do a rip-off of The Killing, but I did think of it as my "Killing," my take on that kind of heist movie." The plot is straight out of Phil Karlson's 1952 gangster film Kansas City Confidential, with strong similarities in story, situation and in the characters to Joseph H. Lewis's 1955 film The Big Combo, Sergio Corbucci's 1966 Spaghetti Western Django (which Tarantino later remade) and Ringo Lam's 1987 City on Fire. Giving the gangsters coloured names is lifted right out of Joseph Sargent's 1974 thriller The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. Tarantino has denied that he has plagiarized with Reservoir Dogs and instead said that these are all homages. There is a very thin line here, it is one thing to used the non-linear structure and fit the story around an event like great films like Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon and David Mamet's1984 Pulitzer Prize winning Glengarry Glen Ross (that was adapted into a film the same year as Reservoir Dogs) but it is another thing to use actual characters and event from other films. Until someone can come up with a crystal clear distinction between plagiarism and homage, I say it is fair game. This idea has had quite an effect on all art forms since the early 90s and I believe Reservoir Dogs, for good and for bad, was a strong catalyst. He does it so well though. I hate popular-culture references in film generally but Quentin Tarantino somehow gets away with it and makes it acceptable. The script is brilliant, delivered exquisitely but everything about how the film is written is perfection. The performances come from a small bad of hungry and competitive actors all on top of their game. You can see Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn, Lawrence Tierney and Tim Roth compete with each other, much like their characters do, to try to be top dog. The performances are exemplary, the direction is exemplary, it's both guerrilla and fine art at the same time. I've always seen Reservoir Dogs as being a face that has had its mask removed, only to reveal a brightly painted face - the truth of things are finally on show but there is still plenty of razzmatazz to keep you entertained. It stuck a firework up Hollywood's bum anyway, still to this day it hasn't worked out how to come close to emulating its originality of panache, it's raw nature or bare-bones. It's still controversial all these years later, the sign of a true classic, but it wouldn't still be spoken of it it weren't for the fact that it is both thrilling, unique and something rather special.