Underrating Jackie Brown

In a post defending Quentin Tarantino, Matt "Yglesias Award" Yglesias says this:

If you think Reservoir Dogs is a classic (and I agree that it is) then how much sense does it make to say that Tarantino is overrated? It seems to me that one classic film is sufficient achievement to merit a high rating. Think about it the other way 'round. Jackie Brown is incredibly awful. But fifty years from now, who would care if it had been slightly-above-average instead?

The "Jackie Brown is Tarantino's one major mistake as a filmmaker" sentiment is one that I've heard for years, and one that I just don't understand.  There are interesting characters (some of which have become fairly iconic), memorable lines ("AK-47! When you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherfucker in the room... accept no substitutes."  Still makes me laugh), a genuinely interesting plot (it's one of Elmore Leonard's better stories), and it was shot in an understated Tarantinian style that proved he was more than flashy style and pop culture references.  This was the story that proved he could direct something other than his own material and that he could direct a different kind of story.

This was the movie that proved he could direct.  Period.

One of the more overlooked aspects of Pulp Fiction, despite the innovative and interesting way the varying timelines, Rashomon-style structure, and intermingling plots danced with each other, was that, ultimately, they were a parlor trick.  The stories, though connected in ways that make fanboys go crazy on internet message boards, dissecting the intricacies of "What was in the briefcase?", really could have been told with no connection at all and still made an interesting film.  In pure storytelling terms, however, Tarantino cheated the hardest work in screenwriting: Writing interesting and believable connections between characters for the purposes of fleshing out a plot which, taken in a vacuum, is actually pretty weak.

Jackie Brown, however, showed a director who had grown up and was now able to take an intricate story, with multiple threads and a large ensemble cast, and make a smooth, interesting narrative while still applying his own trademark referential style.

And let's not forget that the film was strong enough to re-energize two failing Hollywood careers (Robert Forrester and Pam Grier).

Jackie Brown gets a bad rap, and I'm not sure why.  Probably because it was the first film he did after the juggernaut of Pulp Fiction.  Those who saw it only because of Pulp Fiction probably felt like it was Tarantino-lite: that the film was too similar to normal, "beginning-middle-end" Hollywood crime stories.   The others who came to see if the director had matured saw something that they thought wasn't different enough: The arrogance of an auteur, that he thought he could make take a beloved novelist's work and turn it into a pop-culture editfest.

What gets lost is that, for the first time, Tarantino made a REAL film which was touching, funny, supspensful, and human all in one.  Jackie Brown herself takes a real journey through the course of that film, and it was a subtle and evocative performance.

The truth is, Elmore Leonard's texts evoke interesting takes from the directors who take on his work.  If you want a lesson in what a director does, watch Soderbergh's Out of Sight, Tarantino's Jackie Brown, and Sonnenfeld's Get Shorty.  Three entirely different takes on novels that were written in similar styles.

I, for one, am looking forward to the day when Jackie Brown gets the credit

Comments

[Chuck]

I agree with you on Jackie Brown. It's an underrated film, and Pam Grier's performance is seriously underestimated. The opening shot of her on the moving sidewalk is one of the best close-ups in recent film history.

I actually think Pulp Fiction may be a little overrated (here's where I disagree a little). The connection with Rashomon isn't quite precise because Tarantino's films--as far as I can tell--never destabiize our sense of what really happened, like Kurosawa does.

[Dylan]

You're right... but there is no doubt that the Rashomon effect was Tarantino's intent.

And, I agree that Pulp Fiction is a little overrated (at least in so far as it is "the most innovative film ever!"), but it's effect (and I'm sure you agree) on at least a decade of filmmaking is undeniable.

[Rusty]

I also have never understood the animosity some people have toward Jackie Brown. I thought it was a pretty damn good film (though not a great film). However, I will say I think both Out of Sight and Get Shorty were closer adaptations of the style of Leonard's books.

[Melissa]

You can't trust Melanie, but you can trust Melanie to be Melanie.

-----

Ordell Robbie: Look, I hate to be the kinda nigga does a nigga a favor, then, BAM!, hits a nigga up for a favor in return. But I'm afraid I gotta be that kinda nigga.

Beaumont: What?

Ordell Robbie: I need a favor.

-----

Melanie: Okay, you got it. Just take a chill pill for Christ's sake.

Louis: Fuck you with your chill pill.

-----

I'm a shameless sucker for Leonard dialogue.

[franci]

i too long for that day. 'jackie brown' is, IMO, a classic. i prefer it to 'resevoir dogs', no contest.