0019
12-06-05
EN 190
Professor Veneruso
Pulp Parody Inspiration
-Reservoir Dogs On Stage-
Response Assignment 3
INT. UNCLE BOB'S PANCAKE HOUSE - MORNING
Eight men dressed in BLACK SUITS, sit around a table at a breakfast cafe. They are Mr.White, Mr.Pink, Mr.Blue, Mr.Blonde, Mr.Orange, Mr. Brown, Nice Guy Eddie Cabot, and the big boss, Joe Cabot. Most are finished eating and are enjoying a cup of coffee and conversation. Joe flips through a small address book. Mr.Brown is telling a long and involved story about Madonna.(Source 1)
~ Excerpt from Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" The Screenplay
Published by Grove Press books, first published by Faber and Faber Limited in 1994, again see Source 1 under Works Cited.
I. INT. - INTRO, Structure, Character, Dialogue -
A COLLEGE STUDENTS DISHELVED ROOM – MIDNIGHT-
J.P.
This scene began what would become the infamous, debut movie by Quentin Taratino: "Reservoir Dogs". "Reservoir Dogs" tells of a jewelry heist gone wrong with a group of thieves whom only know each other by color codes: Mr.White, Mr. Blue, Mr. Blonde, Mr.Brown, Mr.Orange, and Mr.Pink. After the heist goes wrong, in which Mr.Orange is fatally wounded w/ Mr.White watching over him in a warehouse, Mr.Pink suggests that there's a rat in their midst’s that tipped off the cops. The rest of the story involves flashbacks to before the heist and after heist, providing clues and selective background on a few of the men involved. While it is an attempt at describing the story, my analysis is best read to those who have read the script, or saw the film.
Despite being a film, Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" could be preformed as a live action, play. Several aspects make this true, primarily the character interaction & dialogue as the prime mean of driving the plot forward, backward, then forward again (in the case of this screenplay at least).
Given the dynamic & complex nature of “Reservoir Dogs” story, it would be narrow-minded to say one area makes the entire screenplay/film work.
As a screenplay, just like any other movie, "Reservoir Dogs" can be read almost exactly like your typical play (hence, screenplay). However, unlike other plays written in a book, Reservoir Dogs has considerably less author direction. For instance, when a certain scene was to take place in, say, a warehouse, the author direction simply says: a warehouse. It doesn't go on and describe any details that may be included for plays, and not nearly enough detail as a closet play would include. It does however mention camera cues, "Camera does a 360 around...”(1) etc. After multiple times of reading this, the vague direction belongs not only because in the literal sense, this is simply a guide to shoot a movie, upon which the actual details are physical. But it also gave more to the imagination; much like a poem could in the minimalist sense, and also like a short story or novel if an author wants the reader to see the story in a certain way.
Most of the script is filled with dialogue, which seems to take up more space when read then when on screen. I saw this as the greatest potential for "Reservoir Dogs" to be analyzed as a play, as much of the action is told by the dialogue. A good example would be how the characters ramble on and on about seemingly trivial topics. The beginning scene, where Mr.Brown gives his theory on the meaning of Madonna's song "Like A Virgin", while at first seems unimportant, reveals a little about each character and who they are. This process is repeated often throughout the movie, and requires much more insight and thinking from the audience to fill in the blanks. As it is stated in the movie, during the planning for the heist, the actual heist and after the heist, none of the men are to reveal their actual names, where they come from, and what their specialty is. Instead, they utilize the color coded names, which for some the colors themselves actually reveal a certain portion of their character: Mr.Blonde, whom is a psychopath, has fun torturing the hostage cop, hence "blondes have more fun", Mr.White , throughout the movie, defends and cares for Mr.Orange, reasoning it was his fault, hence white being virtue and responsibility. Mr.Blue, whom doesn't have a lot of lines, and is quiet, can represent how blue is a calm and melancholic color. Mr.Brown and Mr.Pink are the only ones who seem to either don't have correlating characteristics to their color names (Mr.Brown) or are completely the opposite of what their color implies; Mr.Pink is actually very calculating, a sketchy character and cold, contrasting trustworthiness, and sweetness (See Source 3 & 4).
This brings me to the characters of Reservoir Dogs, in which Tarantino gives noticeable depth with his mastery of dialogue. However, Tarantino isn't acting all of the characters, the exception being Mr.Brown since he does in fact, have an extended cameo as him in the film. The actors displaying each character gave performances very similar to those of performances during plays. First off, of course, each actor interprets the character in certain ways, certain degrees, with their own signatures imprinting the characters. This, of course, cannot be seen when you simply read the script without seeing the movie; the characters are characters and the reader fills in the rest. Yet, when you watch the film and read the script in comparison, the actors do a heavy amount of improvisation, bringing the characters much needed life & depth. So much so, that there a significant portions of the script that are not present in the final film, whereas in the film there are several scenes that were not scripted at all. These improvisations relate to the variable performances of plays in different towns, different times, how many plays the troupe has done, how experienced is the troupe, etc. The only difference is that it is not in front of a live audience perse and that improvisation is somewhat limited, whereas if an actor in a play forgets word-by-word his lines, he/she could hopefully save's one's performance by taking creative freedom while remaining in character. In film, the director has the option to simply re-do the scene; as much as the budget allows, of course.
Dialogue in the script also has an added bonus that the film doesn't have: the ability the see the dialogue and process it without being distracted by elements of a film. The imagery while reading a script or play is all in your head, therefore your more mentally immersed in the story and can identity certain foreshadows, patterns, etc. that would take multiple viewings of the film to catch. An interesting example of immersion can occur with the infamous torture scene where Mr.Blonde is left alone with the hostage cop tied to a chair. A comparison of the script versus a verbatim account of the film version yields a challenge on which is more effective: the imagery caused by the words of the screenplay, or the ad-libbing of dialogue between the two actors, with Mr.Blonde being shown, in the movies most graphic manner, torturing the cop.
On a side note, an interesting parallel to the script vs. play can be found within the movie (play)/script (screenplay) itself. Throughout the movie, discussions of the meaning of a Madonna song, who was in what 70's sitcom, arguments against tips, and particularly, when Mr.Orange has to learn an amusing anecdote to make his disguise more realistic, seem to take up questionable amounts of time that at first seem to be placed there for simple amusement via clever dialogue. However, a comparison of Mr.Orange's self-learned anecdote about a drug deal gone wrong, to the actual real life experience of Mr.Pink's remarks about how he could usually detect when something was suspicious when he used to buy weed, made me think about how the script for a play and how a play unfolds during performance operate. The script is linear, and is variable upon each reader, and may change upon a new reading; this is evident when in the film/script, Mr.Orange, before meeting the rest of the thieves, goes through the story over and over until he's able to tell the story flawlessly, with added or omitted material in a cohesive, convincing flow.
However, the play being acted out with a person seeing it is more apparently real to the person, since they aren't imagining it. They can infer from others performing loosely from a script, giving off the effect, if not in some cases literally, that they are in fact not acting. The effects of each mediums approaches are different (reading vs. watching), but ultimately can yield the similar results.
II. INT. – Setting , Perceptions Between Mediums,
J.P.
Aesthetically, the film is very reminiscent of the stage and the way the props are made to make an environment. This is evident while the movie is inside the warehouse, which is a good portion, seemingly cutting off the rest of the universe, if only for a brief period of time. And the low-budget quality of the film gives it a rougher look and feel, further adding realism that can be found in plays on stage. Script wise, the warehouses vague description is held up fairly well in the film, as there are no really outrageous details of the warehouse evident, except of the course, the characters interacting within the warehouse. I realized, when reading the script, the actual scenes of violence were somewhat stronger than seeing them on film, possibly due to the mind conjuring imagery. Then, after watching the film, I found that the film felt more violent than it actually was; there are only 11 fatal shootings in the film, which is actually pretty low when you compare it to other Hollywood films. I thought this effect made the movie felt more like a story that happened to have violence in it, rather than a story revolving around violence. The dialogue more so reflects action & violence in several ways more effective than literal scenes of violence and action in other common films. I felt this made the movie more like a drama, since again, the heavy dialogue and tragic ending where nobody really wins, as well as the apparent lack of a solid protagonist and antagonist.
Experiencing the story in two different mediums constantly reminded me of many different things I normally wouldn't think about while resorting to just watching or reading "Reservoir Dogs" itself, particularly how the general tone of the film/script was. The parody, tone wise, was almost completely inverted, with most of the short film having a laid back feel, and is much more linear in it's depiction of time. Also, acting ability is very erratic, ranging from wooden to over the top. The movie has solid and experienced acting, and because of this, the emotions and personalities of the characters were more realistic and easier to comprehend. In the script, vital lines of dialogue weren't delivered with the emotion the film carried (therefore wooden), and had less effect while I read it. Once again, this is easily reflected in plays, and the scene in which Mr.White defends Mr.Orange's life against his own boss made all the difference when I actually heard Mr.White's voice. The film illuminated a type of desperation every character had while the heist went completely wrong, and it was no longer about the diamonds, but about who did what to ruin the plan and whether or not any of them were going to survive. This is an interesting contrast to the constant portrayal of crooks in other dramas, films, plays, etc. and sheds light on how evil can be preformed out of necessity or due upon circumstances. In one example, Mr.Blonde reacted poorly to the alarm, and in reaction began to shoot people. His action is not excused by his fellow colleagues on the job, as Mr.White and Mr.Pink express amazement and regret later on in the warehouse.
However, due to Mr.Blonde's background, it's possibly implied (more so inferred) that his time in prison deeply affected him mentally, as Joe and Nice Guy Eddie are unaware of his psychopathic tendencies when they hire him for the job. All of this is presented in the film, as well as the screenplay, in a chosen, anarchic style of time; We learn about who Mr.Orange is right before Joe Cabot finally enters the warehouse and reveals he knew Mr.Orange was an informant because "he was the only one I wasn't 100% sure on.", . We learn about Mr.Blonde's past right after he shows Mr.White and Mr.Pink the hostage cop he took to get out of the firefight at the jewelry store where the heist took place. I noticed that while reading this, the effect wasn't as disorientating as it would be when first viewing the film. However, the film utilizes the same type of gaps found in channel surfing: while the film changes time and setting, it eventually pieces together into a coherent hole due to the mind's ability to piece together information. This is a much more appealing affect on film than it is in a book.
Another appealing effect of the story is how Tarantino manages to make what could've been very static characters (Mr.Blonde, the psychopath, Mr.White, the un-offical leader, and Mr.Orange the police informant) and builds a very dynamic background of the three in the guise of flashbacks. Mr.Blonde is psychopathic for reasons that are neither directly stated nor clearly implied, and in the film, manages to keep the viewers imagination by requiring the same amount of imagination a reader would when reading the script. However, the film has a biased performance by an actor's portrayal, and reading the script could actually enable the reader to be more sympathetic to Mr.Blonde when he says "I don't like alarms", especially when considering he was recently released on parole for being "caught in a warehouse full of hot items", as Nice Guy Eddie puts it. Mr.Blonde apparently didn't rat anyone out, no matter what the authorities offered him, which also influences Nice Guy Eddie to put Mr.Blondie on the jewelry heist.
In general, I found the characters become less and less static as more conflicts arose in the story. For example, in the beginning, when the script shows the thieves sitting at the table, right after the opening sequence/credits, the script shifts to Mr.White and Mr.Orange in a car. Mr.Orange is in the back, yelling/screaming in pain due to a gut wound while bleeding all over the seats, while Mr.White nervously switches back and forth between driving like a madman down the highway and attending to Mr.Orange. This immediate switch to this scene, which later helps represents the aftermath of a major complication to the thieves plans, was very successful in making me care much more for these characters than I did a few minutes ago.
In a grander scheme, the purposely chosen flashbacks describing certain character's backgrounds can fill in a little of the blanks of the rest of the untouched backgrounds, albeit with a bit of insight from the reader. For example, Mr.White caring for Mr.Orange, even go so far as to defend him against his boss, Joe Cabot, whom he's good friends with, could reference that Mr.Orange might remind Mr.White of a possible son of his, or in fact, reminds him of himself. Yet, it could just as easily infer that Mr.White is a thief with a conscious, a thief who is much more humane than his label would suggest.
Mr.Pink's small argument with Joe over getting the color Pink as his name, suggests that are close, and it is in fact later, or earlier, depending if your looking at the chronological order of the plot or the movie, that Mr.Pink has known Joe since he was a kid. Mr.Pink also being, arguably, the most level headed of the band of thieves, next to the calm and silent Mr.Blue. This also suggests he's very experienced and obviously less emotional influenced when making choices (The complete opposite of Mr.White). Mr. Pink is also the only one left alive after Joe, Nice Guy Eddie, and Mr.White are in a Mexican standoff with their guns drawn. After everyone has been shot, Mr.Pink grabs the satchel of diamonds, and manages to get out the warehouse, only to be confronted by the cops, who arrest him after Mr.Pink gives up.
III. INT. – More Analysis, Plot, Character Interaction, Heroes -
J.P.
Closer analysis of the way the film’s plot is structured also reveals that there are several moments of dramatic irony, many of which occurred in one section of the script/film. This section was when Mr.Orange’s back story was explained through the familiar flashbacks used for Mr.White and Mr.Blonde. From the moment Mr.Orange gets into the car with the rest of the thieves, only Mr.Orange and the audience are completely aware of the deception taking place amidst the thieves’ ranks. This is also greatly evident during another scene where Mr.White, Mr,Orange, and Mr.Brown are in a car speeding away from the jewelry store. Mr.Brown looks like to have been gazed, and has blood trickling over his eyes while he drives. The car stops abruptly, with White immiadtely getting out and unloading his double .45 automatics on the pursuing cops. Mr.Orange stares in horror as Mr.White mercilessly kills them, and then looks down to notice Mr.Brown is slumped over the dashboard, not moving. Mr.White rushes to Mr.Orange, asking if Brown’s dead; Orange is still shocked. Mr.White ignores this and drags him along and the two make their away from the hot scene.
Not only was this an example of dramatic irony, as Mr.White had no idea Mr.orange was horrified because the officers were his comrades, but also an example of physical conflict and internal/psychological conflict. Mr.Orange was horrified that he could not save his fellow officers lives, even as he was right in front them, right behind their executioner, but would blow his cover in the process. The loyalty to his job and loyalty to his fellow men/brothers in uniform clashed, and the only thing he could due was freeze. In many ways, taking this in account, as well as the ending, Mr.Orange is probably the most important character, as his involvement influences everything from the moment they began planning the heist, so in that respect, he is in some way the “hero” of the film. When seeing how the movie, chronologically, is chopped and ordered in defiance against linear time, it is no surprise that there is an abundance of dramatic irony in the film/script. Also, because of this very non-linear flow of time in the story, it seemed that at some point, the more central characters (Mr.White, Mr.Blonde, and Mr. Orange) were at some point heroes in the film. Mr.White, for example, is always at Mr.Oranges defense throughout the entire movie until he finally learns his true identity, after mistakenly killing his own comrades over the “bond” and “trust” that he felt he had with him. Mr.White drove Mr.Orange while he was bleeding, and provided almost a type of parental support while he was bleeding on the floor of the warehouse.
Mr.Blonde was also a hero when it’s mentioned, in the flashbacks for his back story, that a few years ago he was caught in a warehouse full of hot items while on the job for Joe Cabot and Nice Guy Eddies [the masterminds of the heist]. If it wasn’t for Mr.Blonde keeping his mouth shut all those years, there would’ve have been a heist in the first place, as whatever information Mr.Blonde had would’ve most likely shut down Joe and Eddie’s business. Nice Guy Eddie, even after Joe suggests Mr.Blondie lay low for a while on parole, insists that “he’s been nothing but good luck”, and let’s Mr.Blonde in on the heist being planned.
Mr.Orange, already stated above, was the major driving force for everything to essentially go wrong with the heist. In a way, his final words of truth to Mr.White, that he was in fact a cop, were heroic for the not only the law but for possibly the sacrifices of the officers who were killed earlier by Mr.White.
IV. Ending of Reservoir Dogs [Summary]
Mr. Orange reveals to Mr.White that he is indeed a cop, after Mr.White shot Joe and his son Eddie while protecting Orang, whom had shot Mr.Blonde earlir for torturing a fellow hostage cop. Mr.Pink avoids the standoff and runs with the diamonds, but gets caught by the police and arrested. And the movie ends with Mr.White sobbing, while seriously wounded from gunshot, lifting up his gun to Mr.Oranges head. The cops bust in, and order Mr.White to drop his gun, upon which he promptly kills Mr. Orange, while the cops unload and kill Mr.White.
V. Misconceptions: Preparing for the assignment, Student Notes.
J.P.
In perhaps the biggest irony of my analysis, I actually got most of my observations by viewing a parody/homage short film my friends made a while ago, as well of course having seen the actual movie roughly 9 times and reading the script about 3 times. While the short film is by no means in anyway a contender against Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”, it did help shed light on certain themes by in fact either ripping through them or completely ignoring them. For instance, the entire movie is a very exaggerated, low-budget work, much more to the extreme than Tarantino’s was. And the general tone of the short film is very laid back with little urgency, whereas the original had much more urgency and was more engaging. Also, characters were parodied as well, one in particular essentially took all the anger, violence and rage present in Reservoir Dogs, pays homage to Mr.Blondie in the most exaggerated way, then completely obliterates any credential of doing so by falling into absurd parody. Also, the there is a linear sense of time, completely opposite of what Tarantino did, as well as being only one major twist in the plot, which again, opposite of what Tarantino did.
I thought it would be fun to include the DVD, as I wanted to do more for my response, particularly act out a scene straight out of the script, but the script itself is fairly violent and I couldn’t find the necessary equipment my original ambitions aspired for (microphones and recording equipment). However, there is always winter break, so I might just be able to do something in that department. Hopefully, I achieved something unique with this analysis; much debate was over how I would sound mechanical and whether or not I was approaching the response correctly.
Works Cited
Sources
1. Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" The Screenplay
Published by Grove Press books, first published by Faber and Faber Limited in 1994
2. http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/reservoir.shtml
3. http://www.hothomesofutah.com/index.asp?bid=257
4. http://www.grokdotcom.com/colorandpersonality.html
based on The Lüscher Color Test. Dr. Max Lüscher, 1969.
EN 190
Professor Veneruso
Pulp Parody Inspiration
-Reservoir Dogs On Stage-
Response Assignment 3
INT. UNCLE BOB'S PANCAKE HOUSE - MORNING
Eight men dressed in BLACK SUITS, sit around a table at a breakfast cafe. They are Mr.White, Mr.Pink, Mr.Blue, Mr.Blonde, Mr.Orange, Mr. Brown, Nice Guy Eddie Cabot, and the big boss, Joe Cabot. Most are finished eating and are enjoying a cup of coffee and conversation. Joe flips through a small address book. Mr.Brown is telling a long and involved story about Madonna.(Source 1)
~ Excerpt from Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" The Screenplay
Published by Grove Press books, first published by Faber and Faber Limited in 1994, again see Source 1 under Works Cited.
I. INT. - INTRO, Structure, Character, Dialogue -
A COLLEGE STUDENTS DISHELVED ROOM – MIDNIGHT-
J.P.
This scene began what would become the infamous, debut movie by Quentin Taratino: "Reservoir Dogs". "Reservoir Dogs" tells of a jewelry heist gone wrong with a group of thieves whom only know each other by color codes: Mr.White, Mr. Blue, Mr. Blonde, Mr.Brown, Mr.Orange, and Mr.Pink. After the heist goes wrong, in which Mr.Orange is fatally wounded w/ Mr.White watching over him in a warehouse, Mr.Pink suggests that there's a rat in their midst’s that tipped off the cops. The rest of the story involves flashbacks to before the heist and after heist, providing clues and selective background on a few of the men involved. While it is an attempt at describing the story, my analysis is best read to those who have read the script, or saw the film.
Despite being a film, Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" could be preformed as a live action, play. Several aspects make this true, primarily the character interaction & dialogue as the prime mean of driving the plot forward, backward, then forward again (in the case of this screenplay at least).
Given the dynamic & complex nature of “Reservoir Dogs” story, it would be narrow-minded to say one area makes the entire screenplay/film work.
As a screenplay, just like any other movie, "Reservoir Dogs" can be read almost exactly like your typical play (hence, screenplay). However, unlike other plays written in a book, Reservoir Dogs has considerably less author direction. For instance, when a certain scene was to take place in, say, a warehouse, the author direction simply says: a warehouse. It doesn't go on and describe any details that may be included for plays, and not nearly enough detail as a closet play would include. It does however mention camera cues, "Camera does a 360 around...”(1) etc. After multiple times of reading this, the vague direction belongs not only because in the literal sense, this is simply a guide to shoot a movie, upon which the actual details are physical. But it also gave more to the imagination; much like a poem could in the minimalist sense, and also like a short story or novel if an author wants the reader to see the story in a certain way.
Most of the script is filled with dialogue, which seems to take up more space when read then when on screen. I saw this as the greatest potential for "Reservoir Dogs" to be analyzed as a play, as much of the action is told by the dialogue. A good example would be how the characters ramble on and on about seemingly trivial topics. The beginning scene, where Mr.Brown gives his theory on the meaning of Madonna's song "Like A Virgin", while at first seems unimportant, reveals a little about each character and who they are. This process is repeated often throughout the movie, and requires much more insight and thinking from the audience to fill in the blanks. As it is stated in the movie, during the planning for the heist, the actual heist and after the heist, none of the men are to reveal their actual names, where they come from, and what their specialty is. Instead, they utilize the color coded names, which for some the colors themselves actually reveal a certain portion of their character: Mr.Blonde, whom is a psychopath, has fun torturing the hostage cop, hence "blondes have more fun", Mr.White , throughout the movie, defends and cares for Mr.Orange, reasoning it was his fault, hence white being virtue and responsibility. Mr.Blue, whom doesn't have a lot of lines, and is quiet, can represent how blue is a calm and melancholic color. Mr.Brown and Mr.Pink are the only ones who seem to either don't have correlating characteristics to their color names (Mr.Brown) or are completely the opposite of what their color implies; Mr.Pink is actually very calculating, a sketchy character and cold, contrasting trustworthiness, and sweetness (See Source 3 & 4).
This brings me to the characters of Reservoir Dogs, in which Tarantino gives noticeable depth with his mastery of dialogue. However, Tarantino isn't acting all of the characters, the exception being Mr.Brown since he does in fact, have an extended cameo as him in the film. The actors displaying each character gave performances very similar to those of performances during plays. First off, of course, each actor interprets the character in certain ways, certain degrees, with their own signatures imprinting the characters. This, of course, cannot be seen when you simply read the script without seeing the movie; the characters are characters and the reader fills in the rest. Yet, when you watch the film and read the script in comparison, the actors do a heavy amount of improvisation, bringing the characters much needed life & depth. So much so, that there a significant portions of the script that are not present in the final film, whereas in the film there are several scenes that were not scripted at all. These improvisations relate to the variable performances of plays in different towns, different times, how many plays the troupe has done, how experienced is the troupe, etc. The only difference is that it is not in front of a live audience perse and that improvisation is somewhat limited, whereas if an actor in a play forgets word-by-word his lines, he/she could hopefully save's one's performance by taking creative freedom while remaining in character. In film, the director has the option to simply re-do the scene; as much as the budget allows, of course.
Dialogue in the script also has an added bonus that the film doesn't have: the ability the see the dialogue and process it without being distracted by elements of a film. The imagery while reading a script or play is all in your head, therefore your more mentally immersed in the story and can identity certain foreshadows, patterns, etc. that would take multiple viewings of the film to catch. An interesting example of immersion can occur with the infamous torture scene where Mr.Blonde is left alone with the hostage cop tied to a chair. A comparison of the script versus a verbatim account of the film version yields a challenge on which is more effective: the imagery caused by the words of the screenplay, or the ad-libbing of dialogue between the two actors, with Mr.Blonde being shown, in the movies most graphic manner, torturing the cop.
On a side note, an interesting parallel to the script vs. play can be found within the movie (play)/script (screenplay) itself. Throughout the movie, discussions of the meaning of a Madonna song, who was in what 70's sitcom, arguments against tips, and particularly, when Mr.Orange has to learn an amusing anecdote to make his disguise more realistic, seem to take up questionable amounts of time that at first seem to be placed there for simple amusement via clever dialogue. However, a comparison of Mr.Orange's self-learned anecdote about a drug deal gone wrong, to the actual real life experience of Mr.Pink's remarks about how he could usually detect when something was suspicious when he used to buy weed, made me think about how the script for a play and how a play unfolds during performance operate. The script is linear, and is variable upon each reader, and may change upon a new reading; this is evident when in the film/script, Mr.Orange, before meeting the rest of the thieves, goes through the story over and over until he's able to tell the story flawlessly, with added or omitted material in a cohesive, convincing flow.
However, the play being acted out with a person seeing it is more apparently real to the person, since they aren't imagining it. They can infer from others performing loosely from a script, giving off the effect, if not in some cases literally, that they are in fact not acting. The effects of each mediums approaches are different (reading vs. watching), but ultimately can yield the similar results.
II. INT. – Setting , Perceptions Between Mediums,
J.P.
Aesthetically, the film is very reminiscent of the stage and the way the props are made to make an environment. This is evident while the movie is inside the warehouse, which is a good portion, seemingly cutting off the rest of the universe, if only for a brief period of time. And the low-budget quality of the film gives it a rougher look and feel, further adding realism that can be found in plays on stage. Script wise, the warehouses vague description is held up fairly well in the film, as there are no really outrageous details of the warehouse evident, except of the course, the characters interacting within the warehouse. I realized, when reading the script, the actual scenes of violence were somewhat stronger than seeing them on film, possibly due to the mind conjuring imagery. Then, after watching the film, I found that the film felt more violent than it actually was; there are only 11 fatal shootings in the film, which is actually pretty low when you compare it to other Hollywood films. I thought this effect made the movie felt more like a story that happened to have violence in it, rather than a story revolving around violence. The dialogue more so reflects action & violence in several ways more effective than literal scenes of violence and action in other common films. I felt this made the movie more like a drama, since again, the heavy dialogue and tragic ending where nobody really wins, as well as the apparent lack of a solid protagonist and antagonist.
Experiencing the story in two different mediums constantly reminded me of many different things I normally wouldn't think about while resorting to just watching or reading "Reservoir Dogs" itself, particularly how the general tone of the film/script was. The parody, tone wise, was almost completely inverted, with most of the short film having a laid back feel, and is much more linear in it's depiction of time. Also, acting ability is very erratic, ranging from wooden to over the top. The movie has solid and experienced acting, and because of this, the emotions and personalities of the characters were more realistic and easier to comprehend. In the script, vital lines of dialogue weren't delivered with the emotion the film carried (therefore wooden), and had less effect while I read it. Once again, this is easily reflected in plays, and the scene in which Mr.White defends Mr.Orange's life against his own boss made all the difference when I actually heard Mr.White's voice. The film illuminated a type of desperation every character had while the heist went completely wrong, and it was no longer about the diamonds, but about who did what to ruin the plan and whether or not any of them were going to survive. This is an interesting contrast to the constant portrayal of crooks in other dramas, films, plays, etc. and sheds light on how evil can be preformed out of necessity or due upon circumstances. In one example, Mr.Blonde reacted poorly to the alarm, and in reaction began to shoot people. His action is not excused by his fellow colleagues on the job, as Mr.White and Mr.Pink express amazement and regret later on in the warehouse.
However, due to Mr.Blonde's background, it's possibly implied (more so inferred) that his time in prison deeply affected him mentally, as Joe and Nice Guy Eddie are unaware of his psychopathic tendencies when they hire him for the job. All of this is presented in the film, as well as the screenplay, in a chosen, anarchic style of time; We learn about who Mr.Orange is right before Joe Cabot finally enters the warehouse and reveals he knew Mr.Orange was an informant because "he was the only one I wasn't 100% sure on.", . We learn about Mr.Blonde's past right after he shows Mr.White and Mr.Pink the hostage cop he took to get out of the firefight at the jewelry store where the heist took place. I noticed that while reading this, the effect wasn't as disorientating as it would be when first viewing the film. However, the film utilizes the same type of gaps found in channel surfing: while the film changes time and setting, it eventually pieces together into a coherent hole due to the mind's ability to piece together information. This is a much more appealing affect on film than it is in a book.
Another appealing effect of the story is how Tarantino manages to make what could've been very static characters (Mr.Blonde, the psychopath, Mr.White, the un-offical leader, and Mr.Orange the police informant) and builds a very dynamic background of the three in the guise of flashbacks. Mr.Blonde is psychopathic for reasons that are neither directly stated nor clearly implied, and in the film, manages to keep the viewers imagination by requiring the same amount of imagination a reader would when reading the script. However, the film has a biased performance by an actor's portrayal, and reading the script could actually enable the reader to be more sympathetic to Mr.Blonde when he says "I don't like alarms", especially when considering he was recently released on parole for being "caught in a warehouse full of hot items", as Nice Guy Eddie puts it. Mr.Blonde apparently didn't rat anyone out, no matter what the authorities offered him, which also influences Nice Guy Eddie to put Mr.Blondie on the jewelry heist.
In general, I found the characters become less and less static as more conflicts arose in the story. For example, in the beginning, when the script shows the thieves sitting at the table, right after the opening sequence/credits, the script shifts to Mr.White and Mr.Orange in a car. Mr.Orange is in the back, yelling/screaming in pain due to a gut wound while bleeding all over the seats, while Mr.White nervously switches back and forth between driving like a madman down the highway and attending to Mr.Orange. This immediate switch to this scene, which later helps represents the aftermath of a major complication to the thieves plans, was very successful in making me care much more for these characters than I did a few minutes ago.
In a grander scheme, the purposely chosen flashbacks describing certain character's backgrounds can fill in a little of the blanks of the rest of the untouched backgrounds, albeit with a bit of insight from the reader. For example, Mr.White caring for Mr.Orange, even go so far as to defend him against his boss, Joe Cabot, whom he's good friends with, could reference that Mr.Orange might remind Mr.White of a possible son of his, or in fact, reminds him of himself. Yet, it could just as easily infer that Mr.White is a thief with a conscious, a thief who is much more humane than his label would suggest.
Mr.Pink's small argument with Joe over getting the color Pink as his name, suggests that are close, and it is in fact later, or earlier, depending if your looking at the chronological order of the plot or the movie, that Mr.Pink has known Joe since he was a kid. Mr.Pink also being, arguably, the most level headed of the band of thieves, next to the calm and silent Mr.Blue. This also suggests he's very experienced and obviously less emotional influenced when making choices (The complete opposite of Mr.White). Mr. Pink is also the only one left alive after Joe, Nice Guy Eddie, and Mr.White are in a Mexican standoff with their guns drawn. After everyone has been shot, Mr.Pink grabs the satchel of diamonds, and manages to get out the warehouse, only to be confronted by the cops, who arrest him after Mr.Pink gives up.
III. INT. – More Analysis, Plot, Character Interaction, Heroes -
J.P.
Closer analysis of the way the film’s plot is structured also reveals that there are several moments of dramatic irony, many of which occurred in one section of the script/film. This section was when Mr.Orange’s back story was explained through the familiar flashbacks used for Mr.White and Mr.Blonde. From the moment Mr.Orange gets into the car with the rest of the thieves, only Mr.Orange and the audience are completely aware of the deception taking place amidst the thieves’ ranks. This is also greatly evident during another scene where Mr.White, Mr,Orange, and Mr.Brown are in a car speeding away from the jewelry store. Mr.Brown looks like to have been gazed, and has blood trickling over his eyes while he drives. The car stops abruptly, with White immiadtely getting out and unloading his double .45 automatics on the pursuing cops. Mr.Orange stares in horror as Mr.White mercilessly kills them, and then looks down to notice Mr.Brown is slumped over the dashboard, not moving. Mr.White rushes to Mr.Orange, asking if Brown’s dead; Orange is still shocked. Mr.White ignores this and drags him along and the two make their away from the hot scene.
Not only was this an example of dramatic irony, as Mr.White had no idea Mr.orange was horrified because the officers were his comrades, but also an example of physical conflict and internal/psychological conflict. Mr.Orange was horrified that he could not save his fellow officers lives, even as he was right in front them, right behind their executioner, but would blow his cover in the process. The loyalty to his job and loyalty to his fellow men/brothers in uniform clashed, and the only thing he could due was freeze. In many ways, taking this in account, as well as the ending, Mr.Orange is probably the most important character, as his involvement influences everything from the moment they began planning the heist, so in that respect, he is in some way the “hero” of the film. When seeing how the movie, chronologically, is chopped and ordered in defiance against linear time, it is no surprise that there is an abundance of dramatic irony in the film/script. Also, because of this very non-linear flow of time in the story, it seemed that at some point, the more central characters (Mr.White, Mr.Blonde, and Mr. Orange) were at some point heroes in the film. Mr.White, for example, is always at Mr.Oranges defense throughout the entire movie until he finally learns his true identity, after mistakenly killing his own comrades over the “bond” and “trust” that he felt he had with him. Mr.White drove Mr.Orange while he was bleeding, and provided almost a type of parental support while he was bleeding on the floor of the warehouse.
Mr.Blonde was also a hero when it’s mentioned, in the flashbacks for his back story, that a few years ago he was caught in a warehouse full of hot items while on the job for Joe Cabot and Nice Guy Eddies [the masterminds of the heist]. If it wasn’t for Mr.Blonde keeping his mouth shut all those years, there would’ve have been a heist in the first place, as whatever information Mr.Blonde had would’ve most likely shut down Joe and Eddie’s business. Nice Guy Eddie, even after Joe suggests Mr.Blondie lay low for a while on parole, insists that “he’s been nothing but good luck”, and let’s Mr.Blonde in on the heist being planned.
Mr.Orange, already stated above, was the major driving force for everything to essentially go wrong with the heist. In a way, his final words of truth to Mr.White, that he was in fact a cop, were heroic for the not only the law but for possibly the sacrifices of the officers who were killed earlier by Mr.White.
IV. Ending of Reservoir Dogs [Summary]
Mr. Orange reveals to Mr.White that he is indeed a cop, after Mr.White shot Joe and his son Eddie while protecting Orang, whom had shot Mr.Blonde earlir for torturing a fellow hostage cop. Mr.Pink avoids the standoff and runs with the diamonds, but gets caught by the police and arrested. And the movie ends with Mr.White sobbing, while seriously wounded from gunshot, lifting up his gun to Mr.Oranges head. The cops bust in, and order Mr.White to drop his gun, upon which he promptly kills Mr. Orange, while the cops unload and kill Mr.White.
V. Misconceptions: Preparing for the assignment, Student Notes.
J.P.
In perhaps the biggest irony of my analysis, I actually got most of my observations by viewing a parody/homage short film my friends made a while ago, as well of course having seen the actual movie roughly 9 times and reading the script about 3 times. While the short film is by no means in anyway a contender against Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs”, it did help shed light on certain themes by in fact either ripping through them or completely ignoring them. For instance, the entire movie is a very exaggerated, low-budget work, much more to the extreme than Tarantino’s was. And the general tone of the short film is very laid back with little urgency, whereas the original had much more urgency and was more engaging. Also, characters were parodied as well, one in particular essentially took all the anger, violence and rage present in Reservoir Dogs, pays homage to Mr.Blondie in the most exaggerated way, then completely obliterates any credential of doing so by falling into absurd parody. Also, the there is a linear sense of time, completely opposite of what Tarantino did, as well as being only one major twist in the plot, which again, opposite of what Tarantino did.
I thought it would be fun to include the DVD, as I wanted to do more for my response, particularly act out a scene straight out of the script, but the script itself is fairly violent and I couldn’t find the necessary equipment my original ambitions aspired for (microphones and recording equipment). However, there is always winter break, so I might just be able to do something in that department. Hopefully, I achieved something unique with this analysis; much debate was over how I would sound mechanical and whether or not I was approaching the response correctly.
Works Cited
Sources
1. Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" The Screenplay
Published by Grove Press books, first published by Faber and Faber Limited in 1994
2. http://www.godamongdirectors.com/scripts/reservoir.shtml
3. http://www.hothomesofutah.com/index.asp?bid=257
4. http://www.grokdotcom.com/colorandpersonality.html
based on The Lüscher Color Test. Dr. Max Lüscher, 1969.
posted by Nitroadict at 9:03 AM
0 comments
