Jackie Brown illustrates what can happen when a talented
filmmaker tries to be taken seriously. Tarantino, whose
directing, dialogue, and editorial pace literally sizzled in Pulp
Fiction, goes the other way in JB.Pam Grier was cool and sexy enough (but what's the deal with her
mouth?), Robert DeNiro looked unconscious, Bridget Fonda
literally never got off the couch with her character until the
proverbial last moment. Forster's long-suffering dignity and Sam
Jackson's seething charisma carried the film. Michael Keaton
didn't register, which was unfortunate, because I've always liked
him.
In a way, this film could be called the most literal and
therefore faithful of the recent Elmore Leonard adaptations. But
is that a *good* thing? Tarantino allows many scenes to play out
in a master or full two-shot. The dialogue often rambles, and the
editorial pace feels more like a first string-up than a final
cut.
A filmmaker brings unique tools to the table when adapting a
novel. Among these is the ability to use visuals to hone a scene
down to its essential elements. It requires thought and
discipline. I've heard it said that Jackie Brown allows us to see
"real" people. Well, I don't like paying $6.50 to hear
"real" dialogue and see the "real" way people
behave in their homes. I much prefer to hear dialogue that
crackles and see characters do things that are just a little
"extra-normal".
The difference between Out of Sight, which sizzles, and Jackie
Brown, which seems like a work in progress, illustrates this
quite well, imo.
