I noted Phyllis in Double Indemnity as a woman in a "man's" film, and the same can be said of Jackie Brown, even if the film bears her name. Unlike Phyllis, however, I don't think Jackie is inherently dangerous to anyone who comes in contact with her. I don't think, for example, that Max needs to worry about her. The fact that he survives the final encounter unscathed more or less proves that. Max certainly doesn't blame her, as he says, "I'm 56 I can't blame anybody for anything I do." He had accepted the danger he knew helping her would entail--and knows the danger doesn't come from her (unlike Phyllis), but from her situation and her struggle to extricate herself from it.
Melanie might be a better candidate for femme fatale if we felt the need for one. She's clearly looking out for no. 1 and actively working against Ordell. Significantly, Louis is trustworthy--even if not bright enough to be of much use when it's needed--and immediately reports Mel's treachery. Mel is no Phyllis. She seems more a danger to herself than others. Interestingly, what does her in is her insistence on flaunting her superiority to the men and open defiance of their orders. It's hard to imagine Phyllis getting shot as the result of a tiff over parking, though it's also the nature of Tarantino's more mundane and ultimately more chaotic cinematic world.
Notice also that Jackie's deception is more sleight of hand magic than outright deceit. One of the surprising elements of her plan is that she tells everyone what she's doing (except for the crucial part of course where she fails to hand over the cash, or at least the bulk of it). Remember Ordell's dismay when she mentions that she's divulged Ordell's plan to the Feds--yet convinces him it's the only course that will accomplish his aims. Again, unlike the usual femme fatales, who always play their cards close to the vest, Jackie holds hers for all to see. Her game is more a three card monte which has everyone looking everywhere except where the money really is.
Some of this is predicated on perspective: if this were Ordell's story, for example, she could be seen as the femme fatale, though from that view she's more of an adversary from the beginning (he does initially try to murder her after all) than the alluring woman who leads him to his doom.
OK, I give, she's not a femme fatale in the classic sense, but perhaps she's more dangerous because everything she did was out in the open. and she was a master manipulater of the men she was involved with. Still not a favorite movie. I'm wondering if this movie were made today if the N-word would be so prominent?
ReplyDeleteI was hoping Jackie would be more like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill (my favorite movie ever). Uma played a true femme fatale and exagerated woman. I feel that Jackie is neither; she is just a real woman to me; a real women who knows how to handle these exagerated circumstances. To me she is no different from Silkwood other than she is definitely more clever. I would not consider her clever schemes to make her exagerated because that would be saying that women are not capable of such things and that is just not true.
ReplyDeleteI loved Samuel L. Jackson in this role. He was hilarious at times and scary at times. Every interaction he had in the film was very entertaining to me. I consider him to be an exagerated man.
May be you know cooler characters than I do, but I don't know many people (male or female) that would not only be able to concoct the scheme, but (even harder) carry it out.
DeleteEven Jackie has that moment of doubt in the dressing room when she looks at herself in the mirror just before Melanie shows up. She deciding whether to continue with her plan or take what seems as the safer plan she outlined to the Feds (which it probably wouldn't since it risks Ordell surviving).
I see your point. I suppose the premise of the film is to be an exaggerated woman - otherwise it might not be so interesting.
DeleteYou said in the “Questions for the panel of ‘Jackie Brown’” blog: “I think the way Samuel L. Jackson's character spoke was a very realistic interpretation of a black man in that position in the 90s. It made him seem like he came straight out of the ghetto doing illegal business and possessed very little class; I think if he would have spoken like a white person it would have been awkward.” and I agreed with you when I read that.
ReplyDeleteNow you consider Samuel L. Jackson’s character, Ordell, to be an exaggerated man. I don’t think that Ordell is an exaggerated man. I’m missing some of your thoughts. Please help me out here...
I considered him exaggerated because of the way he acted. He had at least three women that we know of whom he paid for their rent, living expenses, and all the pot they needed just for some casual sex. He killed all of his employees that failed to work to his standards. He seemed extraordinarily confident on not being caught, especially when working with the bail bondsman. I would think a man in his position would be more cautious than to show up at a motel in public and be risked seen with the man that will be found the next day, or even to kill Louis in mid-day light in a car that is probably registered to him.
DeleteBut I could be wrong here, especially going off what Prof. Kaufman said about Jackie being exaggerated when I thought she was not. I might have a skewed perspective of these definitions lol. But that's just how I interpreted it.
I would not say Jackie is an exaggerated depiction of a woman in a man's world solely because of her situation. People will do unbelievable things to better their lives or get out of a current struggle even if that means manipulating people or taking what is not rightfully theirs. I would have to agree with the phrase Mark laid out claiming Jackie was a "real woman who knows how to handle these exaggerated circumstances" is very accurate. Jackie is a product of her environment and that may seem exaggerated to us but for her this was her life and a way to better it and to me that felt very real.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comment above.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Jackie Brown was exaggerated at all actually. I think the part was fitting and her calm personality through most of the film was reflecting real life circumstances. You may call her a cold woman, but her character was smart and did what she had to in order to be on top--not saying this was a good thing. The only thing missing about her character to me was why she was willing to do such things to get her way--did she hate her life as it was so much that she was willing to do anything to change it? If so, why was it do bad? And how exactly did she become the woman she portrayed? How did she get involved with this type of thing?
I wanted to comment on Diane's discussion of the "N word." Even though the director was white (we discussed the flack Tarantino received for the N-bombs), I think the dialogue was fitting in context. Even though it's offensive, it's still a part of the culture in which Ordell involves himself. I don't think Tarantino was over stepping any boundaries in an attempt to generate authentic dialogue with Ordell's character.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar but unrelated note, have you heard Samuel L Jackson reading that great new children's book?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CseO1XRYs9I
I love that video, I think I might put this on my ipod and listen to it before I go to sleep tonight
DeleteI agree with the comment above about the n word. It is always offensive, but it was fitting and realistic to the circumstances. I have this same ideal about cursing in a film--if it is used for character and scene building then it's nessecary.
ReplyDeleteI too think that the N-word is offensive, but it did seem to fit the movie. I don't know that the cussing is ever necessary. I guess I just like to believe that normal people don't talk like that, so in that regard it seems unreal.
ReplyDeleteMost normal people I come across curse, at least on occasion. I would find it out of the norm if somebody did not curse at all. Or perhaps I just hang out with a bunch of sailors.
Delete