# "Death Proof" segment of Grindhouse (*beware of SPOILERS!)



## zDom (Apr 14, 2007)

DO NOT READ unless you have SEEN the film or want to completely SPOIL your experience.


.



.


.



.



.




.



I'm seeing a lot of people thinking the second part of the "Death Proof" movie  the part with the stunt girls in Tennesseee  is AFTER the first part where Stuntman Mike kills Jungle Julia the DJ and her friends.

My take on the film is that this is actually the event that led to Stuntman Mike BECOMING a homicidal maniac.

Tarantino is well known for having his films NOT progress chronologically and without any indication that you have jumped backward in the timeline.

I'm not SURE, but my recollection is:

a) In ending the first segment of this story, either the sheriff or his son makes some kind of comment about "Why would a guy DO something like that?" ... or am I inserting a line of dialogue that never happened?

b) Stuntman Mike does NOT have a scar on his face in the second part of this film  or does he?? I can't quite remember for SURE.

If I'm right, the axe kick at the end to his face is what CAUSED the scar he wears at the beginning of this film.

I know most viewers would PREFER that the story was a linear timeline:

 Stuntman Mike gets his jollies by killing innocent young women; then he "gets what he deserves" when the stuntwomen beat him to death.

(Cheers and good feelins all around!)

but I think the story Tarantino was ACTUALLY telling was,

 Stuntman Mike was a little on the wacko side, nearly killed some young stuntwomen "playing around" with them, and then is beaten nearly to death and horribly scarred when they turn things around on him.

Stuntman Mike THEN decides to wreak his vengeance on pretty young but morally suspect young women by rigging up deathproof cars and killing them with vehicular homicide.

His present behavior is shown first, followed by a flashback to "how and why he got that way."


What say you?


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 14, 2007)

zDom said:


> What say you?



I say that Tarrintio's films are never to be taken seriously... they're to be enjoyed for the sheer shock/entertainment value and that's it. 

With Pulp Fiction people tried before to guess what was in the case of Marcellus Wallace that Travolta and Jackson were sent to retrieve... (later Tarrintino said it was Wallace's soul). But it didn't really matter now did it? 

Probably the same with Stunt Man Mike... no, I haven't seen the film ... yet


----------



## Kreth (Apr 14, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> With Pulp Fiction people tried before to guess what was in the case of Marcellus Wallace that Travolta and Jackson were sent to retrieve... (later Tarrintino said it was Wallace's soul).


Actually Tarantino never made that claim, it's one of several theories. Tarantino deliberately never showed the contents of the briefcase to keep things interesting.


----------



## zDom (Apr 18, 2007)

Well, turns out I was wrong.

Stuntman Mike DID have the scar in the second part of that film, so it stands to reason that it was indeed a (atypical for Tarantino) linear story.


----------



## zDom (Apr 18, 2007)

I just gotta add: it's a damn shame.

IMO, it would have been a MUCH better story, a better progression of character if the second part of the film had taken place "earlier" than the first part.

From: Stuntman wanna-be Redneck in Tennessee, spots some wild women doing a stunt, "plays around" with them and ends up getting his *** kicked (leaving the scar!)

To: someone who got into the stuntman business, but really is more focused on taking "revenge" on random groups of young women because of what was done to him.

From: whiny ***** 
To: stone-cold killer

It would have provided a backstory for Stuntman Mike, explained who and why he was who he was.

It would have provided an opening for a sequel to kill him off later.

It would have MADE SENSE.

Going from the (sober) callous killer we see at the beginning of the movie to the crybaby, apologetic wuss who drives around with a whiskey bottle in his glove box we see at the end of the movie just doesn't make sense.

And it would have been more like Tarantino to tell the story in a non-linear fashion: First the present day, then the backstory (and as easy as just showing Stuntman Mike WITHOUT the scar! It was THAT easy!)

I think Tarantino was so into kissing starlet butt that he forgot who he was and missed the opportunity to tell a good story.

Instead we got an hour of pointless dialogue (not moving the plot forward at all!) from two groups of young women; 20 minutes of action; and a bland story.

"Guy likes to kill women with stuntcar. Guy gets his just rewards. The end."

I thought Kurt Russell did a great job in the role: every minute he was speaking was magic. It made me want to know, who IS this guy?? 

Tarantino squandered it and missed the chance to tell a really great story.

/end rambling rant


----------

