This is not actually a review of Kill Bill, but if I did feel capable of properly reviewing that film, I'd give it an A+. Brilliant. Stunning. Perfect. This is more a response to a curious complaint heard among other reviewers.
For reasons that boggle the mind, many critics of Kill Bill: Volume I took issue with the appearance of Uma Thurman's feet. After discussing this phenomenon with my fiancé, I felt I had to speak out regarding this.
The first complaint: The scene was unnecessary.
This is an understandable complaint if you don't know the underlying theme of martial arts movies: the action demonstrates the thought. Uma's character, the Bride, had been put in a position of absolute helplessness for four years. Waking, her muscles didn't have the strength to bear her upright. It is an integral part of the film and an essential look into her character to see her regain control of her atrophied legs by sheer will. It's this will that carries her through the film. The time it takes, and the fact that it's as small a movement as wiggling her big toe, drives that point home.
The length of time is further stretched by using shots of the feet to frame the anime story of O-Ren Ishii's (Lucy Liu) life, in itself a small fable about trauma, consequences, and will. The extended effort to wiggle a toe is the effort of a great will setting itself against the world. It foreshadows the greatness of O-Ren's adversary. A director that reduced this shot to a larger viewpoint (or worse, mere words) would be, at best, mediocre.
The second complaint: Uma Thurman's feet are unsatisfactory in some way.
This one I truly don't get. Of course, as a woman my point of view may be different. But let's address the cosmetic issues one at a time:
- The feet are not cared for well enough. I must say, I think they're in fabulous condition for someone who's been in a coma for four years. I don't imagine too many registered manicurists are stopping by to give free pedicures to the comatose. They look like feet which have been cleaned and clipped as needed, which suits the character.
- The feet are big. Well, Uma's a tall woman. Small feet would be out of place and weird as far as I'm concerned.
- The feet are ugly. Here I completely lose patience. They're perfectly lovely! The critiques of their beauty say more about the critics than the feet. It's as ridiculous as the desire to compare women to the Barbie doll/Playboy Playmate ideal. She's a stunningly beautiful creature with beautiful, big feet. (And even if I didn't feel that way, who are any of us to decide what the standard of beauty is for feet? So far as I can tell, people like bare toes and polished, French pedicures and solid colors, bent toes and straight, narrow toes and toes with little padded undersides. Who's wrong? No one!)
Special Bonus Anti-Gene Shalit Rant
I happened to be watching the Today show when Shalit reviewed Kill Bill, and I sent the following email to NBC.
Subject: What is wrong with Gene Shalit?
Though I have never responded to a review before, I could not stay silent when Gene Shalit slammed Kill Bill. Dismissing as "boring" a film filled with wit and a sense of its own absurdity, Shalit merely highlights his lack of perception. For example, he calls Uma Thurman's voice "monotonous," unable to see that the depth of outrage experienced by the Bride character is such that it cannot be shown by mere vocal tone, but by action and its correspondent goals. This is the heart of the martial arts genre, and it passes by Shalit.
Shalit doesn't even credit the extraordinary feat of an astonishing martial arts display created completely without the help of computer graphics. He critiques Uma Thurman's physical skills, embarrassingly unaware she trained intensively for several months in preparation for the film.
As an educated viewer with a summa cum laude degree, I also take great exception to comments such as, "subtitles are a mistake, since most of Tarantino's viewers can't read." Among the several Tarantino fans I know are a doctoral candidate at the University of Virginia, a web developer with an MS in information science, and a library cataloger, also with a post-graduate degree. Personally, the aspect of Tarantino's films I love most is his understanding of not only the appeal but the absurdity of extreme emotions and endeavors. Shalit is a first-level viewer, but is not self-reflective enough to consider this in his work—a fatal flaw in a critic.
I've disagreed many times with reviews, but the blind ignorance of this particular one has driven me to speak. Shalit's arrogance has cost him part of his audience. It's a pity such an excellent news program has such a poor reviewer.
