Occasionally, a film surprises me. Jackie Brown is a good
example. Quentin Tarantino has only directed two films (plus a
couple writing assignments and assorted acting cameos), but he's
made a monumental impact on the modern independent film scene.
His style is instantly recognizable, whether it's his cyclical
pop-culture-littered film dialogue or his own manic hipster-geek
drop-ins on Dave Letterman or Jay Leno. I suspect everyone on
the planet, fan or otherwise, knows what to expect from a Quentin
Tarantino film. At least that's what I thought. Jackie
Brown is like a bolt from the blue. After much soul-searching,
I've concluded that's a good thing--but I doubt many of his rabid
fans will agree.
Jackie Brown has its origin in a novel titled Rum Punch
by crime novelist Elmore Leonard. Aside from a shift in location
(from Leonard's Florida to Tarantino's Southern California) and
a change in the main character's ethnicity (from white to black),
Tarantino's script hews remarkably close to Leonard's original
novel. But aside from the quirky ensemble cast and the '70s-flavored
soundtrack, most viewers would be hard-pressed to peg this as
a Tarantino effort. Gone are Q.T.'s trademark energy, his bravura
staging, his sledgehammer violence, his sniggering humor.
After crafting a film as influential as Pulp Fiction, Tarantino
found himself his own hard act to follow. Never exactly known
as an originator, Tarantino made his mark as a pop-culture cannibal
stealing ideas, characters and dialogue from every movie, comic
book and magazine at his fingertips. With two films under his
belt (both co-written by Roger Avary), Tarantino made a wise move
buying the film rights to Elmore Leonard's novels. Leonard's books,
like Tarantino's films, are offbeat ensemble cast stories loaded
with sly black humor.
Whereas Barry Sonnenfeld's 1996 version of Get Shorty emphasized
the humor of Leonard's original novel, Tarantino chooses to focus
on the people in Jackie Brown. What emerges is a leisurely,
detailed character study. The 1970s blaxploitation star Pam Grier
stars as the titular character, a flight attendant in her mid-40s
now reduced to working for a cruddy third-rate Mexican airline
after a run-in with the law. When Jackie is busted by ATF agent
Michael Keaton muling $50,000 into the country for low-rent arms
dealer Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), she's forced to participate
in an elaborate sting to trap her nasty boss. Also involved in
this operation, in one way or another, are a fiftysomething bail
bondsman (Robert Forster), a brain-dead ex-con (Robert De Niro)
and a pot-addled surfer chick (Bridget Fonda). Grier has just
the right air of "survived it all" world-weariness and
faded (though hardly diminished) sexuality to enliven her character.
Robert Forster (another Tarantino rescuee from such '70s B-movies
as Medium Cool and Alligator), meanwhile, pulls
off a disarmingly lived-in portrait of Max Cherry, the bail bondsman
who's seen--dispassionately--every ill society has to offer. When
he bails Jackie out of jail (at the behest of Ordell), Max discovers
a kindred spirit. The slow, midlife crisis love story between
these two characters is handled deftly and with a surprisingly
tender touch from the man who gave us the gasoline torture test.
The central issue in Jackie Brown is "Who's scamming
who?" Is Jackie working with the ATF to nab Ordell? Is she
in cahoots with Max to steal Ordell's half-million dollar nest
egg? Or is she still loyal to Ordell? Tarantino certainly doesn't
rush to judgment on any of these questions. At two hours and 45
minutes, Jackie is a leisurely (some might say sluggish)
journey. I regard it as a quantum leap forward in maturity for
Tarantino. Tarantino has always professed that he doesn't care
at all what audiences think. I disagree. I think Tarantino cares
immensely what filmgoers think of him. Instead of dazzling
us with his brilliance, for the first time, I feel Tarantino's
actually more interested in his characters and what makes them
tick (as opposed to what makes them tic).