I’m not one to write about films on this website. I don’t go to cinemas because films, like books and music, are too personally involving. Going to the cinema is a bit like reading a newspaper in a crowded train. It should be a pleasure, not a chore. I treat bookshops pretty much with contempt too. Why should I share with others what I am looking at, what I want to buy? Supermarkets are not much better. Anyhow, back to films. Since I don’t go to the cinema, I see all films on television or DVD. Sure, this means I see them late, but given I don’t read film reviews, or rather I don’t take in film reviews, seeing them six months to a year later than when first released doesn’t spoil the enjoyment. Which brings me onto Kill Bill, Volume 1.

I’ve watched all three previous full-length Quentin Tarantino films. Reservoir Dogs is an awful mess of a film, lacking charm, charisma, humour. It’s clearly a starting point. It’s ugly, tedious, boring. Predictable. I’m not shocked or affected by the violence. It’s just there. Words can’t fully describe my hatred for this film. Pulp Fiction is however far better. A film with masterful acting and humour. Plus a great soundtrack. Then we have Jackie Brown. Probably Tarantino’s finest film. We have a great plot, fantastic characters and it’s his first film that demonstrates truely masterful film making, both in direction and editing.

Kill Bill, Volume 1 however is in a different league to the other three films. This is because it’s pure art. There’s no other film I’ve watched that melds cinematography, direction, editing and a soundtrack to such an extent that neither of these aspects can live without the other. There are sequences that are breathtaking. For example: when The Bride is selecting her steel; another just before combat when the camera pans round the actors and there is just the music; then there’s the split screen in the hospital. The latter is so important. I thought about it, but I couldn’t think of another way to film it. Although at first sight it seems lazy, but it’s not. There is a plot, which jumps back and forth as usual in Tarantino’s films. The acting is great. And whilst Uma Thurman is the main actor, I feel that this is Lucy Lui’s film. Other Tarantino films have used music as cultural backdrops or to demonstrate his ecletic musical tastes, but here the soundtrack is critical. This film is live action Fantasia. It’s a film that’s genuinely moving just as art.

There is one fly in the ointment. Certain portions of the film are shown in black and white, but were filmed in colour. One scene was deliberately converted to black and white to permit a R rating in the US. I could rattle on about censorship, but I’ll briefly state that whilst it’s easier to censor what can be seen and heard, it’s what can be implied from a film that is far more disturbing and affecting. Likewise, why is there little (if any) comparative censorship in novels? Anyone who’s read American Psycho (almost a life changing experience and probably the greatest novel ever written, although I prefer The Rules of Attraction) and then seen the hilariously awful film will attest to that.

So, what about the splitting of the movie into two parts? Does this smack of commercialism. I don’t think so. There’s simply too much to take in from the first film, that extending it to the full length might spoil the experience. That said, this is the first film I’ve watched for years that didn’t have me glancing at the clock. It draws you in and seduces you to an extent that nothing else around you exists. Extraordinary. Every home should have one.