Violet & Daisy

Violet & Daisy

At some stage in late 90s, there is a handful of lesser filmmakers who claimed to have made films in the trademark of Quentin Tarantino. It indeed was in the style of Tarantino the mix of pop culture, soul music, violence, style and cool detachment but without grasp of what he was trying to say from them. Its like children putting on glasses and thinking they are smart because of these dumb glasses.

Violet & Daisy is from that wannabe Tarantinos, but its also quite a bit from The Professional and those early Robert Rodriguez pictures with his go-go aesthetics. Unfortunately it’s 14 years late to 90s, which causes the whole film to be even more pathetic. Violet & Daisy is one of those particular films that really tested my patience as I believe the film was trying to be far cleverer than it was when it is really in reality nothing more than a backslapper on itself. The whole film has an obnoxious arrogance that is totally unfounded.

The most important aspect of all the Tarantino copycats is that they all played it safe. That’s the beauty of being unoriginal: you don’t have to take chances, for the one you are imitating has done all the heavy lifting for you. In a complete imitation, it is as if one is not merely bowling with bumpers but is using a plastic tube slide the same length as the lane itself.

Each violent scene, every selection made from the soundtrack, every allusion to American pop culture is already explained. The necessary element of risk the fundamental component of all practical and inventive effort would have come from attempting one’s own, rather than someone else’s risks. (For example, there is a big difference between Donald Barthelme’s postmodern genre collages and Boondock Saints.)

Entertaining, however, can also be the films that do not take chances, Mistresses and daisies, however, do not fall into this category of their lack of entertainment value. Violet (Alexis Bledel) is an experienced Assan with a new partner name Daisy (Saoirse Ronan). They do jobs for Russ, a Danny Trejo who shows up for a minute and then pulls the ejection seat on this picture.

For their first shared screen appearance, they play the role of ‘nuns’ working at some pizza place which is dull and totally ruining guys with a gun in each hand which is a trademark of John Woo. The next job they work together is to kill Michael who is portrayed as James Gandolfini a depressed middle aged man with a daughter who he hasn’t seen in years.

The producers of Violet and Daisy expect their audience to go “ooh” ‘s coz their movie is a stylistic exercise which has no other written format. In that sensibility and the film Violet looks through the wreckage of a crashed plane and visions of Daisy as a ghostlike air hostess hovering nearby. I appreciate it, it’s a nice touch. But it’s completely pointless because the film did not evoke any feelings in me and only contempt for the last two hours. A similar situation develops with the enormous moon which dominates some nighttime shots only. Style as style. And alas for some this is enough. It is enough for one to see something beautiful, although far fetched, to be met with “ooh”. This is not how ooh should be.

It appears that Violet & Daisy walk a fine line: they are once snarky postmodernists and once are dead romantics. The plot does not provide real bring out the romance so it resorts to the use of cheap emotions instead. Michael is depicted as such an outcast that audience should sympathize over, but in fact this is just a cheap trick, the same kind that the film uses when depicting rape.

At the same time struggling with that an average scene turns out to be a carpet movie. Milk and cookies are served to the assassins’ victims, annoying voyeurs are introduced who understand Violet and Daisy’s obsession with some absolutely high fashion, as well as senseless patty cake games. And so forth. I do not have the slightest idea. Perhaps it has been done to so the audience will drool a great deal and stop working their brains and concentrating on what is happening on the screen, not much actually.

I had only just the most evident mods from the vast majority of them. I would like to mention the unsatisfactory screenplay of the film. In Violet & Daisy are there are glaring inconsistencies in the plot. Especially when Daisy makes intimate revelations in front of Michael about her life these claim are taken lots of the movie apart.

The idea that the film has its own world with numerous mechanics in the hearts of the characters is quite interesting. At the best of times, Violets and Daisy oscillates between the two extreme phases of a first-class Bugs bunny and a shaky melodrama. I would like to think that there is something about that sense of inconsistency overshadowed by a deeper structural consistency that forms the basis of weird storytelling. The combination of drama and comedy is good in oddball storytelling. However, in this case, this inconsistency is more about throwing caution to the wind or about total disregard for the audience. Things happen just for the sake of it. Pure absurdity if you will.

It’s surprising that this film is written and directed by Geoffrey Fletcher who has an oscar for the adaptation of precious. It is most surprising because the dialogues even though rapid never say anything. Words Words and Words without speaking. When Tarantino characters engage in idle chit chat, they do so to get around something of importance and do it in true Elmore Leonard style. But in Violet and Daisy, people engage in debate using short phrases and don’t really say much. Imagine funny banter but robbed of the funny.

But it makes sense because perhaps the sheer velocity of language might compensate for the sheer emptiness of the language. It’s all part of the same picture. Violet & Daisy is a film that wishes to turn viewers’ responses into a few vowel sounds, for there isn’t so much to say when it comes to style and content.

For more movies Visit Gomovies.