Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
By Drewsch
| Announce
One of the most memorable moments in Quentin Tarantino’s Killing a Bill is when the villain bill paralyzes the heroic bride Aka Beatrix Kiddo and deviates a philosophical on his view of Superman’s character.
It is a bit of an affectionate writing presented expertly by David Carradine in what is arguably the biggest screen role.
Unfortunately, it is so dear that many people take it according to their face. They buy into Bill’s on Superman as legal. That tells me that they do not see the forest for the trees during this crucial moment, either as an actual evaluation of Superman or the real reason for the scene.
Bill can’t see the real or superman Clark Kent
The key shortfall in Bill reads on Clark Kent and Superman comes in his fundamental misunderstanding of Clark Kent and Superman’s personnas. He cannot see Clark Kent as anything more than a complete performance –– Opinion made more by the Christoper Reeve Films than Comic Books –– while Superman is the true identity because the persona he was born.
Anyone with a fuller understanding of the character’s history and stories knows how reversing this assignment of roles is actually. While Clark has this incredible heritage that navigates his character, he was raised as Clark Kent and lives life like Clark Kent. It is only later adopting the Superman persona and in its craft to be a form of performance that integrates its truest self.
Eventually, he finds a healthy life balancing both sides of his alien Lineage and his American upbringing have grown. It doesn’t really reflect Bill’s views on the character at all. It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the character.
That’s why it’s so important to remember that Bill is the villain of the story.
A villain warms a hero to control another hero
The Killing a Bill Superman monologue occurs within very important power dynamics in the story. Beatrix Kiddo is pumped with Super Truth Serum Bill calling “the undisputed truth.” Bill uses this scenario and its Superman analogy to argue that Beatrix is lied to herself about trying to live a simple life.
Beatrix admits this harsh emotional truth because she tried to escape to anonymity, but she also fired back she would have had her daughter. Would have found a way to happiness. But the chance to go after Bill was removed because of his need to control Beatrix.
And that’s the essence of this scene and monologue actually: managing the Beatrix narrative tells himself. Bill equips his warped views on Clark Kent and Superman to weaken the Beatrix solution. Even if he truly believes in his attitude on Superman, he does not take him to the writer’s mouth or present some prestigious creative debate. He is all the character for treating and his spiral idea of Clark Kent and Superman is a little more treated, both of the truth about the character and the truths of Beatrix about herself.
Look, let me boil it down to a more transferable framework for this discussion: Do you really believe anything Lex Luthor He says when he describes his appraisal of Superman’s character? If you didn’t listen to the views of that villain, why would you listen to Bill? They both use their views on Superman to actually push their own wicked agenda.
I love Killing a BillI love Superman, and I love this scene. However it is time to stop reading it as a worthwhile critique on the Steel man. Instead, see him for what he really is: a bad guy who plays when he knows what a good man is so he can remain a bad guy.
