I love Quentin Tarantino. I love his directing, I love his writing, I love his general outlook on film and life as a whole...but when he gets it wrong, he really gets it wrong.
In the final scenes of KILL BILL VOL. 2, the titular character, Bill, engages in a roundabout metaphor about how Beatrix Kiddo is a killer, and pretending to be anything else is just that, pretending. He comes by this metaphor by way of a self-professed love of comic books, particularly those with Superheroes, and even more particularly those with Superman.
His thesis is such: Superman is an all-powerful being born of the planet Krypton. When he decides he needs a secret identity, he chooses that of Clark Kent; a bespectacled, bumbling, foolish weakling. How Superman portrays Clark Kent is his commentary on humanity, and how he sees us as fragile, unevolved mortals, worthy of pity.
It's well-reasoned pop psychology, beautifully written as a dark and probing soliloquy highlighting the eccentricities and basic philosophy of the film's main villain. Tarantino is the master of winding, one-sided dialogue, and this example holds up to his standard.
The only problem is it's a load of crap.
Complete and utter bollocks (to borrow a phrase from across the pond).
Quentin Tarantino is a genius filmmaker, a prolific writer, and an expert on the history and art of film. Unfortunately, he appears to possess only a cursory knowledge of Comics, and is far from an expert.
Luckily for me, and you my dear reader (if you are still reading this, in which case I want to be your dear friend if I'm not already), I am an expert.
To say that Clark Kent is Superman telling his adopted planet that their inhabitants are simply less than, is a disservice to Superman, Clark Kent, and all of humanity.
A baby from another planet crash landed on a Kansas farm, and was raised by the warm and loving Jonathan and Martha Kent. They named the child Clark and raised him as their own. He grew up learning about the values of love, integrity, humility, hard work, fair play, justice, and humanity's many other fine traits from two loving, human parents.
Save for his Kryptonian heritage, and his subsequently endowed super powers, Clark Kent represents the greatest humanity has to offer. Yes, he plays up his nerdy reporter act, but only because his single means of disguise otherwise would be a pair of black-rimmed glasses (sigh, shakes head).
He puts on the tights and cape and becomes Superman so that when he fights the enemies of all that he was raised to believe in, they won't turn around and go after his family and friends. Clark Kent puts on the big red "S"; Superman doesn't throw on a suit and tie. Superman is the mask, not Clark Kent.
Superman's love and admiration of everything that humanity is and all that we could be is the reason he fights in the first place.
Bill's reading of his favorite hero's choice of identities is his way of explaining his view that nature always trumps nurture, that you can't change who you are. The Nature vs. Nurture debate is a long-standing one that goes to the core of basic human behavior. The most likely, and most honest answer Psychological researchers would give you would say that it's probably not one or the other, but rather a mixture of the two. Just because you're born one way, doesn't mean you can't evolve into something else. And just because you take the dog out of the fight, doesn't always mean you can take the fight out of the dog, either.
The human condition is so complex that it's impossible to boil down to absolutes, one way or the other. In fairness, maybe a character like Bill sees life in terms of absolutes, thus coloring his interpretation of the world's greatest superhero's story. Maybe Tarantino has made a valid point somewhere in there.
Probably not, though. He's just wrong.
This isn't just my humble opinion. It's my expert opinion.
I may only have a B.A. in Psychology, but I've got a Doctorate in Comics.
