Sometimes, art only needs to be unique in order to be successful. Two films that are drastically different but also extremely similar in that aspect are “Pleasantville” directed by Gary Ross and “Reservoir Dogs” directed by Quentin Tarantino. 

Right from the start, the poster for Pleasantville depicts a bright rainbow behind a couple sharing a passionate kiss. This alludes to the film’s emphasis on having color in TV shows and passion in life. The trailer shows siblings David (Maguire) and Jen (Witherspoon) arguing and then being thrown into the television world of Pleasantville. This still is the perfect depiction of how the film contrasts color and black and white both visually and socially. In context, David has yet to turn into color just as the other kids who have grown or internally changed have. It also shows how visually unique and stunning the film is, showing that “the film was shot in color then the hues were drained out and replaced bit by bit”(CNN). These resources instantly highlight the importance of color within television, and appeal to the public with artistic style.

Although the film has a very well known cast, it has some surprisingly unconventional aspects. Pleasantville was one of the first films by the little known Gary Ross, and indirectly has controversial content such as examples of hate speech, racism, oppression, censorship, and sex. The film was also technologically unique because of its use of color. 

Critics have a lot to say about Pleasantville, overall emphasizing that the film is powerful, nostalgic, and unique. This shot of the tree on fire outside black and white house shows that “”Pleasantville” is the kind of parable that encourages us to re-evaluate the good old days and take a fresh look at the new world we so easily dismiss as decadent” because it causes the viewer to think about our world of color and how it is often taken for granted (Ebert). 

This video clip is perhaps one of the most important in the entire film. It shows the mayor of Pleasantville in court with David and Bill as they debate the justification of the new anti-color laws. The mayor, Big Bob, abuses his supreme power and proves that “nothing creates fascists like the threat of freedom”(Ebert).

After watching the film and researching what critics had to say, I came to the stance that the film is meant to advocate for social justice more than entertain the masses and “[explore] the nostalgia for the wholesome 1950s and the dissatisfaction with the complexity of the hyperactive ’90s”(CNN). On the other hand, I do agree with the claim that the film “is so ambitious, so clever and so satisfying in so many ways,” both in how it tackles social issues and how it presents itself artistically (The Washington Post). Moreover, I think that the film is clearly trying to be press the issues of racism, sexism, hate speech, rape-culture, facism, censorship, and freedom. 

In a similar way to Ross, Tarantino uses his poster to create a captivating atmosphere for potential audience members to see. The trailer instantly creates an atmosphere similar to that of other heist movies such as “Ocean’s eleven “. You see the group of criminals deciding their nicknames, and can’t help but enjoy how funny yet vulgar they are. The poster looks exciting and cool, depicting the silhouettes of the men in suits. Yet, it is also minimalistic in showing only the outlines of the group. The filmmakers created this style of advertisement to appeal to curiosity by not showing very much. 

The film is mostly conventional, despite the heavy violence and vulgarity. It includes well known actors such as Harvey Keitel and Lawrence Tierney, and it follows a linear and stereotypical plot of the classic heist gone wrong scenario. 

Reviews for this film are less specifically for or against the film, and more critical on certain aspects of its style. This scene shows some of the light hearted humor that is present throughout the film, despite the violence and the vulgar content. Tarantino uses vulgarity and violence to his advantage though, creating interesting dialogue that carries the plot of the film. This supports the statement that the director “used a proliferation of sex-related terms, perhaps as a way of proclaiming and conveying his own style”(TABOO WORDS USED BY THE CHARACTERS OF RESERVOIR DOGS MOVIE)

The brutal torture scene with Mr. Blonde played by Michael Madsen, shows him beat a police officer and violently cut saw off his ear with a straight razor. Mr. Blonde seems to torture the captive cop for no apparent reason, other than his own amusement. This shows how the scene supports the claim that Tarantino’s “work was ultra violent,” and “that it was about nothing more than its own movieishness, with no connection to the real world” (The Newyorker). 

After seeing the film for myself and reading what other people had to say, I came to a different conclusion than most of what I saw. In my opinion, I disagree with Roger Ebert’s statement that “Now that we know Quentin Tarantino can make a movie like “Reservoir Dogs,” it’s time for him to move on and make a better one”(Ebert). I personally thought it was a solid movie that deserves some credit for its witty dialogue and use of violence and vulgarity to propel the somewhat simple plot. 

These two films couldn’t be more drastically different, but they do have a few similarities in the ways they grew to success. Both Ross and Tarantino use different aspects of film making to carry their movie to the top, or well up there amongst the successful anyway. Pleasantville uses technology to be completely unique both stylistically and visually. It allows for the story to be so powerful and artistic while still being relatively simple in plot. The writing and story are both substantial, but the visuals is where this movie truly excels. Having a film with both black and white and color in the same frame was something completely unique to film in 1998, and Ross took advantage of this to essentially base a whole story around the concept. On the other hand, “Reservoir Dogs” is similar to this in a completely different way. What Tarantino lacks in visuals, he makes up for in writing. The technology used in this film was nothing out of the ordinary at the time, and the story was linear and predictable. The dialogue was where Reservoir Dogs shined. The witty, humorous and vulgar conversations of the band of criminals was what kept me as an audience member engaged. It made the film unpredictable, regardless of the linear plot. Overall, these two films rely on different elements in the same way. Without the technological wonder of Pleasantville, it would not have been so successful. Without the advanced and intellectual dialogue from Tarantino, Reservoir Dogs wouldn’t be anything special. Both of these movies used a specific aspect of film making to be unique, and that is how they found success in their time.