Total Tarantino

Bill's Superman monologue was inspired -- a real geek-a-thon, not to mention Jungian. How did you come up with it?
The genesis was in the first subtextual piece I ever read in my life. Now I love textual film criticism -- I love that the critic really gets to be the artist; it really doesn't matter what the writer or director was thinking. But this piece was in this one big book about comic books -- I don't remember the name -- and I was 12 or 13, and basically the point was that when Superman wakes up in the morning, he's Superman. A radioactive spider didn't bite him, nothing happened to him. He is who he is. Would he be so super on the Planet Krypton? No. But he's not there. So over the years I would tell the story more and more, and flesh it out and start adding to the thesis and working it. The Madonna speech in ''Reservoir Dogs,'' or the Sicilian speech in ''True Romance'' -- all that happened in the same way, with verbiage, going off on a thought, trying to be entertaining, thought-provoking, going for the laughs. That's where the Superman speech came out of, but it was never intended for this movie until we were in Beijing preproduction. We all went out to dinner and that subject came up -- this cool little story and everyone liked it.

So going with your premise that for Superman, unlike with other superheroes, the human part of him is the mask, the part being played, do you have a Clark Kent?
Oh gosh. Good -- that is what really got me thinking about that question too. You know, I don't think I do. Truth be told, I don't think the people who like me want my act cleaned up. I think my outsider energy is one of the things people generally respond to. I might clean up, and sometimes I want to look handsome, dress in nice stuff...

Perhaps that's the mask -- grown up.
A little bit of -- yeah, okay, exactly.

How could ''Kill Bill'' have ever been one movie? Were any scenes moved around once the decision was made?
I ultimately decided to split it up because for the audience to get what I spent a year and a half writing, you have to see everything that's in ''1'' and ''2.'' It actually does work as one movie, because we didn't have to move it all around, create something that wasn't there, spin a bunch of bulls--- that wasn't really organic to the story. Where the tone changes at the beginning of the second movie? It happens exactly right there [in the script].

Would you have considered four hours with an intermission?
There's something very pretentious about a four-hour exploitation movie. It's like I'm not playing fair. And I do think movies are more audience-friendly in theaters, for a broad audience, and I want as many people to see the movies as possible. So at most it would have been 3 hours and 10 minutes, or something like that.

There were critics who bemoaned your return to violence with ''Kill Bill -- Vol. 1,'' especially after the more sedate and mature themes of ''Jackie Brown.'' ''Vol. 2'' is more character-driven, quieter, and the carnage is pretty minimal. But ultimately, do you care what critics think?
If you're approaching somebody's work from an auteur point of view, and you like them, then, you know, it's almost the job of the critic to be a little precious. You don't want to see directors you like going off in the wrong direction or make too much of a left turn. That's good for criticism. I understand that. But one thing that was semi-annoying to me in reading a couple of the reviews for ''Vol. 1'' was, ''Oh, this is a very wild technique and style is cranked up and the technique has gone up, but it's a clear retreat from 'Jackie Brown,' and the growing maturity was in there.'' ''Clear retreat'' says I'm running away from what I did in ''Jackie Brown.'' I've done it. I don't have to prove that I can do a [mature character study], all right? And after ''Vol. 1'' I don't have to prove that I can do a good action scene.

My filmography is really important to me, and I want every one of my movies to count. Stephen King took a dig at me [in EW] for starting off ''Kill Bill'' with ''Quentin Tarantino's Fourth Film'' -- you know, la-di-da! I can imagine someone taking a cynical view like that. But to me, I mean it, and not in some airy-fairy way. This is my fourth movie and I haven't done anything in a long time. It's telling you who I am so far today. And the fifth and sixth with hopefully tell you something else too. They are all different places. I hope you invite [King] back to review ''Vol. 2.'' Even if he doesn't like it, I'm interested in what he thinks.