let me just get things straight-what's the general consensus regarding Tarantino on this board
Sorry Mike but do you really think a Stanley Kubrick film could really just be “a scary horror flick”?
Yes. I don’t doubt he may have had other ideas but they are woefully underdeveloped. American flag on desk, talk of indians and guy in bearsuit don’t add up to much for me. Whatever his vision is it gets lost in the gallons of blood.
no he cannot make just a scary horror flick
that was part of the problem, it wasn’t scary at all
Maybe you just didn’t get it.
I don’t think it was supposed to be a scary horror flick anyways Den…
Well, I was scared for poor Shelley. She seems so fragile…
Hmm Bryan not sure i have time for a ‘logical argument’ with ‘reasons to support the claims made’ right now but methinks your reading of tarantino’s ‘deep meaning’ in PF is (at least partly) you projecting your own reading onto the text – which, granted, we all do to some extent. But if you read anything on tarantino and watch any of his interviews and you will see he never claims any deep meanings for his films although he goes to great pains to explain how carefully constructed they are and where the different images and ideas are drawn from and how he chooses to juxtapose them – and for what purpose. Mostly it’s about giving value to previously un-valued ‘low culture’ films – I agree with you there. But for example the construction of Vince Vega’s character is less about making a statement about ‘ordinary people’ than it is about disrupting viewers expectations of how gangsters in films talk and act. Vince & Jules’ dialogue is unlike that that we’ve come to expect from gangsters in previous films, because their dialogue is frequently unrelated to their ‘work’ is gangsters and does not advance the plot (the sexual politics of foot massage being a case in point) – it’s as if we’re hanging out with gangster characters while they’re ‘off duty’ or ‘in the wings’. This is unexpected and amusing not because gangsters don’t discuss these things in real life (they probably do – who knows) but because gangster characters in films don’t talk like this – don’t argue about the ethics of tipping waitresses, about the meaning of Madonna’s lyrics or and don’t experience a ‘transition period’ over a muffin at breakfast. etc… So i agree with you about the pop culture stuff and the high culture/low culture debate angle but not about all the humanist transcendence stuff. But i liked your post tnx
i think after stanley made 2001 he outdid himself
and everything after sounded better on paper than what we saw on the screen.
maybe i didn’t get it but a horror film, that is maketed by stanley (since he had a lot to say about his marketing)
as scary that is not scary is something i dont want to get.
I will go back to Godard and leave the mysteries of a steven king adaptation to others
“Maybe you just didn’t get it.”
Or there’s nothing much to get. I’m not saying there’s no subtext. The scene in the bathroom lays it on thick. My point is that it’s muddled by his attention to the genre. This is a common problem with genre work that tries to say something “important” while adhering to the cliches the viewers expect.
“i think after stanley made 2001 he outdid himself
and everything after sounded better on paper than what we saw on the screen.”
I think you’re full of it.
“maybe i didn’t get it but a horror film, that is maketed by stanley (since he had a lot to say about his marketing)
as scary that is not scary is something i dont want to get.”
I didn’t mean it wasn’t a scary movie, I meant that it was “just” a scary movie. Big difference.
I can settle on that one Mike. I can’t exactly mount an all-out argument because it’s been a long, long time since I’ve seen the film. But, fair enough.
I personally think that Tarantino is great because of his extensive knowledge and appreciation of filmmakers. I often enjoy listening to his interviews more than I do watching his films. What’s odd, is that his cinematic attempts at “homage” often render his films into an amalgamation of pop culture references and the “best” of other people’s work. From the “Auteurs” standpoint, this is problematic, in that he is rarely making any creative decisions of his own. If it wasn’t for his massive ego as an “artist,” I might call him a brilliant opportunist. While I think Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction have there place, he has failed to grow, mature, or cultivate a creative style that does not rely on overt mimicry.
I’m not a Tarantino hater, but I definitely agree with the opinion that the man is better at constructing sequences rather than whole films. This might be why several of his films (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Inglourious Basterds) are packages together in sequences. My favorite film of his is Pulp Fiction, but the only one with consistent unity is Kill Bill. In terms of his style, I do think that he tends to write engaging dialogue, but I’m interested in visual storytelling, not talking. I’m not too big on the man personally, because he’s very into his own work (“‘Reservoir Dogs’ is a kick ass movie!”), but when he hits his stride, the work is quite admirable in my opinion.
- “what’s the general consensus regarding Tarantino on this board”
Some people like him, some people don’t; so pretty much the same mix of opinions as any other message board, blog discussion, office conversation or round table review.
I can’t believe how many people find Tarantino overrated. Not everyone is going to make great dramas like Bergman. As far as entertainment goes, he is one of the best out there today. Im not saying he is as talented as PT or Scorsesee, but he definitely writes pretty deft screenplays, and he has a knack for being over the top. Pulp Fiction was a great movie. The dialogue alone could never make this movie overrated. The only movie of his that I completely hated was Deathproof. He comes out with a movies every 3 years or so, so the expectations will always be high. When you start out with Resevoir Dogs, its easy to view everything after that as overrated I guess.
I still haven’t seen a movie from Spike Lee as good as Do the Right Thing, but I wouldn’t say that Spike Lee’s films are overrated because they don’t live up to Do the Right Thing.
Where’s the reasoning that Tarantino has to use his “talent” to make films of such high art? He is a lover of cinema of all kinds – and he makes the films he would like to see on subjects his is knowledgeable about. To say he is untalented is one of the most idiotic things anybody who even has half a good taste and knowledge of cinema could say. It’s obviously not true. Tarantino makes films in his own genre. They’re unique and nobody makes movies in that particular way. Why would we ask for anything else? I think the commerical connotations that go with liking Tarantino and his work put people off – it’s become “trendy” to hate on him. A lot of people on this site want to appear profound and deep, and it’s unfashionable in their opinion to admire Tarantino.
OK. So maybe his style isn’t suited to everybody. But to say he’s untalented is utterly pathetic. I am a fan of all kinds of movies – I like Bergman and Ozu as much as I like Jack Hill and John Carpenter movies. As for Tarantino, he is one of my favourite filmmakers. His imagination is vast, just like his talent.
The cinema doesn’t just have to be about “serious” movies. It’s OK to play with convention and homage.
Some misperceptions about some of the posters here and elsewhere:
1. They think QT has “fallen off.” – Check out some of the profiles and you’ll see that some people never liked him in the first place. Many have no expectations because they weren’t impressed by RD or PF.
2. They don’t understand what he’s doing – See the profiles, read the posts. The haters understand what he’s doing very well, they just don’t like it. Stop trying to explain what his films are about, his ideas are not so complex that almost anyone posting here doesn’t “get” what he’s saying.
3. They should respect his dialogue – Not everyone thinks suspenseful or clever dialogue is an indicator of “talent.”
4. They are only criticizing his lack of ambition. – Whether he is or isn’t trying to be Bergman will not matter to someone who despises what they see as nihilism or blood-soaked irony
5. They only hate him because he’s popular. – The easy response to this one is that he’s only popular because of his shortcomings. More importantly some of the posters like filmmakers who are also popular. Stop repeating this one, it’s old and tired.
6. They care whether you prove he’s an auteur. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care if every director is permitted to be called an auteur, some o’ them auteurs would still suck. I suspect others share this view
7. They seriously think he should be stopped. – Okay, some probably do hold this view but for the most part, no one is saying that fun, clever cinema is unacceptable. What many are annoyed by, yes “annoyed” and not enraged, is the amount of ink and discussion devoted to a filmmaker they see as mediocre at best, sophomoric at worst
Fact:
There are now at least 5 threads on or about the topic of people liking or disliking this filmmaker human.
Why are forum-based humans so inconsistent & also repetitive?
Have I not correctly processed these facts?
Subtleties of the threads aside, the resulting conversations remain similar.
we could make a seperate QT tab
There must be a Tarantino virus going through Mubi… lol
Someone has figured out which button to push to provoke the biggest reaction with the least amount of effort.
Trollantinos?
Yeah, TOTALLY!
Mike Spence
“Pulp Fiction is practically a fairytale of American Pop Culture, and America’s fascination with highbrow art and lowbrow art, this dichotomy that splits Americans that goes all the way back to their Puritan heritage and their history with slavery, this obsession and fascination with attaining perfection, transcendence, and total freedom, yet simultaneously being bound to their human errors, their rough, imperfect intricacies, I mean if you really think about all of the sub plots and stories in Pulp Fiction are about ordinary mundane people dreaming, wishing, and striving to attain something grander than them, something that they can easily believe in, a noble worthy cause, "
Did you see all that inside the briefcase?
Seriously, i saw none of that, I think you’re reading into things that aren’t really there or aren’t developed very well, the way I used to read all kinds of meanings about American men’s dangerous heritage into The Shining when it’s just a scary horror flick. As far as "ordinary mundane people, how are two hitmen, a powerful gangster, a prizefighter, a gangland clean-up artist, and a couple who rob restaurants together ordinary and mundane? Even if i accepted the dubious premise that these types were mundane how is what happens to each of them at all mundane or ordinary?
12 straight viewings of Faces and 10 viewings of Jeanne Dielman, my son. All is forgiven.