ok, so i’m not gonna lie, i need peoples opinions for a media BTEC course study into auteurism, i need a primary research point to back up my point that i’m making (i think Tarantino is an auteur), i have to prove this using one film (main focus – pulp fiction) and 2 other films to back up my points that i make, baisically i need your opinion on whether you could consider Quinten Tarantino as an autueristic director. (i’m going to write an official question for the purposes of my coursework below)
taking ideas from Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Inglorious basterds can the director Quinten Tarantino be considered an auteur? if yes why? and if no why?
Why don’t you do your research? Which in this case means reading through the many threads on this site with detailed discussions of Tarantino’s work.
First up it’s ‘Quentin’ ;)
Make sure you define your terms so you and the reader know exactly what it is you are arguing for/against.
According to dictionary.com and Auteur is “a filmmaker whose individual style and complete control over all elements of production give a film its personal and unique stamp”.
So across those three films argue for and against.
For – writes, directs, cross references films, pick the music, acts in etc
Against – derivative and heavily influenced by other film makers
First of all, nail down the definition of “auteur” and you’ll have a great start. If you already have one, then, what is it? In order for us all to divulge our opinions, we need to have a standard on a word which has widely varying definitions.
Another question would be: If a filmmaker builds his career on referencing other filmmakers, indeed, CAN he be considered an auteur?
consider making reservoir dogs your main focus because that film influenced pulp fiction and inglourious basterds
LOOK i just want your opinion, i’ve done research, in fact i’ve done 9 secondary bits of research and 2 primary research points, this is my 3rd primary.
this coursework has been bugging me too much, slightly insomniatic approach to spelling so please don’t get pissy about spelling ‘Quentins’ name.
i’ve also done an in dept report into what an auteur is and if someone can be considered an auteur.
I JUST NEED YOUR OPINION ON WHETHER YOU THINK HE IS AN AUTEUR! please!!!
If you want a defense of that opinion, again, check all the other threads.
Yes he is. “Auteur” is French for “author”. Since his films are “by” Quentin Tarintino, he is the author. But guess what? He’s untalented, his films suck, and people think and talk about him way too much! And now you’ve got me doing it! Argh!
He is to auteur what Kate Gosselin is to celebrity
yes technically he is one but no one feels good about it
yes he is, because of his expert and unique writing. it makes him one
of rare filmmakers today like Coen brothers or Wes Anderson.
I think he is an auteur, because his films bear the distinct markings of his personality, but I do agree with Den. I add that his dialogue, while recognizable, is also frequently annoying in its over-wrought “cleverness”. His tendency to baldly lift ideas from other auteurs makes his cinematic voice more of a pastiche than most directors.
No he is not an auteur. Because his vision is largely borrowed from obscure martial arts films, b-flicks and blacksploition movies.
What he did was work in video store, watch tons and tons of movies and then repurpose the material.
An autuer is the founder of a unique vision so Tarintino fails to meet this essential criteria. He is not the author of his films, he is the ghost writer, co writer and plagiarist.
I have to disagree with the point that because he is heavily influenced by other films, he is not an auteur; by this reckoning there is barely a film maker in the world that can claim the label.
In my opinion every great film maker – auteur or otherwise – is heavily influenced by other film makers, it’s one of the fundamental reasons people make films.
An auteur in filmic terms – as I understand it – is as Englishguy describes it; he / she has almost complete control over the key elements of production. Whatever you think of the quality of his output, Tarantino writes, directs, chooses soundtrack specifically, is heavily invovled in casting and the shooting methods and experiments with form.
This may be for another thread – and it may be difficult to accept – but with the exception of von Trier, I’d be interested to know who other commenters consider to fit the bill?
As Like2Sleep says, I’d definitely use Reservoir Dogs as the main starting point though, this his is most personal film (if such a thing can be said of Tarantino!)
And I recommend you avoid typing capitals in an angsty way when seeking advice…
Of course he’s an auteur. One who lifts a lot from other movies.
“this his is most personal film”
A: enough with the fuckin’ Godard and Tarantino threads, either get a life or start learning more about cinema!
B: most personal film??? this is in its largest portion a remake of City on Fire by Ringo Lam, learn it, see it and watch Tarantino’s REMAKE as a REMAKE must be seen!!! either with fun or with repulsion…i’ll choose the middle!
i think Den has got it there
“He is to auteur what Kate Gosselin is to celebrity
yes technically he is one but no one feels good about it"
and ty for all ur opinions, and saying back to “do some research” that’s secondary research when i need primary research… thanks
Den – "He is to auteur what Kate Gosselin is to celebrity
Nice bite, and while I do see your point, I don’t agree with this, Den.
Yes, he cribs from a lot of other material. But Tarantino certainly isn’t the first filmmaker/writer to do this, and he won’t be the last one, whether we all think they have something worthwhile to say/show through their movies.
I appreciate his writing probably more than anything, because it takes possibly mundane material, talking about food and every day occurrences, and really gives it a spin within the context of the movies. In its own way, if viewers let it, it can really pull ya into the milieu he creates within his movies, the seedy characters and environments, and I certainly appreciated it in “Jackie Brown,” “Death Proof,” “Inglourious Basterds,” “Kill Bill Vol. 1” and to a lesser extent in “Pulp Fiction.”
He’s as much of an auteur as any working today, and the good thing that most of us should appreciate is that he’s allowed to get so much of his vision onto the screen. I think that’s worth celebrating.
he is a cool auteur
“anything, because it takes possibly mundane material, talking about food and every day occurrences, and really gives it a spin within the context of the movies”
I tend to think the opposite that he takes potentially interesting genre things and makes them dull and talky.
The things he cribs from are always better and the people that take from him to make films (Things to do in Denver When yr Dead) make better films
I think the Gosselin comparison is apt because she takes potentially exciting dance routines and makes them lifeless and draggy while QT does it to films
Tom Davenport: Your primary research is getting other people’s opinions on his films?
Isn’t there something a little more important: The movies themselves?
He makes good films that’s all…End of discussion.
Dmitris – your response is classically pretentious; to assume that discussing two of the most promenant film makers in history is the limit to everyone’s knowledge of cinema. If you’re so bored of such topics, you needn’t comment.
And regarding my post, didn’t you read the part in brackets? I’m aware that the term personal might not necessarily be applicable to Tarantino but Reservoir Dogs was certainly the first time he took control of most facets of the production and therefore ‘his baby’, as it were.
Since you’re so vehement on the matter, I’m still waiting for your examples of what an auteur might be…
p.s. Dropping the ‘g’ from fucking? Very Tarantino…
He should at least write his name correct.
Who is Quinten?
“I’m still waiting for your examples of what an auteur might be…”
in the case of Tarantino, it’s the “try-not-to-copy-Meyer-Siegel-Fujita-Lam-and-other-highly-superior-to-your-mindfuck-Tarantino-boy”.
i’m sorry i haven’t seen yet his first attempt as a film-maker with the whatever Birthday-title is. as i said, Reservoir IS fun only it’s TRASH fun compared to the original semi-camp / semi-pulp film and the remake must be seen as pure trash fun, nothing more, nothing less and above all, in no way a “serious” shoot-out flick in terms of dialogue and such.
thanks for calling me “classically” pretentious, (pardon me, you mean my argument) i guess you must be considering Tarantino a better master than Jesus Franco and Herschell Gordon Lewis, people who knew how to serve their genre and qualities without being copy-cats half of the times, as it is with the today’s “master” of the public.
as i said: “enough with the fuckin’ Godard and Tarantino threads, either get a life or start learning more about cinema!”
you though: “to assume that discussing two of the most promenant film makers in history is the limit to everyone’s knowledge of cinema”
is Tarantino prominent? and who is the other if i may ask???? oh Godard, OK….
All Tarantino inspires is contrary opinion vs. contrary opinion. Is this his fault? Eh, maybe a little.
@Dude: There’s a big difference between merely being influenced by one’s idols and making it a point to pay tribute to those idols at every single opportunity even at the expense of the script. You seem to forget we’re talking about a man who insists on casting himself (or his voice) in nearly every film, and when he doesn’t do so, he’s casting his dialogue. Death Proof had 4 Tarantinos trying to hold a conversation for Christ sake. Tarantino even (admittedly) bases entire screenplays on songs – now isn’t that something some 14 year old thinks of? If I really have to keep giving examples, we’d be here all day. It’s really laughable to mention QT and Godard in the same sentence as if there’s some relation between the two. I’m not a huge Godard fan, but damn, QT doesn’t even reach De Palma’s level!
It’s one thing to enjoy QT’s films, its something else entirely to actually think that his films have any worth beyond mere entertainment.
Here’s a quick cinema history lesson: There once was a man who’s name was Orson Welles. He made a little film called Citizen Kane. Definition of an “auteur” (bullshit term to begin with, but I’ll play along)? Done. Bergman = auteur.
It’s not enough to just helm every department in a film (Rodriguez anyone?). Yes, I’d say Rodriguez would qualify as an auteur, but he’s still a shit director. If I was writing this paper, I’d focus on the erroneous assumption that being an “auteur” is equal to being a great director. There are many auteurs. Wisseau would probably even be an auteur (I try not to think about Wisseau any more than I have to), but that label sure as hell isn’t a sign of quality.
It’s a somewhat difficult question because his movies do have idiosyncratic touches. However, I do think I’m going to have to go with “no” on this one because he borrows too heavily from others and his films really are not profound or meaningful, merely escapism in my opinion.
Yep he’s an Auteur. The best film maker alive today, my opinion.
Even if you don’t like his work, he is still an auteur because his films have qualities to them that are trademarked. How many times have you see films with stylish/pop dialogue and sleek characters. He has a style that people have tried to imitate. So yes, he is definitely an auteur.
it’s great to see you all talking about this subject, it’s really helping my work.
Fraser-Orr – you can’t honestly think that i’ve been doing all this work (and believe me it’s a ton of work) without refrencing the movies themselves, seriously…. i needed 3 different types of primary research to fill the criteria of my college course, they gave me examples such as a questionnaire and a focus group ETC, however simply using the films as primary research would be nearly enough.
and yes, i did watch his films point-quote-commenting on why that scene has auteuristic qualities.
Dimitris, your just a d*ck….
Alexander, well said, no one here has actually said anything to do with synergy and his unique style.
Kerem Soyyılmaz, yes, we all get that i spelt it wrong… you still know who i meant so please don’t b*tch about it lol
in my class people have chosen directors such as stanly K, alfred H etc etc, i obviously had to choose the director that no one’s too sure about just to make it hard on my self…. clever me, anyways, thank you for your discussions!
Yes, Tarantino is an auteur. Personally, I don’t become too critical of him because I consider him to be a great collage artist. He takes all these ideas/scenes/characters/lines of dialogues from a great many films and pastes them together to create a new whole. Anyone ever consider that? We all know he has very little originality, but I don’t think he intends to be original. He evens tells you with that annoying way he talks where he’s getting his “inspiration” from. He’s “cool” and that’s OK.