“Dimitris, your just a d*ck….”
it’s you’re, not your, learn your grammar and your manners before you curse people.
and lol is not an expression inside a sentence, it’s a form of illiteracy.
Grammar is also an important aspect of writing a research paper.
I’d say he is an auteur, as I understand the term. Whether or not one likes his films or respects him as a filmmaker or even as a person is irrelevant. When you sit down to watch a Tarantino film, it’s recognisably a Tarantino film because of his influence on the whole production.
Best film maker alive today? Are you kidding me? I guess if you’re a fan of dialogue bloated films that are 40 minutes too long and consist of a series of "homages’ that are lifted from obscure films and not completely credited then yes he is the best film maker alive today.
And since when were hommages credited?
Tarantino is pretty undeniably Tarantino, and for that reason I’d reluctantly call him an arteur. When I sit down to watch his films I always groan and say “This is so QT”, so I suppose I have to give him some credit for being able to illicit a reaction like that. It’s a tacky style, but also a fairly definitive one.
“Tarantino is an auteur” is a pretty lame argument. Auteur doesn’t mean “good director” just like celebrity doesn’t mean “valuable person.” It just means the person who gets the directing credit had a part in more than just the directing: decisions of casting, soundtrack, art design, script, &c.
To say: “QT is an auteur” is like saying “Citizen Kane is art.” Well … duh.
Maybe your argument should focus on the controversy heretofore mentioned: how someone who so often repurposes other styles and films can be considered a unique/visionary/controlled director. Focus on Quentin’s use of other film’s ideas (not just as inspiration like Truffaut got from Hitchcock, but from actual quotation and downright theft — though it’s creative theft) and how that can be encompassed by the definition of an auteur (which you’ll provide).
Also: I think you should post your finished work here (this forum or this site) given that you’re dipping in it for “primary research” (and by that, I assume you mean: secondary research).
Tarantino Quintet live :D
Ok Tom, we all make mistakes.
Tarantino for me is not an auteur.He got a lot of influences from Peckinpah movies and many b-movies.
Is it possible for someone to be highly influenced to the point of being a film-thief and still be an auteur? Whether his vision collides (ie. is stolen from) another director’s or not, doesn’t he still have a high degree of control over his productions?
I think you might be driving at: QT is not a very original auteur — which is more specific a conundrum.
“@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?”
Yep. Pulp Fiction seemed great at the time, but after a while i realised that almost every single character in that film was just a smart ass variation of Tarantino’s own personality. R.Dogs is similar, but at least there was an attempt, no matter how feeble, to create distinct characters. In Pulp Fiction he isn’t even trying, with the exception of maybe the Vega brothers.
Kevin Smith is similar, but his characters feel like real people in his best films.
" 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."
D.C, correct me if i’m wrong, but i’ve always been under the impression that Americans take Quentin more seriously than Europeans do? When i was living in Europe and travelling around, i met a lot of film fans, and while many of them enjoyed Tarantino, i hardly remember anyone defending his work artistically in terms of ideas or messages, but when i go on boards populated by Americans, it’s always ‘PULP FICTION IS ABOUT REDEMPTION IDIOTS!!!!’ JACKIE BROWN IS ABOUT SURVIVAL! etc etc.
Personally i think to take his films more than entertainment is a mistake.
btw, how is Rodriguez an auteur exactly? I can’t see patterns in his work but maybe i’m not looking hard enough.
It seems to have been assumed that I hold Tarantino’s work particularly dear and I don’t. But I do think he’s an auteur – however the term has evolved – and the question is not ‘what makes a good auteur?’ or ‘what makes a valid auteur?’ It is: ‘Quentin Tarantino, auteur?’ I have explained why I think he is one, and to discuss why I think he isn’t a great one would be devoid of reason, as generally people seem to agree with that view.
I didn’t mention Godard and Tarantino in the same sentence initially, you did, and I have not said that their styles or approaches are similar. However, to deny that they are promenant film makers is just blinkered. They are known throughout the world of cinema and far beyond, so how can you deny their place in the public consciousness? Whether you like them or think too many people cite them as important figures is irrelevant; they are both auteurs and very famous for their work…
Just because Jesus Franco makes films that you consider to hold more artistic value doesn’t mean you’re answering the question; and just because someone becomes mainstream doesn’t mean they no longer qualify as an auteur. So really you should have just kept your wandering finger tips to yourself, as you had nothing valid to say other than berating someone for asking an honest question, and that’s what my original response to you was addressing.
“Ah, I love the smell of a L’il Quentin thread in the morning.”
Okay, Tarantino is a film maker who makes films that have been defined as indie/arthouse but are incredibly popular in a mainstream audience.
If you look at Sarris’ criteria for being an auteur, or even compare him to some of the great auteurs, he fits the bill. He can be labeled an auteur.
Another thing, look at his rise to being a film maker.
Most directors will go to film school, write and sell some scripts to make money to make some short films, probably make a music vid or two, then eventually build up enough money and publicity to make their first feature.
Tarantino never went to film school, in fact he dropped school at 15. QUOTE: “When people ask me, did i go to film school, i say i went to films”.
Tarantino learnt how to make films by watching films, by that you could argue that his million references to other works isn’t plagiarizing but homage. Even, can this characteristic of his work be a part of his style? Be something that defines him as an auteur?
I think you guys should watch this vid too.
I think Tarantino is much more then you all give him credit for.
To the more pretentious film buff, Tarantino will seem like fluff. I mean sure, he isn’t the most artistically/visually appealing filmmaker in many respects. He is however, an auteur.
He doesn’t aim to please people. He has a ‘take it or leave it’ attitude towards filmmaking. He has no delusions about the quality of his films. In my personal opinion, he is one of the icons of the current generation. No doubt one of the most influential directors/writers in modern film. He is also one of the most interesting of filmmakers in the current film world.
Sure, you can’t really mention him in the same breath as Kurosawa, but like it or not, QT is one of the greatest auteurs of this generation. Give credit where credit is due. Being in film school myself, I respect directors like QT and Kevin Smith because they go out there and make ‘real’ films. Not the CGI escapist fests that plague the cinema these days.
That’s funny, I’m actually working on something similar. :) Using Reservoir Dogs, Kill Bill and CSI, to examin whether or not the characteristics that would classify him as auteur are indeed present under those different circumstances. Hope your research is going well!