“And I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you read it but if QT and RR are expected to work outside genre, then it’s only fair you expect that of those who do non-genre.”
This is completely erroneous. Look, let’s say I’m an albino and I live in Arizona. Maybe my doctor says “You might want to try living somewhere with less heat, you aren’t doing well here.” That doesn’t mean the doctor is saying “Everyone who lives in Arizona should move somewhere else, and everyone who doesn’t live in Arizona should move to Arizona.” Because it’s specific to me and my problems, just like my advice is specific to these two filmmakers. They have dry cinematic skin and it’s flaking all over the goddamn screen, maybe it’d clear up under a different set of circumstances. Other, non-genre filmmakers don’t need to switch it up because they aren’t having problems stylistically or substantially.
You bring up Jean-Pierre Melville. Talk about a man who knew how to combine style with substance, his films are lush, gorgeous works that stand on their own AND they take themselves seriously enough to be about something other than ‘things he likes’.
I understand it’s an issue of specificity but the deeper issue at hand is you feel they’ve got problems as filmmakers. The thing is, there are plenty who don’t feel that way about them too. Once again, all subjective. And above all, they are happy with their own work. Why should they have to make films according to others’ standards? I know as a filmmaker, if I’m happy with my own work, I sure as hell am not gonna sacrifice my vision just because there are people out there who don’t like it.
I agree with you on Melville. I believe there’s substance there too. But just because a film takes itself seriously doesn’t automatically make it worthy of any degree. Ultimately, I believe a film should know what it is from the get go and follow that innate character. Let’s face it. QT and RR love to have fun with their movies. And they want to give audiences an experience. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.
By the way, I happen to have an albino friend in Arizona. He’s never had to move. But I’m happy to be reminded of him.
Well, that’s why I said, or rather agreed with Justin, that I would like to see them do non-genre work. I can’t speak for other people who think they are fine where they are, however, I can state my opinion that they’d be better off taking a run at it.
There is also a difference between taking your film seriously and making a serious film, if you get my meaning. And I think there is a balance to be struck, you can even see their capabilities. I don’t mean to imply that Tarentino or Rodriguez need to make a serious film with no jokes, no levity, but just that they need to say to themselves “This movie matters. At the end, I want to have said something, anything, even if it’s about other movies, and I’m not going to play it like it’s just for fun because it isn’t.” and that maybe doing something outside of their genre work would help them get there. What bothers me about the fact that they are just making entertaining, stylish movies, is that they have the capability to do better.
Glad to hear it.
Yes, Joshua’s right. A Kiarostami film where cars blow up? It would be terrible. A horror film by Noah Baumbach? Fuggetaboutit. A musical by Bela Tarr? Earplugs for sale. But a serious drama by Tarantino — it could work. And I don’t even think he’d lose any (many) fans, because of it’s one thing his fans are, it’s indulgent of letting him try different things and following him wherever he goes.
Ah, but Justin, that’s exactly what Joshua’s been talking about from the get go. Filmmakers can expand out of their normal comfort zone right? So why is that any different for another filmmaker? To say they can’t implies they aren’t as talented as you believe them to be. A director that comes to mind is David Gordon Green. When I heard he was going to helm Pineapple Express, I was rather shocked. But that movie was a lot of fun for me and I thought he did a great job with it. So why does that exclude Kiarostami, Baumbach, or Tarr? Kiarostami can have cars blow up – in his way. Baumbach can do horror – his way. A musical by Tarr? One can argue he’s already done it to some degree in select scenes.
Chances are, they probably won’t ‘cause that’s not their thing. And that’s completely fine with me. If Tarantino wants to do what he’s been doing ‘til he croaks, let the man do his thing. If he decides to make a serious drama out of the blue, let the man do his thing. But I’d much rather see all these filmmakers keep following and building on the type of work they’ve been doing and see where it takes them rather than try something completely different for the sake of proving a point.
“Filmmakers can expand out of their normal comfort zone right? So why is that any different for another filmmaker?”
Because some filmmakers work well within their comfort zone and instead push the boundaries in other, subtler ways, so they don’t need an extreme change to act as catalyst for creativity. QT and RR are not these filmmakers, and it would be nice to see them attempt something outside their usual, formulaic ventures. I’m not saying they will, I’m just saying I’d like to see it.
Because Tarantino has already shown insight into human behavior and relationships. He’s already halfway there.
“Because some filmmakers work well within their comfort zone and instead push the boundaries in other, subtler ways…”
And that’s what I’m arguing for these two. RR may not be as noticeable in his output but I see that as precisely the point. He’s a filmmaker who’s always trying to show other aspiring filmmakers that you can do all the stuff Hollywood does without all the resources at Hollywood’s disposal. Most his DVDs come with 10 minute film school segments that prove revealing and ultimately give confidence to those who might be intimidated by some of the technical. His book is in the same vein. I’ve been wanting to do greenscreen work for my senior thesis and the segment on the Sin City DVD has made me feel I am capable of doing that. In an industry notorious for staving people away, RR is one of the few inviting us to join in. There’s a lot to admire in that.
I would agree he has more room to grow, but as RR would put it more or less, Hollywood is paying him to practice making movies. He’s pretty humble about it. It’s what keeps him learning. And it’s going to pay off.
As for QT, I would argue he’s already done it with Jackie Brown. And he did it his way.
“Because Tarantino has already shown insight into human behavior and relationships. He’s already halfway there.”
Agreed. Sometimes.
Yes, sometimes. Jackie Brown ends with the best reference to masturbation in cinema.
I don’t think the genre vs. non-genre debate is getting us anywhere. It probably is condescending to say that QT and RR should leave genre. I don’t think genre is what it was in the golden age of Hollywood, or in the hands of Suzuki or Melville. The relative innocence of those times meant that you could say profound things within genre, and it was always surprising. Today genre implies more plot twists and special effects which are sort of the natural enemy of human truth.
I’ll agree that it isn’t getting us anywhere. However, apparent condescension is kind of unavoidable in trying to make mention of intellectual improvement a director (or, in this case, directors) could make. I honestly think some people are still doing great things in genre, unconventional, clever things. Scorsese’s still making good crime flicks, Romero is making some good horror films, Haneke too, Hillcoat did a good western, Hanson made a good crime film. Just not QT or RR, because they’re too relaxed, too comfortable within their niche without pushing any boundaries.
I could really give a shit if QT tried something “serious”. I’d just like it if he tried something original. And good.
I didn’t know Inglorious Bastards was a tribute to New Wave. I’m cringing already.
The idea is that him trying something less genre-y would stimulate him into making something original and good.
Brad Pitt’s character is a tribute to Aldo Ray’s Jew-baiting sergeant in Raoul Walsh’s Naked and the Dead.
“I don’t think genre is what it was in the golden age of Hollywood, or in the hands of Suzuki or Melville. The relative innocence of those times meant that you could say profound things within genre, and it was always surprising. Today genre implies more plot twists and special effects…”
Agreed. Although it’s only natural that achieving that will only prove more and more difficult over time because there are standards now. And I would venture to say that there’s nothing wrong with plot twists and special effects in and of themselves. But as a whole, yea, genre movies back then were generally superior.
As for Inglorious being an homage to New Wave, does anyone have any direct quote of QT stating that? From the couple interviews I’ve read, I always thought of it as more of an homage to movies like Where Eagles Dare which he loves. I think another general problem is that people tend to attribute references to QT’s movies that aren’t even really there. That complicates matters. From what I’ve seen in the trailer so far, I don’t see any homage to New Wave at all.
From what I read, the film is divided in chapters, much like Kill Bill is. And there’s a whole chapter that is filmed as an homage to New Wave. I think it the chapter that the Basterds spend in Paris or something like that.
I agree that QT and RR work in a very specific confort zone, and it wouldn’t hurt them to expand.
Also, I don’t think that QT show lack of originality by constantly homaging other films in his films….I think the comparison to Girl Talk is pretty unadequate. He’s not stealing anything, and it’s far from being as patchwork-y as GirlTalk is. QT creates stuff. Girl Talk doesn’t (one could argue that remixing is creating stuff, and it is to some extent, but QT is not “remixing”) He’s an amazing writer, an talented auteur that just happens to have watched so many movies he can’t help but include them all in his work.
Keep in mind, comics are “low art”.
I hope that’s sarcastic.
I thought it was pretty good the first time i saw it, then it just kind of wears off. i would say this is definitely a case of “style over substance”. i never really felt that attracted to the characters.
@Ariel:
I don’t think there’s any difference between QT and Girl Talk really. Except that Girl Talk is really fun to listen to. QT “creates stuff” only in the sense that he HAS to, because he makes films. He couldn’t get away with just literally sampling or ripping off the exact content of films. I guess if there’s a difference between the two, it’s that Girl Talk calls attention to itself and manages to make something that critiques the original product and calls attention to it in a funny or interesting way. QT generally does no such thing. He just lazily plops it in his movie because he really likes it and can’t be bothered to come up with something cool of his own.
And I’ll just say this: I’m a filmmaker, and I rip other filmmakers off constantly. It’s almost impossible not to. But I always try to do it in a way that is organic to the film, that makes sense to it, and that adds something to it. For instance, I might say “the way that dinner scene in Passion of Anna was shot would work really well to convey the mood in this scene I’ve written”, rather than “I’m going to shoot something exactly like that dinner scene in Passion of Anna and just fit it into my film somewhere”.
I think that’s what annoy me about him. He doesn’t bring anything new to the table with his “homages”. Woody Allen, as much as some of his films were major homages, always managed to create something starkly original no matter what, or managed to use the subject matter he was homaging in a way that critiqued or commented on the the subject matter itself.
I don’t see any of that in QT’s films.
oh, sure. when you do it, its artistry. when tarantino does it, its worthless!
next argument, please.
“oh, sure. when you do it, its artistry. when tarantino does it, its worthless!
next argument, please.”
That’s not really what he was saying, if you read it.
“He doesn’t bring anything new to the table with his “homages”.
That is where I strongly disagree. Tarantino offers something new. Reimagining, or “ripping off”, or whatever you call it, QT does not “shoot to imitate and just to fit it in his film somewhere” He may not critique or comment the subject matter, but shows his love for it, and with it, make tremendously entertaining film. Though they’re kinda pointless, they’re “good” pointless. I mean, when I’m watching Kill Bill, or something, I’m not looking to find the meaning of life, I’m looking to be ridiculously entertained. I take all the influences that might be there, I take them all in, and hopefully, later on, I learn something new.
Also, we’re here talking like that’s the only thing he does. Copying other films. He does not write only because he ‘has too" since he’s making a film. He could get away with it and be called a “visual artist” or something. He makes films because he wants to create something. Heavily influenced maybe, but good nonetheless.
Also; this is getting redundant. Obviously, nobodoy agrees when it comes to Tarantino. Also, I still want to know what’s with comics as “low-art” That’s pretentious. Try doing what any of those guys (well, some of those guys) do with pencils and ink, and come back later.
Yeah, the comics as low-art comment is something I completely disagree with.
However, Rodriguez’s new film description, courtesy the AV Club: Returning to the kid-friendly green-screen hijinks of the Spy Kids series and The Adventures Of Sharkboy And Lavagirl, writer-director Robert Rodriguez follows a bullied 11-year-old (Jimmy Bennett) who gets hit in the head by a rainbow-colored rock that grants wishes. Soon enough, he’s terrorizing his adversaries in the already weird town of Black Falls, but he has trouble keeping the rock from falling into the wrong hands.
I totally enjoyed as well. And i like the Spirit too. I can see the style getting over used. But Sin City for me had a fresh look and i dug it.
I dont see how someone could even dislike Sin city, except maybe because they know there going to hate it before they even see it
As for Inglorious being an homage to New Wave, does anyone have any direct quote of QT stating that?
Trunk Shot has stated that one of the segments is filmed in B&W as a tribute to the New Wave.
They desperately needed his validation.
The point is that SIN CITY ain’t no comics. It is a “graphic novel”.
By the way – please – stop writing that the comics are “low art”. You insult your own century. Cinema and comics are the two distinguishing arts of what we Italians call NOVECENTO.
“The point is that SIN CITY ain’t no comics. It is a “graphic novel”.”
Oh puh-lease. I really wish people would stop using that wretched term, “graphic novel”. As someone who loves a good comic now and then I must say that the term “graphic novel” is rediculous. It’s an attempt to create a category seperate from comics that is considered more adult rather than tackling the issue and making people realise that comics can be adult. If someone is really so embarrassed to be reading comics that they have to say they read graphic novels then they might as not say that they read the artform at all.
Doinel
but on the subject of story, qt is a true genius. one of the best storytellers working in contemporary cinema now. “reservoir dogs”, “pulp fiction”, “jackie brown”, “kill bill”. these are the works of a brilliant writer.
What is creative about a string of “n” bombs and mofo’s?
Look, he makes the bored suburban white megaplex denizens feel like hard guys for a couple hours. Fine, you bought a ticket, enjoy but please recognize it for what it is.
You really think that “Bad Hair Day” Jackson sitting and talking utter silliness about “when you absolutely have to kill every mofo in the room” is anything other than pandering to adolescents?
I can’t wait for “Suffering Basterds” and L’il Quentin’s “homage” to the New Wave. L’il Quentin has finally validated the New Wave. Rivette, Resnais, Godard, Chabrol, Truffaut et. al. will be so glad that they finally got the ultimate stamp of approval.
Thankfully Sin City II seems to have hit a speed bump.