At least a forum filled with Tarantino threads is better than a forum filled with Michael Bay threads.
I think I need to go to bed.
The one thing that has always bothered me on theauteurs is when I come up against someone who’s opinion is absolutely set in stone. They’ve already made their mind up about something and they will perform any manner of rationalising gymnastics to prove that they are right and that their opinion is the only one that counts, and if you disagree then you are wrong – especially if you’re not prepared to debate their every point ad nauseam. There are many people like this on these forums. So many in fact that I’m starting to get the feeling that there’s really not much point in debating much of anything here. It’s got to the point where it’s very similar to someone just saying they like him and if you don’t then you’re an idiot.
To get to my point about Quentin Tarantino, I think he is the director who brings this attitude to the fore more than any other. His uncritical following is also legion so there’s always going to be fireworks when his name crops up, because on the one side you have the ‘film snobs’ for want of a better term, who like their films to conform to their idea of what good filmmaking is so that they can talk in depth about them and on the other side you’ve got people who generally want to be able to enjoy a film without analysing it to death and to be entitled to their opinion.
Say what you want about Tarantino but he is an auteur. A lot of people on this site seem to wish it weren’t so but by all definitions I’ve ever heard he is one. He’s also not stupid – he knows what it is he wants his films to be and he knows how his films are received and perceived by a wide range of the people who are exposed to them. He actually expressed what all the fuss is about him and his films better than most I think. He said that for the last seventeen years critics have ‘had to deal with him’ meaning that regardless of their thoughts about him and his films they’ve had to take a stance on him and that stance has largely defined who they are as critics, and how other critics behave towards them.
Myself I see in a lot of his work a sad reflection of what some of American society actually has become. Rather than his characters being ‘unreal’ or exaggerated movie caricatures they seem to reflect what many people in reality have actually become or are aspiring to (through years of being influenced by watching movies).
I haven’t revisited his first three films for quite a while but I really hope that when I do I still like them because if I no longer do then I’ll feel I’ve lost an important part of my movie watching journey, which resulted in me being here (on this site) today. I haven’t cared for much of his stuff after JB but I may still grow to love IB if I can get over the few issues I had with it – time will tell. Would I like him to try to make a film that would be loved by the QT haters on this site? I probably would – just to see if he can pull it off. But would I like to see him become one of those directors? No – he’s a magpie and he’s an accomplished one. He most probably will try to do one of those films one day but that idea hasn’t occurred to him yet. He’s still enthralled by the latest shiny object to catch his eye. When a new shiny object drifts into his sights he’ll pick it up and run with it, and good luck to him when it does.
as to the lack of humanity in tarantino’s films:
dogs
- mr. white treating mr. orange like a son, nurturing him, protecting him, risking his life for him, going all the way to the limit for him for no other reason than that he loves him
pulp fiction
- butch returning to the depths of hell to save marcellus
jackie
- ordell choking up at the mere thought of a dead melanie, his “lil blonde surfer gal”
kill bill
- bea being rewarded with the gift of her daughter at the conclusion
death proof
- exception to the rule
basterds
- the french farmer risking everything to shelter the jewish family, then breaking down in tears when he realizes he can do no more
now, maybe thats not enough for some, and thats fine. but lets make sure we look closer at tarantino’s films, and not superficially, as we accuse them to be.
Damn, I’m out of fasion…
it’s part of the entertainment !
“Admitting that you like Tarantino in a thread on this site is like admitting you are coming out of the closet to your parents.”
Oh that Quentin HE’S JUST SO GAY!!!!!!!
I don’t know who I despise more — Q.T. or his fanboys.
It’s not a fashion to hate QT. If some who were excited are now less so, if others who jumped on a bandwagon are now taking a hike and others who never thought much in the first place now feel ever more justified with each film and don’t mind saying so, while others keep the faith so be it. Those the media builds up are easy targets for knocking down. Anyway, there is still massive interest in him: Sight and Sound had 2 large recent articles on him and his latest in different issues. And Bastards has been doing well at the box office, with plenty of hype. It could be said he’s still very much in fashion whatever a lot of critics or some disappointed viewers might think.
Pulp Fiction, his one film i once enjoyed a lot, was on TV again here last night. With each viewing it loses something and its faults become more glaring, eg extent of calculated coolness behind the dialogue, a shame really. Maybe i’ve just grown old and a boring old fart at that but for quite a while i’ve tended to prefer compassion and quieter depth to glamourised violence, even if that can sometimes be entertaining.
He still has a legion of fans, but i doubt if a high percentage of those who place him on the pedestal have seen the best works of the world’s great directors to make proper comparisons for their claims. That may sound snobbish but i do think he’s always been overhyped
Is it less because it was entertainment and as entertainment it had a shelf life?
Doesn’t great art get better with each viewing?
I think of QT’s work as I do “peelers”
From a distance she looks great, especially if you are drunk, but up close and sober?
Age cannot wither her nor custom stale her infinite variety. But for some familiarity breeds content anyway; i’m sure many fans will get pleasure from knowing the lines backwards. Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc
“now, maybe thats not enough for some, and thats fine. but lets make sure we look closer at tarantino’s films, and not superficially, as we accuse them to be.”
I would question every example you gave with the possible exception of the farmer from IB but it’s pointless because, you’re right it’s not enough. His films aren’t worth a closer look for me because superficially, and at their core, they lack humanity. He’s not alone though, there are many films and filmmakers who are beloved by fans that I dislike because of the superficial and nihilistic approach of their work.
“He said that for the last seventeen years critics have ‘had to deal with him’ meaning that regardless of their thoughts about him and his films they’ve had to take a stance on him and that stance has largely defined who they are as critics, and how other critics behave towards them.”
I think he needs to get over himself a bit. Many of his biggest detractors in the world of criticism had similar issues with some of Peckinpah, Depalma, Argento and Lynch’s work. I realize he was a “gateway” filmmaker for many here but Pulp Fiction didn’t change the way some older critics perceived film. For them it was just another example of the old gangster homage cliches better filmmakers were working through back in the day. PF may have changed everything for some youngsters but some seasoned critics were just yawning at the sight of a new thread in an old pattern.
funny enough, i think its becoming more in-fashion for mainstream critics to like him. i didnt read too many bad reviews among the big boys for “basterds.” they werent raves, but people seemed to be in favor of the movie. even that zacharek girl from salon.com, and she hates everything! most of the poor reviews ive seen are from smaller media outlets, or lesser-known, more esoteric critics.
im not saying that to justify tarantino, like “ah ha! the mainstream critics like him!” im just saying, its unexpected to me. for the most part, the critics and magazines i read that i expected to tear him a new asshole for this one did almost the exact opposite. and for myself, i also had an opposing reaction. i expected to like the film, because i love trarantino’s cinema, but i came away from it feeling that it was very flawed. and not a “great flawed film” like “kill bill” either.
“They’ve already made their mind up about something and they will perform any manner of rationalising gymnastics to prove that they are right…and if you disagree then you are wrong – especially if you’re not prepared to debate their every point ad nauseam…So many in fact that I’m starting to get the feeling that there’s really not much point in debating much of anything here.”
Rumplesink – I agree with you on this and to be honest, this is why I’ve spent so much time on the STL recently.
It’s sort of a bummer, I must say.
I find Tarantino annoying because he seems to pop up everywhere as an “expert” on movies that he has nothing to do with. He has no more credibility as an expert on exploitation films than any other person who has watched hundreds of them. I hate new DVDs promoted by using Tarantino’s name. The old DVD for Chungking Express has a picture of his ugly face on the corner for Christ’s sake. He’s become too much of an advertisement, a way for film companies to sell more DVDs and tickets.
please, do question the examples. thats what we’re here for (i thought). its not pointless. at least, not if youre interested in critical thought and discussion.
but if youre not, than youre right. his films arent worth a closer look.
otherwise, we might as well just sit around here and say “i hate new dvds with tarantino’s name on it and his ugly face.”
People have trouble separating the person with the art. Same thing is happening right now with the Antichrist hype.
Didn’t Chungking Express get to the US because of Tarantino and the Weinsteins? I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere – they he loved the film so much that he brought it here since it wasn’t getting distributed in the US. So why is this a bad thing?
I’ve never seen Chungking Express and am not a die hard QT fan but getting a film shown to a wider audience and recognized seems like a good thing to me (especially if you like Chungking Express).
His films don’t lack humanity. They simply explore the seldom seen cracks and crevices of our world that are not the “safe” environments that we confine or allow ourselves to enter in reality. The only way a film lacks humanity is to make a film without humans in it. Humanity is entirely one of those words that is defined by the beholder. Just like the word “taboo” means different things to different people. In the UK if you say the word “bloody” it is the absolute worst cuss word you could use – kind of the equivalent to our American F-word. But “bloody” in the US and other places is not a cuss word. In the middle east, compassion and sympathy are completely viewed from a whole other perspective. Dying for your beliefs by blowing up a building full of soldiers is considered a very GOOD and MORAL thing to do according to their belief system. I have drawn the line in the sand on the humanity debate…
Ah, Daniel – just to let you know the word ‘bloody’ is not seen as a particularly offensive word here in the UK – in fact it’s heard on TV here quite frequently. ‘Fuck’ you wouldn’t hear on TV here before 9pm. After 9pm it would be considered generally acceptable. Your illustration would probably be more aptly applied to the word ‘cunt’ which is not considered generally acceptable here (or anywhere else for that matter).
I heard bloody was pretty bad. But I will take your word for it since you live there.
Daniel K, Tarantino has no one but himself to blame. He inserts himself smack dab in the middle of his work. Each successive film as been as much about his insufferable self-promotion as the film itself. Each time out it gets worse. Even von Trier shuts up after while.
Didn’t Hitchcock do that also?
Are you kidding? Hitch didn’t even come close to the toxicity of Tarantino running off at the mouth.
That is just a difference in the type of people they are. Hitchcock was laid back about it. Tarantino acts like a crack addict on speed.
Right. Don’t care much for his act.
Do you just hate HIM as a person or do you hate his work also?
“Didn’t Chungking Express get to the US because of Tarantino and the Weinsteins? I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere – they he loved the film so much that he brought it here since it wasn’t getting distributed in the US.”
Tarantino’s distribution company Rolling Thunder has done a lot to make many films available in the U.S. that weren’t being made available before.
I can groove to a spectacle of mayhem from time to time. His personality, however, irks the fucking shit out of me.
“Tarantino’s distribution company Rolling Thunder has done a lot to make many films available in the U.S. that weren’t being made available before.”
What if he decided to start releasing all the films people complain Criterion hasn’t released. Would people like him then?
I think that would be pretty funny.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
^^aaaawwwwwwwhhhhhh fuck son!