RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message


Platter -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 11:51:42 AM)

At last, some people I can show my negative Blue Velvet review to and not risk being completely despised!

"Badly made film rife with squandered potential
I'm not a David Lynch fan. I've seen most of his films but I've only been enthused about two of them. Mulholland Drive is a great movie until they go to Club Silencio, and then it cops-out with a load of random nonsense in place of a real ending. Blue Velvet also wasn't terrible, although I've never thought highly of it. I felt the story was great but the film was too slow and ran out of plot and momentum after the first hour.

I probably first saw Blue Velvet about ten years ago. For my third viewing I wasn't expecting miracles. And I didn't get one.

The story is sensational stuff full of great, very compelling ideas. Sadly the script isn't anywhere near the equal to the potential that the story has. Lynch has dreamed up these great ideas but hasn't got enough material to cover the two hour running time. If ever there was a movie that could do with losing half an hour, this is it. The pace is also too slow.

After MacLachlan has entered into a relationship with Rossellini at about the half way point I find the film runs out of things to do. What we see of their S&M relationship is surface level. The characters don't have much in the way of dimensions to their personalities, and Lynch doesn't know what to do with them, so nothing really happens or develops. The film doesn't take it to the next level.

The dialogue is fairly bad. Lynch hides behind irony and has made much of what comes out of his actors mouths deliberately clichéd or twee. Being ironic doesn't stop it from being bad dialogue.

Everything about the movie feels like a big underachievement. I just don't like anything about how the film was made. List it (the writing, the costumes, the sets, the locations, the makeup, the visuals, most of the acting (aside from Dennis Hopper and Kyle MacLachlan), the music etc) and I probably don't care for it. Nothing satisfies.

Somehow Lynch has a reputation for making visually beautiful movies. I don't know why as I find his visuals to be prosaic and unremarkable at best, and sometimes outright ugly. Blue Velvet looks like crap. There is nothing pretty on screen and his camera placements, framing and editing is poor to average. Also it's got a horrible whiff of the 80s to some of it. Even the film-stock looks ugly as it's harsh and grey with all the vibrant colours bled out (I've got the first edition DVD, a later remaster might improve upon the bad film-stock issue?).

Generally poor acting, a weak threadbare script, poor dialogue, a bloated running time, unpleasant visuals, a slow pace and a mediocre director (yeah, I said it) work wonders at underwhelming a few great ideas. This is a true triumph of underachievement.

The only redeeming things about Blue Velvet are that Frank Booth is a very memorable screen psycho. And a few scenes in Rossellini's apartment work well enough to at least hint at what a powerful, fascinating film it could have been.

There's lots of potential for a great movie here. They didn't even come close. A remake could seriously improve upon it.

2 out of 5 stars"




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:03:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I don't know much about Godard, but I'm sure he had his influences too - the cut and paste literary style of William Burroughs, perhaps? Everything influences everything else.


Nah, Godard's influences came from 30's,40's Hollywood, Bresson and Dreyer more than anything else. He'd probably punch you in the nose if you told him you thought he was inspired by Burroughs.

I have it on good authority that he was very fond of Avatar tho. That Godard is currently shooting his first 3D feature only leads me to believe that that's true.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:11:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think the normal criticism of QT is that though someone like Oasis wore their homage/copy whatever you call it on their sleeve, QT had the advantage of copying films he'd be happy virtually no-one else would have seen.


That's a bit disingenuous. Tarantino is a major advocate for the films that have inspired him, and he's forever banging on about them. You can go back to interviews from when Reservoir Dogs was released and see the guy going on about how much he took from The Killing, or Pelham 1,2,3. He doesn't hide his influences, and has been very open about the manner in which his style is essentially homage driven.




shatnerhamster -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:18:16 PM)

The Sight and Sound list generally leaves me cold, although 'Vertigo' at number one is an improvement - not the best Hitchcock, but it is at least a very good film. Others on the list, though:

'La Regle du Jeu ' - a horrifically dated satire of 1930's French society that may be Renoir's worst ever film. Why the hell is that on the list instead of 'Grand Illusion', an outstanding film that hasn't aged a day?

'Man with a Movie Camera' - excruciatingly boring, a film I hate with a passion. If I was going to pick a silent film to show to a modern audience to try and convert them, my first choices would be the swashbucklers of Douglas Fairbanks or the comedies of Mary Pickford. 'Man with a Movie Camera' would literally be my very last choice.

'Sunrise' - don't dislike this, it's a perfectly pleasant film, but it's also a totally unremarkable one. Kind of the silent equivalent of 'Shawshank Redemption' - a nice little film that has, for some totally inexplicable reason, had greatness thrust upon it. When it comes to German film directors of the silent era, Fritz Lang beats Murnau every time, even with both hands tied behind his back.

'Citizen Kane' - a technically outstanding film with a totally uninvolving story. Even the feeble attempts to provide a narrative hook with the whole Rosebud mystery fail to disguise the fact that it's a film about a newspaper owner. Not a newspaper owner solving murders or fighting lions, mind, just a newspaper mogul running his newspapers. I've seen about two thirds of Orson Welles' films as a director, and 'Citizen Kane' is by far my least favourite. None of his other films have such a boring central story. (His best: 'Magnificent Ambersons' and 'Touch of Evil').
The real problem with CK being the 'greatest film of all time', though, is the countless numbers of people who have been turned off classic cinema by it.
True story: I have a brother who, like most people today, never watches b/w films because they're 'old and boring'. One Christmas a few years ago I came downstairs and found him watching 'Citizen Kane', all by himself, and of his own choice. Obviously he'd heard that it was the 'greatest film of all time', and was seeing what all the fuss was about.
Needless to say, he was bored to tears, had all his negative perceptions of b/w films confirmed, and will probably never voluntarily watch a vintage film again for the rest of his life. Imagine how different the story would have been if the 'greatest film of all time' was, say, 'The Maltese Falcon' (confining myself to films of 1941) - a film with a genuinely gripping and compelling screenplay. If that had been the case he might actually have enjoyed it, and been encouraged to explore further. Anyway, now that 'Citizen Kane' has dropped from the number one spot, maybe it'll stop turning young viewers off vintage films and confirming all their 'b/w films are boring' prejudices.




jcthefirst -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:18:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think the normal criticism of QT is that though someone like Oasis wore their homage/copy whatever you call it on their sleeve, QT had the advantage of copying films he'd be happy virtually no-one else would have seen.


That's a bit disingenuous. Tarantino is a major advocate for the films that have inspired him, and he's forever banging on about them. You can go back to interviews from when Reservoir Dogs was released and see the guy going on about how much he took from The Killing, or Pelham 1,2,3. He doesn't hide his influences, and has been very open about the manner in which his style is essentially homage driven.


I don't think that was elab's point though. For instance, I doubt the general cinema going public clicked to most of the references/homages QT was making in Kill Bill yet still loved it. In fact, I was ass-baclwards with that myself; I loved Kill Bill and went about tracking down the films that inspired it.

As for my classic blind spot, The Big Lebowski. Just don't get it.




great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:28:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
You can go back to interviews from when Reservoir Dogs was released and see the guy going on about how much he took from The Killing, or Pelham 1,2,3. He doesn't hide his influences, and has been very open about the manner in which his style is essentially homage driven.


Only latterly and after he was "rumbled" by several media outlets shortly (within days, if memory serves) after Dogs was released over here. Prior to that he was very specific about it being a completely original story only mildly influenced by The Killing. The only other comment he made (at the time) alluding to his "homages" was a completely cryptic aside about him having worked in a video store and seeing a lot of films.

I always like to think it was a very good Tarantino-focussed episode of Bob Mills' In Bed With Me Dinner that opened the doors to QT's outright plagiarism, but realistically only me and about four other people saw that. One of the major American newspapers was, I think, the first to spell it all out for everyone.

I can't imagine it happening these days, but back then it was massive news (and not just media news, but mainstream news) in the US, UK and Western Europe. Oh, and the Cinema City Film Company in Hong Kong were none too pleased either.

But by the time Pulp Fiction was released, everyone seemed to forget.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:32:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I think the normal criticism of QT is that though someone like Oasis wore their homage/copy whatever you call it on their sleeve, QT had the advantage of copying films he'd be happy virtually no-one else would have seen.


That's a bit disingenuous. Tarantino is a major advocate for the films that have inspired him, and he's forever banging on about them. You can go back to interviews from when Reservoir Dogs was released and see the guy going on about how much he took from The Killing, or Pelham 1,2,3. He doesn't hide his influences, and has been very open about the manner in which his style is essentially homage driven.


I don't think that was elab's point though. For instance, I doubt the general cinema going public clicked to most of the references/homages QT was making in Kill Bill yet still loved it. In fact, I was ass-baclwards with that myself; I loved Kill Bill and went about tracking down the films that inspired it.



I don't think that that's the fault of Tarantino tho, nor do I genuinely believe that "he'd be happy virtually no-one else would have seen" given that he's such a passionate advocate of that kind of cinema. For me part of the package of a Tarantino film has always been being able to go back and explore the films he's paying homage to, which I think is a part of his ultimate vision (hence things like Q-fest, where he screens his favourite films, or his appearances on DVD extra features for many of the films he's supposedly ripped off).

Just out of interest, and aside from City On Fire, what films is it that we're saying Tarantino has copied?




great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:36:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
Just out of interest, and aside from City On Fire, what films is it that we're saying Tarantino has copied?


City on Fire and The Killing are the only major wholesale steals. The rest he just picks what he likes - for example Pulp Fiction (which, I admit at this point, I LOVE) is basically a best-of compilation of re-enacted scenes from dozens of films.




homersimpson_esq -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:38:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

Andrei Rublev



[image]http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1001375/1780549-shakehead.gif[/image]




jcthefirst -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 12:40:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


Just out of interest, and aside from City On Fire, what films is it that we're saying Tarantino has copied?


I never said copied, and agree recognising the homages is part of the fun, but only if you know that's what he's doing. Again, Joe Public probably doesn't.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
You can go back to interviews from when Reservoir Dogs was released and see the guy going on about how much he took from The Killing, or Pelham 1,2,3. He doesn't hide his influences, and has been very open about the manner in which his style is essentially homage driven.


Only latterly and after he was "rumbled" by several media outlets shortly (within days, if memory serves) after Dogs was released over here. Prior to that he was very specific about it being a completely original story only mildly influenced by The Killing. The only other comment he made (at the time) alluding to his "homages" was a completely cryptic aside about him having worked in a video store and seeing a lot of films.



Reservoir Dogs was released in January 1993 over here, which as we all know is the country in which the film gained it's reputation. However, here's an article from October 1992 in which Tarantino mentions The Killing, saying ""I didn't go out of my way to do a rip-off of `The Killing,' but I did think of it as my `Killing,' my take on that kind of heist movie", which to me doesn't sound like he's hiding his influences.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921029&slug=1521437

It's probably also worth noting that the films script opened with an epitaph dedicating the film to Chow Yun Fat, Godard, Melville, and Andre De Toth, which again, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing someone attempting to hide their influences would do.

Other interviews from 1992 prior to the films release are obviously rather scarce, given the nature of the films success, but of the few that I have been able to find there are certainly references to some of the other films he was inspired by and paid homage to. -

1992 - Refers to Melville, specifically Bob Le Flambeur, Le Samurai and others. http://www.beckerfilms.com/reserve.html

This is an overview of his time at Cannes in '92, in which, in his own words Tarantino describes himself as "first and foremost a film fanatic". http://geraldpeary.com/books/tarantino_intro.html




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:14:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


Just out of interest, and aside from City On Fire, what films is it that we're saying Tarantino has copied?


I never said copied, and agree recognising the homages is part of the fun, but only if you know that's what he's doing. Again, Joe Public probably doesn't.


But is it Tarantino's (or any other filmmaker for that matter) job to break down their work for Joe Public? Should influences be listed in the credits like music is? I don't understand the complaint, unless a filmmaker is attempting to pass off their work as *not* being the work of a mind influenced by other films.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:21:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Oh, and the Cinema City Film Company in Hong Kong were none too pleased either.


I bet they were gutted: how many copies of City On Fire did the studio shift in the wake of the Reservoir Dogs saga?




jcthefirst -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:26:06 PM)

I'm not complaining though, or saying he should break it down. It's fine, and probably unavoidable, for Tarantino to do what he does; as you say he's that sort of filmmaker. He relishes putting in the little homages to the movies that have inspired him, and never said he was attempting to pass off others work as his own. I think the original point was, to use the example elab used, a common (untrue) criticism of QT is that he copies others work, in a similar way that Oasis copied/homaged/whatever The Beatles, it's just that more people (again, I wish I'd never started using this phrase), such as Joe Public, are more au fait with the similarities between the two bands more than they would be the homages in Tarantino's work.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:30:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

I'm not complaining though, or saying he should break it down. It's fine, and probably unavoidable, for Tarantino to do what he does; as you say he's that sort of filmmaker. He relishes putting in the little homages to the movies that have inspired him, and never said he was attempting to pass off others work as his own. I think the original point was, to use the example elab used, a common (untrue) criticism of QT is that he copies others work, in a similar way that Oasis copied/homaged/whatever The Beatles, it's just that more people (again, I wish I'd never started using this phrase), such as Joe Public, are more au fait with the similarities between the two bands more than they would be the homages in Tarantino's work.


Yeah, my issue here isn't with any point you've made as such, but rather with this earlier suggestion that Tarantino doesn't wear his influences on his sleeve. Which I don't think is the case.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:31:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Oh, and the Cinema City Film Company in Hong Kong were none too pleased either.


I bet they were gutted: how many copies of City On Fire did the studio shift in the wake of the Reservoir Dogs saga?



C4 gave that movie a big old premiere after the first TV screening of Reservoir Dogs, with an introduction by Tarantino if I recall correctly.




elab49 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:33:37 PM)

I'm not sure suggestion that if the original company made a bit of money out of it it's no harm no foul.

Given the criticism I've read isn't homage but crossing the line to nabbing fairly hefty chunks, can I ask how much do you see of City of Fire in Dogs Adam?




jcthefirst -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 1:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcthefirst

I'm not complaining though, or saying he should break it down. It's fine, and probably unavoidable, for Tarantino to do what he does; as you say he's that sort of filmmaker. He relishes putting in the little homages to the movies that have inspired him, and never said he was attempting to pass off others work as his own. I think the original point was, to use the example elab used, a common (untrue) criticism of QT is that he copies others work, in a similar way that Oasis copied/homaged/whatever The Beatles, it's just that more people (again, I wish I'd never started using this phrase), such as Joe Public, are more au fait with the similarities between the two bands more than they would be the homages in Tarantino's work.


Yeah, my issue here isn't with any point you've made as such, but rather with this earlier suggestion that Tarantino doesn't wear his influences on his sleeve. Which I don't think is the case.


Fair enough. I agree.

We took the long way round but we got there in the end.




great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 2:05:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
Reservoir Dogs was released in January 1993 over here, which as we all know is the country in which the film gained it's reputation. However, here's an article from October 1992 in which Tarantino mentions The Killing, saying ""I didn't go out of my way to do a rip-off of `The Killing,' but I did think of it as my `Killing,' my take on that kind of heist movie", which to me doesn't sound like he's hiding his influences.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19921029&slug=1521437


Hence me saying above about how The Killing was the only specific reference he made (to MAINSTREAM media - have to make the distinction here between that and the geek press).

quote:


It's probably also worth noting that the films script opened with an epitaph dedicating the film to Chow Yun Fat, Godard, Melville, and Andre De Toth, which again, doesn't strike me as the sort of thing someone attempting to hide their influences would do.


Is that epitaph actually on screen? Cos at that point, in the days before the internet, most people wouldn't have had access to the script.

quote:


Other interviews from 1992 prior to the films release are obviously rather scarce, given the nature of the films success, but of the few that I have been able to find there are certainly references to some of the other films he was inspired by and paid homage to. -

1992 - Refers to Melville, specifically Bob Le Flambeur, Le Samurai and others. http://www.beckerfilms.com/reserve.html

This is an overview of his time at Cannes in '92, in which, in his own words Tarantino describes himself as "first and foremost a film fanatic". http://geraldpeary.com/books/tarantino_intro.html


But still no mention of his most blatant "borrowings", nameley City on Fire, The Taking of Pelham 123, A Better Tomorrow etc etc.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:08:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
Hence me saying above about how The Killing was the only specific reference he made (to MAINSTREAM media - have to make the distinction here between that and the geek press).


As I mentioned, contemporary pre-ResDogs success interviews are really difficult to find on the internet. That's one of the two that I have been able to find, and in it explicitly refers to one of his influences. Who knows what else he referred to in other interviews that have long disappeared. At this stage it'd probably help you're point if you could link to a couple of interviews from before the success of the film in which Tarantino claimed Reservoir Dogs to be an unequivically original work, because at the moment it feels like I'm attempting to debate an argument that hinges on conjecture and the memories of someone who wasn't even a teenager when the film came out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Is that epitaph actually on screen? Cos at that point, in the days before the internet, most people wouldn't have had access to the script.



I'm not sure I understand. The script that he wrote, that was shipped to studios, agents, actors and probably the screenwriting press and other folks in that area (trades etc) had the dedication on it. While it wasn't on the film itself, a document that was produced prior to his supposed "outing" as a plagiarist bears the names of the people he was supposedly plagiarising. Ergo, he's recognising them as influences in the work at hand. I don't see why this is being disputed/spun into something it isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
But still no mention of his most blatant "borrowings", nameley City on Fire, The Taking of Pelham 123, A Better Tomorrow etc etc.


Like I've said a couple of times now, contemporary interviews from the days before the success of the film (i.e. the time when you seem to be saying that Tarantino was happy to pass off others work as his own) are really difficult to find online. I'm sure you can appreciate this, seeing as you've provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that he was pretending that ResDogs was a wholly original work.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:21:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

I'm not sure suggestion that if the original company made a bit of money out of it it's no harm no foul.



TBH I was being facetious with that remark. I'd be keen to see what the original producers think about the whole affair tho. The distributors certainly don't seem to be too bothered, given that they've celebrated the fact that it was "The original inspiration behind Reservoir Dogs" with a statement saying that much on the front of the DVD cover.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
Given the criticism I've read isn't homage but crossing the line to nabbing fairly hefty chunks, can I ask how much do you see of City of Fire in Dogs Adam?


I think the inspiration of CoF can be seen in bits, with the obvious things being the warehouse at the end, and the mole. However, I don't see any of the things that ResDogs was actually lauded for as being from CoF. Things like the pop culture riffing, the structure etc. My one query with the whole CoF affair was Tarantino's apparent initial reluctance to discuss it (although to be fair I'm not actually sure he was reluctant, or whether that's just a post-script addition to the legend by people keen to spout the "TARANTINO IS A PLAGIARIST" party line).




elab49 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:22:24 PM)

From what I've read - and I do apply the pinch of salt but they do have the benefit of being contemporary comments - the City on Fire acknowledgement didn't come up until after someone else tagged it. And then not for some time. It seems it was Empire was one of the first to note it? I've always assumed it was this Empire - Jeff something.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:29:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

From what I've read - and I do apply the pinch of salt but they do have the benefit of being contemporary comments - the City on Fire acknowledgement didn't come up until after someone else tagged it. And then not for some time. It seems it was Empire was one of the first to note it? I've always assumed it was this Empire - Jeff something.


Yeah, that's what I'm reading elsewhere too. But lets not forget that the script of the film was dedicated to Chow Yun Fat, which suggests that Tarantino wasn't exactly going out of his way to hide any association with the actor (and the film).

Based on the fact that Tarantino is a member of the WGA, and given how stringent we know them to be, would cover his back over any genuine case of plagiarism, which is a pretty strong accusation to be throwing around really. I'm not saying that he doesn't take inspiration from other movies, but that he does so openly.




elab49 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:34:19 PM)

But not Ringo Lam. That seems a bit of an odd omission I think.




great_badir -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 3:51:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
Hence me saying above about how The Killing was the only specific reference he made (to MAINSTREAM media - have to make the distinction here between that and the geek press).


As I mentioned, contemporary pre-ResDogs success interviews are really difficult to find on the internet. That's one of the two that I have been able to find, and in it explicitly refers to one of his influences. Who knows what else he referred to in other interviews that have long disappeared. At this stage it'd probably help you're point if you could link to a couple of interviews from before the success of the film in which Tarantino claimed Reservoir Dogs to be an unequivically original work, because at the moment it feels like I'm attempting to debate an argument that hinges on conjecture and the memories of someone who wasn't even a teenager when the film came out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir

Is that epitaph actually on screen? Cos at that point, in the days before the internet, most people wouldn't have had access to the script.



I'm not sure I understand. The script that he wrote, that was shipped to studios, agents, actors and probably the screenwriting press and other folks in that area (trades etc) had the dedication on it. While it wasn't on the film itself, a document that was produced prior to his supposed "outing" as a plagiarist bears the names of the people he was supposedly plagiarising. Ergo, he's recognising them as influences in the work at hand. I don't see why this is being disputed/spun into something it isn't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
But still no mention of his most blatant "borrowings", nameley City on Fire, The Taking of Pelham 123, A Better Tomorrow etc etc.


Like I've said a couple of times now, contemporary interviews from the days before the success of the film (i.e. the time when you seem to be saying that Tarantino was happy to pass off others work as his own) are really difficult to find online. I'm sure you can appreciate this, seeing as you've provided no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims that he was pretending that ResDogs was a wholly original work.


Well, I must admit that most of my recollections are just that – recollections. BUT, when dogs came out I was 13/14 years old and already a well versed film prick who HAD already seen City on Fire, A Better Tomorrow, Pelham 123 and The Killing. I distinctly remember at least one TV interview (which was probably on the much missed Moving Pictures – that would’ve been the only TV show on at the time where QT and Dogs would have featured, although Film 92/93 is also a possibility) where he only mentioned The Killing specifically, and one broadsheet interview (probably in The Sunday Times Culture section, cos that was the only broadsheet my folks bought) with the “I used to work in a video store and spent most of my time there watching the stock” (paraphrased) line. Latterly, a 90s edition of Empire or Premiere DEFINITELY had a fairly chunky interview with QT that was conducted at the time of Dogs’ release and, again, the only specific mention of other films was The Killing and French new wave in general. Unfortunately I couldn’t tell you exactly which issue as I had to show all of my film magazines to the recycling bin when we moved house in 2004.

I can’t do a Google search at the moment, but there are at least two (re-printed) interviews somewhere online, again conducted around the time of Dogs’ release and before he became the next big thing, that corroborate my recollections. I will search them out and post links when I find them.

But the reason I remember the above so clearly (apart from the fact that I was already a well seasoned film prick despite barely being in puberty – I have my dad to thank for that...the film prick thing, not puberty) is down to both the fuss it caused in the press, and also when I saw finally saw it (on a terrible shot-in-the-cinema-with-a-home-video-camera VHS bootleg that a mate amusingly paid £15 for, along with a bootleg of T2 copied from the extended laserdisc for which he even more amusingly paid £25) and my first reaction was that there was a lot more than just an influence from The Killing going on. I also distinctly remember that, whilst Ringo Lam, John Woo and Chow Yun Fat have never said anything on the matter, there was definitely a stern and none-too-pleased response from the heads at Cinema City which, again, was rather surprisingly reported in mainstream media.

At which point you just have to take my word for it and believe that I’m telling the truth and am recalling correctly which, I acknowledge (as a massive skeptic), is not an easy thing to do with no firm evidence to back it up, but I freely admit I love Pulp Fiction (it's in my top 150 list), I think Jackie Brown is okay and the man himself seems to be an affable fellow (although, apparently, an absolute nightmare to interview cos he never shuts up - first hand from a mate who is a freelance journo and interviewed him in the late 90s), so it's not as if I have some major vendetta against the guy.




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 4:47:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: great_badir
At which point you just have to take my word for it and believe that I’m telling the truth and am recalling correctly which, I acknowledge (as a massive skeptic), is not an easy thing to do with no firm evidence to back it up,


That's all well and good, but it kinda goes against the spirit of a debate surely? I have an opinion on something, and have backed it up with evidence explaining why I feel I am correct. You hold a different opinion, but can only back it up with conjecture. Surely I can be forgiven for not taking the word of somebody who's trying to dispel my own argument, albeit without citing anything but their own opinions?

But anyway, CoF saga aside, the notion of Tarantino as some kind of secretive plagiarist doesn't hold any water. Which was my initial argument.




elab49 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 4:50:26 PM)

In fairness, conjecture and recall are qualitatively different? And as Badir says - he can't be categorised solely as a hater here as it mainly concerns about a particular film, not the director [:)]




adambatman82 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 5:03:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

In fairness, conjecture and recall are qualitatively different?


Within the context of this situation (an anonymous online debate) conjecture feels like the more appropriate term. With all due respect, for all we know GB could be making it all up. That's why evidence helps, otherwise I could have just sat back and typed "I remember it being this way, so that's how it was. Good night". But I didn't: I found evidence to back up my point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
And as Badir says - he can't be categorised solely as a hater here as it mainly concerns about a particular film, not the director [:)]


I haven't claimed any one is a "hater" tho. [:)]




Dpp1978 -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 5:22:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

In fairness, conjecture and recall are qualitatively different?


Within the context of this situation (an anonymous online debate) conjecture feels like the more appropriate term. With all due respect, for all we know GB could be making it all up. That's why evidence helps, otherwise I could have just sat back and typed "I remember it being this way, so that's how it was. Good night". But I didn't: I found evidence to back up my point.


A lawyer'd call it hearsay and it would be inadmissible in a court case.

This isn't a court case and strict rules of evidence do not apply. But whenever one engages in informed debate (rather than your usual online back and forth arguments) it is reasonable to expect a de minimis amount of evidence if one raises a controversial fact and justifies it based on hearsay.

That isn't to say Badir is wrong in his claims. It is possible everything he says is exactly so. But without corroboration from a contemporary source it is entirely reasonable to reject them if you choose to.




chris kilby -> RE: What's Your Classic Movie Blind Spot? (30/8/2012 6:00:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby

I don't know much about Godard, but I'm sure he had his influences too - the cut and paste literary style of William Burroughs, perhaps? Everything influences everything else.


Nah, Godard's influences came from 30's,40's Hollywood, Bresson and Dreyer more than anything else. He'd probably punch you in the nose if you told him you thought he was inspired by Burroughs.


That cheese-eating surrender monkey isn't getting any younger, so he'd be welcome to try. I expect getting "bitch-slapped" (as QT delightfully calls it) by Godard would be like getting mauled by Mr Burns. (Hey, I'm going to start a band just so I can call it "Bitch-Slapped By Godard"! [:D])


quote:

have it on good authority that he was very fond of Avatar tho. That Godard is currently shooting his first 3D feature only leads me to believe that that's true.


Michael Mann liked it too. It's in his Sight & Sound Top Ten. But what does he know...?

EDIT: Wow! I've just been reading some of the comments above. Great stuff, but I'm gonna have to re-name this "The Heresy Thread"! [;)]




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625