westsider
Posts: 64
Joined: 5/12/2006
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheManWithNoShame
I have to say, that as much as I dislike the unthinking praise given to Tarantino from fanboys, your post is incredibly wrong, and rather a snide rant at a film-maker who has made some very entertaining films.
You talk about not caring about Madonna or Quarter Pounders, but the whole point is the banality of the subjects. By talking about normal things in a humourous way, the transitions to violence are all the more shocking. Not only that, but the seemingly rambling dialogue tells us a lot about the characters in minimal time. In Reservoir Dogs, the cafe sequence tells us all we need to know about the protaginists. Blonde is cocky and cool, Pink is a snivelling weasel who wont tip, Brown is taking the piss and is taking nothing seriously..etc This is character driven dialogue, as well as brilliant, hard-boiled poetry that Chandler, Hammett or Leonard would be proud of.
I really dont see how Tarantinos work is hateful either, Id like some examples of that. As for nihilism, in Pulp Fiction Butch and his girlfriend flee for a better life, Jules is redeemed and his life is saved, Mia survives a near death experienced, and the only people who die are those who deserve it. If anything the film is about the power of redemption. Reservoir Dogs is rather nihilistic, but its not neccessarily a bad thing, see Rififi or Le Cercle Rouge for other heist-gone-wrong films with nihilistic endings.
You then say his talent his shallow and limited, a statement which is negated by the mention of Jackie Brown, Tarantinos most mature movie, and one which has characters that we can truely relate to and empathise with. How much of a risk must it had been for him, after two heavily violent and stylised films, to take on a film which is essentially about two middle-aged people falling in love. Having a go at his fans for not liking the film has nothing to do with it, the fact is that Tarantino made a cracking film. Who can tell if he takes more risks like this?
Kill Bill was admittedly an overstylised mess, but it is still exceptional entertainment and has some excellent fight scenes in. Who cares if you dont like kung-fu movies, other people do, and its a valid genre as anything else. How utterly pretentious of you to dismiss it in a sentence and dismiss Tarantinos movies because of it.
Yes Grindhouse worries me, and yes I fear that he got caught up in his own hype, but you forget his next project is his war epic, Inglorious Bastards. Hardly a move youd expect from a director looking for niche-placements, and one which will hopefully prove his worth as a great director and writer.
"Snide” and "pretentious”, oh dear; but, at the risk of compounding my offence, I'd like to say a few things:
Reservoir Dogs made a huge impact on its release and it's easy to see why. It was new and bold and shocking, no doubt, and it was the work of an original talent who was impossible to ignore. But that doesn't mean that it's a good film. Tarantino's dialogue was impressive, at times, and the scene you mention is one of his best, but his approach has its limitations, and those limitations are more significant than his admirers are prepared to concede. You suggest that his focus on banality was a new way of illuminating character. Well, maybe so, but it only works within a narrow range. Essentially all the characters must be on the same wavelength. They must all be Tarantino guys. So Pink is a "snivelling weasel”, sure enough: he's the snivelling weasel Tarantino guy. And Blonde is the "cocky and cool” Tarantino guy. And so on with the others. This is not "character driven dialogue”, it's dialogue driven character. His characters never really break free of their writer: they remain too closely tethered to his personality. Fine for your first film, perhaps, but you can't go on like that for ever. And that is why Jackie Brown was important. It showed Tarantino developing his talent, with a little help from Elmore Leonard. But Tarantino has now turned his back on that, and returned with a vengeance to the film-geek enthusiasms of his youth. I believe that this amounts to a failure of nerve, and that his career will suffer irreparably as a result.
I called Tarantino's work hateful, and I'm tempted to cite the whole of his first film as evidence. However, the torture scene on its own should be evidence enough. Its impact was enormous. It's genuinely shocking, and genuinely hard to watch. And it's unforgivable. Not because of the violence itself, but because of the way it's presented. A torture scene that's part musical number, part comedy routine is certainly bold. It shows Tarantino at his most original. It also shows him at his worst. How so? Because the skill and daring involved don't excuse the hollowness and glibness of the exercise. You could call it black comedy, but that would just be making polite excuses. The humour here is cruel, and it's a cruelty that sniggers at sadism. Tarantino's approach isn't just pitiless, it holds pity in contempt.
Pulp Fiction is not so rancid, but it is long and often tedious. It's sometimes amusing, sure enough, and the Vincent and Jules banter has a certain slick wit, but it's all so shallow, and so hard to care about. In its defence you trot out the old critical warhorse "redemption”. Well OK, redemption then. Perhaps Butch is redeemed, from something or other, but Butch is a dull character, so it hardly matters. And even if we switch our focus to the more interesting Jules, things don't get any better. Jules has a road-to-Damascus conversion, revealed at the end of the film. He'll abandon his wicked ways, and "walk the earth” like Kung Fu. It provides an ending, and some of the film's wittier dialogue, but you can't take it seriously. There's no depth to the character, so who cares?
Pulp Fiction projects a superficial cool, and it has great music. But it has just a few good scenes, and it goes on for two and a half hours. That may be your idea of a classic, but it won't do for me.
Jackie Brown was different, and it seemed like a transitional film. It was as if Tarantino was trying out another writer's characters in preparation for a change in his own. Well, maybe he was, but it never happened. Instead we got Kill Bill. Oh well.
Admittedly the critics loved Kill Bill. It's one of the best reviewed films of recent years. But the critics aren't always right, and there are signs that its reputation is dipping already. The decision to follow it with Grindhouse may speed up the process. For me watching Kill Bill was an alienating experience. I couldn't sustain any interest in the film, even on the most basic level. It was a boy's-bedroom-wall-poster movie, cursed with a truly cloying geekiness, and it was almost unwatchable. I'd happily paid to see Tarantino's previous films, despite my reservations, because I believed that he mattered and I needed to see what he was doing. Kill Bill put a stop to that. If that was what he was up to then I could safely leave him to his admirers. So Grindhouse will be the first Tarantino film that I don't see. I suspect that it will be for others too; especially those old enough to have seen Reservoir Dogs on its first release.
(Incidentally, I haven't seen Rififi, but I watched Le Cercle Rouge recently, and I can only say that I think you're mistaking fatalism for nihilism.)
< Message edited by westsider -- 24/2/2007 5:33:11 PM >
|
Printable Version
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 
ex-call-girl? i really hope so. (Regards to Mrs T) 
it seems to be taking a very long time
RE: QUENTIN TARANTINO - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread