Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You canít make me dance, Iím not a monkey "

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You canít make me dance, Iím not a monkey " Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:19:39 PM   
superdan


Posts: 8276
Joined: 31/7/2008
This is all a bit of a storm in a teacup, no? KGM was perfectly entitled to ask the questions, Qt was perfectly entitled to refuse to answer them. The fact that he went a bit wild is merely a consequence of QT being QT.

BTW, I happen to agree with him when he says that the interview is merely a commercial for the movie. No-one watched these 10-minute max, bitesize junket interviews expecting to witness deep and meaningful debate. Or even deep and meaningful examination of the movie, for that matter. It's clearly something directors and actors loathe but accept as part of the job.

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 31
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:23:23 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23703
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41įN 93įW
I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 32
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:28:21 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)


The thing that always strikes me about QT is that up until Kill Bill Vol 1 the violence in his movies was hardly "cool" or really OTT. Stuff like To Live and Die in LA were far more violent. Looking back, Pulp Fiction in particular is pretty restrained.

Always struck me as odd that OT become the poster boy for this stuff....

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 33
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:29:16 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army

Because that's not KGM's job? It's not an interviewer's job to cater to the person they're interviewing, it's an interviewer's job to go in to ask about what they're interested in pursuing.


And it's not the interviewee's responsibility to go down that line of questioning if they don't want to. If the interviewer keeps pushing it, they're the one making it an uncomfortable interview, not the interviewee.

quote:

. Tarantino's there to talk about Django, yes, but he's also there to talk about all the discussions caught up in Django, up to and including the violence within it and the context that has in relation to Tarantino's other work and greater social discussions on violence in media.


Why are you or anyone else deciding what he's there to talk about? He said what he's there to talk about. Why should he be forced to discuss a subject that he doesn't what to discuss?

quote:

Django isn't just 'how was Jamie Foxx on set/how do you feel about your Best Picture nomination/how was it finally working with Leonardo DiCaprio' - incidentally, questions to which he has probably provided answers many times.


And nobody has said that it is.

quote:

KGM's job is to ask questions related to the film. Questions about cinematic violence are totally related to a well-promoted mainstream film with brutal violence made by a director renowned for his brutally violent films released in a climate where discussions about depictions of violence and their contribution to a culture of violence are rife.


And it's not Tarantino's (or any one else in the arts) job to enter that debate unless they choose to.

quote:

And hey, if you're interviewing for a news programme and you're after answers on particular issues, it is your job to press the issue. It is your job not to let the subject run away. Because otherwise you're just playing softball, and that's hardly professional. Calling into question KGM's professionalism because he did his job is pretty lame.


I'm calling into question his professionalism because he was offered an out many times and kept blustering over a subject he was clearly told he wouldn't be getting answers on. How is it professional when an interviewee tells you that they didn't come there for that particular discussion and they weren't willing to take part in that particular discussion, many times over, to keep trying to push that particular discussion?

quote:

Further, nobody's saying Tarantino was obligated to answer the question.


So why is there even a debate? He clearly refused. So why is he the one in the wrong?

quote:

It would have made him look much better if he did


In the eyes of some, not of all.

quote:

indeed, if he feels so strongly about it, he should have jumped at the chance to explain his position


Seems to me he feels strongly about not wanting to discuss the subject. So again, why should he be forced to? Tarantino doesn't raise the subject, he's not looking to discuss it. It's clearly the interviewer who feels strongly about it because he keeps pushing the issue. So unless you're really saying that a film director on a pr tour should feel obligated to discuss a subject he clearly states he feels he's discussed enough already simply because the interviewer decides that's what he wants to talk about, you have no case.

quote:

but he could have left the room if he so wished. He's a big boy, he can use his legs


And the interviewer could have moved on to the next question, he's a big boy, he can use his notes.

quote:

What he did was complain that KGM was out of line because the interview was a mere commercial;


Actually, what he did was answer the first few questions on the topic. Decide he wasn't going to go down the path that the interviewer wanted to go down. State that clearly, and then get upset at the interviewer refusing to let the subject drop. And again, to Tarantino it was a mere commercial. Why should he have to play by the interviewer's rules?

quote:

These attitudes are pretty telling and totally right to be criticised, because Tarantino's lambasting KGM for doing the job he's paid to do and doing so in a way that can legitimately be called problematic. KGM has no duty to be nice to him.


The attitude that he has no duty to answer a question simply because an interviewer keeps pushing him on it? And Tarantino has no duty to be nice to him or answer the questions he sets. He also has no duty to take part in a debate on real life violence. He has no duty to do anything other than promote his film. What he's doing is lambasting an interviewer for taking what Tarantino sees as just another pr interview and trying to detour it down a path he's not willing to go down.

quote:

Also worth noting, given that the Independent video clearly states that KGM asked Tarantino other questions and that he got good results, it's a bit rich to say that KGM went in solely to ask about cinema violence and that he completely distorted the purpose of the junket. He was there to ask questions about Django. This just happened to be one of them. It also just happened to be one Tarantino objected to in a really terrible way. It also also just happened that KGM salvaged the interview and got some good answers about stuff Tarantino was comfortable talking about.


Tarantino has two choices in this situation. Keep refusing to talk about a subject he doesn't want to talk about, or give in just because the interviewer won't let it drop. So if you're not saying he was obligated to answer, why is it even a debate? Tarantino doesn't have the right to set the questions he's asked, but he does have the right to refuse to take part in an interview about a subject he doesn't want to discuss. And all this talk of "he should have engaged" or "he would have looked better if he'd answered" is essentially saying "Well of course he didn't have to... but he should have"

(in reply to Pigeon Army)
Post #: 34
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:33:28 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)


I think it's just all pulp fiction to him. I didn't like Basterds, but at it's heart it's no more opening a dialogue about Nazi germany than The Dirty Dozen was. He's a film-maker making films about films. If he wants to talk about them as a commentary on the wider world then that's fine, but I'm not sure that's what he's ever been doing.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 35
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:37:06 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)


The thing that always strikes me about QT is that up until Kill Bill Vol 1 the violence in his movies was hardly "cool" or really OTT. Stuff like To Live and Die in LA were far more violent. Looking back, Pulp Fiction in particular is pretty restrained.

Always struck me as odd that OT become the poster boy for this stuff....


I think that's because of the whole ridiculous thing that sprung up when Reservoir Dogs was denied a video release for a while. He was coming to be known as a cool young director when we decided to treat adults like children again in this country. His films were some of the most critically acclaimed and high profile ones caught up in it, because the video release of True Romance was affected for a while as well, and NBK hit a lot of controversy, so that violent tag kind of stuck.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 36
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:37:31 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)


The thing that always strikes me about QT is that up until Kill Bill Vol 1 the violence in his movies was hardly "cool" or really OTT. Stuff like To Live and Die in LA were far more violent. Looking back, Pulp Fiction in particular is pretty restrained.

Always struck me as odd that OT become the poster boy for this stuff....


Cool, but not the cool that's obvious to all the babes. You want to try to be cool, but without making it seem like you're trying. You have to be one cool motherfucker without trying, but you don't wanna make it too effortless neither man - there's no point tryin' to be fuckin' Shaft if you're Barney fuckin' Miller, ya dig?!?!?!?

Etc etc, extend over 10 pages without making a point. Follow with unrelated semi naked woman, or burst of violence.


Anyways, I'm not quite sure who decided that Tarantino was best placed to talk about this stuff - he's not a highly intellectual man making commentaries on society or culture. He's a (very) talkative film geek and fanboy with about as much to say on a serious subject as Stan Boardman. That is to say that Krishnan/4 News should perhaps have expected him to not be very verbose on the subject (as in not involving in a dialogue - not shutting Krishnan's butt down, fnarr). At the same time, QT came across as a complete twat. Which I think he is anyway, so I'm not that bothered.

Both at fault for different reasons, I guess.

< Message edited by great_badir -- 11/1/2013 1:39:29 PM >


_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 37
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:38:16 PM   
Professor Moriarty

 

Posts: 10417
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca
Wow. I'd never have known before this that KGM is a shite interviewer and QT a prickly nob.

KGM is clearly just trying to ride a zeitgeist of real life violence. I'd have preferred a line of questioning similar to what Rgirv is pointing to, that QTs films seem to be increasingly relying on schlock violence and IMO are much worse propositions than his earlier films (I've not seen DU yet though).

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 38
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:41:38 PM   
great_badir


Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle
quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty
Wow. I'd never have known before this that KGM is a shite interviewer and QT a prickly nob.


We have a winner.

(Although I think KGM is a reasonable news presenter, despite the frequent flubs, and a freelance journo friend who has interviewed QT a few times in the past assures me that he's a very nice guy, even if a bit of a bore after a while - I still think he's a complete tool)

_____________________________

FAVE FILMS
BO BOMBS

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)
Post #: 39
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:41:57 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty

Wow. I'd never have known before this that KGM is a shite interviewer and QT a prickly nob.





quote:

KGM is clearly just trying to ride a zeitgeist of real life violence. I'd have preferred a line of questioning similar to what Rgirv is pointing to, that QTs films seem to be increasingly relying on schlock violence and IMO are much worse propositions than his earlier films (I've not seen DU yet though).


Me too, I think there's an interesting interview to be had about Tarantino retreating more into his exploitation roots.

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)
Post #: 40
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:46:58 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23703
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41įN 93įW

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

I was under the impression that Tarantino deliberately hoped to create a dialogue about the relationship between movie violence and real-life violence with this film and Inglourious Basterds by virtue of their historical setting and - at least in the case of IB, since I haven't seen DU - self-reflexivity regarding the process of film production and presentation. Even before this interview goes horribly wrong, his answers seem to suggest he has a much more simplistic viewpoint on the subject than I thought he did (seemingly one form of violence is okay because it's fun and cool, the other isn't?). I enjoy all of his movies except Death Proof, but it's a pity that his views on how this kind of thing feeds into his work aren't more fully fleshed-out. (Nicolas Winding Refn comes to mind as an ostensibly similar director in terms of visuals and content, but with more interesting things to say about violence and stuff.)


I think it's just all pulp fiction to him. I didn't like Basterds, but at it's heart it's no more opening a dialogue about Nazi germany than The Dirty Dozen was. He's a film-maker making films about films. If he wants to talk about them as a commentary on the wider world then that's fine, but I'm not sure that's what he's ever been doing.


You're probably right. I wouldn't say it's a theme I noticed in his earlier films - particularly since, as Girv points out, the violence wasn't really that 'cool' in those movies - but the historical setting of his recent films along with the foregrounding of the violent content as thematically important (the central 'violent revenge' plotlines, the idea of violence sending out a message etc) felt more deliberate on Tarantino's part for me. I understand that this is me drastically misreading it though, so I can't really continue to say that this is what he set out to do or anything.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 41
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 1:57:09 PM   
Professor Moriarty

 

Posts: 10417
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: the waters of Casablanca
After an amazing start to his career, it just feels to me like QT lacks a good editor now who can keep his verbosity in check. And also lacks someone to challenge him. If you look at the type of films he's making, then (IMO) Peckinpah did a much much better job as using violence more as a metaphor than just a means to an end to get some deaths up on the screen.

I kind of wish that QT had of got a chance with Casino Royale. It might have been a trainwreck, but I think that would have been interesting. Right now if I were QT and could do one thing I'd ring the doorbell of Easton Ellis, who I think can look on the world in a similar way to QT, but is a much smarter man about delivering it to others.

< Message edited by Professor Moriarty -- 11/1/2013 1:59:14 PM >

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 42
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 2:01:18 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
I don't think there's any doubt that in QT's world violent revenge can be seen as a necessary or even just action. Every film from Kill Bill on has carried that as a central theme. But it comes down to then if he's seeing himself as someone offering artistic commentary on the world or if he's someone simply telling stories (and there's a key theme in Django that suggests to me that's exactly what he's doing, he's seeing his tales as being in the tradition of earlier narratives, not real world commentary)

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 43
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 2:03:24 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
Btw, I'm not sure if I said this earlier in the thread, but I think Tarantino frequently makes an arse out of himself in interviews. The whole John Ford thing a little while back seemed either quite short-sighted or a deliberate attempt to distance himself from comparisons, and either way it didn't come across well. But for Tarantino to be in the wrong on this situation I'd also have to think he had an obligation to follow the interviewer's path of questions. And I don't.

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 44
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 2:09:53 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23703
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41įN 93įW
If Quentin Tarantino is a washed-up hack from the 90s living off past glories, I don't even want to know what Bret Easton Ellis is.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 45
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 2:16:45 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
Oh QT can come off as silly in interviews. But he can also come over as insightful, with an amazing knowledge and love for cinema. Give me a character like that over the bland vanilla directors who usually crop up.

As for the issue of violence - I don't think exploitation is the right word for his later stuff. Kill Bill is such a mix of styles and looks like no exploitation film I can recall. Death Proof is what Tarantino considers to be that genre, and is pretty accurate it must be said. And look how many people liked that one....

IB, which I watched last night, is too well made. Yes there is violence in it, but the end is making a point, contrasting and comparing the reaction of cinema goers in the film with ourselves. In other cases, the violence is undercut. Are we really happy to see the German officer get his head bashed in, or feel guilt that he has made a noble gesture to save his comrades?

Yes QT comes off as childish, but his films are far more complex in their relationship to violence than some are giving him credit for here.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 46
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 2:24:25 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23703
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41įN 93įW
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Oh QT can come off as silly in interviews. But he can also come over as insightful, with an amazing knowledge and love for cinema. Give me a character like that over the bland vanilla directors who usually crop up.

As for the issue of violence - I don't think exploitation is the right word for his later stuff. Kill Bill is such a mix of styles and looks like no exploitation film I can recall. Death Proof is what Tarantino considers to be that genre, and is pretty accurate it must be said. And look how many people liked that one....

IB, which I watched last night, is too well made. Yes there is violence in it, but the end is making a point, contrasting and comparing the reaction of cinema goers in the film with ourselves. In other cases, the violence is undercut. Are we really happy to see the German officer get his head bashed in, or feel guilt that he has made a noble gesture to save his comrades?

Yes QT comes off as childish, but his films are far more complex in their relationship to violence than some are giving him credit for here.


This is what disappointed me about the interview - your third paragraph pretty much sums up my response to IB and what it was setting out to achieve etc, but he fairly strongly suggests in the interview that there is nothing more to it than being fun and cool. of course his take doesn't *have* to be definitive (thank you based Barthes) but if his films are going to be judged based on what he intended to do, then they're a bit lacking in that department.

< Message edited by Olaf -- 11/1/2013 3:12:39 PM >


_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 47
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 3:00:27 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
The trouble is that Tarantino is one of the most difficult directors around to really get a feel for what he intends, largely because so much of the discussion around his work keeps coming back to his influences. It's all too easy to see his work in the tradition of the things that inspired them. What I do think is that it's perfectly possible for him to see himself as just telling stories, that he's creating revenge fantasies in the tradition in art of revenge fantasies, while also subverting the way that violence works to provide some commentary on the viewer's reaction to that revenge fantasy. And that commentary also doesn't have to mean he's offering a broader real world link. I think it's about crediting adults with the intelligence to know they're watching a fantasy, and that fantasies can be really nasty, but that doesn't mean that they have any actual impact on the real world.

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 48
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 3:08:48 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
I think his comments are just him being glib. It is pretty clear watching his films how he feels about violence and its role. Yes, he uses it for fun sometimes, but more often than not it is fast, nasty and rarely works out for the "heroes".

I remember people trying to get John Ford to talk about the subtext in his work, and he would just flat out deny it was there.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 49
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 3:12:01 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
I think it differs from film to film as well. The violence in Reservoir Dogs, for example, is minimal but brutal. You don't doubt for a second that the violence is nasty. Yet some scenes in something like Kill Bill have that more balletic feel, so I think it works on that same level as a big dance production in a musical. IB, again, wasn't a fan, but some of the violence (and implied violence) is sickening (for the right reasons) same as in Django.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 50
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 3:41:47 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2
I've seen DU, and without going into spoilerific detail, it is perhaps one of the more apt films to be discussing his use of violence, for two examples:

NOT REALLY SPOILERS, BUT HIDDEN AS A COURTESY The first part of the film touches on some quite deep issues of freedom and the value of life, with the violence comparatively restrained but powerful, and I was hoping that it would explore it further in the same vein. It really falls short however and the resulting violence in the latter part of the film is comical to the point of tacky, undoing any gravity that might, and arguable should have, been afforded to such a serious subject matter. In short, it's incredibly disjointed - part effective, part gratuitous.

_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 51
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 3:50:23 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rebenectomy

I've seen DU, and without going into spoilerific detail, it is perhaps one of the more apt films to be discussing his use of violence, for two examples:

NOT REALLY SPOILERS, BUT HIDDEN AS A COURTESY The first part of the film touches on some quite deep issues of freedom and the value of life, with the violence comparatively restrained but powerful, and I was hoping that it would explore it further in the same vein. It really falls short however and the resulting violence in the latter part of the film is comical to the point of tacky, undoing any gravity that might, and arguable should have, been afforded to such a serious subject matter. In short, it's incredibly disjointed - part effective, part gratuitous.


I'll hide mine too.

It's very much in the tradition of the films it's paying homage to. That final burst of violence is the catharsis that Tarantino refers to. Given how far Django gets pushed, and given the type of character he is, anything other than that would feel dishonest in that context, I think. I think it's also very much playing on comedy westerns as well (the horse's little dance, for example) I'm not sure a serious subject needs a serious approach. Blazing Saddles managed to say a lot about the attitude to race in that era while completely sending it up.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 52
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 4:27:28 PM   
Rebenectomy


Posts: 5629
Joined: 20/1/2008
From: 10-0-11-0-0 by 0-2
We're probably best taking this to a review thread or PM tbh, but...

I think it's more the fact that the tone/mood of the film starts out more serious, and it's decent (after a overly long running time) into that kind of violence seemed to undo what could have been a more promising film. It's almost as if the first hour was a thought provoking exploration of violence in various forms, followed by a long draw out period of 'gosh some white people are shits aren't they', then a 'quick, lets through some blood and gunfire in here' response in the closing acts.

_____________________________

Body Hair Beautiful: An Armpits for August Special
http://www.lipstogetherandblow.com/2013/07/body-beautiful.html

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 53
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 5:09:31 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
Last one, I promise.

I'd argue against it being more serious to start with. The way Waltz approaches the material alone pushes it into comedy territory, and the handling of certain scenes (Waltz riding into town with springy tooth a-springing, the way he strides into the bar with his arm around Foxx, the terrified reaction of the townsfolk) it's all very Blazing Saddles. So I don't think it's that much of a tonal shift. It's very much mixing comedy with serious violence from the beginning. It's only really Django's revenge that goes into that o.t.t. territory.

(in reply to Rebenectomy)
Post #: 54
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 5:15:55 PM   
Olaf


Posts: 23703
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41įN 93įW

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

The trouble is that Tarantino is one of the most difficult directors around to really get a feel for what he intends, largely because so much of the discussion around his work keeps coming back to his influences. It's all too easy to see his work in the tradition of the things that inspired them. What I do think is that it's perfectly possible for him to see himself as just telling stories, that he's creating revenge fantasies in the tradition in art of revenge fantasies, while also subverting the way that violence works to provide some commentary on the viewer's reaction to that revenge fantasy. And that commentary also doesn't have to mean he's offering a broader real world link. I think it's about crediting adults with the intelligence to know they're watching a fantasy, and that fantasies can be really nasty, but that doesn't mean that they have any actual impact on the real world.


The sentence in bold is interesting, because the historical context that he situates Basterds/Django in kind of problematises that for me (in a good way I suppose). The commentary on the viewer response to screen violence takes on another dimension beyond some kind of recursive self-referentiality - which I guess has usually been the main criticism thrown at Tarantino's films - and place it into a real-world discussion on what it's depicting. I don't even mean the kind of easy comparison (one implied by the interviewer in the link) between it and something like the school shooting last month, but just something as relatively straightforward as Inglourious Basterds's relationship to the Holocaust and its representation. I took the historical setting, and in a similar way the deliberate historical inaccuracy, as a way of creating a film that is a reflection on a particular aesthetic approach as you suggest, but also a reflection the role that same aesthetic approach - including its content - has in the real world. I'm probably rambling at this point.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 55
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 5:26:42 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
If I'm honest, I have similar problems with Basterds. I mean, I might be completely wrong and he was trying to do something similar to Spinrad did with The Iron Dream and ask us to look at our notions of heroism through alternate reality Nazi fantasy (and the more I think about it, the portrayal of the Basterds could be purposefully one dimensional to make just that point).

(in reply to Olaf)
Post #: 56
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 8:28:34 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5067
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: Professor Moriarty

After an amazing start to his career, it just feels to me like QT lacks a good editor now who can keep his verbosity in check. And also lacks someone to challenge him. If you look at the type of films he's making, then (IMO) Peckinpah did a much much better job as using violence more as a metaphor than just a means to an end to get some deaths up on the screen.

I kind of wish that QT had of got a chance with Casino Royale. It might have been a trainwreck, but I think that would have been interesting. Right now if I were QT and could do one thing I'd ring the doorbell of Easton Ellis, who I think can look on the world in a similar way to QT, but is a much smarter man about delivering it to others.


Ridiculous sexist comments about Kathryn Bigelow and unforgivable use of the word 'overrated' notwithstanding.


_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to Professor Moriarty)
Post #: 57
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 8:32:15 PM   
rawlinson

 

Posts: 45002
Joined: 13/6/2008
From: Timbuktu. Chinese or Fictional.
I missed that stuff so just googled to see what you were talking about, unfortunate cut off point on the Guardian link to the story on my browser

quote:

Bret Easton Ellis: Kathryn Bigelow is 'overrated' because she's a 'ho...

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 58
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 8:47:17 PM   
Hood_Man


Posts: 12182
Joined: 30/9/2005
It might be a news show but if asking Tarantino about film violence qualifies as news, then I can't wait to see the BBC's new Foreign Correspondent David Hasselhoff inform us about the collapse of the Berlin Wall.

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 59
RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You caní... - 11/1/2013 9:24:23 PM   
Pigeon Army


Posts: 14612
Joined: 29/1/2006
From: Pixar HQ, George Lucas' Office.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawlinson

And it's not the interviewee's responsibility to go down that line of questioning if they don't want to. If the interviewer keeps pushing it, they're the one making it an uncomfortable interview, not the interviewee.


As I've said, Tarantino isn't obligated to respond to that line of questioning, but neither is KGM obligated to drop it. Your position seems to be that KGM was obligated to drop it, and while his line of questioning is simplistic, I can't back that because that's simply not in the spirit of what an interview is, even if Tarantino holds some misguided opinion that everyone who comes through the door is there to be real nice and give him free ad time.

quote:

quote:

Django isn't just 'how was Jamie Foxx on set/how do you feel about your Best Picture nomination/how was it finally working with Leonardo DiCaprio' - incidentally, questions to which he has probably provided answers many times.


And nobody has said that it is.


So why are you 'shutting down' any broader questioning on the basis that 'he's decided what he's there to talk about' and nothing other than mere puffery - on-set trivia and how he achieved x scene - will suffice for these interviews? KGM's not forcing him to discuss anything - he's merely pursuing a line of questioning he wants an answer to because Tarantino is an auteur renowned for his use of violence, selling a revenge film about slavery - a film explicitly about violence, which is the latest in a serious of films about violence (including at least one, which Olaf mentions, which is explicitly about the audience's relationship to onscreen violence). That Tarantino starts talking about 'catharsis' in a pretty empty way before shutting it down when it comes to deeper, more probing questions on a subject his films have tackled isn't KGM's fault - that Tarantino looks bad for what he does say and what he doesn't say isn't KGM's fault. Indeed, KGM got a pretty telling response from his line of questioning.

What if Tarantino had been asked about accusations of trivialising slavery and the African-American experience in relation to the film and the same thing had happened? What would your response be to that?

Basically, what I'm challenging is Tarantino's idea of what an interview about Django 'is' - how he doesn't get to define what conversations he has about his film, just walk away from (or, in this case, stumble awkwardly and problematically through) the ones he doesn't want to have.

quote:

And it's not Tarantino's (or any one else in the arts) job to enter that debate unless they choose to.


And he doesn't. You're making it sound like KGM has a gun to his head - if KGM was there because he wanted answers on this specific question, and because he thought his subject was evading the question, he has every right to press it. Indeed, he's obliged to press it. It's his job. I can't understand why you're saying he didn't do his job because of some notion that he had an obligation to leave Tarantino alone once he threw a tantrum about being questioned about something he didn't like.

quote:

So why is there even a debate? He clearly refused. So why is he the one in the wrong?


He's not 'in the wrong'. I don't think anyone has a problem with him refusing to discuss the issue - indeed, elab, Reb and I have said as much. The things they have a problem with are the ways he presented that refusal ("you're not my master and I'm not your slave"; "this interview is a commercial"). One's a deeply troubling metaphor to use given the film he's advertising; the other is just flat-out wrong and painfully naive and reductive of what KGM's job really is. You're the one who's suggesting there's duplicity (there isn't, as I've outlined), that he's brought an agenda (which, if he has, isn't clear from the questions, and your misquoting of KGM doesn't help), and that Tarantino was right for throwing a tantrum because KGM was unprofessional (which was stupid and makes him look bad but eh, the problem people have is with the content of the tantrum).

quote:

So unless you're really saying that a film director on a pr tour should feel obligated to discuss a subject he clearly states he feels he's discussed enough already simply because the interviewer decides that's what he wants to talk about, you have no case.


Nobody's said he's obligated to respond. They've just said that the way that he did respond makes him look like a tit. Which it does. I don't know how you can go from 'Tarantino looks like a bit of an arse throwing a tantrum about the line of questioning and saying some shitty things during that tantrum' to 'Tarantino is obligated to answer every question ever thrown at him'.

quote:

Actually, what he did was answer the first few questions on the topic.


Yeah, and he stumbled over them and they were really fucking empty. Are you saying KGM - a journalist for a show that is hardly frippery - should've just been satisfied with that? I'm not sure he or any journalist would agree.

quote:

Decide he wasn't going to go down the path that the interviewer wanted to go down. State that clearly, and then get upset at the interviewer refusing to let the subject drop. And again, to Tarantino it was a mere commercial. Why should he have to play by the interviewer's rules?


He doesn't have to play by the interviewer's rules. He should, because it makes him look better. And if he thinks people are interviewing him to give him free air time he is sorely fucking mistaken. But he doesn't have to. Nobody's said this.

quote:

quote:

These attitudes are pretty telling and totally right to be criticised, because Tarantino's lambasting KGM for doing the job he's paid to do and doing so in a way that can legitimately be called problematic. KGM has no duty to be nice to him.


The attitude that he has no duty to answer a question simply because an interviewer keeps pushing him on it?


Good job misquoting that bro. That was referring to the 'slave/master' metaphor and the 'interview = commercial' line.

quote:

And all this talk of "he should have engaged" or "he would have looked better if he'd answered" is essentially saying "Well of course he didn't have to... but he should have"


NO SHIT. Of course that's what we're saying! Because Tarantino would have looked like a bigger, intelligent man if he did. He might have even had some interesting things to say. And he definitely wouldn't have launched into a worrying tantrum. How is this objectionable? How is it a problem that he should have said something, even if it is to say 'I don't believe in the proposition you're advancing'? I mean, it's great you believe strongly in Tarantino's right of refusal - nobody's contested that. They've contested the way Tarantino refused and said that he should have - but did not have to - answer. And if he didn't answer, there were better ways to navigate that than to throw his toys out of the cot and complain KGM was being mean.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rinc
She's supposed to be 13! I'd want her to be very attractive though


quote:

ORIGINAL: MonsterCat
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pigeon Army
Stop being mean to Deviation

No.

(in reply to rawlinson)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [On Another Note...] >> News and Hot Topics >> RE: "Quentin Tarantino tells interviewer: You canít make me dance, Iím not a monkey " Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.110