Quentin Tarantino from the August issue of GQ.
Photo credit � Mark Seliger / GQ
FOR GATECRASHER
ONE-TIME USE ONLY; DO NOT ARCHIVE
Original Filename: tarantino.jpg.JPG
When he has a movie to flog, Quentin Tarantino inevitably forgets the cardinal rule of publicity: Let the film speak for itself. With Inglourious Basterds (sic), his forthcoming World War II-era film starring Brad Pitt, Mr. QT is the opposite of on the QT, yammering to GQ why directors get worse with age. While this might be true of Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich, who peaked early (as has Tarantino, in my opinion), the list of filmmakers whose mature work surpasses their early efforts is quite a long one. Pedro Almodovar. Robert Altman. Kathryn Bigelow. David Cronenberg. Clint Eastwood. John Ford. Mira Nair...
Add to this list. Or consider this post an open thread to discuss the films of Tarantino. I admire the fluidity of his filmmaking (Pulp Fiction) and am frequently astonished by his set pieces (Kill Bill), but must admit that except for Jackie Brown, I find his movies are style without substance. You? Looking forward to Basterds?
I too think QT is highly overrated. I liked RESEVOIR DOGS. I really liked JACKIE BROWN. But the rest of his ouevre, I can pretty much do without. Alas, no one will let them be. I think PULP FICTION is seriously overrated and highly flawed film. (e.g., The Gimp is just weird for the sake of being weird. If I want that, I'll watch David Lynch!) BASTERDS only interests me for seeing Michael Fassbender in another role after the remarkable, astonishing HUNGER. And I'll watch Til Schweiger who deserves to be a movie star. But I really am looking forward to the whole QT film/publicity machine for IB being over.— garyk- I strongly disagree that Orson Welles peaked early. "F for Fake" (1974) and "Chimes at Midnight" (1965) may be my two favorite Welles films. "The Trial" (1962) isn't chopped liver either. It's true that he didn't complete as many projects as he wanted to later in his career, but what he did finish was often phenomenal. As for Tarantino, he was the hip, hot thing when I was a 20-something heading into film school and I thought he had reinvented the film world. After discovering just how much he had "borrowed" I no longer thought of him as the pioneer but still enjoyed his early work. I've grown very tired of him since, though part of that may be his personality which, of course, shouldn't influence my opinion of his films. While I once thought "Pulp Fiction" was a masterpiece, I now find it hollow and soulless. I still like "Reservoir Dogs" quite a bit. "Kill Bill" was a bore from start to finish and even the fight scenes, with the exception of the cramped trailer fight, are poorly choreographed. I will say this for Tarantino. He consistently gets strong performances from actors who don't always deliver strong performances. I think it's his greatest strength as a director.— ChristopherL
- Carrie- It's difficult to generalize here. Yes, Bogdanovich peaked early and Billy Wilder arguably got worse with age, although I'd gladly test "Fedora" again (if I could find it). Ditto Altman, who I alas outgrew. I do disagree with you about Tarantino peaking early. I love the "Kill Bill" twins, "Jackie Brown" and particularly "Death Proof." If anything, he was seemingly prematurely lionized (with "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction"). Seemingly. I definitely think he lived up to his early hype. And I think you kinda agree, given your endorsement here of the "Kill Bills" and "Jackie Brown." Check out "Death Proof," if you haven't already.— Pash
- Oh, Pash, "Death Proof" was the closest thing I've experienced to movie abuse. And ChrisL, agree that he gets great performances. But good golly, I wish that he'd take a leaf from the Clint Eastwood playbook and let his movies speak for themselves.— carrierickey
- This isn't exactly directly responsive, but you might find it interesting. My wife worked in the publicity department of MCA Records, who released the Pulp Fiction soundtrack. Tarantino was both extremely cooperative in the publicity efforts and, as you suggest, incredibly (if unusually) garrulous in support of the release. The record was (deservedly) extremely successful, always a challenge for soundtrack records, so in this respect at least, having a chatty, passionate director helps the overall commercial success of the film.— ccjroberts
- This isn't exactly directly responsive, but you might find it interesting. My wife worked in the publicity department of MCA Records, who released the Pulp Fiction soundtrack. Tarantino was both extremely cooperative in the publicity efforts and, as you suggest, incredibly (if unusually) garrulous in support of the release. The record was (deservedly) extremely successful, always a challenge for soundtrack records, so in this respect at least, having a chatty, passionate director helps the overall commercial success of the film.— ccjroberts
- Carrie- Re "Death Proof," it only goes to illustrate how one man's Single Malt Scotch is another (wo)man's poison. But our friendly disagreement here makes me wonder if it's the filmmaker who peaks or the viewer/fan. It all seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Dave Kehr causes periodic stirs on his site whenever he dismisses Wilder and Altman - blasphemer! - although I concur with him on both. Case in point: I was a sucker for Altman in the '70s, couldn't get enough of him. In those days, I'd have gladly watched "Nashville" once a day, every day. Now, when I do watch it, I cringe. I eventually came to see him as one-note. Seems like he made the same film 20 times. Did Altman peak? (That's arguable.) Did he peak only for me? (Most definitely.) Or was I the one who peaked, simply outgrowing him? (Debatable, as I did enjoy/appreciate "Prairie Home Companion.") It's interesting to observe these careers in film. Certain, lucky filmmakers maintain a steady momentum (Eastwood). Some go though highs and lows (Welles). Others peak early and never really bounce back (Bogdanovich). But the audience is always complicit in these movements. Right now, Tarantino has - what? - six or so films under his belt. They've all been of the same basic genre. While I've liked all of them, I'm aware that he hasn't stretched himself. I think that will be his test of his staying power. But we do agree on one thing - he should be more of a filmmaker and less of a showman.— Pash
7 comments
- VIEWED
- Commented
Playing at a theater near you
Be the first in line! Find local theaters, view listings and purchase tickets.
Philly.com Promotions
- News | Sports | Business | What's Happening | Restaurants & Food | Entertainment | Living | Marketplace | Jobs
Site Services:
Classifieds:
Partners:
Local Services:
