Quentin Tarantino

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
beamish14
Joined: Fri May 18, 2018 3:07 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#451 Post by beamish14 » Tue Jun 01, 2021 3:52 pm

On the newest Pure Cinema podcast, which is ostensibly about June's New Beverly reopening, Tarantino states that he's curating a boutique Blu-Ray line that will have titles culled from Sony. The first one up is the Anatole Litvak-directed, Samantha Eggar/Oliver Reed starring The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun

Tarantino LOVES The Gravy Train/The Dion Bros. (1974), and I truly hope he finally succeeds in getting an official release for that gem.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#452 Post by therewillbeblus » Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:56 pm

beamish14 wrote:
Tue Jun 01, 2021 3:52 pm
On the newest Pure Cinema podcast, which is ostensibly about June's New Beverly reopening, Tarantino states that he's curating a boutique Blu-Ray line that will have titles culled from Sony. The first one up is the Anatole Litvak-directed, Samantha Eggar/Oliver Reed starring The Lady in the Car with Glasses and a Gun
This is such excellent news, if not surprising in the least. Many of us feel despondent that our favorite titles on backchannels will never be rescued as they slip deeper into obscurity, and while I'm not hopeful that Tarantino has a canon of Michel Deville workprints, he does for titles like this. I watched this tonight and loved it- but it's definitely in proper need of a restoration. I'll happily purchase this on day one when it drops.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#453 Post by FrauBlucher » Sat Jun 26, 2021 7:12 pm


User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#454 Post by Monterey Jack » Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:50 pm

I won't believe Tarantino's done with filmmaking until the day he's buried. Plenty of filmmakers and actors claim a movie is their "last one" and keep going for a long time afterwards.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#455 Post by Big Ben » Sat Jun 26, 2021 10:14 pm

I imagine he'd go into something like television or something. I cannot fathom him completely stopping making films completely.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#456 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Jun 26, 2021 11:37 pm

Simultaneously Tarantino is a very headstrong individual, and he's kinda dug himself into a hole by repeatedly preaching his "10 and done" rhetoric, a hole that many could humble themselves out of but I don't get the impression that Tarantino will. For such an egotistical person, I think- unless he has the best idea ever pour out of him in his older age- he'll stick to his guns. He admits the whole reason is ego anyways, it's about having a perfect career or ending on a high note as a cementation of legacy, rather than creating art because it's fun or worthwhile to produce projects that appeal to and inspire folks even if not the artist's personal 'best'. As a result, I could also see him sitting on the Perfect Idea for a 10th film and perhaps going into production on it 5+ years down the line, like saving your trump card 'til the chips are all in place. And, not to psychoanalyze him too hard, I believe that Tarantino continually remaining rigid around this is a defensive piece of protection that assists him in being able to walk away, like any artist setting parameters or akin to someone telling a room of people they don't drink, or a friend they won't approach their ex at a party, so they publicly construct a social support against temptation.

User avatar
feihong
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 12:20 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#457 Post by feihong » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:52 am

Name checking Don Siegel is well and good, but I don't know why Tarantino wouldn't consider filmmakers like Luis Bunuel or Seijun Suzuki or even Jean Renoir or Jacques Rivette in the same breadth––filmmakers who were able to keep re-inventing and re-invigorating themselves with new movies. I think Tarantino's films are far closer to those filmmakers in terms of creative expression and effect than they are to Don Siegel's more commercial and crowd-pleasing output. Siegel got stale replicating formulas which felt hackneyed by the end of his career, but some of these other filmmakers had so much more imagination behind them to begin with; some of them insisted upon or were a better position to insist upon more personal expression. And who cares that, say, Siegel's last couple of pictures sucked, or Otto Preminger's or whoever's? It doesn't diminish any of them as filmmakers. It is such a narrow cage he's put himself in––especially since some of the things he did in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood seemed to indicate new creative directions Tarantino could pursue in future films.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#458 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:14 am

Right, which is why this seems far more indicative of a combination between Tarantino's prioritization of egoism and a safety guard assisting him to pursue other kinds of arts. I get the feeling that Tarantino has always wanted to engage in other mediums even more than he's let on, and has defaulted to film time and time again (weren't there several other projects he envisioned as novels, plays, or TV shows?) - He may be both feeding his concern for self-importance and sensitively fighting complacency, which sounds like an apt contradiction existing in the motivations of most of us.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#459 Post by swo17 » Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:24 am

If you count My Best Friend's Birthday as his first film, then he already made his 10th and it was a perfect note to go out on

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#460 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:41 am

Tarantino doesn't count it, but I agree that Once Upon a Time.. in Hollywood is the perfect note to go out on. It's synthesis of his themes into a confession that cinema is a magical key to unlock fantastical validation for our deeper emotions and insecurities and temporal prisons, rather than only cathartic violence. Tarantino's films have always been more layered than their superficial pleasures, but this was easily his most spiritually-resonant and existentially-complex film, the most mature explanation he's mustered for thesis of what films can and should do as a connection between audience and empathy-machine, and his magnum opus as an amalgamation of art, history, genre, and life. I would be sad if he quit now, but I would understand. He's not going to top his last movie, and from what I've gathered from interviews, he knows this and isn't going to try.

User avatar
FrauBlucher
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Greenwich Village

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#461 Post by FrauBlucher » Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:57 am

I'm not really a fan but movie making is better and more interesting with him in the game. So I hope he hangs in there

User avatar
Maltic
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2020 1:36 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#462 Post by Maltic » Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:45 am

feihong wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:52 am
Name checking Don Siegel is well and good, but I don't know why Tarantino wouldn't consider filmmakers like Luis Bunuel or Seijun Suzuki or even Jean Renoir or Jacques Rivette in the same breadth––filmmakers who were able to keep re-inventing and re-invigorating themselves with new movies. I think Tarantino's films are far closer to those filmmakers in terms of creative expression and effect than they are to Don Siegel's more commercial and crowd-pleasing output. Siegel got stale replicating formulas which felt hackneyed by the end of his career, but some of these other filmmakers had so much more imagination behind them to begin with; some of them insisted upon or were a better position to insist upon more personal expression. And who cares that, say, Siegel's last couple of pictures sucked, or Otto Preminger's or whoever's? It doesn't diminish any of them as filmmakers. It is such a narrow cage he's put himself in––especially since some of the things he did in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood seemed to indicate new creative directions Tarantino could pursue in future films.
It is funny that QT has this obsession with "the perfect/flawless filmography" given the stuff he likes.

Btw, he's 58. When Siegel was that age, he had yet to make The Beguiled, Dirty Harry, Charley Varrick, Telefon, Escape from Alcatraz (I haven't seen The Black Windmill or his last two films, but I'm sure they have auteurist defenders somewhere).

User avatar
The Elegant Dandy Fop
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:25 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#463 Post by The Elegant Dandy Fop » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:27 pm

feihong wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:52 am
Name checking Don Siegel is well and good, but I don't know why Tarantino wouldn't consider filmmakers like Luis Bunuel or Seijun Suzuki or even Jean Renoir or Jacques Rivette in the same breadth
Considering that Tarantino was admitting a few years ago that he had barely started to watch arthouse classics for the first time, I would be very surprised if he's explored any of these directors careers beyond a film or too, especially when you consider what he programs at the New Beverly. I think the farthest extent of classic art house he seems to have explored is Fassbinder.

I'm surprise he doesn't consider a mainstream, contemporary director like Scorsese in the equation, a filmmaker who's pushing 80 and whose last three film are among the best of his entire career.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#464 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jun 27, 2021 12:40 pm

We can go on and on about the illogical nature of his position, but it's driven by emotion as protection, and self-serving in some way. The problem is that because he keeps explaining it with logic, he's inviting challenges to that "logic." Probably best to just accept that something else is going on under the iceberg and the rationalization is his only way of making that drive to stop tangible.

black&huge
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:35 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#465 Post by black&huge » Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:58 pm

I'm sure he thinks there are a few directors both US and international that have stuck it out gracefully and he did mention Billy Wilder a couple years back as one director who fell off in the last stretch but who knows why he isn't mentioning the exceptions in this case.

I do understand what he's saying though specifically when he mentioned a while back that "one bad film costs you three good ones." This might sound arbitrary as hell but it's a feeling I've always had when going through someone's ouevre and thinking "okay this is the only film so far not as good as the others" or "this is so terrible how did they end up with this project?" and it makes me rethink their filmography as a whole. While it doesn't lessen what I consider great for past works it does put an overall damper or a stain actually the kind that set in for just a few seconds too late and is there permanently when most of it was able to be dabbed away.

It's the trickiest position/thought in that sense because even in the extreme that its unanimous you've only ever made awful films you still get praised for that fact and popularity and fandom can be just as strong as those who have made widely regarded landmark films.

TWBB I think you have an interesting point there but I do not think he keeps parading his thoughts publicly for some sort of self preservation I think the closest it came to that was when he finally admitted by not actually admitting Death Proof was a bad film. I think his words were "that's got to be my worst film" in the sense that he was saying "that has to be the least good it gets compares to my others". He still didn't even fully own up to it by saying it the way he did. I think he's so proud of Hollywood (and he should be) he's trying to iterate to us that he's finally made the one film he really wanted to but didn't know it. I do agree though that the fact he keeps saying "this could be it" or "10 and done" could come off the way you're describing.

Let's also not forget Death Proof/Grindhouse was made when Tarantino was, egotistically speaking: fully unrestrained. Kill Bill at least with all the rip offs and homages managed to restrain itself insofar as consistently following The Bride in many aspects. There was a line to follow. Death Proof was just bits and pieces put together as a fun project but the problem it feels like only Tarantino was having that fun not like Kill Bill where it invited you every step of the way to revel in all the absurdity and cool moments.

The best thing about Grindhouse flopping was that it put a lot of conditions on Tarantino being able to make Basterds which given such short time to turn in a script whittled down from 3 and an accelerated production to having it be at Cannes he ended up making his now tied-with best film next to Hollywood. Basterds is still such an interesting film in how it handles all the material basically streamlining its own characters and story but packing in so many nuances in each scene you get one of the most fleshed out Tarantino films ever of course, until Hollywood came. It just goes to show when he's under rules to follow his mind branches out in even better and more interesting ways to tell a story.

But if it ends with the latter I'd say it would be the absolute peak. He made a movie about movies moreso than others and he did the best job at finally establishing his own universe through the memory of Sharon Tate. Hollywood is an incredibly balanced film when it comes to mingling fact and fiction. I can see why he wouldn't want to continue.

Just as an aside I would like to mention that John Frankenheimer imo ended his career on a high. Reindeer Games is awesome.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#466 Post by Monterey Jack » Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:31 pm

black&huge wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:58 pm
I do understand what he's saying though specifically when he mentioned a while back that "one bad film costs you three good ones."
This is an absurd statement. Tim Burton made Alice In Wonderland, which pretty much everyone agrees is a studio-driven stinker, but...does that somehoe negate the existence of impassioned. deeply personal efforts like Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, or Big Fish? And that's the only outright "bad" film Burton's made in my estimation...I've found aspects of value in all of his other films to one degree or another (hell, I like his wacky, compelling riff on Planet Of The Apes, which most people hate). Yeah, it sucks when a good or even great filmmaker whiffs with a project, but I prefer directors who are constantly in there, their sleeves rolled up as they produce new films, as opposed to those who tap out after a certain point. Clint Eastwood's 15:17 To Paris was a stinker, but I'm still keen to see what he delivers in Cry Macho, and Eastwood's ninety-one years old. Sidney Lumet's last movie was the incredible Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, which he made at the age of 82, and Lumet had his share of not-great films in the 80s, 90s and 2000s. Yeah, I love that each and every full-length Tarantino movie has been a 10/10 for me (or so close as to not even matter), but if he makes a movie that's "only" a B or B+ at best...that's still a good movie, and worth seeing to fit into his overal filmography. With great or even just good filmmakers, their failures are often just as interesting as their classics.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#467 Post by therewillbeblus » Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:46 pm

black&huge wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:58 pm
TWBB I think you have an interesting point there but I do not think he keeps parading his thoughts publicly for some sort of self preservation I think the closest it came to that was when he finally admitted by not actually admitting Death Proof was a bad film. I think his words were "that's got to be my worst film" in the sense that he was saying "that has to be the least good it gets compares to my others". He still didn't even fully own up to it by saying it the way he did. I think he's so proud of Hollywood (and he should be) he's trying to iterate to us that he's finally made the one film he really wanted to but didn't know it. I do agree though that the fact he keeps saying "this could be it" or "10 and done" could come off the way you're describing.
I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about- or rather how you're connecting all these points together- but to be clear, I'm not describing Tarantino's recurring public rigidity around his rule as a conscious piece of 'self-preservation'. We all create some form of constraints in our lives in order to liberate ourselves to be creative within those constraints, or to venture beyond complacent behavior. I believe that Tarantino's firmness connected to an ethos that doesn't abide by a logic outside one dimension of solipsistic perspective is a surface-level safety mechanism that secures both his ego (which he is open about being of supreme importance - and good for him, at least he's honest about it), and opportunities to pursue other projects, to himself.

He's also been saying this "10 and done" mantra since before the idea for Once Upon a Time.. in Hollywood was born. I imagine that he would love for that to be his last movie and to have made one before it instead, if he knew just how perfect it would turn out.

User avatar
aox
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:02 pm
Location: nYc

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#468 Post by aox » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:16 am

I'm really conflicted with his ten and done. I don't see how he can top OUaTiHW. (I'm not saying it is better than your favorite Tarantino film). I'm very cool with the suggestion he takes his time and shows up in 2027.

User avatar
bearcuborg
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:30 am
Location: Philadelphia via Chicago

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#469 Post by bearcuborg » Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:24 am

I liked Bill’s joke the younger generation doesn’t even know who Don Siegel was… I never understood Quentin’s reasoning, as I could more readily think of great filmmakers who worked well into their later years. However, the things he’s hinted at doing after his retirement from making feature films is intriguing. So I’m all for it…

I remember when I saw Inland Empire, and thought that it was everything David Lynch ever wanted to do in a film. OUATIH doesn’t feel close to that for me.

Personally I lost most of my affection for Tarantino’s work from Kill Bill onward, but was completely won over by his latest, which was as good a movie as one could possibly make. Still it doesn’t feel like a final film, for him specifically. Hopefully it does put an end to his alternate history themed films. I’d like to see him defy expectations with his final film.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#470 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon Jun 28, 2021 12:05 pm

bearcuborg wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 7:24 am
I’d like to see him defy expectations with his final film.
Heh, maybe he'll take a note from Scorsese's Hugo and make a kid's movie. :P

User avatar
Randall Maysin
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#471 Post by Randall Maysin » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:11 pm

I have a "great" idea for Tarantino's next film(s): how about you...don't...make a revenge movie? haha. I also think Eric Roberts, Angie Dickinson, and even Faye Dunaway (QT could cook up a really gr8 reason for her character's plastic surgery disfigurement lol) would all be very fitting additions to his stable of cool has-been declasse-movie stars. but they, or at least the femmes, are probably too old and cranky for leading roles :(

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#472 Post by knives » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:22 pm

Complaining about revenge stories:Tarantino::complaining about twists:Shyamalan

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#473 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:50 pm

Tarantino’s last two films weren’t revenge films.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#474 Post by therewillbeblus » Mon Jun 28, 2021 2:04 pm

I feel like I could only describe his middle four (Kill Bill-Django) as films centered around revenge. Reservoir Dogs is more about figuring out the mole, with regrettable revenge rather than cathartic revenge as the ultimate sour punchline. Pulp Fiction has an insular story that leads towards revenge in Butch's arc (as well as the rumors about Marsellus Wallace to kick things off) but even that isn't cathartic due to 'revenge' per se (Butch isn't personally violated, so the catharsis is really rooted around humanist compassion for his enemy as a fellow human being- "avenging" is closer; and his moment with Travolta is about some minor bad blood having occurred in another story but really boils down to acute self-preservation). Jackie Brown's narrative culminates in systemic survivalist conning, but I'm not sure I'd call it revenge, and Sausage is right about the last two which need not explaining.

User avatar
Monterey Jack
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:27 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino

#475 Post by Monterey Jack » Mon Jun 28, 2021 3:20 pm

Hollywood could be seen as a prevenge movie for what would have happened to Sharon Tate and her houseguests, had the Manson clad not decided on a whim to break into Rick Dalton's house so they could off "Jake Cahill", but you could only look at it that way if the characters knew of these events before they happened and took steps to prevent them, and Tarantino has never been much for any sort of fanciful precognition stuff like that.

Post Reply