Quentin Tarantino

[domino harvey]

I am well-aware of his film company's name and I already acknowledged that Tarantino is a known Godard fan, but there's nothing there in the actual film unless you want it.

[DrewReiber]

Though I know Tarantino (please, all of you, drop the First Name Basis discussion of the man)

Sorry, I can't figure out how to keep it clear which directors I'm switching to without dropping the name "Tarantino" every single time I change the focus of a statement. If you're cool hearing "Tarantino" in every sentence, I'll be happy to stop using his first name.

[domino harvey]

we could all just call him QT, esp since he is such a cutie

[DrewReiber]

Ok, done and done.

[Antoine Doinel]

Anyone know what this Hellride project is that Madsen just finished with Tarantino? From an interview in Premiere:

Talking about shooting in Paris and Inglorious Bastards, is that what you are about to work on now?

I just finished Hellride for Quentin [Tarantino] on Wednesday, and then I had to go straight from the set to LAX. Hellride is a big giant motorcycle movie. I just saw Quentin at the Martinez [Hotel in Cannes]. He is looking well. But he is writing Inglorious Bastards. We haven't started shooting yet. He is still out promoting Death Proof.

[patrick]

This is the most I could find, from MTV of all places:

After a long period of rumor and speculation, Quentin Tarantino's "Hell Ride" has finally received the green light. According to longtime Tarantino collaborator and leading man Michael Madsen, who is set to star in the movie, Tarantino just recently received the good news. "It's a motorcycle picture," Madsen reported, squinting and rasping in his trademark style. The film, which Tarantino will produce, was written and will be directed by actor Larry Bishop. "He was the one in the [strip] club [in 'Kill Bill 2'] who tells me to take my hat off," Madsen said. "Hell Ride" will be "reminiscent of the '70s, those motorcycle pictures they made with Joe Namath; the really bad B-movie motorcycle movies," he continued. "We're gonna make it like that, but in modern times, with that kind of idea behind it. I think that's what makes it fun." The project, a revenge-fueled tale of three "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"-type characters, is slated begin filming soon. ...

Oh, and Tarantino is starring alongside Bishop and Madsen.

[domino harvey]

Oh good

[Cinesimilitude]

Tarantino was originally supposed to play the 3rd biker, Comanche, but he's only producing now. Tarantino's original role has now gone to Eric Balfour (best known as Milo from the first few seasons of 24).

The story is said to pull from all kinds of genre's, most prominently westerns and exploitation films. Pistolero (Larry Bishop), The Gent (Madsen), and Comanche set out to avenge the death of Pistolero's old lady at the hands of the 666ers, a rival motorcycle gang.

rumors have Vinnie Jones and Dennis Hopper as the lead members of the 666ers.

IMDB.

[patrick]

Hilarious news piece from IMDB:

American director Quentin Tarantino has angered the Italian movie industry after calling the country's contemporary cinema "depressing." The Grindhouse filmmaker is a well-known admirer of Italian cinema in the '60s and '70s, with a particular love of 'spaghetti' westerns and the giallo thriller genre. Tarantino, whose favourite movie is Sergio Leone's 1969 classic The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, said, "New Italian cinema is just depressing. Recent films I've seen are all the same. They talk about boys growing up, or girls growing up, or couples having a crisis, or vacations of the mentally impaired." Veteran actress Sophia Loren has reportedly hit back, "How dare he talk about Italian cinema when he doesn't know anything about American cinema?" Elsewhere, daily newspaper L'Unita has called Tarantino "mentally impaired" and not the Italian film industry.

[DrewReiber]

They talk about boys growing up, or girls growing up, or couples having a crisis,"

He just described a good chunk of both Fellini and Antonioni's work, the latter of whose work I will defend unto my death.

You know, I'm also a fan of Martino, Fulci, Castellari, etc, etc... but this kind of behavior is just going to cause a backlash against these lesser respected filmmakers and is more deserved of Tarantino. Still, why does this get more mainstream coverage when Godard called him the "Abu Ghraib" of filmmakers? I guess it's true, no one does care what Godard says or does anymore.

[Belmondo]

I guess that means I'm wrong in my interpretation that KILL BILL is clearly an homage to L'AVVENTURA in that both are merely an excuse to look at a stunning woman for a couple of hours.
If you were to force me to make a more serious contribution to this discussion, it would involve my suspicion that we are in the middle of a generational argument.
Tarantino and my grown son put The Good, The Bad and The Ugly at the top of their list, but I love Antonioni, and never the twain shall meet.
Maybe it's a damn shame and maybe it's not a problem at all, but my baby boom generation felt a perverse need to reject just about everything, and it did spark an explosion of filmmaking auteurs in the 1970's, but most of us came back to Fellini, Antonioni and all the others whose work has clearly stood the test of time. Tarantino has talent to burn, but he needs to get out of the GRINDHOUSE and into the art house.

[toiletduck!]

Are we really to the point where the presses need to be stopped every time Tarantino says something opinionated?

I don't understand why this is so inflammatory to anyone but the Italians. What giant is Tarantino offending exactly? It's not like the country is really considered a current hotbed for cinematic adventures. I'm sure there's great stuff coming out of Italy, but certainly not in droves.

And I know he's still alive and kicking, but are we actually lumping Antonioni in with Contemporary Italian Filmmakers? 'Cause I don't think Tarantino was making that implication.

-Toilet Dcuk

[Oedipax]

Still, why does this get more mainstream coverage when Godard called him the "Abu Ghraib" of filmmakers? I guess it's true, no one does care what Godard says or does anymore.

I hadn't heard this, and I certainly take notice when JLG says and does things. What was the source for this, do you have a link?

Not that the comment surprises me - I seem to remember reading one account of the Voyage(s) en utopie installation that mentioned a video loop showing, among other things, a clip from the ear-cutting torture scene in Reservoir Dogs mixed with other films and documentary footage. The impression I got was that it was not a favorable usage.

[DrewReiber]

What was the source for this, do you have a link?

No, I'm sorry. The interview was probably 3 years ago and I'm pretty sure I read it in print. I am positive that it was around the time that Kill Bill vol. 2 had been released. Trust me, if I could grab it for you it would be here already. Chances are, though, it was translated directly from a French source and sadly I'm an uneducated American who only speaks 0.5 languages.

If you were to force me to make a more serious contribution to this discussion, it would involve my suspicion that we are in the middle of a generational argument. Tarantino and my grown son put The Good, The Bad and The Ugly at the top of their list, but I love Antonioni, and never the twain shall meet.

I don't know, that doesn't make much sense to me. I'm in my 20's and I love Leone and Antonioni quite equally. L'Eclisse and GBU sit pretty high up in my favorites list, among Mr. Arkadin, El Topo, Lang's Metropolis and hell, even Superman: The Movie. I'm not trying to argue that Richard Donner exhibits the talent of Antonioni or Leone, but I don't feel the need to extinguish my appreciation for differents types of movies or eras in filmmaking just to elevate my own ego.

And no, I don't think Tarantino has any talent to burn, he's just really good at feigning the skills of his "predecessors" through reflexive, referential cut and paste work. He probably has more Weinstein money to burn, though. At least he's stopped pretending and is now planning nothing more than straight remakes.

[domino harvey]

I'll consider something Tarantino says as soon as he comes up with a sound-byte half as delightful as "the Abu Ghraib of Filmmakers."

[filmnoir1]

I believe that it is time that everyone wakes up and realizes that Tarantino is not a great filmmaker, or even a good one. In fact he is nothing more than the poster child for "postmodernism" because of the way that he continually draws upons films and filmic experiences which he could never have really known. More importantly these homages, allusions or love letters to "grindhouse pictures" and "exploitation" films of the late 1960s and 1970s are evidence that he is someone who longs for a time when women and minorities onscreen served as nothing more than cannon fodder for white desires and inclinations. While I am not against directors using homages in their work a la Todd Haynes Far From Heaven, what I am opposed to is the brutal disregard for the history which these other films and directors were a part of.

I totally agree with Godard that Tarantino is the Abu Gharib of directors because like the current US administration and some within the nation, there is no real awareness of history and how that has impacted the present. Instead there seems to be this disconnect in order to espouse a doctrine of "cool forgetfulness" a strategy which I cannot see as anything more than naive. Tarantino may wish to celebrate the filmgoing experience of the 1970s but what he fails to capture or perhaps even realize is that many of the films he celebrates were in fact crafted in opposition to the positive social movements of the 60s and 70s such as feminism, the civil rights movement and that of the gay and lesbian movement. What is pertinent to any discussion of all cultural products is their involvement in crafting a political and cultural sense, something which I do not believe Tarantino is even capable of understanding.

As a educator in film studies I would argue that Tarantino is one of the worst things that could have ever happened to American cinema, especially because so many students today believe that all movies should be like his, rather than seeking to tell their own stories or share their own opinions. While he maybe the "coolest kid in town" to some for me he is another example of how cinephilia can be detrimental to an individual.

[Antoine Doinel]

Okay, I am far from a Tarantino fan, but calling him "the worst thing to happen to American cinema" is bit reactionary and is giving him more credit than he is due. I don't think that Tarantino so much wants to regress to having women and minorities serve white desires, so much he uses them to serve his own fetishes. Tacky? Probably. Cause for alarm? Not really. There are countless directors that insert their own sexual or political or social desires into their films since the dawn of film. Some more successfully than others, but I don't think Tarantino needs to be pilloried for that. Yes, I do find some of Tarantino's use of minorities and particularly the cinematic gaze he uses troubling, but probably no more so than Hollywood as a whole. Everything from the "mystical black man" to women being used as meat in horror films has continued for the past fifty years continues to this day. Hell check out the the internet buzz for John Rambo despite the leaked footage's obvious ignorance for the use of its minority characters. Tarantino just happens to fetishize black street language, feet, Asian and black women. Van Sant happens to like Viggo Mortensen's ass. Every director Scarlet Johannsen has worked with loves her breasts. Again, each case has to be taken with context etc etc. Tarantino has at times failed (Kill Bill), and other times succeeded (Jackie Brown) or had mixed results (Death Proof). Perhaps we're launching into an entirely different converstion here.

As evidenced by the resounding failure of Grindhouse at the box office, Tarantino's impact on contemporary American cinema is minimal at best. I think the importance of Tarantino as a filmmaker is extremely overstated probably no more so than by the man himself. Perhaps you have a better grasp at what "the kids" are into these days, but I would argue Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, and Wes Anderson are serving as more popular and cinematic influences on today's generation than Tarantino.

Let's be honest - the influence Tarantino had, was at its peak circa Pulp Fiction and it spawned its largely lacklustre imitators for a few years, had Hollywood finally take a serious look at independent film and that was about it. That goodwill was squandered with popular audiences by being involved in two miserable pictures - Four Rooms and From Dusk 'Til Dawn and finally by the mature and measured (hardly words that could be used to describe any of his films prior or since) Jackie Brown. Kill Bill was successful, yes, but it hardly sparked any cinematic ripoffs or started any trends.

I find the popularity of things like Wild Hogs or Scary Movie to be more detrimental to American cinema than anything Tarantino has done.

[scalesojustice]

on the other hand, no one is going to confuse wild hogs or scary movie for deep cinema.

Tarantino is faux high-brow, and that i find detremental to the state of American film more than the Hollywood weekend filler.

[flyonthewall2983]

On the other hand, nobody is going to say that what QT is doing now is high-brow.

[Antoine Doinel]

I doubt anybody who went to see Death Proof, went to see it as a piece of "deep cinema".

[scalesojustice]

alright, well when film school kids hold Tarantino as the end all be all of cinema, there's a problem. Grindhouse seemed to pull the curtain back and reveal Tarantino as a hack anyway. so, i suppose i'm speaking pre-grindhouse.

[DrewReiber]

alright, well when film school kids hold Tarantino as the end all be all of cinema, there's a problem.

I just graduated film school and I can tell you that's exactly the way it is. The less educated faculty members (the ones who thought Adaptation was pro McKee) used Tarantino's films to pander to the students while the more educated professors were too intimidated to step forward and share their perspectives. Some of the most hilarious times were the incidents where students made the mistake of arguing film theory using Tarantino's work as primary examples for their thesis. Man oh man, did those guys fail every time.

Honestly, and this is not an exaggeration, most film school students think film started with Star Wars (or Jaws), independent cinema started with Pulp Fiction (?!??!), horror started with Scream and the era of great filmmaking with Titanic. Try talking about anything older than 10 years and you're already in trouble.

[domino harvey]

It really is hilarious when someone will try to use examples from a QT or Kevin Smith movie in a college-level film discussion. It's really depressing how few students are willing to seek out directors/films outside of their level of comfort. One of my favorite moments in a film class was when some kid tried to talk about the Stormtroopers in Star Wars during a discussion of black/white markers in cinema and the professor goes "We're not going to talk about Star Wars in a film class." =D>

[Barmy]

Can't we just appreciate him for "presenting" Hostel II?

[Harold Gervais]

I find any argument that makes Tarantino either the best thing that has happened to movies or the worst to both be wildly overstated. The man has always been a genre filmmaker and what he makes are "B" movies with "A" budgets & stars. His movies are a response to those films & genres which moved him and flicked the switch of his imagination. He sticks with what interests him and people can either judge the movies on their own terms or they can try and read things into them that I would argue really aren't present. I mean there is only so much depth you can assign to a movie called Kill Bill or Deathproof without sinking the boat. I do agree that Jackie Brown proves he could move to something more mature and I would argue that Deathproof does move beyond its implied cinematic intent with some really sharp writing that says maybe he is ready to move beyond the launching pad & into something more complex but up until the point going for something deeper is the thing which interests him, why try to force the issue? A viewer can either accept that what they are watching is generally going to be a pot-boiler movie set in a specific style made through the filter of someone in love with that specific style or genre. Such a love is usually going to lead to some kind of excess and frankly, that is part of the package as well. To say he should be doing this or doing that or making art house films just doesn't do anyone any justice.

Tarantino's biggest problem is that he was turned into some kind of savior to the film industry by the media and he did what almost anyone else would do, he took advantage of the oppurtunity presented to him but really, he has remained true to what he wants to see onscreen and that is about the only thing I find truly remarkable about his career.