Quentin Tarantino

[stroszeck]

Here's hoping Tarantino takes a role in Django Unchained in front of the camera so he can recapture some of this magic.

[flyonthewall2983]

This sounds awesome.

[stroszeck]

Sounds wayyy too gimmicky, like "let's get the cast of Boat Trip or Red Tails to attract attention for the sake of attention." Why not do an all Armenian or Greek Reservoir Dogs reading (and with accents)? Least that would be mildly amusing.

[Matt]

Tarantino's relationship to African-Americans is quite a bit different from his relationship to Greeks or Armenians.

[flyonthewall2983]

Tarantino XX Blu-ray set coming out November 26th.

[hearthesilence]

Tarantino's interviews are typically awful - watching him on Charlie Rose talk about himself as if he was his own biggest fan was probably the worst of them. The ones he's been doing for Django Unchained are par for the course.

Like a few others of late, he's talked about retirement down the road. "Directors don't get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I am all about my filmography, and one bad film fucks up three good ones." Plenty of filmmakers who defy that assessment (Luis Bunuel in particular). And Tarantino's already made more than one terrible film, but they don't "fuck up" his good ones either.

[matrixschmatrix]

I actually have a hard time thinking of a director whose worst movies are their last four- it's certainly not true of Kubrick, Kurosawa, Ozu, Scorsese (yet), Altman, or anyone else that springs to mind as someone who was directing late in their lives.

[knives]

Visconti is a pretty clear case as are many of the '70s Americans who managed to survive through the '80s. Von Sternberg might also be a case though he went out on a very high note.

[criterion10]

I actually have a hard time thinking of a director whose worst movies are their last four- it's certainly not true of Kubrick, Kurosawa, Ozu, Scorsese (yet), Altman, or anyone else that springs to mind as someone who was directing late in their lives.

I don't know if this example would work best, but I'll certainly admit that the post-Altered States films of Ken Russell certainly show a decline in quality, and for my money are definitely his worst films. I believe that when he made Altered States he was in his early 50s, so he was actually still pretty young at the time. While films like Crimes of Passion and Lair of the White Worm are a lot of fun, they aren't quality cinema, and really stick out like a sore thumb in context of the late filmmaker's great other films. They are B-movies, and fun ones at that.

[Anhedionisiac]

QT's mentioned Billy Wilder and I'm sure he's also thinking of Robert Aldrich. Of the major directors canon, Antonioni comes to mind. Maybe not the last four in Sam Peckinpah's case but I find a hard time believing anyone'll deny his last two, Convoy and The Osterman Weekend, are pretty sour notes. George Roy Hill's last film was Funny Farm and I think that fact speaks for itself. Some current cases are Francis Ford Coppola, Dario Argento, Nicolas Roeg and John Carpenter (I sincerely hope they get to make a good one again but it's getting unlikely). All in all, there are obvious exceptions to the rule but perhaps decline is more likely in directors who cut their teeth in genre pictures.

[flyonthewall2983]

QT's mentioned Billy Wilder and I'm sure he's also thinking of Robert Aldrich. Of the major directors canon, Antonioni comes to mind. Maybe not the last four in Sam Peckinpah's case but I find a hard time believing anyone'll deny his last two, Convoy and The Osterman Weekend, are pretty sour notes.George Roy Hill's last film was Funny Farm and I think that fact speaks for itself. Some current cases are Francis Ford Coppola, Dario Argento, Nicolas Roeg and John Carpenter (I sincerely hope they get to make a good one again but it's getting unlikely). All in all, there are obvious exceptions to the rule but perhaps decline is more likely in directors who cut their teeth in genre pictures.

I liked Funny Farm. Granted, it's not up to snuff with his more well-known films but it's probably top of the heap when it comes to standard b-comedies of the 80's.

[knives]

Likewise at least two of Coppola's last three have been some of the best of his career.

[hearthesilence]

BAM did a series that addressed this issue. Bresson, Dreyer, Welles and again especially Bunuel ended their careers with masterpieces: L'argent, Gertrud, F for Fake and in Bunuel's case, I'd say his last three were his three best, period. (You could stretch that to four if you include Tristana.) Ford's last is great, close to a masterpiece. Haven't seen Wilder's last two, but Avanti! is excellent.

Earlier than expected ends that aren't quite applicable: Kieslowski's Three Colors, Yang's Yi Yi and Ophüls' Lola Montes. I think all of them died in their 50s. Contrary to his claim of retiring, some colleagues said that Kieslowski was still talking about possible projects before he died. Yang was planning a film. Ophüls was in the middle of shooting one.

Not a Spielberg fan, but I'd rather see his later films than his earlier ones. A.I. alone makes the case for me, but I'd rather watch Catch Me if You Can, Minority Report and Lincoln again than most of his early, record breaking blockbusters, despite their flaws or shortcomings.

Re: Coppola, I'm really not a fan of anything he did after Apocalypse Now. They're not all bad, but to me, they really pale to his '70s achievements, so I couldn't use him to support Tarantino's argument.

[domino harvey]

Funny Farm is better than most of the films George Roy Hill is known for. And yes, Coppola's on a total roll right now. Tarantino's argument is a more interesting one than I think some here are giving credit, but I've crunched some numbers and came out slightly in his favor using directors primarily known for their Hollywood work:

Examples which justify Tarantino's claims:
Frank Capra: A Pocketful of Miracles
Melvin Frank: Walk Like a Man
Howard Hawks: Rio Lobo (Not terrible, but certainly a few rungs lower than necessary)
Elia Kazan: the Last Tycoon (It has its defenders but even as a Kazan apologist I think it's pretty lousy)
Stanley Kramer: the Runner Stumbles
Joshua Logan: Paint Your Wagon
Daniel Mann: the Man Who Broke a Thousand Chains
Vincente Minnelli: A Matter of Time
Frank Tashlin: the Private Navy of Sgt O'Farrell
Billy Wilder: Buddy Buddy (Widely considered bad, though I don't think it's awful)
Robert Wise: Rooftops
William Wyler: the Liberation of LB Jones
Fred Zinnemann: Five Days One Summer

Examples which defy Tarantino's claims:
Joseph Anthony: Tomorrow
Cecil B DeMille: the Ten Commandments
John Ford: Seven Women
John Huston: the Dead
Stanley Kubrick: Eyes Wide Shut
Fritz Lang: the 1,000 Eyes of Dr Mabuse
Joseph L Mankewicz: Sleuth
Anthony Mann: A Dandy in Aspic
Martin Ritt: Stanley and Iris

[knives]

Though I think his four comment complicates even that as while, for example, Wyler's last may be one of his weakest (haven't seen it) but the three he made before it are reasonably representative of his total output.

[zedz]

This exercise can probably just keep going and going (and you need to bear in mind that many directors might end their career with much less power over the projects they work on than they might have had earlier on - so it's hardly a purist experiment for auteurism), and the more you look, the more you'll find candidates for both lists. Just for starters, I'd put Raoul Walsh on domino's second list and Sam Fuller on his first.

[Jeff]

Perhaps he had Hitchcock in mind too: Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, Family Plot.

I don't think Tarantino is necessarily implying that all these films are awful, just that the directors somehow "diluted" their filmographies with lesser films, and that they should have quit while they were ahead. I certainly disagree with the latter part of that.

[criterion10]

This exercise can probably just keep going and going (and you need to bear in mind that many directors might end their career with much less power over the projects they work on than they might have had earlier on - so it's hardly a purist experiment for auteurism), and the more you look, the more you'll find candidates for both lists. Just for starters, I'd put Raoul Walsh on domino's second list and Sam Fuller on his first.

Well, that reason alone is why I feel Russell's films declined in quality. He had a tough time financing his films after the controversy that surrounded his relationship with Paddy Chayefsky while working on Altered States.

I do agree with Tarantino to a degree though. It's all relative, though, and it depends on the specific director being discussed. For example, despite the fact that Tarantino claims Billy Wilder kind of lost it on his last few films, could he deny the fact that the man is an incredibly talented director? I highly doubt it...

[Anhedionisiac]

I had no idea Funny Farm had that many defenders. Perhaps I should revisit it again. Whether or not a particular film director (i.e Coppola) is no longer in his artistic prime is obviously a contentious subject and I hope no one holds it against me that I used Francis as an example. I should have tempered my words since I certainly respect the defenders of Tetro and Twixt, even if I don't share their view. Anyways, zedz is correct in that following this "diluted auteur" line of thinking could extend almost indefinitely (I've just thought of cases like Arturo Ripstein, Leonardo Favio and Carlos Saura!) and, to be honest, I feel guilty in having this much fun thinking of examples. It wouldn't surprise me if somebody came up with a parlor game along these lines.

[matrixschmatrix]

It seems to me, though, that it's close enough to 50/50 directors who are diluted vs. directors who do some of their best and most characteristic work in their late periods and directors who become somewhat washed out and less interesting that it seems odd to assume you'd fit in the latter category- especially since the trend with Tarantino has been in the opposite direction.

The other thing is that if you divide director's work into periods instead of doing it strictly by the numbers, people like Hitch look better- if Hitchcock had retired at 50, we'd Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, and a bunch of other masterworks.

[zedz]

I do agree with Tarantino to a degree though. It's all relative, though, and it depends on the specific director being discussed. For example, despite the fact that Tarantino claims Billy Wilder kind of lost it on his last few films, could he deny the fact that the man is an incredibly talented director? I highly doubt it...

Tarantino's position makes more sense as a corrective to some hardline auteurists who will tie themselves in knots / die in a ditch to rationalize the greatness of a pet director's final works, on the assumption that great artists inevitably mature with age and can't possibly make sub-par movies.

Generally, it's much better, and fairer to the filmmakers, to simply judge individual films on their own merits, if necessary taking into account the context of their creation and any particular problems this might have presented!

[JMULL222]

QT's mentioned Billy Wilder and I'm sure he's also thinking of Robert Aldrich. Of the major directors canon, Antonioni comes to mind. Maybe not the last four in Sam Peckinpah's case but I find a hard time believing anyone'll deny his last two, Convoy and The Osterman Weekend, are pretty sour notes. George Roy Hill's last film was Funny Farm and I think that fact speaks for itself. Some current cases are Francis Ford Coppola, Dario Argento, Nicolas Roeg and John Carpenter (I sincerely hope they get to make a good one again but it's getting unlikely). All in all, there are obvious exceptions to the rule but perhaps decline is more likely in directors who cut their teeth in genre pictures.

Ironically, Quentin Tarantino probably disagrees with you; considering the extended shout-out to CONVOY afforded throughout DEATH PROOF.

[Anhedionisiac]

]Ironically, Quentin Tarantino probably disagrees with you; considering the extended shout-out to CONVOY afforded throughout DEATH PROOF.

Probably. And I bet he'd also disagree with me on George Roy Hill since he's mentioned he'd like to write a book about GRH's films.

[Brian C]

Clint Eastwood's made some really horrible movies of late - four of his last five have been dreadful.

For example, despite the fact that Tarantino claims Billy Wilder kind of lost it on his last few films, could he deny the fact that the man is an incredibly talented director? I highly doubt it...

Getting off thread here, sort of, but I'll deny that "fact". For me, the charms to be found in Wilder's films have always been in his writing. As a director, though, he frequently seemed to have no idea what kind of movie he had written, so you get stuffy, stilted, overlong renditions of what were usually pretty lean screwball scripts. I mean, why in the hell was Love in the Afternoon 130 minutes? How did The Front Page match His Girl Friday almost word for word but run 13 minutes longer? Why do Some Like It Hot, The Seven Year Itch and Kiss Me, Stupid all seem like they pause to have a TV laugh track inserted after every punchline? It goes on and on with that guy.

[sighkingu]

Considering how much he reveres Battle Royale and Kinji Fukasaku his position makes little to no sense to me. I can respect that he thinks directing is a young man's game, there is some truth to it, although the many exceptions to the rule compel me disagree. This burning desire to have a flawless filmography is what baffles me; I can only cringe to think of the posters ten or fifteen years from now plastered with "Quentin Tarantino's 1st Film Since Retiring."