some of the stuff you talk about sometimes seems a bit too arts-intellectual
Haha, oops. I don't *feel* terribly arts-intellectual, and when I do write something on that level I do feel a big old case of imposter syndrome sitting on my shoulder. At least I know what to do next now; lower the bar! A critical appraisal of Jackass, perhaps? :)
How do you classify Tarantino's stuff?
There's only one way to classify Tarantino's stuff; by film.
Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie where (almost) all the action actually happens off-screen. Pulp Fiction is kind of an anthology film, a bit like the Naked City. There isn't one story running through, but several stories overlapping. Certainly not an action movie. Death Proof, his grindhouse movie, does have action - one of the stars is actually a stuntwoman; another is Kurt Russell - but there's a *lot* of talking in it. A hell of a lot more than there is action.
And those three are the only Tarantino films I've actually seen. I'm not actually sure why I never got around to watching Jackie Brown; Kill Bill I didn't watch back in the day because I stupidly believed Tarantino when he said it was supposed to be one film and that after it had run in the cinema he'd put a 'one film' edition out and so waited for that; Inglorious Basterds I have on DVD but haven't had the chance to watch yet; and Django Unchained is on the "after I've caught up I'll watch this" list.
Broadly speaking, though, I think Tarantino is an interesting film-maker. I went from liking him with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, because he did scenes where people just talked shit about nothing in particular, which was unusual in film. Not only that, he was right up in your face with it too, making an impact, crafting memorable, quotable vignettes. The Madonna scene that opens Reservoir Dogs. The naming scene. The tall tale. The 'Royale with Cheese'. The wallet! "What does Marcellus Wallace look like?" That's all good writing there. And he made it visually interesting too, especially impressive with Reservoir Dogs when you consider what a shoestring it was made on.
But, then I flipped the other way when I realised how much of what he did, he'd actually taken from other films. Plot-wise, Reservoir Dogs owes a huge debt to City on Fire; a smaller debt is owed to They Live By Night (via Gun Crazy) for the staging of the heist; the look of the characters is probably straight from A Better Tomorrow. Kill Bill is stuffed with instances where Tarantino is doing his own version of HK films (there were, so maybe still are, comparison videos on YouTube), though the only one I remember is he took a sequence from the Heroic Trio. There are plenty of documented examples of where he's borrowed themes, concepts, and even shots. And so I flipped the other way because he then seemed a lot less original, and it raised the question of why not just watch the original films instead?
It took time - I think pretty much from after the Kill Bill backlash up to Death Proof - before I eventually flipped back. Why? Because during that time, I ended up learning more about *why* he makes films that way, and Death Proof was the film which made it clear. Which is, that the man *loves* movies. Absolutely loves them, all of them. That when he references an earlier film in one of his, he's not trying to rip it off, pass of something as his, but rather he's homaging all this stuff. It's absolutely done out of love for the form and for what has come before. In a way, he's still a kid making movies in his backyard in which he's copying what he's seen because he loves it so much. In one way, you could say he's making mashups as much as he is films. In another way, you could say he's living 'Be Kind, Rewind' for real, if you see what I mean. So once I understood that was what he was doing, I got my appreciation for him back again.
I actually re-watched Reservoir Dogs again earlier this year. And picked up Pulp Fiction a couple of months back though have yet to re-watch it. (And if I could find where I put my DVD of City on Fire, I'd re-watch that too.)
I will watch Terminator one day, I'm sure. But when that day will be, I've no idea.
Hehe, no. Don't change your style or fiddle with bars -- I sometimes learn something, plus others in your audience are just able to appreciate certain things more (and you never come across as pretentious, FYI). In truth I'm a little envious of your eclecticism, while also being too lazy to raise the bar for myself. ;-)
Jackie Brown is the only Tarantino I haven't seen at all, though I'm a bit fuzzy on Reservoir Dogs having only seen it once a long time ago. I like your analysis of Tarantino and his motives (while never having heard of any of the homage sources you mention...see, learning stuff). I think I came to the same conclusions about him via just appreciating his stuff on a more visceral level, I guess! Ant is less of a Tarantino fan than I am; still liking the movies but not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his films (whereas I think this is hilarious -- especially in Django Unchained). And I just love the loooong dialogues he gives his characters, even when they're ostensibly about nothing. I think Ant was bored by some of the Death Proof conversations, but not me (I know Zoe Bell is the stuntwoman/actress you are talking about -- her big break was doing stunts for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and you might like a documentary called Double Dare that heavily follows her, commencing back when she started doing stunts for Lucy Lawless in Xena: Warrior Princess). In summary, I've never met a Tarantino film I didn't like.
It can be useful to know if I'm swinging too much one way or the other, and so need to course-correct somewhat. But in general, no need to worry about me changing style; there might be elements I can adjust somewhat, but ultimately, I can't help but be myself. Eclecticism is a nice way of putting it, I like that. Much better than "Jack of all trades, master of none." :)
Reservoir Dogs I've seen more than any other Tarantino movie; at least three times, probably four. And I've seen City on Fire twice on top of that. In certain respects it's my favourite Tarantino film because it's the purest, if that makes sense. (BTW, if you only catch up with one of the sources, make it City on Fire.) After than, perhaps Death Proof. If there's a connection there it's probably that one was made cheap and one was made to look as if it was made on the cheap. Make of that what you will.
Ant is[...] not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his films
I think I read somewhere that Tarantino originally intended to cast himself in the Brad Pitt role in Inglorious Basterds, which adds a whole 'nother layer to the ending if you watch it with that in mind.
Far as the Death Proof conversations go, I don't know anyone but me who wasn't bored by them. General feeling was Tarantino was indulging himself a bit too much. Which may be true, that Tarantino was indulging himself a bit too much with Death Proof, but I think they're actually pointing at the wrong bit of the film. Really, as far as indulging goes, they should be pointing at all the many bits in the film in which it is Really Obvious that Tarantino has a foot fetish.
Wasn't aware of Double Dare, will have to see if I can get ahold of it. Tarantino films aside, the only other thing I'm aware of her having done is the Ed Brubaker-penned web-series called Angel of Death.
I loved Jackass so much that when the first film was released I went to the first showing on the first dayit was out. It was, like, around 12 noon or something like that. There were only two other people there, and they were more concerned about necking in the back row. Me, on the other hand, I spend the whole time either cringing or laughing myself silly (worst part? Paper Cuts, definitely the papercuts. Augh!)
I'd rate Kill Bill 1 fairly highly as an action movie but not the sequel, which I found increasingly irritating and uninteresting. I adore Jackie Brown perhaps because it is his least flashy movie, and yet everything seems to come together - fantastic cast and a measured pacing and characterisation that I've enjoyed on repeated viewings.
As for mashups... I can now see that The Limey is what you get when you add Terrance Stamp in Poor Cow with the basic plot of Get Carter and combine it with stylistic touches of Point Blank. No doubt there's a Henry Fonda film in there too that I haven't seen.
If there's one thing I've always wondered about Jackie Brown is, how much is it a Tarantino film, and how much is it an Elmore Leonard film? I really should watch it and figure it out myself, I know.
Agree with most all you say about the Limey there, though can't figure out which Fonda film it might be. Perhaps it's just an essence of Fonda.
Haha, oops. I don't *feel* terribly arts-intellectual, and when I do write something on that level I do feel a big old case of imposter syndrome sitting on my shoulder. At least I know what to do next now; lower the bar! A critical appraisal of Jackass, perhaps? :)
How do you classify Tarantino's stuff?
There's only one way to classify Tarantino's stuff; by film.
Reservoir Dogs is a heist movie where (almost) all the action actually happens off-screen.
Pulp Fiction is kind of an anthology film, a bit like the Naked City. There isn't one story running through, but several stories overlapping. Certainly not an action movie.
Death Proof, his grindhouse movie, does have action - one of the stars is actually a stuntwoman; another is Kurt Russell - but there's a *lot* of talking in it. A hell of a lot more than there is action.
And those three are the only Tarantino films I've actually seen. I'm not actually sure why I never got around to watching Jackie Brown; Kill Bill I didn't watch back in the day because I stupidly believed Tarantino when he said it was supposed to be one film and that after it had run in the cinema he'd put a 'one film' edition out and so waited for that; Inglorious Basterds I have on DVD but haven't had the chance to watch yet; and Django Unchained is on the "after I've caught up I'll watch this" list.
Broadly speaking, though, I think Tarantino is an interesting film-maker. I went from liking him with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, because he did scenes where people just talked shit about nothing in particular, which was unusual in film. Not only that, he was right up in your face with it too, making an impact, crafting memorable, quotable vignettes. The Madonna scene that opens Reservoir Dogs. The naming scene. The tall tale. The 'Royale with Cheese'. The wallet! "What does Marcellus Wallace look like?" That's all good writing there. And he made it visually interesting too, especially impressive with Reservoir Dogs when you consider what a shoestring it was made on.
But, then I flipped the other way when I realised how much of what he did, he'd actually taken from other films. Plot-wise, Reservoir Dogs owes a huge debt to City on Fire; a smaller debt is owed to They Live By Night (via Gun Crazy) for the staging of the heist; the look of the characters is probably straight from A Better Tomorrow. Kill Bill is stuffed with instances where Tarantino is doing his own version of HK films (there were, so maybe still are, comparison videos on YouTube), though the only one I remember is he took a sequence from the Heroic Trio. There are plenty of documented examples of where he's borrowed themes, concepts, and even shots. And so I flipped the other way because he then seemed a lot less original, and it raised the question of why not just watch the original films instead?
It took time - I think pretty much from after the Kill Bill backlash up to Death Proof - before I eventually flipped back. Why? Because during that time, I ended up learning more about *why* he makes films that way, and Death Proof was the film which made it clear. Which is, that the man *loves* movies. Absolutely loves them, all of them. That when he references an earlier film in one of his, he's not trying to rip it off, pass of something as his, but rather he's homaging all this stuff. It's absolutely done out of love for the form and for what has come before. In a way, he's still a kid making movies in his backyard in which he's copying what he's seen because he loves it so much. In one way, you could say he's making mashups as much as he is films. In another way, you could say he's living 'Be Kind, Rewind' for real, if you see what I mean. So once I understood that was what he was doing, I got my appreciation for him back again.
I actually re-watched Reservoir Dogs again earlier this year. And picked up Pulp Fiction a couple of months back though have yet to re-watch it. (And if I could find where I put my DVD of City on Fire, I'd re-watch that too.)
I will watch Terminator one day, I'm sure. But when that day will be, I've no idea.
Reply
Jackie Brown is the only Tarantino I haven't seen at all, though I'm a bit fuzzy on Reservoir Dogs having only seen it once a long time ago. I like your analysis of Tarantino and his motives (while never having heard of any of the homage sources you mention...see, learning stuff). I think I came to the same conclusions about him via just appreciating his stuff on a more visceral level, I guess! Ant is less of a Tarantino fan than I am; still liking the movies but not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his films (whereas I think this is hilarious -- especially in Django Unchained). And I just love the loooong dialogues he gives his characters, even when they're ostensibly about nothing. I think Ant was bored by some of the Death Proof conversations, but not me (I know Zoe Bell is the stuntwoman/actress you are talking about -- her big break was doing stunts for Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, and you might like a documentary called Double Dare that heavily follows her, commencing back when she started doing stunts for Lucy Lawless in Xena: Warrior Princess). In summary, I've never met a Tarantino film I didn't like.
And I also absolutely love Jackass. :-)
Reply
Reservoir Dogs I've seen more than any other Tarantino movie; at least three times, probably four. And I've seen City on Fire twice on top of that. In certain respects it's my favourite Tarantino film because it's the purest, if that makes sense. (BTW, if you only catch up with one of the sources, make it City on Fire.) After than, perhaps Death Proof. If there's a connection there it's probably that one was made cheap and one was made to look as if it was made on the cheap. Make of that what you will.
Ant is[...] not so keen on Tarantino putting himself in his films
I think I read somewhere that Tarantino originally intended to cast himself in the Brad Pitt role in Inglorious Basterds, which adds a whole 'nother layer to the ending if you watch it with that in mind.
Far as the Death Proof conversations go, I don't know anyone but me who wasn't bored by them. General feeling was Tarantino was indulging himself a bit too much. Which may be true, that Tarantino was indulging himself a bit too much with Death Proof, but I think they're actually pointing at the wrong bit of the film. Really, as far as indulging goes, they should be pointing at all the many bits in the film in which it is Really Obvious that Tarantino has a foot fetish.
Wasn't aware of Double Dare, will have to see if I can get ahold of it. Tarantino films aside, the only other thing I'm aware of her having done is the Ed Brubaker-penned web-series called Angel of Death.
I loved Jackass so much that when the first film was released I went to the first showing on the first dayit was out. It was, like, around 12 noon or something like that. There were only two other people there, and they were more concerned about necking in the back row. Me, on the other hand, I spend the whole time either cringing or laughing myself silly (worst part? Paper Cuts, definitely the papercuts. Augh!)
Reply
As for mashups... I can now see that The Limey is what you get when you add Terrance Stamp in Poor Cow with the basic plot of Get Carter and combine it with stylistic touches of Point Blank. No doubt there's a Henry Fonda film in there too that I haven't seen.
Reply
Agree with most all you say about the Limey there, though can't figure out which Fonda film it might be. Perhaps it's just an essence of Fonda.
Reply
Leave a comment