QT vs. PTA

Started by Reel, January 11, 2016, 05:27:36 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reel

 I'm sure this topic has been brought up, and everyone's answer was 'PTA', but I want to dig further into it. I'm not interested in talking about 'who's better?' but comparing and contrasting the monolithic careers of these two. It came to me last night in mid-conversation with someone who couldn't care less about this subject, but consider that QT was an only child of a single mother and PTA had an abundant, happy household full of toys and riches. Really, it seems to sum up the trajectory of their careers with QT's badass, macho henchmen ( filling in for an absentee father ) and PTA's warm and giving paternal figures. There's also a lack of sex in Tarantino's films, but it always borders on sadistic whenever it shows up. Meanwhile, Anderson celebrates sex as a joyous occasion...for the most part. I think what it speaks to is that for Tarantino growing up, sex was always weird. He'd have strange guys coming over to the house all the time to fuck his mom while he was just trying to eat cereal and watch TV . For Paul, sex was a mystery. He probably found porn at a young age in his Dad's closet, and then he'd be hanging out with his older brother's scantily clad girlfriend's who must've served as like surrogate sisters to him, fantasizing about them later and feeling awkward about it. Tarantino only had the movies to give him his masculine instinct, Paul had GENERATIONS of family and friends guiding him through every step of his life.

It's just cool to consider these two who are so diametrically opposed but come from the same ilk at the end of the day. They're children of Hollywood. QT has said that PTA is "The Montgomery Clift to his Marlon Brando", and I don't know any of Clift's work but it seems like a proper compliment. I think what he's getting at there is that Clift does the real, solid, great work while Brando is always out there pioneering some new formula for acting.  The brashness and intensity of Brando gets more recognition while Clift is just tinkering away at his craft. Quentin has a very competitive spirit, because it's been 'him against the world' since day one. Whatever he says, goes ( quite literally ) . Paul needs collaboration for his art to work, he thrives on the energy that a group creates when doing a project together, he's almost desperate for you to bring something to the table different from what he wrote. So, I haven't even begun to examine how their respective films speak to these qualities, but I'm looking forward to going into it with you.

Drenk

A short thing: I watched an old video of Tarantino. He was at Charlie Rose for Pulp Fiction. He talked about how he worked in a movie theater but the movies were all porn...and he said, many times, that porn wasn't interesting to him at all. I don't know, porn is always a little bit interesting, no...? It shows how much he doesn't care about sex, I think.
Ascension.

Reel

Well, this is what I want the thread to be about. AAAALLLLRRRIIIGGGHHHHTTTT??! Just whatever comes to mind about how these two are influenced. I remember in that interview him saying "I don't like porn, it's CHEESY and it's SLEAZY." I think he was speaking more as a film critic than a teenage boy. He doesn't understand the whole experience of watching porn in a theater when you could screen Indiana Jones or something.. Recently he made an argument against Netflix, saying "I don't want my computer linked to my TV, I LIKE to have porn and youtube bastardized to my laptop. Who knows the rabbit hole I'd go down if I had that stuff on my TV!"

A fun fact about his sex life: Lost his virginity to a prostitute at age 17, in his mother's bed. Speaking of the location, he says "That was probably the only good part about it"

polkablues

I think the two have a fundamentally different approach to how they inject their inner selves into their films. PTA's films are therapy, QT's are an exorcism. PTA examines, QT expels.

Though to be fair, Magnolia is about as exorcistic a movie as anything Tarantino's done.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Fuzzy Dunlop

This is great, alriiight? But ok, first of all, alright, here's a few points I don't agree with:

Quote from: Reelist on January 11, 2016, 05:27:36 AM
PTA had an abundant, happy household full of toys and riches. Really, it seems to sum up the trajectory of their careers with QT's badass, macho henchmen ( filling in for an absentee father ) and PTA's warm and giving paternal figures.

From what I gather PTA came from money but also a very chaotic environment, a vibrant place but not necessarily a happy one. Notice how all the father figures in his films have these intense dark streaks in them? Beyond Sidney, Jimmy, and Earl, who have clearly done wrong and are trying to atone, you have Jack and Master, who take in strays but also exploit them for their own glory. Then there is Daniel, a man whose soul is so rotten by the end, the only thing he can do to save his son is to disown him.

We can get into the mother stuff too, if you want.

Quote from: Reelist on January 11, 2016, 05:27:36 AM
Quentin has a very competitive spirit, because it's been 'him against the world' since day one. Whatever he says, goes ( quite literally ) . Paul needs collaboration for his art to work, he thrives on the energy that a group creates when doing a project together, he's almost desperate for you to bring something to the table different from what he wrote.

They are (or were) both very competitive. I see There Will Be Blood as Paul working out that energy through Daniel, his need to dominate and not ever explain himself. Of course on set they both collaborate with the cast and crew, and maybe PTA is a little more loose with his dialogue but not much. From what I've heard of QT on set and in post, he's very open to input from other people. They both just want to make the best film possible.

As far as collaborating with other filmmakers, QT is far more open to that than Paul. Would PTA ever share a movie with someone like QT's done with Four Rooms or Grindhouse? Paul pretty much keeps to himself, Quentin likes to be the center of the universe.

Quote from: Reelist on January 11, 2016, 09:50:16 AM
A fun fact about his sex life: Lost his virginity to a prostitute at age 17, in his mother's bed. Speaking of the location, he says "That was probably the only good part about it"

That is amazing and deeply unnerving.

Quote from: polkablues on January 11, 2016, 01:20:09 PM
I think the two have a fundamentally different approach to how they inject their inner selves into their films. PTA's films are therapy, QT's are an exorcism. PTA examines, QT expels.

Though to be fair, Magnolia is about as exorcistic a movie as anything Tarantino's done.

I think most of them are exorcisms. Particularly Magnolia and The Master. By the time we find Freddie on the beach at the end, there is this enormous sense that something huge has been expelled, not only for him but for Paul. I'm sure I'll never figure out exactly what it is, but by the end of that experience I feel like he finally got to the bottom of whatever he was chasing for so long and was able to flush it out of his system completely.

Lottery

Quote from: polkablues on January 11, 2016, 01:20:09 PM
I think the two have a fundamentally different approach to how they inject their inner selves into their films. PTA's films are therapy, QT's are an exorcism. PTA examines, QT expels.

Though to be fair, Magnolia is about as exorcistic a movie as anything Tarantino's done.

What does QT expel with his films (particularly his later ones)?
With PTA's stuff you can typically tell what he's trying to heal or expel (TWBB was a failed excorcism) and it often comes from the deepest, most emotionally driven part of the work. QT usually achieves a satisfying and cathartic (?) release through the use of violence/revenge. In regard to injecting their inner selves into the work, the emotional concepts that make up the majority of PTA's works are arguably more universal and relatable. So how do Tarantino's excorcisms lead back to him, what is he excorcising?

And yeah, I would think that excorcism is almost as crucial as therapy in some of PTA's films.

Jeremy Blackman

At the risking of sounding obvious, I think QT has a lot of violence stirring around in his head. He's not unthoughtful about it, though. His last 3 movies especially use violence very carefully and specifically.

We talked about that here.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 25, 2014, 10:51:55 AMJeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:04 PM]:   I admire the moral confrontationalness of Basterds, certainly don't think it's empty
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:04 PM]:   Tarantino raised a lot of questions about his own depictions of violence
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   Whether intentionally or not
Drenk [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   What's the moral confrontation? I don't see it
Garam [24|Oct 08:05 PM]:   i just remembered europa as a runner up great ww2 film that i need to revisit
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:06 PM]:   It's like you're supposed to enjoy this revenge fantasy, but suddenly the Holocaust is in the middle of everything
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   You have to actually see Nazi faces being melted.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   You don't see the ending as an orgy? In the theater? It's like an orgasm.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   Nope
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:07 PM]:   In that theater scene you're confronted with what the revenge actually has to be. It's thrilling but sickening at the same time.
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   I hope I'm not alone in that interpretation
Drenk [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   I'll probably watch it for a third time at some point, but every time it felt like we're supposed to enjoy it.
Drenk [24|Oct 08:08 PM]:   How you see it is way more interesting
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:09 PM]:   The whole movie kind of felt like that for me
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:10 PM]:   The opening setpiece creates this unease that you can't shake

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on October 25, 2014, 10:51:55 AMJeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:17 PM]:   The Fresh Air interview is mostly about Django, and he's pushed on his use of violence in that interview
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:17 PM]:   He talks about how he tried to have 2 distinct types of violence in Django
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   Violence against the masters, which was supposed to be fun and cartoonish (when that woman flies into the next room for example)
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   And violence against the slaves, which is always meant to be deeply disturbing
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:18 PM]:   (and is less cartoonish, more realistic)
Jeremy Blackman [24|Oct 08:19 PM]:   That division was designed into Django from the beginning

His use of violence in The Hateful Eight is even more calculated, and more explosively horrifying (and arguably exorcistic).

polkablues

Quote from: Lottery on January 12, 2016, 04:48:15 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 11, 2016, 01:20:09 PM
I think the two have a fundamentally different approach to how they inject their inner selves into their films. PTA's films are therapy, QT's are an exorcism. PTA examines, QT expels.

Though to be fair, Magnolia is about as exorcistic a movie as anything Tarantino's done.

What does QT expel with his films (particularly his later ones)?
With PTA's stuff you can typically tell what he's trying to heal or expel (TWBB was a failed excorcism) and it often comes from the deepest, most emotionally driven part of the work. QT usually achieves a satisfying and cathartic (?) release through the use of violence/revenge. In regard to injecting their inner selves into the work, the emotional concepts that make up the majority of PTA's works are arguably more universal and relatable. So how do Tarantino's excorcisms lead back to him, what is he excorcising?

And yeah, I would think that excorcism is almost as crucial as therapy in some of PTA's films.

I think in making that distinction, I was going for the idea that PTA treats his movies more reflectively; he identifies something within himself that is examined and sometimes expunged through the storytelling process. Tarantino, I think, is all about the pomp and circumstance of the expunging process. It's not about examination or understanding, it's about finding what's in there and yelling at it until it comes out into the light.

In QT's case, I think a lot of what he does revolves around his inability, or perceived inability, to relate to the world outside the artifice of film. Everything he does is an attempt to take the movies that mean something to him, that he's used as his window to the world, and repurpose them, to turn them around from things he identifies with to things that reveal his identity. The difference between him and PTA is that I don't think Tarantino actually knows what his identity is outside this framework. Tarantino is clearly drawn to this concept of catharsis through revenge, but I don't get the impression he has any idea why he identifies with it so strongly. His filmmaking is a subconscious attempt to force out the answer to that question.
My house, my rules, my coffee

jenkins

my opposing idea is PTA could be described as examined the same QT could be described as exposed. i think the foundation here is interior as exterior/exterior as interior. they don't contrast, they converse. polka in your first post you had me with "they inject their inner selves into their films" and the descriptions "PTA's films are therapy, QT's are an exorcism. PTA examines, QT expels," but you began to undervalue these features of QT in a way i didn't expect and with which i disagree. the exorcism, the catharsis, this purgation comes from the screen into the crowd. that's how it works. and who can do that well without being in reality? this is the man who wrote a conversation about a Quarter Pounder with cheese that became famous. he reoriented perspectives on cinema as reality and reality as cinema, everyone agreed. i think QT is talented at appreciating human capacities within cinema. and i think he's talented at appreciating cinematic capacities within humans. my favorite is Pulp Fiction because it was modern and the dialogue is outrageous. it's a great city movie because it deals with people's constructions of themselves. The Hateful Eight deals with people's constructions of themselves in a totally direct way so maybe i was inspired. hey, both PT and QTA are making period movies. they both have trouble seeing themselves outside a framework. and The Hateful Eight is about the frameworks by which people compose themselves, the various reasons they do, and how it affects their lives. i can certainly relate to this movie concept from a human perspective. to achieve this narrative QT uses a technique César Aira would call a flight forward within the continuum. really it's a fucking outrageous narrative that tears the fabric between reality and fantasy. that fabric, between reality and fantasy, that's a human condition too, and i tear at it when i can. anyway, QT represent, peace.

Robyn


wilder

Quote from: jenkins<3 on January 13, 2016, 05:01:39 AMa fucking outrageous narrative that tears the fabric between reality and fantasy. that fabric, between reality and fantasy, that's a human condition too

That's a really interesting observation and something seen in both their films -- The "Wise Up" sequence in Magnolia and the rain of frogs, Barry's suicide-dive off the curb in Punch-Drunk Love, The Colonel's thrice emergence from the limo in Boogie Nights, the entire end sequence of There Will Be Blood (maybe), the movie theater phone call in The Master, Sortilege's presence in Inherent Vice... Tarantino's are more directly fantastical and maybe more intricately tied to the whole of his plots -- the history revisionist tear in Inglorious Basterds, all of Death Proof and Kill Bill, etc.

Edit - I wish PT left in Freddie's scripted daydream of cutting off Master's head with a sword, would be a great addition to this list

jenkins

within the realm of interior/exterior, while describing PTA's creation of his worlds through his characters, he uses the directly fantastical and ties it into the whole of his plots as well -- The Master uses false reality as a pivotal perspective through The Cause, and IV uses illusive reality through Larry's detective work. and i think the entire board has memorized "I am a star. I'm a star, I'm a star, I'm a star." His movies seem to come from the more real because they come from his characters, but i don't think he suffers from a lack of fantasy, the same i don't think QT suffers from a lack of characters or reality.

and i liked your post and of course i'd want to see the sword scene.