XIXAX Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Quentin Tarantino => Topic started by: Frederico Fellini on November 28, 2012, 06:31:51 PM

Title: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Frederico Fellini on November 28, 2012, 06:31:51 PM
Didn't know where to put this so I decided to just make a new thread and put it here because it has Tarantino in it. Though there's also David O. Russell, Ben affleck, Gus Van sant, Tom Hooper and Ang Lee in it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAK3aUq25fo
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Just Withnail on November 29, 2012, 03:18:40 AM
It feels weird to say, but (maybe with the exception of Tom Hooper) Tarantino has actually become the least interesting director of that bunch.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ©brad on November 29, 2012, 10:03:49 AM
That Q&A was kind of insufferable. Ang looked like he wanted to be anywhere else, Ben just kissed Tarantino's ass, Van Sant seemed baked, and worst of all no PTA.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: md on November 29, 2012, 11:22:31 AM
its just ang lee...he's chinese.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: KJ on November 29, 2012, 11:31:17 AM
*knock, knock*
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: KJ on November 29, 2012, 11:40:33 AM
I want so see a directors roundtable with PTA, Lars von Trier, QT, Terrence Malick, Vincent Gallo, Werner Herzog and Charlie Kaufman
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,
Post by: BB on November 29, 2012, 11:56:54 AM
It feels weird to say, but (maybe with the exception of Tom Hooper) Tarantino has actually become the least interesting director of that bunch.

Which is what makes all his retirement talk so funny. He doesn't realize that he's already slipped into his version of "Buddy Buddy" mode. And with fewer great films than Billy Wilder behind him.

All passion aside, the guy is a pompous wang.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on November 30, 2012, 03:38:23 AM
It feels weird to say, but (maybe with the exception of Tom Hooper) Tarantino has actually become the least interesting director of that bunch.

Which is what makes all his retirement talk so funny. He doesn't realize that he's already slipped into his version of "Buddy Buddy" mode. And with fewer great films than Billy Wilder behind him.

All passion aside, the guy is a pompous wang.

First, I completely disagree with both your opinions. Secondly, the dude's previous film was his biggest commercial hit, was a critical success and was a constant presence in awards ceremonies and whatnot. You may not like his movies personally, but the world still embraces Tarantino movies and still looks forward to them.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Just Withnail on November 30, 2012, 07:59:40 AM
It feels weird to say, but (maybe with the exception of Tom Hooper) Tarantino has actually become the least interesting director of that bunch.

Which is what makes all his retirement talk so funny. He doesn't realize that he's already slipped into his version of "Buddy Buddy" mode. And with fewer great films than Billy Wilder behind him.

All passion aside, the guy is a pompous wang.

First, I completely disagree with both your opinions. Secondly, the dude's previous film was his biggest commercial hit, was a critical success and was a constant presence in awards ceremonies and whatnot. You may not like his movies personally, but the world still embraces Tarantino movies and still looks forward to them.

Well sure he's popular, but is he showing signs of trying to make something with the freshness of Pulp Fiction (though to be fair, who can?), or the simplicity and low-keyness of Reservoir Dogs? Like Wes Anderson, he's a fresh breath considering the industry as a whole, but if you compare them to themselves, I really don't think they're living up to the potential they started out with. Now they're both just making the same films over and over, in the same package. It's not bad, just not very interesting beyond killing a couple of hours.

That said, I've seen none of the films talked about in the panel, but going by recent efforts and trailers, I'm much more pumped for all the other films, than Django.

From the Django-thread:

ha ha did you see David O'Russell mouth "temper tantrum" to correct Quentin, both neurotic and correct.

He has a thing about muttering under his breath, he does it several times throughout this great panel, (http://www.lynda.com/2011-sbiff-directors-panel-directors-on-directing/79042-2.html?srchtrk=index%3A7%0Alinktypeid%3A2%0Aq%3Asanta%20barbara%0Apage%3A1%0As%3Arelevance%0Asa%3Atrue%0Aproducttypeid%3A2) if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: classical gas on November 30, 2012, 08:47:21 AM
I'm not saying this as an insult, but I think that Tarantino uses film mostly as a way to feature his fetishes/fantasies on screen.  I mean, it worked a couple of times.  And Bunuel did that too, sometimes, but at least he had a point of view.  Tarantino just blew his load.   

Tarantino is living Dirk Diggler's life story, it's just taking a helluva lot longer than two hours. 
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on November 30, 2012, 08:50:51 AM
See, but when talking about Billy Wilder, he's talking about a more general opinion people have about his work, not his own personal taste. I, for instance, think that both Kill Bill and Basterds are as interesting as Pulp Fiction. Jackie Brown is my personal favorite. And also, as much as I am willing to give any of those movies a shot, Django is the one I'm really dying to see - and I just don't think I'll give a shit about the new Ang Lee (whom I like very much) or Hooper (who made a very interesting The Damned United and a very bland King's Speech).

Oh yeah, O. Russell does that a lot in this roundtable too. Dude just seems ready to explode at any moment. He freaks me out.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on November 30, 2012, 08:56:39 AM
I'm not saying this as an insult, but I think that Tarantino uses film mostly as a way to feature his fetishes/fantasies on screen.  I mean, it worked a couple of times.  And Bunuel did that too, sometimes, but at least he had a point of view.  Tarantino just blew his load.   

Tarantino is living Dirk Diggler's life story, it's just taking a helluva lot longer than two hours.

So do Brian de Palma, and Lynch, and Scorsese and Woody Allen and even PTA, and so did Hitchcock and Fellini and a whole bunch of other people. Why should any artist not want to feature his personal fantasies on screen? Isn't that why we love most of them? I don't think Tarantino is above criticism, I just don't understand what you guys are saying.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: classical gas on November 30, 2012, 09:08:12 AM
I was ready for that comeback.  well, I meant that it's ALL personal fantasy with Tarantino.  Like I said about Bunuel, at least he had a point of view, as do those others.  Tarantino doesn't have much more to offer except exactly what you expect from him.  And I like him just fine...I was just sayin. 
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on November 30, 2012, 09:51:55 AM
One thing that kind of bugs me is people saying Tarantino doesn't really have anything new to offer. It seems to me that just because he likes kung-fu and westerns people dismiss great things on his filmography. Either intentionally or not, Inglourious Basterds is an amazing movie about communication. People talk about his dialogue a lot, sometimes claiming that there's too much of it in them, but ignore that in this movie it is something vital to the story and to the characters, literally. That's something he hadn't done before. Also, his love for movies is for the first time an integral part of the story. It's a movie where actual physical film beats evil and liberates the world. You really think that in an era where digital prevails, and Tarantino being so vocal about his love for film, that is unintentional? Don't you think Basterds is a movie with a clear point of view? Dude may be all over the place and a little to full of himself, but the damn work is as good as ever.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: BB on November 30, 2012, 03:01:54 PM
First, I completely disagree with both your opinions. Secondly, the dude's previous film was his biggest commercial hit, was a critical success and was a constant presence in awards ceremonies and whatnot. You may not like his movies personally, but the world still embraces Tarantino movies and still looks forward to them.

Disagree all you'd like about Wilder (though by my count he's got at least a dozen all-time greats; I haven't seen his whole filmography), Tarantino is an indisputable wang.

That said, I actually don't mind his movies -- especially his 90s output -- and believe that he's a talented filmmaker. Death Proof and Inglourious Basterds are my least favourite among his work, but I wouldn't say either are genuinely bad films. Then again, I wouldn't say Fedora or Buddy Buddy (from what I remember, it's been a while) are genuinely bad films either. Not by today's standards anyway. Clunky, tired, not nearly so exciting and inventive as their makers' earlier work. Sure Inglourious Basterds was a commercial and critical success where Wilder's last few flopped, you've got me there. But let us not equate popular opinion with quality. See The Master for an easy refutation. Or, conversely, The King's Speech.

I'm looking forward to Django Unchained and sincerely hope that it does something different, but I get the feeling it's gonna be exactly what I think it's gonna be, exactly what you think it's gonna be, exactly what everyone who's seen his previous films thinks it's gonna be. This is what I mean when I say he's entered his Buddy Buddy mode. Not just predictability, but predictability bordering on irrelevance. You hardly have to see the movie to have seen the movie. I don't think there's any way that future generations will look back on Basterds or Deathproof with the same affection and devotion that they will Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Alexandro on November 30, 2012, 03:21:21 PM
please. no one KNEW what they were going to see when IB came out. That is bullshit. Unless you're one of those freaks who likes to read screenplays before the movie is made. IB is completely different in tone and intentions to any of the other films he has made, yet unmistakably his. The perception before it was released was that it was going to be a kind of Dirty Dozen men on a mission movie, and it was way too much than that. And before that, Kill Bill was a huge surprise for everyone, just on a technical level it was completely new for him.

Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: pete on November 30, 2012, 03:45:11 PM
tarantino and wes anderson are cursed with being way too darling when they first surfaced in the 90s. most of the criticism I think gets reduced to them not getting with the times - both of them have styles that are too distinct and egotistical for 2012, when the filmmaking vocabulary has diverged quite a bit, and these guys aren't like speilberg or PTA or spike lee who seem to know other script structures and shot sizes. but for both Wes and QT - it's actually pretty easy to argue that they're doing things that challenge themselves, and that their work is evolving - they just don't evolve in the way that their critics want them to, and they also have to contend with all the myth and imitators and spinoffs that've surrounded them. I still don't mind what they're doing, though I no longer admire them the way I did - but I find their careers to be a hella more interesting than the others who got lost in the play such as David Gordon Green or Sodenburgh.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: BB on November 30, 2012, 03:57:26 PM
So do Brian de Palma, and Lynch, and Scorsese and Woody Allen and even PTA, and so did Hitchcock and Fellini and a whole bunch of other people. Why should any artist not want to feature his personal fantasies on screen? Isn't that why we love most of them? I don't think Tarantino is above criticism, I just don't understand what you guys are saying.

Thing is, while all filmmakers of any real quality will have elements that repeat from film to film -- whether fetishes or fantasies or merely personal touches -- none that I can think of have VIRTUALLY REMADE THE EXACT SAME FILM FOR TEN YEARS quite like Tarantino. From Kill Bill on it's been revenge story after revenge story. Probably because such stories provide easy character motivations and structure on which he is able to hang his trademark dialogues. Not that this is inherently a bad thing -- though I am obviously tiring of it -- but it's not the same thing as Scorsese's Catholicism or PTA's father-son dynamics.

Lynch -- okay, maybe, though he shook things up with Straight Story and lots of people would say he's finished. De Palma, Fellini, and Hitchcock all have trademark styles but applied it to a variety of plots and characters over the years. When Woody Allen was Tarantino's age, he was doing some of his most inventive work: Zelig, Purple Rose of Cairo, Radio Days, Hannah and her Sisters, Shadows and Fog. I would argue these are among his best.

There was this polka record my grandfather had. It featured various "themed" polkas like the Fishing polka, the Bowling polka, the Rocketship polka. And I found it really funny when I was a kid because all the polkas were exactly the same except for a two or three second intro bit that established the theme. You'd hear a fishing reel cast and the line hitting the water, then the song would come in. Then the next track you'd hear a bowling ball rolling down the alley and the crash of the pins, then the song would come in -- same exact song as before. I'm no polka expert but they seemed completely indistinguishable.

Kung Fu polka. Grindhouse polka. WW2 polka. Western polka. See what I'm saying?

I still don't mind what they're doing, though I no longer admire them the way I did - but I find their careers to be a hella more interesting than the others who got lost in the play such as David Gordon Green or Sodenburgh.

I think what I've said above comes off as more angry/passionate than I intend (I'm bad with the internet writing). I actually feel like Pete. I don't mind what Tarantino (and Wes Anderson) are doing, but it's a little frustrating seeing their movies and feeling like they could do better.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: classical gas on November 30, 2012, 11:57:01 PM
For the record, Tarantino will be getting my eight bucks this Christmas. 
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: 72teeth on December 01, 2012, 06:36:53 AM
For the record, Tarantino will be getting my eight bucks this Christmas. 


Fuck Yeah!
one of my most favorite things in the world is when i know what the years christmas day movie will be...

True Grit, Catch Me If You Can, Ben Button, Galaxy Quest... great years.

Lovely Bones, Girl with the D Tat... meh.

Cast Away. so fuckin close..

...stupid ending  :elitist:
 
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: classical gas on December 01, 2012, 09:41:56 AM
I'm pretty sure that I saw 'Jackie Brown' on Christmas day 1997.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on December 01, 2012, 10:07:51 AM
OK, a couple more things about this:

- I still think when referring to old man movies, Tarantino (not only him, but others who agreed with him on this panel) mentions he's talking about that phase on those directors careers when they're seen as out of touch with the world and that's why not many people care about the movies. Considering the Basterds success, commercially and critically, I'd say the world still cares. A lot. That's why he's not on that phase of his career.

- That leads me to my second point. And I guess we'll have to agree not to agree. To me, Inglourious Basterds was a very different experience from Death Proof, and Death Proof from Kill Bill. And even Kill Bill 1 was very different from Kill Bill 2. Yes, to me, it is exactly like Scorsese with catholicism and PTA with fathers/sons/families. He uses some of the same obsessions in very different stories and settings. I wrote about what I think Inglourious Basterds is about a few posts ago. I could not see any of that in the rest of his filmography at all. Also, as Alexandro pointed out, the movie is visually much different than what came before.

- I have to wait until January to get to see Django Unchained. The Master and Django are coming out with a week of difference here in Portugal. And I0m sure it's gonna be a great week.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Frederico Fellini on December 01, 2012, 01:59:53 PM
I agree with everything PANDAROYAL has said about Tarantino. But at the same time, I understand what BB is saying and the comparisons to WES ANDERSON. Both QT and Wes seem to make the same movie over and over again, same style, same tone, same music, same everything. When they first started we all loved it because it was their own style, it was fresh and new and unique. But now it seems like everything they do is almost like a "parody" of themselves. The same techniques repeated over and over again. Which BTW is why I disliked "Moonrise Kingdom", the style (specially the camera moves) got so repetitive and predictable and downright boring (Whip pan to the right.. Followed by a symmetrically composed shot, followed by another Pan to the fucking right), I even began to wonder if Anderson knew any other Camera techniques?.

BTW That's exactly what makes PTA the best of all the “90’s directors”, he still remains so unique and fresh.  Yeah, he  keeps the same themes running all throughout his films, but his style and his way of saying/doing/portraying things is so very different in each movie. Compare BOOGIE NIGHTS to PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and then PUNCH DRUNK LOVE to THE MASTER... They don't even seem like they were made by the same person.  The same themes remain because they are in fact made by the same person and these are themes that are true to him, and his expression of these themes and feelings is what makes his movies be truly HIS.

Anyways, with all that said, I will still watch DJANGO UNCHAINED on opening day, and will watch anything TARANTINO and WES put out, even if it's garbage.  Why?.. Because they still make better films than most of what's out there.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: KJ on December 01, 2012, 04:54:30 PM
It's stupid to compare Tarantino with these guys to begin with. Tarantino makes entertaining popcorn flicks and blockbusters and nothing more. Don't take him so fucking serious.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on December 02, 2012, 06:21:26 AM
Yes. Him and those Hitchcock and Hawks and Ford dudes. No one's gonna be talking about them in the future.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: Alexandro on December 04, 2012, 09:27:11 AM
and Sergio Leone.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,
Post by: BB on December 04, 2012, 02:58:13 PM
Yeah, even I disagree. He's definitely worthy of discussion. And I wouldn't really describe his movies as popcorn flicks or blockbusters. They're genre pieces, but that doesn't mean they're not thematically weighty.

As for you, PANDAROYAL, I'll agree to disagree. We'll pick this back up after Django Unchained.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: pete on December 04, 2012, 11:33:47 PM
It's stupid to compare Tarantino with these guys to begin with. Tarantino makes entertaining popcorn flicks and blockbusters and nothing more. Don't take him so fucking serious.

that distinction is disingenuous. there's no real line between entertaining blockbuster and "something more"; it's just whether or not one can generate discussions with his work and whether observations made about his work can be backed up with careful thoughts and arguments.
Title: Re: Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)
Post by: socketlevel on December 05, 2012, 08:29:38 PM
It's stupid to compare Tarantino with these guys to begin with. Tarantino makes entertaining popcorn flicks and blockbusters and nothing more. Don't take him so fucking serious.

that distinction is disingenuous. there's no real line between entertaining blockbuster and "something more"; it's just whether or not one can generate discussions with his work and whether observations made about his work can be backed up with careful thoughts and arguments.

seriously... argo isn't a blockbuster? or life of pi? or les mis?

all three of those are blockbusters in sheep's clothing. all three were green lit because of cashing in on Oscar demographics.

One thing is very certain, Tarantino is making the films he wants to see, and has a lot of insight in his process. well worth listening to in my mind.