Xixax Film Forum

hi everyone, im doing a project on auteur theory at college and ive chosen to do a close study of Tarantino...

So what does everyone think? does tarantino deserve the title of 'auteur' or not? personally i think that he doesn't, because he relies too heavily on his production team when making films. I think that his production team have sigificant enough influence on his films for themselves to be 'auteur' as a body/ group.

I would be really greatful for everyone's input and thoughts on the subject.

Cheers  :-D

Yes, he is one of the best examples of the new American auteurs, along with PTA and Wes Anderson.

8)  , care to expand at all?

also, does anyone know of any good websites/ resources where i can obtain people's reviews and opinions of tarantino? or just general stuff on him

okay: he writes, directs, and has a lot of say in the final cut of his films.

his style is unique in that, after watching even a couple minutes one can recognize it is Tarantino.

Of his three films to date, all are washed in a particular recognition of pop culture (60's-70's).

Don't look at it as Auteur being "does and controls everything". Look at it as the author of his products. Even though it wouldn't seem that they are "quiet, personal films", when put together his body of work does paint a very personal picture about the man, his tastes, his thoughts, and his sense of humor.

Maybe we should coin the term "neo-auteur".

I haven't watched QT movies in awhile, or I would try to do a theme connection. But I'm not sure if there is one... maybe someone else can help...

Auteur theory: (in film theory) a theory that the director is the chief creator of a film and gives it an individual style that is evident in all aspects of the finished product.   --Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged

I have a problem with this whole concept.  In Tarantino's case, who's to say that he influences the production team or the other way around?  We're not there so we don't really know, do we?  

Maybe I'm a dumbass and am not grasping the idea well enough, but it seems to me that nearly every film has the mark of a director's personal vision, so can we narrow the scope of auteruism down to a few select directors?  Just food for thought...not trying to be an asshole.

Quote from: SoNowThenokay: he writes, directs, and has a lot of say in the final cut of his films.

his style is unique in that, after watching even a couple minutes one can recognize it is Tarantino.

Of his three films to date, all are washed in a particular recognition of pop culture (60's-70's).

Don't look at it as Auteur being "does and controls everything". Look at it as the author of his products. Even though it wouldn't seem that they are "quiet, personal films", when put together his body of work does paint a very personal picture about the man, his tastes, his thoughts, and his sense of humor.

Maybe we should coin the term "neo-auteur".

I haven't watched QT movies in awhile, or I would try to do a theme connection. But I'm not sure if there is one... maybe someone else can help...

Now that you've put it in that context, I can swallow auteurism a bit easier.  I was writing before you posted, so sorry if my last post seemed ridiculous.

not asshole like at all, in fact quite interesting...

yeah his films provide a mark of his personal vision, but is it realy his vision, or a vision that is/was his, but has been carried by his team for a while, as they become him, if you know what i mean, which you probably dont, but hey

That's exactly what I mean.  It is their "baby" after all; they've all had their hands on the project, so to call it solely Tarantino's own creation is almost rude.

You can't just take the Auteur thoery from an American dictionary. It's such a complex (and sadly subjective) theory, and it's constantly changing. It translates to "author" from the French word, so I guess the first step is really defining what exactly Author means in context of a film.

Read "les politiques de autuers" by Truffaut, who somewhat originated the idea (as we know it) with the influence of Bazin. Then read some Sarris stuff, he's the American who most strongly propogated the theory.

If you give me a night or two, I'll find one of his essays I have at home.

This "control of everything" definition is why it's such a hated thoery nowadays. It was a misconception that that was what auteurism meant.

Sorry for the double post:

I sometimes divide things into two categories, both for good films.

There's the auteur films by guys I mentioned, who make the story their own (whether it's an original script, or they make it up during shooting or whatever) that carries a very unique visual style and jumble of personal themes that can be traced through ALL their work. So that their movies are essentially one continuing essay on how they view life/love/fiction etc

then there's the Movies By Comittee. A bunch of great journeymen coming together and utilizing all their talents to make a mosaic piece whereby ones job never spills over into another group, but each does his own tiny part. Such as The Third Man, a brilliant film.

Fascinating.  Thanks man.  I'll have to track down those two names you mentioned.  It's a shame this interesting theory is split in half though, isn't it?

Yeah, it's not an exact science. We'd need months to talk about it and give it proper justice, but this quickie explanation will do...

Tarantino's a hack.  He's a fan who's gotten to make films.  He just creates a collage of a bunch of ideas he's borrowed from other films.  I honestly think there are plenty of people who could do what he does.  I can't lie though - his films are entertaining.

:roll:

Quote from: lamasI honestly think there are plenty of people who could do what he does.

many do, rarely are their films any good

Quote from: Cecil B. Demented

Quote from: lamasI honestly think there are plenty of people who could do what he does.

many do, rarely are their films any good

Yep.  And that's what makes Tarantino an auteur.  Case in point: Guy Ritchie.  Watch Lock, Stock... or Snatch.  Feel your brain ache at their insipidness.  Then come back and enjoy and savor what a difference Tarantino makes, and how skillfully he can change it up, as proven with Jackie Brown.  I'm not necessarily saying Snatch. was awful.  It had its moments, but ultimately ended up a pointless exercise in style.  Lock, Stock... OTOH was horrible.  And you could pull out a lot of wannabe-directors (read: auteurs, read: pop-icons, read: the next great ... whatever) who've tried to emulate Tarantino, and it's all come out flat.  This is why originality is so rewarded and sought after, and why the auteur theory has so much truth and validity to it.

So what you're basically saying, Onomatopoeia, is that the wannabes are flat while Tarantino himself is a refreshing, tasty beverage. With alot of bubbles. That I can agree with.
One twist I respect Ritchie for is his use of actual criminals for crime movies.
Although his use of Madonna neutrals him out.
As for my vote, the only reason I said the whole team is "auteur" is because if I put a large amount of work into a movie like say Kill Bill, I would want my credit when it is due.  :wink:  I wouldn't want ALL of it to go to the director, who probably puts alot of thanks into his production team when the public isn't looking.
It's probably just tough to fit "The 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino and a numerous others" on a poster.  The writing is what I love his work most for.

QT is an auteur.  In fact, True Romance seems more like a QT film than a Tony Scott film.  QT's voice is so strong in that film that any number of directors could have filmed it, and it would have turned out the same (if the cast was the same).  Nothing against Tony Scott, who is a good director, but the entire sensibility of True Romance was overwhelmingly QT-esque.

I feel the same way about Natural Born Killers.  Even though they revised QT's original script, QT's original vision is so strong that it permeates the entire project.

So the Auteur Theory works, although the director is not always the auteur on a film.  Is Play it Again Sam a Woody Allen film, or a Herb Ross film?  Whose sensibility takes precedence in that film?

Directors like Scorsese and Altman have a very strong imprint on their films, even if they didn't write the scripts.  Writers like Neil Simon and Paul Schrader have strong voices, which shine through no matter who directs their material.

Quote from: soixanteQT is an auteur.  In fact, True Romance seems more like a QT film than a Tony Scott film.  QT's voice is so strong in that film that any number of directors could have filmed it, and it would have turned out the same (if the cast was the same).  Nothing against Tony Scott, who is a good director, but the entire sensibility of True Romance was overwhelmingly QT-esque.

Strange you say that since Scott changed the structure of QT's original script to a more linear one, and also changed the ending to a happier one.

A few scenes were re-arranged, but the content remained pretty much the same.  

True enough, the ending was changed, because major studios always demand upbeat finales.  But everything else leading up to it was very QT.  

It was an interesting mix, to see a highly mainstream Hollywood director interpret the work of a maverick, independent writer.  It turned out to be a good match, as Scott's penchant for quick cutting and balls-out action sequences served Tarantino's B-movie sensibility perfectly.  Maybe I'm not giving Scott his due, as his cinematic style did pump up Tarantino's material.  Also, Scott has a rather dark sensibility, displayed in movies like The Fan and Revenge, which dovetails nicely with Tarantino's material.  So in fairness, perhaps with my first post I short-changed Tony Scott's contributions to the film.

However, one can read the script of True Romance and get the same buzz that one gets from watching the finished film.  The material just jumps off the page and keeps you riveted.

Ya, a self professed auteur (note the 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino in the Kill Bill trailer).

I define auteur like this...
do people generally say I'm going to go see a genre film / film with an actor
or do they say they are going to see a film by (insert director's name)


if it is the latter...they are an auteur.

Quote from: SHAFTRif it is the latter...they are an auteur.

i am not a big tarentino fan....but this has made me think twice about all his films.

Quote from: soixanteDirectors like Scorsese and Altman have a very strong imprint on their films, even if they didn't write the scripts.

But even on the scripts which he's not credited on, Marty still did rewrites (supposedly he and DeNiro did the final draft of Raging Bull together). Also, he always picks scripts where his favorite themes are prevelent, hence his films continue on the "story" of his whole career, and can be studied all together as one constantly evolving idea.

And as to Altman, well his scripts are scant at best. He's getting massive improv and quaterbacking the whole thing. So he's basically writing (with the cameras) on set.


As to the "not crediting the other crew members" thing, well, nothing against grips (because they're absolutely invaluable on set), but do you really think the guy who sets up some c-stands has any effect on the story QT is gonna tell in Kill Bill? It's kind like saying that an author of a novel gets too much credit, and the guy who put the cover jacket on the hardcover copy is looked over. They're a needed position, but a faceless and ambiguous one. Too much input from too many people more often than not will ruin a good project.