Tarantino in Hollywoodreporter's "Directors Roundtable"(+Affleck, O.russell,etc)

[Frederico Fellini]

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.

[Just Withnail]

It feels weird to say, but (maybe with the exception of Tom Hooper) Tarantino has actually become the least interesting director of that bunch.

[©brad]

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.

[md]

its just ang lee...he's chinese.

[Robyn]

*knock, knock*

[Robyn]

I want so see a directors roundtable with PTA, Lars von Trier, QT, Terrence Malick, Vincent Gallo, Werner Herzog and Charlie Kaufman

[BB]

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.

[ElPandaRoyal]

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.

[Just Withnail]

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, if I remember correctly.

[classical gas]

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. 

[ElPandaRoyal]

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.

[ElPandaRoyal]

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.

[classical gas]

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. 

[ElPandaRoyal]

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.

[BB]

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.