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

[Alexandro]

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.

[pete]

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.

[BB]

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.

[classical gas]

For the record, Tarantino will be getting my eight bucks this Christmas. 

[72teeth]

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 

[classical gas]

I'm pretty sure that I saw 'Jackie Brown' on Christmas day 1997.

[ElPandaRoyal]

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.

[Frederico Fellini]

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.

[Robyn]

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.

[ElPandaRoyal]

Yes. Him and those Hitchcock and Hawks and Ford dudes. No one's gonna be talking about them in the future.

[Alexandro]

and Sergio Leone.

[BB]

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.

[pete]

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.

[socketlevel]

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.