Tarantino Vs. Fincher

[Jack Lynt]

This has been itching my brain ever since I saw this interview with Quentin Tarantino on Charlie Rose. In it, Tarantino compares himself to David Fincher, with a perhaps not-too-flattering spin on Fincher.

You can see the whole interview here:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10567

OR,

I was going to post that...but then I found that someone posted the relevant snippet on Youtube.

Now, I'm asking you, don't read the comments on Youtube for now. Who are those people anyway? I'm hoping to hear from filmmakers and aspiring filmmakers here on I.T.

Here it is. Please view it. It's short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aklyZSo07vk

A few relevant quotes of Tarantino (transcription is my own and so are any mistakes):

One of the most talented filmmakers of my generation is David Fincher. All right. But he's not in the same category as me because I'm a writer/director, and that makes it different. That makes it a different thing.

...and it's a lot easier to go and look at the scripts that are out there, and available, and you can maybe work with a writer, or do a little rewrite, or do that kind of thing. And you get more movies made. But, you know, cut to six years down the line, and where's that voice? It's gone away.

...'cause to me the glory of what I do is the fact that it starts with a blank piece of paper.

So what do you think?

Is Tarantino in a league above Fincher?

Does Fincher lack a voice?

Is Tarantino's work more glorious than Fincher's?

How does this fit all the other directors, those who write or wrote their own screenplays, and those who do not or did not?

Of course, for goodness sake, this question is not meant to discourage anyone who wants to make films but does not want to write screenplays.

 

[Murdock]

A quick blirt of an answer could be: Tarantino lacks the imagination to recognise something good in front of him. That, unless he writes it, he can't visualize it.

Just a thought.

If I had to pick, I would go with Fincher. Seven, Fight Club. That's good enough for me. Not to mention his impressive list of music videos.

 

[mad_hatter]

I think it goes without saying, Tarantino is a better writer than Fincher. That doesn’t make him a better director though. Is he a better director? My opinion, I prefer Tarantino’s work, but it’s marginal.

There will obviously be a certain amount of pride, taking your own concept from start to finish and ending up with a product that you envisioned in the beginning.

Tarantino seems to have a lot of power in Hollywood, he must be the only writer/director that is allowed to come up with absolutely absurd ideas and actually produce them. The Weinsteins must really trust him. In fairness, it’s paid off for them.

 

[Cracker Funk]

This has been itching my brain ever since I saw this interview with Quentin Tarantino on Charlie Rose. In it, Tarantino compares himself to David Fincher, with a perhaps not-too-flattering spin on Fincher.

You can see the whole interview here:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10567

OR,

I was going to post that...but then I found that someone posted the relevant snippet on Youtube.

Now, I'm asking you, don't read the comments on Youtube for now. Who are those people anyway? I'm hoping to hear from filmmakers and aspiring filmmakers here on I.T.

Here it is. Please view it. It's short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aklyZSo07vk

A few relevant quotes of Tarantino (transcription is my own and so are any mistakes):








So what do you think?

Is Tarantino in a league above Fincher?

Does Fincher lack a voice?

Is Tarantino's work more glorious than Fincher's?

How does this fit all the other directors, those who write or wrote their own screenplays, and those who do not or did not?

Of course, for goodness sake, this question is not meant to discourage anyone who wants to make films but does not want to write screenplays.

I just watched the entire interview, and I enjoyed it, very much. Thanks for posting this. I'm now a bigger fan of QT than I've ever been before.

Yes, it is obviously different, being a writer/director, than just being a director. I don't think it's a good idea to put a value-judgement on it, and say that one is more difficult than the other, though.

Screenwriting is extremely difficult. Directing is extremely difficult. So, follow simple logic, and you're making it that much more difficult on yourself, by doing both.

HOWEVER, I don't think that simple logic necessarily holds true. I like to think of the writer/director thing in the realm of efficiency. If I write something, and then allow someone else to direct it, and then someone else to edit it, that's three brains that you have to hope find a common thread, so that the movie somehow makes sense. But if one person is competent at all three, that's just one vision, from start to finish, no need to worry about whether the other collaborator gets it, or if they're on the same page, etc. It's more work, no doubt, but I think you can argue that there is also an advantage to taking double-(or triple)-duty.

Whereas, if someone is only directing, Tarantino says that's easier, but I think it can also be stated that there is difficulty in taking someone else's story, and finding a way to bring it to life, in your own style.

So, that quick little statement QT dropped, about what he does being more difficult -- ehh, I don't think we should use words like "more difficult" or "easier", in this context. Both ways of doing things have their own challenges. Extremely different, no doubt. But both equally challenging, to pull off successfully.

By the way, I think the real value of this thread is to imagine who would win, in a no-holds-barred death-match. I'm pretty sure QT would lull Fincher into a calm, with a clever anecdote, then stab his eye out with a pen, before really gettin' medieval on his ass.

 

[Jack Lynt]

By the way, I think the real value of this thread is to imagine who would win, in a no-holds-barred death-match. I'm pretty sure QT would lull Fincher into a calm, with a clever anecdote, then stab his eye out with a pen, before really gettin' medieval on his ass.

There will obviously be a certain amount of pride, taking your own concept from start to finish and ending up with a product that you envisioned in the beginning

Can't help thinking that too.

If I had to pick, I would go with Fincher.

Me too, I think...even if Tarantino is a genius.

 

[DirtyPicturesTV]

The ego on Tarantino makes me laugh, truly.

The difference is that QT is about content, and Fincher is about image. Fincher, as a technical virtuoso, blows Tarantino completely away, without question. Tarantino, when he's at his best (about 50% of the time), can be a compelling creator of character and situation. But his visual sense is spotty.

But if I were to choose a director whose work had lasting cinematic value, I'd say Fincher. Taratino's earlier work already feels dated and a product of its time.

Fincher is somewhat, in my mind, like Kubrick, and Tarantino is somewhat like Sam Fuller. Both are admired, but for different reasons. Intellectual, icy technical virtuosity versus gut-punching raw emotion. Though I love them both, Kubrick is talked about more than Fuller. Will that be Tarantino's lot in a few decades? Hard to say.

Fincher's battle is to make audiences care about his characters, something he has trouble with (e.g. "Panic Room" and the flawed but gorgeous "Zodiac"), and Tarantino's is to make us (meaning film geeks) care about his camerawork.

Tarantino's the crowd-pleaser, but Fincher is the master filmmaker. When I mentally compare "Social Network" to "Inglorious Basterds," I simply want to watch "Network" over and over again, and could care less whether I saw "Basterds" once more.

 

[JoshL]

It's funny, but I wouldn't name either as the best of their generation. That said, I like most of Fincher's films (even when I don't love them). Tarrantino...well I sometimes enjoy his films. When he writes and doesn't direct, however, I love his work (True Romance and Natural Born Killers are two of my favorite films from the 90s).

But comparing pop-culture wink and nod movies (and I'm not saying that to disparage QT's work at all) to psychological thrillers is really apples and oranges. I vote for cracker's cage match, though QT is more brash and outspoken, Fincher's work is often disturbing enough to worry about him. It's the quiet ones you have to watch out for, and if he taps into that Alien3 frustration/rage....

 

[JakeSully]

If this was taken to the cage, I think that Tarantino would beat the fuck our of fincher. Then, Fincher, covered in blood and cuts, stands up using the walls to lift himself up, while Tarantino skips around the cage. QT walks to him, and punches the fuck out of Fincher's face. He does not fall. He laughs. Maniacally.
Fincher launches forward and bites QT in the face takeing off a huge chunk. He starts kneeing him. Punching him in the floor when he falls. He fcks QT up.

I like both of them as directors. You can tell I'm a huge QT fan.