why tarantino sucks

Clive,

I agree with your assessment of Tarentino. He's a very good director, but except for "Jackie Brown", he has nothing to say. His dialogue is great, snappy and real, but in the end it's all razzle dazzle. I still enjoy his movies for what they are, fun, cinematic romps.

Scott
 
That's it! That's exactly right! There is a certain shallowness that is missing from his films, it's odd to come by but it's definitely there. But I suppose that all comes from his testosterone fuelled love of violence. Isnt it odd you never see any female directors doing slahing, gun toting flicks?
 
Tarantino embodies pop culture. He's a walking encyclopedia of genre films that have been mostly overlooked. If he's ripping them off, he must see it as paying homage to his influences who probably wouldn't get exposure any other way.

When I saw Pulp Fiction in the theaters, it was the biggest jolt I ever had watching a film on the big screen. Ever.

Beyond the testosterone and hipster-square appeal to his films -- which, I admit, has a marginalized audience -- I think he does a great job of making characters with multiple dimensions. No one else writes screenplays in which everyone is conceivably BOTH the hero AND the villain. I think that rounded quality is what makes his characters, and thus his films, stand out from the pack -- when we see flawed characters whom we (sometimes regretfully) identify with taking bullets, we care. That's what separates a Tarantino "action" flick (I use quotes because I think he tackles deeper themes than "run-shoot-kiss") from the rest.
 
On SuperSoupy's rhetorical question about 'why you don't see female directors...' Yeah, not a whole lot, I can think of one 'commercial' filmmaker who uses 'gun-toting violence'-Katherine Biegalow. And I don't think it's really 'curious', I think its more about access-I would propose that if you had as many female directors with the tools and resources as male directors, than you'd have just as much screen violence-it really is a fallacy to believe chicks can't get mad and show it in the same gut-splitting visuals as a male director. :D Bird
 
stbd1 said:
No one else writes screenplays in which everyone is conceivably BOTH the hero AND the villain.
Click to expand...

good point! it's not a position that casual moviegoers are put in very often. every character in Pulp Fiction... well, maybe with the exception of Jules... would have been painted as a total villain through the eyes of any other director. it's so hard to get the audience to sympathize with a character whose primary responsibility is to do evil deeds.
 
I'm not so sure about the "give women the same resources as men and they'd produce art that's just as violent" theory. Very few women I know tend to see things or react to things the same way men do. There are exceptions, but for the most part, the women I've known tend to channel any feelings of frustration, insecurity or anger -- the driving forces behind most violent acts (and violent art) -- in completely different and less direct ways than men do. On those rare occasions when they do indulge in violence, it seems like they're invoking their right to play like the boys do.

Since most of our films (and the world in general) are shaped by the Straight White Male influence, women are still looking for ways to have their own voices heard by the masses. Sometimes they adopt a masculine tone to get their foot in the door. It's still a boys' club.

But it's telling that the hyper-violent revenge fantasy of "Kill Bill," which features a pretty girl whacking those who did her wrong, was written and directed by a man.

In the end, Tarantino may be as influential as he is because he makes movies HE'D want to see. I suspect Spielberg does the same thing. Tarantino just happens to have a much more twisted taste in movies.
 
Good point on the female directors bird16,but they would have to have an equal interest in violence as men do, which isnt the norm.
Back on the QT thing, its not like he's the first person to build both heroes and villains in the same character, it has been done many times before in shakespearean playwriting and theatre, its just that its kinda (well, very!) rare to see it in films. I'm not arguing though, its a great way of developing characters!
On stbd's point on him being a walking encyclopedia,yea cool. i mean, its great to see him paying homage to the forgotten classics. But if he's repeating these styles, how is he being seen as being a revolutionary for it?
 
SuperSoupy said:
On stbd's point on him being a walking encyclopedia,yea cool. i mean, its great to see him paying homage to the forgotten classics. But if he's repeating these styles, how is he being seen as being a revolutionary for it?
Click to expand...

Probably because he's doing it in an ultra-modern, easily accessible way. Or because he finds innovative ways to fuse blatant ripping-off with timeless pop culture references. Or because he's admitting he regurgitates everything he's ever seen, while so many artists pretentiously claim that they're trying to be original and "have something to say."

Or because he's the first person to wed dismemberment, anal rape and gigantic hypodermic needles with retro-cool music and actors on a furious comeback streak and somehow sell it to mainstream cineplexes.

Asking why Tarantino is a revolutionary is kind of like asking why John Waters or Andy Warhol were revolutionary. Sure, they're all hacks of questionable talent, but they were in the right place at the right time, they made the obscure accessible and they stuck to their vision without being ground up by the system. That all accounts for something, even if their individual visions aren't the kind of thing you write manifestos about.
 
stbd1 I agree that women don't express their 'madness' in the same ways as men do because we're socialized to express this anger in respectable ways. I knew I wanted to be an artist since I was a child, but no one handed me a camera or sat me at a drafting board-I was expected to go into fashion or interior design. Don't be fooled by how your girlfriend, or sister, or mother might re-direct anger, it's in there somewhere. My argument is that if you give 1000 men and 1000women the same resources, exempt them from what's 'expected' based on gender, than you'd have as many women as men choosing the style/genre of violence-after all , isn't anger part our instinctual nature? But you are totally correct that we live in a societydominated by straight, white males and it does and will affect most of the art generated. to be fair, how do you know female filmmakers wouldn't have an equal interest in violence as male filmmakers? I, myself, don't know of a whole lot of female filmmakers to poll!
 
bird16 said:
to be fair, how do you know female filmmakers wouldn't have an equal interest in violence as male filmmakers?
Click to expand...

True. I don't know that for a fact any more than I do or don't know why Tarantino is popular. These boards are strictly opinion.

That said, I suppose you're right that women would be as predisposed to violence as men are. I believe women are every bit as pissed off at certain things as men are. But if I had to guess, I'd say that men get off on the power of destruction more than women do. I suspect that, free of popular influence, women would find different ways to say the same things without churning out bloodsoaked epics at the same rate men do. Maybe I'm wrong. But I also haven't heard of a whole lot of female serial killers, and it's not like they need permission from society to start doing their thing.
 
xuetang said:
*refrains from posting so he can agree*

*notices post*


d'oh! ah, but yes, silence can be fun
Click to expand...
i know i promised that i wouldn't get off topic again but this will be my 100th post so i think it's enough cause for 1 little off topic post.
me and xuetang (yes i know it's incorrect grammer) will enjoy the silence and watch as extreme tarantino fans and non tarantino fans head off in an all night wrestling competition... there will be a midnight hose off provided by me... and punch & pie!
 
and then youve got to consider if movie bosses would allow that sort of thing.i mean, their cliches are that women have to be second fiddle to men, black actors have to be poor, wage earners, or asian actors have to be in an action film. i know its wrong, but its the truth.
 
I'm fairly new to this forum and I must say, it's refreshing to hear people opine on filmmaking issues other then pure technique. From reading previous posts, I can tell Mr(miss)Blonde, Bad Haircut, and Tine, if they continue ine the 'moving arts', are gonna give guys like Tarantino a run for their money!
 
Bad Haircut and Mr(Miss) Blonde-just remember me when you're famous...oh, and I could use a house on the west coast of Ireland. :lol:
 
locust tree said:
Ok, i don't think he sucks. But if i titled this post "n00b intro" none of you would read it. I'm from CT. I'm 17 years old. I own a Sony TRV740 digital 8 camera. It was son'y's top of the line... in 2001. I joined this board to get inspiration, and to be able to bounce my ideas off other filmmakers, as well as help them out with their own stuff.

With that out of the way, what IS the big freaking deal about Tarantino? He's good, but I don't consider him a visionary. Somebody tell me what sets him apart from every other filmmaker in history, why he should be put on a pedestal and paraded around?
Click to expand...


No one like a baiting attention shark. You would never see me pulling a trick like this, would you? :evil:


Oh wait, I did the same thing :P

Welcome, and from now on you will be known as Mr Pink!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top