tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post93520284858024305..comments2024-03-17T10:11:46.952-04:00Comments on Film Experience Blog: Inglorious Slacker: The Life and Times of Quentin TarantinoNATHANIEL Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11597109147678235399noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-22460544722798874842008-07-17T13:37:00.000-04:002008-07-17T13:37:00.000-04:00tarantino defends his lack of speed. he's a writer...tarantino defends his lack of speed. he's a writer, not just a director, and he labors over these things, for years. sure, he's distracted, and out on the town, etc. but he's got a process, for better or worse, and the results speak for themselves. death proof is a great movie, even if planet terror is not. he wants each movie to be original, memorable, classic, for the ages. i wish soderbergh made fewer, better films, same with woody allen and john sayles.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-36511976199896639712008-07-01T16:29:00.000-04:002008-07-01T16:29:00.000-04:00Maybe if he actually had something to say, instead...Maybe if he actually had something to say, instead of showing people how clever he is, he would feel compelled to get it out there more often and with a sense of artistic urgency. Just sayin'.<BR/><BR/>(I do, in fact, enjoy his films, by the way!)Thombeauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14610129742797260253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-18830421370509610182008-06-29T04:18:00.000-04:002008-06-29T04:18:00.000-04:00i don't know why i wrote "madcap comedy", cause i ...i don't know why i wrote "madcap comedy", cause i meant to write "madcap brilliance". How odd.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194113062830373898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-72825977146244731862008-06-29T01:42:00.000-04:002008-06-29T01:42:00.000-04:00I'm not a Tarantino acolyte. In my mind, he has y...I'm not a Tarantino acolyte. In my mind, he has yet to make an actual, honest to goodness, knock-my-socks-off masterpiece. He's made masterful moments, but I feel everything he's done, someone else has done better, with more cinematic instinct and humanity.<BR/><BR/> But I agree with Nathaniel on this one. More specifically, I think we underrate the effect that "minor" films can have on one's mentality. Check out Soderbergh, for example. His two films before Out of Sight (his best film): Grey's Anatomy and Schizopolis. Neither are masterpieces, but both are works of an strongly independent mind regaining his sense of creativity. And since then, he's given us bonafide masterpieces, fantastic studio experimentation, some first rate entertainments, etc.<BR/><BR/> I definitely think that Tarantino could benefit from thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-86914447060782411982008-06-28T15:06:00.000-04:002008-06-28T15:06:00.000-04:00I loved Death Proof. I actually think it's one of...I loved Death Proof. I actually think it's one of his best since Pulp Fiction. He took a step back from the Hollywood glitz and gave some old school Tarantino.<BR/><BR/>I'm just annoyed that it was released on DVD separately, instead of the double feature I enjoyed so much in the theatre.Chris Na Tarajahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06545312034833563234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-89125412510489497162008-06-28T09:29:00.000-04:002008-06-28T09:29:00.000-04:00moses --i agree about Quality over Quantity. The d...moses --i agree about Quality over Quantity. The difference being that I don't believe you can't have quality if you work regularly. And I also sorta believe in "if you rest, you rust"<BR/><BR/>Admittedly there are some writer/directors whose work probably suffers because there's not much time for fine tuning (Woody Allen and Soderbergh come to mind and Robert Altman, as great as he was was prolific and uneven)<BR/><BR/>but look at how fast Almodovar works (he also writes and directs) and what a beauty all his films are.<BR/><BR/>I just don't buy the argument that Tarantino NEEDS the time. Given how quickly he worked from 1992 to 1997NATHANIEL Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597109147678235399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-27371540726043443772008-06-27T21:37:00.000-04:002008-06-27T21:37:00.000-04:00"Jackie Brown" is my favorite of his films and isn..."Jackie Brown" is my favorite of his films and isn't it one of the shortest, taking the least time to make?<BR/><BR/>When I hear directors say, this movie has been in my head a long time, I automatically think, it's going to be a dud. Because most of it is still going to be in your head. And a ruthless editor is needed for these long-gestating projects.<BR/><BR/>While I don't think suffering makes art (or anything else) better, I prefer projects with a lot of strong personalities collaborating. In the example of Kubrick, I liked his early ones best, when he had to accomodate tough guys like Kirk Douglas in "Spartacus" and idiosyncratic characters like Peter Sellers. When he worked with actors too willing to please him, I find it dull.<BR/><BR/>I think that one of Tarantino's saving graces is that he adores actors, all kinds of actors (even the unappreciated) and I think he delights in their imput and will change for them. Now, he needs a tough editor who will force him to CHOOSE.<BR/><BR/>AdriannaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-75316576485063109062008-06-27T20:29:00.000-04:002008-06-27T20:29:00.000-04:00You're forgetting he directed a 2hr episode of CSI...You're forgetting he directed a 2hr episode of <I>CSI</I> (he says with a laugh).<BR/><BR/>But, really, I'm one of the few that thinks <I>Death Proof</I> is some kind of madcap comedy so I can't even remotely buy into the "diminishing returns" argument (I think <I>Resevoir Dogs</I> and <I>Pulp Fiction</I> are my least favourite of his films, actually, even though they're still classics). <BR/><BR/>Still, this man gave the world <I>Jackie Brown</I> so he could be making films about grass growing once every 10 years and I'd still worship him.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194113062830373898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-60675992143396755492008-06-27T19:24:00.000-04:002008-06-27T19:24:00.000-04:00Okay. Really who cares how little work Tarantino h...Okay. Really who cares how little work Tarantino has done. It should be quality vs. quantity. Tarantino has 5 films in 16 years. Reservoir Dogs is still his best. Pulp Fiction is best written. Jackie Brown has okay. Kill Bill was his MASTERPIECE. Grindhouse (not Death Proof, I hate how they split the films) was one the most enjoyable film experiences I had in my entire life. Tarantino is also a huge advocate into getting QUALITY foreign and small films into the American Market i.e. Iron Monkey, Hostel, The Protector and Hero (2003 Foreign Film Oscar Nominee) He loves film-making so much he often works with other directors for FREE. In not saying he belongs in the same category as this director but there is another director who has made only 13.5 films in 50 years. His name is Stanley Kubrick. .5 if you wanna count A.I. Artificial Intelligence. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11315015939359702987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-14042663142791210092008-06-27T14:12:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:12:00.000-04:00good point Flower. But given that Tarantino WAS wo...good point Flower. But given that Tarantino WAS working fast the first few years and the product was great means, to me, that he's slacking and taking things for granted.<BR/><BR/>but it's really just greed. If he was a bad filmmaker i wouldn't care.<BR/><BR/>but when someone is talented you always want them to really deliver.NATHANIEL Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597109147678235399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-85933786859079557582008-06-27T13:55:00.000-04:002008-06-27T13:55:00.000-04:00I wish some of my favorite directors worked faster...I wish some of my favorite directors worked faster, too. But I think focusing on "the struggle" of filmaking in terms of how quickly and easily one can get a budget or a greenlight is off point. Kubrick didn't have to struggle for it past his first couple of films. Worked out fine for him. Spielberg doesn't have to struggle for it now, and hasn't for, what, thirty two or thirty three years? Same thing with Clint Eastwood, more or less, and Ridley Scott. <BR/><BR/>These guys benefit from the same priveleged position Tarantino occupies. That they've been more productive just means that they work at a different speed than Tarantino. I don't think you can really extrapolate any further than that. If Tarantino worked faster, there's no guarantee that those films would be better than the ones he's made instead. Were all of Ridley Scott's first eight films masterpieces? Were Soderbergh's 15? Did their faster output result in on overall higher quality body of work than if they had made, say, 6 (in Scott's case) or 10 in Soderbergh's?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-6444806953854014952008-06-27T13:13:00.000-04:002008-06-27T13:13:00.000-04:00but maybe it wouldn't be diminishing if he had to ...but maybe it wouldn't be diminishing if he had to fight for it?<BR/><BR/>that was my theoretical point ;)NATHANIEL Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11597109147678235399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-1020612420684560282008-06-27T12:57:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:57:00.000-04:00Given the diminishing quality of the product, isn'...Given the diminishing quality of the product, isn't a good thing he's slowing down?Runs Like A Gayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11170144191875296336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-59878717105151377632008-06-27T12:38:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:38:00.000-04:00On-Topic: Tarantino is slowly destroying his own l...On-Topic: Tarantino is slowly destroying his own legacy, sadly. <BR/><BR/>Off-Topic: I know this is the FILM Experience, but did you see the prelim Emmy lists? BSG snubbed (of course), The Wire included, Flight of the Conchords upsets (if you haven't checked it out, Nat, I would recommend it...it's a musical comedy, after all!), and Family Guy stinks up the joint. Let's see if any of the pleasant surprises stick around through the next round of voting.Nate Tysonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15001118772198572798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-17811252371496434402008-06-27T11:29:00.000-04:002008-06-27T11:29:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.TALKING MOVIEzzzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11621046844665110326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8256060.post-19596712413260097052008-06-27T11:24:00.000-04:002008-06-27T11:24:00.000-04:00Eh give him a break. I mean how many different wa...Eh give him a break. I mean how many different ways can you make an omelette out of old kung fu movies, Sergio Leone and the French New Wave?<BR/><BR/>He's played out.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13178975866741187681noreply@blogger.com