BIG HOLLYWOOD INTERVIEW: Quentin Tarantino, a Glorious ‘Basterd’
by Carl KozlowskiEditor’s Note: After the publication of this piece we made an internal discovery that this interview was not a one-on-one interview between our writer and Quentin Tarantino, and that some of the questions attributed to “Big Hollywood” were asked by other journalists in what was a roundtable interview.
Upon discovering this, we temporarily removed the piece from the site until all the facts were known and a proper correction could be added.
Quentin Tarantino exploded on the world film scene in 1992 with “Reservoir Dogs,” a brutally profane yet ingeniously plotted and often funny deconstruction of the heist-film genre. He took things to a whole other level in 1994 with “Pulp Fiction,” reviving the foundering careers of superstars John Travolta and Bruce Willis while launching the star careers of Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman while winning a Best Screenplay Oscar himself.
Yet in the 15 years since that classic, Tarantino hasn’t been able to score quite as big an impact. 1997’s “Jackie Brown” made just $39 million, while the two “Kill Bill” films scored $70 million each yet were considered hyper-violent trifles compared to what he was really capable of. And he really bottomed out with 2007’s “Death Proof,” which made up half of “Grindhouse,” a three-hour homage to the trashy drive-in films of America’s past. Its 21st-century audience didn’t get the joke and largely ignored it, earning just $27 million at the US box office.
Tarantino knew it was time to dig deep if he was ever going to recover his relevance, and the result was this summer’s smash “Inglourious Basterds,” which radically re-imagines WWII history with its focus on Brad Pitt leading a team of the US military’s toughest Jews on a mission to kill and scalp as many Nazis as possible – before a series of ingenious plot twists give the team of Basterds a shot at taking down Hitler himself. The film has proved to be a smash hit with critics and audiences alike. Following a smash $38 million opening that was by far Tarantino’s biggest ever, it also proved to have legs, placing in the top 3 a full four weeks after its release – a staggeringly uncommon occurrence that has earned it nearly $110 million with no end in sight.
Sitting down for a Q&A at the Four Seasons Hotel in Beverly Hills, Tarantino offered plenty of insights into the creative process behind “Basterds” and the rich sense of film history that permeates its multi-layered entertainment. Since the film is entering its 5th weekend in theatres, giving people plenty of chances to see the film already, I’m including some of the questions that feature minor spoiler details.
BIG HOLLYWOOD: It’ll surprise people how little the Basterds are actually in the film. Should we preserve that?
QUENTIN TARANTINO: If you consider the Basterds the six guys in the background of Pitt, yeah they become incidental to the mission itself once the story goes on. To me, the story has three leads: Aldo (Pitt’s character), Shoshanna (a Jewish woman who escapes a Nazi slaughter) and Landa (the most ruthless Nazi). The first 3 chapters are setting up these leads, and Chapters 4 and 5 are now the adventure begins. You can also say everyone in the movie is an inglourious basterd, not just the little group.
BH: This is a movie that shows a love for cinema…
QT: I would definitely say so. One thing that cracked me up when I was first writing the first scene between Zoller (a Nazi who tries to charm Soshanna) and Soshanna and they’re debating (classic film directors) Linder vs. Chaplin, or he’s debating and she’s listening, I thought ‘OK I go make my WWII movie and it becomes a love letter to cinema.’ I guess I cannot not have that love show.
BH: You’ve done wonders for epic film, can do 2 ½ hours to tell a complex story. Should studios let others do that?
QT: I don’t see most movies holding to the traditional 90 minute format. Romantic comedies are 100 minutes these days. The new time frame now normally seems to be 2:10, 2:15, for any film trying to do something beyond a little comedy or horror film. But everything needs the time that it needs. I think that my movie is exactly the right length to tell my story and be entertaining. I can cut 20 minutes and make it seem longer because it becomes disjointed or abrupt, and you don’t feel as involved. But here you can say ‘wow that really flew by.’ When I went to Cannes, we hadn’t watched it with an audience. So we did, heard what didn’t work and then spent two days nipping it and it wound up a minute longer – but it feels 12 minutes shorter.
BH: How long did you work on this film?
QT: I put pen to paper on this at first in ‘98, around the time of “Jackie Brown.” People said along the way that Schwarzenegger would be in it, but that was all rumors. I’m not against him, but some said Bruce Willis, Stallone – none of that ever came from me.
BH: When you started, was it a more traditional war movie?
QT: It changed, but what gets me to sit down and write something in the first place is something, usually a very thin idea. “Reservoir Dogs” was bam, sit down and write a heist movie. You don’t see the heist, but still it’s a heist movie. Then I hope I get beyond that and it becomes its own thing, but hopefully still developing the pleasures of the genre I’m dipping my toe into. Yet the whole idea is to expand beyond it. How this has changed from what I came up with then is I had a different storyline in mind way back when, I wrote the first two chapters to introduce the characters but the story I had was just too big. I had the opposite of writers’ block, I couldn’t stop writing. And like (his idol, Italian director) Sergio Leone, I couldn’t introduce a character without giving them a 20 minute scene. I had to go back to it, realizing I had to get over myself thinking I can’t work on that puny a canvas of 3 hours. So I did “Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2,” then I came back with a new story, and the new story is one about (Nazi) Frederick Zoller being like a German Audie Murphy (a famed American soldier turned actor) character who gets a movie made about him, and the mission would be the blowing up of the actual premiere of the film.
BH: What would you like us to say about the alternate history of the film?
QT: I don’t want you to say who gets killed, but you can say there is a point in the movie where history went one way and we went another. My idea was my characters changed the course of the war. It didn’t happen because they didn’t exist, but if they had existed it would all be fairly plausible.
BH: You have a real passion for cinema and use touchstones from the past in your current films. Out of current films or the past 20 years, anything that inspires you?
QT: I just wrote down my top 20 movies of the past 17 years that I’ve been directing. I was happy to find it was hard to break it down to 20. There’s a lot of terrific filmmakers out now, like my contemporary Paul Thomas Anderson. I feel I’m Marlon Brando to his Montgomery Clift. But that was an interesting reality. Brando and Clift were better actors because they always knew the other was there. I remember something that when I met Brian DePalma, a hero of mine, he was talking about having a friendly rivalry with Scorsese. While he was doing “Scarface,” a big epic with Pacino, and on a day off went to see “Raging Bull.” And that opening shot of rain, slow-motion, Jake LaMotta dancing and he thought, “Ugh, there’s always Scorsese. No matter how good you are or what you do, he’s always looking back at you.” But in last couple decades, great directors would include Paul, Robert Rodriguez, Richard Linklater – not because we’re friends, but we’re friends because we respond to their aesthetic. I’m not friends with David Fincher but I love his work. To me, some of the best cinema on earth is coming out of Korea. They’re amazing. Just two guys have done five of the best 20 films of the past ten years.
BH: Are there any good B-movies left nowadays?
QT: I wanted to see “Get Snow,” that Norwegian Nazi zombie movie. Straight to video, there was something lost by losing the theatrical experience, but now films on DVD with no theatrical release in America will get them overseas.. Who thought overseas fans would all of a sudden get into the horror film in a big way like “High Tension.” Or these Spanish horrors released by Dimension Extreme. These are very extreme movies, very few of Japanese horrors play US theaters, you watch them on DVD. I actually have seen “Kurosawa’s Pulse” at theaters, but most find it on DVD. It’s different than when Roger Corman had Concorde and they just put out their films straight to video. Every month I read Video Watchdog to see if something cool has reared its head. Is there a “Lost Boys 4?”
BH: Where does (the main Nazi villain) Landa rank among your characters?
QT: When I wrote him, I knew not only is he one of the best characters I’ve ever written, he’s the best I ever will write. One of the things I felt happy about with that sequence at the opening, I always felt that there’s this weird aspect that my scenes a lot of times are meant to stand alone the way you would listen to a greatest hits album. And in that self-aggrandizing analogy, I’d say the Sicilian scene in “True Romance” [a verbal confrontation between Christopher Walken and Dennis Hopper] was my best work. I knew I’d come close, but never top that. But when I wrote the opening scene in this movie, with the Jew Hunter and the French farmer, I thought, ‘I did it!’ That’s up to you to decide of course, though.
BH: On a typical day, what’s your routine on set? What’s your ritual?
QT: The bar sequence (of “Basterds”) was like a little movie unto itself, or a one-act play – so much so that I had people do the whole sequence in one long run. By the third day of rehearsal we had that scene down. A scene like that, there’s a lot of dexterity going on, because you have one table with Bridget and our boys, and the other table with Nazis and they’re playing a game. It was like a one-act play, so much so that I asked in rehearsals if we could wind up doing it as one long run. The third day of rehearsal we had that thing down, and with one more week I could have taken it to the Berlin stage. What could very well happen is we’re preparing (actress Diane Kruger), working something special for her, but the whole time I’m filming the German soldiers’ game, then I move over to film what bartender is doing. Then I really get into the card game, and there’s so much dialogue in it. So I’d film it but I’d be like, “I’d like to do the other angle the next day.” A sequence like that took two weeks to shoot, it’s like its own little movie, there’s a lot of juggling elements, and when you’re figuring out the directing of it you’re figuring how to juggle and how to keep it going.
Anybody who’s a director and gets more than 5 hours sleep a night must not be passionate. If you can sleep well, you must not be doing the job right.
BH: In “Basterds” you bring back old actors like Rod Taylor, or reinvent someone like Mike Myers, yet sometimes you discover someone totally unexpected like Christophe Waltz (the main Nazi Landa, considered an Oscar shoo-in by most critics). Would you say this is your best casting yet?
QT: It was the toughest, a tough delivery but we had a beautiful baby. I was precious about my casting – that whoever I cast was perfect to play the different facets of a character. Every once in a while I cast an actor who’s not my type. Hopefully, you don’t notice that but I notice that. You have to be both physical and verbal, and obviously you have to have a facility with dialogue if you’re gonna do one of my movies. You’ve gotta be hungry for it – instead of saying “Awww, I gotta learn this three page thing,” but say “Yeah! I’m gonna OWN this! It’s MINE!” and you take it and make it your own. You also gotta be smart to do my stuff.
BH: In 17 years of doing this, what’s your biggest triumph and your biggest disappointment?
QT: I guess the career goal that I always go to is winning the Palme d’Or for “Pulp Fiction.” There’s only one list of filmmakers more prestigious than those who’ve won it, and that’s the directors who haven’t. I took it very hard when “Grindhouse” didn’t do well. I like the movie, I’m very happy with that and what we did, and when we had an audience it played like gangbusters. I never had that kind of a flop before and it hurt my feelings, but you get over it and I’m lucky that I’m in a position to follow my muse, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t.









Subscribe via RSS
69 Comments
Landa is a brilliant character. QT on Big Hollywood! Love all your work Tarantino…
Why Big Hollywood has a love affair with this director I don't understand. Can anyone explain that to me? There is no proof that he is anywhere near conservative, although maybe libertarian. He and his movies are crude, outrageously innapropriate, immoral, ultra-violent, and far from intelligent. However, I will give him credit that he did an interview for this blog. That is far and away different than what any other Hollyweird director would ever do. Sadly, I wonder if that is both him and Big Hollywood's wish that someone, anyone, would give them attention.
Gee, am I the only one who thought "Death Proof" was brilliant?
Um, no. I believe Tarantino was the other one.
I don't know about you, but I hardly think that everything in this world can be divided into liberal or conservative. Tarantino is one of the few directors going that actually has a "voice." You don't have to like it.
Personally, I like Tarantino because he always has brilliant kick-butt women characters. I can't think of another writer/director who integrates women into his films like Tarantino. But that's just me…
" I can't think of another writer/director who integrates women into his films like Tarantino."
Joss Whedon, although I'm not a big fan of his either.
An unexpected but wonderful interview. I also loved Death Proof, and have said here before that one should watch the director's cut DVD without the first movie and the fake trailers. One thing that is extremely refreshing about QT is his films aren't political – he doesn't take cheap shots at contemporary political issues. BH might be a conservative site, but it's also an entertainment site, and to score such an interview with QT is refreshing.
Also, regarding QT hatred, it's rather funny – like those obsessed with hating Palin, QT haters can't leave well enough alone. Don't like his films, don't go, but whether one likes it or not, he is one of the most influential modern directors working.
I don´t care what he is. Talent is Talent. I don´t give a feck if a person is conservative,liberal, or whatever. Give me results, and QT does it in spades.
Good stuff. My all time favorite movie is True Romance.
At this point, reading an interview from someone working in Hollywood who doesn't slip in a word of praise for the Fudge Nitwit is a refreshing change.
Something insanely talky and fundamentally juvenile about his movies. No hatred here, just no interest anymore.
I like his movies. Some of us can tell the difference between real and make believe I guess. I don't really care what his political views are, I don't think film directors are any kind of authority on politics anyway.
[...] more here: BIG HOLLYWOOD INTERVIEW: Quentin Tarantino, a Glorious ‘Basterd’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
QT is one of the few U.S. filmmakers who still makes
movies that are fun to watch. I hear complaints here
about him not being "conservative " enough. You
people need to realize that "conservative" art is
politically correct in its own way and boring as hell.
I'd rather hear Bob Dylan skewer the Greenwich
Village lefties who used to love him in "Positively
4th Street" than 100 crappy contemporary country
songs about how great our country is (we already
know that, hoss). Tarrantino clearly loves America
and American movies and that comes through in
his work. If violence, cussing, and well-written
dialogue offend you, go see "Happy Feet" again.
I think Tarantino is the most interesting director working today. I've never been disappointed with his movies (yes, I even like Grindhouse). The fact that he doesn't get in people's faces with his political views is bonus in my book.
Why? Because he's a genius.
That Norwegian Zombie movie is called "Dead Snow" and it was pretty good if you're into zombie movies.
I loved Death Proof. Great fun and Kurt Russell was awesome when he was getting the crap kicked out of him.
Go watch "Toy Story" again. You'll feel better.
Have you actually seen the movie and paid attention, Inglouriuos Basterds? There's a line of dialogue by the Nazi role everyone is praising, that says, basically, "Terrorism is all in the point of view of one's country."
It is an idiotic homage to The One and liberal humanism thought.
QT is a moral moron, although an extremely talented one. And I disagree that one's politics are irrelevant to one's film production. Often the films praised, and their filmmakers, are done so with false perceptions. The praising of Magnificent 7 as an abode of conservatism is misguided. It is an attack on capitalism and a purveyor of communism. Often films like it and others are hard to explicate properly because they are reflective of the conflicted instincts and intellect of the filmmakers themselves. QT seems in agreement with the conservative thought of 'justice' with his depictions of vengeful violence, but then attacks Bush, blatantly, the Nazi's comment, and it's overlooked by almost everyone.
The same thing recently can be found in Elmore Leonard's novel, Road Dogs. Out of the blue comes a mental comment from Foley, a character portrayed by George cLooney in Out of Sight, and of which Road Dogs is a sort-of sequel to, about cleaning up Bush's mess in the White House. It is a shocking out-of-context comment from the author and is so obvious an intent to identify with cLooney's politics so as to persuade him to resume his role if a film of Dogs ever gets made. cLooney had publicly stated he had no interest in playing the character again, "I've played a bank robber."
Politics do matter, and film is politics. Ya'll don't realize that, you should think a little deeper about it.
Nice interview, but _5 weeks_ after the movie premiered?? Big Hollywood has a long way to go before it's in the top tier of entertainment journalism. Hopefully this interview will help move it up the ranks and get it on the radar of publicists.
[...] http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/09/27/big-hollywood-interview-quentin-tarantino-a... a few seconds ago from IdentiFox [...]
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by D. Jason Fleming. D. Jason Fleming said: RT @bighollywood BIG HOLLYWOOD INTERVIEW: Quentin Tarantino, a Glorious ‘Basterd’ http://bit.ly/D5lqL [...]
Let's not confuse "conservative" the adjective and "Conservative" the Pronoun.
The line is actually, "some might call it a terrorist plot."
No. Death Proof happens to be one of my favorite movies ever, if not my favorite.
Ok, I've got to bite…how the %@$#?& is Magnificent 7 an attack on capitalism & pro-communism?!?
Let me get this straight…you think that because a NAZI CHARACTER in the film (not an American commando or a Jewish Resistance fighter, mind you) spouts a 'liberal humanist' line in the film, that Tarrantino is somehow praising Obama? I guess you musta wanted the Nazis to be more conservative or something? Are you one of those David Duke Republican that we used to hear so much about? LOL!! You want subversion? Watch "Henry Poole Was Here" and marvel at how a legally blind grocery clerk who has barely spoken throughout the film suddenly spouts a lengthy Noam Chomsky quote completely out of the blue. "He's a linguist!"
I'm with "maatkare" on this one. Were the banditos a metaphor for Halliburton? I totally missed that.
Awesome, thanks Big Hollywood and Carl Kozlowski!!! Tarantino is the best and you guys rule for giving us some time with the legend. For all of you conservatives that might complain about this guy, how do you feel Tarantino would come down on issues like the death penalty or the second amendment? I bet dollars to donuts that the guys doesn't want higher taxes and that he likes to employ as many people as possible in each of his movies while staying as unentangled by the gov. and the studio as possible. Sounds pretty conservative to me.
I was just being a smartass. I haven't seen it, but I might someday. I'm not a huge Tarantino fan.
Word that Russell's in it is a big plus in its favor, though.
Great work QT!
I'm a Tarantino fan. But I think you're grossly misinformed about what constitutes conservative art. It isn't all country songs. Dirty Harry is conservative art. Evelyn Waugh is conservative art. The Beatles' "Revolution" is conservative art. It's a big world out there, 12-String Infidel. (And btw, Happy Feet is a liberal movie.)
QT is definitely a talent, but he is a bit overhyped for his "amazing" dialogue. The thing about his dialogue is people always mention that it is so good because it's so "realistic." But I don't see it that way. I think his dialogue (most of the time) is good because it's not "realistic." His dialogue is what people wished they would or could say, if they had the time to think about it. But regardless, I enjoy most of his films. He's not my favorite filmmaker, but he IS good. As a long-time horror fan, I'm one of the people who LOVED "Grindhouse." It may be my age, but to me, the whole "Grindhouse" experience brought me back to the time of drive-ins and it was a very fun experience. I loved every minute of it with the faux upcoming movie trailers and the "cheap/dirty" look of both films. It just felt old-school and it was a very fun experience in theaters. It's a shame that they didn't market it well enough to audiences and it's even more of a shame that more filmmakers like QT and Robert Rodriguez aren't as passionate for filmmaking as they are. While they're not the best filmmakers around, it's their passion for film that comes through in their work.
You guys are hilarious–it's amazing you can watch any movie without losing your little partisan minds.
"The Wizard of Oz" is liberal because feminist Dorothy wants a free ride back home!
AWESOME!!!
Tarantino's movies are all talk and little action.
He just LOVES to hear his actors/characters drone on and on and on…about nothing.
Worse, in Basterds he had us watch his actors/characters drone on and on and on…in German, French and Italian, with subtitles!!!
The movie should've been called 'A Jewish Girl Plots Her Revenge Against The Nazis for 2 1/2 hours…co-starring The Inglorious Basterds'.
Wow. I don't curse, I don't say outrageous things, and I'm really not that much of a debater–
–and you won't let my comments on? I've seen much worse.
Seriously, are you guys THAT insecure about another opinion?
Jettboy, HUH? Does everything have to be politics with you? Sometimes a great filmmaker is just a great filmmaker! Tarantino is an EXTREMELY talented writer-director who's written some of the best dialogue EVER in film! What other director could rivet an audience by opening two films with ten minutes of talking heads restaurant conversations? Are you shite-ing me? UNBELIEVABLE!
I will give you credit, JB. I was starting to believe nothing in this world could ever surprise me anymore. I stand brutally corrected.
I have to interject here, on behalf of both Big Hollywood and Quentin Tarantino. It ain't ass-kissing either. It's pure common film sense, a lot of which seems to be gravely lacking here. Why did Breitbart start Big Hollywood? I see the major reason as Tinseltown pros going too over-the-edge with politics and poisoning everything in film we love, or big A-listers backhanding the same audiences that have taken them from busboy jobs to the Top Of The World, Ma!
As a BH contributor myself, I have railed against all these things many times over, and yearn for the day, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, that we Let Movies Be Movies. Isn't subjecting films to ideological litmus tests EXACTLY what we despise? What politics does THE WIZARD OF OZ have? SHREK? Or even PULP FICTION? Can't some of you just enjoy the hell out of a movie without viewing it through the prism of politics? If not, I truly pity you all.
That Big Hollywood landed such an incredible scoop is a landmark achievement that puts BH on a whole new playing field, IMHO. It will also perhaps lead a ton of new readers unfamiliar with BH to discover a whole new attitude and mindset outside the MSM, Variety and THR. How can that POSSIBLY be bad? As I have far too often said in cinemas and will repeat today, "Just shut up and enjoy the movie!"
It's just too bad that Big Hollywood won't let opposing viewpoints onboard, as I've found, over and over the last few days. (And by the way, I don't curse or namecall).
I want to be part of this conversation, but I'm not allowed. This is the problem with sites like this, afraid to have their mindsets challenged. At. All. Even a little bit.
Do you guys REALLY just want an echo chamber? I guess I'll find the answer out with this comment, if it gets through.
Not a fan of his.
"Let me get this straight…you think that because a NAZI CHARACTER in the film (not an American commando or a Jewish Resistance fighter, mind you) spouts a 'liberal humanist' line in the film, that Tarrantino is somehow praising Obama"
Context. Here's what he wrote: "There's a line of dialogue by the Nazi role everyone is praising…"
This dosn't mean that he thinks Landa is supposed to be more conservative, rather that fans are admiring the characterization of this role, and that his character is making a morally relativistic comment on terrorism.
"As I have far too often said in cinemas and will repeat today, 'Just shut up and enjoy the movie!'"
What if I don't enjoy his movies? Are you still going to demand I shut up? What if I believe his kind of movies contribute to the degridation of the morality of the United States of America leading to the 60s anything goes mentality that Big Hollywood often railes against? Are you still demanding I shut up? That you are saying I can't express my thoughts and feelings is what I don't like about Liberals. If you don't like what I say then you can just ignore me or tell me why I'm wrong, but don't call me names or tell me to shut up. Finally, I don't want to live in the world he represents and will not give him the time of day to spread his filth.
To answer a statement made earlier: Life is politics. The minute you take your eyes off the ball in any fashion is the day you fall asleep at the wheel.
i thought it was a nice piece of fun, and it's always nice to see the bad guy get his in the end. KR played the creepy guy well, and if there is something i am up for it is piles of twisted metal at the end of a chase.
The women didn't act anything like women.
I never appreciated Rodriguez until I saw Grindhouse. THAT was a brilliant movie. I loved the trailers too. But Death Proof didn't work.
I'm with Jettboy. The Left created this politically poisoned environment by, well, politically poisoning everything. I also cannot ignore it, and don't wish to. If it means I enjoy fewer movies, that's the price, or better, the obligation, of understanding. (And I had no problem with the Noam Chomsky quote in "Henry Poole," which was exactly the sort of thing that character would say in that moment, so, artistically true). But there are too many ways modern filmmakers abuse both story and audience forbearance by inserting politically malicious and gratuituous messages, and they should be called out for it.
I actually took your advice. It wasn't bad. Didn't measure up to his early films, but it was entertaining. I certainly liked it better than Kill Bill Part 1.
First of all, kudos to Andrew Breitbart. It is all kinds of awesome that BH got QT to sit down for an interview.
Look, folks. I've loved some of Tarantino's movies, and hated others. (I'm positively driven to distraction by the spelling errors in the title of his latest!)
But love him or hate him, you can't deny that Tarantino has this incredible passion for movies. I'm a screenwriter myself, and he's the only professional in Hollywood today who makes me feel both lazy and insufficiently passionate. We need more filmmakers like Tarantino, not less.
And we also need them to sit down for interviews with BH.
Hmm. Sorry I have to completely disagree. I really don't mean to target you but I am amazed that you actually believe "Life is Politics." I find that astounding. Sure it's an important part, but everything? Really?
Okay. What "politics" was Van Gogh professing when he painted his Sunflower still lifes? I'm fascinated by this.
Eh, QT isn't someone I hate, he just seems pathetic, because he is so utterly content to be so very limited in his knowledge, scope, culture, education, sophistication, developement, etc etc.
His celebration of brutality, sadism, gore, etc is a transparent compensation for never having manifested enough independent masculinity to feel secure about it (lived with mom in cushy suburbs until age 25, etc).
Yes, his talent and passion are both terrific assets,
like a samurai sword being used only to slice salami …
.. like a great sports car being driven in circles on a muddy field …
With all those glaring limitations and flaws, his egomania makes him look like a pinhead.
Did you see his list of the best 20 films since 1992 (when he directed Resevoir Dogs)?
Dismal choices/omissions , proudly presented to us as if he is Moses giving us the tablets,
as if he views the public like sheep sitting at the feet of the Master, awaiting his gifts to us … Ugh …
Cue the puke.
I completely agree (except I haven't seen Grindhouse).
He makes interesting, entertaining movies and I have no clue what his politics are. What more could I ask for?
[...] course on top of the box office in Spain, for example. Other than that, it seems to get a bit quiet, but read a really good interview with Mr Tarantino right here, and there’s a funny article called “7 things we learned from Basterds”. Enjoy, [...]
Saw The Basterds, saturday. Brilliant.
I have to agree with Joe here. When you can define every movie a director makes with one line that usually shows the depth of their story lines.
There is too much love for Tarentino when his track record is not that good. I stopped going to his movies after grind house, where the previews for the coming attractions in the middle of the movie were better than the actual features.
How I would interact with someone who finds the paintings more appealing than I do would be more political than answering your question. Should I tell them exactly what I think? Should I smooth it so not to cause tension? Should I say anything at all? can't read Van Gogh's mind. Not everything is straight forward. I am sure, however, he had a reason for painting them and how he painted them. His paintings all together were about breaking convention, a political act in itself.
Honestly… I would rather have a movie that is so over the top violent than quietly interjecting politics into the plot line (outside of the conspiracy theory movies that are obviously interjecting politics)…. I would rather avoid the devil I can see than to be socially and politically directed by subtle political and societal undertones.
Personally I like Tarantino's movies… well at least the Kill Bill movis and Basterd… but that's just me…
With all due respect, how you interact with someone regarding a piece of art doesn't have much to do with what the painter/artist was thinking when they created it. I know what you are saying, but while you might approach a work politically some of us might just appreciate it for what it is.
From my perspective, Van Gogh's breaking of convention had more to do with aesthetics than politics–then again just my opinion…
As Sam Jackson once famously said, "Allow me to retort." I wasn't totally clear, I can see that. If, as in the case of some movies, blatant political or ideological snubs are thrown in where they really don't belong and jump out at you, then yes. That goes back to politics poisoning film. Same applies to any film with a blatant political agenda. I think we can all agree on that.
But for some people to analyze every film ever made through the prism of right or left politics really strips the joy out the experience. If you don't like a film, that's one thing. Everybody's a critic. Speak your mind. But to apply ideological litmus tests to a QT film like RESERVOIR DOGS or PULP FICTION is just ridiculous, IMHO. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.
Why can't they cover Non-Conservatives? Seems pretty intolerant which is partly why this site even exists, right? That the traditional media has not covered conservative voices or perspectives.
I like Tarantino films for the most part. Glad to see this interview here.
"Death Proof" isn't great in my opinion. Very derivative of his own work and nothing really compelling other than nice stunt work at the end. Kurt Russell is good in it but is that unexpected?
Certainly nothing to write home about in my humble opinion.
I agree with you about his dialogue being like conversations that people feel like the "should have" although I have to give props to my many friends who've helped me have conversations that Rival those in QT films…I think people have these with certain folks and relish them and Tarantino captures that essence which people appreciate.
[...] http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ckozlowski/2009/09/27/big-hollywood-interview-quentin-tarantino-a... a few seconds ago from IdentiFox [...]
As a longtime Q fan, I have been looking forward to seeing what he would do with the WWII genre. Perhaps it was hobbled for me by unrealistic expectations, but I was disappointed, finding it juvenile. I'd been hoping for something rarely heroic for our time.
Oddly, I am still attracted to IB and expect I'll buy the damned video.
Every scene is heavy with dialogue, and most of the time I'd say crap on that. But there's such a sense that all will go wrong in every frame, that every sentence counts. Great movie, great characters. This is not for the kids, but worth seeing if you're looking to get your money's worth.
What on earth are you talking about? I've seen countless comments from you.
Comments here are rarely deleted. If some of yours didn't show up, it's likely due to technical issues. The site has suffered from them since launch, and technical gremlins are nonpartisan.
What on earth are you talking about? I've seen countless comments from you.
Comments here are rarely deleted. If some of yours didn't show up, it's likely due to technical issues. The comments section of the site has suffered from them since launch, and the technical gremlins are nonpartisan.
Why don't you open an Intense Debate account? That seems to help a little.
I too like Deathproof
You must be logged in to post a comment.