The Leonard-Tarantino Axis of Pulp Fiction
by Michael S. Rulle Jr.“Inglourious Basterds” opened this weekend. It has the potential to be satisfying for Quentin Tarantino fans. I will definitely see it. It is an “alternative history” of WWII, but despite its setting, Tarantino characterizes the movie as a “spaghetti western.” My guess is a hint of the “pulp fiction” writer Elmore Leonard will, like a super fine mist, be present in the film.
On my Facebook profile page, I dutifully filled out my personal interests. Under favorite movies I listed “anything Quentin Tarantino”; under novels I listed “anything Elmore Leonard.” What I left out under “movies” was “anything Elmore Leonard which seem like Quentin Tarantino” and vice versa. To me, they are almost indistinguishable. I have read virtually all of Leonard’s books. I just purchased today his latest, “Road Dogs.” I have seen nearly all of Tarantino’s movies. I have read or seen many of their works multiple times. I still get surprised by a Leonard movie from time to time. I recently saw “3:10 from Yuma” on TV. There was something rivetingly familiar about it. It turns out it was adapted from a 15 page short story by Leonard that I had never read.
The first Elmore Leonard novel I read was “Rum Punch.” I was vacationing in St. Martin with my family in 1995 and we had rented a house. I just picked up a book at random on one of the shelves and began to read. I remember two things clearly. I kept having to reread these short, seemingly simple, sentences to understand them. This fits with what I have subsequently learned to be a rule of Leonard’s; “if it sounds like writing, I rewrite it.” The second thing I remember is that the characters were shockingly amoral. It was almost frightening. But not so frightening to prevent me from reading the other Leonard book in the house, “Freaky Deaky.”
It is still amazing to me to that “Rum Punch” was the only collaboration Leonard and Tarantino have had in films. “Rum Punch,” of course, became the 1997 hit film, “Jackie Brown.” There have always been rumors about other films. At various times, Leonard novels, “40 Lashes less One,” “Killshot,” and “Freaky Deaky” were all rumored to become Tarantino movies. “Killshot” has already been made without Tarantino. Some movies which Tarantino directed seem like they were written by Leonard (”True Romance,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs” in particular, even “Kill Bill: Volume 1″) and some Leonard novels which became movies seem like they were produced or directed by Tarantino (”Be Cool,” “Get Shorty”–I have not yet seen “Killshot”).
When I first saw “Pulp Fiction” (on video, a year or two after its release), I assumed Leonard had to be involved. “Pulp Fiction” is one of my top 5 movies of all time. I still see new things when I watch it. To this day, I could swear I read in the movie credits that Leonard advised on “Pulp Fiction”; but he had nothing to do with it. In my memory, before writing this essay, I actually thought “Be Cool” and “Get Shorty” were Tarantino movies. But of course they are not. And I now remember being surprised back then they were not! I did not even see “Reservoir Dogs” until last year on DVD and, at first, thought it might have been a Leonard novel I missed. It was not, obviously. Interestingly, there are some crossover actors/producers in both sets of films, as well as in their one common film, which helps contribute to my illusion. They include; John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, Harvey Keitel, James Gandolfini, Danny DeVito (a producer of “Pulp Fiction” and “Get Shorty”), and probably some others.
It turns out there is a pretty strong link between Tarantino and Leonard besides just my own imagination. Charlie Rose interviewed Tarantino in 1994, the year “Pulp Fiction” was released. To quote Tarantino;
QUENTIN TARANTINO: Oh, I love Elmore Leonard. In fact, to me True Romance is basically like an Elmore Leonard movie–
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.
QUENTIN TARANTINO: -that he didn’t write, you know. And like, actually, I actually owe a big debt to like kind of figuring out my style from Elmore Leonard because, you know, he was the first writer I’d ever read……
What they both have in common is an ability to tell a compelling story. The characters are completely amoral, yet can still be appealing. They retain, usually, some moral code, even if self designed. They are not evil, but certainly do not follow traditional morality either. Somehow, we still want to find the protagonist and root for them. Clearly, they are tapping into something beneath the surface of our conscious minds which we somehow find “freeing,” at least during the fantasy of reading their books or watching their movies. In a moral world, can we justify such fantasies? I really have no idea, but they provide some “great escapes.”
I am also quite lucky. I have both a new Leonard book and a new Tarantino movie to look forward to. Perhaps if they collaborated more, there would be only one.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
48 Comments
Well, they do cover some of the same turf. I have to admit that while I seen movies made from Leonard stories and have seen most of the major Tarentino movies, I haven't found an "unmistakable style" associated with either that immediately says "he did this" or was "involved with that." In other words, I can neither agree or disagree with your premise. Now that you have brought it up, given some of the similarities in subject matter, I would certainly grant that your premise is at least plausible.
Why is this weird conservative hate site called Big Hollywood? That's a joke I don't get.
…in that it has nothing to do with hollywood, no access to hollywood other than Finke, and is full of repugnant rage
[...] the original here: The Leonard-Tarantino Axis of Pulp Fiction This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
…oh. this. THIS film contradicts my claim. There is a thin connection to the film industry. Still, I am surprised at the vitriol. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0756621/
I know. It is pretty depressing that most of the liberals who come here and make comments express repugnant rage. It would be much better for all of us if you came to actually discuss things like rational adults.
Also interesting that you can make your statement underneath an article that has NOTHING to do with politics and discusses the similarities between QT's work and Leonard's absent of politics.
Did you read anything at all or just post under the first article that came up when you decided to troll?
I can't say that I know much about Leonard, but I can pinpoint something Tarantino has had a hand in. I agree that talents with a strong viewpoint and sense of self (maybe) tend to have very distinct styles in what they do. Authors tend to use distinct language styles, musicians have a similar sound/style in all of what they do, etc.
RayBaby, you must be mistaking this site with the slithering haters at Kos, HuffPo or DemUnderground. If hate is what you're looking for, you might check therm out. But you do sound like a hater.
Hey RayBurns, I think you're lost, you're looking for the MSNBC site. Olbermann is waiting for you to prep him. He's grabbed his ankles and is waiting for Obama to come up behind him. While you're at it, maybe you can help satisfy Chrissy Matthew's "tingle."
Tarantino's stuff is as identifiable as David Lynch. And sometimes as all over the place as Lynch's. Time to queue up Pulp Fiction.
Thank goodness you found out about us in time!
Now you don't have to spend another second among us haters and can go where you'll only find fields of flowers and unicorn tears and rainbows spinning 'round lollipop pools (aka DailyKoz).
Don't let the hate hit you on the way out.
Hey RugBurns, who asked you????
I'd like to see QT rewrite Snow White and make her an arsonist . . lol
I only ever read one Leonard book: "Cuba Libre". Only got halfway through, which I don't blame on the author, I probably just got distracted. I could see it as a movie. He seems to have a knack for writing movie books. The greatest similarity I can discern between Tarantino and Leonard is in the snappy dialogue and the focus on low-lives.
Sometimes I wish directors would be into authors like Plato. Not to adapt Plato, mind you, but to be stimulated by ideas grander than those posed in genre fiction.
As someone who actually likes Jackie Brown, I have to say that it's a perfect example of everything that's wrong with Tarantino (a lot) and everything that's good (very little). The problem with Tarantino that's just gotten worse and worse and worse is his complete self-indulgence. Here we have a taught little story about a series of double-crosses that he's stretched out hour after hour with the usual meandering dialogue and the multiple shoots of the ending. The Robert DeNiro character is the secondest of second bananas – almost totally irrelevent to the plot – yet he's DeNiro so we have to waste hour after hour of screen time so he can emote through endless minutes of Tarantino dialogue.
I give him credit for attracting good actors. I give him credit for hiring actors he likes even though they may not be box office draws. I like Jackie Brown because the relationship between Pam Grier and Robert Forster is absolutely smoldering. As a dude I viscerally felt Forster's ache after the kiss that ended that movie. Had he made it all about the actors, it would have been great. As a typical monument to Tarantino self-indulgence all it merits is heavy use of the fast-forward button.
"I have seen nearly all of Tarantino’s movies"
Uh, which ones have you not seen? It's not like trying to watch every single film John Wayne appeared in. There are seven theatrical releases, plus his hand in Four Rooms and Sin City. Not trying to bring the hate, but to call yourself a fan without having seen all the man's films (or, for that matter, TV ep directing nods) seems sort of flimsy. If you're referring to "My Best Friend's Birthday" I take it all back, but otherwise, wtf?
As for your premise regarding QT and Leonard, I would agree.
"The problem with Tarantino that's just gotten worse and worse and worse is his complete self-indulgence"
Bingo. I can stomach the endless cribbing from other movies, sometimes bordering on hackery. But he needs to be edited. That man has no idea when to pick the pencil off the paper and let it be.
@Nolotrippen.. Dude or Dudette (Just playing safe) I can't believe you just brought up the whole flowers, unicorn and rainbows stuff. I am soooo disappointed! Ever since 'Ohama' got elected I've been waiting and expecting a Unicorn in everyone's back yard eating rejuvenating flowers underneath a rainbow filled sky.
Well I'm still waiting! Daddy wants what was promised!
@ Tublecane: Cuba Libre was a departure for Leonard. It was Historical and not at all set within the 'crime milieu. And like QT EL IS known for his dialog. It is what set's him apart from other writers.
Having seen all of QT's features (save "My Best Friend's Birthday" which supposedly turned into "True Romance"), his ER ep, his CSI eps, etc, I find this hard to believe T_J. I get why some don't like his work, but his films are not interchangable with others, and the only screenwriter whose dialogue is easier to spot is David Mamet.
Most filmmakers would give their left teste and their right eye to have made Pulp Fiction, and QT could be accused of war crimes and actors would still knock each other over to star in whatever his latest project. Like Kubrick, Lynch, PT Anderson (or Russ Meyer, or Ed Wood), no one can duplicate the types of films he make. They are in a world of their own unto themselves – love them, hate them, no one else makes movies like QT.
@Michael S. Rulle Jr.: For me QT hasn't hit a false note yet. He is an undeniable talent. His latest flick is finally the coming together of his Directing abilities finally being on the same level as his writing. Now about Elmore Leonard… His is my favorite writer. I have devoured every book. His westerns kick butt just as much as his crime stories. It's just that sometime in the '60's westerns stopped selling so he traded in the six-gun and horse for an automatic and a car. What he kept though was his ear for dialog. He also has stuck to one other thing… almost all of his novels are about this one simple concept: Bad people doing bad things to even badder people, generally in funny ways. His heroes are always bad and I agree they are always up against more evil folk. It's what makes his stuff so compelling.
As for his movies… Hollywood for the most part got his Westerns right. Both 3:10 to Yuma's (But the original one is much closer to the book) the Paul Newman as a Half-breed in Hombre and Valdez is Coming. His crime films though have been spotty at best. Almost all the early ones are terrible, Moonshine War and others. 52 Pick-up though was on the right track. It wasn't until Get Shorty that Hollywood got it right. Then came Out of Sight, which is just about the perfect Elmore Movie translation. Jackie Brown as well was great but QT remade it so it's still a QT movie. Because at the time QT wanted to make his '70's Blackxplotation bit.
But please don't mention Be Cool. That was a dreadful film. And don't get me started on The Big Bounce!
Elmore is the best at what he does. That said there are two other writers who are chomping at the bit. Their novels are not quite as cool and rocked out and mean as Elmore's but still the dialog and characters have spunk and vitality. They are Carl Haaisen and Tim Dorsey. Carl's best novel is his middle one Striptease. But avoid the movie at all costs. All of Tim's books are great. They all star a absolutely off the wall/charts hero. A Florida history nut who never fails to regale someone about Florida's rich history or stop at every historical marker. The beauty of it is two-fold, his name is Storm Serge and he's a serial killer.
I'm interested to know what your thoughts on Mark Twain are. He's considered a classic author, and yet, his subjects are very much in the days of his own time, and his dialgoue is colloquial in his best works.
Similarly, Shakespeare wrote for the masses of his day (upper and lower crust). His dialogue was also colloquial using many of the slang phrases of his time. So what do you think of him?
Just because something is rooted in genre or the present day doesn't mean that it has no merit in its ideas.
And if I just misunderstood you, I apologize.
I was just thinking the same thing! I dunno why, but after reading that, I had an urge to watch PF for the umpteenth time. I can see the similarities between Leonard and Tarantino. I have never thought about it too deeply, though. I will pay more attention in the future.
You are kidding, right? If you count what he produced, acted or wrote, but did not direct–the numbers start adding up. Throw in a few CSIs and other Tv shows and its up there. Did not see Sin City . Have you seen My Name is Modesty, or Iron Monkey? Please, that was not my point—my point was to connect 2 people who are not generally seen as linked. I suppose I could have added these 80 words to make that point—but I thought "nearly all" was sufficient .
You sound more like Frank Burns, but I mean that in a respectable way.
I do like CH–read about 4-5 I think—he got a little bit on my nerves with his "paved paradise, put up a parkinng lot" stuff–but I generally agree, I have been meaning to try TD–you just gave me a push–will do. You may like Westlake writing under the name Richard Stark–stuff is pretty good and similar style. If you are willing to go the vampire route (also his non-vampire stuff), you may like Charlie Huston. The vampires do not have any of the Anne Rice spiritual/magical mystery stuff (which I do like)–the Huston vampires are just good old fashion criminal gangs–its NYC based–good stuff. While I have read almost all his books (I say almost, becasue I am sure I miust have missed some of his westerns–although I cannot tell you which–I have tried to get them all), I
have not seen many of his movie adaptations. Maybe 7 or 8 out of 20 plus. I did like 3:10 out of Yuma. I have to say, I am not a Paul Newman fan–so I never saw Hombre and Valdez–probably should.
The movies I referred to was EL moviesnot Charlie Huston–it was a little unclear as I wrote it
Yeah, I agreed with your point – that's why I said "As for your premise … I would agree." I was trying to be nice, because I think it's a good point. I'm guessing that most QT fans on BH wouldn't have to research an essay to know that he had nothing to do with "Get Shorty" or "Be Cool." etc, to say nothing of someone who actually posts articles on here. This isn't ancient history, nor is it obscure.
If it took you "a year or two" to see Pulp Fiction and just saw Reservoir Dogs last year, not really sure you're the guy to be getting up in arms about someone critiquing your understanding of what is meant by a QT film. Citing Ray Nicolette would have been the best point to make to support your Tarantino-Leonard premise. QT had nothing to do with what you see on the screen when watching Modesty or Monkey, any more than what you see on the screen in Hostel II – QT was involved in some manner in bringing all of them to American screens, but they aren't QT films, and any fan of QT films knows that.
Assuming my idea is new, that is reasonable value added—that was the point of the essay. CBK, I find it odd that you seem disturbed that I am not a professional QT observer by your arbitrary standards. I just said previously, I had only not seen Sin City among his directed movies. And you are critical that I saw Pulp Fiction on VCR? Why is that odd? QT was barely known before Pulp Fiction.
I was obviously being ironic about GS and BC. You know, like they are so similar I forget who is who, ha ha. They are escape for me. As they are for most people, I assume. Want to discuss something meaningful and interesting? Lets try to figure out why that is the case. When I saw Reservoir Dogs somehow seems besides the point. If that were not so, lets burn Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare—since neither you nor I read either "when they first were written"
Anybody who's familiar with John D. MacDonald knows the debt Tim Dorsey owes him — and Dorsey acknowledges it. Serge Storms is a Travis McGee for the 21st century.
"When I saw Reservoir Dogs somehow seems besides the point. If that were not so, lets burn Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare—since neither you nor I read either "when they first were written"
You win Mike – no way I can compete with clear-headed thinking like that. It usually takes at least a few dozen comments for Godwin's law to go into effect, yet you got there in three easy steps.
And if I misunderstand you, I too apologize. My short essay was meant only to describe something I have always found interesting. I can promise I had never knew of the Charlie Rose interview, but found it difficult to believe QT had not been influenced by EL. I would have written it anyway, but when I saw the interview, I at least new it was just in my head. Having gone to grad school way too long (7 years) I have read lots of Twain and lots of Shakespeare (meaning many of the works several times–as well as all of the works). But you are being sarcastic. You are trying to create a parody—"all colloquial speech is the same says Rulle; therefore WS and MT are the same . Ha Ha. Hilarious. Also, I am comparing a writer witha director/writer. The fact that QT agrees is interesting support.
I spelt "new" wrong in previous point. It should read "knew". I apolgize. "I knew it was just in my head" should read "not in my head". Freud might say I needed confirmation "to be sure". I would say–"probably right Dr. Freud, but I did see the connection". In writing the essay, I did look for what each said about the other (for 10-20 minutes or so). I was happy to see the Rose interview, because the connection I saw was not a mere coincidence (it could have been)
CBK! I am not trying to "win". Let's stop trying to out sarcasm each other. I will start. I am saying it is far more interesting to discuss why these guys are popular—not discuss who saw what when and whether that makes one an authehtic fan. You seem pretty engaged. I really do think my suggested topic is the interesting one. We love movies like NBK and PF–I think it is interesting that we love these characters in fiction but not real life. I made that point at the end. Was hoping some picked up on that–should have been more explicit.
Best,
Mike
I don't like his films because of how horribly violent they are. By the way, this is the first time I have been censored where my other post explained my feelings better. If this one will post. I would rather my other one was permitted.
I'm not interested in Tarantino's hyperviolent fantasies. Was he picked on a lot as a kid?
"Just because something is rooted in genre or the present day doesn't mean that it has no merit in its ideas."
Plato set his works in "the present day," for instance "The Symposium," . I would say there's a correlation between literature rooted firmly in genre and a lack of stimulating original ideas. That's why "genre work" has a negative connotation. When you hear that appelation, it's an indication the book has no worth beyond previous works of its type. If It was driven by ideas more sophisticated than average, it has "transcended genre," as people like to say.
(Continued)
Shakespeare was a master of all genres: tragedy, history, commedy, fantasy, romance, which without digging into the individual works tells you as an author he transcends genre. But his individual works, too, offer more than necessary. In the case of "Hamlet"–which is as funny as farce, as scary as horror, and as gripping as action–way more than necessary.
Mark Twain also wrote in various genres, including Travel Writing ("Roughing It," "Life on the Mississippi," "A Tramp Abroad") and Sci-Fi ("A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court"). Widely considered his best, "Huck Finn," is basically a adventure-travelogue, but also much more, especially in sequences featuring the lynch mob, the feuding families, and so on.
(Continued)
But all this is beside my point. I didn't mean to discuss the relative merit of Serious Literary Fiction and Genre Fiction. I simply meant to say I wish artists would spend as more time studying philosophy than repeating what they've learned from other art, be it the Great Books or pulp fiction.
"Plato set his works in 'the present day,' for instance 'The Symposium'"
I meant to add: "and as such contemporary setting is beside the point"
"It was Historical and not at all set within the 'crime milieu."
Wasn't the main character a gun-runner? It wasn't all that far away from a "crime milieu".
Mike,
You said " Some movies which Tarantino directed seem like they were written by Leonard (”True Romance,” “Pulp Fiction” and “Reservoir Dogs”…
QT didn't direct True Romance, he wrote the script. Tony Scott directed the movie.
Jorge
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » The Leonard-Tarantino Axis of Pulp Fiction bighollywood.breitbart.com/mrulle/2009/08/22/the-leonard-tarantino-axis-of-pulp-fiction – view page – cached “Inglourious Basterds” opened this weekend. It has the potential to be satisfying for Quentin Tarantino fans. I will definitely see it. It is an “alternative history” of WWII, but despite its setting, Tarantino characterizes the movie as a “spaghetti western.” My guess is a hint of the “pulp fiction” writer Elmore Leonard will, like a super fine mist, be present in the film. — From the page [...]
I nominate this as one of the most worthless arguments in the history of argumentation.
[...] Tim Snow. Morrison and the females will be chasing triathlon phenom Chrissie Wellington … The Leonard-Tarantino Axis of Pulp FictionWhile you're at it, maybe you can help satisfy Chrissy Matthew's "tingle." [...]
wanker
sorry was ma mate..qt is a fascinating guy
You must be logged in to post a comment.