Is Quentin Tarantino a hack? (1 Viewer)

[slayer666]

No.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'm looking forward to Kill Bill Vol. 3.

Say what now?

This also sounds good. Tarantino + Dicaprio should be

 

[KarmaPolice]

I think that anybody voting 'yes' is nuts.

Tarantino does so many things well that I can't understand how people could call him a hack. It's been brought up that he is a great writer. You'd be hard pressed to find any better dialogue in movies over the past 20 years than in his movies. Don't think many will argue against that. However, I think sometimes what people gloss over is how good of a director of actors he is. It is not a coincidence that B level actors have their best roles and give their best performances in his movies - from Travolta to Kurt Russell, etc. He definitely has a talent for knowing exactly what he wants and is able to somehow get these actors to give it to him. On top of that, he shoots some amazing shots as well. It's not as though it's good acting and nothing else - the scenes that people have been bringing up - notably the 2 main ones in Inglorious Basterds also feature some great camera work. Those are long scenes and the tension is built up so well. Also, I haven't seen his ability to use music so well in his films mentioned yet.

He is not without faults though. He seems to use the setups and chapter heading the same in most of his movies. I also think that he has trouble reigning is his inner geek and love for the kung fu/spaghetti western/grindhouse movies that not many people relate to or have interest in. I found IG a little frustrating because in between some of the best scenes I have seen on film in some time he mixes in shlocky, over the top scenes - notably the ending and what happens in the theater. Seems like he teeters on brilliance but his geekiness and ADD kick in too much. Was hoping Death Proof got that out of his system, but I guess not.

 

[Eephus]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies.

Completely agree.

+1

Full disclosure: I voted QT isn't a hack but using his best work as your argument isn't proof.Michael Curtiz directed one of the greatest Hollywood movies of all-time in Casablanca, film noir masterpiece Mildred Pierce and the timeless classic The Adventures of Robin Hood, but was a total studio hack for most of his long career.

 

[Thunderlips]

I've seen many sources claiming that Quentin Tarantino's a hack. For the purposes of this discussion, here's the dictionary definition:

Origin:

1680–90; short for hackney

1. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well.

verb (used with object) 6. to make trite, common, or stale by frequent use.

Are people saying he's a hack by that definition or he's a hack for "paying homage" to so many scenes, characters and situations from other movies (what I've encountered people to mean when they call him a hack). If it's by the textbook definition, then no....he's a quality director.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I think that anybody voting 'yes' is nuts. Tarantino does so many things well that I can't understand how people could call him a hack. It's been brought up that he is a great writer. You'd be hard pressed to find any better dialogue in movies over the past 20 years than in his movies. Don't think many will argue against that. However, I think sometimes what people gloss over is how good of a director of actors he is. It is not a coincidence that B level actors have their best roles and give their best performances in his movies - from Travolta to Kurt Russell, etc. He definitely has a talent for knowing exactly what he wants and is able to somehow get these actors to give it to him. On top of that, he shoots some amazing shots as well. It's not as though it's good acting and nothing else - the scenes that people have been bringing up - notably the 2 main ones in Inglorious Basterds also feature some great camera work. Those are long scenes and the tension is built up so well. Also, I haven't seen his ability to use music so well in his films.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Ive seen 3 people now abbreviate Inglourious Basterds as IG.....why is it not IB?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Ive seen 3 people now abbreviate Inglourious Basterds as IG.....why is it not IB?

In my case it's just stupidity. Or that that the G is too close to the B.

 

[trader jake]

Michael Bay is a hack, Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors of this generation. Masterpieces like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds will define film making in the 90s and 00s. He likely is not the best but he's a genius and on a short list for best director of his era.

LOL at this question even being asked.

Hack? Absolutely not. He's only directed 7 movies in almost 20 years though, which I think is smart on his part because if he was directing 1 or more a year, I could see his movies becoming stale if not bad once in awhile and not have the resonating impact or entertaintainment value I still feel they do today. At that point he could approach hack territory. I really dont understand how people can say he fell off after Pulp Fiction outside of Death Proof but that was what it was. I would disagree that he's a better writer than director as someone said, but clearly he's a great writer, and he wrote but did not direct True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn which were all great in their own right. As for hack, the definition of hack is M. Night Shallamylan. I feel like people still go to see his movies because of The Sixth Sense and expecting the next Sixth Sense or something, and he hasn't made a good movie since. I dont think people go to see Tarantino movies expecting the next Pulp Fiction, they go expecting an interesting and entertaining film.

All three hit the mark.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Michael Bay is a hack, Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors of this generation. Masterpieces like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds will define film making in the 90s and 00s. He likely is not the best but he's a genius and on a short list for best director of his era.

LOL at this question even being asked.

Hack? Absolutely not. He's only directed 7 movies in almost 20 years though, which I think is smart on his part because if he was directing 1 or more a year, I could see his movies becoming stale if not bad once in awhile and not have the resonating impact or entertaintainment value I still feel they do today. At that point he could approach hack territory. I really dont understand how people can say he fell off after Pulp Fiction outside of Death Proof but that was what it was. I would disagree that he's a better writer than director as someone said, but clearly he's a great writer, and he wrote but did not direct True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn which were all great in their own right. As for hack, the definition of hack is M. Night Shallamylan. I feel like people still go to see his movies because of The Sixth Sense and expecting the next Sixth Sense or something, and he hasn't made a good movie since. I dont think people go to see Tarantino movies expecting the next Pulp Fiction, they go expecting an interesting and entertaining film.

All three hit the mark.

I really like Unbreakable, The Village isn't terrible (an extended Twilight Zone but I didn't pay to see it), and I even liked Devil (which he wrote, not directed). I didn't like Signs and his last 3 movies have sucked, although I didn't bother watching The Last Airbender.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

 

[scoobygang]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies.

Completely agree.

+1

Full disclosure: I voted QT isn't a hack but using his best work as your argument isn't proof.Michael Curtiz directed one of the greatest Hollywood movies of all-time in Casablanca, film noir masterpiece Mildred Pierce and the timeless classic The Adventures of Robin Hood, but was a total studio hack for most of his long career.

Metteur en scene is the preferred nomenclature, dude.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Ive seen 3 people now abbreviate Inglourious Basterds as IG.....why is it not IB?

In my case it's just stupidity. Or that that the G is too close to the B.

Umm, yeah...too close to the B, that's the ticket.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Michael Bay is a hack, Quentin Tarantino is one of the best directors of this generation. Masterpieces like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and Inglourious Basterds will define film making in the 90s and 00s. He likely is not the best but he's a genius and on a short list for best director of his era.

LOL at this question even being asked.

Hack? Absolutely not. He's only directed 7 movies in almost 20 years though, which I think is smart on his part because if he was directing 1 or more a year, I could see his movies becoming stale if not bad once in awhile and not have the resonating impact or entertaintainment value I still feel they do today. At that point he could approach hack territory. I really dont understand how people can say he fell off after Pulp Fiction outside of Death Proof but that was what it was. I would disagree that he's a better writer than director as someone said, but clearly he's a great writer, and he wrote but did not direct True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and From Dusk Till Dawn which were all great in their own right. As for hack, the definition of hack is M. Night Shallamylan. I feel like people still go to see his movies because of The Sixth Sense and expecting the next Sixth Sense or something, and he hasn't made a good movie since. I dont think people go to see Tarantino movies expecting the next Pulp Fiction, they go expecting an interesting and entertaining film.

All three hit the mark.

I really like Unbreakable, The Village isn't terrible (an extended Twilight Zone but I didn't pay to see it), and I even liked Devil (which he wrote, not directed). I didn't like Signs and his last 3 movies have sucked, although I didn't bother watching The Last Airbender.

Unbreakable and The Village are pretty cool. Count yourself lucky that you didn't see The Last Airbender. Awful.

 

[matuski]

Machete might be the best movie I've seen in 5 years.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Machete might be the best movie I've seen in 5 years.

I would like Tarantino to get credit for it, but Robert Rodriguez came up with the Machete Grindhouse trailers.

 

[matuski]

Machete might be the best movie I've seen in 5 years.

I would like Tarantino to get credit for it, but Robert Rodriguez came up with the Machete Grindhouse trailers.

I honestly have no idea, was going on an assuption it was him.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Machete might be the best movie I've seen in 5 years.

I would like Tarantino to get credit for it, but Robert Rodriguez came up with the Machete Grindhouse trailers.

I honestly have no idea, was going on an assuption it was him.

can you still take Pacquiao?

 

[Dickies]

No, but I do think he is vastly overrated.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Jackie Brown is a great movie. Period.

Damn right. Three Tarantino movies would probably be in my all-time top 25, and Jackie Brown is one of those three.

I think that anybody voting 'yes' is nuts. Tarantino does so many things well that I can't understand how people could call him a hack. It's been brought up that he is a great writer. You'd be hard pressed to find any better dialogue in movies over the past 20 years than in his movies. Don't think many will argue against that. However, I think sometimes what people gloss over is how good of a director of actors he is. It is not a coincidence that B level actors have their best roles and give their best performances in his movies - from Travolta to Kurt Russell, etc. He definitely has a talent for knowing exactly what he wants and is able to somehow get these actors to give it to him. On top of that, he shoots some amazing shots as well. It's not as though it's good acting and nothing else - the scenes that people have been bringing up - notably the 2 main ones in Inglorious Basterds also feature some great camera work. Those are long scenes and the tension is built up so well. Also, I haven't seen his ability to use music so well in his films mentioned yet.

To touch on just one thing, the long take in Kill Bill I is one of my favorite long takes ever (the one when the 5.6.7.8s are playing Woo-Hoo).

 

[wikkidpissah]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

Better sharpen your pencil, boyo, because the first dozen artists i thought i've that i've known well-enough personally to tell, including several musicians, two filmmakers of Oscar-winning movies, some artists who've shown in Manhattan, a coupla name comics & a choreographer (and, yes he is & we've all pretty much known it since he was 4yo) and not one of them betray the least sense of being bullied or abused. That means you have over 100,000 abused-without-exception artists to list to shore up the math of your assertion.

 

[Kenny Powers]

Jackie Brown is a great movie. Period.

Damn right. Three Tarantino movies would probably be in my all-time top 25, and Jackie Brown is one of those three.

My favorite Tarantino movie. Thats why I had to bring it up

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

Better sharpen your pencil, boyo, because the first dozen artists i thought i've that i've known well-enough personally to tell, including several musicians, two filmmakers of Oscar-winning movies, some artists who've shown in Manhattan, a coupla name comics & a choreographer (and, yes he is & we've all pretty much known it since he was 4yo) and not one of them betray the least sense of being bullied or abused. That means you have over 100,000 abused-without-exception artists to list to shore up the math of your assertion.

You sure they weren't hacks?

 

[Dr. Awesome]

I'm not a Tarantino fan. I think most of his movies are downright awful. But despite being one of his critics even I can't say he's a hack. He's had some quality pictures. Overrated, absolutely.

 

[jdoggydogg]

No, but I do think he is vastly overrated.

Everything good is overrated.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

Better sharpen your pencil, boyo, because the first dozen artists i thought i've that i've known well-enough personally to tell, including several musicians, two filmmakers of Oscar-winning movies, some artists who've shown in Manhattan, a coupla name comics & a choreographer (and, yes he is & we've all pretty much known it since he was 4yo) and not one of them betray the least sense of being bullied or abused. That means you have over 100,000 abused-without-exception artists to list to shore up the math of your assertion.

I find it impossible to believe they were without influences. You may not like the QT persona or his work, but I submit this is making your borders of theft and influence elastic. Is Scorsese a thief? Because I've been in the room with him when he discussed "quoting" a shot. I guess technically its thievery, but him, as would QT.Frank Lloyd Wright lifted, popularized and expanded Japanese styles

The Beatles/Stones/Who/Clapton/Zep lifted, popularized and expanded Delta Blues Music.

Picasso was influenced by African Art

Film is too vast to count the many ways it lifts its art. German pioneers influence Sound era studio films which influence New Wave Filmmakers of France and Italy post war, which influence Vietnam Era film school kids.

We are not trying to discern if QT is an elite artist in the mold of a DaVinci, Shakespeare, or Mozart. We are simply trying to say he's not a hack. Unless you are running in some really elite circles, everyone borrows/steals.

 

[Jayrod]

The arguments over various art forms in this forum make my head spin. Y'all are nuts.

 

[B-Deep]

No.But he's not as cool as he thinks he is.

no one is as cool as Tarantino thinks he is

 

[B-Deep]

...our battle plan will be that of an Apache resistance. We will be cruel to the Germans, and through our cruelty they will know who we are. And they will find the evidence of our cruelty in the disemboweled, dismembered, and disfigured bodies of their brothers we leave behind us. And the German won't not be able to help themselves but to imagine the cruelty their brothers endured at our hands, and our boot heels, and the edge of our knives. And the German will be sickened by us, and the German will talk about us, and the German will fear us. And when the German closes their eyes at night and they're tortured by their subconscious for the evil they have done, it will be with thoughts of us they are tortured with.

Sound good?

 

[wikkidpissah]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

Better sharpen your pencil, boyo, because the first dozen artists i thought i've that i've known well-enough personally to tell, including several musicians, two filmmakers of Oscar-winning movies, some artists who've shown in Manhattan, a coupla name comics & a choreographer (and, yes he is & we've all pretty much known it since he was 4yo) and not one of them betray the least sense of being bullied or abused. That means you have over 100,000 abused-without-exception artists to list to shore up the math of your assertion.

I find it impossible to believe they were without influences. You may not like the QT persona or his work, but I submit this is making your borders of theft and influence elastic. Is Scorsese a thief? Because I've been in the room with him when he discussed "quoting" a shot. I guess technically its thievery, but him, as would QT.Frank Lloyd Wright lifted, popularized and expanded Japanese styles

The Beatles/Stones/Who/Clapton/Zep lifted, popularized and expanded Delta Blues Music.

Picasso was influenced by African Art

Film is too vast to count the many ways it lifts its art. German pioneers influence Sound era studio films which influence New Wave Filmmakers of France and Italy post war, which influence Vietnam Era film school kids.

We are not trying to discern if QT is an elite artist in the mold of a DaVinci, Shakespeare, or Mozart. We are simply trying to say he's not a hack. Unless you are running in some really elite circles, everyone borrows/steals.

Thief, wonk, compensator, yes. Hack, not close.

tarantino is not an artist, but a collector. his movies invite you to come over to his basement bedroom and see all his cool stuff. the pathology makes it compelling, either to those with similar pathologies or those who find it interesting, but it falls short of the mark as creation.

As you can see, i'm not one of those who called him a hack. My voluminous posts in this thread were a result of others responding to my characterization of him as a thief. Once more, so we're clear - not hack. not artist. thief. collector. nerd.

 

[Gr00vus]

Is James Cameron a hack?

 

[saintfool]

Is James Cameron a hack?

no, but he's not an auteur.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Is James Cameron a hack?

Decidely not. His scripts are so awful as a direct result of his need to reveal his vision of world & worlds. It is that quality which makes him an artist - though a very bad one, inventive as he is.And that's the problem with movies as art. The impulse is certainly there with a lot of people but, as difficult as collaborative art is in & of itself, there is simply too much in the way of ego & finances to be considered, getting in the way of true expression.

 

[scoobygang]

Is James Cameron a hack?

no, but he's not an auteur.

Auteur is far too often used as a synonymn for "good director." That's not what it means. An auteur is simply a director with recongnizable personal style or themes that permeate his or her work. By that definition, Michael Bay is an auteur. I could show a Martian five movies and he'd be able to pick out the two that were directed by Michael Bay. Two people may differ strongly over whether Mel Gibson is a good filmmaker (I'm not even a fan of Braveheart), but there's absolutely no doubt that he's an auteur. His preoccupation over the moral nobility of suffering and endurance of pain suffuses everything he's ever made.I don't think either Gibson or Tarantino will age well with critics. Gibson, because his personal vision is kind of psychotic and scary and Tarantino because his personal vision is kind of banal. My guess is that Pulp Fiction, while an entertaining movie, will not show up on any critic's Sight and Sound lists in the year 2030.

 

[saintfool]

Is James Cameron a hack?

no, but he's not an auteur.

Auteur is far too often used as a synonymn for "good director." That's not what it means. An auteur is simply a director with recongnizable personal style or themes that permeate his or her work. By that definition, Michael Bay is an auteur. I could show a Martian five movies and he'd be able to pick out the two that were directed by Michael Bay. Two people may differ strongly over whether Mel Gibson is a good filmmaker (I'm not even a fan of Braveheart), but there's absolutely no doubt that he's an auteur. His preoccupation over the moral nobility of suffering and endurance of pain suffuses everything he's ever made.I don't think either Gibson or Tarantino will age well with critics. Gibson, because his personal vision is kind of psychotic and scary and Tarantino because his personal vision is kind of banal. My guess is that Pulp Fiction, while an entertaining movie, will not show up on any critic's Sight and Sound lists in the year 2030.

i wasn't using auteur as shorthand for "good director". the only unifying theme or signature touch to his films seems to be ever increasing budgets.

 

[scoobygang]

I also think that Bazin's auteur/metteur en scene distinction is pretty meaningless since the studio system died. Bazin was referring to a system where both Michael Curtiz and Howard Hawks would be selected to direct studio projects in whatever genre the studio chose. A thriller, a western, a romance, a comedy, whatever. And while both worked as hired guns, a Hawks movie would have certain recognizably "Hawksian" characteristics while a Curtiz movie, even a very good Curtiz movie, wouldn't.

In today's Hollywood, studios don't pick directors much. Agents put together packages. Even somewhat untested directors have far more control over what projects they direct than did even the most established directors in the studio system. So it's not really a distinction that matters that much. Directors aren't smuggling their personal visions into films because the directors are granted a pretty big voice in the first place.

 

[Gr00vus]

Is James Cameron a hack?

Decidely not. His scripts are so awful as a direct result of his need to reveal his vision of world & worlds. It is that quality which makes him an artist - though a very bad one, inventive as he is.And that's the problem with movies as art. The impulse is certainly there with a lot of people but, as difficult as collaborative art is in & of itself, there is simply too much in the way of ego & finances to be considered, getting in the way of true expression.

How dare you say that about Terminator II!I agree with you about movies != art for the most part.

 

[Eephus]

I also think that Bazin's auteur/metteur en scene distinction is pretty meaningless since the studio system died. Bazin was referring to a system where both Michael Curtiz and Howard Hawks would be selected to direct studio projects in whatever genre the studio chose. A thriller, a western, a romance, a comedy, whatever. And while both worked as hired guns, a Hawks movie would have certain recognizably "Hawksian" characteristics while a Curtiz movie, even a very good Curtiz movie, wouldn't.In today's Hollywood, studios don't pick directors much. Agents put together packages. Even somewhat untested directors have far more control over what projects they direct than did even the most established directors in the studio system. So it's not really a distinction that matters that much. Directors aren't smuggling their personal visions into films because the directors are granted a pretty big voice in the first place.

Today's directors are also much more self-aware (with an accompanying sense of self-importance) than Hawks, Ford and their contemporaries. The auteur theory was revolutionary because it caused viewers to reassess familiar works with an eye towards discovering a hidden yet definitive style. Modern directors beat audiences over the head with it in the first ten minutes of the movie.Tarentino also wouldn't have lasted two weeks during the era of Jack Warner and Harry Cohn.

 

[NCCommish]

I also think that Bazin's auteur/metteur en scene distinction is pretty meaningless since the studio system died. Bazin was referring to a system where both Michael Curtiz and Howard Hawks would be selected to direct studio projects in whatever genre the studio chose. A thriller, a western, a romance, a comedy, whatever. And while both worked as hired guns, a Hawks movie would have certain recognizably "Hawksian" characteristics while a Curtiz movie, even a very good Curtiz movie, wouldn't.In today's Hollywood, studios don't pick directors much. Agents put together packages. Even somewhat untested directors have far more control over what projects they direct than did even the most established directors in the studio system. So it's not really a distinction that matters that much. Directors aren't smuggling their personal visions into films because the directors are granted a pretty big voice in the first place.

Today's directors are also much more self-aware (with an accompanying sense of self-importance) than Hawks, Ford and their contemporaries. The auteur theory was revolutionary because it caused viewers to reassess familiar works with an eye towards discovering a hidden yet definitive style. Modern directors beat audiences over the head with it in the first ten minutes of the movie.Tarentino also wouldn't have lasted two weeks during the era of Jack Warner and Harry Cohn.

Well that isn't necessarily a good thing.

 

[scoobygang]

I find it impossible to believe they were without influences. You may not like the QT persona or his work, but I submit this is making your borders of theft and influence elastic. Is Scorsese a thief? Because I've been in the room with him when he discussed "quoting" a shot. I guess technically its thievery, but him, as would QT.

I do think this a weakness of Scorsese's and I kind of blame Scorsese for an entire film school culture that has grown up around it. I couldn't get enough of that stuff when I was 20 and wanted to go to film school myself, but now I just find it distracting and annoying. All the Sam Fuller references in Shutter Island just bugged me, and I can't for the life of me understand why I ever cared about how long a tracking shot a movie has. I can't remember if I posted this earlier in the thread, but I once attended a speech by Michael Apted (who is best known as a documentary filmmaker but who also has a decent record as the kind of throwback genre craftsman that Michael Curtiz would appreciate). What he said is that today's directors know everything about film and nothing about life.I'm sure my favorite Scorsese movie (Kundun) "quotes" shots (possibly Dreyer in the Passion of Joan of Arc or something), but I just respond more to his movies that are less explicitly influenced by other movies. And maybe I'm inconsistent, because I like most Coen Brothers movies and they are often post-modern in the same way. All I can say is that a movie like Miller's Crossing or The Hudsucker Proxy use the genre conventions as an entree into a weirder, more personal story.

 

[drummer]

This is a bad thread.Tarantino has produced one indie masterpeice: Resovior Dogs, one culturally seminal film of an era; Pulp Fiction, and also one of the greatest action revenge movies of all time in Kill Bill I and II. That alone removes him from consideration of being a hack, even if he decides to devote the rest of his life to doing Hallmark made for TV movies. The rest of his body of work ranges from o.k to good. Just because he borrows from others means nothing. Every director does that.

Jackie Brown is a lot better than "ok to good"

Jackie Brown is a great movie. Period.

So you say. I haven't watched a QT film since, and that movie is a reason why.

 

[saintfool]

Tarentino also wouldn't have lasted two weeks during the era of Jack Warner and Harry Cohn.

Q as Fink

 

[jdoggydogg]

Thief

Examples?

i think we've been through this before, dogg. QT's work betrays a youthful obsession with cool without skills to achieve it. in between getting the #### kicked out of his nerdy ###, he watched movies and stored every revenge fantasy moment that spoke to him. in his one stroke of genius, or at least inspiration, he realised that assembling these scenes & sentiments in screen pieces would resonate in the id of everyone who's ever been minimized/bullied and give him his best chance at being well-considered. now, his every filmic moment matches his every life moment - the nerd's King of Cool. he'll simply never be cool to anyone who's cool, but he's now more powerful than most cool people & cool to everyone else, so he wins. still, he wakes up every day needing the validation of others more than his own, and that makes him pathetic. But his pathology & encyclopedia of compensations will always make him interesting.

You've just described 99.99% of artists and made the point that he is in fact one.

Better sharpen your pencil, boyo, because the first dozen artists i thought i've that i've known well-enough personally to tell, including several musicians, two filmmakers of Oscar-winning movies, some artists who've shown in Manhattan, a coupla name comics & a choreographer (and, yes he is & we've all pretty much known it since he was 4yo) and not one of them betray the least sense of being bullied or abused. That means you have over 100,000 abused-without-exception artists to list to shore up the math of your assertion.

I find it impossible to believe they were without influences. You may not like the QT persona or his work, but I submit this is making your borders of theft and influence elastic. Is Scorsese a thief? Because I've been in the room with him when he discussed "quoting" a shot. I guess technically its thievery, but him, as would QT.Frank Lloyd Wright lifted, popularized and expanded Japanese styles

The Beatles/Stones/Who/Clapton/Zep lifted, popularized and expanded Delta Blues Music.

Picasso was influenced by African Art

Film is too vast to count the many ways it lifts its art. German pioneers influence Sound era studio films which influence New Wave Filmmakers of France and Italy post war, which influence Vietnam Era film school kids.

We are not trying to discern if QT is an elite artist in the mold of a DaVinci, Shakespeare, or Mozart. We are simply trying to say he's not a hack. Unless you are running in some really elite circles, everyone borrows/steals.

This is a fantastic post.

 

[jdoggydogg]

No.But he's not as cool as he thinks he is.

no one is as cool as Tarantino thinks he is

Muhammad Ali is the only person in the known universe that's as cool as he thinks he is. Everyone else is a dork.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I don't think either Gibson or Tarantino will age well with critics. Gibson, because his personal vision is kind of psychotic and scary and Tarantino because his personal vision is kind of banal. My guess is that Pulp Fiction, while an entertaining movie, will not show up on any critic's Sight and Sound lists in the year 2030.

Interesting take, because I completely disagree with this. You're saying that Tarantino is a zeitgeist. I put it to you that Tarantino will be even more deified 100 years from now.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I also think that Bazin's auteur/metteur en scene distinction is pretty meaningless since the studio system died. Bazin was referring to a system where both Michael Curtiz and Howard Hawks would be selected to direct studio projects in whatever genre the studio chose. A thriller, a western, a romance, a comedy, whatever. And while both worked as hired guns, a Hawks movie would have certain recognizably "Hawksian" characteristics while a Curtiz movie, even a very good Curtiz movie, wouldn't.

In today's Hollywood, studios don't pick directors much. Agents put together packages. Even somewhat untested directors have far more control over what projects they direct than did even the most established directors in the studio system. So it's not really a distinction that matters that much. Directors aren't smuggling their personal visions into films because the directors are granted a pretty big voice in the first place.

Today's directors are also much more self-aware (with an accompanying sense of self-importance) than Hawks, Ford and their contemporaries.

The auteur theory was revolutionary because it caused viewers to reassess familiar works with an eye towards discovering a hidden yet definitive style. Modern directors beat audiences over the head with it in the first ten minutes of the movie.

Tarentino also wouldn't have lasted two weeks during the era of Jack Warner and Harry Cohn.

Conversely, there are thousands of anonymous guitarists in the modern era that are far more technically proficient than Jimi Hendrix ever was. But that's not what's important. I'm intrigued by what you said, but I don't think it diminishes Tarantino's contributions one iota.

 

[Funkley]

Andy doesnt like Pulp Fiction......I think thats the first demerit I've had to give you.

 

[Bojang0301]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

WTF? I agree that Spielberg is one of the most overrated directors of all time and that a lot of his work is fairly mediocre but Jaws, Indiana Jones (Ark and Last Crusade), Saving Private Ryan and Munich are not lucky stabs in the dark.

 

[Eephus]

I also think that Bazin's auteur/metteur en scene distinction is pretty meaningless since the studio system died. Bazin was referring to a system where both Michael Curtiz and Howard Hawks would be selected to direct studio projects in whatever genre the studio chose. A thriller, a western, a romance, a comedy, whatever. And while both worked as hired guns, a Hawks movie would have certain recognizably "Hawksian" characteristics while a Curtiz movie, even a very good Curtiz movie, wouldn't.

In today's Hollywood, studios don't pick directors much. Agents put together packages. Even somewhat untested directors have far more control over what projects they direct than did even the most established directors in the studio system. So it's not really a distinction that matters that much. Directors aren't smuggling their personal visions into films because the directors are granted a pretty big voice in the first place.

Today's directors are also much more self-aware (with an accompanying sense of self-importance) than Hawks, Ford and their contemporaries.

The auteur theory was revolutionary because it caused viewers to reassess familiar works with an eye towards discovering a hidden yet definitive style. Modern directors beat audiences over the head with it in the first ten minutes of the movie.

Tarentino also wouldn't have lasted two weeks during the era of Jack Warner and Harry Cohn.

Conversely, there are thousands of anonymous guitarists in the modern era that are far more technically proficient than Jimi Hendrix ever was. But that's not what's important. I'm intrigued by what you said, but I don't think it diminishes Tarantino's contributions one iota.

It was a tangent I voted no on the poll. Tarentino isn't a hack because he's consistently demonstrated a personal vision and has made a handful of enduring films. He's a better writer than director IMO and his enthusiasm/lack of discipline sometimes gets the better of him but he's not a hack.

Golden age Hollywood was the golden age for hacks. Directors worked constantly with the primary goals of telling stories and selling tickets. I doubt many expected their work to still be watched and analyzed 75 years later. Some managed to gain recognition as auteurs; most through craft rather than art. Tarentino couldn't have worked in that studio system. Some like Spielberg would have fit right in. Others could have adapted. But the studios would have taken QT, chewed him up and spit him out like a skinnier, less talented Orson Welles.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Steven Spielberg is a hack, not Tarantino.

WTF? I agree that Spielberg is one of the most overrated directors of all time and that a lot of his work is fairly mediocre but Jaws, Indiana Jones (Ark and Last Crusade), Saving Private Ryan and Munich are not lucky stabs in the dark.

Steven Spielberg isn't in any way, shape, or form a hack. I don't think Bojang knows what "hack" means.