Is Quentin Tarantino a hack? (2 Viewers)

[Funkley]

Spielberg changed the way movies are made and practically invented the summertime blockbuster concept. Not a hack. Not all homeruns but certainly not a hack.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not attacking you - I like the discussion

 

[Eephus]

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.

Alan Smithee is a hack

 

[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.

Alan Smithee is a hack

 

[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.

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.

Duly noted, I thought this was in direct reference to the hack notion. I would never dispute the nerd factor, which is off the charts, but at the same time, irrelevant to me. Plenty of folks have rebranded themselves as cool despite lots of evidence to the contrary, Springsteen just of the top of my head jumping to mind. I think there is something to the nerd life which causes the introspection which is the crucible of art. Mass acceptance in your youth of post war America doesn't exactly seem to be the cradle for art, but I obviously concede that there are exceptions.

Thief and not and artist, we shall agree to disagree, I've stated my case above.

 

[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.

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.

Duly noted, I thought this was in direct reference to the hack notion. I would never dispute the nerd factor, which is off the charts, but at the same time, irrelevant to me. Plenty of folks have rebranded themselves as cool despite lots of evidence to the contrary, Springsteen just of the top of my head jumping to mind. I think there is something to the nerd life which causes the introspection which is the crucible of art. Mass acceptance in your youth of post war America doesn't exactly seem to be the cradle for art, but I obviously concede that there are exceptions.

Thief and not and artist, we shall agree to disagree, I've stated my case above.

I'm a fan of Wikkid's work - he's a solid contributor. But I'm not sure why he'd need to use an ad hominem "nerd" moniker to describe Tarantino. What, do you fancy yourself a tough Ernest Hemingway type, Wikkid? Do you write during the day get drunk and beat people up in bars at night?

 

[wikkidpissah]

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.

Duly noted, I thought this was in direct reference to the hack notion. I would never dispute the nerd factor, which is off the charts, but at the same time, irrelevant to me. Plenty of folks have rebranded themselves as cool despite lots of evidence to the contrary, Springsteen just of the top of my head jumping to mind. I think there is something to the nerd life which causes the introspection which is the crucible of art. Mass acceptance in your youth of post war America doesn't exactly seem to be the cradle for art, but I obviously concede that there are exceptions. Thief and not and artist, we shall agree to disagree, I've stated my case above.

I'm a fan of Wikkid's work - he's a solid contributor. But I'm not sure why he'd need to use an ad hominem "nerd" moniker to describe Tarantino. What, do you fancy yourself a tough Ernest Hemingway type, Wikkid? Do you write during the day get drunk and beat people up in bars at night?

that's pretty ham-fisted, even for you, dogg. i dont argue just to argue, such as someone who resurrects old threads with repetitions of lame posts when theyre in the mood for a scrap, so you're not getting me to fall for this. i was indeed a bite-the-head-off-the-pigeon guy in my time and admittedly hang around here because my body is now paying the fiddler, sapping my capacity in so many ways. but you wont suck me in, even with with those backhand compliments, and you should be glad i dont recognize you as enough of an equal to go toe-to-toe, cuz i am not a "solid contributor". I'm the ####in Wrath of God.

 

[mon]

Tarantino does two things in his movies, and he does both exceptionally well. He produces scenarios and dialogue that are unique and original, and he pays homage to hack style by reproducing it in a brighter package.

 

[Apple Juice]

These discussions are interesting, but the distinction that is usually missed is the difference between personal preference and recognizing talent/importance. Just because somebody doesn't like Tarantino or Spielberg movies, I don't understand how they could argue either one is a "hack". The simple fact that Tarantino generates discussions like this and is successful despite being controversial demonstrates his importance and ability. Enough knowledgeable people regard Tarantino highly that he has a legacy as an influential and important director--he does enough things well that even though someone could attack his flaws, it can't relegate him to "hack" status. A poll asking if Michael Bay is a hack wouldn't be interesting because hardly anyone disputes that he is.

It doesn't always stem from the fact that it can feel good for an average person to dismiss a successful artist's work as crap, but in the internet age it seems to fuel a lot of the vitriol people spew on anyone who makes a name for himself.

 

[jdoggydogg]

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.

Duly noted, I thought this was in direct reference to the hack notion. I would never dispute the nerd factor, which is off the charts, but at the same time, irrelevant to me. Plenty of folks have rebranded themselves as cool despite lots of evidence to the contrary, Springsteen just of the top of my head jumping to mind. I think there is something to the nerd life which causes the introspection which is the crucible of art. Mass acceptance in your youth of post war America doesn't exactly seem to be the cradle for art, but I obviously concede that there are exceptions. Thief and not and artist, we shall agree to disagree, I've stated my case above.

I'm a fan of Wikkid's work - he's a solid contributor. But I'm not sure why he'd need to use an ad hominem "nerd" moniker to describe Tarantino. What, do you fancy yourself a tough Ernest Hemingway type, Wikkid? Do you write during the day get drunk and beat people up in bars at night?

that's pretty ham-fisted, even for you, dogg. i dont argue just to argue, such as someone who resurrects old threads with repetitions of lame posts when theyre in the mood for a scrap, so you're not getting me to fall for this. i was indeed a bite-the-head-off-the-pigeon guy in my time and admittedly hang around here because my body is now paying the fiddler, sapping my capacity in so many ways. but you wont suck me in, even with with those backhand compliments, and you should be glad i dont recognize you as enough of an equal to go toe-to-toe, cuz i am not a "solid contributor". I'm the ####in Wrath of God.

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Tarantino does two things in his movies, and he does both exceptionally well. He produces scenarios and dialogue that are unique and original, and he pays homage to hack style by reproducing it in a brighter package.

This is a very accurate description.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Tarantino does two things in his movies, and he does both exceptionally well. He produces scenarios and dialogue that are unique and original, and he pays homage to hack style by reproducing it in a brighter package.

This is a very accurate description.

The one thing I'd add is Tarantino gets fantastic performances out of his actors.

 

[jdoggydogg]

These discussions are interesting, but the distinction that is usually missed is the difference between personal preference and recognizing talent/importance. Just because somebody doesn't like Tarantino or Spielberg movies, I don't understand how they could argue either one is a "hack". The simple fact that Tarantino generates discussions like this and is successful despite being controversial demonstrates his importance and ability. Enough knowledgeable people regard Tarantino highly that he has a legacy as an influential and important director--he does enough things well that even though someone could attack his flaws, it can't relegate him to "hack" status. A poll asking if Michael Bay is a hack wouldn't be interesting because hardly anyone disputes that he is.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.

I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.

Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.

Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy.

Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.

And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.

Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

 

[jdoggydogg]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy. Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Where to begin... I'm 44 - which I'm certain is younger than you, but I'd suspect older than a lot of men here. Should I take your condescension as playful banter? Was that the intention? You've negated an entire generation's art and culture with this post. Your prose is thoughtful, your cadence memorable. And yet, dissecting your thoughts, we're to believe that people like Tarantino are soulless hipsters that snicker at tradition and craft. By your account, Tarantino is "too insecure to develop his own personality organically." This is vexing, as teenagers are usually a bizarre amalgam of influences attempting to construct a definable self. You've mentioned many times the things you disdain, but I can't yet ascertain the things you revere. I asked you awhile back to list your favorite movies. You've mentioned a handful, but you've never revealed a comprehensive list. It occurs to me that you're better suited to negative criticism of post-modern art forms than you are at defending your own beloved favorites. Why? Are you unwilling to subject your taste to the same critiques you levy upon ours?I noticed you asked for pardon, but I don't think that's sincere. "You don't get it," is not an arrow I keep in my quiver, nor is it an attractive weapon in others. Your post doesn't come across as friendly sparring, it looks and smells like overt contempt. When I was in college at 18, I began my career as a music snob. When people played works for me that I considered inferior, I wasn't nice about it. So when you to declare that Tarantino's work isn't art, I am familiar with that song. I sang it many times. But ultimately, you're wrong, Wikkid. Tarantino's movies are art - they just happen to be art you don't like. I've never been a fan of Frida Kahlo's paintings - they're too crude and obvious. I prefer Klee and Picasso...even her husband Diego. But I'm unwilling to judge something as "not art." Frida's an apt comparison for the purposes of this discussion, because her art came from pain and angst. And, like Tarantino, Kahlo was not a classically-trained artist. Ultimately, judging established, praised works as "not art" just sounds pedantic. Cheers, mate.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

Just curious what movies of his you thought were awful. When I read that word movies like The Happening, Your Highness, etc... come to mind.

 

[mon]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy. Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Where to begin... I'm 44 - which I'm certain is younger than you, but I'd suspect older than a lot of men here. Should I take your condescension as playful banter? Was that the intention? You've negated an entire generation's art and culture with this post. Your prose is thoughtful, your cadence memorable. And yet, dissecting your thoughts, we're to believe that people like Tarantino are soulless hipsters that snicker at tradition and craft. By your account, Tarantino is "too insecure to develop his own personality organically." This is vexing, as teenagers are usually a bizarre amalgam of influences attempting to construct a definable self. You've mentioned many times the things you disdain, but I can't yet ascertain the things you revere. I asked you awhile back to list your favorite movies. You've mentioned a handful, but you've never revealed a comprehensive list. It occurs to me that you're better suited to negative criticism of post-modern art forms than you are at defending your own beloved favorites. Why? Are you unwilling to subject your taste to the same critiques you levy upon ours?I noticed you asked for pardon, but I don't think that's sincere. "You don't get it," is not an arrow I keep in my quiver, nor is it an attractive weapon in others. Your post doesn't come across as friendly sparring, it looks and smells like overt contempt. When I was in college at 18, I began my career as a music snob. When people played works for me that I considered inferior, I wasn't nice about it. So when you to declare that Tarantino's work isn't art, I am familiar with that song. I sang it many times. But ultimately, you're wrong, Wikkid. Tarantino's movies are art - they just happen to be art you don't like. I've never been a fan of Frida Kahlo's paintings - they're too crude and obvious. I prefer Klee and Picasso...even her husband Diego. But I'm unwilling to judge something as "not art." Frida's an apt comparison for the purposes of this discussion, because her art came from pain and angst. And, like Tarantino, Kahlo was not a classically-trained artist. Ultimately, judging established, praised works as "not art" just sounds pedantic. Cheers, mate.

iFight!

 

[B-Deep]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy. Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Where to begin... I'm 44 - which I'm certain is younger than you, but I'd suspect older than a lot of men here. Should I take your condescension as playful banter? Was that the intention? You've negated an entire generation's art and culture with this post. Your prose is thoughtful, your cadence memorable. And yet, dissecting your thoughts, we're to believe that people like Tarantino are soulless hipsters that snicker at tradition and craft. By your account, Tarantino is "too insecure to develop his own personality organically." This is vexing, as teenagers are usually a bizarre amalgam of influences attempting to construct a definable self. You've mentioned many times the things you disdain, but I can't yet ascertain the things you revere. I asked you awhile back to list your favorite movies. You've mentioned a handful, but you've never revealed a comprehensive list. It occurs to me that you're better suited to negative criticism of post-modern art forms than you are at defending your own beloved favorites. Why? Are you unwilling to subject your taste to the same critiques you levy upon ours?I noticed you asked for pardon, but I don't think that's sincere. "You don't get it," is not an arrow I keep in my quiver, nor is it an attractive weapon in others. Your post doesn't come across as friendly sparring, it looks and smells like overt contempt. When I was in college at 18, I began my career as a music snob. When people played works for me that I considered inferior, I wasn't nice about it. So when you to declare that Tarantino's work isn't art, I am familiar with that song. I sang it many times. But ultimately, you're wrong, Wikkid. Tarantino's movies are art - they just happen to be art you don't like. I've never been a fan of Frida Kahlo's paintings - they're too crude and obvious. I prefer Klee and Picasso...even her husband Diego. But I'm unwilling to judge something as "not art." Frida's an apt comparison for the purposes of this discussion, because her art came from pain and angst. And, like Tarantino, Kahlo was not a classically-trained artist. Ultimately, judging established, praised works as "not art" just sounds pedantic. Cheers, mate.

iFight!

is that what it isi gotta be honest all those high-falootin words pretty much had me so confused i was unsure what was my #### and what was a hole in the groundi think perhaps i wiped a hole in the ground...

 

[wikkidpissah]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy. Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Where to begin... I'm 44 - which I'm certain is younger than you, but I'd suspect older than a lot of men here. Should I take your condescension as playful banter? Was that the intention? You've negated an entire generation's art and culture with this post. Your prose is thoughtful, your cadence memorable. And yet, dissecting your thoughts, we're to believe that people like Tarantino are soulless hipsters that snicker at tradition and craft. By your account, Tarantino is "too insecure to develop his own personality organically." This is vexing, as teenagers are usually a bizarre amalgam of influences attempting to construct a definable self. You've mentioned many times the things you disdain, but I can't yet ascertain the things you revere. I asked you awhile back to list your favorite movies. You've mentioned a handful, but you've never revealed a comprehensive list. It occurs to me that you're better suited to negative criticism of post-modern art forms than you are at defending your own beloved favorites. Why? Are you unwilling to subject your taste to the same critiques you levy upon ours?I noticed you asked for pardon, but I don't think that's sincere. "You don't get it," is not an arrow I keep in my quiver, nor is it an attractive weapon in others. Your post doesn't come across as friendly sparring, it looks and smells like overt contempt. When I was in college at 18, I began my career as a music snob. When people played works for me that I considered inferior, I wasn't nice about it. So when you to declare that Tarantino's work isn't art, I am familiar with that song. I sang it many times. But ultimately, you're wrong, Wikkid. Tarantino's movies are art - they just happen to be art you don't like. I've never been a fan of Frida Kahlo's paintings - they're too crude and obvious. I prefer Klee and Picasso...even her husband Diego. But I'm unwilling to judge something as "not art." Frida's an apt comparison for the purposes of this discussion, because her art came from pain and angst. And, like Tarantino, Kahlo was not a classically-trained artist. Ultimately, judging established, praised works as "not art" just sounds pedantic. Cheers, mate.

iFight!

is that what it isi gotta be honest all those high-falootin words pretty much had me so confused i was unsure what was my #### and what was a hole in the groundi think perhaps i wiped a hole in the ground...

with your elbow?no fight here - dogg added nothing to what he's been saying all along except further attempts to personalize the dispute. i dont play that -

 

[Gr00vus]

Is this where we try to define what art is (or isn't) again?

 

[NCCommish]

Is this where we try to define what art is (or isn't) again?

Yeah and it ain't going so well.

 

[Gr00vus]

Is this where we try to define what art is (or isn't) again?

Yeah and it ain't going so well.

It never does.

 

[NCCommish]

Is this where we try to define what art is (or isn't) again?

Yeah and it ain't going so well.

It never does.

True

 

[mon]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.

I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.

Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.

Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy.

Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.

And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.

Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Wikkid, with all due respect, I gotta say my piece. First, you've got your boomers wrong. Lucas is not a baby boomer, but Tarantino is. And what you're missing about Tarantino is his originality of dialogue and characters. Hell, you let Tarantino write dialogue for Urkel and I'm watching that sucker all mothertruckin' day. All of my favorite movies have one thing in common: unique, original dialogue. From American Beauty, to Woody Allen films, to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, they all have it.Man, I think back to '94 when I first walked out of the theater after having watched Pulp Fiction. Blew my mind. I had never seen anything like that before. Never seen a guy accidentally get his head blown off in a car. Never seen a gimp. Never seen anything like Jackrabbit Slim's. Never seen anyone resusitated after injesting heroin. Never heard of someone sticking a watch up his butt for sentimental reasons. Never seen two people having a normal couple's conversation in a restaurant and then rob the place. Never heard a better soundtrack. And I haven't even gotten to the dialogue yet. When the sexy woman-child Fabienne said, "Any time of the day is a good time for pie" I about fell out my chair. Such a simple statement, yet it revealed so much about her character: the mood she was in, her openness to the possibility of pie any where at any time, her enjoyment of this simple pleasure... Watching PF for the first time now wouldn't have near the same effect as watching it back then, as since then many have replicated much of his style in one form or another and it appears dated. But I'll never forget the impact it had on me, and I'm just sorry you missed it.

 

[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.

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

Alan Smithee is a hack

I wasn't agreeing that Speilberg was a hack. I was saying that he has done a lot of fine work and it is rediculous for someone to call him a hack. I would say that he wouldn't be in my top ten for directors, maybe not even top 25.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.

I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.

Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.

Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy.

Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.

And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.

Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Wikkid, with all due respect, I gotta say my piece. First, you've got your boomers wrong. Lucas is not a baby boomer, but Tarantino is. And what you're missing about Tarantino is his originality of dialogue and characters. Hell, you let Tarantino write dialogue for Urkel and I'm watching that sucker all mothertruckin' day. All of my favorite movies have one thing in common: unique, original dialogue. From American Beauty, to Woody Allen films, to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, they all have it.Man, I think back to '94 when I first walked out of the theater after having watched Pulp Fiction. Blew my mind. I had never seen anything like that before. Never seen a guy accidentally get his head blown off in a car. Never seen a gimp. Never seen anything like Jackrabbit Slim's. Never seen anyone resusitated after injesting heroin. Never heard of someone sticking a watch up his butt for sentimental reasons. Never seen two people having a normal couple's conversation in a restaurant and then rob the place. Never heard a better soundtrack. And I haven't even gotten to the dialogue yet. When the sexy woman-child Fabienne said, "Any time of the day is a good time for pie" I about fell out my chair. Such a simple statement, yet it revealed so much about her character: the mood she was in, her openness to the possibility of pie any where at any time, her enjoyment of this simple pleasure... Watching PF for the first time now wouldn't have near the same effect as watching it back then, as since then many have replicated much of his style in one form or another and it appears dated. But I'll never forget the impact it had on me, and I'm just sorry you missed it.

Aaah, Bach!

 

[mon]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.

I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.

Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.

Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy.

Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.

And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.

Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

Wikkid, with all due respect, I gotta say my piece. First, you've got your boomers wrong. Lucas is not a baby boomer, but Tarantino is. And what you're missing about Tarantino is his originality of dialogue and characters. Hell, you let Tarantino write dialogue for Urkel and I'm watching that sucker all mothertruckin' day. All of my favorite movies have one thing in common: unique, original dialogue. From American Beauty, to Woody Allen films, to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, they all have it.Man, I think back to '94 when I first walked out of the theater after having watched Pulp Fiction. Blew my mind. I had never seen anything like that before. Never seen a guy accidentally get his head blown off in a car. Never seen a gimp. Never seen anything like Jackrabbit Slim's. Never seen anyone resusitated after injesting heroin. Never heard of someone sticking a watch up his butt for sentimental reasons. Never seen two people having a normal couple's conversation in a restaurant and then rob the place. Never heard a better soundtrack. And I haven't even gotten to the dialogue yet. When the sexy woman-child Fabienne said, "Any time of the day is a good time for pie" I about fell out my chair. Such a simple statement, yet it revealed so much about her character: the mood she was in, her openness to the possibility of pie any where at any time, her enjoyment of this simple pleasure... Watching PF for the first time now wouldn't have near the same effect as watching it back then, as since then many have replicated much of his style in one form or another and it appears dated. But I'll never forget the impact it had on me, and I'm just sorry you missed it.

Aaah, Bach!

Please tell me what movies you equate to Bach, lol.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Aaah, Bach!

Please tell me what movies you equate to Bach, lol.

Bach to the Future

 

[Gr00vus]

First, you've got your boomers wrong. Lucas is not a baby boomer, but Tarantino is.

I know it's a nitpick, but you're totally wrong about this. The classic definition of baby boomers is the generation of kids born at/following the end of WWII, when all the GIs got back, everyone was out from under the scary specter of Fascist/Genocidal overlords and people ####ed like rabbits - with a resulting boom of babies being born. Speilberg was born in '46, Lucas in '44, Tarantino '63. If you want to fit them into cliched time frame references (which I personally ####### hate), Tarantino is closer to being generation X than baby boom.

 

[mon]

First, you've got your boomers wrong. Lucas is not a baby boomer, but Tarantino is.

I know it's a nitpick, but you're totally wrong about this. The classic definition of baby boomers is the generation of kids born at/following the end of WWII, when all the GIs got back, everyone was out from under the scary specter of Fascist/Genocidal overlords and people ####ed like rabbits - with a resulting boom of babies being born. Speilberg was born in '46, Lucas in '44, Tarantino '63. If you want to fit them into cliched time frame references (which I personally ####### hate), Tarantino is closer to being generation X than baby boom.

No, I'm not. The definition of a baby boomer is one born between '46 and '64.

 

[wikkidpissah]

wikkid's definition of Baby Boomers - anyone who's taken part in a nucular attack/civil defense drill at skool. duck & cover, my homies.

 

[Smack Tripper]

Sorry that you took my words as an insult, because that's not at all what I intended. Jokes don't always work in writing.

I'm just saying that Tarantino being a nerd isn't germane to his relevance as an artist. Furthermore, when you start analyzing artists at such a personal, molecular level - they all look pretty bad.

And i couldnt disagree more heartily. This isnt molecular at all - it is the macro-universal driver of why he does what he does and why many defend him so strongly.Thing is, everyone under 40yo is the butt of a enormous joke and, most ironically of all, it is one of your own making. The gist of it is that you dont get the original joke upon which all mass media is based.

Media is, by its nature, self-referential. Those who used it best during the dawn of massmedia (1970s) could satisfy wide audiences of squares with gimmicks and then wink at the media-hip about what they were getting away with. The modern term for it is deconstructing but, back then, it was so much more than that.

Baby Boomers George Lucas & Stephen Spielberg stole the forms of the Western & Saturday matinee serial, added gadgets & gimmicks, and we Boomers all had a good giggle that these guys became the envy of every grownup & the hero of every kid and put our gen on display as adults for the first time with an act of plagiarism. Howard Stern took on talk radio and gave it the heft of the old serials & variety programs by using fart jokes & lesbian dial-a-date to give it visual proxy again. What's more, the yahoos & gumbas who became Stern fanatics and eleveted him as a hero of All-Media (because of the fart jokes & topless lesbians) became as much a butt of the joke as the poor saps who would get nekkid or stuff things up dey butt. David Letterman took late night and made it the launch platform for an entire new language, sarcasm. The reason he got so pissed when Leno got the Tonight Show is that the whole point of his efforts was to get daddy's show by making fun of daddy.

Then something weird happened. The generation who were children during this era started taking all the jokes & pranks seriously. There was all of a sudden massive conventions at which to make self-defining exercises of these deconstructions. Time-killers became time-spenders and eventually time-transcenders. Everything conceived as in-things became out-things, with the new practitioners taking these hijinks at face value. Then when, first-person video games & high-concept 'rassling & reality shows came along as celebrations of the meaningless there was an entire audience waiting to integrate them into society as actual culture, instead of satires upon culture. And the fanboy was born.

And Quentin Tarantino is the Pied Piper of that anti-reality. 14yo or so when Star Wars came out, latchkey kid who, if we're to believe his legend, grew up on exploitation films. Too insecure to develop his own personality organically, instead of suffering the pains of that failure, he made an uncanny decision to forego having a personality at all. He decided to assemble an id out of parts like an 80s whiz kid building a prom date. His victory was in having more vicarious defenses than his enemies had actual weapons. Though very few Gen X & Yers did what QT did, the fanboys that most of you became were just waiting for someone like him to come along, the man with the junk answers to junk life.

Pardon me, but i cant consider the produce of this all to be art. The first ingredient of art is desire; the second, originality; the finishing factor, awareness. QT cant be an artist because the only time he uses any of these ingredients is to remain stunted, to be cynical about his fortunes, those of his creations & his followers. Getting tired of playing the "old" card here but, as one who was in on the original joke which became your creed, i cant take him or you seriously, by & large. You can't replace your teachers with the class clown and then ask me to consider you educated. nufced

I don't aim do, nor necessarily want or need to change your opinion Wikked. I'm honored to have been the beneficiary of your wisdom and insight in various ways here, and I'm grateful for your willingness to share. That said, some experience of my own.The more life I tuck into the rearview mirror and get to understand my country and my generation with a bit of evolutionary perspective, as well as see the world a bit and learn some history, I've found a unifying trait across most populations and cultures. We all tend to overrate and over-inflate our experience. Not necessarily on an individual personal level (although frequently this is so) but moreso as a collective of people, be it a neighborhood, a nation, or a religion. The power of OUR moment, and OUR place holds a very generous gravity in relation to the world at large and time as a whole. I find this manifests in negativity most frequently. I've heard 30 odd years of "what is this world coming to", I've lived through multiple predictions of the apocalypse(as if our moment is so special in any way that time will end on OUR watch). I think its the burden of awareness, OF COURSE you think that which you are a part of is the most important piece of real estate in human history.

I think you are being overly provincial in terms of the boomer generation. Westerns and serials SERIOUSLY pre-date the boomer generation and films like Star Wars and Raiders of the lost are, in the most A to B, direct sense, homages with lineages there. But to stop that A to B line there is comical. Where did Westerns and Serials take their cue from? If you ask me, they are recurrent tales through human history about understanding a world beyond ours. If nothing else unites us all, we love a good story. To look into a world close enough to see, know and recognize, but just out of reach enough that its fascinating. For an America with its population clustered in urban centers in the early age of film through post-War, westerns hold this magical fascination, a world you can't imagine in tenement living. Wide open expanse, open field to roam in. Its no surprise that this ultimately captivates Europeans and the world. Serials also speak to this interest, often set in jungle, desert or exotic oriental locales. The world was a bigger place, films like these took you inside of them. I think its no surprise that Westerns died out in the post war interstate and aviation boom. The West lost its appeal as a romantic isolationlist place, first in America, where it became eminently reachable and then in Europe into the 70s.

All this speaks to nothing of the outfront morality of the matter. Before the bible, and certainly after, there has been the fasciation of the white hat and the black hat and where do I fit in and what would I do in that scenario. This was the core of the fireside tale across human history before mass media.

I'm sure I don't need to recommend Campbell to you, but I think we can trace lot of this recurring tribal storytelling, from Greek Gods to Christianity to Shakespeare and on and on and on as several takes on the same tale. Its an essentially human one, what does my path hold for me, and what, if any say, do I get in it? Shattering a caste system, this was forged most fiercely in mass media by Americans, where that theoretical land of opportunity always exists.

So to lay claim to this as something boomers own and the next generations couldn't possibly understand is, well, circumspect.

Owning and being aware to this place in history, I don't think this generation is necessarily less for the way they take this in. To think they aren't "in" on the joke is crazy. They are in, way more in than you'll apparently ever understand. The difference is, the logical disconnect is, they don't care that they're in on it. I will say this, Generation X, Y and beyond is FAR more savy, aware, and impervious to things like advertising, which boomers seem much more prone to buying into. They choose to buy much more consciously and advertising had to get far more sophisticated to reach them. It may be a result of being a short attention span, cable TV generation and things only stand to get worse with the further splintering and speed of media with a new generation of digital natives. But saying nothing else, this generation has a bull#### detector and you can't sell through the front door like you could boomers, you have to reach them through the backdoor.

Film is a most unique art, as it allows for the synthesis and incorporation of all of these other vast art forms, from visual imaging and photography, to music to theater to writing and to fuse them into one presentation. You seem to take issue with the sources of Tarantino's sythesis but I'll challenge you again to cite for me any filmmakers that don't make his merge. I work in film, I see production designers ape graphic art, I"ve seen film composers ape licks into a score, actors will imitiate source characters, and directors, the real Dr. Jekyl's of all this influence, reach into the most pots to make their new witches brew. It seems a haughty standard to hold Tarantino and this generation to to expect them to not draw upon what their life has been.

The bottom line, as a collective, across the whole of human history, we're largely unremarkable, and the whole a bunch of bores with not much to contribute. We are not special, we never have been and never will be. About the sole solace in this reality is that no one is, not the Gen X, not Gen Y, not the boomers, not the Greatest Generation, no religion, place, country or class. Certain folks do stand at the front of the line, but on the whole, to label and rank a people is just kind of crazy. They are all inevitable products of their zeitgeist.

Art is to be be enjoyed and appreciated in two contexts, its moment and your moment. And your moment matters the most, and how it moves you trumps everything. Just because everyone embraces something doesn't mean you are less for the disconnct. You might well be more for the individual thinking. But as 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, I don't think you can indict a generation because they like an artist you don't.

Or maybe you can, vive la difference.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

do you fancy yourself a tough Ernest Hemingway type, Wikkid? Do you write during the day get drunk and beat people up in bars at night?

I bet he does both without ever looking at the clock.

 

[wikkidpissah]

do you fancy yourself a tough Ernest Hemingway type, Wikkid? Do you write during the day get drunk and beat people up in bars at night?

I bet he does both without ever looking at the clock.

Usually with a baby in my teeth the whole time.

 

[wikkidpissah]

Art is to be be enjoyed and appreciated in two contexts, its moment and your moment. And your moment matters the most, and how it moves you trumps everything. Just because everyone embraces something doesn't mean you are less for the disconnct. You might well be more for the individual thinking. But as 50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong, I don't think you can indict a generation because they like an artist you don't. Or maybe you can, vive la difference.

Interesting post, but I entirely disagree that the majority of those in proceding gens to mine think of their junk culture as junk but dont care. Many would like to think that, but it sounds like a junkie's excuse to me. In part, this thread is Exhibit A in my case for the prosecution. My birth placed me in a fortunate place from which to understand the growth of media. I have seen it grow from something which filled life to something that distracted one from life, then did instead of life and now what squillions of young oblivioids do in direct opposition to life. Now that more than a gen has transpired since the dawn of mass media (roughly, 1978 & the explosion of cable TV), the basis of principles for the media-trapped is unrecognizable to that of the dozen generations which preceded it. I see a direct connection between the beginning of the cable expansion and the fact that young people's cutoff point of what is relevant fall within a couple of yrs of each other.And theyre not getting the joke. My Exhibit B is that none of y'all are walking away from the junk. You are marketed to 24/7 & as trapped by it as crackheads. Media has reversed the value chain of depth-to-drama-to-dish and now the way a person accumulates their trivia is more important than their significa. The helplessness of that cynicism is symbolized to me by QT, who replaced his soul with subreferences of revenge & instant gratification. I can still be entertained by him (in fact, one of my first posts in FFA was to announce KB2 as one of the 1st great films of the 21st C) but i cannot be inspired by him (expect as a reverse barometer, perhaps), because he's a junk dealer, not an artist. There is no point to him but to make others point to him.

 

[cstu]

What amazes me most about Tarantino's career is that at 29 he comes out of the blue with Reservoir Dogs and then two years later with Pulp Fiction. Before Reservoir Dogs he had only made My Best Friend's Birthday, which even though it had some witty dialogue didn't signal what was to come.

 

[Kenny Powers]

What amazes me most about Tarantino's career is that at 29 he comes out of the blue with Reservoir Dogs and then two years later with Pulp Fiction. Before Reservoir Dogs he had only made My Best Friend's Wedding, which even though it had some witty dialogue didn't signal what was to come.

 

[scoobygang]

What amazes me most about Tarantino's career is that at 29 he comes out of the blue with Reservoir Dogs and then two years later with Pulp Fiction. Before Reservoir Dogs he had only made My Best Friend's Wedding, which even though it had some witty dialogue didn't signal what was to come.

cstu is confused. Tarantino co-wrote and directed My Best Friend's Birthday. Only half of that film survives, as the final reel was destroyed in editing. Parts of the script apparently became the basis for True Romance.I don't think it's uncommon for original voices to show up close to fully-formed in their early screenplays. Particularly when those voices are best known for offering something kind of different and fresh. God knows that Kevin Smith hasn't grown much since Clerks. Charlie Kaufman movies felt unique and distinctive from the start. I do think he's continued to grow, but the breathtaking originality was there from the start.

I'm kind of interested to follow the career of Diablo Cody. Even if she never approaches the success of Juno, I think she's trying to challenge herself with more interesting work. Jennifer's Body was ultimately a bit of a disappointment, but it was at least kind of daring. I hear that Young Adult takes some real chances as well, presenting a truly unlikeable heroine. That's the type of risk I'd like to see Tarantino try.

 

[cstu]

What amazes me most about Tarantino's career is that at 29 he comes out of the blue with Reservoir Dogs and then two years later with Pulp Fiction. Before Reservoir Dogs he had only made My Best Friend's Wedding, which even though it had some witty dialogue didn't signal what was to come.

cstu is confused. Tarantino co-wrote and directed My Best Friend's Birthday. Only half of that film survives, as the final reel was destroyed in editing. Parts of the script apparently became the basis for True Romance.I don't think it's uncommon for original voices to show up close to fully-formed in their early screenplays. Particularly when those voices are best known for offering something kind of different and fresh. God knows that Kevin Smith hasn't grown much since Clerks. Charlie Kaufman movies felt unique and distinctive from the start. I do think he's continued to grow, but the breathtaking originality was there from the start.

I'm kind of interested to follow the career of Diablo Cody. Even if she never approaches the success of Juno, I think she's trying to challenge herself with more interesting work. Jennifer's Body was ultimately a bit of a disappointment, but it was at least kind of daring. I hear that Young Adult takes some real chances as well, presenting a truly unlikeable heroine. That's the type of risk I'd like to see Tarantino try.

Check the time, I clearly wasn't in my right mind (not that I'm am now, mind you).Kaufman didn't burst onto the scene - he was TV writer for a long time before Being John Malkovich (he was 41 when it came out). Kevin Smith did hit it out of the park on his first try but he was only 24 when Clerks came out and did most of his best work by the time he was 30. I guess what I'm saying that Tarantino had a lot of free time as a young guy to figure out which movies to rip off...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

yesno so i voted undecided. He has done some good movies and some pretty ####ty ones too.

 

[Kenny Powers]

yesno so i voted undecided. He has done some good movies and some pretty ####ty ones too.

Even his worst movies (so far) are still better than average

 

[KarmaPolice]

yesno so i voted undecided. He has done some good movies and some pretty ####ty ones too.

Just curious - what is a "####ty" movie that Tarantino has directed?

 

[jdoggydogg]

Kind of amusing:

Did The Events Of 'Inglourious Basterds' Change The Rest of Quentin Tarantino's Film Universe?

Quentin Tarantino has been pretty vocal that many of his films are set in the same universe. Vincent Vega from Pulp Fiction is the documented brother of Vic Vega in Reservoir Dogs. Mr. White in Reservoir Dogs possibly worked with Alabama from True Romance. Brands such as Big Kahuna Burger and Red Apple Cigarettes appear in multiple films, the list goes on an on. A more recent development was when Tarantino said that Sgt. Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew of Inglourious Basterds, was the father of Lee Donowitz, the sleazy movie producer of True Romance.

And that got one person thinking. If all these movies take place in the same universe, that means World War II ended how it ended in Inglourious Basterds and everyone would know about it. Which opens up a huge can of worms. Read the very entertaining theory below.

The below theory first popped up on Reddit (influenced by Cracked) but then our own David Chen tweeted about it and sort of got the ball rolling. Here goes:

As it turns out, Donny Donowitz, 'The Bear Jew', is the father of movie producer Lee Donowitz from True Romance – which means that, in Tarantino's universe, everybody grew up learning about how a bunch of commando Jews machine gunned Hitler to death in a burning movie theater, as opposed to quietly killing himself in a bunker.

Because World War 2 ended in a movie theater, everybody lends greater significance to pop culture, hence why seemingly everybody has Abed-level knowledge of movies and TV. Likewise, because America won World War 2 in one concentrated act of hyperviolent slaughter, Americans as a whole are more desensitized to that sort of thing. Hence why Butch is unfazed by killing two people, Mr. White and Mr. Pink take a pragmatic approach to killing in their line of work, Esmerelda the cab driver is obsessed with death, etc.

You can extrapolate this further when you realize that Tarantino's movies are technically two universes – he's gone on record as saying that Kill Bill and From Dusk 'Til Dawn take place in a 'movie movie universe'; that is, they're movies that characters from the Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, and Death Proof universe would go to see in theaters. (Kill Bill, after all, is basically Fox Force Five, right on down to Mia Wallace playing the title role.)

What immediately springs to mind about Kill Bill and From Dusk 'Til Dawn? That they're crazy violent, even by Tarantino standards. These are the movies produced in a world where America's crowning victory was locking a bunch of people in a movie theater and blowing it to bits – and keep in mind, Lee Donowitz, son of one of the people on the suicide mission to kill Hitler, is a very successful movie producer.

Basically, it turns every Tarantino movie into alternate reality sci fi. I love it so hard.

Do you buy that? I think it makes sense though I doubt Tarantino ever really thought it out and mapped it that way. Still, it's a very cool idea and I'm curious to see where Django Unchained fits in. It reportedly fits in the 'realer than real' universe alongside most of his other films. Since Django is set in an earlier time frame than Tarantino's other movies, it might not have many ties or much effect on the grand timeline. Then again, we once thought that about Inglourious Basterds, too.

 

[17seconds]

As much as I'd love to believe in it, the "Tarantinoverse" is an overrated thing.

Tarantino has certain themes and character ideas that he sat on for years before he started making movies. It makes everything appear like a fully formed universe, but it's just connected in certain spots from the common ideas.

It's like he filled his artistic brain from ages 15-23 and has been letting it out gradually for the last 20 years.

 

[drummer]

I voted Yes.

 

[Fennis]

No

 

[LHUCKS]

Is this terrible schtick?

QT is one of the few filmmakers putting out interesting movies.

Worst poll evah!!

 

[ren hoek]

That he could dredge up John Travolta's rotting corpse for an extended period of time is a real testament to QT.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I voted no. I don't relate to most of the characters in his movies but I have seen every film he directed and considered it money and time well spent.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Worst poll evah!!

I was hoping you'd evaluate my poll. Thanks!