My problem with Tarantino

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Yeah yeah, he's made some watchable scenes in the midst of all the hyperactive rubbish.

But fer gawdsakes - why am I watching this slavering nonsense?! It's like - he makes me go take a big long ride in my car, after making me fill it up with gas, and then... And then, WTF did I go on that huge long ride for??

Fuckin' nothing.

This guy, just plain does NOT understand actual story narratives but he thinks the ride - which is largely second-hand thrill-seeking to those who have seen a LOT of movies and read A LOT of books - is the whole story.

 

[EROgonomic]

Wrong forum.
The ride is more important than the destination. Most "actual story narratives", whatever that means, emphasize the ride (characters, themes, visuals) over the skeletal plot structure.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't knowingly watch Tarantino films, but he must have hit a fan base willing to pay big bucks for his movies to be able to make the second and subsequent ones. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[hylas_]

To each their own, I guess. But to say that the man behind "Pulp Fiction" doesn't know about constructing narratives, or the man behind "Jackie Brown" only makes "hyperactive rubbish", is a bit silly.

 

[CyranoJ]

Never had any complaints about Tarantino's storytelling ability myself. "Death Proof" was maybe a little weak? That's as close as he comes to a bad story AFAICS.

Apart from that I'd say his movies are the opposite of "hyperactive." (Possible exception for volume one of Kill Bill, which is more action-heavy than most of his efforts.) He spends a lot of time in his scenes building and releasing tension through dialogue -- the basement scene or the cottage interrogation in Inglourious Basterds, dinner with Calvin Candie in Django Unchained, pretty much most of Reservoir Dogs & so on -- and for my money he's pretty masterful at it. But Tarantino movies tend to bore people who aren't grabbed by his dialogue style or are put off by it. Different strokes.

 

[Voboy]

I love Tarantino.

But I read a lot of books, so...

You compare him to a lot of the blockbuster-making paint-by-numbers purveyors of Hollywood soullessness out there today, and... well, there's no comparison.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Tarantino is definitely not a masterful story-teller. Orson Welles was a masterful story-teller. The Third Man is a masterful story. Casablanca is a masterful story. Sunset Boulevard is a masterful story.

Tarantino has good dialogue in places.

And for me at least, that's his attraction - it IS the dialogue. I'm not sure he intends to be existential like Sartre and Camus but he is existential as the producer/creator of the fictional work (therefore the 'story' and the narrative), rather than a deliverer of some kind of moral lesson or social commentary (I just think if you insist he is doing that then you can't tell the difference between parody and propaganda - and genuine social commentary).

I placed this thread here because of the way in which ersatz story-telling has seeped into fiction writing at large in the present day. By ersatz I mean based around parody fiction or highly accessible popular (and usually factually incorrect) folklore about various themes and subjects.

I just have strong doubts that some of the negative comments disagreeing with my original perspective are coming from very 'been around the block' (aka 'OLD!') people - they sound like people whose experience of film and story history began with Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars.

How many of you kids can tell me without resorting to EXTENSIVE (because you WON'T find it quickly) research on Google Search why there is a red carpet thing in Hollywood and the other 'thing' that goes with the red carpets...?

That'll give you a signal that YOU, and not me, need to think again about whether you have ever even experienced quality film or fiction.

Sure you've gotten used to and you 'like' Tarantino - and hey, some of you have already commented that a lot of the rest are rubbish (which is going some way to making my point for me, namely that the standards are low) - but that's because you don't know any better.

...Now don't get all 'hurt!'

Tarantino doesn't have a story to tell. He has dialogue he got from failed comedy writers, to flash, and that's about it.

Here are his 'stories:'

brutal, meaningless, pointless, violent killers link up with an OCD brutal meaningless pointless violent killer;

Jews beat Nazis at their own game because the 'qualities' of these particular movie-land Jews are that they are at least as stupid, violent, mindless, and brutal - as Nazis;

The Mechanic meets Manga meets Kurosawa meets... HOLLYWOOD (in other words it's all stolen material);

cowboy thugs, especially a black bounty-hunter encounter a gang of other thug cowboys and one cow-girl thug and they all die, except maybe not the black guy and his gratuitous white friend - unless they did die after the last frame from their wounds... because... well we don't know why because but because some of you think Tarantino is a 'masterful' story-teller. Not to mention the drug haze of logic that ties all together in the film.

Oh, yeah. And the 'box-office' figures. Remind me to tell you about the world best-selling music act who threw the block of cocaine (that the agent had tried to give them) on the floor of the agent's office, following which the agent did a good job buying this Saul Alinsky 'statistical equalization' firm to say what the 'market demand' for the act was - after he was sacked by the act and not the other way 'round.

Yep. That hacking of Sony never did happen did it. And all that 'box office hit' stuff...

Oh yeah but that's right, now I remember - it didn't make it a lot onto MSNBC or CNN.

This is just my opinion and I'm just sharing because that's what these forums allow you and encourage you to do. And now, in the words of the estimable Lionel Nation, you may comment as you see fit!

 

[CyranoJ]

Yeah. You know that people still watch old movies, right? Including those of Orson Welles? You should probably back up and try that post again without the coating of sneering, unearned condescension.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

'Sneering, unearned condescension?'

Are you kidding? That's what I do - sneering, unearned condescension.

And as far as people watching or not watching old movies - it's up to people whether they care to or not. Some do, some don't. But if you never have, then you are in no position to know what is going on. Which is fine too, but not if you are going to make comparative assessments and judgments.

 

[CyranoJ]

'Sneering, unearned condescension?'

Are you kidding? That's what I do - sneering, unearned condescension.

Saves me some time then. Adios!

 

[hylas_]

The only intersting part of that ramble is the part where you develop telepathic abilities, and can somehow correctly guess what our ages are, what we do and don't know about film history, and whether or not we appreciate old movies. Oh my, how did you know that I only ever watch Michael Bay and Zack Snyder (and Tarantino, I guess?). You should consider applying to the Xavier Institute.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Hylas. Speaking of Zack anything, I like Zack Snyder. Zack Snyder is good.

But Zack Quinto. OMG. What a fucking loser.

And btw - 'correct guessing' (if that's what it was) is not 'telepathy.'

We can go some more but you guys have to give out some rope for the 'unearned condescension' here. You're leaving me with thin material upon which to baste some 'unearned condesension.' The sneering part was largely an accident and a side-effect of my continuous 'unearned condescension.'

I don't mean to sneer. It's not your fault if you are ignorant. I don't sneer at ignorance.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

The only intersting part of that ramble is the part where you develop telepathic abilities, and can somehow correctly guess what our ages are, what we do and don't know about film history, and whether or not we appreciate old movies. Oh my, how did you know that I only ever watch Michael Bay and Zack Snyder (and Tarantino, I guess?). You should consider applying to the Xavier Institute.

Don't forget the part where any of that matters.

Young people aren't allowed to have opinions? You have to be old to know what is good or not? The history of Hollywood is important to whether or not a singular film is worth watching? Or the part where you are wrong if you like different things than other people?

 

[jomar]

Wow, look who drove by. How you doing theegoatpig?

 

[SimonDoom]

I appreciate Tarantino's talent, especially for dialogue, but when I'm watching a Tarantino movie I don't feel like I'm watching real people. I'm watching Tarantino people. There's a self-referential, somewhat too clever, overly edgy, smart-alecky, excessively talky tone that pervades all his movies. It was compelling in Pulp Fiction, which I thought was great, and still is in some scenes from his other movies, but with Tarantino I always feel like his insistence on his characteristic style and tone puts a lid on how good the movie can be. Django Unchained was a silly movie about a serious subject, for example. Kill Bill had its moments, but it was indulgent and silly, as well. I always feel, watching his movies, that he's sticking his hand out through the fourth wall and poking me in the ribs. It's limiting, after a while.

 

[Voboy]

Tarantino is definitely not a masterful story-teller. Orson Welles was a masterful story-teller. The Third Man is a masterful story. Casablanca is a masterful story. Sunset Boulevard is a masterful story.

Tarantino has good dialogue in places.

And for me at least, that's his attraction - it IS the dialogue. I'm not sure he intends to be existential like Sartre and Camus but he is existential as the producer/creator of the fictional work (therefore the 'story' and the narrative), rather than a deliverer of some kind of moral lesson or social commentary (I just think if you insist he is doing that then you can't tell the difference between parody and propaganda - and genuine social commentary).

I placed this thread here because of the way in which ersatz story-telling has seeped into fiction writing at large in the present day. By ersatz I mean based around parody fiction or highly accessible popular (and usually factually incorrect) folklore about various themes and subjects.

I just have strong doubts that some of the negative comments disagreeing with my original perspective are coming from very 'been around the block' (aka 'OLD!') people - they sound like people whose experience of film and story history began with Raiders of the Lost Ark and Star Wars.

How many of you kids can tell me without resorting to EXTENSIVE (because you WON'T find it quickly) research on Google Search why there is a red carpet thing in Hollywood and the other 'thing' that goes with the red carpets...?

That'll give you a signal that YOU, and not me, need to think again about whether you have ever even experienced quality film or fiction.

Sure you've gotten used to and you 'like' Tarantino - and hey, some of you have already commented that a lot of the rest are rubbish (which is going some way to making my point for me, namely that the standards are low) - but that's because you don't know any better.

...Now don't get all 'hurt!'

Tarantino doesn't have a story to tell. He has dialogue he got from failed comedy writers, to flash, and that's about it.

Here are his 'stories:'

brutal, meaningless, pointless, violent killers link up with an OCD brutal meaningless pointless violent killer;

Jews beat Nazis at their own game because the 'qualities' of these particular movie-land Jews are that they are at least as stupid, violent, mindless, and brutal - as Nazis;

The Mechanic meets Manga meets Kurosawa meets... HOLLYWOOD (in other words it's all stolen material);

cowboy thugs, especially a black bounty-hunter encounter a gang of other thug cowboys and one cow-girl thug and they all die, except maybe not the black guy and his gratuitous white friend - unless they did die after the last frame from their wounds... because... well we don't know why because but because some of you think Tarantino is a 'masterful' story-teller. Not to mention the drug haze of logic that ties all together in the film.

Oh, yeah. And the 'box-office' figures. Remind me to tell you about the world best-selling music act who threw the block of cocaine (that the agent had tried to give them) on the floor of the agent's office, following which the agent did a good job buying this Saul Alinsky 'statistical equalization' firm to say what the 'market demand' for the act was - after he was sacked by the act and not the other way 'round.

Yep. That hacking of Sony never did happen did it. And all that 'box office hit' stuff...

Oh yeah but that's right, now I remember - it didn't make it a lot onto MSNBC or CNN.

This is just my opinion and I'm just sharing because that's what these forums allow you and encourage you to do. And now, in the words of the estimable Lionel Nation, you may comment as you see fit!

Ah. Now I get it. You're just trolling.

Have fun with that. I took you seriously at first, but I won't make that mistake twice.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Voboy - your original comment is a lot more sensible than a few of the strident critics here.

Tarantino is indeed - or at least WAS at the start of his career - different from the 'paint-by-numbers' crowd in Hollywood.

 

[hylas_]

I appreciate Tarantino's talent, especially for dialogue, but when I'm watching a Tarantino movie I don't feel like I'm watching real people. I'm watching Tarantino people. There's a self-referential, somewhat too clever, overly edgy, smart-alecky, excessively talky tone that pervades all his movies. It was compelling in Pulp Fiction, which I thought was great, and still is in some scenes from his other movies, but with Tarantino I always feel like his insistence on his characteristic style and tone puts a lid on how good the movie can be. Django Unchained was a silly movie about a serious subject, for example. Kill Bill had its moments, but it was indulgent and silly, as well. I always feel, watching his movies, that he's sticking his hand out through the fourth wall and poking me in the ribs. It's limiting, after a while.

I actually agree with this to a large degree. I certainly didn't hate the last two Tarantinos I've seen (Django and Bastards), but they kept me at arms length. However, I do think the artifice works like gangbusters in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, where style is the substance; and Jackie Brown - still my favourite Tarantino - is a genuinely thoughtful and touching story.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Wow, look who drove by. How you doing theegoatpig?

I still exist from time to time.

 

[PanzerFeck]

Take him or leave him.

I've enjoyed his films here and there but he's long been overrated. Funny thing, I'm almost alone in thinking Hateful Eight was his best since Kill Bill... Volume 1... but YouTube Henry Rollins on Tarantino and he says it best, without being fully aware of the gargantuan prick he really is.

Huh, I really like that word... gargantuan...

 

[Rollinbones]

Sometimes i read philosophical texts because I wish to feel intellectually challenged.

Sometimes I read cartoons because i don't want to think.

I like Tarantino movies because they are just a whole bunch of fun. I don't particularly need to feel validated or educated by every movie i watch. I just need to enjoy them.

Same sort of reasons I read the stories on this site. Because i enjoy it.

Superiority is often vanity with a different hat on.

 

[Blind_Justice]

If I want good storytelling, I'll read a book. Seriously. I've given up on movie makers delivering anything but CGI flashfests or reboots no one needs. I'll indulge in the Marvel CGI flashfests when they hit Netflix or my local grocery store's bargain bin, but that's it. Haven't bought a movie ticket since... ... ... hm, 99 or so. When did The Phantom Menace come out?

 

[TxRad]

Ranting about how bad Tarantino is or isn't probably does phase him one bit. He's too busy stuffing the money in the bank.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

If I want good storytelling, I'll read a book. Seriously. I've given up on movie makers delivering anything but CGI flashfests or reboots no one needs. I'll indulge in the Marvel CGI flashfests when they hit Netflix or my local grocery store's bargain bin, but that's it. Haven't bought a movie ticket since... ... ... hm, 99 or so. When did The Phantom Menace come out?

Yep. It's what I think too. And more or less what I do now and what I have done for a while.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Ranting about how bad Tarantino is or isn't probably does phase him one bit. He's too busy stuffing the money in the bank.

I'd love to agree but having been on very large mainstream and Academy-successful movie productions (well, one at least!), I know too much about the COCAINE industry to agree with every little thing you just said there...