Sounder SIGN UP FOR FREE
Talking Images
Talking Images

Episode 21 · 1 year ago

Quentin Tarantino Unchained: Master or Hack

ABOUT THIS EPISODE

Yes It is time for that chat ... Is Questin Tarantino the most unoriginal man in Hollywood, a petty thief with no soul - or is he a great auteur playing around with cinematic conventions and form?

Regardless of how you feel about QT however, he loves cinema, and is likely the most vocal film buff of any living director, not to mention listmaker and promoter. 

No living director appears to be more vocally focused on what he is leaving behind than Questin Tarantino. His promise is clear: His next film will be his last.

He wants to leave behind a perfect set, a work to be proud of - he does not want to grow state or lose touch - but - did he ever have the touch - or was he always a hack? Has he ever had an original idea or made a remotely great film? 

In this episode Chris, Clem and Matthieu will throw their hats in the ring, talk through his filmography - in particular Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction - and also try to answer the burning question: Will he actually be able to stop? 


 

You are listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM Forumcom. Come back everyone, today we'll be talking about one of cinema's the greatest teams. This an original hack, this lovely copycat, who somehow create the mode of cinema so instantly recognizable, so influential and, oddly enough, so unique that it made him one of the most recognizable names in cinema today. So let's try to calm the conversation down a little bit here. No matter how you feel about Quintindantino's films, and it does have some pretty extreme attractors, I think it's impossible to make the claim that this is not the manage incredibly passionate about cinema. It comes through every interview and every public appearance, and it does, at least, my opinion, come through in his films as well. So many of his films feel like an endless amount of marsh's eastres and references. Literally anything that has grabbed his attention. Any idea, any character, any trade, any TROPE can be brought in at will as he carves out his own vision of it. He just revels in cinematic history, usually the lower budget b sides of things. More importantly, he never really tries to hide his inspirations. If anything, he actively wants you to seek out the films the man impact on him. So let's be honest there. What Tarantino it's most known for? Well, besides his foot fetish, is his dialog it is the way he can make a conversation, even about something as mundane as the names of Burgers and different continents, so captivating and cool, and it's really this idea of coolness that runs through whole many of the descriptions of his work in this episode will talk through just while this that makes the film of Quintin Tarantino Grab People's attention the way they do. Our main focus would be on the two films that put them on the map and to this day, can be argued to be as most respected, and films with the least attractors, reserver dogs and pulp fiction. We will then compare it to the rest of his career, how it developed, how his approaches change and, as an interesting side note, how he, as a sinophile and seeming as an extremest believing author theory, is actively engaging in his own over it because, as we all know, his next film is meant to be his last. Will it, though? I am joined, as usual, by two wonderful cohosts, Clem and mature, and this before we get started, let's get one thing quite clear. To be have any talenten haters are Nope, I'm a big Fan. It depends. He made my favorite film of all time, which is about Thoms, but I think that later on his career he made films that I like a bit less. So I think it would be interesting to discuss that in this episode. Everything start with Ma Tira Hi. I'm mature the fuck on the phone and, as I just said, I'm a big fan of Talentino. I can't him as one of my top five favorite directors who really stand about everyone else. He was someone I was aware of before I became a semi fan, which was quite late when I was a young adult. That Tarantino I knew about when I was a teenager when my brother made me watch a fiction. It was also, I think, one of the first subtitled movie I watched, because obviously he insisted on watching it in regional version, which was of course very important because with Tarntino dialog is so key. And sorry, Iah Talntino was an important thing maker for me in discovering cinema. Hey, this is clemp and friends and happy to be back. I also knew about Tarentino before I started getting serious...

...into watching films. Is obviously one of the biggest name in modern cinema, so I think it's normal that's a pretty much everyone knows about him. I think the first film I so obvious was pulp fiction. I remember not really liking at the time and thinking it was boring. I think I even stopped about half way through the film. It was only about a year or two after that I went back and watched it in for this time and quite enjoyed it. And obviously, as I said before, he made my favorite film of all time, which is as Al Bodog is on. It's a film that I saw quite early on in my cinematic journey because I saw it when I was working on the top two hundred and fifty by IMDB, which is the first least I ever really worked on. I guess I should mention that per fiction is the FAM I consider to be my favorite of all time when I get that question asked. So that's kind of fortuitous for this podcast. Yeah, that's pretty incredible. Yeah, so I'll do the two films before in all of the podcast down at least one of the Cole that that's a favorite film. That's that's absolutely incredible. And just be Clare. We didn't plan this. So that's a quick question for you, clam did you see pulp fiction, but that first time before or after you saw as of our dogs? I saw prel fiction before. I must have tried to see it for the first time when I was about fifteen or sixteen. Then I saw it in full for the first time when I was about seventeen and I think I watched as about those a few months after I saw a fiction, as I mentioned, when I was I think thirteen fourteen. Maybe I remember not getting everything that was happening in that movie. I was, I think, just a little too young. Maybe those are our dogs. I saw not very long after, but it took me a long the time to see everything else. Yeah, I don't even remember which of them as well. First been all that, I saw bold like almost immediately as I was getting in the cinema because when thirteen was such a massive name, I think he'll bill, you know, had just been coming out a probably thought you'll bill first, to be honest, because that was such a big deal and was cared more to teenagers, which was thought. I was in early two thousand. So think that's probably at first then immediately went back to what his earlier stuff as I was getting into thin mind. Yeah, I was blown away, but I do not one question, though. Why do you think when Dantino has so many the tractors? Well, I think it is related to the fact that he is so well known and such an entry point into cinema. So many people have an opinion and Tarantino, so obviously more people are going to hate him than people hate I don't know, Christop Kislovsky right, just be more people know about but also his style is confrontational in some way. Someone Might Say Self Indulgence, which certainly would not be untrue, especially in his later career. And there's also the fact that he is so refuential. Many people see that as laziness maybe, or just lack of originality. Yeah, I would agree with that. Not because lacks originality, but because he's trying to do something different, as we said in the intro years, his own style, and as he is trying to do something different, not everyone is bound to like it and, as you said in the Intro, since everyone knows about him, it's normal that you would get much more hate than a filmmaker that would be lesser known, especially since he makes films that are a little bit different from what viewers are used to see, at least viewers that only watch mainstream films, and I think that when they watch a film from Tarantino, they may be a bit disappointed because they were expecting more from the film they were watching. Yeah, one of the things about Tarantino is that he is at this cross roads between our house, mainstream and exploitation. Right he's kind of mixing all of that up. He's definitely a note. He's very familiar with the never wag and stuff like that, but he constantly references exploitation. Some of his favorite movies are expectation movies and he respects them a lot more than most people do, at least in the the say the cinema establishments. But at the same time he's extremely popular, so he's really kind of on all the corners of cinema and I think that makes him kind of a target for everyone as well as someone who can be loved by many...

...different people. Yeah, I think you're absolutely spot on there. It's really this interesting thing where he has something for almost everybody as well. Like you said, he does bring in this kind of artiles esthetic. He brings in this way at looking, at for playing around with it, at playing what they expect films to be even, which is something you almost never see in a Hollywood film. Then he also has explosive actions at pieces, like you said, these kind of elements of big, confrontational this type of dialog that offense the people. And he has this swall coolness factor that, especially as he was entering in the cinema, caught, you know, younger Gaderation, not to conserve of God, but it really brought them in, like it made him the household name he is. It's just really interesting that they can do all of these things at once. Yes, I mean the fact that he wont to Ponder is, in you know, itself, just so strange. So let's die into the film that really put him on the map rest of our dogs, which, on the face of it, would have looked like your standard highst movie. But let's it does something to kind of twist around that logic. The highest itself is never actually shown. You see the preparation and you see the aftermath. The faith of certain characters is even left on the cutting room for or we don't know what happened. And it is also the first time we can glance in at the Tarente or dialog style where just even in the very first scene, be just bombard by dialog characters just hanging out like this was his first their tooral effort, yet no real preparation, aside from this one tiny student film that I don't think any of us has seen, and he managed to play around with form, create this dialog style that everyone's been trying to rip off and at the same time makes such a big cult classic. And you can't even call the cold classic because it seemed into the mainstream in such an extreme way as well. So it's just I know even the claim it is the greatest directoral the beautifull time plan, and I would probably debate that a little bit with you, but it's certainly one of the best. I can't think of almost any directoral debut that did to many things you wouldn't have expected for a first time director. Well, I was out joking when I said that it was the best directorial debut of all time. There are quite a few other candidates for this title. There's obviously austen well's first films. That isn't Kane. Can think of limits first film to have angry man and also of go down and three four, first film respectively about Su Friend, the four hundred blows regarding was about dogs. I think what I really liked about the film when I first saw it was dialogs. As I said before, it was a film I watched quite early in my cinematic journey, so I hadn't seen that many film back then, and the first thing that really caught my attention were the dialogs, especially in the first fifteen minutes of the film where they are or sitting at the cafe and they talk about this song by Madonna and also but tipping waitresses. The dialog standed and needed. It does make the story go anywhere if we don't learn anything about what's going to happen, about the relation between all the characters, but it felt extremely natural. It seems that the type of conversation anyone could have with friends. Obviously, the dialogs will become more important as a film progress, especially because the actual scene where the ice take place is never shown, so it's up to the fewer's imagination to reconstruct that scene with what the characters will be saying to each other, when we'll be trying to figure out if there is someone that is and the copper cop and, if there is one, who it is. I think not showing the actual ice ticking...

...place and only letting the characters talk about it to help the viewer reconstruct that scene was a very good idea. It's a thing that, from what I remember, was sometimes used in the film from the S or s in specially in some film in while where the ice was not shown either, probably because it was hard for the filmmaker to shoot that type of scenes. But I think it's way more in common for a film that came out in the s. So not showing this height scene was a bold let but I think that Talantino wanted. I definitely agree about that first scene. That first scene is such a statement from Tarantino as the first thing of his first film, both in terms of the dialog as you said, which is obviously his trademark and one of the things that makes him very recognizable, but also just the way it's shot. Im It's simple, right, it's just going around the table, but that is very effective and it's not the easiest way to shoot it, but the most intuitive way. That's also part of what makes it impressive. For first sin of the first thing. I think another thing we should mention about because of our dogs is something that we would find imperfection as well, which is the boldness in terms of the story. And of course Duntino did not invent the flashback, but the way he uses it incause our dogs is pretty creative because, because, I mean, I'm assuming we are sporting all of these movies. We only learned that there is an Indocoma Cup in the film about halfway through, I think, and it's pretty late, which is certainly not the first time this has been done, but it's again not the easiest way maybe to tell the story, and it's very effective. Yes, absolutely, and the way to film is made and what we see on the screen isn't truly helping us in figuring out tip series and the Copper Cup and also who it is. They was going to say that that first scene, it does have this tiny, tiny ounce of actual story value, especially Um Rewatch, because it is team rob who tells everybody who didn't tip from that kind of as. Everybody's jumping up and down after saying like he's the rat. Yeah, he's already snitching. What Clem said also about the fact that you would not guess necessarily that there is a coup early on is yeah, because we are introduced to this dynamic between how the guy tell and Tim Mos, which is the key emotional point of the film right. It's what's round the film. It's this decision that cited makes to stick with this guy, and you get that before you learn he's a cup, which puts you into try to choose. You understand where he's coming from and you understand the more crandary he is facing, and I think that authorties into what it's so interesting. It is seen as in terms of Tarantine or doing so many different things at the same time because on one hand is introducing us to all these characters, like you said, set in the stage where will learn a little bit about the characters, we learn about, perhaps most importantly, their relationship, the way they communicate that you said. It can even dispel the notion that there is not a cover up there, because you see how they talk to each other. Then you have the element of putting in a clue of it could be the cup, and then, on top of all of that you also have the fact that introduces you to his style and the kind of movie are about the watch. So it's both preparing you in a way for the stylistic experience, preparing every way will experience his characters, and adding clues for the story. It's again incredibly impressive way to open an incredibly impressive ret rold view. I was looking at some reviews from the time of Aservo dog and I actually saw when critic compared it at a time to the reaction that people got from the VFM with the train coming into the station. I think that's a high probody that it's still shows how different it seemed at the time. And I think one other aspect of that is the violence. Violence obviously wasn't new in cinema and me in the S and s are filled with very violent expectation film and even in less expectation you have some pecking path. Nonetheless,...

...there is the torture seen in as a wodogs, which at the time was very controversial and we respect a lot of discussion when when you see it now, it's actually very strained, especially compared to recent Tarantino films, when Mr Blonde is about to take the ear of the camera, goes through the war and then comes back with him having the air in his hand, which is pretty go is sure, but if you look at Jengle and chained and his data films, he would definitely have true nuit the acts where he making this film twenty years later, and yet it was very controversial. That's also, I think, a sign of how has ads. Was Kind of a paradigm shifts in the industry, least Americans. Yeah, it's going to say that because obviously, if you look at Gore, what the Italians were doing in the s and eight is including those stuff like cannible holocaust like probously even much, much, much further in terms of detail, in terms of graphic effects of shopping out the eyeballs, etc. Here Turnin is doing something this restraint and it's causing such reactions in Americas. That shows some different expectations people would be common to a film like rest over dogs with. Yeah, I think back of which is also the context. I mean, this was screened in festivals, this was seen as respectable, even though it was not. They were known, yet you had major actors. I think that's maybe part of why the reaction was so strong, even though certainly you had expectation films and Italian things that we're going much further before. And what's also very interesting here is it even in the end, turntin included some errors. The famous famous are at the end where Tom one get shot wouldn't logically be shot, and it left that in, both as an east breaking just because he really really wanted people to have something to discuss, and I think this is the kind of thing that it's a little bit different than Taranty as well, because he seems to really want conversations around this. We want people to engage with his films. You want people to see things that aren't really there and think something else into them, and I think that also ties in with the way he cut out the highst in cut out certain characters who don't even see or know what exactly is happening to them, and this is something he really died into further with them with other films. But you can feel that there's so much else going on in this world he created and we're only seeing a tiny part of it. Most people who love dress or dogs. I'm always been talking, always wanting to talk about how how it be to actually see those scenes and personally I think that rest reducts probably better because that scene isn't there. But you know that want, not need to know what happened, to see what happened and just imagining all of additional great scenes they could have been is still incredibly tempting. Well, personally I love the film. Just to wait is I think that everyone will have different images of what really happens in the scenes that are not shown, and I think that's the good thing. I think it's better sometimes not to show certain aspects of the film and led the viewers imagination just figure out on its own what could have happened and make their own film in a way, with what they have. So actually, I don't think I ever thought about wanting to see either heists. Maybe it's because I saw as ever dogs as a teenager and I hadn't seen that many movies, so I didn't necessarily register that it was change that we didn't see the heist, but it never came to mind. I think what you said about the ending is an example of how playful, don't you know, is of the way he plays with the audience, and that's present in all of his movies, and I think that instinct to say, oh well, let's keep it, it doesn't matter, it would be something for people to think about is characteristic of that. And obviously he took all of the elements that made rest were dogs stand out and he just blew it up so much bigger...

...for his next feature, Pulp Fiction. Now it a much bigger cast, much longer length, and instead of cutting part of one story out, what he did here was to have three, but technically for different time lines and stories, and then tell them completely out of sequence, to the point that characters who may have died in one story would be alive and well in another story, because these stories are happening at different days, different weeks. There's over lots of characters, even overlaps of plotting, but the connection is only in fragment and it tells the store still playing with form, still playing with all of these elements in such a again, we can only really say, cool way, that it worked for mass audiences because he had the characters, he had the dialog, he had the infamous burger conversation. Yet what does Barcello Wallace look like? You know, the conversation and some of the acts and speech, and he had so many characters that live on to this day and perhaps most of all, he created this world that was clearly so alive, with so many elements and so many characters that people just want to live in it experience it over and over again. And as this is his very favorite film, I'll move this over to Mattia. I think it's interesting to say that perfection is has our dogs but bigger. Actually, never thought of it that way, but you're definitely right, as our dogs was very constrained by budgets, which I can see how one might like it better that way because it's very focus. But perfection has this strawning quality. As you said, it's really a whole mediu. We are discovering what this Los Angeles coming outs and we get this three stories that intersected bits. But yes, you've got this much videoscope. I think that really fits with what Tarantino likes to do, which is a hangout movie. We see that little bits and has a four dogs at the starts. That whole like a virgin and tipping conversation is just being there with the characters, finding them entertaining and interesting in some way. Perfection is really more of that. It's just John Tra Vota and Samuel Jackson talking about food messages and then having to take out my thermon, and it's just being with the characters and being with this director who is very present. You have the time that my thermon makes a little square. There's a very close relationship between the director and the audience in Tarantino's movies and I think that that big spawning story will defits it they were, even though I also love O vaduct. Yes, as I said before, Tarantino's first two films are failed with dialogs that, honestly, you could have with your friend when you're sitting at a cafe or driving or having lunch. You could definitely have this type of everyday conversation that the main characters in his films are having, and that's what's make it so interesting because even though the conversations are normal day to day talk, the situation in which the characters are in are not something that the average person experience day to day, which offers a contrast between the ordinary dialog and not ordinary situations. Something else I do want to say about the fiction is how he is, I think, perfecting his exploration of ethics and the social contract in this film. Obviously, prefiction is first and foremost very entertaining film. That is his first goal as a filmmaker is to entertain you, and he does that do well. But I think what elevated for me, and this is also present in other wads and many of his other movie is, in fact you could say that all of Tarentino's movies take place in one universe, which is kind of the movie universe. They are obviously connected with some Easter eggs, but they're also connected in that it's a...

...very hobbsion world in the sense that everyone is constantly out for themselves and what countin explores is how their codes really makes them interact with each other. What are their limits and when would they break them and when would they not? And in that sense he is cynical because everyone is self interested in his movies, but he has more humanism than maybe someone like picking part, which I mentioned already. That is, I think, what brings me back to his friends. I find that idea of exploring just ethics really interesting and I think part fiction really does the best with that. I think the whole Ark that's Samuel Jackson goes through and the way he reinterprets his own monolog is really realization of principles applied to reality and how he would spew that out without thinking about it, but then he faces what it actually means. Now that you mention it, make sure. I was thinking about the end of example, dogs, and I was wondering if we could not link the two endings and see one as the contrary to the other. You know, dogs, when used to white, the character plays by are the keepple run, the truth is life, or at least what left of it, takes a turn for the worse in pulfiction. However, when the character played by Samuel l Jackson learns the truth is life, take a third for the best at the very end in pulp fiction, even though he has the opportunity to shut both of the assaiance. And it's funny to notice that in both seen at the end a character played by team rock as a gun pointed at him by one of the two main character, whether it is Mr White or Samuela Jackson. And in one movie are they quit all end up shooting him and get shot in return, and in Pul fiction, the character played by Samuel Jackson doesn't shoot him and doesn't get shot. So maybe there is some kind of parableler to be drawn between the two situations. I definitely see a pot of the I didn't think about it necessarily, but I agree. There is also something else I was thinking about popul fiction is that in readable dogs there are some references to some of Tarantino's favorite film. The most obvious one is reference to the movie Kansas City confidential, in which three men rob a bank and do not know each other's names. They don't even know what the other rubbers look like, so it's impossible, if they get caught, to well tell what the others name are and even what they look like. So which is an idea that obviously don't you know, took for Becausa brothers, and I was trying to think of a similar situation in pub fiction. We're talenting over that took an idea from one of his favorite film and use it for perfliction. But right now I can't think of anything and I was wondering if you, Chris, or maybe you met you have spotted anything that I wouldn't be remembering? Yeah, not actually sure. I mean, obviously there's references to the works in it. Aman. The most obvious one is don't do all the dancing, tying it in with Sarah night feel a little bit, which is obviously one of troll of the biggest roles by that point. But I really can pinpoint and if any, film that could serve as the main influence, and I think it's also because there's just so many different stories there. It really does dives into more of these concerts and tropes that specific films themselves. You know, I'm sure there's some website on the Internet that has a list of references for publiction, but I cannot think of a very specific one either. Maybe I think the dance scene is also supposed to be a callback to Boudaba, which also gave Down't you know, the name for his production company, but then apart. But that's all I can think of. Feels are referential,...

...but not super specifically, at least not that comes to my mind. And I think talking about tropes and convention expectations, it an't in the place around with lot there there is this one massive element of Pul fiction that they haven't even start talking about, which is just how damn family it is, because you have these conversations, often the day conversations in, like you said earlier, these extreme circumstances, you know, big doing with that, bobbies, all, all of these weird dis versations where people are the confusions there in the bizarre and extreme snares that happened. I mean this pretty hilarious film and this is something that you know, places around essentially all of his films, which is that they're so irreverent of most conventions. They want you to laugh. They comment upon themselves in a way it don't take themselves too seriously. They kind of winking at you, are playing along with you to get into more and more bestarres iterations that will elicit that reaction. Yeah, definitely agree, and actually I was watching documentary on don't you know this morning and he mentioned that when he toured with Hassaba dogs, he would have this impression that some people did not feel allowed to laugh at the film. They didn't know what to make of it and so they thought maybe was to say used to laugh when he thought they should be laughing. And so with the fiction he said, he explicitly tried to make it Funnier, more obviously funny, so that people would feel comfortable with laughing. And it also made me think, maybe to jump ahead a little bits, of something that was happening with the hateful eight, where people would laugh in my theater and in others as well, when Jennifer Jason these character would be hit, and that's kind of the jewel aspect of that. Tarantino has a very as you say, you haven't approached and sometimes it can create some problems for him. I think there was also the fact that talent, you know, loves exploitation films and love to remind us that he loves exploitation film and that makes it hard for him not to include some kind of comic elements throughout his films. I'm not sure what you mean, because exploitation is not necessarily funny, is it not necessarily? But exploitation films are usually a bit of the top and someunt you know likes being over the top as well. I think he likes to push the boundaries even further than exploitation films to create this over the top comical scenes. It's not necessarily funny for everyone, but for someone who enjoys exploitation films, to see the boundaries pushed even further could be seen for some as comical. I think you completely write their claim. I think it's also where they can actually elevates a little bit, because, yes, if a look at the lower budgets, forget the invested for instance, or that flotation or any of the random behindhouse films that they just back in the day, they would do these things were absolutely ridiculous and people would have laugh even in the horrible is, because they were so silly, so over the top, and you know they weren't taking themselves seriously there. Well, just go for it, whatever it was and would be this mix match of feelings that Mustare, but usually at least without a clear talent. And what Thantena did, in a way, was to take these elements but be far more, let's say, up front about it, which is to say he is so self aware, and it does it in such a specific way that it loses what people call so that's good. Sometimes it loses that kind of feeling where you're not sure if you're laughing at it or with it, to this sense where you're very well aware that you're laughing with it and that continue is doing all of these things specifically on purpose to a list that reaction, and it even feels clever because of that, because that's one of the things that people love so much about the film, due to the way he, like you mentioned earlier, interact with the audience and wants that to think, wants them to react and wants that to re get with his films, ass films, which also ties us back...

...to some of his earlier influences, like you mentioned, with the French, in a way, because that was exactly what they were doing, though of course it never had anywhere close to the degree of mainstream appeal that Winn Nantino ended up having. Well, good on was actually pretty popular and put show in France at these into a few years. As good went more experimental, less of it and from what I remember, good alt doesn't think to Ane of Parentinos films. I'm surprising, yes, not to be fair, though, it might just be because good heart keeps saying bad things about trenting this film, but I think a ready recently that they're nding. Is said that he had outgrown goodd so now the feeling is starting to get mutual as opposed that. You think that what we've been talking about now with rest are dogs and called fiction, actually highlight something that I personally think change a little bit with all of the films that came after, and it could be at this is just something that I for some reason to care about, but his two first films weren't really directly based on individual movies or individual saundrals. They were more playful with form, they were more playful with ideas. Their main focus was Tarnteno introducing his style of dialog and this playing around with the medium, having fun and being inrreverend. But then my view at least is that all of the films he made after that, from Jackie Brown to kill bill, to that proof and grindhouse as a whole, to danger and shame and the hateful eight, and I will exclude once one time hold a little bit from it's but all of the six films he made between that are specifically riffling up one Chundra, one type of B movie. Obviously, Jackie Brown is his take on the exploitation. Kill Bill is his take on the Kong Fu movies, though little bit of a wrench plot tied in that proof is obviously, as was part of the grandhouse projects, are very specific reference that type of low but shot film into including playing into it. And then you had ingluors passards, which literally takes its title from an Italian war film, again the cheaper B movie war films, tying us over to the anger and fain the hateful late, which both placed straight into the spaghettivestor tropes and visual experiences, no, including bringing anywhere call on board. So it seems I can all of these is focusing in specifically on a Shaundra and instead of in its two first films where he is playing around with style and being himself and expressing himself, it seems like in the majority of his later films there's also a much larger degree of emulation where is trying to also present these styles a little bit and riff off the style specifically. That creates a bit of a different experience. I would on the equipal with Hassava dogs being silver highst movie, admitted the subversive highest movie, in that the highest is not technically in it, but see it does work within the genre because it is pretty typical in highest movies that after the highest in goes badly right. I mean that's that's pretty typical, but I agree with you without and conviction being kind of the more. It is a crime movie, but it has this on encompassing quality, especially when you look at time to dose work as a whole. Your rights. It's not found in his later movies, which are more specific, though once upon a time in honeywood. Did you say what genre that was, because I think that's too how to tunate down yellow exactly? I for one, suple and time in Hollywood. I excerpt from from this because that seems to be almost made at the momentary on Trentine a career as well tie in elements of several of its films. It's impossible to really characterize that as specifically because if anything tteing things back. It clearly brings us back once again to the period of cinema. It was interesting and we do see references to again...

Spaghett the rest and all these other films has been bringing up, but it's into a different step for him either in terms of self evaluation, and there's in terms of it. Some people are saying sudden doulphins, and also that's been taking on a bit of a different kind of story. I do think there's one aspect that s kei in those first two movies that we haven't discussed, which is the soundtracks. Those soundtracks are so iconic that are these moments. I mean the opening theme of has a adult when they're walking in their suits, and of course the torture scene and pertection is just world war iconic with its use of music. Yes, obviously the soundtrack is very important in Quentin Tarantino's films. I read somewhere in an interview that thoughts, you know, would actually pick the music before writing the scenes, so he would have some music in his head and then later on right the film to go along with the music he was listening to, which I think is an unusual way of working. Usually it's would be busier the way around. The movie would be making, the new composer would come along and write music to go along with the scenes that up already been made, and I think that this importance he attached to the soundtrack could be seen in a way as a reference to his love for worstern films. From what I think, the soundtruck started becoming cupture in the s and there was largely because of Western movies and, as we know, talent, you know, likes Western movies, so maybe his love for soundtrack come from this love he as for Western movies. Well, it's certainly played in with the rest of the films he made, which obviously have really great sufarmi music by anyone in common in this early films. I think the fact that he picked the music before he even started working on the scenes properly showcases the way he thinks about filming, where he thinks about building mood. It clearly thought this is the first song I can create a very specific mood to, I can contrast it with something it will work effectively, and then he could think of specifically how we could bring that to life. I think that the way he uses music, especially in this, the first of film. Do think he'll bill and and a few others, is just playing it. Look to mention earlier, it is irreverence. There's this way that he picks songs that are a little bit sarcastically, bit opposite of what we would expect, sometimes bringing back things from the past you would expect to see in this context. And again it just works so well because it manages to create such iconic experiences with them. I think one comparison point we can make regarding the use of soundtracks is Wi scusses. From what I understand, Scott says it was one of the first two really use Wa tool soundtrack of pop music, especially work and war, for his films, and Tarantino is obviously within that trend, but he it is a bit of different in that part of what allows him, I think, to pick the music before shooting the scenes, as you mentioned, is that he does not pick the most obvious music. It's all kind of stuff that you would hear on the radio at the time, but it's not like the biggest hits. I think in that way it's different from how scorses they uses it, because, with scar says, I think it's in part sometimes to have some irony between the happy music and the terrible happenings on screen, but also to underline how these people are living in the same world as us. I think there's also a bit of that with Talenttino. But as you mentioned, Chris, it's also about this playfulness and this way in which Tarantino is as much a filmmaker as a curator, and you see that again with, as you mentioned, Jackie Brown as blacks, rotation and the various westerns and death proof for revenge films from the S. Tarantino is a curator of both in his movies and outside his movies, and I think that's also something he does through his soundtracks, and I think that just shows how much talent you know with a not to and how much his films are in a different category, especially because there are not that many film directors working today that when you think about their films, you're...

...so think about the soundtrack, especially, as I said, in today's cinema industry there is scoreses, as you said, match, but apart from these two, I have to say I can't really think of another one, and especially one who would use such different songs in all of these films. That's such a great point. Actually, I'm sitting and try to take any in my mind jumps back to various films from, say, the S S. We know where they would get some kind of deal with a major band want to support them, you know, like every vender's first feature having loads of songs by the Kings, for instance, but it's just something completely different. So they I can't think of anyone, especially today, that that does something like that. I think actually in some way the marvel films, especially the gardens of the galaxy films, are very inspired by Tarantino in how they use music. But I think the guidance of the galaxy from manage it. But very often they tend to use things that are much more obvious, like in Captain Marvel, using just a girl. I mean I think actually there is a fair bit of use of soundtracks in films today that is influenced by Tarantino. But you are right that there is no maybe no major utter that uses them quite as much. At least I can think of one, and glorious the galactics also such a good comparison point there, because that is the hang out films of Marvel, if they will, which must be at it in some way inspired or day in the way they just talk, hang out. How the specific kind of persona's clashing, especially the last one, which is literally does that, hanging out on the planet talking to each other. I could a a little better, but I can clearly see some similarities. They're actually just one of those example just jump to mind, which is it got right. In general, does use some talk quite a bit and especially in baby driver, which is obviously all about music and how the main Chal actor relates to it, and there is definitely a strong talent you influence there. And to bring this back to the man himself a lot of love. We are a little bit more about how you guys that set his later career. Do you think it holds up to the first, the preachers? I think it's better, or you think it, for whatever even took a bit of a personally, I think his first two films are his best pill fiction and as about dogs, I like some of his other films. I like, for example, the first kill bill film. I also like glorious bustards, which I think I saw when I was about fifteen sixteen when it came out, because I was when I was starting to get into cinema. Regarding Inglorious bustards, I have a bit of an addictdote. When I saw it, as I said, I was about fifteen sixteen and it was a time where I didn't speak English that well, so I couldn't stand it when it was written, but I couldn't really understand when it was spoken, and the copy of the film I had only had English subtitles for the French and German parts, but not for the English parts. So I remember that the first scene when they starts talking in English, I couldn't really understand what they were saying, but I couldn't send what was going on, and I think it's interesting to see that, if we take back the first two films, that our dogs and perfection, someone who doesn't understand the dialogs couldn't have any idea of what is going on. However, in his later films it's way easier to guess what the dialogs are about and what the story is about and what's going on in the film, because it relies way more on telling a story through images and not building it with dialogs the way you used to do before, or at least less in my opinion, and maybe that's why I like his later films a bit less. And to be fair, I don't have any strong dislike or any dislike toward films, but Jackie Brown didn't do much for me. The second kill build didn't do much for me. Easier and would be the same with Jengo and chained and I have to say I haven't seen yet the EFULATE or death proof. Once upon it time in holy wood was an okay film, probably is best lately. I also think that when he...

...made pub fiction as AB adults, he was more juvenile. He was a young filmmaker starting to make films who had all of his influences, and I think he just wanted to put all of his influence into one single film every time, probably because when you start making film you never know if you would have the opportunity to make another one, so maybe you just want to throw all the ideas you have in two one because it may be your only chance, and that's probably why, as a bodogs and perfection are films I found more interesting that is later films, because his later films, as we said, only focus on one aspect each time. Jackie Brown being black, splotation encloyes bustards being war films, kill being being martial art, which could be good in a way because it gives me more time to really explore all of the different general films he likes. But it just seems to me that he somehow lost something along the way that made him subspecially in the first place. He got to comfortable. Is what I think. Essentially, you say could be that. Yes, absolutely for me, and I do love some of them, untils later films. I like all of them, but I think you got psyche more muted, especially in the films that the right outiple fiction, and it was such a shock going into Jackie Brown atiple fiction which, despite being more directly bays on black quotation, it had a lower amount of energy. It was the camera was usually further away from the characters that you didn't have the same kind of intensity or humor or creativity in terms of narrative and form that is first to had. It has felt a little bit flatter because of that. And then I'm not sure what happened when it jumped to kill Bill. In sense it's almost felt like it was overcorrecting a little bit because it was so much happening all at once, the narrative jumping everywhere, this whole range of different types of jokes, etcetera, and a love of it worked. Some of it didn't, which is why I think Jackie Browns, all of his weekly films and that killed bill just didn't quite reach greatness. Well, I think Jackie Brown is a bit of a layer in his filmography. In my experience, the more someone like Tarentino, the Lower Jackie Brown is is in the ranking and the ones that kind of like Tarantino but don't necessarily love all his about. Tend to think Jackie Brown is one of his better films, and I think that's because it's not his script. I mean it's adapted from an elmeral Leonard Novel, and I think that's also why it's so much quieter and more thoughtful than a lot of his movies. I like Jackie Brown, but it's not one of my favorites because I just love Tarantino, and so the more Talentino asque film is, the more I tend to like it. I agree with the curventural wisdom, and with you too, that his two films are his best ones. However, I still love in those bastards. I love hateful late and I don't sort of one spentim in Hollywood and deathpoof and the kill bids younger and change is the only one. I mean, I still like it, but I do think it's a little lesser than the rest. I do think there is something in what Clem is saying about him getting comfortable artist. That's how I put it. Part of it is just success. I mean, the more successful you are the less people tell you know, and one of the things that everyone says about Tarantino, and is absolutely correct, is that he is over indulgent. He is only doing what he wants to do and he's hoping that you will enjoy it, especially his last three films, and that's linked also to the loss of his long term editor, Sally Manky, who edited all of his films through in Glose basted and then she died. And so his last three films you can definitely see that there is no editor to cut his most over a dulgent scenes. I love it anyway, but I definitely understand why many people are little tired of it. I also like to jump in on the love regularius bastard share. I was sorting the cinema when they came out. I was just slightly older, and to me it was his best since Pope Fiction, and that was what was going around telling. Absolutely there by a time...

...because it did so many of the things that full fiction, rest of our dogs did. It had the long drawn out dialog scenes, it had the same degrees of coolness, it had a playfulness with form what would expect from the story, and I think it's all the testament to don't in in the same way that full fiction, rest of our dogs resurrected. A lot of factors. vers bastards clearly kicked off Christoph's wall entire career and his rule here, the type of dialog scenes he's allowed to have, the type of character into play here, which gets well, frankly, hilarious. Okay, so really good test and obviously very, very violent. So thin the place. That of so incredibly well. One of the things that I think he does, maybe even better than before, is just set pieces, long scenes with this mounting tension, and I think in glose bastard has the best example of that, perhaps one of his best scenes in his work career, in the opening scene with Christopher Vans and French Farma did minichie. It's just a great scene. It's very innumo e cony. I think it uses a music from a Mikn it. I do think that he has matured. As with Finmaker, I think you see something that can goes busted, something like the hate for eight. It's, I agree, less all over the place, which maybe is less exciting than something like per fiction, but there is also something more both over indulgent and more restrained in some ways. The Right for eight especially is to me a friend. That is his most political firm. That is something that was absent of his cinema early on. He definitely was not political and I think the hateful it is, and it is about how the civil war did not really solve racism, as I think we all know in America, and I think that is an interesting aspect of his cinema now, is that there is this more political aspect and it's also present in some ways in one's part time home. I just really want to jump in there. Are What they said about drawing out the friends, because what that was instantly thinking about was that scene at the bar where the characters have are pretending to be German and if they're playing this game with the actual Dervan soldiers, and the way it seems slowly build tension and place with convention, and this builds that out out now again an example of how Dido could do a very, very long, intricate set piece. And then what's kind of interesting in when you jumped to the hateful it is that that scene in the bar is essentially part of the spirit of the hatefulate, just drawn out for such a long time, because here you literally have almost the majority of the action taking place on one single location with these people inside of this. It's not quite a bar that have ad actuary, but there sitting around talking, feeling attention between them, wondering who will real what, learning who the different characters are. Obviously ties back to rest we dogs as well, which was quite similar with primarily won't get you focus, but just the way he's able to stick all these characters behind closed doors and again have this hangout feeling. But how it so much specific suspense? I haven't seen the age fulate, but I was thinking of something. Don't you know, in almost all of his films likes to include Mexican standoff. It's a trademark he had since as about dogs, and I believe it has been used in every every fame of his since the first one, and I was wondering if there is also Mexican standoff in the age relate. Oh yeah, I mean the whole film is kind of elaborate Mexican stand off in some sense. Yeah, that's kind of thing as well, like he's just this one scene from agilious bats in the way this drama in really different. Something where Diffen carricter with drawn out because you have that tension for such a long time. I think one other aspect we could discuss...

...is the interest Tantino has in experimenting with formats. We saw that with grandhouse first. Actually haven't seen grandhouse as it was intended in cinemas. I've only seen the death proof half, but that was kind of an experiment in how you show movies, the idea of going back to that double bill with the fake trailers and everything, and now, more recently, with the hate for light, which was shot in seventeen millimeters and sometimes projected in that, even though I didn't get to see it in seventeen millimeter. That's something has gotten into more recently. The kind of makes him, in a sense of edic because the cinema is going more and more digital and he, along with a few other filmmakers, are kind of resisting that. Yeah, I know that he absolutely love going to cinema to watch films. I think it's not only that is against digital life. Think he's also against showing films on TV or on DVD's. I think that's for him cinema should only be experienced in in cinema. On the big screen. He also has a specific row in which he likes to sit. I believe it's a fourth one, because he said that row one, two and three are two close to the screen, and rows five and beyond our two far away to really fully appreciate the film you're watching. So apparently the fourth row would be the better one to be fully emerged into the film. Of course he would have a favorite role. That makes to do them. Yeah, of course. It's also word mentioning that didn't never shot a film on digital, at least not as far as I'm aware, and the big focus on ensuring, I mean campaigning for stopping cinemas from digitizing the experience, because he believes there's something just so magical and special in seeing actual film. And this is ties into the type of personalities. As some people could say it's a little bit obsessive as well, but as the way he's such purest in a way, the way he interacts with the medium, the way interact with elements from medium, with the way he's the passionate about bringing it together, it, let's just say, it fits like his personality really really matches his films. It tot comes back to the idea that he is the curator right. I think that there's something that again about Scott says, his generations was deemed to be the film. BRATT's right, the first people who grew up with fin and that's also true of good ventryful, and Tarantino is kind of the second wave of that in that he's even more obsessive about the film and his thing in this films and outside of his films is about communicating that passion throughout his fames, with his many references in this idea of all the things being in the world of movies. But also, you know, he has the cinema to you betterly, and also his name was used to promote some films. I know that chunking express when it came out in the US, was built as recommended by counting or something like that. It's really his whole identity is that is curator. Yeah, that ties in with the way, yeah, is still does top ten lists of every year as well be passionately about so many films. If you go to the Prince I Jack Movies will see a list of his recommended films as well. So he's just really repacked about telling people what he loves and to try to get people to watch what he cares about. He's one of us and that's why we both to love and hate him, I suppose. Yeah, it would make a great for remember. I think so quentine should listening to this. Please join us, and I think the fact that he is a sinophile himself. It's very few directors who specifically go about talking of themselves as an author, but this is exactly what Tarantino does. He's just openly talking about how he's assessing his films. Have other people should be assessing his films, and the fact of the matter is that he wishes to retire after his next film so that he will have a set of ten films that he will view as essentially perfect and that people who like his films will see as a...

...set that they can discuss. But I think it's interesting that, yes, you want people to discuss his films, but they also wants people to discuss his entire career as an entity, and he went as far as saying that he might come back like decades later. Let's say he was in the s and he had another story. But what gave him comfortable that it would be so remote from his earlier work that it would be easy for people to dismiss it or easier people to not count it. With the rest of his works, that two films is leaving behind now will always be there as a unit. This is so few directors who work so obsessive about their immage and about the story the entire the body of work tells. Who else does that? And what can they expect from that final film? Once a point time in Hardywood does feel like a final fame already, and I have no idea. I mean in her there has always been this rumor of Damantino doing a star trek movie. Somehow I doubt that that would be his last year. I mean it is skeptical in general about the whole idea of the ten film limits that he's always talked about. I mean, you said he mentioned the possiblity of a comeback. I just don't see him actually stopping because I think that's just his life. I don't think he can do anything else. But maybe I'm wrong, and in any case you're right that's seeing what he actually chooses as his theoretical last film is going to be interesting. I think it's also kind of fun to tie him in with a few other directors, to place them into, you know, the second generation of cinephile directors. You have very clear counterpart which it linked later and steven sort of boat coming up around the same time, with doing a lot of really referential cinema. And interesting thing is that Soderberg to specifically said he would retire early, but as we can see from what he's been doing last three years, that just didn't happen. He couldn't stick to it. So I think you're right. Is quite possible that Antina just won't be able to do it. But then again, at the same time, given the kind of overly obsessive personality who in that and has, I think he will stick to it. Or if he would actually come back, I can almost imagine him taking a different identity just make sure that it would be tided with his other work. You know, it's just you can just imagine the kind of extreme length thirteen would actually go to make sure that his wishing stays true. I can already see the headlines. Oh this new Talentino imitation is so bad, it doesn't get anything of what he's doing, but it's actually him. Yeah, pretty much obviously won't find that out, that will find it out that dies every seven or eight the you know, it's like, Huh, I actually did these, I feel, and you hated them out, so I did the right thing. Or if they hate them, I guess you'll be his death bad. Well, he's only fifty seven, so that leaves plenty of room for at least one other film, and that one film should technically be his last, because there would be sten one. I don't really know if he be able to stop himself, as you said, because if you look at his filmography, made about three four films in the last ten years. So I can't really imagine him waiting ten years to do another film and at the same time, I can't really imagine him making a film in three four years and just stopping after that. So yeah, maybe just go in CONITO and release films, but under Rup Soudonym, which is not, that I think about it, something that's a lot of exploitation film directors did, reasing films under numerous names. So maybe, don't you know, would do that and that would be another reference to the world of exploitation films. That's it would be perfect in a way. There be so beautiful, like a picture book ending in a way. Do I do think it's also worth mentioning that pity did break his word once before, when he first implied that he wouldn't make another spaghettive western and then it was revealed that he was making a spaghet the rest and the script of stall and published. He whole that it wouldn't make the hate for late. Obviously he did it anyways. So you never know, anything could really happen here. Yeah, I whisting back of me as I ki, who also said he would stop and found that he couldn't. I think it would.

You know, we'll find himself in a similar situation, and I think what I would really want from Tarantin or them, especially if this is his last film, would be to see him get more creative, more focused on form, just like rest of dogs and pulp fiction, because, like that is what has been in some way lacking in this later films, where he started to be more about reference specific genres, are playing into their drows and playing on their crops, as opposed to being this incredibly irreverent filmmaker just playing around with also souls, and I'm not sure if he can actually go back to that that the more as possible. He's just outgrown it and it's not as interested in anymore. But that's really what I would personally love to see from his last film. If this was his last film, what would you guys love to see him do, or at least how would you love to feel about it like? What would you want him to deliver with it? I have no idea. I'm very bad that's scunating like this and really better looking forward to things jenerally. Find that it kind of ruins the actually explain and but I guess I would want him to be do something different. On the contrary, I think something really like a fame testament from him would be interesting. I mean it would still bet you know that maybe something more in the vibe of once pointing in Hollywood. I'm not sure. I guess with well, obviously I would like his next film to resemble his first two films, per pictionarize our adults, not to be sequels or anything, but just to go back to his roots and make a film that is closest to is to debut. Short. Studios will let do whatever he wants because it's talent, you know. So No, matter what he does, he will bring audience to cinemas. That looking back at this filmography and the film he made and also looking at the type of films he likes, I can't really think of a type of film he hasn't really done yet. Well, there are some type of exploitation films he hasn't made yet, so maybe the exploitation film like sex rootation for example, or maybe a prison film. Sci Fi could be interesting as well, but I just not know what type of SCI FI is into. But yes, I can definitely picture starter characters having talks about fit, fetish and whatnot. It seems so hilariously. Won't, but maybe that would make it right. Who knows? Well, honestly, is great at writing dialogs, so we knows. Maybe it could come up with something little fit too pasty to take. Either continue what doing, open double the time in Hollywood and go in brought an other type of niche, or he can and build more on what they did with also one time in Hollywood to even more playful with history, maybe even trying more met elements with himself, maybe even put himself in it. You never know what they'll do. or He might even be trying to do a straight film, and I think that's what I would be least interested in seeing, just him trying to take on star trek or something else and do it in a more conventional way. I did find his top eleven films of all time, which are don't bad, ugly real brother blowout taxi driver, his girl Friday, five fingers of that Pandora's box carry and faith for yours, pipe grapes to Cairo and yours. And I guess we haven't really seen him to proper form hormone like Yass, but he clearly likes the kind of slapstick comedy, so that could be something very interesting in from jump back to let see him do something like our hopes. Rchs covered it. That would be very bizarre to see from someone like been nothing. But yeah, I don't think there's any way to really guess where he'll go next. Oh and also for anyone interested, and we didn't dive into once one time in Hollywood too much, but we did do just that in our recent podcast about the best films from two thousand and nine team and we don't didn't want to repeat ourselves. So to sum up, Quinn Dinger and his career. I think we all agree that he is one of the most creative and interesting directors working in Hollywood today. I think we all can see the way he, unlike almost all others, are not held back...

...or limited by the system and can pursue his own obsessions. And if his next film is indeed his last, at least for now, I think it can be pretty sure we can expect something, if not sensational, at the very least proper conversation piece, because that's, in a way, what all of his films are. All of his films are ways to invite comparison, invites so much discussion. The talk about the being hangout movies, we didn't even bring in, not the fact that his films are also, in the ways, sandbox movies, where so much of the action happens else where. I we just want to see if you want to be it, and we feel like we can live in his rich world's I think there's so much more to say and to talk about when it comes to Quinn Dantino. I think so many other people will do just that, and I think we can be pretty sure that that's just what Quinn Dan you know, wants us to do. So if you're listening to this, Quinton, feel free to join ICM for AMCOM. Write up some of your opinions and we love to hear from you, and we could almost expect it to want to share that, especially again if you're listening to this after your retirement and you have nothing else to do. So let's see if that happens. And until next time, thank you for listening and see you against you. You have been listening to talking images, the official podcast of ICM for umcom,.

In-Stream Audio Search

NEW

Search across all episodes within this podcast

Episodes (52)