Cinematic Grammar [Or: How I am Finding It Harder and Harder to Respect Homage]
 

Recently, I have become more and more disillusioned with a number of my favourite filmmakers [namely Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson]. I put this down, mainly, to one thing: the amount of cinema I am watching, and the originality I am seeing within it. I do not [fully] get that when I watch a Quentin Tarantino or Paul Thomas Anderson film anymore. I am becoming more and more interested in the idea of cinema as an intelligent, complete art form, where all the elements come together to help the director say something of meaning. While both know what they're doing in a technical sense, I don't feel that Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson have anything of their own to say at the moment.

I believe in cinematic grammar, but not in the sense that there is only one set of rules. I think that, with the great directors [old or young or somewhere in between], you can see that they have, in essence, developed their own cinematic language over time, based on their vision [which is also constantly developing] and nothing else. Their grammar might borrow from that of others, but not for the purpose of being cool, clever or shocking. It borrows only to aid the vision, and I think that's the thing. I think that's the line. Borrow, but not for any superficial reason.

I don't feel, as yet, that Paul Thomas Anderson or Quentin Tarantino have developed their own cinematic languages, and I don't feel that [at the present] their borrowing from the past is anything other than chic homage. The Wise Up sequence of Magnolia demonstrates that Anderson definitely has the ability to develop a personal, distinct grammar, and I feel that Punch-Drunk Love was a step in the right direction for him. Kill Bill, for Tarantino, was a step backwards.

Love them or hate them, it's people like Lars von Trier, Wes Anderson, Pedro Almodóvar, Steven Soderbergh and [more recently] Gus Van Sant that are truly forming their own cinematic rules and theories at present [of course, people like Polanski and Scorsese and Weir keep developing theirs over time]. And they do it not with the intent of being hip, but with the intent of supporting their individual directorial vision, and what it is they have to say. And for me, I now realise, that's the difference between good and what is great.

That was quite an eloquent treatise on syntax.

I agree with some of your points, and I understand what you're getting at with the cinematic grammar concept, but I'm not sure I understand or agree with all of it.

For instance, I'm not sure of the inherent difference you're implying between something that Scorsese borrowed from Godard to make Mean Streets and something Tarantino borrowed from Godard (or Scorsese) to make any one of his films.

Is it an emotional intelligence, or simply having something to say?

Well, when Scorsese takes inspiration from Godard or Ford or Visconti, he filters it in such a way that it isn't a direct restaging, rather a reimagining using similar thematic elements - approaching the mood or tone of a previous film moment. With the likes of Tarantino and P.T. Anderson, they quote moments exactly, painstakingly to the letter, with a self-assured wink, so that you can't help but notice the reference (assuming you're familiar with the original movie) - so much so that it often seems to be the only point. Personally, I find it distracting more than anything.

But, could one argue that borrowing heavily from other sources and then shuffling these moments and resetting them within a new story, with new characters, locations, etc. is in fact their "language"?

Taken scene by scene Tarantino's and Anderson's films may seem like restagings of things done by their cinematic heroes, but when looked at in their entirity Kong feels they have still constructed original works.

Both Tarantino and Anderson have their strengths that point to their originality - Tarantino's is dialogue and special juxtopsition of dark humor, Anderson's is an easy mastery of visuals and ability to immerse his films in a tone. But for me, I find they use all their thick hommage as a crutch far too often. Yes, it is obviously their cinematic language thus far, but I too hope in the future they find something more completely their own, abandoning the constant references to and restagings of movies they know by heart.


Instead of P.T. and Quentin, look at a Scorsese contemporary: Brian DePalma. For the first part of his career, he was clearly obsessed with Hitchcock. Made no secret about it certainly, but when you look at Sisters, Obsession and Dressed to Kill, while there is definitely DePalma with the Hitch and there is evident talent, it's still too much like Hitchcock-lite when all is said and done. But, when you look at Blow Out and Carrie, he's still using Hitchcockian elements and references, but not to the degree or specificity that he had in the previous movies I mentioned. Consequently, I think Blow Out and Carrie are much, much better films - DePalma finally finding a language that was more his than Hitchcock's.


But, to each their own.

It's the purpose behind the borrowing that matters. The moment you borrow for the sheer sake of borrowing, your film becomes "less". In my opinion, anyway. There has to be a better reason that, "Well, Altman did it, so it'd be cool to do the same..."

I'm no Altman expert but have seen about ten of his films with great interest and I like his work a lot. Some of his films are true masterpieces and I would consider him a master, or an auteur, if you will.

I remember when Paul Thomas Anderson was considerably unkown for the big audience and I read a review of his Magnolia in a swedish magazine. I recall the author of the review saying that it had the same narrative as Altman's Short Cuts sort of, but where Altman treated his story and characters in a "horisontal" matter, Anderson did it "vertically". Well, I guess I understand more or less what that reviewer meant but I didn't pay too much attention to it. But since that review (who praised Magnolia enormously, btw) I haven't really heard much about Anderson's debt to Altman. And judging from my own experiences with both directors' films, I have myself never thought about it again.

To me, except for the occasional episodic narrative and the large number of rather important characters whose stories are weaven into each others (mainly in Magnolia), I have problems finding examples of Altman Style similarities in Anderson's films. I haven't looked for it, so it might be there. But since I think Altman has a very personal style that is recognizable from a far distant, I think I should at least have thought about it when seeing any of Anderson's films.

The Gingerbread Man is an Altman film that wasn't especially successful and that didn't have much of an impact on the world of cinema compared to some of his other films. But I like it a lot because if we lift our attention from the story, and focus on style instead, it is a school book example of Altman's style. The flowing movements of the camera that is rather peeping in on the characters than participating in the scene and the seemingly nonsense conversations in the shadow of the "real" dialogue. Stuff like that. Even if Anderson is working in Altman's tradition I think he has different motives with his films than Altman has. I experience Altman's films as journeys, you go with him for a ride to check out the people you pass by, but you don't have time to stop or you will miss the big picture. Anderson seems to be wanting to stop and investigate every person he meets on the way in depth and detail. It's not until he does that that we (supposedly) understand their connection. (Just speculating here....) And I guess this is what that reviewer meant with "horisontal" and "vertical".

The narrative filmmaking that Altman has been associated with and perhaps also invented (or at least pioneered); I think to use that as a filmmaker and be accused of plagiarism would be like building a Ferrari and then being called a copycat because you didn't invent the wheel.

Before I knew about De Palma's obsession with Hitchcock I saw Dressed to Kill and was left with my jaw hanging when I saw that it was a remake of Hitchcock's Psycho straight up. I have never noticed anything in the same area as that when it comes to Anderson's films and his Altman influences. And De Palma is often regarded as one of The Great Ones of American Cinema.

When it comes to Tarantino, I can understand and to a degree also agree with a lot of what you are saying. But I think that in at least Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction he has done something completely fresh with the things he borrowed. (Haven't seen Kill Bill yet).

I just would like to see a few examples of where Anderson is actually copying Altman. Paying homage or borrowing something and after that making something personal from it don't count.

First, Silver Bullet gets rep points.

I don't believe a director needs a 'great vision' of his/her own in order to make a great movie. All he/she needs is a sense of how to best use the camera in a way that speaks to people. Kill Bill, for example, is the best movie Tarantino will probably ever make, and a proper understanding of it is almost entirely contingent upon the viewer's reference points - this, in my eyes, does not discount it as an original artistic achievement. That movie is like the most lucid and well-blended mix show you'll ever hear. The medium is the message in Kill Bill - it's not about anything other than what is onscreen, and what has been onscreen before it. And everything you will ever need to know about movie love can be found within a single frame of the Lucy Liu fight sequence. Tarantino's devotion to cinema bleeds from every shot, pulses with the blood of King Hu and Foxy Brown. Better that, one might contend, than a bastardization of Patrick O'Brian by a filmmaker who hasn't made a great film since Picnic at Hanging Rock, two decades ago.

The directors who matter are those that aren't afraid to do anything. What Tarantino does in Kill Bill is on par with L'avventura or Belle Du Jour - perfect expression of the filmmakers' vision. They may not have Bergman-like aspirations, but Antoinioni, Bunuel, and now Tarantino are great artists. I think that Spielberg's last three movies exemplify this as well: his entirely separate visions in A.I., Minority Report, and Catch Me if You Can are unified only by his technical mastery - whether dealing with philosophical issues or just great fun, he never feels old in spite of the many homages in all three movies.

Good post, Steve, and great thread, Silver! :yup:

Both of you have some very valid points, some that I agree with, some that I do not. Unfortunately, I'm not like Chris, and the idea of breaking both those posts down into smaller pieces makes me want to vomit. I'll keep on watching Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson pictures, because the question at hand is not one of enjoyment. It's one of respect. I don't feel I can consider these filmmakers to be artists just yet.

And by the way, I've been meaning to say, Steve, that your analytical passion for Kill Bill is really quite inspiring to me personally. The first time you used the expression "emotionally engaging by way of aesthetics", well, I nearly died. I maintain that, more than anyone else, it's people like yourself and Holden that I want to reach with my films. People that, you know, really get and love movies.

And now, a quote that quite effectively sums up my current opinions:

Ok, I couldn't find a pic of the famous scene from Victor Sjöström's silent film The Phantom Carriage, but this other famous scene from Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal is a direct hommage to Sjöström, except Bergman has a crowd of people (plus Death) walking over the hill while Sjöström has a carriage going over it:


http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/media/seventhseal.jpg



Just thought it was interesting since we're discussing this anyway.

OK, if no one else sees the significance of Silver's first post in this thread and does not give him any rep points, then you have no business being here. Matt, welcome to moviemaking. Please share with us all that you do!!!!

Sorry, I assumed this forum was for discussion, as opposed to fellatio.



All the same, nice thread, Matt: :o

Oh go suck an egg Herod.

Cool thread. I think i might have to brush some silveryness from my mouth too b4 i speak ;). I'm not nearly as well versed in film-lore as you guys, so i can't comment as much as i'd like to. From my not-versed-enough background tho i agree with Silv's assessment that using powerful elements/techniques from previous films must serve a purpose, not just be a carbon copy. In Kill Bill i felt there was a brittleness to it that probably sprang from the amount of "homage" as Silv has described it and as Steve has praised it.

Personally i found it enjoyable on the cinematic/superficial level (specifically coz of the hommage to things i did recognise and the effective use of techniques), but hollow also because it seemed to contain no message as such (tho i did think there might be a "samurai" ethics strand running through it possibly. Need the second one to decide. I never got round to disagreeing with, Holden i think it might have been, on the KB thread, that the lack of character clarity for Bill was a bad thing. I.e. i thought the potential mystery of his morality was good i.e. what we did know was that he has some "ethics" [don't kill her while she's sleeping etc], and yet the sword maker obviously felt dishonour at having been associated with him. There's a kind of samurai-like personality-subsumed by ethical-structure feel to that which appealed to me.)

Incidently, i thought Uma fitted well with the hollowness i felt, because i feel her acting has become more and more wooden and puppet-like since the Avengers farago, where she was quoted as saying she doesn't think/concern-herself about being sexy etc - it just happens she thought. It shows. Shame. She's not investing herself in her characters etc. She's become distanced from/because-of the whole proceedure perhaps. Whether or not her "fittingness" or portrayal was deliberate, again, only the last film will tell. I suspect happenstance in many ways, unfortunately

It did feel like Tarantino had scraped around for six years to find the impetus to galvanise old ideas into a new whole effectively - but i'm still not sure he's grown as a person in that time or through the making of this film - if anything he's just become a complete boy-with-his-toys/nerd-appealing-to-the-nerd-herd(on an intellectual level).

It seems interesting tho that both of Silv and Steve seem to agree in some ways that the target audience should be the knowledgable one. i.e. Steve saying it thru hommage as the bridge, and Silv talking about wanting to reach people like Holds etc, who look for meaningful re-usage of these "wheels" that keep movies going.

Personally i'm still caught up in the idea of communicating ("intellectual" and "emotional-to-instinctual") ideas to as many (types of) people as possible. But i am deciding more and more that i can't really think of any film, or examples in other media, that have achieved such a broad aim. The personalness of a book, yes, perhaps. The emotional triggering and recognition in films about specific subjects and situations, yeah. These things can change us. But reaching across to those who neither think like us nor have the same experiences. That's such a major one that i'd love to see a film achieve. (hence my disappointment in the Matrix series. Not a great example to bring to this thread, but there you go. I thought more would be brought to a popularist sphere when they decided to extend the original - in both a crisp-intellectual plus manipulative-emotional way. Heigh ho. Asking too much again)

On Steve's point about Spielberg, i agree that he keeps things fresh. But i feel his skill is to understand others' works and present, rather than to generate himself (tho in AI i suspected he failed, tho i haven't seen it to the end - just heard the ending felt traditionally-tacked-on speilberg-happy-ending - the one area where perhaps he puts too much of himself into what are others' ideas IMO).

And Piddz, what can i say, i loved the description of horizontal and vertical usage of style and content, once you'd explained it fully.

To conclude. I'm always happy to enjoy the zen-like trance an expertly, artistically made cinematic-homage movie can generate (or even a novelly created one which still focuses on the visual rather than the world-contextual/meaningful etc [heheh, i'm getting so pretentious now ;)]). But there's a big part of me that wants films to do more than that. To use style to evoke content, to carry it into our lives, to trick us into feeling it and thinking it. The people that achieve that are the Dons of this hypnotising world mefeels. And they have a responsability to know what they're "talking" about ;)

Keep up the good work guys. I'll get to work on my list of a thousand films i haven't seen ;)

Just another thing I thought about...


It is often believed, especially among people like us; film-nerds and critics and so on, that an inner artistic vision and the realization of that vision is what makes a true master. Bergman, Fellini, Almodovar and those guys may have a vision and the power to make it happen. But how come a guy like Tarantino's the undisputable champ in every camp? The audience and the critics love(d) him and you don't have to be a cinema historian or a trained intellectual to love and appreciate his films. I like the old masters, the Phanteon of cinema, but what I sometimes like even more are the directors that moves around somewhere in between the art cinema and the mainstream and gain recognition because they are able to so brilliantly describe an era or a mindset or a group of people that makes you spontaneously shout "THAT'S IT!!!". Tarantino doesn't make films about people like me, but the dialogue and the irony together with the streetwise mentality and the "drugs-are-dangerous-but-kind-of-cool" are symptomatic for the 90's. He's not only right on spot but his timing was perfect. Furthermore, Tarantino is the perfect example of the fact that any filmlover with enough passion, talent and knowledge can become a superstar director. You don't have to go to exclusive film schools. I think that at least his first two films will be remembered as 90's classics just in the same way as we remember The Godfather and Chinatown as 70's classics. And Bergman wasn't onesidedly loved by the critics in the beginning of his career. He was utterly hated and despised. But the rebellious kids kind of liked him. :D

So what am I saying with this? Only that Tarantino doesn't necessarily say more about our generation and our time than Bergman said about his generation, for example. Only that he speaks in a language that an awfully lot of people can comprehend, and with the love and respect of the almighty critics and know-it-alls kept intact. (But for how long?) What has Federico Fellini meant for the 20-30 year olds of today? In most cases, probably nothing. What has Tarantino meant for the same group of people? A lot more surely.

Yeah, his first two films definitely have a lot more "body" under their skin ;). He's zeitgeist city (and he's achieved it by "hommaging" the past - weird :)) If anything i wonder if the first two actually "created" cultural aspects - well, in the sense that everyone started saying "mother-****er" more :rolleyes: ;).

That's a ridiculously unfair comparison though. Of course Tarantino's films are going to mean more to people today. They're not "old" films.

Compare Fellini's impact on people today with Tarantino's impact on people thirty years from now. That's fair.

Ok, exchange Fellini's name to Almodovar's. Or we could compare the kind of impact Tarantino has today to the impact that Fellini had back then. And isn't The Godfather (to which I compared Tarantinos's films to as well) over 30 years old just like some of Fellini's work? Last time I checked on www.imdb.com The Godfather was still considered the best film ever.

I just think it's unfair to dismiss a film as soulless or made without visions just because it isn't introvert and explicitly about the inner demons of the director. How come The Godfather (and Pulp Fiction too, I believe) is timeless? I think it might be because it speaks an universal language and deals with some issues that will always be important instead of being a demonstration of the philisophical flavor of the month. That and of course the fact that people are always suckers for good stories, great acting and breathtaking images.

I thought the point was that Tarantino's stories weren't his.

Anyways, I think you're looking at this the wrong way; we shouldn't be considering what effect a film has had on the mass of people (the only thing demonstrated by the IMDB thing,) but rather the effect it has had on cinema as a whole.

Tarantino being a thief is only inspiring other people to be thieves.

But what about if it doesn't say anything about society, people, or anything? What if it's just gloss. A well buffed piece of fluff that still tickles some recognition muscles is still better to me (beyond technical intricacies, but that's just me). And the toffs of the filmic family tree have gotta be those Godfathers with their well-weaved tapestries.

No, then I would have championed Spielberg the most important filmmaker ever. What the IMDB thing demonstrates is that 82,330 of the people registered on the Internet Movie Database graded The Godfather to an average of 9.0/10.0, which ranks it as the most popular film among the filmloving members of that board. Nothing else. And I believe that The Godfather has had an enormous effect on cinema as a whole. In the beginning of the 70's it was one of the first films of The New Hollywood, or what is sometimes called "The Hollywood Renessaince", which was films influenced by stuff like european art cinema and indie pioneer John Cassavetes but that was told in a classical Hollywood narrative. And I don't think I have to point out what it did for the gangster/mafia genre.

I don't measure the "importance" of film by how many people like it. But it is one of the parameters that you have to take in consideration when discussing it. Another one and perhaps the most important one has to be the kind of impact the films have had on other filmmakers following films. As for Tarantino's impact I would say it is similar to the one that The Godfather and other 70's films had on cinema. There are a lot of films that can thank Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs for its success, and sometimes the fact that they were even made in the first place. The 90's were completely packed with neo-noir and/or heist movies with focus on cool characters and sharp dialogue told in flashbacks after Tarantino had entered the stage.

I suppose at this point I'm just arguing about what we should be arguing about.

Still, I agree with most of your points, but should we credit Tarantino for inspiring a style in others if it was just one he had popularized, as opposed to originated?
Perhaps, in a way, we should, but I'm only saying that his measure of influence should be considered with that in mind.

See Two Days in the Valley for proof of that.

My lord that was awful.

He he... I think that in Silver's initial post he addressed a lot of different things and it raised a number of questions: What makes a great director? How much in the films of P.T. Anderson and Tarantino is the copying of previous directors' work and how much is really "cinematic evolution"? Where do we draw the line between "borrowing", "paying homage" and "stealing" or "copying"?

I don't think we should credit Tarantino for creating the style neo-noir or any other style for that matter. But I think he definately deservs some credit for redefining it and for making something personal of it. I haven't seen every single film he has seen so I can't say whether he has stolen Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs completely. I know that he simply must have seen Kubrick's The Killing a few times and that he has watched a lot of Blaxplotation, Hong Kong movies, Spagetti Westerns, Cartoons, Heist, Noir and B-movies in general. I know for example that the use of music in Spagetti Westerns and Ennio Morricone has influenced him a lot, but I wouldn't say that he has copied Morricone or Sergio Leone.

I think one should always bear in mind what the sources to the directors influences are, but knowing the sources to Tarantino's influences doesn't really make the significance of his films lesser. And it is really not that surprising that he is borrowing heavily from other films. That's the way he knows how to make films - by watching other films. Not by being trained in a film school.

Sorry, Gollum. I didn't see this one until now...

Sure, I think you are right. In a way. But in Tarantino's case I think it says more about things of our time than most art films because his films are more part of our time than a comment on it. I think Tarantino's films are pop art, if any art genre at all. His films are filled with information about attitudes and trends of the 90's and the mouths of the future historians will be watering when they are faced with Pulp Fiction as an object for their analysis.

Ah, that is true, very true. Those films are made from social glue (those words go together far to easily ;) - at least within my precious rhyming scheme ;)) And the "grammar" he uses is a fitting hammer for driving it all home i guess :)

Kong completely missed the irony of this thread's title until just now!

A true stroke of genuis, SilverBullet.

Ah, but if an author happened to learn how to write novels by reading them, would you say that it's okay for him to plagiarise Great Expectations or Wuthering Heights? I don't think so.

Like PTA and QT, I've learnt how to make films by watching them [or rather, I've learnt what makes them work or not], but I'm not going to pay homage to them just because I can. I'm not going to steal for the sheer cleverness of it. I'm going to try and make what I've seen better, try and fix or the flaws – and even more drastically, I'm going to try to do something different, that hasn't been seen before at all.

It's not a matter of taking into account how a person learnt to make films, it's a matter of how they use or abuse that knowledge.

I don't believe I have said anywhere here that it is okay to plagiarise. And even if I did it wouldn't matter since I don't think Tarantino does plagiarise. Finally, I think a comparision to literature is not very accurate since plagiarised literature is not very hard to reveal since it is done word by word. It is far more complicated, if not even impossible, to plagiarise another movie.

To me that is what Tarantino is doing. But I guess I haven't seen the films he stole from or plagiarised. And what you consider to be flaws are probably not flaws to the filmmaker who made the film. There may be a lot of things I would like to change in a Spielberg film but then it wouldn't be a Spielberg film anymore.

Your ambition is admireable. Personally, I would rather go for a very personal film than trying to make the best film ever made.

Absolutely. And I think Tarantino is using his knowledge brilliantly, so far. (Haven't seen Kill Bill yet).

Of course not, yeah, don't let me be misunderstood. In trying to find something new, I've got no desire to give up the personal aspect of filmmaking. Punch-Drunk Love and Lost In Translation are two of the most refreshing and different movies of the decade thus far and both of them are extremely personal.

Anyway, I was just replying to get a reaction of sorts. See what you had to say and all that jazz.

:D

I have just seen Kill Bill vol. 1 and I have to say that I thought it was eaily Tarantino's poorest film so far. It was pretty spectacular and violently entertaining, but it totally lacked substance. If all Tarantino's films was like this, I would probably have agreed with Silver.

For sure.

I'm still hoping he might pull something out of the bag concerning Samurai-ethics/mind-set, but it looks like it's gonna be mainly plastic fantastic with nothing new to say.

Yeah, and Jim Jarmusch has allready made this film you're wishing for, Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai, which kicks Kill Bill's ass. Even RZA:s music was better in Ghost Dog. :D Allright now, enough! Kill Bill was a 3/5 for me and not as crappy as it might appear when I talk about it. It just wasn't great...

When I see Tarantino's thrown around with Scorsese, Ford, Bergman, Bunuel, Fellini, and so on, I have to laugh.

Quentin Tarantino is to directing what Andy Warhol is to art.

He's a Campbell Soup can compared to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

P.S. Thoughs of you that believe Kill Bill is one movie, can I ask you something?

How much did you pay to see it at the theater?

I bet it wasn't four dollars twice.

Wise Words of the Day:

"Directing" and "art" aren't even similar words. Maybe if you'd said "cinema" or "film" as opposed to "directing," or "painting" as opposed to "art," it would have made sense.

And besides, you're wrong.

How many times have you told me, when I say you're wrong, that our opinions are different and neither are right or wrong? Bad Bullet. :laugh:

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Can we finally get off this Tarantino argument. this whole thing has been done on so many threads, and the argument is becoming quite repetitive and tiresome. I realize Qt has become one of the most polarizing forces in the world of cinima today, but this has to stop. Nobody seems to be bringing anything new to this, already overhyped, debate, and it is thus becoming pretty boring.

Sorry.


With that kind of an arguement you've convinced me.


The average price of a ticket in the U.S. is eight dollars.

If you believe Kill Bill is one movie, either both films should cost four dollars, or pay for the first part, and the second is free.

I think this is a move by the studio or Tarantino to make more money.


By posting aren't you adding to the problem?


That scene cracks me up!

You don't say? God help you if you haven't noticed how Miramax likes to screw people out of money.

God help me then.

The nerve of them. :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with the quality of the movie (s), though?

Nothing really. I take it that he means that anyone who uses the "one movie" thing as a defense... has no defense. It does seem kind of ridiculous if you pay twice to see something that's supposed to be one movie.

Or at least so one would hope.

I got distracted for a while.

I was watching Quentin Tarantino's, I mean Ringo Lam's City on Fire on IFC.

Quentin Tarantino is going to be the next Spike Lee.

Starts off with a strong independent film.

The big studios notice him and give him a big budget.

Movie is a commercial and critical success.

All the money and the hype goes to his head.

Starts to live the Hollywood lifestyle.

Makes a string of forgettable movies.

The studios and his fans tire of his attitude.

Tries to win over the studios by making less personal, more commercially viable films.

Ends up being just another director.


Exactly.

There are stories that can't be well-told in one 2 or 3 hour sitting. I doubt you'd have wanted to see LOTR in one sitting, hmm?

Yes, and there are movies like Kill Bill that can't told well at all.


If the "Man With No Name" trilogy was playing at Cinerama, I'd sure as hell go to see that.

I'm not going to compare J.R.R. Tolkien's writing to Quentin Tarantino's.

I saw The Return of the King at the theater.

Besides the movie itself being three and a half hours long there was a medical emergency during the film that stopped it for half an hour.

It won an Academy Award for best editing?

Best editing my ass!

It should have won for best non-editing.

The film should have been called Lord of the Rings: The Never Ending Ending.

very witty

I think urban cowboy is right. Too many threads infected by Tarantino's man-lust. Maybe we will all learn to re-appreciate him if we leave him be. Absence makes the heart grow stronger.
And we know it works. About a year ago i wasn't so ashamed of loving Scarface like every other gangsta film fanboy, cos it sorta died down....then came roaring back along with the dvd releases.

Don't double-post.

Don't playa hate.

Silver Bullet - Thank God
 

Silver Bullet, don't back down from anything you said in your first post. You nailed it. PREACH ON BROTHA'

Dear Minotaur,

Not only was the negative reptuation that you gave me for my most recent post in this thread completely pointless [you're not a full member yet, so it didn't actually register], but the comment that you left for me didn't really make sense either.

Please learn to structure your sentences properly.

Yours sincerly,
The Silver Bullet.

Dearest Silver Bullet,

If it was so pointless why , oh why would you even deign to respond to me. You are young and smart, I am sure that if you try you can figure out what my "cryptic" message meant. And by the by I am perfectly happy with the way I structure my sentences, properly or not by your standards.

Dear Minotaur,

I realise now, reading your post, that you can indeed structure a fine sentence. Why the sentence attached to the reputation didn't make sense is beyond me.

Pointlessness, though pointless, of course, by nature, does not warrant a blind eye, hence my letter.

Anyway, I stand by the pointlessness of your rep-giving, if not by what I said about your sentences.

Good day to you sir.

Yours,
The Silver Bullet.

P.S. Let's be friends.

:D

Back to topic....

What do you guys think of the Coen brothers? I mean since the thread is about not being too wild about homage.

Which Coen Bros. films are thick with homage, do you think?

Well, Intolerable Cruelty pays homage to the screwball comedy genre and The Man Who Wasn't There pays homage to film noir. O Brother, Where Art Thou? is silent era slapstick - but with sound of course. Miller's Crossing - gangster film genre.

Seems to me that the Coens, like Tarantino, love genre film and therefore make movies.

Ummm, yeah, that's what I suspected. But you're missing the point of the thread. The discussion is about thick and obvious referencess to particular individual films, as say Pulp Fiction's use/theft of Scorsese's American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince. We're not simply talking about directors who work in genre.

The Coen's do reference the woods and some of the basic look from Bertolucci's The Conformist in their Miller's Crossing, but not in a disctracting way, or as a purpose unto itself. There's a playful nod to Dr. Strangelove as a throwaway gag in Rasing Arizona. A couple others. But basically, the Coens don't fit into this topic.

Reading the thread title and Silver's initial post I don't think there's anything saying that the discussion is only about homage to specific parts in films and not about homage to certain genres. One could wonder what personal vision the Coens have if all they want to do is to make a movie from each and every genre there has ever been. Because that's what this topic is about: directors lacking originality.

I haven't seen American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince but I understand it is a documentary. In what way has Tarantino stolen from it and where in Pulp Fiction is he using it?

Well, yes it does. That's what Tarantino and P.T. Anderson do. Granted, you do need a basic understanding of that going in, as SB didn't give specific examples, but yes, that's exactly what he's talking about.



Working in a genre does not mean you are without originality. Most films can be slotted into one or more various genres. Sorry, but that just isn't the point. Re-read the original post if you must.

Actually Joel & Ethan's films are a good example of what Tarantino doesn't do much of. While the Coens do often work in very established genres, they do so without spending time referencing a dozen particular movies note for note, and they do so with such originality that they make it into their own thing. In The Man Who Wasn't There for instance, there is no specific series of shots designed to restage Double Indemnity or The Postman Always Rings Twice or The Strange Love of Martha Ivers or any other classic Noir. They could have. It's certainly a fun film schooly kind of exercise. But they don't ever do it. To me that stuff is best for comedies, spoofs where noting the previous movie is the whole joke. Similarly, Intolerable Cruelty has no moments from His Girl Friday or Adam's Rib, The Hudsucker Proxy no restagings of The Philadelphia Story (other than Jennifer Jason Leigh's overall Kate Hepburn-like manner) or Executive Suite, The Big Lewbowski doesn't recreate The Long Goodbye or Chinatown, and on and on and on. They just don't.

In The Man Who Wasn't There, Joel & Ethan use the same basic language of the Noir, but it is totally in their style. It's populated by their strong characters, their unique dialogue, their sense of humor, and their visual style. Even though the visuals very clearly and very obviously call to mind the Noirs of yesteryear, they don't stoop to quoting and get caught up in paying homage. They use it generally, then move on into their own stories, their own visions.


Yes, way to use the IMDb. American Boy is indeed a documentary. Here is a word-for-word transcript of one key scene from it. See if you can figure out where Tarantino may possibly be paying homage to/stealing it in Pulp Fiction....

Subtle, huh? And if you called him on it, Quentin would be quick to tell you, 'Oh yeah, of course we took that from Scorsese.' But the more casual filmgoer will never have seen American Boy, and so to me it feels more like theft because the source material is obscure.

So do you seriously not see the difference between the Coens making a Noirish film in black and white and Tarantino lifting entire passages from somebody else's movie (and his films are chock full of 'em, the American Boy one is just a great example for this discussion)? THAT is what Silver Bullet was on about. And that's why, as I say, Joel & Ethan simply don't fit in such a discussion.

I've got a jolly 'ole question.

I'm sure we can all agree that intellectual theft in movies isn't anything to be admired, but is it more offensive when content is lifted, than when concept is? Many films usually take one of the other, while some go balls out to jack both.

Case and point, the Wachowski Brothers and a fantstic little film by Alex Proyas. It angers me.

They're both a sign of weakness, and both can be reprehensible. As for which is "worse" it depends on the specific films in question.

And The Matrix lifts more specific intellectual ideas from the manga/anime Ghost in the Shell than it does Dark City. But I never got the whole "wow" factor over The Matrix anyway.

Ghost in the Shell did get robbed intellectually, but the characters from Dark City and their actions and mannerisms are unmistakeably present in The Matrix.

Is it more offensive when a director (or writer) takes small things like mannerisms, or large things like overall intellectual and philosphical commentary? I'm more hurt when the personality of a movie is stolen.

It is one thing to copy someone's sentence structure, but when words are stolen...

Holden's argument is spot on, but I'm unable to give him any rep points for it; I'm always giving him rep points and the system won't let me give him anymore...!

Someone asked me recently how I can hold Tarantino in such contempt and Godard in such high regard [especially in regards to homage and genre], and I always answer in the same way that Holden has in regards to the Coens. There's a big [and important] difference between cinematic quotation and the use of generic codes and conventions.

Well, personally I love the Coens' films, but I have also enjoyed at least two of Tarantino's films. But, hey, I am just a casual filmgoer.

Ok, let's talk about De Palma, as Holden wished for in one of his previous posts (so ironically ended with "to each their own"). How is Blow Out, which owns everything to Antonioni's Blow-Up, a good movie while Pulp Fiction sucks? Has the average filmgoer seen Blow-Up? No. Then the source is obscure and should piss you off even more, right? Or you mean that De Palma's personal style is so much more personal than Tarantino's personal style so that in De Palma's case he gets away with stealing? And what about my earlier example with Bergman's quote of Sjöström's The Phantom Carriage? Is that obscure enough? Or what about Altman's Gosford Park vs Renoir's La Règle du jeu? I just wonder what makes Tarantino so much worse?

And we all know it takes more than black and white photography to make a film in film noir style. Frankly, black and white photo has not much to do with that specific style at all. And The Man Who Wasn't There has lots of noir elements in it.

And the example you gave me. Since I haven't seen Scorsese's documentary I can't say much about it, but I really don't see what is so upsetting with Tarantino dramatizing a real person's story. If it had been a drama I would have understood your grumpyness.

Thinking about Kill Bill: Vol. 1 now. I don't watch much kung fu, Hong Kong or martial arts movie at all so I don't know how much Tarantino stole for that movie. What I did feel when I saw it though was that it was the most stereotypical movie of his and also the one of his films that would be the easiest to fit into one particular genre, that is if the kung fu or Hong Kong movie is to be considered a genre. Do you, Holden or Silver or anybody else, consider Kill Bill to be Tarantino's best or perhaps most honest film? I'm asking considering what you've said about homage and genre.

I, for one, never said that Pulp Fiction sucks. In fact, I think that it's a great movie and, thus far, Tarantino's masterpiece.

Over time, however, I've come to realise that, despite its cultural significance [which usually influence such matters], it's not a perfect movie.

Yes, but it doesn't "pay homage" [or steal] from specific noir films. It knows its place, sure [it has to], and it knows the codes and conventions of the noir genre [or, depending on your position, the style, cycle or mode of production], but a Coen Brothers noir only uses the rules of the genre [usually twisting or transforming them somewhat, to be sure] where a Tarantino noir would probably wind up "quoting" sequences from every noir film this side of The Maltese Falcon.

The first method, the Coen's, requires deft originality and an understanding of the genre and its mechanics, where the second, that of Tarantino, merely requires an encyclopaedic knowledge of film history [no mean feat in itself, of course] and a "talent" for bricolage. I personally think that the first of these is the hallmark of the better filmmaker.

I think that the Kill Bill films are Tarantino's weakest yet.

Meanwhile, I see what you're suggesting in terms of them being his most "honest," and to tell you the truth, I don't know, they may well be. If so, however, I think that's sorta sad, as it just further confirms my sneaking suspicion that he has the technical talent that's required to be a master filmmaker, but not the originality.

More great posts in this thread....Still one of the more interesting threads on the boards...

Kill Bill Vol. 1
 

When you watch that film, Kill Bill Vol. 1, you can immediatly see how much is ripped off. From the opening credits and the way the film was printed and developed, to the music. With that in mind, I'd find it hard to believe Taratino was unaware of this or was trying to play it off as a style which was completely his own. Even the choreographed fight scenes can almost be matched shot for shot with some of Bruce Lee's movies.
While I don't find Tarantino the most imaginative, original, or talented director, I do give my 'props' for taking something previsouly structured and bringing it 'up to date.' Althought, this does fall into the homage department, which is 2 isles up from B horror.

Of course Tarantino "had it in mind". No-one's saying he didn't. What I'm saying is that being aware of it or not is beside the point. Either way, it's a lesser way of making movies, in my opinion.

I think it's kind of irrelevant discussing whether a film is perfect or not. There is no such thing as a perfect film. But I understand what you mean.

Well said and I can't really argue with you about this. I agree. What I have to say about it is more about personal opinion about what film really should be about (and not necessarily my own opinion).

Some (swedish) critics have argued that the Coens' films, even though they are cinematically flawless, the Coens are not interested in the real world. They want to write original stories and produce original films but not change the world or affect their audience in any direction ideologically or politically. And nothing wrong with that of course. Only that some people mean that art is supposed to serve a function in the progress of society or at least be a reflection or a comment of society or the time in which they were made. And my point is, no matter how superior the Coens are as filmmakers compared to Tarantino, that Tarantino's films (or a couple of them) have a more secured position in history (not just film history) as a time document of the 90's than the Coens ever will have.

Don't know if that made any sense....

Sure, but his previous films don't lose any credibility because of that. It's quite possible that Tarantino will never make any more movies like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. But they don't get better or worse just because his later films are not as good.

moving on....

I watched Boogie Nights last night for the fifth time or something. I can't believe I haven't noticed before that the scene where Dirk, Reed and Todd are trying to rip Rahad Jackson off at his house is a variation of the scene in Matthieu Kassovitz's brilliant La Haine where Vinz, Hubert and Saïd pay some kind of gangster a visit. La Haine was released two years before Boogie Nights and I had seen it several times before I saw Paul Thomas Anderson's story about porn actor Dirk Diggler.

I can't decide what I think about this. Anderson clearly makes something else than Kassovitz with this scene but the basic ideas are more or less copied from La Haine. Are there other scenes in Boogie Nights, which I dig, that are copied in the same way as this one?

Well, I can see how you might say that, but I'd still hasten to disagree. Just because Tarantino has a way of predicting or [in the case of his latest pictures] rewriting the zeitgeist, that doesn't make his films an accurate document of the time in which they were made. I would argue that The Big Lebowski has more to say about America in the early-90s than either Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs do [it should be noted that, while I think they have some merit, I don't particularly buy the nihilist reading of the Pulp]. There's a difference between being a document of popular culture and being a sociological document.

As far as American filmmakers go, I'd put Jarmusch and Linklater before Tarantino [and the Coens] in terms of creating cinema that speaks about now in the manner you're suggesting that Tarantino does. Comparing, say, Dead Man, Before Sunrise or The Big Lebowski to Pulp Fiction on these terms is like comparing serious analysis of where we're at to the kind of time capsule that teenagers put together using CDs and sticks of bubble gum and bury underneath flagpoles in the schoolyard.

But it's very much a matter of personal opinion, and I really do like Pulp Fiction; I just don't think that it can be approached from that angle without one seriously questioning it.

Nice analogy :).

It's gotta be said. For all Tarantino's cunning recycling of effective formats, techniques and set-pieces, has he achieved any of the social-commentary that many of those films he's pilfered from achieved and/or aimed for? Not really. Where Samurai films dealt primarily with honour and tradition, he's examined how deeply their swords could cut. Where Blaxploitation flicks tried to redefine black roles in the public eye, he's just repopularised the word 'mother****er'.

I hold up my hands and admit my ignorance when it comes to spotting scene/style recreations (my cinematic grammar is very impoverished ;)), but there seem to be two main themes on this thread now, and the second one is whether a film has to be meaningful to be good and/or to justify pure recycling of old creations. I'd say Silv is right (if i've understood him :)). A film's gotta say something about something. And ideally, something relevant to our lives (you can talk about how bubblegum gets under your feet, but you've gotta say more than that to make it replete - to end on a rhyme ;)).

I have many lady fans.
 

Along with the terms and agreement part of signing up for this forum, you should be forced to read the opening statement to this thread. All of those that tried to use the, "Okay, but...." argument are in need of some education, more specifically in the theories of screen grammar.

I think you have to seperate Tarantino the writer from Tarantino the director to get a fair assessment of his talents as filmmaker. There's no question that he writes great dialogue, but does that really tell us anything about his cinematic skills?

The problem is that once you strip away the witty dialogue what you're left with is mixture of derivative patische and wholly utilitarian filmmaking. Sure, he's technically competent, but how is he fundamentally different from, say, Steven Spielberg, who is widely criticized among cinephiles for his lack of a consistent vision or a cinematic style of his own? I submit that there is no functional difference, and that many of the same people who embrace Tarantino but dismiss Spielberg do so, not because there's a fundamental difference in their approaches to filmmaking, but because Tarantino embraces material that is sufficiently 'dark' and dismissive of 'mainstream' moral assumptions and sentiment to fit in nicely with the biases of many dedicated film fans as to what constitutes suitable material for 'serious' film.