Reply to Topic
I don't like to turn my thoughts tO Tarantino's pre-eminence in cinema these days too often, not because the subject genuinely makes me steam up (although the inclination of such a dumb sensory overload is really what Tarantino would be aiming to provoke in his audience) and not because it is for such intrinsically simple reasons that it's not worth saying. I could say that there is almost defiantly no sense of morality - which is half true, but then if Lawrence Bender is to be believed, Pulp Fictions is about "justice" (all that biblical slant about the taking the "righteous path"), and Kill Bill Vol 2, in its thinness of plot a quintesssentially purgatorial film, is perhaps his weakest film. Th reason Ron Howard is more distinctly remebered for his stint in "HAPPY dAYS" than for his 17 hardly unproductive Hollywood projects is that his palpable "morality" is of an only semi-conscious, homely kind, rather than the more nuanced logistical canvas for individualism and existentialism that Tarantino's outings may have pretentions of being.
The simple fact is this:the effusive self-indulgence and manipulative sensationalism, and the fundamentalism of the ordinating tools of our modern day existence completely miss the point about scope, and for this reason Tatantino's films, however resourceful and eclectic they may be (why don't I ever here plagiaristic?), they are all singularly introspective, flashy, substanceless tripe from the School of Elite MTV Videos. Stanley Kubrick said of 2001 (which by the way I also think is over-rated) that it "seeks to ask more questions than it is answered", which if it wasn't for his misanthropic snobbishness, he would have said was the code of action for all dramatic works. Tarantino may be sharp, sassy, the thing of the moment,but his imagination is not plastic enough to founder crystallise the human condition and its psyche through anything but the indolent pop culture that strangles the after-hours of the Capitalist "happy medium". It seems that the creative energy of youth has waned and replaced by the hedonistic self-fulfilment of Marilyn Glastonbury, Retro Rock, booze, and the polarisation - not of political beliefs, which at least was polemical, if perhaps often dangerous - of taste. Taste, the exploring facet which we humans alone have, has in some ways collapsed. And Tarantino, the servant of all this, has strung the precipitates of materialism and self-glory in a human sympathy concordant with the audience, and has bulked it out refreshingly, in a way old films used to as a formality.
But Tarantino makes good films. Not brilliant films. Not evenntially brilliant films. He tricks us only a crudely as Hitchcock did, but will never manage the breadth of idolic moments or searing clarity. Because he is not original. He moves from Brian De Palama split-screen to Sergio Leone close up to John Ford long shot to Kurosawa lucid-composition to a Robert Altman sustain-shot, and stamps it with his whizzy contemporary fervour; but only a moment of gut-wrenching violence or limerick-style frivolous verbal jousting will he fashion a memorable moment. There is a name for this kind
of stuff... it's.. oh, that's it... Pulp Ficition, its called.
Many I'm wrong - maybe my cant is out. But my conviciton is that if Kill Bill and Jacky Brown are nothing but the most obscure of "cult classics" in twenty years, and Tarantino nothing more than a beleagured and washed up serenely as John Carpenter presently seems to be, then the film industry is sliding further than I had mentioned.
One last thing, before I prompt some responses: Tarantino said, before the April release of Kill Bill Vol 2, that he wanted the audience to be more like a rock concert than that of a theatre, as some of us hopefully still call them. He also expressed the desire to "make the audience's emotions spin on a ****in' dime!" So: "Oscar Wilde once sais "in poetry, no reaction was sometimes the best reaction". Now, if I've read right, during the premiere appearance of Mozart's "Dry Your Tears Africa", the audience met it with only the humble submissive awe befitting of a powerful creation of original genius. Cut to 1984, Mozart presents "Dry Tears Africa".. to a riotous applause. You might even say he was "spinning the audience's emotions on a ****in' dime", that it was like a "rock concert". Its not that opular culture has perverted the medium... its just that the '90s culture was a direct product of TV and film.
PS: I respect Tarantino for his talent. For his visual languidity, he has a strong grasp of narrative techniques, and gives each film an "edge", I could simplistucally say.
PSS: If you get actually get through this mammoeth thread... can we take the argument further? Or just a simple case of cordial agreement wouldn't go amiss.
The simple fact is this:the effusive self-indulgence and manipulative sensationalism, and the fundamentalism of the ordinating tools of our modern day existence completely miss the point about scope, and for this reason Tatantino's films, however resourceful and eclectic they may be (why don't I ever here plagiaristic?), they are all singularly introspective, flashy, substanceless tripe from the School of Elite MTV Videos. Stanley Kubrick said of 2001 (which by the way I also think is over-rated) that it "seeks to ask more questions than it is answered", which if it wasn't for his misanthropic snobbishness, he would have said was the code of action for all dramatic works. Tarantino may be sharp, sassy, the thing of the moment,but his imagination is not plastic enough to founder crystallise the human condition and its psyche through anything but the indolent pop culture that strangles the after-hours of the Capitalist "happy medium". It seems that the creative energy of youth has waned and replaced by the hedonistic self-fulfilment of Marilyn Glastonbury, Retro Rock, booze, and the polarisation - not of political beliefs, which at least was polemical, if perhaps often dangerous - of taste. Taste, the exploring facet which we humans alone have, has in some ways collapsed. And Tarantino, the servant of all this, has strung the precipitates of materialism and self-glory in a human sympathy concordant with the audience, and has bulked it out refreshingly, in a way old films used to as a formality.
But Tarantino makes good films. Not brilliant films. Not evenntially brilliant films. He tricks us only a crudely as Hitchcock did, but will never manage the breadth of idolic moments or searing clarity. Because he is not original. He moves from Brian De Palama split-screen to Sergio Leone close up to John Ford long shot to Kurosawa lucid-composition to a Robert Altman sustain-shot, and stamps it with his whizzy contemporary fervour; but only a moment of gut-wrenching violence or limerick-style frivolous verbal jousting will he fashion a memorable moment. There is a name for this kind
of stuff... it's.. oh, that's it... Pulp Ficition, its called.
Many I'm wrong - maybe my cant is out. But my conviciton is that if Kill Bill and Jacky Brown are nothing but the most obscure of "cult classics" in twenty years, and Tarantino nothing more than a beleagured and washed up serenely as John Carpenter presently seems to be, then the film industry is sliding further than I had mentioned.
One last thing, before I prompt some responses: Tarantino said, before the April release of Kill Bill Vol 2, that he wanted the audience to be more like a rock concert than that of a theatre, as some of us hopefully still call them. He also expressed the desire to "make the audience's emotions spin on a ****in' dime!" So: "Oscar Wilde once sais "in poetry, no reaction was sometimes the best reaction". Now, if I've read right, during the premiere appearance of Mozart's "Dry Your Tears Africa", the audience met it with only the humble submissive awe befitting of a powerful creation of original genius. Cut to 1984, Mozart presents "Dry Tears Africa".. to a riotous applause. You might even say he was "spinning the audience's emotions on a ****in' dime", that it was like a "rock concert". Its not that opular culture has perverted the medium... its just that the '90s culture was a direct product of TV and film.
PS: I respect Tarantino for his talent. For his visual languidity, he has a strong grasp of narrative techniques, and gives each film an "edge", I could simplistucally say.
PSS: If you get actually get through this mammoeth thread... can we take the argument further? Or just a simple case of cordial agreement wouldn't go amiss.
Nice going Delila 
