Quentin Tarantino's Mom

Agreed, they're not, they're just not identical. Not everything that is good to analyze is good to discuss (again, relatively speaking).

That might be what makes them compelling to write about, but I think that also makes that writing less transferable to others. You said it yourself, really: less explicit, more non-verbal. It seems almost banal to note that anything non-verbal is less conducive to discussion.

The only thing I get out of QT, he's the most "Hit & Miss" director out there.

Thanks for the OP, JJ. Never knew this story, yet always considered him somewhat of a twat.

Well, I did reference the last part, I didn’t ignore it. I mean, “revisionism” can just be seen as a form of time travel without the obvious sci-fi element, so just a way of exploring the “What if…?” of a particular outcome that didn’t actually happen. Don’t see why it has to be political.

He does, of course, give his films a political dimension… to a degree. But I think it’s a bit like back in the day when everyone was bending over backward arguing how Kill Bill is a feminist film. I don’t think it is, particularly, except for the kind of basic and obvious idea that “women can exact revenge too!”. Given what we’ve seen in Grindhouse, I think Tarantino is more comfortable with half-naked women pole-dancing, so to me, whatever feminist gaze is applied to his work is applied post-factum and is not entirely authentic.

Same with “political”. I think that even if he ostensibly argues his films are political, to him they are, above all, entertainment. This is, naturally, unfalsifiable, but I think his other stuff, such as The Hateful Eight, shows he’s not really much into social commentary. He probably just doesn’t quite want to stoop to Eli Roth’s level (and why should he?), so he adds something beyond violence.

I don’t disagree. I just think that calling for and enforcing such restrictive standards is, once again, not conducive to making good art (“commercial entertainment product”, before someone corrects me).

If Tarantino/his successor will have to submit a 15-page project proposal with historical references and academic sources before another revisionist history film is “greenlit”, I don’t see what good it will do. Just more bureaucracy and mundanity in place of Tarantino’s raw, unfiltered talent.

It narrows the crowd of those willing to discuss it, for sure. But the non-verbal aspect offers a lot of creative potential for exploring what is verbal virgin territory, which can be exciting. Malick makes me want to write a new language. But I also like dancing to architecture. There's a few of us out here.

Because he's addressing specifically political issues.

They're both political and entertaining.

There's quite a bit of social commentary in 8 as I can remember, concerning American Civil War dynamics especially.

I don't see knowledge as such a burden as you do. Ignorance is not purity. Read a book, Quentin. It won't ruin you.

True, but I feel like it really gets kind of lost in people being made to walk naked in the snow and all. To me that shows that QT uses social commentary for slightly exploitative entertainment purposes. I never had an impression he was interested in it, subjective as that statement obviously is.

At least that ain’t aimed at me. I’m sure it won’t, but when working on a particular project, it’s common for artists to consciously minimise external influence and avoid “extra” information that can detract from the intended spirit of the project at hand.

But you’re right, actually, I do feel (feel, don’t think, it’s an emotional point) that often knowledge is a huge nuisance and brings nothing but disappointment. Ignorance sure isn’t purity, but there is that point where you can stop digging for more context, and I think it’s important to recognise that.

I usually find aesthetics and technical matters a bit more satisfying to analyze/discuss than narrative, partially because I'm frequently indifferent to the particulars of plot and find discussions around it tend to devolve into "gotcha" exchanges ("see, actually the movie is bad because of..." plot detail that I didn't care enough about to commit to memory).

I should also note that I'm bad at longer discussions and prefer to lay out my points in one or two posts and leave it at that.*

Personally, I don't waste a lot of time thinking of the historical accuracy or the deeper philosophical questions in a QT film. I see him as little more than cinema at its most beautifully empty headed. It's not that he doesn't have any thoughts,per se, only they've never been ones I'm Interested in. QT lives or dies with how visceral and inventive his films are. Toss the rest for all I care.


But, that said, by the nature of his ****ty personality and the things he tries to claim as elements of his greatness, he definitely deserves to be called out on his bull****. And I don't think it has much to do with politics, really. Just not wanting a dopey loudmouth to absorb credit he doesn't deserve.


FTR I love Tarantino. All of it. even if I would never want to spend two minutes with the guy

Indeed. That’s just how I think of it. And I think he’s well aware that’s how he’s usually perceived by people.

Depends on the artist. Some can capitalize and find creative inspiration in the most unusual details. The Coens talked about having to have some studio stooge follow them around while on set and making constant notes on what they should or shouldn't do in scenes based on some classified tome of studio marketing wisdom. Naturally, they mostly ignored this person, but they pointed out that occasionally, the suggestions would be either so awful or absurd that they would find a way to incorporate them as jokes in the film. Creative people always look for opportunities, and that's really what research amounts to, opportunities to springboard ideas, visuals and characters. Artists like details.


Tarantino also runs into a conundrum because the films under discussion are not autobiographical, but QT purporting to speak for other people's perspectives. In such a case, there is a responsibility to take those people's concerns into account, and to maybe brush up on their history and stuff. Hollywood is more autobiographical, in the sense that it represents Tarantino's familiar childhood of a specific culture of LA and the culture of television at that time that constructs a lot of QT's personal nostalgia. I think that may be why it's also less irritating than his condescending and hostile reaction to the critics of those prior films (which only appeared in his reactions to the Bruce Lee thing recently). And, while I wouldn't exactly recommend his paperback version, it shows pretty clearly that Tarantino is as detail-obsessed as the most meticulous filmmakers, so his brushing off some details when they're proven to be careless or lazy is just a cop-out in his case. He's still irrationally defensive and insecure about these issues.

Very good. Now get out

I'm being treated worse than QT's mother.

There are consequences for posting pithy one-liners.


No Nightbeast Nissan for Rocky.

Makes sense. Fascinating about the Coens.

I have actually thought in the past that the fact Tarantino draws on black history and themes quite so liberally is unusual, increasingly unusual in the contemporary context. And risky, and could perhaps have been approached differently (with more care) in almost every case. I’m not disputing that.

But I also have thought, often, that to me it’s kind of encouraging that Tarantino and others can (still, I bet that won’t last long) do that, i.e. use someone’s history only inasmuch as it’s relevant to the plot and not be obligated to “do it justice”. It’s a miracle he’s been able to get as far as he has drawing on black history at all.

I happened to stumble upon an article relating the whole Carey Mulligan-Variety drama to do with Promising Young Woman yesterday. All the guy said, to be clear, is that Mulligan is not the obvious choice to play a heartbreaker vamp, while also calling her a “fine actress” or something. I actually think he missed the point completely, because the character is not meant to have been “the hottest girl in town”, far from it. But he’s allowed to have an opinion.

But what struck me about the article is that when all is said and done, the fact Variety apologised to Mulligan demonstrates the era of censorship is really creeping up on us faster than I would have thought. And if Tarantino eventually caved in (which I doubt he will) and stopped drawing on black history, or, as with the Variety example, just started doing it in a “socially acceptable way” where everything is portrayed exactly as the mob likes (which, again, I doubt), that to me would seem like a crying ****ing shame. Pre-empting comments about “apples and oranges”, the association sparked in my mind and I find the comparison appropriate.

Also, why “irrationally” insecure and defensive? Everyone is insecure in their own way, again, what’s the problem with Tarantino being insecure? I could equally argue that anyone unhappy with their representation is insecure, why don’t they just brush it off and carry on? When Tarantino became a filmmaker, he didn’t sign a pledge promising to be “mature” and “ooze confidence”, as far as I know. Why do we demonise insecurity so much? And it’s not that he’s been “proven”, as you say, to have been careless. He chose to be meticulous about one thing more than another.

Yeah, kinda like, I dunno, Bridgerton or The Favourite taking liberties with British aristocracy? Some people get really bent out of shape about that stuff, don't they? The key difference is that unlike those latter examples, Tarantino has somewhat self-righteously imbued his revisionism with political significance, the revisions being a comment on that history, and specifically a "social justice" significance for these subjects, meaning that he should have probably "done it justice" as a matter of thematic consistency and social respect.


You can't really champion yourself, as QT has, as the savior of a peoples' history, and then respond to those people as "the mob" when they are critical of the portrayal. QT, thankfully, hasn't gone that far, publicly anyway. But it's still a cop-out when you're aggrandizing your films for having this significance, and then responding to certain criticisms, when shown to be legitimate inconsistencies, by shrugging "it's only entertainment, folks". It's good to know that the former was BS all along, I suppose, but it isn't hard to wonder why some people represented by QT's revenge fetishes may feel that their history is being a little exploited in the service of his brand.


In QT's case, it's the false bravado that is the side effect of his insecurities that has become so irritating. Most artists are insecure, and some wear it on their sleeves better than others. QT denies insecurity while revealing it through these petty little tantrums he throws whenever he's stuck in a position of having to admit a mistake or forced into self-reflection. It matters in his case because this insecurity/false bravado complex happens to be a major factor in why some of his recent films are so incongruent between intention and execution.



No, it's proven. It isn't just that QT was careless in his research, but has a tendency to double down in embarrasing ways that suggest 'careless' may be the more generous word for it. Like the Bruce Lee thing. QT cited two books to support his portrayal, and in both cases the actual text of these books contradicted what he claimed that they said. It's funny how his respect for his subjects diminish when his own ego is on the line.

I respect sarcasm, but I wonder why engaging in these discussions AGGRIEVES you so much as to always be sarcastic towards me. As I said, I love The Favourite. To me, and I always write in these exchanges that these are only my personal views, but perhaps I need to capitalise or bold that, the two are not alike. I understand that you disagree, but a kind reminder: that doesn’t make anyone “right” or “wrong”. It’s called “difference of opinion”.

Incidentally, your comment above comes off like you enjoy potentially “catching me out”. A few of your comments come off that way. And yes, that’s not your problem, some jokes are better than others, blah, blah, blah. It’s just that as I keep reiterating, eventually, it discourages one from engaging in earnest discussion, and I would hope that’s what everyone is here to do.

I see a pretty obvious difference between inventing a sexual relationship that most likely wasn’t there and making it graphic and central to the plot and focussing on an obviously fictional revenge/liberation plot and a “love story” between Django and his wife over the historical “lived” (except they are all dead, of course) experience of a group of people which, if one were to attempt that ambitious feat, would probably all disagree about their ancestors’ experiences anyway.

I honestly see absolutely no similarity there. Whether or not one particular group of slaves was or wasn’t aware of the Northern Star is in my view something that is harder to interpret as “obviously true or untrue” and historically in/accurate than implying that lesbian orgies ran wild and unchecked in Anne’s palace.

Because to me, a single fictional individual who is not a real historical figure can be made to do almost anything. That’s the point of fiction. Turning the historical establishment of Queen Anne’s palace into a lesbian haven is far more obviously “incorrect”. I’ve used the word “obviously” liberally in the above, because, well, to me the difference is clear as day. (I would take no issue with two fictional “handmaidens” in the above context being made to have an affair, if they existed in the story largely independently of the court. This is what Orlando did, with Queen Elizabeth I existing as a mere backdrop for the story, one among many.)

In the same way, there was almost certainly not a single black or non-white person in Queen Charlotte’s court, and Queen Charlotte herself was also, well, quite definitely, according to many reputable historians and genealogists, of easily traceable German-European ancestry with not a trace of African blood. Or, statistically speaking, there could be one. To suggest that a full court of black people during Queen Charlotte’s era can be compared with a few non-historical figures in Django being unaware of the Northern Star is, ahem, ludicrous.

I see zero parallels between the two, and if you disagree, that’s perfectly fine. But your incessant attempts to “catch” people being inconsistent are, frankly, tiring and perplexing. Especially as I’ve argued repeatedly that I don’t believe anyone is, or should particularly aim to be, consistent in their views.

To recap: Tarantino’s fictional slaves are not real people. Queen Anne and Queen Charlotte were.

Yes, it is probably a cop out. So what? It’s their problem that they are unhappy. As your own example with Tarantino’s references shows, he won’t be able to keep people happy, no matter what he does. So it’s perfectly possible and likely that he engages in these discussions out of mere politeness. (Or as a form of entertainment, imagine that!)

Anyway, I think you and I are just looking at this from completely different angles. Which is interesting to me. No one ever seems keen to answer the question why the endlessly dogged artists should even care, perhaps because it has no answer. As Rita Moreno said in relation to In the Heights, “You can never do right, it seems.” If someone had skin, as they seemed to suggest they do, in Tarantino getting it right, they should have instilled themselves among his unpaid consultants and held his hand every step of the way in terms of historical accuracy, whilst also keeping everything in line with his artistic intentions. “Be my guest.” It’s the easiest thing in the world to diss people from the sidelines.

So I genuinely wish Tarantino all the best with continuing not to care and happily mangling his references.

I agree that in the ideal world, he should have said explicitly that he thinks taking even more care would have been detrimental to the product and stuck it out. But, what with the mobs, I don’t blame him for not doing so. However, given that his next film is, for now, at least, expected to be his last, he might just do that if anything like that arises again.

EDIT: seeing as “AGGRIEVES” is such a big deal…

I'm just aggregatable, I guess.


In regards to what we're discussing (QT's careless regard for social context) I've only been pointing out those things which can be ascertained as facts. For the progressive European Jewish community of the 1930s targeted by fascists, the notion of torture would have been widely anathema to their values. The North Star was a sacred totem that was widely venerated by American slave cultures. Bruce Lee never claimed that he could beat up Muhammad Ali. Etc, etc. These issues are not eligible for opinion, they're facts. You don't appear to have much interest in refuting these facts, instead going the route of "doesn't matter", which is as much of a cop-out as QT. It certainly matters to the people that QT is pretending to be the hero for. Now the opinion aspect would concern not the fact that QT has made these mistakes, but in how these mistakes threaten the core thrust of his revisionism, which again by his and his acolytes' own admission has a definite and righteous purpose. I haven't really seen you engage in this, instead opting for "doesn't matter", which is an opinion, but not a very solid one on which to stand.



I'm not sure I see the same difference that you do. The difference that I see is that Queen Anne (who is also dead, btw) possibly having lesbian tendencies doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of political resonance as a revenge plot intended to correct a historical moral injustice. I find them incomparable in a completely different way. As for what the scholarship for slave culture says about the lived reality, I'd say it probably would help to read about it. Concerning slavery, there are some remarkable consistencies and consensus. Rather our current understanding of these conditions are poor because, maybe, white people don't like discussing it in schools? I dunno.


In fact, it's quite easy to ascertain the significance of the North Star in slave culture. I understand that you're unfamiliar with this, but that doesn't make it less certain.


And "historical fiction" obviously blurs these distinctions, but the greater point is that Tarantino claimed to have made Django in order to alleviate the pain of "some black kid" from the actual history. Therefore, it very much carries a sociopolitical significance that neither Bridgerton nor The Favourite have.


Well, I don't like fopps. I don't watch foppy soap operas. But if the creators of Bridgerton have claimed that they added black faces to the royal court of their racist oppressors in order to make modern audiences feel more comfortable, then I would agree that would be a historical perversion, and one which would benefit the royal racist oppressors more by dishonestly painting them as totally not blood-obsessed racist flesh merchants. But I was under the impression that Bridgerton was entirely fictitious *shrug*


That's insanity. If you don't want to have a discussion, involving the give-and-take inherent in such an endeavor, the that's fine. But if you're trying to make a point that you expect anyone to take seriously, maybe it should have some kind of consistent logic to it. Otherwise, maybe you prefer listening to yourself without any responses whatsoever? I'm not obligated to entertain anyone's inconsistency.


Disingenuous. The film relates to real history with real people in it, and these real people are people that Tarantino has claimed he was doing it for.


But he doesn't engage these discussions. He does what you're doing, brushing them off with "so what?" Or in his words, "suck a dick".


Tarantino? I think he's doing all right for himself in this world. It's weird how some people have more of a petulent entitlement to never be wrong than others.


That's sounds plausible. Anyway, if you're actually, maybe, curious about the substance of these issues, you could always brush up yourself. There's a world of wisdom out there. (And before you respond with something like "why should I care?", ask yourself why I should care about your carelessness first. It'll save us both some time.)


I'm still not sure who these people are.

Why are you editing your posts hours later anyway?

Obviously meant “aggrieved”, but see, sarcasm again. Do you think that makes you look “objectively right”, as you like to say?

(Still haven’t seen you acknowledge you were wrong about “force majeure” not applying to actions by individuals/ groups of individuals…? Ah well, we must be too proud, like poor Tarantino).