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

Tools    





Originally Posted by Pidzilla
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.

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.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by Holdden Pike
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?
__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but
now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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.
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.



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.
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.


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?
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....

STEVEN PRINCE: We had a lot of close calls. I managed to get a lot of medical supplies, medical equipment that you wouldn't normally have. Like we had oxygen, we had an electonic stethoscope that gave a tape read-out so you could tell how many heartbeats, we had adrenaline shots, we had all kinds of stuff, these kind of shots to bring you through when you O.D.'d.

And this girl once, O.D.'d on us. And she is OUT, man. And it was myself and her boyfriend, and he said - Her heartbeat was droppin' down, and we got everything out, oxygen, and nothing was working. And he looked at me and he says, "Well, you're gonna have to give her an adrenaline shot." I said, "What are you talkin' about?" I said. "You give it to her." He said, "I can't, it's like a doctor working on someone in his own family." I said, "BULLSH!T, you've known her TWO DAYS, what the fu*k is that?!?" And he said, "No, I can't do it."

So we had the medical dictionary. You know how to give an adrenaline shot? OK, an adrenaline needle is about T-H-I-S big, and you gotta give it into the heart. And you have to put it in in a stabbing motion, and then plunge down on the thing. I got the medical dictionary, looked it up, got a magic marker, made a magic marker of where her heart was, measured down like two or three ribs and measured in between them. And I just stood there and I went *HUH*, and *RRRRRRRR*, *snap*, she came back like that. She just came right back, *SNAP*, like that.

- American Boy: A Profile of Steven Prince (1978 - Scorsese)
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.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
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.
__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.



Originally Posted by OG-
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.



In Soviet America, you sue MPAA!
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.
__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com



I am having a nervous breakdance
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.



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
How is Blow Out, which owns everything to Antonioni's Blow-Up, a good movie while Pulp Fiction sucks?
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.

Originally Posted by Piddzilla
And The Man Who Wasn't There has lots of noir elements in it.
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.

Originally Posted by Piddzilla
Do you, Holden or Silver or anybody else, consider Kill Bill to be Tarantino's best or perhaps most honest film?
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.



A system of cells interlinked
More great posts in this thread....Still one of the more interesting threads on the boards...
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



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 am having a nervous breakdance
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
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.
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.

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.
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....

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.
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?



Originally Posted by Piddzilla
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.
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.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by The Silver Bullet
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
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 ).
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



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.