Quentin Tarantino's Mom

Well, the distinction here is that these critics tend to be from more academic fields like history, sociology, those familiar with the documents and writings of that time. Again, these critics mostly don't seem bothered about the revisionism, per se, but in certain assumptions about the period that remained unexamined. I don't think that these are marginal issues, and I don't think that Tarantino should be so brittle about them, other than having an eggshell for an ego.


The history teacher whose article I linked earlier was speaking to how much effort has been necessary to disabuse notions like this, that slaves were somehow docile and complacent and maybe even complicit in their own enslavement. It's this aspect which enduces shame, and it also perpetuates a fatalistic myth about why they were enslaved in the first place. It's true that the history of this period is largely obscured in education, when it isn't outright controversial. I understand that Tarantino has no academic background (neither do I, fwiw), but there's a difference between a filmmaker who, taking on a historical subject that remains fraught with significance and controversy, will shoulder the responsibility to do so respectfully given the best information on that subject available, and a filmmaker who would rather wing it and inadvertently regurgitate common but inaccurate (and a little insulting) stereotypes about the people most afflicted by this subject. Considering how Tarantino envisioned this film as the touchstone for future generations, the fact that he's in the latter camp is unfortunate.



I don't begrudge Tarantino's intentions. I honestly don't think he's examined his motives or projections in this particular case. He's obstinate when it comes to considering his own flaws.


I think I placed all of Tarantino's films on my top 100 of the decade list, and probably only Kill Bill would miss the 100 from the aughts. I'm also a fan of his considerable talents. I wish he was a little smarter, maybe. I don't consider pointing out these flaws, especially when they reinforce the central theme of his recent work (revenge), is inconsistent with being a fan. If I wasn't a fan, I probably wouldn't care. But since his revenge fantasy (No Elvis Cadillac For Mommy) is such a substantial element of his work, it needs to be critically examined, and I don't really think many modern film critics have bothered to. Maybe they don't want to upset him.


I won't bother with 'better' or 'worse'. I think what sets Tarantino apart is that he's made his revenge sagas so dependent on classic social justice scenarios. You can't really separate the history of the Holocaust or slavery from Basterds and Django. It's embedded in the material. Since Tarantino is projecting what is largely a personal revenge fantasy onto these sprawling histories with millions of affected people still living today, it's a case of where does his personal prerogative end and social responsibility begin? A lot of filmmakers, and other artists, have been equally arrogant, and there's a whole sub-genre of films today which seem to think that their massaging of the narrative will actually solve real-world issues. But Tarantino always seems to have it both ways: his films are lauded as socially significant by their champions and as singularly personal visions by their defenders. In a way, I also have to admire someone who could pull this off, but the value of his films as socially significant increasingly looks to me as a wild overappraisal.

Not worth responding too much to any of that, I think we've mostly identified the disagreement, wherever it may be, and have hashed out the "costs" and "benefits" of his choices here.

Only thing worth maybe talking about a little more is the bit about Tarantino's films being lauded as "socially significant." I guess he sort of thinks they might be. I don't really think of them that way. I find them cinematically significant, for reasons obvious enough I probably don't even have to list them, but if he thinks he's making some kind of contribution to race relations with Django, or taking a swipe at anti-Semitism with Basterds, that's pretty silly, to me. I think the furthest I'd go there is saying that both films are maybe a testament to the empowering nature of art in the face of tragedy.

Tarantino can be a fun film maker, one of the greats though? Oh hell no, in fact hes gotten too longwinded in his projects, meaning his films are longer and longer but theres no extra content. Hes so in love with himself he narrated Hateful Eight. That voice narrating a western?! Somewhere a Texan wept. Oh, and I guess hes a crap son too.

This kind of talk has definitely diminished over the past decade. I would say the period between the two films, 09-12, was when it was at a peak. That's also the time when Joss Whedon was celebrated as a feminist



But I still see some try to make hay out his general enthusiasm for revenge, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this didn't inform the current amount of vindictiveness in our culture to some extent, which I see as having increased since those years. I take issue with those who push this 'philosophy of vengence', as I pointed out earlier, in a political sense, and these two films are, superficially anyway, politically charged.



I appreciate them as well-made fantasies. The spite in them is souring on me though.

A not incorrect assessment.


"I make hard dick movies." - Quentin Tarantino

Ain't nothing wrong with that.


*checks pants*

Hey, mom! This dick don't write checks!

Slightly off topic, but I remember when Kill Bill came out critics noticed similarities between KB and a 60’s Truffaut revenge thriller called The Bride Wore Black, with a similar plot.

QT claimed to have never watched it, although I found that hard to believe, although plausible I guess, but what was your take on that claim?

For a while there, he claimed not to know anything about City on Fire either.

Didn't he dedicate the Reservoir Dogs screenplay to Chow Yun-Fat as well?


Sure, Quentin, we believe you.

Have reread this thread. Am re-watching How to Get Away with Murder, end of season 1. The mother comes to a successful daughter’s house and does nothing but insult her and everyone around, purposefully calling her by the wrong name (these days it’s almost a crime, with pronouns, at least, but when it’s a parent - no questions asked), expecting respect in return. We get this all the time in cinema, the rough old tough-as-nails no-nonsense Momma. It’s either played for laughs or as a warning for the adult protagonist not to “mess with Momma”.

It seems like some people find it perfectly acceptable for mothers to insult children while they can’t defend themselves under the excuse that mothers have been “wiping their arse” (as if the kids asked to be born), but when adult children fight back, oh, they are terrible monsters who should keep their mouths shut and have RESPECT. Why on Earth would one be on the mother’s side here?

I understand that certain cultures are more into “respecting parents” than others (the religious upbringing bit certainly plays a part). I do love it that Annalise had the guts to send her mother home, but of course, as per softie commercial film guidelines, she takes that back and keeps swallowing ****. We hardly ever see another model get any airtime, where people pick their self-respect up off the floor and stop cowering to mothers.

The woman is an absolute bitch, as I’m sure Tarantino’s mother was. That kind of behaviour merits no respect, and being a parent and shouting how someone came out of your vagina is no license to be a bitch. But this entire thread sees Tarantino vilified for taking care of himself, his well-being, practising (yoga-speak alert!) self-care. If he needed to publicly shame her, that’s the least he deserves as therapy. Why is it that people assume one has to pay a mean parent’s bills and keep their mouth shut, what kind of masochism is that? What Tarantino’s mother said, with the exaggerated quote marks and ridiculing someone’s calling/vocation while that person is in his formative years and full of self-doubt, is abuse.

I have seen enough monster mothers in my family (am ironically extremely close with mine, which might be because she’s seen enough of it too to know better than behave this way), and I find it distasteful that what my father would call “Hollywood” (but what is really western cinema) constantly excuses bad mothers (especially when it comes to relationships between mothers and adult, successful children). It’s like we can’t possibly admit that mothers can be bitches and that someone can fight back and, yes, win by force. No, we always need the reconciliation plot to soften things.

My grandmother survived the siege of Leningrad, as did her own mother. For the uninitiated, in short, that was 3 years during WW2 when people ate boiled timber and each other’s dead frozen bodies to survive. At the end of the war when things got a bit better, my grandmother took one piece of caramel from the kitchen without asking (someone had brought it from abroad as a present after the siege ended). Her mother beat her for it so badly she was left bleeding. My grandmother remembered that until the day she died.

This thread is, alas, mostly about life rather than any kind of artificial reality.