This thread reminds me much of my thoughts on Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy. I used to dislike Peter Jackson (and still do to a degree) but the more I thought about it, the happier I was that he was chosen to direct the trilogy (I have a point I promise) I was happy because he would not try to leave his 'directorial style stamp' on the trilogy, but instead make a definitive cinematic capturing.
Jackson let you know it was a Jackson film. The long, bloated, exposition with sweeping camera angles and waves of CGI imagery is Jackson all over.
So let me get this straight, you're calling Peter Jackson, the creator of such films as Bad Taste, The Frighteners, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Crossing the Line, an auteur, but not Tarantino whose films are soaked in thematic Tarantino elements every time through? The long sweeping camera angles reminded me much more of literary Lord of the Rings than previous Peter Jackson pieces.
You say Tarantino is not original, that all of his movies are rip-offs of seventies exploitation flicks, but this isn't quite the case. It's a matter of originality through cliche. Yes, Tarantino was inspired by many exploitation films from the seventies and happened to utilize the elements that have inspired all of his films to date. It would be unlikely that one would compare the abstract expressionist, Jackson Pollack to Quentin Tarantino. However, the two share an commonality different than many others. There are those that look at a Jackson Pollack painting and state that he or she could easily replicate his masterpiece. But that's just the case, Pollack was the first and remains the best at it, just as Tarantino in films.
That being said I love auteurs, my favorite directors are auteurs, Tarantino at the top of them, but when it comes to the Bond movies I feel a director who won't feel the overwhelming need to leave his stamp is more appropriate than a director who wants to make a movie in his vein. To me Tarantino making a Bond movie is as much a thought as Burton making a Bond movie - both directors I love, but neither would I chose to make a Bond film. If they would I would without question love the movie as a Tarantino movie, or a Tim Burton movie, but I love watching Bond movies that feel like Bond movies.
Hitchcock was an auteur, Clampett was an auteur, Lumet is an auteur, Scorsese is an auteur, Tarantino is just noise. I don't think Tarantino should be in that camp just because he just adds alot of booms and bangs and dose just more compitently compared to weaker directors of today. Sure if you dig if you can find some substance in Tarantino's work but it's too much to be done. Auteur, and I mean in it's strongest possible terms, is a word that belongs to a few a elite in Hollywood in it's entire history. Tarantino does not deserve that discription.
Auteur is not a word to describe the elite, and the founders of this coining would be most disgraced to hear anyone put it like that. Tarantino embodies Autuer. Autuers are not mainstream sell outs, Auteurs do not always make films that everybody is guaranteed to love, hell, Auteurs don't always make films their fans are guaranteed to love - they do one thing and one thing only, make the films that they want to make, without Producer influence, or the current tastes of society. You call him trendy and cool - last I checked the kids in school who did nothing but talk about movies were not considered the cool ones, nor were the fans to date - they were the nerds, the rejects, the one nobody could hold a conversation with. There's nothing cool or trendy about that.
Moreover I agree entirely with Dan Same. This is a post about whether or not Tarantino should direct a Bond film, which we've been in unison about. There was no need to move into the realm of arguing Tarantino's worth as a filmmaker of his genre, unless of course you wanted to start your very own Tarantino bashing post in our off-topic chat. In which I'd feel you're more than welcome to do.
QT has a knack for genre, and can adjust for the specific genre he's working in quite well. I think he'd bring a welcome flair to Bond. Not a fan of every film he's made but dude can direct and would create a decent enough Bond film IMO (certainly no worse than the Glen disasters, Campbell's mismashes, Apted's mess, and Tamahori's WTF??). 2 cents.
So let me get this straight, you're calling Peter Jackson, the creator of such films as Bad Taste, The Frighteners, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Crossing the Line, an auteur, but not Tarantino whose films are soaked in thematic Tarantino elements every time through?
I don't think Jackson is an auteur either, I just know what his films are stapled with. I can even say John Glen's distinction is shooting locations with a bland sense of workman like direction but that dosen't mean I think he's an auteur.
You say Tarantino is not original, that all of his movies are rip-offs of seventies exploitation flicks, but this isn't quite the case. It's a matter of originality through cliche. Yes, Tarantino was inspired by many exploitation films from the seventies and happened to utilize the elements that have inspired all of his films to date. It would be unlikely that one would compare the abstract expressionist, Jackson Pollack to Quentin Tarantino. However, the two share an commonality different than many others. There are those that look at a Jackson Pollack painting and state that he or she could easily replicate his masterpiece. But that's just the case, Pollack was the first and remains the best at it, just as Tarantino in films.
POLLOCK you mean. And Jackson POLLOCK shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath of a hack. With Pollock's work you can find a sense of construction with a careful eye. "Ultilizing elements", "Orginality through cliche", you can use what terms you like but it still adds up to making cheap knock offs. I am really tired of people making words for bad art or just plain laziness. I have heard it all for animation and live action/
Auteur is not a word to describe the elite, and the founders of this coining would be most disgraced to hear anyone put it like that.
I am saying that because most directors let the script control them and not the storyboards or their own vision. Very have few are really distinctive.
Tarantino embodies Autuer.Autuers are not mainstream sell outs, Auteurs do not always make films that everybody is guaranteed to love, hell, Auteurs don't always make films their fans are guaranteed to love - they do one thing and one thing only, make the films that they want to make, without Producer influence, or the current tastes of society.
Let me re-direct for a minute on "selling out". Their is nothing wrong with doinf it and have to in oder to stay afloat. You make something for yourself but you also have to concern with getting the largest audience you possibly can get.
You call him trendy and cool - last I checked the kids in school who did nothing but talk about movies were not considered the cool ones, nor were the fans to date - they were the nerds, the rejects, the one nobody could hold a conversation with. There's nothing cool or trendy about that.
Everyone talks about movies. It's the "nerds" and "rejects" who usually go beyound what is playing in the theatre currently. Tarantino is a hipster.
A few comments: I think that Peter Jackson will probably end up being regarded as an auteur. I don't think he's there yet as I don't think he has yet established a distinct thematic/stylistic thread which runs through his work, unlike Tarantino. Speaking of which, 'long, bloated, exposition with sweeping camera angles and waves of CGI imagery' isn't distinctive to Jackson's work; only the LOTR films and King Kong may be described in that way.
Rick, you may be tired of people making words for 'bad art', but Zebond and I don't think it's bad art or laziness, and your contention that it's 'bad art' or 'cheap knock offs' is merely your opinion. I agree with Zebond that Tarantino can absolutely be compared to Pollock, both in terms of talent, and the way that their work appears easy, unoriginal when it is arguably anything but. But seriously, if you're going to constantly bash Tarantino (whom many other members admire), don't complain about being tired when others defend him.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Rick, you may be tired of people making words for 'bad art', but Zebond and I don't think it's bad art or laziness, and your contention that it's 'bad art' or 'cheap knock offs' is merely your opinion.
And you saying it's great is merely your opinion so it's a moot point. 8-)
But seriously, if you're going to constantly bash Tarantino (whom many other members admire), don't complain about being tired when others defend him.
I am not refering to this thread alone when I said I am tired of execuses for bad art. Also I don't care how many people admire him here or anywhere else. He's a total hack and you do great insult to a superior artist like Pollock to say he has anything common with a slop artist.
. Speaking of which, 'long, bloated, exposition with sweeping camera angles and waves of CGI imagery' isn't distinctive to Jackson's work; only the LOTR films and King Kong may be described in that way.
Rick, you may be tired of people making words for 'bad art', but Zebond and I don't think it's bad art or laziness, and your contention that it's 'bad art' or 'cheap knock offs' is merely your opinion.
And you saying it's great is merely your opinion so it's a moot point. 8-).
Yes, but you don't always seem to realise that your opinions are just that, and saying that you're tired of people defending art is absurd.
But seriously, if you're going to constantly bash Tarantino (whom many other members admire), don't complain about being tired when others defend him.
I am not refering to this thread alone when I said I am tired of execuses for bad art. Also I don't care how many people admire him here or anywhere else. He's a total hack and you do great insult to a superior artist like Pollock to say he has anything common with a slop artist.
IN YOUR OPINION! I don't think he is a total hack, and I think he can absolutely be compared to Pollock! I think that Pollock should feel complimented to be compared to Tarantino. You may not care how many people admire him, but make no mistake that your view that Tarantino is a hack is an opinion, not fact.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
. Speaking of which, 'long, bloated, exposition with sweeping camera angles and waves of CGI imagery' isn't distinctive to Jackson's work; only the LOTR films and King Kong may be described in that way.
Then just long bloated exposition.
Not that either. Bad Taste, The Frighteners, even Heavenly Creatures don't IMO have bloated exposition. In fact, I don't think King Kong did either. Was it bloated? Absolutely, but not IMO because of exposition.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Yes, but you don't always seem to realise that your opinions are just that, and saying that you're tired of, what, people defending art is absurd.
Maybe because I have studied art extensively and those opinions are absurd. It's like walking into a room saying a room is painted white when it is painted yellow. An un-educated opinion can be wrong.
Why don't you for once actually come up with a counter argument instead of saying "that is just your opinion" or "I don't agree".
Yes, but you don't always seem to realise that your opinions are just that, and saying that you're tired of, what, people defending art is absurd.
Maybe because I have studied art extensively and those opinions are absurd. It's like walking into a room saying a room is painted white when it is painted yellow. An un-educated opinion can be wrong.
) I'm sorry, but this is just hilarious. Right. I'm sorry, should I take this seriously? Well, alright, I have studied cinema extensively, and I also know quite a bit about art, and if you think that your opinion on Tarantino is educated, then you must be living in an alternative reality. You think that I'm wrong and that my opinion is uneducated? Well, that's a compliment coming from you.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Why don't you for once actually come up with a counter argument instead of saying "that is just your opinion" or "I don't agree".
I have all the time. Read my previous posts on Tarantino. The problem, however, is that I tend to get annoyed by arrogant people who mistakenly consider their opinions to be facts. I'm funny that way.
Oh, and saying 'I don't agree' is polite. It's common curtesy.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Yes, but you don't always seem to realise that your opinions are just that, and saying that you're tired of, what, people defending art is absurd.
Maybe because I have studied art extensively and those opinions are absurd. It's like walking into a room saying a room is painted white when it is painted yellow. An un-educated opinion can be wrong.
) I'm sorry, but this is just hilarious. Right. I'm sorry, should I take this seriously? Well, alright, I have studied cinema extensively, and I also know quite a bit about art, and if you think that your opinion on Tarantino is educated, then you must be living in an alternative reality. You think that I'm wrong and that my opinion is uneducated? Well, that's a compliment coming from you.
All you have said about Tarantino is just what any dime a dozen movie critic has said and even worse you cited that horrible dialogue. No your opinion is rather obtuse.
All you have said about Tarantino is just what any dime a dozen movie critic has said
Really, and what dime a dozen movie critics are those? Do you realise that many, perhaps most, of the world's leading film critics love Tarantino, or at least like him? Comparing me to professional film critics doesn't exactly prove your point.
So, now you're insulting me. 8-) You know, coming from you, this is a compliment. I've noticed that in so many of your discussions on this board, you resort to insults. I wonder why. 8-)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Really, and what dime a dozen movie critics are those? Do you realise that many, perhaps most, of the world's leading film critics love Tarantino, or at least like him? Comparing me to professional film critics doesn't exactly prove your point.
My point was the movie critics don't have much credibility at all.
Except I don't think it's horrible! It may shock you, but I quoted that dialogue as I think it is wonderful; creative, funny and poetic.
No this is funny and/or creative dialogue:
Mildred Atkinson: Oh I think it'll make a dreamy picture, Mr. Steele. What I call an epic.
Dixon Steele: And what do you call an epic?
Mildred Atkinson: Well, you know - a picture that's REAL long and has lots of things going on.
Dixon Steele: Oh, I love a picnic. Acres and acres of sand and all of it in your food.
Laurel Gray: Stop griping. Just lie still and inhale.
Dixon Steele: What, sand?
Laurel Gray: No, air - and don't let it go to your head.
Capt. Lochner: [Dixon has replied with sarcasm to Lochner's questions] You're told that the girl you were with last night was found in Benedict Canyon, murdered. Dumped from a moving car. What's your reaction? Shock? Horror? Sympathy? No - just petulance at being questioned. A couple of feeble jokes. You puzzle me, Mr. Steele.
Dixon Steele: Well, I grant you, the jokes could've been better, but I don't see why the rest should worry you - that is, unless you plan to arrest me on lack of emotion.
All from "In a Lonely Place" with Humphrey Bogart. Now compare it to the crap you posted, see the diference ?
So, now you're insulting me. 8-) You know, coming from you, this is a compliment. I've noticed that in so many of your discussions on this board, you resort to insults. I wonder why. 8-)
No, I just don't think in this subject you have any idea what you are talking about.
My point was the movie critics don't have much credibility at all.
They all can't be as intelligent as you. 8-)
This may shock you, but not only do I not hold your opinion in particularly high esteem, but there are quite a few critics who have alot of credibility. Roger Ebert (for all his faults) is still one of the world's biggest authority on film.
Now compare it to the crap you posted, see the diference?
Oh, absolutely. Thanks so much for setting me straight. 8-) Rick, I do NOT believe that the dialogue I quoted is crap, and except for the last line, I think it's much better than this dialogue.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
So, now you're insulting me. 8-) You know, coming from you, this is a compliment. I've noticed that in so many of your discussions on this board, you resort to insults. I wonder why. 8-)
No, I just don't think in this subject you have any idea what you are talking about.
Funny, I feel the exact same way about you. Oh, BTW, isn't in interesting how of all the people who responded to this topic, most disagree with you? Does that mean that we all have no idea what we are talking about? 8-) You may know alot about art, I don't know, but if you think that you are an expert on film, you are sadly mistaken.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This may shock you, but not only do I not hold your opinion in particularly high esteem, but there are quite a few critics who have alot of credibility. Roger Ebert (for all his faults) is still one of the world's biggest authority on film.
Roger Ebert is a good film critic but I hardly call him an authority on film. I always value the artists opinions more.
That is the only line which impresses me.
That wasn't a line. What are you doing ?
Anyway your taste is dull. You really have the unmitigated gall to say the dialogue from any Tarantino film is better then In A Lonely Place. Any those precious film critics you hold so highly would laugh in your face if they actually heard this from you.
Rick, I do NOT believe that the dialogue I quoted is crap, and except for the last line, I think it's much better than this dialogue.
Because you watch mind numbing garbage like Tarantino. Turn on TCM for at least one day and pick out a film to watch and refine your taste.
Oh, BTW, isn't in interesting how of all the people who responded to this topic, most disagree with you?
Most you replied here said nothing in defense of Tarantino. 8-)
8-) You really should read people's posts more closely.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
This may shock you, but not only do I not hold your opinion in particularly high esteem, but there are quite a few critics who have alot of credibility. Roger Ebert (for all his faults) is still one of the world's biggest authority on film.
Roger Ebert is a good film critic but I hardly call him an authority on film. I always value the artists opinions more.
According to you! Well, I think you have horrible taste. Who cares anyway? Do you really think I sit here thinking, 'well, I should change my taste, Rick Roberts thinks it's dull'? 8-) If you think my taste is dull (and you don't really know what my taste is anyway), then thankyou, that's a compliment coming from you.
You really have the unmitigated gall to say the dialogue from any Tarantino film is better then In A Lonely Place.
Yes, I absolutely do. Why? Did I commit some kind of blasphemy. Give me a break; If I want to say that Tarantino is the greatest writer of all time, then I can and will say it. I think that Tarantino's dialogue is better than In A Lonely Place. Sue me.
Rick, I do NOT believe that the dialogue I quoted is crap, and except for the last line, I think it's much better than this dialogue.
Because you watch mind numbing garbage like Tarantino. Turn on TCM for at least one day and pick out a film to watch and refine your taste.
Nice guy. 8-) Let me make something clear; I don't respect your taste. As a matter of fact, I don't think you have any, and the day I start listening to you on what constitutes 'refined' taste and 'mind numbing garbage' is the day that every animal on earth starts flying!
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I do not want this topic closed down and I have to leave pretty soon, but why don't we finish with an exercise. Here are five pieces of writing which IMO are examples of superb writing; if you don't like any, or few, of them, then clearly we will never agree on what constitutes good writing and maybe we should just call it a day. If you like, at least, most of them, then perhaps we can continue.
1)"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f***** up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f*****' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?" (Goodfellas)
2)"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" (Dirty Harry)
3)"And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid." (Casablanca)
4)Double Indemnity- Phyllis Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He'll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren't you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I'm sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I'd say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn't take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband's shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it.
5)"There was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. Sorta looked up to me, you know. We did our first work together, worked our way out of the street. Things were good, we made the most of it. During Prohibition, we ran molasses into Canada... made a fortune, your father, too. As much as anyone, I loved him and trusted him. Later on he had an idea to build a city out of a desert stop-over for GI's on the way to the West Coast. That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town! Someone put a bullet through his eye. No one knows who gave the order. When I heard it, I wasn't angry; I knew Moe, I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!" (The Godfather Part II)
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I do not want this topic closed down and I have to leave pretty soon, but why don't we finish with an exercise. Here are five pieces of writing which IMO are examples of superb writing; if you don't like any, or few, of them, then clearly we will never agree on what constitutes good writing and maybe we should just call it a day. If you like, at least, most of them, then perhaps we can continue.
1)"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f***** up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f*****' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?" (Goodfellas)
2)"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" (Dirty Harry)
3)"And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid." (Casablanca)
4)Double Indemnity- Phyllis Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He'll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren't you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I'm sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I'd say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn't take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband's shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it.
5)"There was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. Sorta looked up to me, you know. We did our first work together, worked our way out of the street. Things were good, we made the most of it. During Prohibition, we ran molasses into Canada... made a fortune, your father, too. As much as anyone, I loved him and trusted him. Later on he had an idea to build a city out of a desert stop-over for GI's on the way to the West Coast. That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town! Someone put a bullet through his eye. No one knows who gave the order. When I heard it, I wasn't angry; I knew Moe, I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!" (The Godfather Part II)
These pieces of dialogue are fine.
But I still find it absurd to call those lines from In a Lonely Place better then Tarantino, that is just pure ignorance. And don't start shouting "in your opinion" because it's a cop out, the comparison between dialogues is laughable. The Tarantino dialogue is shallow because it's only idiotic writer's speak and nothing distnictive to any character. Over reacting to everything is not acting but I am not saying everything has to be sedated, James Cagney and Jackie Gleason were some of the finest actors who ever lived.
But I still find it absurd to call those lines from In a Lonely Place better then Tarantino, that is just pure ignorance.
) I'm sorry, but you have no right to call anyone ignorant, especially considering some of the things you said. The dialogue from IALP wasn't creative, funny, romantic, inspiring or anything else really IMO, and the film itself is IMO far from a classic. I do like it, but I don't think it's anywhere near Ray's best work.
The Tarantino dialogue is shallow because it's only idiotic writer's speak and nothing distnictive to any character.
It's dinstinctive to Jules. What makes it fantastic dialogue (and I disagree that it's shallow) is that it's funny, especially considering the context, highly creative, is in many ways about the beauty of the English language and showcases the character of Jules perfectly. Also, to call it 'idiotic writer's speak', well, I would strongly disagree with that.
Over reacting to everything is not acting but I am not saying everything has to be sedated, James Cagney and Jackie Gleason were some of the finest actors who ever lived.
So, now you're insulting Samuel L. Jackson's performance? ) Again, you are not in a position to call anyone ignorant.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
My God, this is ridiculous. Rick Roberts, once again you are stirring the pot by resorting to name-calling and twitting. Why can't you simply disagree with a person without accusing that person of ignorance and bad taste? I don't want to close this topic, but if this slugfest goes on much longer, it will be. And don't be surprised if we're one member less.
I'm sorry, but you have no right to call anyone ignorant, especially considering some of the things you said. The dialogue from IALP wasn't creative, funny, romantic, inspiring or anything else really IMO, and the film itself is IMO far from a classic. I do like it, but I don't think it's anywhere near Ray's best work.
) Polar opposite of the opinion of the film critics you value so dearly.
So, now you're insulting Samuel L. Jackson's performance? ) Again, you are not in a position to call anyone ignorant.
Samuel L. Jackson is not a great actor any means. He over-reacts, alot.
I'm sorry, but you have no right to call anyone ignorant, especially considering some of the things you said. The dialogue from IALP wasn't creative, funny, romantic, inspiring or anything else really IMO, and the film itself is IMO far from a classic. I do like it, but I don't think it's anywhere near Ray's best work.
) Polar opposite of the opinion of the film critics you value so dearly.
Not quite. I do like the film, and I think that Bogart was great, however I do think it's overrated and I don't think it's among either Ray's or Bogart's best films. I stand by my above statement.
Rick, I also disagree that Jackson is not a great actor. Pulp Fiction, 187, Jungle Fever, Unbreakable, Jackie Brown all prove IMO that he is a magnificent actor and an all-time great.
Also, considering that neither of us want QT to direct a Bond film (for different reasons), why can't we leave it just that?
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Not quite. I do like the film, and I think that Bogart was great, however I do think it's overrated and I don't think it's among either Ray's or Bogart's best films. I stand by my above statement.
What ? In A Lonely Place is rarely held as high as Bogey's other films like Maltese Falcon or Casablanca.
Rick, I also disagree that Jackson is not a great actor. Pulp Fiction, 187, Jungle Fever, Unbreakable, Jackie Brown all prove IMO that he is a magnificent actor and an all-time great.
Rick, I also disagree that Jackson is not a great actor. Pulp Fiction, 187, Jungle Fever, Unbreakable, Jackie Brown all prove IMO that he is a magnificent actor and an all-time great.
If you love incessant over acting.
Well, obviously I don't think that Jackson does that. Are we going to have an argument now about Jackson's acting skills or the classic status of IALP? Why can't we just accept that we have different views on Jackson, IALP, QT and other related things, and leave it at that?!
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Comments
So let me get this straight, you're calling Peter Jackson, the creator of such films as Bad Taste, The Frighteners, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and Crossing the Line, an auteur, but not Tarantino whose films are soaked in thematic Tarantino elements every time through? The long sweeping camera angles reminded me much more of literary Lord of the Rings than previous Peter Jackson pieces.
You say Tarantino is not original, that all of his movies are rip-offs of seventies exploitation flicks, but this isn't quite the case. It's a matter of originality through cliche. Yes, Tarantino was inspired by many exploitation films from the seventies and happened to utilize the elements that have inspired all of his films to date. It would be unlikely that one would compare the abstract expressionist, Jackson Pollack to Quentin Tarantino. However, the two share an commonality different than many others. There are those that look at a Jackson Pollack painting and state that he or she could easily replicate his masterpiece. But that's just the case, Pollack was the first and remains the best at it, just as Tarantino in films.
Auteur is not a word to describe the elite, and the founders of this coining would be most disgraced to hear anyone put it like that. Tarantino embodies Autuer. Autuers are not mainstream sell outs, Auteurs do not always make films that everybody is guaranteed to love, hell, Auteurs don't always make films their fans are guaranteed to love - they do one thing and one thing only, make the films that they want to make, without Producer influence, or the current tastes of society. You call him trendy and cool - last I checked the kids in school who did nothing but talk about movies were not considered the cool ones, nor were the fans to date - they were the nerds, the rejects, the one nobody could hold a conversation with. There's nothing cool or trendy about that.
Moreover I agree entirely with Dan Same. This is a post about whether or not Tarantino should direct a Bond film, which we've been in unison about. There was no need to move into the realm of arguing Tarantino's worth as a filmmaker of his genre, unless of course you wanted to start your very own Tarantino bashing post in our off-topic chat. In which I'd feel you're more than welcome to do.
I don't think Jackson is an auteur either, I just know what his films are stapled with. I can even say John Glen's distinction is shooting locations with a bland sense of workman like direction but that dosen't mean I think he's an auteur.
POLLOCK you mean. And Jackson POLLOCK shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath of a hack. With Pollock's work you can find a sense of construction with a careful eye. "Ultilizing elements", "Orginality through cliche", you can use what terms you like but it still adds up to making cheap knock offs. I am really tired of people making words for bad art or just plain laziness. I have heard it all for animation and live action/
I am saying that because most directors let the script control them and not the storyboards or their own vision. Very have few are really distinctive.
Let me re-direct for a minute on "selling out". Their is nothing wrong with doinf it and have to in oder to stay afloat. You make something for yourself but you also have to concern with getting the largest audience you possibly can get.
Everyone talks about movies. It's the "nerds" and "rejects" who usually go beyound what is playing in the theatre currently. Tarantino is a hipster.
Rick, you may be tired of people making words for 'bad art', but Zebond and I don't think it's bad art or laziness, and your contention that it's 'bad art' or 'cheap knock offs' is merely your opinion. I agree with Zebond that Tarantino can absolutely be compared to Pollock, both in terms of talent, and the way that their work appears easy, unoriginal when it is arguably anything but. But seriously, if you're going to constantly bash Tarantino (whom many other members admire), don't complain about being tired when others defend him.
And you saying it's great is merely your opinion so it's a moot point. 8-)
I am not refering to this thread alone when I said I am tired of execuses for bad art. Also I don't care how many people admire him here or anywhere else. He's a total hack and you do great insult to a superior artist like Pollock to say he has anything common with a slop artist.
Then just long bloated exposition.
IN YOUR OPINION! I don't think he is a total hack, and I think he can absolutely be compared to Pollock! I think that Pollock should feel complimented to be compared to Tarantino. You may not care how many people admire him, but make no mistake that your view that Tarantino is a hack is an opinion, not fact.
Maybe because I have studied art extensively and those opinions are absurd. It's like walking into a room saying a room is painted white when it is painted yellow. An un-educated opinion can be wrong.
Why don't you for once actually come up with a counter argument instead of saying "that is just your opinion" or "I don't agree".
Oh, and saying 'I don't agree' is polite. It's common curtesy.
All you have said about Tarantino is just what any dime a dozen movie critic has said and even worse you cited that horrible dialogue. No your opinion is rather obtuse.
Except I don't think it's horrible!
So, now you're insulting me. 8-) You know, coming from you, this is a compliment. I've noticed that in so many of your discussions on this board, you resort to insults. I wonder why. 8-)
My point was the movie critics don't have much credibility at all.
No this is funny and/or creative dialogue:
Mildred Atkinson: Oh I think it'll make a dreamy picture, Mr. Steele. What I call an epic.
Dixon Steele: And what do you call an epic?
Mildred Atkinson: Well, you know - a picture that's REAL long and has lots of things going on.
Dixon Steele: Oh, I love a picnic. Acres and acres of sand and all of it in your food.
Laurel Gray: Stop griping. Just lie still and inhale.
Dixon Steele: What, sand?
Laurel Gray: No, air - and don't let it go to your head.
Capt. Lochner: [Dixon has replied with sarcasm to Lochner's questions] You're told that the girl you were with last night was found in Benedict Canyon, murdered. Dumped from a moving car. What's your reaction? Shock? Horror? Sympathy? No - just petulance at being questioned. A couple of feeble jokes. You puzzle me, Mr. Steele.
Dixon Steele: Well, I grant you, the jokes could've been better, but I don't see why the rest should worry you - that is, unless you plan to arrest me on lack of emotion.
All from "In a Lonely Place" with Humphrey Bogart. Now compare it to the crap you posted, see the diference ?
No, I just don't think in this subject you have any idea what you are talking about.
This may shock you, but not only do I not hold your opinion in particularly high esteem, but there are quite a few critics who have alot of credibility. Roger Ebert (for all his faults) is still one of the world's biggest authority on film.
According to you.
That is the only line which impresses me.
Oh, absolutely. Thanks so much for setting me straight. 8-) Rick, I do NOT believe that the dialogue I quoted is crap, and except for the last line, I think it's much better than this dialogue.
Roger Ebert is a good film critic but I hardly call him an authority on film. I always value the artists opinions more.
That wasn't a line. What are you doing ?
Anyway your taste is dull. You really have the unmitigated gall to say the dialogue from any Tarantino film is better then In A Lonely Place. Any those precious film critics you hold so highly would laugh in your face if they actually heard this from you.
Because you watch mind numbing garbage like Tarantino. Turn on TCM for at least one day and pick out a film to watch and refine your taste.
Most you replied here said nothing in defense of Tarantino. 8-)
The closing line was the only thing which impressed me.
According to you!
Yes, I absolutely do. Why? Did I commit some kind of blasphemy. Give me a break; If I want to say that Tarantino is the greatest writer of all time, then I can and will say it. I think that Tarantino's dialogue is better than In A Lonely Place. Sue me.
Nice guy. 8-) Let me make something clear; I don't respect your taste. As a matter of fact, I don't think you have any, and the day I start listening to you on what constitutes 'refined' taste and 'mind numbing garbage' is the day that every animal on earth starts flying!
1)"You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little f***** up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to f*****' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?" (Goodfellas)
2)"I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire six shots or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?" (Dirty Harry)
3)"And you never will. But I've got a job to do, too. Where I'm going, you can't follow. What I've got to do, you can't be any part of. Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you'll understand that. Now, now... Here's looking at you kid." (Casablanca)
4)Double Indemnity- Phyllis Mr. Neff, why don't you drop by tomorrow evening about eight-thirty. He'll be in then.
Walter Neff: Who?
Phyllis: My husband. You were anxious to talk to him weren't you?
Walter Neff: Yeah, I was, but I'm sort of getting over the idea, if you know what I mean.
Phyllis: There's a speed limit in this state, Mr. Neff. Forty-five miles an hour.
Walter Neff: How fast was I going, officer?
Phyllis: I'd say around ninety.
Walter Neff: Suppose you get down off your motorcycle and give me a ticket.
Phyllis: Suppose I let you off with a warning this time.
Walter Neff: Suppose it doesn't take.
Phyllis: Suppose I have to whack you over the knuckles.
Walter Neff: Suppose I bust out crying and put my head on your shoulder.
Phyllis: Suppose you try putting it on my husband's shoulder.
Walter Neff: That tears it.
5)"There was this kid I grew up with; he was younger than me. Sorta looked up to me, you know. We did our first work together, worked our way out of the street. Things were good, we made the most of it. During Prohibition, we ran molasses into Canada... made a fortune, your father, too. As much as anyone, I loved him and trusted him. Later on he had an idea to build a city out of a desert stop-over for GI's on the way to the West Coast. That kid's name was Moe Greene, and the city he invented was Las Vegas. This was a great man, a man of vision and guts. And there isn't even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him in that town! Someone put a bullet through his eye. No one knows who gave the order. When I heard it, I wasn't angry; I knew Moe, I knew he was head-strong, talking loud, saying stupid things. So when he turned up dead, I let it go. And I said to myself, this is the business we've chosen; I didn't ask who gave the order, because it had nothing to do with business!" (The Godfather Part II)
These pieces of dialogue are fine.
But I still find it absurd to call those lines from In a Lonely Place better then Tarantino, that is just pure ignorance. And don't start shouting "in your opinion" because it's a cop out, the comparison between dialogues is laughable. The Tarantino dialogue is shallow because it's only idiotic writer's speak and nothing distnictive to any character. Over reacting to everything is not acting but I am not saying everything has to be sedated, James Cagney and Jackie Gleason were some of the finest actors who ever lived.
Well, I wouldn't have to do it all the time if you didn't seem to believe that you were spouting objective facts.
I agree, Tarantino's dialogue is much better.
It's dinstinctive to Jules. What makes it fantastic dialogue (and I disagree that it's shallow) is that it's funny, especially considering the context, highly creative, is in many ways about the beauty of the English language and showcases the character of Jules perfectly. Also, to call it 'idiotic writer's speak', well, I would strongly disagree with that.
So, now you're insulting Samuel L. Jackson's performance?
Samuel L. Jackson is not a great actor any means. He over-reacts, alot.
Not quite. I do like the film, and I think that Bogart was great, however I do think it's overrated and I don't think it's among either Ray's or Bogart's best films. I stand by my above statement.
Rick, I also disagree that Jackson is not a great actor. Pulp Fiction, 187, Jungle Fever, Unbreakable, Jackie Brown all prove IMO that he is a magnificent actor and an all-time great.
Also, considering that neither of us want QT to direct a Bond film (for different reasons), why can't we leave it just that?
What ? In A Lonely Place is rarely held as high as Bogey's other films like Maltese Falcon or Casablanca.
If you love incessant over acting.
Well, obviously I don't think that Jackson does that. Are we going to have an argument now about Jackson's acting skills or the classic status of IALP? Why can't we just accept that we have different views on Jackson, IALP, QT and other related things, and leave it at that?!
Sure I can agree to him not directing a Bond film.