director in this way? Do you think that Tarantino is worthy of adjective status, like Wellesian (for Orson Welles, director of Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, and Touch of Evil)? Do you think he courts or resists such a designation? Use at least one specific example from the readings to back up your opinion.(I realize that many of you have never seen Jackie Brown so the reading due for Monday's class will only half-make sense. If this is the case, after completing the readings, please take note of the expectations that you have about Jackie Brown's place within the Tarantino oeuvre, and bring these observations into our post-film class discussion.)
23 comments:
I do think that Tarantino has a specific style that may warrant an adjective. If you were to say “That movie was so Tarantino,” or “That monologue was very Tarantino-esque.” People around you would have a sense of what you are trying to describe. Tarantino’s films are violent, bloody and have a sense of outrageousness to them that makes them distinct. Also, the way he writes characters and more importantly dialogue is consistent and noticeable enough to perhaps warrant an adjective.
Although Ian Penman seems to abhor Tarantino he does bring up some interesting points in favor of making the man an adjective. Penman writes, “every single one of [Quentin Tarantino’s] characters talks with the same voice.” If you think about the words used by the characters this is true. They are all verbose, cool, and offensive. Anyone of his characters from any one of his movies could show up in another one of his movies and not be out of place. This is actually seen with Harvey Keitel in “Reservoir Dogs and “Pulp Fiction.” How are we to know that “Pulp Fiction” isn’t a prequel to “Reservoir Dogs” and Mr. Wolf turns into Mr. White?
Also, Penman writes, “[Tarantino] seems to be reaching out to tackle scenes way outside his limited-life experience.” By this I think he means that all of Tarantino’s movies are about a seedy underworld that he, personally, does not have a place in. However, by repeatedly working with the same actors (Tim Roth, Samuel L. Jackson, Harvey Keitel, Uma Thurman etc.) and same crew (Sally Menke as editor and Andrzej Sekula as cinematographer) he is able to create a seedy underworld that he is a part of.
I do think that the trademark of an auteur is for a director to repeatedly work with the same cast and crew. We see this with Tim Burton, Jim Jarmusch, Wes Anderson, Alfred Hitchcock and many others. These are all people, like Tarantino, that you have an acute expectation for what you will get when you see one of their movies. I also think that Tarantino would love being called an auteur and to become an adjective the language of film.
Any director that has a significant style is worthy of adjective status. If you watch a movie and can point put things that a certain director does, then they deserve adjective status. Quentin Tarantino deserves to be considered an adjective. He may not be as great as some other directors, but he has certain qualities that come through on film. These qualities are undeniably his. He owns them. He is the king of dialogue, especially pop culture dialogue. He is a master of including characteristics of film noir movies. Tarantino has great timing and makes his characters come alive.
There is a downside to becoming an adjective. Critics and film audiences will start to expect certain things from directors. Imagine if Tarantino did a movie and didn’t include hilarious dialogue and plenty of pop culture references, or if M. Knight Shyamalan didn’t create a serious plot twist to the end. Everyone would be disappointed. The movie would be considered decent but not one of his best. Becoming an adjective causes people to expect what you are known for. It becomes harder and harder to branch out. Suddenly you’re stuck doing the same kinds of movies over and over again.
Becoming an adjective is a good thing too. People become more aware of you and respect you. Suddenly you are considered a major influence instead of a hack. Audiences know everything about your movies and will like anything you do as long as it follows your adjective form. A director will develop a following. It could also cause some to despise you. Ian Penman claims people need to detach themselves from Tarantino for a moment and notice “that every single one of QT’s characters talks with the same voice: his.” Penman doesn’t like the characteristics that Tarantino is known for, so he hates every movie he makes.
I believe Tarantino loves being at adjective status. He worked all his life to get to where he is now. He loves movies and everything that has to do with them. He is happy that people have embraced his movies that he fought so hard to create. Becoming an adjective is like engraving your name into film history forever. No one will ever forget you. I don’t think it was the most important moment to him though. Tarantino stated, “When your life changes over from your writing in your spare time and working your day job to where you can actually support yourself doing what you do, that was so terrific.” Tarantino is just happy to be doing what he loves, no matter how famous it makes him.
I do believe he courts being designated as an adjective. He states “I guess I'm too self-obsessed to think of anything that isn't personal. I used to have directors where I was counting the days until their movie came out, but I don't think that way anymore. I'm just looking forward to sleeping late." (Woods, P., Pg 117)
He does not hide the fact that he is self obsessed and thinks very highly of himself. He obviously feels worthy of being classified this way and does not hide it. He also seems amused when asked about Joe Eszterhas and does not shy from the fact that Eszterhas has criticized him pretty harshly in the past. Eszterhas obviously does not appreciate Tarantino or his work, but in the end Tarantino ends up complimenting him for his work in Showgirls.
Tarantino also talks about some of the pitfalls of this status. He talks about how he can no longer do many of the things he loves like go to a video store and just look through all of the titles without somebody asking for an autograph. He also talks about going on dates and having people rudely interrupt him to ask for his autograph. In the end he gives them a handshake and moves on despite it really bothering him. So I think at times he loves the status for his ego but hates it for it's side effects. Personally I don't think he is worthy of the status. He had a couple of good movies in the 90's and that was it. After that he fell out of the mainstream and most people couldn't name more than 2 of his movies. I think he had a good short run and made a quick name for himself, but that soon faded.
According to the Penman reading, “if you detach yourself for a moment you may notice that every single one of QT’s characters talks with the same voice: his…Thus in Pulp Fiction, we get a six-foot-plus hypercool black assassin who…talks with the voice of a nerdy white video-rental-store manager.” This evaluation of Tarantino’s characters shows one of the pitfalls of being a director and writer with a distinct and recognizable style. This reviewer seems to see Tarantino’s adjective status as coming from how his characters all have the same voice. He doesn’t see Tarantino’s works as unique and therefore recognizable, but sees them as recognizable because they are all so similar. In my opinion, Tarantino’s name has reached adjective status because of his work’s combination of both distinctiveness and newness and also because of the similarities between some of his work and characters. I think that Penman’s evaluation of Tarantino’s characters is exaggerating their similarities because it could be argued that different characters written by one person are going to have similarities that characters written by different people would not.
O’Hagan’s article X Offender explains that, “It is, however, the way he tells those stories that has placed Tarantino at the cutting edge of contemporary cinema. His use of dialogue structure make Tarantino one of the most novel directors currently directing in Hollywood.” I think this quote shows one of the advantages to Tarantino’s adjective status. One way Tarantino’s name can be used as an adjective is to describe his way of storytelling. Since many people like his way of storytelling, this aspect of his work may make more people want to go and see his movies.
I think that Tarantino’s name is “worthy” of it’s adjective because his work has some distinctive qualities that are unique to him, and these qualities are recognizable in his work, so people understand what is meant by Tarantino-esque or Tarantino-like when it is used to describe something.
I think Tarantino courts his adjective status in how embraces his fame which is largely due to his name becoming an adjective. Tarantino is quoted with regard to his fame and Pulp Fiction in Beeler’s article The Price of Fame as saying, “It’s pretty cool…You hear old vaudevillians say, ‘I kill ‘em in Omaha! A big marquee and lines around the block.’ I’m that way in England. It’s great. How could you not love it?” From this quote, I think it can be seen that he enjoys how his adjective status has brought him a loyal following of fans. I think his courting of his iconic status can also be seen in how he has yet to make anything that would contradict the ideas that people have about his style of writing and directing.
I absolutely think that Tarantino deserves adjective status. Regardless of whether one warrants him as one of the "Hollywood greats", he absolutely encompasses a style all his own. Cynthia Baughman summarizes the Tarantino aura perfectly: "...Inventive uses of genre; hilariously obsessive conversation about trivial points, or pop culture references, in the midst of a crisis; brilliant timing; and... the recurrence of names and topoi." (Woods, 107-108).
I believe that Tarantino has a style such his own, that at times it is self-sabotaging. He states that he wants to: "...take these genre characters and put them in a real-life situation." (Woods, 124). This tends to make for an extremely entertaining, action-packed movie, but I can see where Ian Penman is coming from in regards to some of his Tarantino criticisms (others, however, I find unfounded and immature). One problem that arises from writing in such a defined category, (heist, gang relations, etc.) is that much of the dialogue sounds the same. As Penman states: "...[Quentin Tarantino's] characters [talk] with the same voice: his." (Woods, 127). I would like to see Tarantino write something completely out of, what appears to be, his comfort zone; maybe a romantic comedy (although some would argue that "True Romance" is exactly that).
I don't know if Tarantino courts or resists this sort of designation, but from reading his interviews I would guess that he is apprehensive. He states in "The Film Geek Files" that to stop over-analyzing himself, he just stops reading reviews. He is certainly, if nothing else, one of Hollywood's most indifferent directors. His thoughts on the gay community embracing his movies and claiming him as one of their own? "...That's cool, man. I totally dig it." (Woods, 117). I have a hard time believing he is going to lose any sleep over whether his name is being used as an adjective.
Being an adjective can have its ups and downs, but in Tarantino’s case, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Many of Tarantino’s films could be generalized as horror, suspenseful, and a comedy. It is an odd combination, but Tarantino is able to make it all mesh very well together and therefore worthy of being an adjective in films—it is definitely an honor. Even his camera work, although it is borrowed from others every so often, has a unique spin on it differentiating it from others before and after him. For example, the restaurant scene is shot in one smooth camera motion with no editing borrowed, but because there is a double meaning implied—the main characters who are not so well known anymore being served by old actors/actresses—if the viewer reads more into the scene, makes it unique! Although there seems to be many ups in this case, there are some downfalls. It is very hard to be disappointed by one of Tarantino’s films, but as we continue to look at Tarantino’s films, there is a sense of disappointment and redundancy. There are some things that are brilliantly done, but others things, seen too many times. In better words, it is hard to continually please viewers because we are always looking for something new; but still Tarantino. Although, there has been some disappointment, after reading about Jackie Brown has instilled some hope. As Travers said in the Wood’s book, Jackie Brown “scores a knockout” and is “Loaded with action, laughs smart dialogue, and potent performances”. Although this is all expected of Tarantino, one thing is not. Tarantino has a dominating female actress, Pam Grier—who is a woman of color. As previously stated in discussion sessions, Tarantino usually depicts woman as helpless, alluring, and objects. Meanwhile, minorities are not exactly depicted very well either. Hopefully, Jackie Brown would appease the statements that Tarantino is a racist, homophobic, sexist.
Making a director into an adjective suggests some kind of auteur status. For one to refer to an artist enough to have to make their name into a word that can be thrown into sentences in order to convey a sense of personal style, untouched by any other artist, should be a compliment; a great one at that. Tarantino is so well established in his story design (dialogue, structure, character/ensemble and pop-culture reference) that he has achieved his own descriptor. The advantages of this are the mere fact that an artist has to be memorable and/or notable on many levels (or at least one large level) in order to be remembered as a way to describe an aspect of film. Welles and Hitchcock obtained this status and their names (more so the adjectives of their names) are used in order to convey a sense of film history that most film buffs could pinpoint only after hearing such an adjective. It is obvious that viewers regard Tarantino important enough to remember him throughout film history. The pitfalls of this status come when thinking of the future of film and the use of the word “Tarantino-ian”. This word suggests that there are films or artists that exist that are directly influenced by Tarantino. I am not suggesting that there are no cases of this, only pondering how something could be pinpointed as something so directly influenced by an artist who admittedly steals from his influences. In this case, couldn’t any horror/thriller be Hitchcockian? Or any tragic comedy be Allenian?
Tarantino is definitely worthy of this title due to his large success with independent cinema in Hollywood. If there was anything that the adjective should so accurately explain, it would be the rise of an underdog into complete stardom. Sure, the adjective could be used to describe the man’s unique and unrivaled style, but it could more accurately describe the way the man looks at cinema: with a deep, passionate love for the art itself. It should be used to exclaim the sheer enjoyment of watching; that’s Tarantinoian.
Tarantino should be honored to have his own adjective. He should know that his films have made a big enough impact on filmgoers to merit auteur status. In the reading, Tarantino addresses a question about how he is received in the gay community. He is asked how is it that a man that could be criticized as being gay and at the same time, be completely adopted by the whole gay community. Tarantino’s response is very telling of how he feels about this status: he is overjoyed by it. If he can raise as much attention as he has seemed to garner, then his goal is fulfilled. Tarantino makes films so that they can be seen and talked about and re-watched and talked about some more. This has been taken to the extreme, to a point where fans and enemies alike have granted the man his own adjective.
I believe that Tarantino does deserve to have his name used as an adjective such as Tarantino-esque. He films have their own unique characteristics and those characteristics are universal throughout all of his movies. That makes using his name as an adjective reasonably appropriate since his movies can be identified, without knowing that he directed them, just by the unique characteristics of the movie. When a person watches a tarantino movie they know that they are going to get a lot of violence and his own style of dialog including pop culture dialog. In the Penman reading he says, "in Pulp Fiction, we get a six-foot-plus hypercool black assassin who…talks with the voice of a nerdy white video-rental-store manager.” In Tarantino's films a lot of the characters talk with the same tone, his tone, they start to reflect Tarantino himself.
One of the downsides to having a name that is also an adjective is that people do come to expect certain things from you. Tarantino has backed himself into a corner and has limited himself to the types of movies that he can make because of what everyone is expecting from his work. Just like when actors become type cast into certain types of roles, I believe that Tarantino has done that to his style of directing. A good example of this is from my own experience with M. Knight Shyamalan's latest movie, "The Happening". I was expecting his usual amazing twisted ending when entering the movie theater, but was disappointed when the ending did not meet my expectations that were based on his previous movies.
-robert mueller
Tarantino most certainly has a way with film no one else could imitate. Although he is know for taking from almost every kind of film he molds his influences into a style some would call “Tarantinoism”. I believe he is “worthy” of such a status; you can look at each one of his films, ones he wrote, directed, and/or acted in and experience the unique similarities like “inventive uses of genre; hilariously obsessive conversation about trivial points, or pop culture references, in the midst of crisis; brilliant timing…” (Woods p.107) that would classify the film Tarantino-esque.
For the most part being classified with an adjective to describe all of your films, hearing your name to express a film and coining your own style would be flattering. But at the same time confining in the sense that if you were to step out of that classification you would no longer be the same creator, even though you were the one that fashioned the term.
As for Tarantino I believe he could have expected nothing else, the films he makes are distinctive and in a sense revolutionary in the cinema world. Bringing the independent cinema and his innovative way of seeing situations and out comes to the mainstream cinema he has found the recipe in becoming an auteur and a distinctive term for certain films that follow his approach.
It strikes me that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t talk about himself as ONE OF THE GREAT directors. I liked what he said in the nasty Penman article about his strategy of putting “unreal people in real situations.” He seems to have come up with a new approach to movies at just the right time, and, in the media efforts to place Tarantino in context during this period, he became a phenomenon that probably oversold the nature of his accomplishment.
He is not John Ford or Orson Welles. But Tarantino is hardly to blame for the over-hyping of his name, and I can find nothing in his interviews to suggest that he considers himself on par with the legends. In fact, he repeatedly expresses his affinity for the fringe schlockmeisters of cinema rather than the classics of traditional Hollywood.
“Reservoir Dogs,” and “Pulp Fiction,” sent a jolt through the movie world because they were different, exciting, hip, violent, funny, unnerving and yet somehow familiar. Reworked genres with a crazy new take done in an over-the-top manner and a whole new way of talking made Tarantino an innovator, and the media made him into the next big thing. But Tarantino-esque at the time of “Pulp Fiction” seemed limitless in possibility, while the Tarantino-esque of today seems a much less ambitious moniker.
I find this all a bit frustrating, especially when I read articles like “Don’t Try This At Home” by Ian Penman. If Tarantino is indeed not Welles than why do so many people feel the need to try and bring him down to size? Is it the story of his video store background? Is it jealousy over his seemingly overnight assumption to the throne of Hollywood? And if he really sucks so bad, how come so many of us have been so moved by his filmmaking?
In “The Price of Fame,” by “Michael Beeler,” Tarantino talks about losing his freedoms after becoming a mega-celebrity. While this has to suck, I think that the overnight coronation of Tarantino is a moviemaking god has had a much more deleterious effect. Rather than elevating his ambition, it seems to have forced him even further into the odd corners of his personal fringe-movie obsessions. So, the media over-hyped his accomplishment and then they try to crush him for not being something that he never really claimed to be.
After experiencing “Pulp Fiction” in the theaters, I would have loved -- and to some extent believed –- that Quentin Tarantino had earned a place in that very select group of moviemakers that forever change the world. And although that has not become reality in the years since I left that theater, I don’t believe it diminishes Tarantino’s groundbreaking accomplishment. He did something new, he did something great – and, hopefully, we will have many more decades to find out if Tarantino inevitably belongs down there with the Corman’s or up there with the Scorsese’s.
Artists in any field with definitive style in their given field can be used referred to as an adjective. Of course the style that an artist is known for can be seen in both a positive light and a negative light. Therefore there is no question that Tarantino has become a pop icon in MTV culture for his cinematography since Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. His name has thus been used as an adjective to describe a style that he is known for. The Tarantinoesque style that he shows is his fast talk, obsessive conversations, violence, sex and pop references. Thus his style can be seen as completely individualistic or his basic adaptation of other cinematic geniuses. Ian Penman's article suggests the later.
Penman shows valid points as to why Tarantino should not be put in such a classification as other groundbreaking directors. Penman's argument is that Tarantino shows no originality in his work and all of his characters are just reflections of Tarantino himself. He states, "Because the real truth is that QT's career is about taking a supposedly real character (ie. himself) and putting him in all the far far out situations, that he's never been near in real life and never will"(Woods 126).
As for Tarantino courting or resisting the designation, I believe that fame and recognition are the most common results of stardom and Tarantino has definitely received both. That brand name has become a symbol of the bad boy of cinema violence and he accepts that.
I think Tarantino deserves an adjective status in some cases. He is consistent in his movies with his use of pop culture references and obsessive conversations about trivial points (Baughman and Woods, 101). I believe that the above is his trademark; in Pulp Fiction, the character Jules stalls killing a person because he is too wrapped up in trying burgers and comparing burgers from other places to the burger the soon to be dead person is eating for breakfast. However, some of his other consistencies are taken from other directors, such as the lack of camera movement in the bathroom scene in Reservoir Dogs, a technique taken from Leone in his French films. In taking techniques from other directors and making them his own, doesn’t, in my mind, lead me to believe that he deserves an adjective title.
To some extent, I think that he resists the designation of “Tarantino-esque” because now he has to deal with people. He seems to me like the kind of guy who likes to have his privacy. He claims that he is still courteous but in a shrewd way. Having an adjective means that people will want to meet him because he is very well known throughout the world. “It’s also kind of a bummer when I’m with my girlfriend and we’re out having dinner… and people just keep coming up. I never lose it, but that’s the only time when I say, ‘You have eyes. If I were you I would see that I’m with my lady and know how to respect that’” (Beeler and Woods, 120).
An advantage of being classified is that Tarantino became something familiar to audiences. His work after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction wasn’t being lost among the other films being produced. Instead it was being picked out. His projects surface to the top of the pop culture pool, many times being referred to as “that new Tarantino movie”. Tarantino himself has become one of the biggest draws to his films. As Michael Beeler points out in “The Price of Fame”, “in Europe, Pulp Fiction’s posters displayed more picture of Tarantino than the extraordinary cast”. His work before he was classified also became successful. True Romance and Natural Born Killers may not have ever gotten made if Tarantino had not become a brand.
The downside of this however, is that once he diverged from his type, fans became disappointed. A student in this class had said on the first day that every movie since Pulp Fiction has gotten worse. While I’m a bigger fan of his later work, I think that student speaks for a lot of people. Kill Bill and Deathproof are a huge diversion from the film noir/gangster style Tarantino movies of the 90s, and a lot of people have turned on him for that.
I do think Tarantino is worthy of adjective status. He may not be developing new cinematic techniques on level with Welles, but his ability to blend existing techniques across genre lines and mixing them with pop culture references that cross decades and still produce a work that is both self-referential and stands alone is certainly a talent in itself. It is weird to say his films are unlike any other in the industry when so much of them are taken from other films, but his way of putting them together is unique, and warrants a classification of its own.
When prompted to respond to the fame and backlash he receives, Tarantino mentions, in the Beeler reading, the loss of a few personal freedoms. He says he misses taking walks like he use to, and he doesn’t like being asked for autographs all the time, but he never mentions a downside his fame has had on his film making. And when prompted about criticism in the Udovitch, he calls his critics wrong in an antagonizing manner. Tarantino is very proud of his work, to the point of arrogance, and I don’t think he would be content with his films being classified as anything else other than Tarantino.
I believe that Tarantino deserves his often used adjective status. It is no doubt that his film Pulp Fiction elevated him to that upper echelon of directors who have a distinct style and aesthetic to their films that is so well known throughout the community that it can be used to describe certain qualities of other films. One of the most obvious downfalls to this prestigious usage of one’s name is the expectedness level of audiences. It pigeon holes the artist into a certain realm of expectedness for his future works and may deter him from exploring other aspects of his medium, in this case film. Another downfall that Tarantino has said himself, as quoted in an article by Michael Beeler, is the constant notice that celebrity status gets you. “It’s also kind of a bummer when I’m with my girlfriend and we’re out having dinner or just trying to have an evening by ourselves and people just keep coming up.” (Woods, 120) There are upsides to having your name be used as much as Tarantino’s within your line of work. First of all, he is greatly respected and generally thought of as to be influential to his peers. Also, he has a dedicated fan base that will go see his movies no matter what. Not to mention the fact that he is treated like a rock star wherever he goes, I’m sure. I believe his looks at this designation as a double edged sword. “It’s pretty cool,” said Tarantino, “You hear old vaudevillians say, ‘I kill ‘em in Omaha! A big marquee and lines around the block.’ I’m that way in England. It’s great. How could you not love it?” (Woods, 119)
-Alex Sokovich
I think one obvious disadvantage (at least for QT) is that once name recognition is established, it’s so easy for a genre to pigeon-hole a director (or anyone for that matter) under the guise of a specific style. Tarantino has an oblivious flare for what he does, and his shortcomings are just as apparent. For instance, anyone who saw it could easily pick out the episode of CSI that QT directed for its scenes of flying intestines and the uncomfortable live burial of the CSI agent with thousands of biting fire ants. But as for his acting… There is little that needs to be said. He stinks. His delivery is jittery and forced and uncomfortable to watch. I haven’t seen all his moments on screen, but I believe there’s a reason he’s only in Dogs for about five minutes not to mention he being heavily upstaged by Travolta and Jackson in Pulp Fiction. Then again, the man can write dialogue better than certain overpaid directors that rely heavily on special effects and gets his points across more eloquently. But I would say name association has over all has worked out well for Tarantino. I’ve never heard anyone point out an bad actor and say ‘whoa that dude sucks, what a Tarantino’, but I myself have watched horror, or stylized action movies (such as Shoot ‘Em Up) and been reminded of Tarantino as a master of mashing gross brutality with high brow humor. Yet on the whole, the director seems un-phased by his name status. As seen in his interview with MimUdovitch, he seems just as willing to talk about the movies as to talk about himself, frequently comparing himself to other actors or directors, sighting sources for inspiration and technique. This exuberant enthusiasm for his craft, proving once again that he is a product of a pop culture atmosphere and that for him it’s really all about the show.
Tarantino is an adjective when describing a style of the film. However, that term do not last long. If you talk to some people about Tarantino, they are not familiar with that term anymore today. I was not familiar with Tarantino till I came to class. Older generation who remembered 90s well are not very aware of Tarantino as director or for his style. Pulp Fiction was the only film that most people know about during 90's. Most people today don't say "oh that is Tarantino" or anything relates to him.
From the readings, Tarantino appeared to be self-centered person but at the same time discussed about many films he saw. He was relcuant to talk about himself as the filmmaker. He always discussed about other films and even put some conversations in his films where the actors talk about this or that films. (Woods, p. 129-132) This is a lame way to discuss about the purposes of his films or why he created films that way, tarantino-esque style. I still don't understand what he is doing with his films so his style became Tarantino style. No one were able to describe his style clearly so they labeled the style Tarantino. You may notice, whenever the articles tries to interview him, he tend to discuss about other films and so on. For example, Tarantino and Juliette by Mim Udovitch, the interviewer interviews with Tarantino and Julie Lewis. Notice during the interview, Tarantino interrupts with parts from the films he saw and kept going on about these films. Lewis is a new young girl who is not familiar with films yet and learned from Tarantino during this interview. I thought this was interesting way to write the article because obviously Tarantino boasted about his knowledge of the films to the interviewer and Julie.
Do i think that Tarantino is worthy of adjective status, well I think that Tarantino is a god of director in his class of movies. He have a unique style of directing a movie and a very unique style of his screenplay. The unique style of his directing a movie it always a twisted in the end of the movie, some of the movie have a very unique of telling a story about the movie like it will start the movie at the middle of the story and it will end at beginning of the story. The screenplay of the his work is very genius work, in every screenplay there is a main character in the story or forus the story around the main character , but in Tarantino work it doesn’t have any of that. It always tell story in group of character and it work the group of character. In good example for all his work s like Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and Kill Bill volumes, he always use the some of same actor in his movie like Uma Thurman, Samuel L. Jackson. So yeah we can put him in the catergoy or whole different catergoy to make Tarantino worthy status.
So I guess we can call that so Tarantino-style in the future movie that has same or simpler style.
-tony-
Tarantino says in an interview with Simon Hattenstone, "Tarantino is used to mean: people in black suits, violence, cursing or a certain kind of language.'" He argued that this diminishes him as an artist. But the fact is that his films feature these in a prominent way (maybe not necessarily a black suit, but some sort of uniform as a way to identify a group of people).
These characteristics, in addition to, as Tom Charity mentioned, excessive pop-culture banter and has-been actors (Harvey Keitel, John Travolta, Pam Grier, Robert Foster) make up a substantial portion of his work. If you took all the swearing, violence, and pop-culture references away, you wouldn't have a Tarantino film. That is what people expect from him, just as people expect complicated relationships, intellectual dialogue and a much younger female co-star from Woody Allen or an ensemble cast from Robert Altman.
In order to identify and discuss art, we must be able to verbalize certain characteristics that distinguish it from another, something Robyn mentioned in her post. What makes a Picasso different from a Rothko. It has nothing to do with reducing. It doesn't mean that Tarantino's films are ONLY about violence or cursing. Obviously there is always something else going on. These things are just markers of his films (or film’s utilizing these same markers), just as complex geometric shapes and bold colors are markers of a Picasso.
Quintin Tarantino deffinately has a noticeable character to his movies. Not only with his cinematic style but with his pleasing de ja vu that brings us to reminesce his prior films and characters. It is in the way of a painters style such as John Pollock or Van Gogh. The dialogue is fast and smart consistently in every movie. He has re-occurring "mexican stand off" scenes as well as a character getting tied to a chair and tortured in some way. You never know which direction the movie will go in this instance, anything could happen.
i think there are deffinate positives and negatives to having an adjective to your style. For one positive, it is flattering for people to notice your style. it shows and proves your individuality. it could be negative because people then expect a certain product from you.
1) According to Charity the term Tarantino-esque has become "degraded," a summation which Tarantino seems to agree with stating, "I never understood what 'Tarantino-esque' meant... It never sounds like a flattering thing because it's so broken down to black suits, hipper-than-thou dialogue, and people talking about TV shows... I feel there's a lot more to my work than that." This sort of classification lends way to a form of critic/viewer pigeonholing. With this adjective status expectations are solidified in the public sphere resulting in a possible disappointment with a change in genres or particular elements of his filmmaking style. Another pitfall analogous to the classification is, as discussed by Ian Penman, the constantly recurring cinematic conventions and aesthetic qualities which, to Penman, become seemingly unrealistic and monotonous calling his depiction of bad guy characters "one -dimensional parodies of badness... real gone, unreal goon characters." While it stands to reason to say that the reoccurring character archetypes and filmic facets might become repetitive it is also that characteristic commonality and continuity which makes him a true film auteur, a term which his French New Wave role models (Godard and Truffaut) coined for a writer/ director with a distinctive and unique style of filmmaking- something Tarantino surely possesses. Stylistically and cinematically Tarantino's work pervades in parroting not only himself but the work of others as well, blending them into a larger violent, comedic, terrifying, offensive, and ultimately relatable story.
Tarantino's work and personality are undoubtedly worthy of an adjective like status. That is not to say necessarily that he is in the same echelon of filmmaking as the likes of Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, or Stanley Kubrick (Though he may very well be), but what must be realized is that adjective usage of a name does not always carry with it a positive connotation. To many (i.e. Penman) the term Tarantino-esque or Tarantinoism may denote and carry with it a negative connotation, one that many spectators and critics may deem excessively gratuitous and overly violent. To describe something as "Tarantino-esque" could mean a wide range of things from very bad to astonishingly great depending on how each individual perceives his work.
Tarantino would definitely invite the title of film author and entertain the idea that some recent cinema has been influenced by his work, but once again it cannot be assumed he would either completely resist or accept such a title; it must be taken in context with how it is being used and to what elements of cinematic style the adjective is being applied to. Designating a film as Tarantino-esque may be quite valid in some instances (social commentary, use of violence, gender roles, film history) but completely ignorant in others (black and white suits, pop music). Accentuating this notion, and in reiterating the first paragraph, Tarantino states, "I never really understood what 'Tarantino-esque' meant... When i hear it applied it never really sounds flattering because its so broken down..."
Because Tarantino has made a name for himself by producing films that are woven together by pop cultural references, complete with tons of violence, drugs, sex and notable language, he has definitely earned becoming an adjective in everyday conversation. His style of film making is very unique, and if one were to something as “Tarantino-esque”, the implied meaning would be understood. The advantages of being an adjective is how easy it would be then to get audiences into the theaters. One of the most obvious pitfalls is that his audiences and critics would now be expecting Tarantino-like films from now on. He now has to work in the realm of expectations he has created with his work amongst his fans and critics, and will have to make films at the risk of audiences not being receptive if it doesn't fit the “Tarantino” box. I do, however, think that Tarantino embraces being an adjective. As he stated, “...I guess I'm too self-obsessed to think of anything that isn't personal.”
I believe Tarantino and his work have really developed this sort of aura or adjective to a certain genre of filmmaking. This blog “Tarantino-esque” really says it all. What Tarantino is exceptionally good at is taking historical genres and completely transforming them into something contemporary. Whether this is “paying homage” or simply stealing other ideas, there is no doubt that his work is very well known and definitive all around the globe. He has extremely witty, cutting-edge dialogue, pop-culture references, and often a non-linear narrative that really put him in a different league and wins him the title of being an adjective. After all, we are in a class specifically designed around Tarantino.
Having this superstardom however, I think is something Tarantino sometimes courts and sometimes resists. He was just a video store clerk who loved nothing in the world more than movies, a natural born artist. So when his dreams came true and he began to be successful with a directing/writing/acting career his status went way up. Of course he has to be grateful for his fans because he wouldn’t be where he was if it wasn’t for them but at the same time, I think he just sometimes wants to be left alone in the process. Michael Beeler in The Film Geek Files interviews Tarantino and he is talking about the old days of just being able to go into a record store for three hours at a time and zone out and without being bothered. He then says, “I still do that, but it’s not like the way I used to do it. I’ve got to deal with people. Either I’m signing or sometimes I’ll just say, ‘it’s my day off’. And they respect that. I’ll shake their hands because I don’t want to make anyone feel bad about anything. It’s just that I want to live my life, too. I’m not going to give up my life, but I’m not going to give up my courtesy either. So, it’s just about finding that balance”.
Using someone or something as an adjective is completely acceptable, even in the case of using Tarantino-esque. To use something adjectively is referring to them as a certain way or style. The thing is, the people saying it and the people being told it have to understand (somewhat) what they mean by it. If I say, “That entrance is very Nouvel” you have no idea what I’m talking about unless you know that Nouvel is Jean Nouvel the architect of Ateliers and then understand enough about him to know what I mean by something being Nouvel-ish. I make this point because it works the same way with Tarantino, and I’m not sure that it should be considered a certain level of status, rather it’s just using the idea of someone or something to classify attributes of someone or something else.
As for Quentin Tarantino, and other people of creative professions, the major pitfall of being coined AS a certain style is that once they become known for something then the public starts to expect that of them, which is not always a positive thing. I am saying all of this coming from a design background, but even with movies I can see that certain people can become ‘caught up’ in what is projected to be their style, and if they create something different it is automatically regarded as a failure (which is not always the case). I think that Tarantino might be above this, he seems to understand things, and is well knowledged about film history, currents, and probably futures. He states in the Beeler article about a failed acting job, “In a way, the lessons I learned from that movie are hopefully going to be bearing fruit.”(p.119) This is a clear admittance that he learns from mistakes or unsuccessful adventures. A major advantage that I see coming from fame such as this, is the connections and power one can obtain. We can see from his career, that success and power can reside under the snowball effect. The more people know about someone and what they can create, the more power they will entrust (or the more money they will grant for projects) and thus more can be produced of what they want to do (power).
I believe that Tarantino courts AND resists this ‘designation’. We can see from the way he talks about himself and his ‘way of doing things’ that he knows he is of such status. He has the type of personality that enjoys being known for what he does, however I still think that it doesn’t get to him too much. His projects are not getting worse and he still thinks deeply about film. It would be a different story if his creative output was going down the drain and he was still proud of being ‘Quentin Tarantino’. His work is all over the board in terms of styles and genres, that’s what makes him him. He seems to take some criticism and reject others, allowing him to do what he wants to do and not what people consider to be ‘Tarantino-esque’.
Post a Comment