Quentin Tarantino, yay or nay?

He lost me with Kill Bill, I was massively into Martial Arts films when I was younger but KB just never clicked with me at all.

I thought Django was great and a return to form for me. Not seen hateful 8 and was put off it being another western, but I think he wants to do a Western trilogy.
 
I like his early films and don't mind the more recent films, but he's being pretentious for the sake of it since Jackie Brown IMO, particularly in making a point of throwing in obscure film references that add nothing. I can't work out if these are for his own enjoyment or part of some superiority complex, but they certainly aren't for the mainstream audience, as I doubt many people have watched the 60s Latvian film noir or 20s Japanese horror film he is referencing.
 
ttaskmaster said:
Since I'm not arty-farty-pretentious enough to know what what the heck this Auteur thing is and so having to look it up..... Tarantino *is* the writer on many of the films he's directed, so by definition he can't be a flippin' Auteur anyway. :D
Click to expand...

Yes he can.Yes he is.
 
easyrider said:
At least have some sort of argument.:)
Click to expand...

Why it is 'pointless' in your own words, to be critical of Tarantino given his status as an Auteur?

I would use the Kubrick criticism (something that I'm currently in the middle of preparing a paper for University at the minute) of his status as an Auteur.

However, actual debate is impossible with you. You'll nit pick, go off on a tangent, and fail to provide any valid sources (much like you have failed to provide any valid evidence to suggest your status in academia in regards to film, such as were you lecture/research).
 
Criticism can be said to be pointless in general - though I don't think it is - but I don't think it makes any sense to single people out and say that they are exempt from criticism.

I suppose you could say that they're immune to criticism because they'll do what they want and make money and it doesn't matter what you say, but you could just as well say that about Michael Bay as about Tarantino.
 
Tummy said:
Why it is 'pointless' in your own words, to be critical of Tarantino given his status as an Auteur?

I would use the Kubrick criticism (something that I'm currently in the middle of preparing a paper for University at the minute) of his status as an Auteur.

However, actual debate is impossible with you. You'll nit pick, go off on a tangent, and fail to provide any valid sources (much like you have failed to provide any valid evidence to suggest your status in academia in regards to film, such as were you lecture/research).
Click to expand...

That's because you are cheeky...you want it on a plate....you haven't even been polite about it.

And when you're out of your depth you throw insults.

:rolleyes:

Not angry, just dissapointed.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Criticism can be said to be pointless in general - though I don't think it is - but I don't think it makes any sense to single people out and say that they are exempt from criticism.

I suppose you could say that they're immune to criticism because they'll do what they want and make money and it doesn't matter what you say, but you could just as well say that about Michael Bay as about Tarantino.
Click to expand...

Micheal Bay makes films...QT creates art.

It's all subjective but either liking what he does or not has no effect on what QT does.

He plays by his own rules.
 
easyrider said:
That's because you are cheeky...you want it on a plate....you haven't even been polite about it.

And when you're out of your depth you throw insults.

:rolleyes:

Not angry, just dissapointed.
Click to expand...

Ah, you picked off on a tangent this time :).

Same old, same old. Fails to provide any sources, fails to provide any clarification to anything. Same old Easyrider, as soon as you scratch at the façade the entire construction falls apart.
 
Vonhelmet said:
Criticism can be said to be pointless in general - though I don't think it is - but I don't think it makes any sense to single people out and say that they are exempt from criticism.

I suppose you could say that they're immune to criticism because they'll do what they want and make money and it doesn't matter what you say, but you could just as well say that about Michael Bay as about Tarantino.
Click to expand...

Firstly to address Easyriders point;

easyrider said:
Tarantino is an auteur...

Wether you like or dislike him is irrelevant.

End of thread.
Click to expand...

easyrider said:
The mere fact he is an auteur renders any opinion futile.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.

Firstly; Auteurs are not 'above' criticism, either of their filmmaking style or their films.

Secondly, the 'Auteur' is a theory, a way of understanding particular directors and their tropes, styles, iconography, et cetera. You first have to simply put it 'buy the theory' that one single individual is responsible for the final product.

Slightly relate-able, is my paper on Kubrick's status as an Auteur. I am not totally convinced that the theory stacks up for Kubrick.
 
Tummy said:
Firstly to address Easyriders point;





Ridiculous.

Firstly; Auteurs are not 'above' criticism, either of their filmmaking style or their films.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that auteurs are above criticism.

One can criticise all one wants...But there is no point.

That's my point.
 
easyrider said:
Of course you can...but I'm not talking about the theory.

I'm talking about the auteur.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is an argument for the Auteur theory or not, which can be applied perfectly well to Tarantino.

Tarantino and the films which he has directed are not above criticism.

This is like, University 101 film criticism/Auteur theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom