Rewatched Pulp Fiction

[Jeremy Ordan]

Great Filmmakers:

John Ford - DEAD
Orson Welles - DEAD
Quentin Tarrantino - ALIVE

What more needs to be said? He is one of the few true artists out there creating brilliant works of cinema.

Furthermore, and maybe most importantly, he is one of the few WRITER / DIRECTORS out there who never dissapoints. His films are events on par with what PT Barnum did in the 30's. They are bigger than film, they go beyond the screen and become part of culture. He motivates others to watch films he pays homage to, and is, in my opinion, one of the few directors who has enough substance to match his style.

Writer / Director is important though. Speilberg never wrote a word. Hitchcock never wrote a word. QT does. He is in an elite solitary group of people who take their own words on a page and bring them to life. Elite... and in that group he is perhaps the best of the best.

We can argue semantics all day long. We can say that this shot sucks, that this line sucks, and we can say that Kill Bill could have been a 15 minute short film. We can say that because we're all critics, but the simple fact is that QT is an original voice created from the artists who came before him, he pays tribute to those artists and he is able to elevate filmmaking to a new level of accomplishment. Critique all you want, he's out there doing it and inspiring people... we're typing on a message board.

I got nothing but respect for the man.

Then again, opinions are like assholes, everyone has got one and they all stink (except for mine)

-Jeremy

 

[Aaron Marshall]

You know, I'd disagree. The fact that I have not seen Sin City, and have no intention to (some personal convictions) would surprise you. My favorite RR film is Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and it is in fact my favorite movie, overall.

How can you watch Once Upon a Time in Mexico and not watch Sin City?! They're both super violent.

Robert Rodriguez still has many years of filmmaking ahead of him. He's getting judged like he's 92 years old and getting ready to die. I think RR could be one of the greats. Some of the scenes in Sin City were just brilliant. I love how it was edited. The flow of the movie was out of Frank Miller's hands.

One thing to remember about Robert Rodriguez, he has a house full of kids he needs to feed and worry about. That's a lot of $$$, and grey hairs right there. He needs to make some corny movies, because unforunately corny sells in.

Tarantino does a lot of homage...so what? If you knew more about film history dating back to the dawn of cinema you'd realize; all directors do. Film didn't start in the 60's.

 

[KOVAROVA]

I just don't feel I want to watch the particular content in that film. It's a personal conviction and I have no problem with others seeing it and enjoying the film, but I choose not to see it

is it the prostitute thing that bugs you?

 

[Solomojo]

Oldenarm...did someone pee in your coffee? I get that you don't like QT...I just wanted more of take on why as opposed to semantical statements. Do you really think an 85 minute Kill Bill would be good? There's alot of story to tell and I feel it really is a compelling revenge piece. I gotta go...the Reader's Digest War and Peace is waiting for me in the bathroom.

 

[Zak Forsman]

Oldenarm...please enlighten us with one of your films so we can grasp the concept of cohesion as Tarantino obviously has no idea how to do it. Not trying to be rude but if you have a better example then please share...otherwise zip it.

I really enjoy watching Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill 1 and 2. Bottom line...great filmmaking! Oldenarm your arguement sounds like a jealous neophyte from Boise looking for attention...no disrespect for Boise...been there...they have great taters. Either way, step up your arguement or double zip it with vinagrette.

Oldenarm...did someone pee in your coffee? I get that you don't like QT...I just wanted more of take on why as opposed to semantical statements. Do you really think an 85 minute Kill Bill would be good? There's alot of story to tell and I feel it really is a compelling revenge piece. I gotta go...the Reader's Digest War and Peace is waiting for me in the bathroom.

that's three times you've attacked oldenarm personally, rather than countering his assertions. please come back when you've got a substantive argument in you.

 

[dustino]

You meant attach Oldenarm personally, right...?

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I use the word plagiarism because I want it to sound nasty.

Why ? It sound's personal.

There are good and bad uses of theft as an artistic tool. It's not necessarily a condemnation, I just think we let people off the hook too easily for this, and fail to critically assess it's validity in each case.

Name the offenses for us please. 5 Films. Let's name the thievery, as you put it. Without example your postulation has already fallen apart.

When Todd Haynes quotes Sirk, he does it to specifically juxtapose the 1950's against now. That to me is compelling. When Tarantino rips from Chang Cheh, I just don't see the same necessity, and without a provocative artistic justification, to be honest, it kind of smacks of white arrogance and cultural grave robbery to me. Tarantino is smart enough to address this concern in his film - watch how race plays a role in the story - but in the end, I just don't think he does anything interesting with it.

I f*cking hate film theory. It's about as useful as a the idiots who write it. Let's keep it in the arena.

If you're asking what I mean by post modernism, there's probably a Wiki page which might be a good place to start.

I wasn't asking. And although I find that imaginary, philosophy has nothing to do with this conversation; it's all hot air.

The thing you said about MTV was a bit of a non-sequitur for me. I didn't catch the connection.

Just because it flew over your head doesn't mean there wasn't a point. You made a statement that:

Tarantino is a plagiarist, but so are the Andersons, Shyamalan, Gordon Green

These are simply a few filmmakers out there that are not caught up in the hyper real chop suey filmmaking style that is running rampant right now. On a side note, I wouldn't put Green in the same breath as Tarantino and M Knight.

You keep asking me what I'm referencing; where I'm 'getting this stuff from.' I find this strange. I mean, don't you ever go to the movies and then think up your opinions on your own? You know, you go, and then you see all these images, and you deconstruct them and interpret them based on how they make you feel, and what they make you think about? Well, I do, and I confess that I also tend to make qualitative judgments about what I've seen. It's kinda why I... go see movies... in the first place?

You're trying to be a cowboy but you're backpedaling. You made some inane comments as if you knew exactly what Tarantino is doing with "...he actually thinks he's better than the filmmakers he steals from" and "...thinks of them as something like outsider art, as if they were made by people too dumb to really know their true beauty, and it's up to him, the genius almighty, to rescue and 'elevate' this raw material into a work of art."


That aint opinion, that's vacuous.

I don't mean to be rude but, (oh wait...) honestly I find this conversation a bit bewildering. Film criticism isn't legal testimony. I'm not making comments as if they are facts - we're talking about something that's entirely subjective, everything I type is, on its face, an opinion - I'm making assertions, based on what I believe.

What ? You think this is some public message board you can run in and spout 'opinion' without foundation ? You're in good hands here; we'll hold you accountable and expect explanations over your nonsensical banter.

we're talking about something that's entirely subjective, everything I type is, on its face, an opinion - I'm making assertions, based on what I believe.

No no no. Your Being Quentin Tarantino with your comments and they hold no opinion.

You want a couple revenge films that are exquisite?

I'll take Mad Max and, you guessed it, and The K Billy's.


-


I gave you a chance and you lost me. Welcome to dvxuser. I think you'll make a nice addition to the FIlm Discussion boards. It is more rewarding exchanging 180's.

 

[Brandon Rice]

Wow, that was something. Yeah, I don't understand where you're coming from dude... you have to back up your attacks on QT's creativity.

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

you have to back up your attacks on QT's creativity.

Actually, I completely disagree with that comment. You can have any opinion you want, because that's what you're expressing, but at the same time, who are you? This is a community, but you just pop up and start ripping on a very qualified creative and smart director who is extremely accomplished... why and who are you?

I'm not trying to be personal here, but you're whole line of thought just reminds me of a Kevin Smith film where he is talking about online message boards and people just ripping on others.

I don't see what intelligent discourse you're bringing, and I'm sorry if my post is slightly out of line, but honestly, I'm sick of reading through all this mental diarrhea that is being dropped.

-Jeremy

 

[Brandon Rice]

Actually, I completely disagree with that comment. You can have any opinion you want, because that's what you're expressing,

Agreed, but if you make adamant attacks you need backing. I agree you can have your opinion with it being just that, your opinion. But, leave it at that, and don't overblow it.

 

[oldenarm]

Man, for a film discussion board, there seems to be quite the hostility to actually discussing films around here. You all seem much more interested in talking about ME. I can guarantee you, I'm hardly that interesting.

Noct: For your own future reference, "everybody does it," does not constitute a moral justification. Yes, 'homage' has always existed. So has hackery and laziness. (But I will take your advice to see some of these supposed films made before the 1960's. I didn't even know they had electricity all the way back then!)

John_Hudson: If you swipe an idea someone else came up with, and incorporate it into your work in place of an idea of your own design, how would you describe that act? Based upon interpretation, if you decide it's justified, you might call it appropriation, assemblage or the old standby, 'homage.' But surely you can also conceive of a situation where this 'borrowing' is completely unearned, unjustified, just plain wrong?

If the difference is in the interpretation, then we have to at least remember to interpret. I use the word 'plagiarism,' as a creator and a viewer, as a reminder to be diligent.

Plus, I think even when it's justified, it's a little lame. There are people who set out to do something differently than it's ever been done before, and there are people who set out in hopes they can recreate something they've already seen. The former might be fooling themselves, but they deserve more respect.

Examples of theft in KILL BILL? I have a few that peeved - Fulci's one of my favorite filmmakers, and he takes a few hits. Some shots, some music. The buried alive scene is 'inspired' by a similar one in a film called CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD - and see, this is why a casual attitude towards this stuff bothers me. Tarantino rips off Fulci, and then the TV show "Alias" rips off Tarantino. Everybody gets to claim 'homage' and the scene gets recycled over and over.

LADY SNOWBLOOD is a badass Japanese female samurai film that also gets it pretty good, there are several direct shot rips, and the whole sword fight in the snow scene borrows heavily.

BLOOD-SPATTERED BRIDE gets off easy because he only steals the title, but it's a great goddamn title to a great little Spanish vampire flick, and every time people watch it now they'll associate it with KILL BILL.

That great shot of the plane flying against a bright orange sky is stolen from another Japanese film, I can't think of the name at the moment. There's a lot of Morricone music he took. There are other things that bother me less, like the GAME OF DEATH suit and the THRILLER eyepatch.

But it's also steal little, steal big. The revenge plot is a retread. The 5 DEADLY VENOMS-type character team is a retread. The wuxia training story is a retread. It goes on and on.

Everything in his movies happens in quotes. The "hero" seeks "vengeance" against her "master" - everything is a nod, a reference, an "ironic" "collage" of "pop culture..." etc. He doesn't make movies about people, he makes movies about movies about people. I mean I get it already.

I just don't think it amounts to much. That's my opinion. (duh)

And if this opinion causes me to interpret his plagiarism as unjustified, I'm forced to question whether his use of other people's work really is respectful. Which was my original point.

Your weird little fit about film theory and philosophy isn't worth a response, other than to say if you're ignoring the meta-texts in movies, you're only getting half your money's worth.

*shrug*

I wouldn't put Green in with them either. He actually has some original ideas and has created some real poetry onscreen, and despite his devotion to Mallick, he's worth watching. Besides, Zooey Deshanel in ALL THE REAL GIRLS made me chew my own heart out.

 

[Filmjunkie677]

He doesn't make movies about people, he makes movies about movies about people.

So what?

So this constitutes him being a bad filmmaker?

Huh?

Quick, call the plagiarism police!

Gimme a ****in break.

If you don't like his films, don't watch them.

I still have yet to see a real, justifiable, point in any of your posts.

QT borrows from the past and leads into the future.

Plagiarism my ass.

 

[Zak Forsman]

this reminds me of an old saying about the whole plagarism/homage debate. it goes something like, "it's an homage to everyone except the person you're paying tribute to. to them, it's stealing."

personally, i don't have a problem with it. but then, it's never happened to me. so, i can see why the people whose work is being pinched could have a problem with it, especially without any kind of remuneration.

anyone remember when Saul Bass threatened a lawsuit because a designer had taken "inspiration" from one of his original designs?

the artwork in question was quickly revised.

 

[oldenarm]

But my point isn't actually about plagiarism, in itself. My own example, Lucio Fulci, has an entire filmography full of hackery and theft; remaking Hollywood movies to capitalize on their success. But he worked with miniscule budgets, with absolutely no pretense of doing anything important. His job was to put asses in seats as quickly and cheaply as possible.

And he did, and along the way his twisted point of view crept in, and made for some very inventive and wonderful moments on film.

And then Tarantino comes along with more money, time, influence, backing and support than Fulci had his entire career put together. And he's not making no drive-in movie, he's fashioning a Crown of the Zeitgeist! And Lucio's bloody tears shant be wasted in some back-shelf 'discovery,' by this soon-to-be-heralded-cinematic-genius video-store clerk.

 

[Solomojo]

As we all go back and forth, QT is probably doing a line off a hooker's backside while giggling hysterically and sweating profusely...

 

[Zak Forsman]

As we all go back and forth, QT is probably doing a line off a hooker's backside while giggling hysterically and sweating profusely...

actually I ran into him at a restaurant called pearl here in los angeles not too long ago. he was talking to a very hot chick who couldn't be less interested in whatever he was saying. meanwhile, he was devouring a plate of baby back ribs like an animal. i was going to say hi (we worked together on the Kill Bill Vol 1 teaser) but didn't want to get bbq sauce on my hands. that's the sort of life he leads... aloof women and bbq sauce.

 

[StMad]

QT obviously borrows a lot of ideas when making his films. Can anyone else imagine putting together a film and referencing (or taking directly from) so many other films? Obviously we're all influenced by what we've been exposed to (and liked), but his approach seems pretty explicit - ie, "I like this and I'll use it here".

That said, I love the way he puts together a story. His films are definately greater than the sum of their parts. The mood and tone he brings just demands repeat viewings.

Can't stand it though when he gets indulgent. Kill Bill 1 could've been done in 30 mins, and I hope he doesn't ever cast himself again. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't have to play the coolest kid in school (and comes off the opposite)

 

[Blaine]

Some really good Reservoir Dogs trivia here:

http://yoursay.imdb.com/title/tt0105236/trivia

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Blaine

The SF on the Dogs disc are great; they have a ton of footage of Quentin and Buschemi rehearsing at Sundance. It's good film junky stuff.

-

overarm

You lost me a few posts back but thanks for shedding some more insight into your madness. The short end is that I find it hard to even talk to someone who doesnt dig Tarantino as it is just too far off the spectrum for me.

It's like talking about Rock and Roll to someone who doesnt like The Beatles. What would be the point ?

-

So let's agree that I disagee with you

 

[The Machinist]

But my point isn't actually about plagiarism, in itself. My own example, Lucio Fulci, has an entire filmography full of hackery and theft; remaking Hollywood movies to capitalize on their success. But he worked with miniscule budgets, with absolutely no pretense of doing anything important. His job was to put asses in seats as quickly and cheaply as possible.

And he did, and along the way his twisted point of view crept in, and made for some very inventive and wonderful moments on film.

And then Tarantino comes along with more money, time, influence, backing and support than Fulci had his entire career put together. And he's not making no drive-in movie, he's fashioning a Crown of the Zeitgeist! And Lucio's bloody tears shant be wasted in some back-shelf 'discovery,' by this soon-to-be-heralded-cinematic-genius video-store clerk.

Damn i forgot about this thread.

I can't believe this guy invoked the name of Fulci to make his point.

Haha.