Ideas? School Project; Homage to Tarantino

[sletts02]

I need to develop a film that pays homage to the works and stylistic techniques of Quintin Tarantino. It's a high school film studies class and the film needs to be 4 minutes in length.

What are some ideas for a homage to Tarantino? Budget = $0 so expensive sets/locations/chase scenes etc are out of the question.

I was thinking something along the lines of the Minority Report how the chicks in the water can see crimes before they happened. Instead, a guy can see in the past and see crimes that have happened and is hooked up to a police TV. The flash backs would involve lots of gruesome crimes and blood.

Then all these flashbacks either send him insane and he pops him self, or he sees a repressed memory of him killing someone so he pops himself before it can be shown to the cops.

Although, this is obviously very rough and just ideas - does anybody have any feedback/new ideas/elaborate on this?

Any help is greatly appreciated =)!

 

[David W. Richardson]

First off, the spelling of Tarantino's first name is 'Quentin'.

Not a bad idea you've got going there, though 'gruesome crimes and blood' aren't necessarily cheap. Not entirely sure I see the basic outline of your story, in a 3-act arrangement.

To me, Tarantino's hallmarks are guns, violence and blood. I'm not quite sure how you'd accomplish a Tarantino-esque look and feel in just 4 minutes on a $0 budget. Maybe somebody here who is more in tune with Tarantino's work can give you some direction.

I'm wondering, though -- is a film with 'lots of gruesome crimes and blood' appropriate for high school?

 

[sletts02]

First off, the spelling of Tarantino's first name is 'Quentin'.

Not a bad idea you've got going there, though 'gruesome crimes and blood' aren't necessarily cheap. Not entirely sure I see the basic outline of your story, in a 3-act arrangement.

To me, Tarantino's hallmarks are guns, violence and blood. I'm not quite sure how you'd accomplish a Tarantino-esque look and feel in just 4 minutes on a $0 budget. Maybe somebody here who is more in tune with Tarantino's work can give you some direction.

I'm wondering, though -- is a film with 'lots of gruesome crimes and blood' appropriate for high school?

I think I could get away with the gruesome crimes and blood easily enough. Very cheap dish washing detergent and food colouring should do the job with my home made air compressor "blood squirt" effect. Although, if I wanted to do Kill Bill blood I'd need a freaking sprinkler filled with the stuff.

Ummm, I guess I am allowed to do gruesome crimes and blood. Tarantino is notorious for his violence and blood therefore doing a short film that pays homage to his style would require a decent amount of violence/blood. Obviously the other techniques can't be ignored, trunk shot, cigarettes etc.

The reason I am so keen on flash backs is that it conforms with his unconventional style of story telling and it allows me to use the trunk shot etc. easily as it doesn't have to be one coherent flow.

 

[Huy Vu]

You want to pay tribute to QT on a low budget? Easy. Have 3 1/2 minutes of characters having "clever" conversation about nothing of particular importance or relevance to the plot, and the last 30 seconds they suddenly go crazy and kill each other.

 

[David W. Richardson]

You want to pay tribute to QT on a low budget? Easy. Have 3 1/2 minutes of characters having "clever" conversation about nothing of particular importance or relevance to the plot, and the last 30 seconds they suddenly go crazy and kill each other.

Good idea! Hmmm.....what do the French call a Whopper??

 

[brianluce]

You want to pay tribute to QT on a low budget? Easy. Have 3 1/2 minutes of characters having "clever" conversation about nothing of particular importance or relevance to the plot, and the last 30 seconds they suddenly go crazy and kill each other.

agreed. Banter is his trademark.

Personally I have never understood how he can write this mindless chatter that doesn't really push the story or even the characters (they all sound the same more or less) and yet the dialog is unforgettable and quoted more than any other writer.

"Everybody be cool. YOU, be cool".

 

[DeSica]

agreed. Banter is his trademark.

Personally I have never understood how he can write this mindless chatter that doesn't really push the story or even the characters (they all sound the same more or less) and yet the dialog is unforgettable and quoted more than any other writer.

"Everybody be cool. YOU, be cool".

He's good at it.

Most of his fans are clueless as to what and who inspired the guy, and what he "borrows" from, but the guy does have an appreciation for foreign films, (amongst others) and many of those are heavy on character type dialogue, rather than just lines to further the plot.

He isn't afraid to go thick on the banter, and it often works. Think of how many films, especially action flicks, that try and have their characters sound witty and cool...but end up falling far short.

Much of that "mindless" chatter is actually intelligent, and goes to revealing something about the character, in terms or mannerisms and thinking, or it references pop culture, which does have a way of creeping into our lives...whether we want it to or not.

He can write dailogue very well when he's up to it...regardless of how you feel about the guy, you have to give him credit for that.

As for an homage...I would have two characters discuss his films. One would be clueless about film in general, and assume that everything he does is original and stems from genius...the other would know about film.

They'd have a fast paced, profanity laden discourse which ended in the two of them drawing guns and having a Mexican standoff like in City On Fire...and Reservoir Dogs, and True Romance...

Yeah. I think I will make that little film, just for my own satisfaction.

 

[Huy Vu]

He isn't afraid to go thick on the banter, and it often works. Think of how many films, especially action flicks, that try and have their characters sound witty and cool...but end up falling far short.

Much of that "mindless" chatter is actually intelligent, and goes to revealing something about the character, in terms or mannerisms and thinking, or it references pop culture, which does have a way of creeping into our lives...whether we want it to or not.

It's been a while since I saw Kill Bill so I don't remember much about the conversations in that film, but I do remembered that I wasn't bored watching that film. Now Death Proof on the other hand was just a disaster in term of dense dialogue. It's an hour and 40 minutes and the first hour consists entirely of characters talking about banal things like "Who are you sleeping with?" I couldn't believe it was a QT film at first because I was just so utterly bored. I ended up skipping forward until the action scenes and realized that I didn't missed anything. Now that's excessive.

 

[Drew Ott]

I agree about dialog being the best way to pay homage to QT. Kill Bill didn't seem to have as much notable dialog as films like Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs.

Maybe you could throw in a briefcase with an orange light coming from it. You could have the camera whip around to reveal ________ inside of the briefcase.

 

[StefanHaynes]

Quentin T. just ripped off Mamet, and then dumbed it down and gore'd it up for the ADD Grand Theft Auto gamers to go apeplop over. Him and Palahniuk (another major player in the "LAWL social commentary while I sodomize you with a rusty flash drive") are the reason "deep" and "artsy" movies tend to suck these days.

That said, he's easy as hell to imitate (just throw in some cliche dialog and pointless pop-cultural references), and I'd probably do the same if I were in your time-constrained shoes.

Good luck!

 

[JT Ryder]

Ideas...following on from Kill Bill shoot it as black and white...blood just needs to be dark therefore it won't look cheap and too much like food colouring. This also lends itself to a style that QT is renowned for.

The guts.

You could have two characters in the film one a director in his room who is reviewing his film while the "gopher guy" (the "go get this go get that"person on set) is passing by. The "gopher guy" wants to get into film but has no idea. The Director invites him into the office and proceeds to explain the composition of the shots and reasoning behind them. The "gopher guy" starts to ask questions about why this and that?

In response the director tries to explain why but really has no idea himself but manages to convince the "gopher guy" one way or another that what he is saying is gospel. This is where the witty banter dialog could be injected in sequence with the film footage. You could inject QT film references from the director to justify his film in here (homage part), the "gopher guy" knows some of the references and challenges the director with his interpretation etc. The final words perhaps would be the director sucumbs to the endless questions and snaps cause he is out of ideas.

Director
"it looks good doesn't it?"

Gopher guy
{sheepishly}
"yeah, i suppose, but..."

Director
"That's all that matters, now go and get me a coffee"


criteria - low budget...The upshot...shoot one single location scene of blood fight scene with dialogue (in black and white) etc as the film footage and the 2nd location in an office viewing the footage. There is no back story to be setup as would be required in your scenario, just a director and the goofy "gopher guy"...too easy.

You can use V.O. while we watch them watching the footage, cut back in parts to them during their conversation.

JT

 

[brianluce]

. It's an hour and 40 minutes and the first hour consists entirely of characters talking about banal things like "Who are you sleeping with?" I couldn't believe it was a QT film at first because I was just so utterly bored.

The sad truth is that Tarantino blew his load with Pulp Fiction. Everything he's written since is pure garbage. So what though. I gave us PF, RES DOGs, TRUE ROMANCE. DUSK TIL DAWN etc.

 

[brianluce]

People are saying "Yeah just write witty banter in this scene." Like it was just that easy. I'd say get a QT script, find a great scene, like the Mcdonald's scene in Pulp fiction and use as much of the original dialog as you can, maybe change the subject though to something mundane. Oh wait, fast food in France IS mundane.

 

[pest22o]

Q.T. sucks, he is a horrible director. There's no artistic visual style to his movies. Here is my advice change directors, and pay homage to, David Fincher, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan or Almoldovar.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

Quentin T. just ripped off Mamet, and then dumbed it down ....

....That said, he's easy as hell to imitate (just throw in some cliche dialog...)

I'm confused.
So are you saying Mamet's dialogue is cliche?
Or that Mamet is good, and yet somehow by ripping him off Tarantino's dialogue is cliche?

 

[DeSica]

It's been a while since I saw Kill Bill so I don't remember much about the conversations in that film, but I do remembered that I wasn't bored watching that film. Now Death Proof on the other hand was just a disaster in term of dense dialogue.

I hated Kill Bill Vol. 1 when I saw it in the theatres. Vol.2 was a bit better, but still...it seemed like he was trying to see how much stuff he could rip-off by pretending to be paying it tribute, and still get away with it. That is why the dude is so popular with people who don't watch many films, especially young people. They think he is original in every way. And I was bored. The whole Lucy Liu thing was mind numbingly boring and overdone at the same time. I was seriously thinking about walking out, going home, and watching The Five Deadly Venoms.

After seeing those films, there was no way I was going to see something that looked as stupid as Grindhouse. Nothing in the marketing campaign made me want to see it...and many of the clips actually made me sure I didn't want to see it.

Tarantino knows how to write stuff that is witty enough for the intelligent person, but still pedestrian enough for any slack jawed yokel. Throw in some Leone, Woo, Shaw Brothers and Peckingpagh as needed, plus his take on all of that stuff, and there you go...you've got a Tarantino film.

The good thing about QT's movies are that they make you want to see the films they remind you of again. Is it just me, or whenever you see the briefcase glow when opened in Pulp Fiction, don't you just want to watch Repo Man again?

I do think Pulp Fiction is his best film. Reservoir Dogs was good, too...but I liked the Hong Kong version better.

Rodriguez just plain sucks. I loved El Mariachi, and will always be envious that he was able to do such a neat little film at such a young age...and that's about it.

I don't see what the big deal is. These guys know who their audience is, and they're going to keep making films for them. It is what it is...and it works, mostly. People keep letting them make movies.

Nobody says you have to see them...and nobody says you have to listen to a moron try and explain how every one of them is just so amazing.

 

[brianluce]

I hated Kill Bill Vol. 1 when I saw it in the theatres. Vol.2 was a bit better, but still...it seemed like he was trying to see how much stuff he could rip-off by pretending to be paying it tribute, and still get away with it. That is why the dude is so popular with people who don't watch many films, especially young people. They think he is original in every way. And I was bored. The whole Lucy Liu thing was mind numbingly boring and overdone at the same time. I was seriously thinking about walking out, going home, and watching The Five Deadly Venoms.

After seeing those films, there was no way I was going to see something that looked as stupid as Grindhouse. Nothing in the marketing campaign made me want to see it...and many of the clips actually made me sure I didn't want to see it.

Tarantino knows how to write stuff that is witty enough for the intelligent person, but still pedestrian enough for any slack jawed yokel. Throw in some Leone, Woo, Shaw Brothers and Peckingpagh as needed, plus his take on all of that stuff, and there you go...you've got a Tarantino film.

The good thing about QT's movies are that they make you want to see the films they remind you of again. Is it just me, or whenever you see the briefcase glow when opened in Pulp Fiction, don't you just want to watch Repo Man again?

I do think Pulp Fiction is his best film. Reservoir Dogs was good, too...but I liked the Hong Kong version better.

Rodriguez just plain sucks. I loved El Mariachi, and will always be envious that he was able to do such a neat little film at such a young age...and that's about it.

I don't see what the big deal is. These guys know who their audience is, and they're going to keep making films for them. It is what it is...and it works, mostly. People keep letting them make movies.

Nobody says you have to see them...and nobody says you have to listen to a moron try and explain how every one of them is just so amazing.

I'm with you half way. IMHO everything since Pulp Fiction has been drivel. Critics and fanboys read in to the post PF--but I don't think there's anything there. But PF deserved its oscar and True Romance was just superb writing. Dusk til Dawn was a riot. The guy is damn good.

I'm with you on REPO MAN! I think the same thing.

"A repo man is always intense."

 

[Capt Quirk]

How about a Nun in a yellow habit, whacking the snot out of a hundred kids with a ruler, Kill Bill style? Or have the horrors of Old Catholic school's faded from contemporary memory?

 

[Dvader]

Do you guys remember that scene in Kill Bill where they discuss never comparing a Hattori Hanzo sword to another Hattori Hanzo sword? I also think QT style is very indicative of our current times, influenced by media.

Why are so many filmmakers so eager to become critics?

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Quentin T. just ripped off Mamet, and then dumbed it down and gore'd it up for the ADD Grand Theft Auto gamers to go apeplop over. Him and Palahniuk (another major player in the "LAWL social commentary while I sodomize you with a rusty flash drive") are the reason "deep" and "artsy" movies tend to suck these days.

That said, he's easy as hell to imitate (just throw in some cliche dialog and pointless pop-cultural references), and I'd probably do the same if I were in your time-constrained shoes.

Good luck!

Stefan

Your spin on the matter is what is cliche. :thumbsup:

Q.T. sucks, he is a horrible director. There's no artistic visual style to his movies.

... and you, have no clue what you are speaking of.

-

Many people tend to focus on the dialogue in Tarantino films, which much of the time seems more real than typical 'Get to the point, move the story forward' dialogue of traditional Hollywood films.

No one complains about Woody Allen and his dialogue driven musings on screen and I'd rather listen to QT's than Woody's self-deprecation any day.

To pay homage to Tarantino, I'd focus more on his visual langauge, which is inspired and taken from the root of the masters:

Hitchcock > De Palma > Tarantino

Brian and Quentin lean on the far side of this visual curve whilst filmmakers like Scorsese and Spielberg stick to a more contemporary balance, yet they definately dip from this pool of visual style.

In watching CITIZEN KANE recently, I was jaw dropped to find todays techniques used extensively in that film; elaborate crane movement, ramping effects, push dollys, et al ...

-

If you are paying attention, you'll find Tarantino (Like De Palma), lets the camera speak as much as the actors.