Clerks, honestly, what do you think?

I realize that QT wrote the script, but (being a huge Elmore Leonard fan) the feel of that film (from a writng standpoint) is overwelmingly Leonard (who has built a carreer in no small part because of dialogue...which was a major influence on QT). I think that's why it didn't do well; people thought it would be more like a Tarantino film. What they got was Elmore Leonard through QT's eyes.

Although the best Leonard based film I have seen is Out Of Sight.
 
I love this board, this conversation, as subjective as it is, have really grown into something that will yield some great findings (at least I think so).

In my opinion QT's best work is what he has not directed, but rather written. I prefer his Natural Born Killers & True Romance scripts to anything he has done. They wreak of QT's wit and interests of the time, but at the same time, they actually have these great characters and sequences of events that you can see just spawning in his mind. The difference between these works and his personal films is that when he hands his stuff off to someone else they create brilliance out of it. Now, I'm not saying that I don't like QT. R.Dogs & PulpF are great films. Jackie Brown has a place. His submission in the 4Rooms project was great. KillBillVol1&2 are entertaining. It's the other stuff that does it for me though.

Now to Kevin Smith, well, Kevin has grown a lot. If you look at the leaps and bounds that he made from Clerks to Chasing Amy (I'm leaving out Mallrats for a reason I will make in a moment) you see someone who has taken an idea and fully realized it. The story grows in complication, quality of acting, camera movement, location choices, dialogue maturity, ect. Here are two indie films seperated only by a studio picture and a couple of years, and you can see him mature as a filmmaker.

Is his growth as significant as what QT did between Dogs & Fiction? Not by a long shot. I think that QT was a student on the set of Dogs and applied that knowledge to Fiction. Smith, well, maybe he is the slow fat kid in class, but he has still advanced his filmmaking.

Regardless of what you think of Dogma from a concept or a finished product, it is still yet another example of him maturing. J&SBSB, well, that's what happens when you get Hollywood $ and want to use it all with your star f&#!er mentality. Get as many people who are famous as possible and put them all in your movie. Still, technically he improved between the projects. Jersey Girl, well it was so bad in a 2000 flashback to a John Hughes film sort of way that I was too busy trying not to vomit on the people in front of me that I didn't notice anything dealing with his technical advances.

That all being said, RR improves, advances, and matures the most of these three from project to project. A lot of people knock RR for his quick shooting style, and his lack of coverage, but here is a man who has a vision and executes it. I've heard that he is the hardest director to work with because he doesn't communicate well and would rather just do it himself rather than explain what he wants done, but in a way I respect that.

Ultimately, we all say it, and most of the time we believe it, filmmaking is collabrative. QT, KS, & RR aren't collabrative filmmakers. They each like their vision and want to deliver it. RR I think has the most range in what he is able to deliver. QT has the greatest ability to influence, shock, and awe. KS has the greatest ability to make us root for the little guy. QT can be given hundreds of millions. RR will be given tens of millions. KS will need just a couple of millions.

From a director point of view, I like QT, RR, then KS
From a writer point of view I like QT, KS, then RR
From an artist point of view RR, QT, KS
From a fan point of view KS, QT, RR
From motivating the best performance I put KS,QT, RR

They are all interchangable. I can't see a Kevin Smith movie saying 'its the one that says bad mother f&%#cker', but then again I can't see a QT movie saying half of the jibberish that KS makes his people say.

At the end of the day, these are three people who got a huge break and have run with it. I think they all have their own place, but the real question, the one that will keep us all up at night has got to be, why didn't KS change camera angles at all during clerks?
 
I find it hard-pressed to even mention Kevin Smith in the same breath as RR and QT.

It wasn't until I saw SIN CITY that I came to really like RR. Prior to that it had been more a fan of his Spirit of Cinema (Support of the wannabe filmmakers) and not his body of work. As much as I loved From Dusk Till Dawn it has a very rudiementary visual style and it's the Screenplay (Dialogue) I like more than anything (Thanks QT) and Once Upon a Time was refreshing considering I thought the franchise died with Desperado (Which I didn't terribly like)

But how can we even remotely put SMITH into the same category ? I have recently been watching the KILL BILL Volumes (My own film school routine) and it is genius. Leaps and bounds over RR and QUANTAM over Smith.

In watching the Trailer for Clerks 2 it still wreaks of shite visually. It looks like something 'We would do'. If there is any growth I ain't seeing it.

There's no way we can mention Smith in the QT breath. RR, yes. But not Tarantino.

I also have to disagree on who is getting the best performances from thier talent. QT all the way !

Uma, Sammy Jackson and Travolta were all nominated for Oscars, Robert Forster was nominated in Jackie Brown. I can't say that becasue Affleck doesn't suck " as much " in Smith films that he's motivating the talent.

What performances even compare to anyone in Smith's film's ? The peformances in DOGMA were atrocious.
 
I'm with Hudson on this. I don't even think Smith is much of writer. His liberal use of crude humor for shock value gets old quick.
 
I think the point of the comparison is more about their working style (as writer/director) than anything else. Which, is a valid comparison.

I like QT, but (IMHO) I think that Kill Bill is the prime example of someone left to his own devices, and gone amok. It's self indulgent. It has good stuff in it, including some of the performances. I own both films and have watched them repeatedly. (although i doubt as much as Hudson :) ) But I think if someone could have sat down and streamlined the story arc, and cut some of the wink-wink dialogue, it would have been a better film. It works as it is, because it is a QT film. ANybody else puts out a film like that and they would be called a self-absorbed egotist. But I realize that millions of people love it. And if you set a kid loose in a candy store, he'll fill his pockets, which is what QT does. I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing. But I hold to my opinion that there is an advantage to the creative friction that exists between a writer and director. It distills things down to the necessary core.

EDIT: and for full disclosure sake, I often work as a writer/director. So I don't always take my own advice :beer:
 
To add to vjbrennan's comments about Jackie Brown, that may be the only Elmore Leonard book Tarantino has filmed, but you can hear Elmore Leonard in all of Tarantino's flicks, in my opinion. The "Royale with Cheese" scene in Pulp Fiction is so reminiscient of Leonard. I don't say that as an insult; I don't think QT was ripping off Leonard, but I think he was definitely influcenced by him (especially his dialogue). Nothing wrong with that. That's pretty typical of artists earlier in their careers. You can hear a lot of Coltrane's influence in Branford Marsalis's early recordings too.

As for Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Smith? I like them all; some flicks more than others.

Cheers,

Josh
 
QT will gladly and proudly cite his Leonard influence. Much of the feel of his characters and the pace of his dialogue stems from true pulp fiction (no pun intended)
 
Elmore has definately influenced Tarantino but let's not start handing out all the credit to him. I think QT's influences by and large run the gamut from films and novel's to music and other pop culture

I haven't read Rum Punch but am going to pick it up and do a comparsion for my own sake; stay tuned for that review.

Did you know QT didn't know Pam Griers character (Jackie Brown) was a white chick until after Grier was cast ?
 
Hudson,
99/100 I agree with you, but on this time I have got to disagree. Why? Affleck sucks. I mean if you can get the guy to even be somewhat believable that is like having the dead walk, turning water to wine, or walking on water. It takes a director with diety like skills to get a performance out of him. Can I think of another example? No. Do I need to? No. C'mon, Ben Affleck? He's so bad. Smith makes him not that bad.

Now onto the serious points. I think that QT is a good director and a great writer. Both he and Smith have a lot in common, they are both writer/directors who have their own unique style. You hear the dialogue in a QT or KS movie and you know its a QT or KS movie. They both came in as Holywood outsiders, and both have worked with some amazing talent. Maybe that is where the expectations end.

For the mass of audiences, QT hit his peak with Pulp Fiction and everything since then has been a disappointment. I personally disagree, but everyone wants another Pulp Fiction. I respect QT that he went onto do 4 Rooms & the Kill Bills, not to mention Jackie Brown. That being said, I think that we're still waiting to see QT hit his real peak.

Can the same be said for Kevin Smith? Was Clerks his peak? Was Chasing Amy his peak? Kevin Smith is a fun film maker, his projects will never be Doctor Zhivago or anything close to that. His witt is very sharp, he's funny, and he has that every man mentality that appeals to people. He's the ultimate underdog to root for. QT, he's just too cool for school and he knows it... That's my problem with QT, he believes his own hype, but he has yet to disappoint.

Anyone who said that it didn't take big balls for QT to follow up Pulp Fiction with Jackie Brown is cracked in the skull.

I respect him. The reason for the analogies and drawing comparisons between the two is to analyze directors who have indie roots and see how they have progressed.

I think that RR has grown a ton. I think QT has grown more. As I said, KS is just that fat slow kid in class. Over his projects (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, & Jersey Girl) he has grown as a filmmaker, but as much as QT or RR? No. Not even close.

I do believe that with Clerks any member on this board could make that film, but I think that is why I chear for KS. He has this ability to make films that people can and want to immitate. Isn't the greatest form of flattery imitation?

At the end of the day though, when we have debated until we can type no more who influences your style as a filmmaker more?

I know you're going to say QT or RR. I respect those choices and wish that I can say the same, but the truth is I'm more influenced by KS. The reasons why, I like dialogue pieces (which QT has moved further away from with Kill Bill 1 & 2 and RR was never a very big fan of) and my camera skills are still developing. On the few times I take risks with my projects I love the results, but they are few and far in between.

What does this tell you? It tells you that maybe the reason I like Kevin Smith is I consider myself where he once was as a filmmaker when he made Clerks. In fact, my observations, now that I think about them, especially in relation to how I view Clerks, is much more revealing about myself as a filmmaker than as KS as a filmmaker.

Honesty hurts sometimes, doesn't it? Yeah, it does. Wow, I need to rewatch some QT movies and start to imitate him or else I'm never going to get better....


EDIT:

By the way, after looking back through this thread and my replies I want to apologize for being more than a little verbose with my posts. I have an English degree, so there's not much I can do with it other than make posts that are way too drawn out. Yes, I am becoming the resident rambler, sorry!
 
QT is a master at distilling pop culture influences into his films. He mixes them up and comes out with a very unique voice. But he's elemental in a way, like a force of nature. I think that passion and talent can be harnessed in way that would create better films in the broad sense. But then we would lose the QT film, which would be sad. I guess you could say the same about any unique writer/director (whether they suit your taste or not). We need some individual voices.

I guess it depends on whether you think it's more important that you sing the song your way, or sing it the best way you can.
 
This has been a wonderful exchange of opinion.

I think that QT is a good director and a great writer.
Click to expand...
For the mass of audiences, QT hit his peak with Pulp Fiction and everything since then has been a disappointment
Click to expand...

I keep hearing this; Great Writing / Good Director. Great writer / Good Director.

Have you even seen his films ? (I'm jousting) :lipsrseal To me, Pulp Fiction alone is the mark of a great director and a sophmoric effort at that !

I do see your point, however... PULP FICTION was nominated fo 7 Academy Awards. It won Cannes. To say he hasn't hit his peak is kind of high expectations isn't it ? What are we waiting for? The $300 Million Dollar Popcorn film ? I would like to see his return to Oscar road of course but I would'nt say it's been disapointing. How ? What would make it NOT disapointing ?

I have heard countless times that Jackie Brown is arguably considered QT's best work (Critical Acclaim). Both Kill Bill's were made for $30 Million each (oaky okay, filmed at the same time and then split!) but combinded have grossed $ 333,000,000 Worldwide. THe KB films are indeed indulgent but damn if they're not QT in the Zone.

The House of Blue ORchard / Crazy 88 / O Ren Ishii sequence alone is true cinematic skilly and not simply from a Good Director !

My only problem with Tarantino is that I wish he made MORE films; like Spielberg. I hate waiting. :undecided :grin: I can honestly say that I am not waiting for another PULP FICTION.

I'm with you on my own self realization as a filmmaker. :( For me I see being able to do either an El Mariachi or a Reservior Dog's as far as technical prowness is concerned (That may be wishful thinking but I'm not saying it cockily as in I CAN DO THAT. I just see being able to pull it off).

I can write (although don't do as much anymore) but do not proclaim to have to wrtiing skills of QT or KS.

Didn't we recently talk about this; the ones that actually do it compared to my arm chair ass ? Okay, Im going to cry now.
 
I would have to say that QT gets higher marks from me as a director than a writer John. In fact that is his main strength.

I do like his stuff, don't get me wrong. I couldn't sleep for almost 36 hours after Pulp Fiction. No other film ever did that to me. He tells GOOD stories in an interesting, almost magical way. It's the delivery that makes his films what they are, far more than the raw material. I guess I just imagine what it would be like if he took GREAT story and told it with his directorial vision. But maybe then the bar would be set so high, we'd all burn our DVX's in a big bonfire.
 
It is always too easy to put it off and find excuses not to do it. But that's just what they are...excuses. At some point you have to tell yourself, I'm going to do it and do it now. You can look up and ten years have passed and you're still talking about doing it. That's where I was. Don't wait till you're 53 to make your first movie. Get out there and do it. There's NEVER going to be a better time than now.
 
You ain't kiddin Blaine. My wife recently told me I needed to schedule a minimum one day a week devoted to filmmaking as I was bitching about the days inthe week that are not there. It's true, just do it (damn Nike was right !)

VJBrennan

Yes yes yes

I always think of True Romance. I love True Romance but it would be a completely different film without t Scott's Glossy Howood look and if QT tackled it.
 
I agree that QT's greatest strength is his writing, and I will say that same for KS (although his appeal is much more limited than KS').

That being said let me go back to my comment about QT hitting his peak. With the term peak I meant that he has hit the highpoint of his filmmaking ability regarding direction as well as storytelling (since these are writer/directors we're talking about).

I don't need QT to deliver me a summer blockbuster of epic proportions, but I want to see something from him like what he did with Kill Bill but more. I want to see something that you walk away from scarred for a long time. I want to see him bridge his dialogue, actors, and uncanny eye for the elements hidden just below the surface of society to the forefront in a way that will forever change QT from being an afterbirth of an artist to a true artist.

I think that he is one of the most talented people working in Hollywood right now, and I can honestly say that when I see 'directed by QT' I will go out and rent or buy it. That being said, I don't think that Pulp Fiction was him hitting his peak. I think it is a stepping stone as he continues to mature. If you look at the filmmaking differences from Pulp Fiction to Jackie Brown he learned a lot and grew a lot. If you look at Jackie Brown to Kill Bill, the man has continued to grow and expand his circle of influence and ability to relay a story. He continues to grow.

KS on the other hand grew from Clerks to Chasing Amy. From that point he seems pretty stagnant.

My point about hitting a peak... well, I think the peak of Hitchcock was Psycho. He took everything he knew and applied it to this almost indie film. From that point, it was sort of downhill, he didn't pave any new paths or continue to grow.

I personally do not believe that Spielberg has delivered his difinitive work yet, while I think that Schindler's List was close, and Munich even closer, I just don't think we have seen everything he is capable of in one film.

Unfortunately, I think that Lucas peaked way too early. Same thing with a lot of these pop directors.

Here's an interesting comparison though. Look at the similarities between Kevin Smith and Paul Thomas Anderson.

Kevin Smith had something personal to say in Chasing Amy. PTA had something personal to say in Magnolia. Both elicited great performances from their actors. Both put together great films. Both films have a lasting impression on you....

Why do we not put PTA in the same sentence as KS, QT, or RR?

EDIT:

How the hell did this thread get so long and yet no erupt into:
a. name calling
b. flaming
c. baiting

EDIT #2:

My above edit comment about this thread not errupting made me want to quote Keitel from Pulp Fiction "Let's not start sucking each others d!cks just yet gentlemen" Sorry, couldn't resist.
 
I think his strength is directing, not writing.

And what about Wes Anderson? Where does he fit into this spectrum?

Flaming loses it's bite when you can only call people a **** face or a **** head :)
 
a. name calling ?
b. flaming ?
c. baiting ?

A Common Thread ? (Pun) Amazing it has stayed so civilized. Whoa. :thumbsup:

BTW that last take of yours is epic. Nice one. I 100% see your point and can 100% agree.

As for PTA

I loved Boogie Nights. I enjoy Magnolia but do not obsess over it like other's seem to and the whole FROGS falling out of the sky just doesnt do it for me. That completley removed me from the entire world that was created and in fact sorta just ruins the whole picture in the end.

Maybe someone can explain it tom e; but it just crosses over into too much abstract surrealism for my tastes and came across as more a cop out than a true tie-up for the end.

That is too bad as I think it tops filmmaking (Incredible acting, editing and camerawork) up until this part. True cinamtic art. But What the poo poo; frogs ?

I have yet to see Punch Drunk.

Wes Anderson ? Definate style. Not on my favorites list. Maybe a bit too whimpy for me. But still brings something to the cinematic table.
 
I'd like to see QT quit with this genre kick he seems to be on, making something for every genre. His 1st three movies showed growth and laid a solid foundation for things to come then BOOM! he seemed to go off track. Fine, he's paid his homage to others now it's time to be himself.

As for his writing. It's poetry. It's stylized life. If I want to hear how people really talk I'll listen to my daughter (23) and her friends. I can only take so much of that :grin:

I have to agree that RR is all about motivation for me. That and digital.

Sorry, KS just doesn't do it for me. :undecided

They're just opinions but they're MY opinions :thumbsup:
 
All of this is only opinion, and I think thats why it works.

I think that QT captures how people talk, just as I think that KS captures how people talk. QT's people are just more in tuned with a certain aspect of pop culture than most.

Then again, Kevin Smith's characters are pop culture junkies also.

All I know is that Mr. White would blow Silent Bob's brains all over the sidewalk if they ever met in real life.
I'm with John on PTA though. I loved Magnolia and thought it was Tom Cruise's best performance. I thought it was everyone's best performance until those damned frogs. I've read all this stuff with different theories beyind it, but honestly, it still doesn't make sense. At the end of the day I'm watching this long film that has completely engrossed me and ****ing frogs fall out of the sky. What kind of crap is that? C'mon, don't create this incredible real world with characters who are flawed top to bottom and you feel for them, and then give me falling frogs.

Punch Drunk is like Magnolia, and you can see that his filmmaking style hasn't changed much. In the case of PTA I would have to say that Boogie Nights was him at his peak. Since then I don't think he's grown at all. Remember the long steadicam shot in Boogie Nights where he sees his wife in bed with a guy on new years, walks out to the car, gets a gun, walks back into the house kills them, comes out and kills himself. That is a great sequence with one shot.

Unfourtanately, KS never reached this level of vision with any of his projects. If KS is going to have a long take like that you can bet that the camera wont move during it.

Then again, I like KS.

Maybe the biggest problem with KS & QT is that in addition to writing and directing their movies they also cast themselves in the projects. I know for KS he has said that he wanted to be in it so that in 10 years when he is still paying off this movie that cost him his credit he could at least say that he was in it, and then that sort of morphed into him always being that character. For QT, well, I like him as an actor. He was great in Resevoir Dogs (of course he gave himself one of the best monologues), Pulp Fiction, and I liked him in From Dusk to Dawn. I can also say that he is the only white man that can use the N word and get away with it.

I don't remember what the point of the point I was going to make was... But it gives you something to think about none the less
 
TheYankee said:
All I know is that Mr. White would blow Silent Bob's brains all over the sidewalk if they ever met in real life.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is funny. And what about Mr. Blond? :thumbsup:

(I WOULD like to see that Vega brothers movie.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top