Rewatched Pulp Fiction

Say what ?

Is this a religious choice ? (I'm just trying to understand what it is about the film that would prevent you from seeing it). I cant recall terribly anything that was too out there
 
John_Hudson said:
Say what ?

Is this a religious choice ? (I'm just trying to understand what it is about the film that would prevent you from seeing it). I cant recall terribly anything that was too out there
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing.
 
briceman said:
If you would like to know more specifics you can PM me :) thanks.

Sorry to stir up the thread a bunch.
Click to expand...

tease! you thread stirrer you .. what did you have for dinner? :grin: you look so serious lately...
 
Last edited:
Damn, briceman, my curiosity is killing me. I love it. A huge fan fan of a director choosing not to see one of his flicks for personal reasons (I mean that with zero sarcasm)

I refuse to watch horror/slasher flicks due to my own personal convictions - I wouldn't push it on others and I think filmmakers have every right to make bloody, gorey films and people have every right to see them. I just can't stand them (and I'm also kind of a wuss, lol.) I just don't want want that imagery in my head. I am admittedly a hypocrite, though, in that I don't mind violence in other films, particularly when I feel its "necessary" to tell a certain story. That's where some serious grey area comes in - one man's "necessity" is another's "gratuitous." Movies that are straight-up slasher flicks - hate 'em.

Anyhow, I have no idea what your personal convictions are about - probably has nothing to do with violence. Maybe you're personally opposed to Mickey Rourke - I could definitely understand that.:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Tarantino is a plagiarist, but so are the Andersons, Shyamalan, Gordon Green, etc. It's just a particular weakness of our culture at the moment. Blame post modernism, I guess, but it's hard to single out the one in the bunch who is at least honest about it - Tarantino's films don't just admit to theft, they celebrate it.

The main problem with him is that he actually thinks he's better than the filmmakers he steals from. He looks at oaters and wuxia and chambara and giallos 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.

It's a shame, too, because if he mined these films for their economy and process, rather than their ideas and images, he probably would make a pretty great little genre filmmaker. KILL BILL was a mess, but just the scene alone of Daryl Hannah and Uma fighting in the trailer shows the man knows a few basic things about filmmaking.
 
The main problem with him is that he actually thinks he's better than the filmmakers he steals from. He looks at oaters and wuxia and chambara and giallos and thinks of them as something like outsider art,
Click to expand...

Does he ?

-

That is one of the weakest posts on attempting to criticize Tarantino I have ever read.

-

You make alot of claims but you give us no fame.

-

and it's up to him, the genius almighty, to rescue and 'elevate' this raw material into a work of art.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this stuff ?

KILL BILL was a mess
Click to expand...

How's that ?

but just the scene alone of Daryl Hannah and Uma fighting in the trailer shows the man knows a few basic things about filmmaking.
Click to expand...

I can think of tons of scenes QT has done that shows he knows a thing or two about filmmaking.

You can come in blazing your guns but your not saying anything, you're just making noise.
 
KOVAROVA said:
img_bukowski_02.jpg
Click to expand...

Ah, well.

Claude Hooper Bukowski
Finds that it's groovy to hide in a movie
Pretends he's Fellini and Antonioni
And also his countryman Roman Polanski
All rolled into one
One Claude Hooper Bukowski

claude.jpg
 
You can tease in bed
You can please in bed
You can squeeze in bed
You can freeze in bed
You can sneeze in bed
Catch the fleas in bed
All of these
Plus eat crackers and cheese in bed


don't ask...
 
Mr. Hudson, some advice: merely commenting on the quality of arguments hardly constitutes a refutation of them.

We both agree that Tarantino has created scenes that show his ability. I gave an example. You didn't. At that point, I'm afraid your statement about me 'not saying anything' was lost on me. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?

How is KILL BILL a mess? It's a revenge paperback that could have been read on a single plane ride. Tarantino was so swept up in himself, he piled it up to 4 hours, and as a result, the film is badly paced and indulgent. It's interminably filled with stuff he obviously gets a kick out of, but doesn't move the story forward. Everything goes on too long, and no particular reward waits for sitting through it.

I realize he's somehow building a paean to the virtue of 'cool,' but I'm just not convinced that's worth the same amount of my time that he does. Cut it down to 85 minutes, it could have been a fun flick, that offered the low, easy pleasure the genre calls for.
 
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.
 
You stated that Tarantino is a plagiarist

Definition:

"Plagiarism is the passing off of another person's work as one's own."

How's that ? Let's not confuse homage with ripping off. And if you're referencing the last 20 Minutes of City on Fire to the entire 1:40 Minutes of Reservoir Dogs ..... Come on.

It's just a particular weakness of our culture at the moment. Blame post modernism
Click to expand...
What is ? You want us too blame huh on what ? Post Moderism ? How about these directors are making films with traditional mis en scene, framing and compostion and edits instead of the real culprit of 'MTV Fastpace chop Suey Express' jobs we are seeing from the hacks coming out of Videoland ?

The main problem with him is that he actually thinks he's better than the filmmakers he steals from.
Click to expand...
Does he ? Again; what are you referencing ?

He looks at oaters and wuxia and chambara and giallos 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.
Click to expand...
You're making these comments as if they are fact or that you have some insider information that none of us are privy too but they dont mean anything. This isnt even opinion; its borderline asinine, speculative and slanderous at that. You're making assumptions based on who knows what.

I welcome this style of filmmaking back. I find this brand of film and genre to be not only some of my favorite but very inspiring and creative work; whether it's old school spaghetti, Hong Kong cinema, period pieces or Italian horrors; bring it on.

He's doing it better than I've seen it done before.

Mr. Hudson, some advice: merely commenting on the quality of arguments hardly constitutes a refutation of them.
Click to expand...

I am compelled to make these comments when they hold zero weight. I asked already 'Where are you getting this stuff?'

Where ? I need you to back up these soundbites with some substance before you casually drive-by spouting film theory and philosophy and acting as if you got the dirt on ole Quentin.

We both agree that Tarantino has created scenes that show his ability. I gave an example. You didn't.
Click to expand...

I can't begin to recite his first 5 films. Save that project.

At that point, I'm afraid your statement about me 'not saying anything' was lost on me. Perhaps you'd like to rephrase?
Click to expand...

Your making comments based not on his work but on his character and intentional mindset as if your Being Quentin Tarantino. I'm saying 'You arent saying anything' because it doesnt mean anything. Who sits there and says these things ?

"Well, Spielberg think's that John Ford was too stupid to know a good action sequence so this is why he makes popcorn films. It is up to him, the master of all cinema art form to rescue us ..... blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda etc etc etc"

Do you see how absurd that sounds ? It has no merit. It doesn't carry.

How is KILL BILL a mess? It's a revenge paperback that could have been read on a single plane ride. Tarantino was so swept up in himself, he piled it up to 4 hours, and as a result, the film is badly paced and indulgent. It's interminably filled with stuff he obviously gets a kick out of, but doesn't move the story forward. Everything goes on too long, and no particular reward waits for sitting through it.
Click to expand...

It's a revenge paperback that can be read on a single plane ride.

Here's a news break for you; Casablanca could be read on a single plane ride.
I realize he's somehow building a paean to the virtue of 'cool,' but I'm just not convinced that's worth the same amount of my time that he does. Cut it down to 85 minutes, it could have been a fun flick, that offered the low, easy pleasure the genre calls for.
Click to expand...

Thank god for that ! If Tarantino was everyman's filmmaker we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

-

Here is some advice for you; if you are going to participate in Film Discussion; give us something to work with and not exaggerated or misrepresented statements or claims.
 
am I the only one that thinks city on fire is sort of a run of the mill, lifting diamonds story?

maybe it's just me.

I guess terminator is a rip off of I, ROBOT. Because it involves robots... or perhaps 2001 space oddesy. is a rip off of star trek because it's in space.
 
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.
 
reservoir dogs is my favorite tarantino film. but there's no denying that elements of the story and characters were lifted from other films. even the names come from the taking of pelham 123. and the date on tarantino's first draft of true romance suggests it was written right after wild at heart was in theaters -- lovers on the lam, elvis, she's pregnant, etc. and of course pulp fiction's famous ezekiel speech is lifted word for word from sonny chiba's Karate Kiba.

now, i'm not condemning what he does at all. in fact, i find i enjoy it very much. but i'm also not blind to his method. obviously it takes an artist of some merit to assemble all of this existing material into a collage that functions on its own, all the while infusing it with a unique signature.

but a battle seems to wage between people that think he's a plagarist and those that think he's making an hommage. imo, plagarism is too strong a word and hommage is not strong enough. he falls somewhere in the middle. he is using someone else's material for more than just inspiration, but including it and often redefining it in a new context.

if we collectively refuse to look past this point, we'll fail to see that there might be more to this filmmaker than the degree to which he relies on his sources. and then again, there might not be. but we won't know until we look.
 
Last edited:
Solomojo: When you find yourself saying, "I don't mean to be rude, but..." you're probably being rude. When you watch movies, do you form opinions about them? What decree grants you the rights to hold those opinions? Show me yours and I'll show you mine.


John_Hudson: I don't know how to do the quote thing...

I stated Tarantino was no more of a plagiarist than his contemporaries. He's just more transparent about it, which I actually respect.

Cygnet74 brings up a good point about word choice. Let me be clear, I use the word plagiarism because I want it to sound nasty. 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.

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 kinda 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.

If you're asking what I mean by post modernism, there's probably a Wiki page which might be a good place to start. If you're really into Tarantino, I would definitely recommend the background. It's basically the philosophy that nothing is authentic - everything we say or make is a fruit of, or a commentary upon, the culture that produced us.

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

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?

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.

You see? I'll do it again: CASABLANCA was a great film.

You want a couple revenge films that are exquisite? Boorman's POINT BLANK, and Park's SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE. The latter is a great teaching film for aspiring makers... notice how every single shot pulls double, triple, quadruple duty.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I never said Tarantino wasn't original or his films weren't good or entertaining. I just like other director's better. oldenarm is making some very definitive statements about how he views Tarantino. I disagree with his statements, but merely view them as his (oldenarm's) opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top