Emotionally, I’d say that Kill Bill: Vol. 2 has more substance than any other Tarantino film, especially since it really takes you by surprise (I thought the first one was merely good fun). Inglourious Basterds has a lot of interesting things to say and really makes you think (I mean the good guys are pretty much terrorists). I’m sure that somebody would be better positioned to really talk that kind of stuff than me though, the last time I saw Basterds was in the theater and that’s also the last time I saw a Tarantino.
Okay, let me be absolutely clear on this point before anyone else misinterprets me. I think he’s making films from the perspective of one fan, himself, and therefore his films have become more self-gratifying.
In the end all true artists are that. That art for the masses thing is no more than utopia
Maybe if that wasn’t undermined by the ridiculous nature of much of the film, the constant reminders you’re watching a collage of homages to disparate genres, and if the script wasn’t so completely removed from all normal human experience. It is hard for me to feel emotionally connected to a film or its characters in such circumstances.
I think it perfectly balanced the ridiculousness of the film (and the unreal nature) with the seriousness of it, somehow managing to effectively mix the best of both world, very few persons are able to successfully do that, but when it happens it is amazing.
Nonsense.
Films are made for audiences, but some directors have a better understanding of their audience than others. It so happens that Tarantino’s personal tastes coincide with the tastes of a significant number of others, so his generally well-packaged films continue to go over quite well.
However, it feels very much like he’s abandoned trying to make original films which will receive critical acclaim and have a significant impact on the art of cinema. Instead, like a kid in a sandpit, he’s just playing with stuff he personally enjoys and mashing up the films of other directors which he likes.
It reminds me of when you used to see those MySpace pages put together by teenagers and they would be covered with pictures of bands, movie posters, clips from movies or music videos. You would find these pages and they would be a mess of personalised crap, but you’re supposed to look at it and think, hey, this is all cool stuff, therefore the person who made this page must be cool. Do you understand what I mean?
No, doesn’t work for me at all in Kill Bill.
Well, it works for me, not in the first one which has zero emotional resonance, though. 
Don’t you think that’s a problem? I mean I agree with you, as I watched Uma Thurman coming out of her coma, finding out her body has been violated repeatedly, and didn’t feel much of anything about it. It could have been a big deal if it had been treated more seriously, shot differently and didn’t include comical rednecks making lots of crude jokes about lubrication.
Someone mentioned Thriller: A Cruel Picture, which is such a cheap film, but the scenes of violation in that film felt more real somehow. It wasn’t so much like watching cartoon violence.
In the second film, when Bea meets her daughter, I felt so detached from reality that I can honestly say there was no impact for me. Perhaps writing emotional scenes or portraying complex social situations is simply a bit beyond Tarantino.
[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:46, topic:1928”]Nonsense.
Films are made for audiences, but some directors have a better understanding of their audience than others. It so happens that Tarantino’s personal tastes coincide with the tastes of a significant number of others, so his generally well-packaged films continue to go over quite well.
However, it feels very much like he’s abandoned trying to make original films which will receive critical acclaim and have a significant impact on the art of cinema. Instead, like a kid in a sandpit, he’s just playing with stuff he personally enjoys and mashing up the films of other directors which he likes.
It reminds me of when you used to see those MySpace pages put together by teenagers and they would be covered with pictures of bands, movie posters, clips from movies or music videos. You would find these pages and they would be a mess of personalised crap, but you’re supposed to look at it and think, hey, this is all cool stuff, therefore the person who made this page must be cool. Do you understand what I mean?[/quote]
Yes perfectly and I see your point, and I also think it’s nonsense most of the times, but then I know some people who consider themself artists and how they think.
Let’s be honest some directors can not be artists (and I’m not entering what art discussion with will never end), and some don’t wanna be.
But then you see a Godard film well some are very good, but in my view most of them are not made for an audience.
In the end maybe I’m beeing just an egocentrist elitist prick, but even if I’m part of the audience I really don’t wanna be part of it, and don’t consider part of it. More honest than this I can not be
Well, I didn’t feel particularly strong about it, but I did feel something. That’s why I like the second one so much, because after a first movie where it mostly feels like a big not-so serious homage to exploitation you get one with a lot of emotional depth. I don’t know if Tarantino intended this, but it took me by surprise and left me in awe, he played with my expectations. Personally, I think that Vol. 2 works perfectly, to me it’s grade-A Tarantino while Vol. 1 wasn’t even near the pedigree.
[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:46, topic:1928”]Films are made for audiences, but some directors have a better understanding of their audience than others. It so happens that Tarantino’s personal tastes coincide with the tastes of a significant number of others, so his generally well-packaged films continue to go over quite well.
However, it feels very much like he’s abandoned trying to make original films which will receive critical acclaim and have a significant impact on the art of cinema. Instead, like a kid in a sandpit, he’s just playing with stuff he personally enjoys and mashing up the films of other directors which he likes.
It reminds me of when you used to see those MySpace pages put together by teenagers and they would be covered with pictures of bands, movie posters, clips from movies or music videos. You would find these pages and they would be a mess of personalised crap, but you’re supposed to look at it and think, hey, this is all cool stuff, therefore the person who made this page must be cool. Do you understand what I mean?[/quote]
Well, I think nothing of everything you said about Tarantino, went ever through my head when I watched one. Mostly his films are much better than the one he pays homage too. And they never make a borrowed or stolen impression on me, but instead look highly original, even where they aren’t.
So we agree to disagree …
And I think the best films are from directors who never think about the audience, but are doing the stuff for themselves. Making the films they self would like to see, or doing them because they can’t live without doing them.
Thinking too much about the audience or what critics might say only corrupts the ideas imo.
[quote=“Stanton, post:52, topic:1928”]And I think the best films are from directors who never think about the audience, but are doing the stuff for themselves. Making the films they self would like to see, or doing them because they can’t live without doing them.
Thinking too much about the audience or what critics might say only corrupts the ideas imo.[/quote]
I definitively agree with this. And the concept of auteurs probably wouldn’t exist if all directors thought of their audience first.
Let’s not forget that Sergio Leone’s films were also crammed with visual homages and rehashed scenes from many of his favourite films, presented in original ways. What Tarantino does isn’t that different to Leone.
It’s a never ending list
I could start with Hitchcok and all the homages in films from many different directors. I guess if you’re a musician and you hear good music the chances of doing good music are higher
Artists are not demi-gods set apart from mortal men. I should know, both my parents are painters.
[quote=“El Topo, post:50, topic:1928”]Let’s be honest some directors can not be artists (and I’m not entering what art discussion with will never end), and some don’t wanna be.
But then you see a Godard film well some are very good, but in my view most of them are not made for an audience.
In the end maybe I’m beeing just an egocentrist elitist prick, but even if I’m part of the audience I really don’t wanna be part of it, and don’t consider part of it. More honest than this I can not be[/quote]
Er, right. Audiences can be of all different types, but when you make films you are forced to consider your audience, regardless of whether you are an “auteur”.
The fact is, film with a narrative is representing a sequence of events, and if you are filmmaker you have to ask yourself, who are you representing those events for? The simple process of shooting a scene from a certain angle requires you to think about the kind of response the scene will generate in the viewer. Even if you put yourself in the place of the viewer for the most part, you’re still making a film for an audience. It’s unavoidable, I’m afraid.
A lot of emotional depth? To me, something like The Killing Fields has a lot of emotional depth, but Kill Bill not so much.
Sadly, Kill Bill has a number of scenes which ought to have some emotional depth because they concern things like family, revenge, life and death. However, they’re represented in a manner which is overly simplistic, unrealistic and left me cold. Both volumes had good scenes and were entertaining, but do not look to either to give you a studied insight into the human condition.
[quote=“Stanton, post:52, topic:1928”]Well, I think nothing of everything you said about Tarantino, went ever through my head when I watched one. Mostly his films are much better than the one he pays homage too. And they never make a borrowed or stolen impression on me, but instead look highly original, even where they aren’t.
So we agree to disagree …
And I think the best films are from directors who never think about the audience, but are doing the stuff for themselves. Making the films they self would like to see, or doing them because they can’t live without doing them.
Thinking too much about the audience or what critics might say only corrupts the ideas imo.[/quote]
I know what you mean, and I think you have a good point. It’s dreadful when directors pander to studios and produce soulless work for the masses, but that’s not really what I’m advocating.
What I’m suggestingg is that Tarantino has become self-indulgent to the point where to me it seems like plot and character development come second, putting “cool shit” in his films comes first. He’s not using the medium to tell stories in the same way he did with Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown.
It is different in my opinion.
Being influenced by others is inevitable and I think it’s great when directors are inspired by others in the way Leone was. Tarantino has always been influenced, as he was influenced by Ringo Lam’s City On Fire when he made Reservoir Dogs. However, what he has done with Kill Bill or Inglourious Basterds goes a bit beyond that, as he’s borrowing more, making his references more obvious and passing them off as homage. Leone was much better at creating something different with his influences and thus making his films truly his own.
[quote=“TheBigSmokedown, post:56, topic:1928”]A lot of emotional depth? To me, something like The Killing Fields has a lot of emotional depth, but Kill Bill not so much.
Sadly, Kill Bill has a number of scenes which ought to have some emotional depth because they concern things like family, revenge, life and death. However, they’re represented in a manner which is overly simplistic, unrealistic and left me cold. Both volumes had good scenes and were entertaining, but do not look to either to give you a studied insight into the human condition.[/quote]
I don’t think it was neither simplistic nor realist, especially considering the kind of world it takes place in. I thought it felt consistent and that it was approached in a way that really worked, that managed not to disconnect with the unrealistic, almost caricatural, environment of the film, but also to ring true. No small feat. I’m not saying that it has deep “insight into the human condition”, but I thought that those themes and emotional moments felt real and human. In the end, it’s primarily an emotional response, but when I think about it and leave the emotions aside, I still think it works.
Fair enough. I found it difficult to connect to it in that way, but perhaps if I had more kung fu training…
Aha! Kung fu training is very emotional stuff!
I think Leone made a lot of his references fairly obvious too, especially in Once Upon a Time in the West.
- Most of Tarantino’s homages are only obvious to film buffs & would go straight over the heads of many of his audience. As well as homaging his favourite films, Tarantino is also championing these films - vintage films, foreign films & genres films which would normally lie outside the modern mainstream cinema audience’s cultural radar.
That’s what I like about Tarantino’s movies: they’re very enjoyable on their own terms, but if you do your homework on them, you notice a lot more. When I first watched Kill Bill, I didn’t pick up on the references & found it a slightly strange couple of films. But after reading up a bit on the influences, I’ve watched a lot of the classic samurai & yakuza movies it borrows from. It made me appreciate Kill Bill a lot more when I rewatched it, plus I’d discovered a bunch of great movies, some of which I might not otherwise have seen or heard of.
As for “creating something different with his influences and thus making his films truly his own”, when you watch a Tarantino movie you’re left in no doubt that you’re watching a Tarantino movie.