OFF: Tarantino

[hijinks at UTARLG.UTA.EDU]

Well, it seems this conversation is getting into fine shades of gray.  But
still -- that is where it really gets interesting.  As Nabokov once said,
God is in the details.  So, a few more words RE this thread of discussion:

On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, <Nick English> wrote:

>
> Where I think it's significant is in the fact that if you've seen it
> all before, can you really consider it HIS work...excellent or not?

I don't see how the claim that Tarantino is totally derivative can be
substantiated.  Everyone has influences; that he makes his influences part
of his style is already a move that distances him from his sources.  Given
that, I don't see how it can be claimed that we have seen it all before.
We haven't; new perspectives, tones, and new kind of irony have all been
added to the mix.

>  I guess my problem is mainly with the hype, because
> so much of America, when they saw Pulp Fiction, was like, "Oh my
> God...this is so bizarre and unique that it must have been made by an
> alien in another solar system!"...To me, though, it was a pretty good
> movie, but thanks to years of "trash cinema", it didn't totally move
> me.

The fact that you have insights as a critic that the bulk of population
does not says more about the bulk of the population than it does about
Tarantino.  But I hesitate to call the masses stupid: I don't hold with
that kind of mandarin perspective.  Something is occuring in Tarantino's
movies that appeals to the masses that is not present in the "trash
cinema."  As good critics -- if that is what we want to be -- it behooves
to discover what that is.  My suspicion is that the postmodern ironical
stance and humor, plus really good dialogue, is what does it.  But I'm
open to other suggestions...

> Here I absolutely disagree. The '98 Volkswagen Beetle, for instance,
> is selling like mad...thanks to absolutely nothing BUT hype. People
> and products are "made" every day of the week. I'm not saying this is
> what happened with Tarantino, but to say it doesn't exist is naive.

I don't buy this (sorry for the bad pun!).  Hype does not equal success.
For example, the most hyped movie this year was Godzilla, and it bombed.
Why?  It was a terrible film.  Hype can contribute to a film's success; it
may even help a bad film break even.  But hype cannot make bad into good
as alchemy would make lead into gold.  Something must be present in the
work to capture the public's desire.  This is the case for the Volkswagen
Beetle: a kind of futuristic neo-nostalgia is at work that has captured
the mood of the public.  This is not hype; it is image.  A different thing
altogether, and much more important as far as capturing consumer desires.
Sometimes what is captured is the lowest common denominator, however; I
grant that.  But if that is objectionable, it is simply because your
desire is at odds with the current public lowest common denominator.  We
all find ourselves in that position at times, I suspect.  I do a lot,
actually.  But I always try to keep that in mind and not take it out on
the artist.  Even if it is the Spice Girls, who I dislike intensely.  But
I would be the first to admit that they certainly know how to work the
prepubescent teen market -- and that is no small feat considering how many
fail rather than succeed in that market.

> Just one last point, not really relevant to his talent, his career,
> hype or anything else we've been discussing:  As a human being,
> Quentin Tarantino is a first class asshole!
>
> --  Nick

Well, Nick, no argument from me on this one.  He does seem to be a bit of
an asshole.  But, many artists are.  Beethoven, to pick one really famous
example, was a real prick.  But his music is what matters.  Ditto, I say,
for Tarantino... though he is no Beethoven, I hasten to add.

--Thomas