SCREEN-L Archives

September 1994

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Curtis Wilcox <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 9 Sep 1994 05:14:45 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (57 lines)
<<From: Tony Williams
English
SIUC
 On Quentin Tarantino. Don't you think this character is highly overrated
on the basis of journalistic and self-generating hype put out at present?>>
 
I'm not sure what that sentence means. Is there too much hype and ink spilled
about him for most people? Probably. Is he overrated? Definitely not.
 
<<His achievements are highly limited and dubious, a postmodernist auteur
being a referent without any definable substance.>>
Huh? Could you dumb it down a little for all us de-sensitized MTV babies?
 
<<RESERVOIR DOGS is a blatant rip-off of Ringo Lam's exceptional Hong Kong
movie, CITY ON FIRE>>
 
So you've seen it? Lucky you. All I have is Film Threat's comparison of the
two and smidge here and there. The article made it very clear that there was
a great deal in City on Fire which was not in Reservoir Dogs and vice versa.
Would you call The Magnificent Seven, Star Wars and My Fair Lady all
"rip-offs" and therefore worthless? It was still his script, his casting, his
camera-work and yes, his direction of the improvisation. Are you going to
tell me the "colorful anecdote" was in City on Fire? That was probably the
best sequence of the film.
 
<<make viewers ignore the highly shoddy directing>>
 
What are you basing this on? The camerawork and editing were at times
invisible, sometimes (intentionally) jarring, and sometimes beautifully
orchestrated.
 
Now I know Sight and Sound has thrown his name around a lot but partially
it's because of newsworthiness. The trouble with the Dog's British release
and particularly it's being at the center of the revisited video furor in
Britain makes it and him worth the ink.
 
<< a phony superstar without any major work>>
 
Oh please, what decade are you living in? "Superstar" is meaningless and
applied to more people than gold stars in kindergarten, get past it. It's not
like he's Terrence Trent D'Arby or something. What does "major work" mean to
you? Are you mad because he hasn't struggled enough before having such
notoriety?
Of course I loved Reservoir Dogs. I thought the story from True Romance was
excellent. The dialog was probably mostly his and it was very well done. It
would've been a better movie if he had directed it. As for NBK, it's not
Quentin. It's definitely not his screenplay and it's hardly even his story.
NBK is Oliver Stone's picture and it can in no way be a part of any
evaluation of Tarantino except to say that he sure does like his violence.
 
Maybe Pulp Fiction will be the movie to shut the naysayers up. I doubt it. If
people can still think Spielberg is complete crap (and some do) then Quentin
lovers have no hope of swaying those that disagree with them. I have heard
good things about it and I am anxiously awaiting it (which seems like a
strange thing to say about a movie with John Travolta and Bruce Willis in
it.)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2