SCREEN-L Archives

November 1994, Week 2


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
Mark Kawakami <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 14 Nov 1994 22:06:00 CST
text/plain (27 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> My vitriol with regard to this issue is in direct proportion to the
> flowers being thrown at the feet of Quentin Tarantino.  I find him an
> interesting (if somewhat careless) young director, who has a flair for the
> medium, but tends to "borrow" a bit too much for my taste.  However, he
> falls quite short of being the second coming of Welles that everyone seems
> to think he is.
> Look again, folks.  The emperor's not wearing any clothes.
Hi, just to clear up some misconception, since I had written you before:
        I doubt that anyone who currently considers Tarantino to be the
best working director, if not the second coming of Welles, will be
thinking that in six months. Most of us, however, that are continuing to
talk about him, sepite the QT overdose that every hip magazine in the
country is ramming us with, are doing so for one reason: Though he is no
Kurosawa, he is no Hollywood hack. He is the most interesting new director
in a long time, and his conceptions of the medium are rather interesting.
He borrows, to be sure, but so does so many other directors. Nonetheless,
his films have a different formative nature than other current directors,
and if we are over-indulging on him, than it is not any fanatical devotion
to a one-hit-wonder, bu rather there is little else to dillute our adulation.