TDGT - Round 1, Group L

[fernandito]

All patently obvious. He's just a postmodern hack whose love of low-brow cinema is nowhere near as revolutionary as some like to think it is. Flash in the pan.

That's a bit strong, innit ? Especially for one of the most influential American directors of recent times. His films might not be the most intellectually stimulating, but they are - for the most part - highly entertaining and stylishly directed bodies of work. Although his films haven't won any major awards (yet !), it's worth noting that they have received several nominations throughout his illustrious career.

Also, they might be commonplace now , but some of the techniques he implemented in his earlier works - such as the discontinuous storytelling approach to Pulp Fiction - were only just emerging into the medium with him as one of it's earliest pioneers. If we're going to give other directors credit for bringing new techniques to light, I feel Tarantino deserves his due.

[DoctorDodge]

One of the reasons I voted for Allen: he did non-linear storytelling long before Tarantino!

There's another reason, though. Both Tarantino and Scorsese have directed some truly memorable films, true geniuses of cinema. But I had to go with Allen because with Annie Hall he made a film that neither director couldn't quite manage to do: he changed the way I looked at not just films but also at life, too. And he also made it fucking hilarious to boot!

I'm not saying that great directors have to make deep, intellectual films that change your life, and Tarantino has directed some truly entertaining films over the years. But looking at the large number of different storytelling techniques Allen used in Annie Hall, including non-linear storytelling, talking to the audience when needing to get a point across, and even random moments of animation, whilst making it all work, Allen gets my vote just for Annie Hall alone.

[fernandito]

DD - that's fair , Allen is certainly an indelible presence in cinema. I don't mind people voting for other directors because of x,y and z reasons (I voted for Scorsese myself), but I strongly disagree with referring to other directors, especially one so highly regarded as this and who has given us true cinematic gems, as hacks.

I'm not as in love with Hitchcock's films as many here seem to be, in fact I think some of them are just slightly above average (North by Northwest come immediately to mind), but I'd never deny his impact on cinema and I'd never refer to him as a hack.

[DoctorDodge]

Oh, I get that point, feev. I don't consider Tarantino the best of this lot myself, but I certainly don't consider him a hack, either. Even I can't deny the impact that Tarantino's had on cinema over the past couple of decades.

Oh, and btw: good choice on Scorsese!

[Still Servant]

I am sorry Still Servant! I didn't use the word "trash" as an offense, but as a specification of genre, I thought it was used in English, too!

It is very important to me that this point be heard now. I was not intending to abuse Mr.Tarantino, or any of his admirers.

The term "trash" (трэш) is widely used in Russian film criticism to denote a particular genre of movies (marked by postmodernist disintegrations of values treated with black gory humor), and it doesn't have any disrespectful connotations, the genre being acclaimed by many. It's only now - thanks to you - that I found out that it wasn't used in English. I am deeply sorry.

grrrr... I knew that not being a native speaker of English would some day let me down...

Really, guys. I do respect other people's tastes, and I do respect my friends. I thought you knew.

All is forgiven. Many things can be lost in translation. No hard feelings.

I would like to add that I feel people throw the word "hack" around too lightly. One of the things I love about Tarantino is that he is a huge fan of cinema. I don't think anybody can deny that.

Yes, he tends to sample/pay homage to films he has been inspired by. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. All directors have been influenced by films they've seen in their life.

I wish more film makers had the kind of passion for cinema as QT has. We would all be better off.

To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of people just plain don't like Tarantino because of the way he looks and acts. I really believe that.

[pathoftheturtle]

...To my thinking a great director is one who achieves what he intended to achieve with his story. ... How close the finished product is to his intent should be the determinant. ...whether you feel his pursuit was a worthwhile one is another matter.

Speaking of postmodernist disintegrations of values...
Let's say that one artist intends to show with a story that substance matters more than form, and a second artist intends to show that any value in content is subjective. Is it at all possible for the first to make a better film than the second, by your standard, or not?

...I do respect other people's tastes, and I do respect my friends. ...

Me, too. Of course. Even when we disgree.

... His films...are - for the most part - highly entertaining and stylishly directed bodies of work. ...

That doesn't necessarily mean that they're important or creative or truly good.

...it's worth noting that they have received several nominations throughout his illustrious career.
...

Noted. However, it is still not exactly an objectively proven fact that he deserves his reknown.

... I feel Tarantino deserves his due.

'K. Respect to your opinion. I feel, on the other hand, that he's overrated and that his influence will prove to be as shallow as that of any pop artisan of earlier generations

...I feel people throw the word "hack" around too lightly. ...

Well, maybe it means more than I thought. I meant it in terms of "a creator of works which are derivative, pointless, shoddy, overused, and obvious."

...One of the things I love about Tarantino is that he is a huge fan of cinema. I don't think anybody can deny that.

Yes, he tends to sample/pay homage to films he has been inspired by. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. All directors have been influenced by films they've seen in their life.
...

But what else does he have? Sampling, stylizing, shock, his sense of humor, and ...?

...To be perfectly honest, I think a lot of people just plain don't like Tarantino because of the way he looks and acts. I really believe that.

Well, I sure hope that you don't mean me. Clearly, I'd be a total hypocrite if I went around calling him superficial just for reasons like that.

[Still Servant]

No, I don't know you well enough to make that statement. I have been told by a few people in my life that they don't like Tarantino because he is "weird".

Also, I hate to get back into this topic, but I do feel it has to count for something. Path, I respect your opinions on QT, he's not for everybody. That being said, your feelings on his films are clearly in the minority.

On a funny side note, my boss says he hates Tarantino and will never watch any of his films because he hated Natural Born Killers so much. I then asked him if he likes Oliver Stone and he said, "Yes, I love Stone and all his films. Platoon is one of my favorite movies ever."

I then explained to him that Tarantino only wrote the movie and did not direct it. He still doesn't like him though. There's no reasoning with the uninformed.

[fernandito]

... His films...are - for the most part - highly entertaining and stylishly directed bodies of work. ...

That doesn't necessarily mean that they're important or creative or truly good.

Important according to whom ?

Also, different films are revered and/or influential for different reasons. Let's use a director that's on the opposite end of the spectrum, and a personal favorite of mine as example- Andrei Tarkovsky. One of the most cherished, influential, and discussed film makers of all time. His films are often heavily introspective journeys that play out like paintings in motion. He's not interested in adrenaline fueled action or witty dialogue, but rather in the intracacies of the human spirit.

Having said that, I have to admit that although I love his films, they are very, very stagnant , and often tedious... but because they are not as consistently paced, or anywhere near as entertaining as a say , Pulp Fiction, or a Kill Bill , does that mean that they're not good ?

...it's worth noting that they have received several nominations throughout his illustrious career.
...

Noted. However, it is still not exactly an objectively proven fact that he deserves his reknown.

Of course not, even if he receives a million-trillion nominations in his career, nothing will ever prove for a veritable fact that he deserves his re-known, that's all subjective. The people submitting these nominations are human too and obviously have their favorites and criteria for what makes a film 'good', there is no catch-all filter to determine what makes a film / film director noteworthy. However, I stand by my original argument that the fact that his films have received nominations in major categories, as well as praise from both critics and fans alike are an indication of the quality of his work.

I feel, on the other hand, that he's overrated and that his influence will prove to be as shallow as that of any pop artisan of earlier generations.

I disagree on the former. We'll just have to see on that complimentary part now won't we ? Let's meet back here in say ... oh .... 25 years ?

...I feel people throw the word "hack" around too lightly. ...

Well, maybe it means more than I thought. I meant it in terms of "a creator of works which are derivative, pointless, shoddy, overused, and obvious."

Hmm, we must not be discussing Tarantino anymore then, as his works are highly entertaining, cleverly constructed, visually compelling pseudo-fantasy romps

P.S - Path -

Spoiler:

You know I still heart you and respect your opinions, we just happen to have very different perspectives on this particular subject. Now come give me a hug

[Brice]

To use a word such as hack in reference to an individual within a certain field one should be able to produce a superior output within that field. If you can't you surrender your right to call them such. Basically if other directors were referring to Tarantino as a hack it might mean something. Otherwise...not so much.

[Jean]

Also, I hate to get back into this topic, but I do feel it has to count for something. Path, I respect your opinions on QT, he's not for everybody. That being said, your feelings on his films are clearly in the minority.

I personally don't mind sharing this minority with Mike.

Important according to whom ?

Also, different films are revered and/or influential for different reasons. Let's use a director that's on the opposite end of the spectrum, and a personal favorite of mine as example- Andrei Tarkovsky. One of the most cherished, influential, and discussed film makers of all time. His films are often heavily introspective journeys that play out like paintings in motion. He's not interested in adrenaline fueled action or witty dialogue, but rather in the intracacies of the human spirit.

Having said that, I have to admit that although I love his films, they are very, very stagnant , and often tedious... but because they are not as consistently paced, or anywhere near as entertaining as a say , Pulp Fiction, or a Kill Bill , does that mean that they're not good ?

Entertaining according to whom?

I greatly appreciate the entertaining value of a movie. I don't think all movies should be all that deep or philosophical or what not (regret to say, I don't like Tarkovsky, either... but that's another story). The problem is, I was repeatedly bored by Tarantino movies, so it's not "entertaining" versus "intellectual". Here we're faced with that majority vs. minority question again; ok, I'm in the minority; does that mean my opinion shouldn't count?

To use a word such as hack in reference to an individual within a certain field one should be able to produce a superior output within that field. If you can't you surrender your right to call them such. Basically if other directors were referring to Tarantino as a hack it might mean something. Otherwise...not so much.

Brice, I do not believe you really said that. It’s like saying that if you can’t cook you can’t say a cook served you a bad dish. I’ve already heard that we can’t criticize King because we ourselves can’t write anything tantamount, - and it is utterly preposterous. We are the readers – here, the audience - and it is an opinion of a spectator that we express, not that of a colleague. We are all entitled to express our opinions, at the only risk to sound silly and thus put ourselves in a bad light if we can’t argue our position; but that should be the only risk we run here, not that of sudden attempts at censorship. And have to say Mike argues his position the way I can’t but agree with him.

I myself never called Tarantino a hack because I don’t feel I’m an expert – I’ve never been able to sit through any movie of his without losing interest, so I have to assume I missed something. Also, I’ve noticed on multiple occasions that my opinion on most (not all, oh no, not all!) of the American cinema differs greatly from that of my friends here, and respecting them I, naturally, give them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I could sign under every path's word.

Really guys, it’s not on principle that you object to our using this or that word to express our opinion on Tarantino, it’s only because you like him. It’s your right, just like it’s ours not to. Remember everyone happily bashed Lukas, not thinking if it was right or wrong to do so, despite the fact that none of us ever directed Star Wars? In that instance, it was all right to say things; in the case of Tarantino it suddenly isn’t, and it’s a double standard, humanly understandable but still not very… not very right. I, for my part, am also going to express my opinion about another favorite of everybody’s, Steven Spielberg, and I am going to do so - even though I know that I am going to face harsh opposition - for no other reason that it is my opinion, and I feel that I am entitled to state it here, as it has always been the case since this site has existed.

[Brice]

Also, I hate to get back into this topic, but I do feel it has to count for something. Path, I respect your opinions on QT, he's not for everybody. That being said, your feelings on his films are clearly in the minority.

I personally don't mind sharing this minority with Mike.

Important according to whom ?

Also, different films are revered and/or influential for different reasons. Let's use a director that's on the opposite end of the spectrum, and a personal favorite of mine as example- Andrei Tarkovsky. One of the most cherished, influential, and discussed film makers of all time. His films are often heavily introspective journeys that play out like paintings in motion. He's not interested in adrenaline fueled action or witty dialogue, but rather in the intracacies of the human spirit.

Having said that, I have to admit that although I love his films, they are very, very stagnant , and often tedious... but because they are not as consistently paced, or anywhere near as entertaining as a say , Pulp Fiction, or a Kill Bill , does that mean that they're not good ?

Entertaining according to whom?

I greatly appreciate the entertaining value of a movie. I don't think all movies should be all that deep or philosophical or what not (regret to say, I don't like Tarkovsky, either... but that's another story). The problem is, I was repeatedly bored by Tarantino movies, so it's not "entertaining" versus "intellectual". Here we're faced with that majority vs. minority question again; ok, I'm in the minority; does that mean my opinion shouldn't count?

To use a word such as hack in reference to an individual within a certain field one should be able to produce a superior output within that field. If you can't you surrender your right to call them such. Basically if other directors were referring to Tarantino as a hack it might mean something. Otherwise...not so much.

Brice, I do not believe you really said that. It’s like saying that if you can’t cook you can’t say a cook served you a bad dish. I’ve already heard that we can’t criticize King because we ourselves can’t write anything tantamount, - and it is utterly preposterous. We are the readers – here, the audience - and it is an opinion of a spectator that we express, not that of a colleague. We are all entitled to express our opinions, at the only risk to sound silly and thus put ourselves in a bad light if we can’t argue our position; but that should be the only risk we run here, not that of sudden attempts at censorship. And have to say Mike argues his position the way I can’t but agree with him.

I myself never called Tarantino a hack because I don’t feel I’m an expert – I’ve never been able to sit through any movie of his without losing interest, so I have to assume I missed something. Also, I’ve noticed on multiple occasions that my opinion on most (not all, oh no, not all!) of the American cinema differs greatly from that of my friends here, and respecting them I, naturally, give them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I could sign under every path's word.

Really guys, it’s not on principle that you object to our using this or that word to express our opinion on Tarantino, it’s only because you like him. It’s your right, just like it’s ours not to. Remember everyone happily bashed Lukas, not thinking if it was right or wrong to do so, despite the fact that none of us ever directed Star Wars? In that instance, it was all right to say things; in the case of Tarantino it suddenly isn’t, and it’s a double standard, humanly understandable but still not very… not very right. I, for my part, am also going to express my opinion about another favorite of everybody’s, Steven Spielberg, and I am going to do so - even though I know that I am going to face harsh opposition - for no other reason that it is my opinion, and I feel that I am entitled to state it here, as it has always been the case since this site has existed.

Actually here I think hack is a pretty extreme term when referring to someone's talents. You may as well call him talentless at the same time. It's equivalent in my mind to calling the work shit. I'm not opposed to criticism at all really, but yes, my objections here were all on principle. To clarify I wouldn't even seriously call Jane Austen a hack. She had talent. I just found her incredibly boring which seems to be your issue with Tarantino.

[Heather19]

I can understand if you guys don't like his films. We're all entitled to our own opinions, and I know we won't agree on everything. But I think I was getting upset at the same thing Brice is. I kinda took the comment of hack to mean the same thing. Maybe I just misinterpreted what was said. But can you guys say that his films are poorly made? I can see some saying they're boring and they just personally didn't like it, but I think it's hard to argue that his films are not well directed.

And also do you guys feel that he has had no impact on cinema at the moment? I feel he has, and in years to come I only think that will be magnified. However who's to say if I'm right, only time will tell.

[DoctorDodge]

Oh, I definitely agree with you there, Heather. I know very well that he's made quite an impact on cinema and changed it in a lot of ways. I'm not sure his films will get any better, I still think both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were miles ahead compared to his more recent work. Still, I do hope one day soon he'll go back to directing films that most people will like, at least!

[pathoftheturtle]

...Also, I hate to get back into this topic, but I do feel it has to count for something. Path, I respect your opinions on QT, he's not for everybody. That being said, your feelings on his films are clearly in the minority. ...

Wait, is majority opinion the topic which you're saying that you feel has to count for something? Not so sure about that, sorry, or at least, not about what exactly it does count for. I suppose that if I were proposing that we round up all copies of QT's films and burn them, then it might make sense to hold a vote. On questions of some types, however, I believe that the majority can be wrong. You CAN fool all of the people some of the time.

Furthermore, I'm also not entirely positive just how clear it is that my opinion absolutely is in the minority. Perhaps among those posting to this thread, but I would have to ask for a more thorough study before I'd accept something like a claim that the majority of the human race as a whole like Taratino's movies. It’s easy to “prove” that most people happen to agree with you if you happen to discount most of the people who don’t.

To use a word such as hack in reference to an individual within a certain field one should be able to produce a superior output within that field. If you can't you surrender your right to call them such. Basically if other directors were referring to Tarantino as a hack it might mean something. Otherwise...not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_criticism

I feel, on the other hand, that he's overrated and that his influence will prove to be as shallow as that of any pop artisan of earlier generations.

I disagree on the former. We'll just have to see on that complimentary part now won't we ? Let's meet back here in say ... oh .... 25 years ?

Okay, but it’s only fair to warn you that I have no intention of spending those years in the Fortress of Solitude. I’ll be out actively pushing for the reformations I prefer… and if we still get further away in 25 years, yet survive, I may decide only to further put off retiring.

...nothing will ever prove for a veritable fact that he deserves his re-known, that's all subjective. ... However, I stand by my original argument that the fact that his films have received nominations in major categories, as well as praise from both critics and fans alike are an indication of the quality of his work. …

Sorry, I still can’t seem to grasp that paradox. Is the quality which can be indicated something which may exist? Takes me back to Brice’s assertion that “...whether you feel (a director’s) pursuit was a worthwhile one is another matter…” from the matter of whether I should call him a great director. Seems to me that the concept of “great” really loses all of its meaning when you try to change the meaning of “meaning” itself.

...

Well, maybe it means more than I thought. I meant it in terms of "a creator of works which are derivative, pointless, shoddy, overused, and obvious."

Hmm, we must not be discussing Tarantino anymore then, as his works are highly entertaining, cleverly constructed, visually compelling pseudo-fantasy romps

Are those two descriptions mutually exclusive? A "romp" can be a romp without having a point, and the word "shoddy" doesn't have to mean the same thing as the word "sloppy." Me, I don't care how cleverly constructed a pot pie is if the meat used in it was bad. There always have been people who are entertained by clichés that date back to the stone age; if you never heard it, it is new to you. Nonetheless, hackneyed is as hackneyed does.

P.S - Path -

Spoiler:

You know I still heart you and respect your opinions, we just happen to have very different perspectives on this particular subject. Now come give me a hug

Oh, alright.

...another favorite of everybody’s, Steven Spielberg...

Not quite "everybody," LOL.

…I think hack is a pretty extreme term when referring to someone's talents. You may as well call him talentless at the same time. It's equivalent in my mind to calling the work shit. I'm not opposed to criticism at all really, but yes, my objections here were all on principle. To clarify I wouldn't even seriously call Jane Austen a hack. She had talent. I just found her incredibly boring which seems to be your issue with Tarantino.

Well, I don’t know… I don’t see the word precisely as being so deep a personal condemnation. I mean, one might have talent and not use it. Even if you do think that someone’s work is basically shit, you don’t have to assume that that person is incapable of anything else. Boredom might be Jean’s issue, but that too is not quite what I think. I love the plotline in the film Little Murders where the main character becomes so fed up with the business side of his career as a photographer that he decides to start shooting actual turds as a protest. It’s a great scene, because those literal shit photos sell better than any of his earlier work.

Directors don’t always decide what the story that they have to work with is. It can be hard to distinguish what they contribute to theme, -- what meaning they might advance -- particularly when they don’t write. Eventually, though, IMHO, a good director’s career conveys different messages just by virtue of creative choices. The job requires having some interpretative vision in each project. Otherwise, they’re not artists, just technicians. (And of those to whom this may indeed apply, it carries a statement in its own right.)

So, I’ve finally voted, and had to pass over Woody, due to issues bordering those I’ve pointed to in Tarantino. It’s funny that, on the surface, it might be Scorsese who seems to have more in common with QT. But again, I’m more concerned with what remains once one scratches the surface. Allen ultimately is just too narcissistic. Scorsese has repeatedly demonstrated a capacity to empathize with strangers. He specializes in social commentary. What Allen has mainly shown, meanwhile, is desperation to receive empathy. He continually bemoans his own sense of alienation. Coincidentally, tragic isolation of that sort is also one of the major preoccupations in Scorsese’s work. His approach, however, is to unobtrusively portray various figures of the fringe, pushing the envelope of our culture… without setting out to undermine its core, as Allen often does.

“See the turtle of enormous girth!
On his back he holds the Earth.
On his back all vows are made.
He sees the truth but mayn’t aid.
His thoughts are slow but always kind.
He holds us all within his mind!”

[BROWNINGS CHILDE]

I think that this can be resolved by understanding that everyone here supporting Tarantino, enjoys his films. That is watching movies that he makes brings them happiness. This makes him a great director...viewed from their perspective. It doesn't require anything else. No greater meaning to his movies are needed. No new and improved means of filming or unique style or technique is required. If I enjoy watching movies by a particular director, then that makes this director "great" from my perspective. Being a great artist, with any medium, is something that is inherently subjective, and as such, can never be definitively proven one way or the other. You are a great debator, Path, but this is not logic. There are no points to debate, just as they are lacking in other forms of art. I guess that the question then becomes whether or not the majority or MOVIE AFICIONADOS like his movies. I cannot speak for the whole population, but as for the people that I am in contact with, he is pretty popular. And that percentage of the population that like his movie is likely to increase as the younger generation becomes a larger proportion of that population, and older, more conservative ideals become less of a factor. (which historically has occurred without fail)

Regardless, you cannot "prove" that QT is a "hack" just as others cannot "prove" that he isn't.

[Jean]

...another favorite of everybody’s, Steven Spielberg...

Not quite "everybody," LOL.

I remember! I was so happy to discover, after I started posting in movie threads, that we have even more in common than I had thought.

Boredom might be Jean’s issue, but that too is not quite what I think.

No, if my issue could be summed up in one word, it is postmodernism, which I abhor. I only brought up the boredom part because being entertaining for me covers a multitude of sins, and if I do find anything entertaining about a movie, I hardly bother with being unhappy with the rest; also, because it was beginning to look like it's "intellectual" versus "entertaining" that the root of disagreement is, while it is not.

ETA:

There are no points to debate, just as they are lacking in other forms of art.

I respectfully disagree. We must discuss such things, because doing so we discover things about ourselves and the universe around us. Actually, there's nothing better to make insights into the very nature of things than arguing about tastes, or anything "inherently subjective".

[pathoftheturtle]

...You are a great debator, Path...

Aw, shucks. I dunno, really, but I can't let that pass without thanks.

...that percentage of the population that like his movie is likely to increase as the younger generation becomes a larger proportion of that population, and older, more conservative ideals become less of a factor. (which historically has occurred without fail)

Historically, younger generations tend to become more conservative as they age. Maybe the current crop really never will; I can't say, although I do remember when I thought exactly that about myself.

Being a great artist, with any medium, is something that is inherently subjective, and as such, can never be definitively proven one way or the other.

I respectfully disagree. The function of the film critic is to gatekeep the larger canon and safegaurd the culture as a whole. If one attains higher perspective, I think individual films can be rated against one another more meaningfully. A concept like what is "good" can be regarded as more than a matter of individual feeling when viewed in context of a group. Indeed, civilization would collapse if no one had perceptions of that type. Of course, you do have a right to enjoy your own perspective, but still, your concept of unprovability remains unproven.

Anyway, viewed from MY perspective it requires more than bringing me short-term happiness to make a great director. I'll never force anyone to agree. I just like to talk about my thoughts.

[Odetta]

I voted for Lee... I know he doesn't have a chance, but I truly LOVED Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon!

[DoctorDodge]

I voted for Lee... I know he doesn't have a chance, but I truly LOVED Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon!

That's exactly why I voted for Edgar Wright when he's up against Danny Boyle and Allen when he's up against Scorsese and Tarantino: I'm not going for who I think's the obvious candidate to win, just the one who's my personal favourite out of them all. (Goes double for Wright, of course.)

[fernandito]

Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese advance !