Quentin Tarantino’s new film brings his greatness to task
Academy of the Overrated is a column which seeks to reassess highly-praised art and artists through a more critical lens in response to entertainment news.
What do you get when you mix Brad Pitt, Spaghetti Westerns, Nazi-occupied France and B.J. Novak? Apparently you get the upcoming Quentin Tarantino movie Inglourious Basterds. The trailer for the movie premiered on Entertainment Tonight last Wednesday, and the film promises to be as bloody and profane as Tarantino’s previous works. The film follows Lt. Aldo Raine (Pitt) and eight Jewish-American soldiers on their mission to terrorize Nazis and collect their scalps.
Tarantino consistently produces quality entertainment. He knows more about the movies than most of us could ever hope, and he has yet to direct a bad film — I would willingly watch Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown any day. However, that does not mean he has made a genuine masterpiece or that he is the 12th greatest director of all time, above Jean Renoir whose work influenced the likes of Citizen Kane director Orson Welles.
Tarantino has somehow emerged as the torchbearer for independent filmmakers, with Pulp Fiction hailed as “the most influential American movie of the 90s” and as a cult classic. He was even the head of the jury for the 2004 Cannes Film Festival, a position indicative of his appeal to movie watchers other than American fan-boys. Yet, he has not proven himself as the movie-making master he is often made out to be.
The greatest filmmakers were all able to experiment and master cinematic technique in order to convey important truths about the world in which we live. For Renoir, the camera was both a paintbrush for the silver screen canvas and a weapon against societal ills. But for Tarantino, it is merely a toy. As much as I admire Tarantino’s work, he often struggles to reconcile his attempts at mature filmmaking with his violent antics and obsession with pop culture. We have yet to see if he is capable of delivering a great film with a sense of balance, and Inglourious Basterds does not look to be that film.
The Tradeoff
The 1994 flick Pulp Fiction was produced by Tarantino’s production company, A Band Apart, named after the 1964 Jean-Luc Godard film, a film which influenced Tarantino’s style with its unconventional, postmodern approach to filmmaking. However, naming the production company after Godard’s film was an unfortunate move for two main reasons. First of all, what I am sure was meant as a compliment was shot down by Godard, who said of the homage, “He’d have done better to give me some money.” Secondly, it inevitably leads to comparisons to Godard, an all-time master of the cinema.
On the surface, Godard and Tarantino have a surprising amount in common. They both include frequent references to pop culture in their work, and their films are characterized by self-reflexivity and unconventional structures. However, the differences cut much deeper. When Godard used jump cuts and referenced Humphrey Bogart in his 1960 masterpiece Breathless, it was to set up the film as a parable about the death of an American ideal. Godard always has a sense of purpose when he experiments with his films. Tarantino certainly has a great understanding of cinematic aesthetic, yet unlike Godard, he does not effectively employ these skills in order to say something important.
This is not to say he hasn’t made attempts to convey thematic messages. In fact, Pulp Fiction is essentially a collection of moral tales in which lowlife characters experience redemption in the city of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, when Tarantino aspires to having any sort of substance, it often comes off as contrived or forced. Perhaps his cheapest device was Bruce Willis riding away on a motorcycle labeled “Grace” after being forgiven his debts by mob boss Ving Rhames. This cute detail reveals the limited sophistication of Tarantino’s writing, explicitly stating a key thematic element of the film. Either this, or “Grace” is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, and Tarantino is simply unable to take on such a subject without smirking at us.
His next work, 1997’s Jackie Brown, was a change for the better. To me, this is Tarantino’s best film because of the level of maturity and character development. However, this film was not as well-received as Pulp Fiction, and I believe this is largely because it is simply not as memorable or refreshingly bold. For all its flaws, the 1994 film did have the Royale with Cheese, the Wolf and, of course, Honey Bunny and Pumpkin. For Tarantino, there is an apparent tradeoff between his ability to entertain audiences and the development of story and characters.
Janet Maslin of The New York Times said Jackie Brown “isn’t sharp enough to afford all the time it wastes on small talk, long drives, trips to the mall and favorite songs played on car radios.” While I personally felt these elements worked in this particular film, Maslin hints at a larger problem: Tarantino’s apparent inability to restrain himself. In Death Proof, the far superior half of the double feature Grindhouse, Rosario Dawson, Tracie Thoms and Zoe Bell simply sat around a table and talked for an extended period of time about pop culture and sex, showing off Tarantino’s dialogue-writing skills. It is apparent he has a gift for writing natural-sounding dialogue. Yet as Tarantino’s pop culture-saturated style has become so familiar to audiences, it borders on self-parody in the movie when the conversation continues on and on for far too long. After all, audiences can sit through diversions about obscure B films for only so long.
Tarantino is tackling heavier subject material with Inglourious Basterds, so he might be forced once again to say something “important” in what appears to be a high-energy, bloodthirsty event. We understood long ago that the feature film follow-up to Kill Bill was going to be an indication of whether or not Tarantino is mature enough to be named as one of the greats as he so often is, but judging by the Inglourious Basterds trailer, it look like this is not the case. I will probably watch it on opening night, and I will probably end up choosing one film from my complete Tarantino DVD collection to watch with friends beforehand just for fun. He knows how to entertain, but he lacks the versatility and maturity to be considered a true master.
| Print
Sometimes, more is more Or you can return home.
Well, you haven’t SEEN Inglourious Basterds, so technically you can’t legitimately yet say that Tararntino hasn’t matured. The script is profoundly good, and I suspect that the film will be, too.
Bob
February 19, 2009 at 5:41 am
actually it’s fairly clear that Pulp Fiction IS a great film: it has about 25 different great scenes and no bad ones. also: the list that ranked Tarantino as the “12th greatest director” also put Peter Jackson ahead of Akira Kurosawa –LOL.
Ringo
February 19, 2009 at 11:39 am
He is just speculating whether Inglorious Basterds will me a mature movie or not, I really don’t think that was the whole point of his article. Also, he did mention that the movie is likely to be great and entertaining just perhaps not that masterful nor mature.
Back to the article, I agree with most of what you say. Although I find most of Tarantino’s very enjoyable to watch and hella entertaining, I wouldn’t call them masterpieces myself. I thought Death Proof was great, especially the portrayal of a maniacal Kurt Russel who goes about bringing pain to women while he himself screams at the slightest bit applied to him. Thought that was brilliant. That aside, I would have to disagree with your that Death Proof was a better movie, I mean come on, Planet of Terror has a minigun-for-a-leg woman, nuff said.
Perhaps not immensely mature movies nor masterful directing, Tarantino’s movies are great pieces of work. That said, I’d rather pick up a Scorsese movie over his any day.
Jacob
February 19, 2009 at 11:44 am
I thank the gods that there is a genius director who has a great appreciation for genre cinema and popular culture. If you want “relevant”, look elsewhere.
Kill Bill may lack in “cultural relevance”, but still it is a true masterpiece and a vast cinematic achievement.
With JACKIE BROWN he made a more mature movie, and it is brilliant for what it is. Tarantino is extremely versatile.
If you feel that cinema should have a message and be “important”, you don’t understand the world of Quentin Tarantino one bit.
Peter
February 19, 2009 at 1:33 pm
The Bride Wore Black – take History of Film yo
René Jovel aka SupaKat
February 20, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Quentin’s girlfriend up to and including Pulp Fiction was named Grace so maybe you are reading to much into the name on the motorcycle…
Mathilde
March 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
Your a cock.
Tarrantino is a genius in terms of storytelling.
Yes he may be obsessed with pop-culture a little bit and tends to digress a lot. But that’s what makes his films his. Gives his films personality and stylistic that you just don’t get in much other crap churned out every year.
The reason Pulp, Dogs and Brown are so memorable are the not the action scenes, blood or excentricity. It’s the crackling diaologue. The senseless conversations the colourful characters have with each other that sets them apart and makes them stick in our mind. Because we laugh at what they say and relate to it.
Whereas in 90% of all other movies like he said, the characters just talk about ‘the plot’ which is why they don’t resignate on the same level as his movies. The reason we laugh and like his apparantly brutal gangster characters is because they make witty observations about everyday life, they’re flawed like us and have similar sensibilites. Because gangsters are humans after all, they don’t just all go around talking about guns and money 24/7. They talk about TV, women, food, sex, sports, like everyone else.
So when he injects a sense of realism into these larger than life creations, we remember them and him for doing so.
All that combined with brilliant directing and clever storytelling and wa-la, Tarrantino-esque is born.
Why does he need to be ’saying something important’ in his movies. That’s ridiculous. What he’s doing is entertainment, not politics. His movies are not dummbed down and they don’t pander, he just doesn’t feel the need to ravish his personal opinion about things on a large scale or preach to his fucking audience. No cheese, no bullshit, no hidden messages. Just clever, cutting-edge filmmaking.
How you can say the man who wrote and directed Dogs and Pulp is not one of the greats is beyond me. And Brown was mature and more of a slow-burn. And Kill Bill was an action tour de-force in terms of directing and visual appeal.
He entertains, plays with our sensibilities, throws us about a bit and makes us laugh. He’s a rollercoster director not an activist. If you’re so interested in being preached at and people making messages then go listen to U2. Personally I have my own views and opinions on most things, I don’t need them dictated to me in a film.
Nick
March 15, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Nick, you’re a priceless gem.
You actually said, “His movies are not dummbed down.” You win.
Other things I liked:
“He just doesn’t feel the need to ravish his personal opinion,” which I assume is slang for some kind of sex act.
“He injects a sense of realism into these larger than life,” which again hints at sex.
“and wa-la, Tarrantino-esque is born,” double points here for managing to brutalize TWO French references.
“Whereas in 90% of all other movies like he said, the characters just talk about ‘the plot’ which is why they don’t resignate on the same level as his movies.” Hey, I love a character who can resignate, as in, “I hate my job. I’m going to resignate!”
“The reason we laugh and like his apparantly brutal gangster characters…is because they’re flawed like us and have similar sensibilites. Because gangsters are humans after all, they don’t just all go around talking about guns and money 24/7. They talk about TV, women, food, sex, sports, like everyone else.” You wisely point out that gangsters aren’t perfect. They are flawed – JUST LIKE US! They’re only human – and that’s why we go to the movies. To watch people just like us. So wise, so wise…
Nick aka Sublime
April 10, 2009 at 6:21 pm
For the record, Tarrantino is hugely overrated, evidenced by the fact that no one (like Nick) can ever provide COHERENT reasons why he’s “so fucking awesome.”
Nick aka Sublime
April 10, 2009 at 6:23 pm