Tarantino lost me trashing the 1950s. Does he mean films like Vertigo; Rear Window; The Searchers; Bridge On the River Kwai; A Touch of Evil; Ben Hur; Some Like It Hot; The Day The Earth Stood Still; Shane; Night of the Hunter; The African Queen; On the Waterfront; Twelve Angry Men? Good grief…what in the hell is he talking about? As far as the MCU movies, I think some of them are truly outstanding films - Captain America: The Winter Soldier; The Guardians of the Galaxy; and Avengers: Infinity War. The rest range from pleasant entertainments to tiresome retreads. But, so what? They’re a movie franchise and Hollywood has been doing this from the beginning. Examples: Universal Horror movies, movie serials, the Thin Man series of films; the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series, etc. Tarantino, Coppola, and Scorsese are film buffs…they certainly know this. Why is the MCU any different?
Tarantino spends a lot of time championing films that are looked down on by general audiences like Switchblade Sisters, Thriller: A Cruel Picture and Streetfighter. He has experienced the same elitism against his work and the films he loves that this thread is complaining about. Every time his name gets brought up, people in this forum talk about how they don’t like his work for a number of reasons like they cornered the market on proper appreciation of film. Certain people absolutely look down on his work and love to talk badly about him. So is that elitism? Or is that acceptable? Or is the rules his work can be criticized, but not the work of a big studio like Marvel? The truth is all artist have to deal with some forms of elitism as not everyone shares their vision. Acting like QT is the only one doing this is just a tactic for silencing criticism people dislike, while failing to acknowledge how elitism has many shades across the art of filmmaking.
People are intentionally trying to misunderstand this quote as well. For example, if I say 2022 is one of the worst movies years in recent memory IT DOESN’T MEAN I dislike or hate every movie that came out this year, it means I feel the quality of films have not reached the quality of other years. Certainly, you’re allowed to disagree with Tarantino’s views, but painting it like he condemned every film made in the 50s and 80s is transparently disingenuous.
It was an unforced error by Tarantino. The false idea that 50s films were some sort of puritanical era that followed Pre-Code Hollywood has become tiresome. It is preposterous, revisionist and demonstrably false. Vertigo, The Searchers, Kiss Me Deadly, Johnny Guitar, La Strada, and Rashomon were all made that decade and they’re all better than anything Tarantino ever did. These arguments from Tarantino and Scorsese can also be lobbied at them. Tarantino is a full-time pulp director and Scorsese a part-time pulp director. Their argument boils down to philosophical and literary abandonment in Hollywood productions. Tarantino is the last person that should be lamenting the loss of these principles - he is arguably the primary cause of it. He is not Antonioni, and unlike Ford’s and Ray’s subtle subtexts Tarantino prefers a sledge hammer.
I don't really think so. It just means the ratio of bad-to-good is overwhelmingly in favor of bad (subpar) per Quent's outlook. That's his right, but it's also ours to argue against.
It’s a difference in opinion and what he values over what you value. It can’t be demonstrably false, because it’s a matter of opinion. Vertigo is a bore. A total snooze. I’ve tried a half dozen times (twice in the theater) and it’s like Tylenol PM. The Searchers leaves me cold. There’s no human emotion in that film. And the stereotypes make it impossible to connect with story. The dialogue is incredibly uninteresting. That’s neither factually true or false. It’s just my opinion. And yes, both Tarantino and Scorsese do deal a lot with pulp and the seeder side of cinema and life, but some would argue that’s much closer to the truth of life than a glossy CGI explosion-fest. People get many different things out of cinema and therefore have many different views on what good cinema should be. But none of these are demonstrably true or false. But the greater point here is attack the argument and not the person. Articles like this are written to stir up this type of fighting, which is counterproductive to having interesting thoughtful discussions about film. Don’t take the bait.
Sure. You say "people are intentionally trying to misunderstand" what Quent is saying, which doesn't make sense. Maybe what you mean is people are trying to distort his point. But again, I disagree.
Tarantino has said that he is not a Hitchcock fan which just goes to further show that he doesn't know anything, He also said that “David Lynch had disappeared so far up his own ass that I have no desire to see another David Lynch movie until I hear something different.” After Twin Peaks Fire Walk With Me was released. If that isn't the definition of irony I don't know what is.
Tarantino’s connotation of 50s film is that it was some era of puritanism. This is demonstrably false. Yes, you can argue over the quality of the films, but you cannot argue over the narratives and subtexts. Let’s take some movements that began or took greater hold in the Fifties - - French New Wave - Post-neorealism - Western Noir - Hammer Horror - ushering in a more gratuitous, exploitive film era - Auteur Theory I mentioned the films in my last post because they aren’t rigidly ideological right or left. They touch on various themes. Then there are films like 12 Angry Men and On the Waterfront that are more left of center. Let’s take directors - the best films of the greatest directors came from the 50s - Hitchcock Billy Wilder Nicholas Ray Satyajit Ray Mizoguchi Kurosawa Ozu You could also make an argument for Ford, Felini, Bergman, Kazan, Wyler and some others. Tarantino’s films pale in comparison to this output. And his films aren’t aging well. Gratuitous and glorified profanity and violence for the sake of shock and sensationalism.
Writer from NBCnews.com weighs in--and calls out the lack of women directors in Hollywood: Taratino bashes Marvel and modern movie era. Why that's so offensive. It's a bit disappointing that they mention Elaine May in the article and don't acknowledge her 1976 film Mikey and Nicky--nearly as gritty as anything Scorsese did in the same era.
I wonder, it seems like most serious actors/films these days are going straight to streaming. I don't have any idea but perhaps it's not that serious movies aren't being made, they just don't make as much money like the old days. Perhaps that's the real reason QT and MS are whining!
That article appears to be only slightly more misguided than most of this thread. Speaking of "Mikey and Nicky," it was recently highlighted by Tarantino himself on his podcast Video Archives.
I am aware of all that. I’ve been following his career since the beginning. It still doesn’t mean he can’t be elitist when it comes to other genres as well. This isn’t about being closer to ‘the truth’; it’s about different genres. He may be a snob when it comes to certain genres. His statement about the 50’s is so out of touch with what the case was as far as great films being produced. He has his taste I get that. His taste isn’t everyone’s.
There are wringing every dime they can out of these horse**** comic books and then the genre will die because people will get sick of them - the same way they got sick of ****ty science-fiction movies during the 50s. People will start clamoring for something with more substance. Oz has spoken.
The argument that QT makes is wrong especially around the 1950’s. I happen to like his films but couldn’t disagree more with his opinion. Again, just because he doesn’t like something doesn’t make it so - Genres come and go in popularity and every filmmaker has made the same claim about how it harms movies. It doesn’t. It’s fine if he wants to dislike them but they are cinema just jot HIS form of cinema. They’ve replaced the big budget epic event movies of the previous era. I don’t go around condemning the films that he admires as an example and saying that the era they were made in were crap. I don’t enjoy them but that’s what taste is about.
Well, except not all of those films were ****ty nor are these. Some are to be sure but not all. As to substance, most of that has gone to streaming for straight dramas. There is an outlet for them now. There are also plenty of other films being made as well outside of the comic book genre of films. Genre burn out happens for sure but, so far, that hasn’t happened. It is still early days. I think the saturation angle will come more from TV and streaming than theatrical films.
I think the argument that QT, Scorsese, etc are making is actually valid. Those directors like to make movies about people, not superheroes. Perhaps the criticism they level is based upon the idea that who in the hell can identify with Iron Man or Wonder Woman? Love it or hate it, there is a little bit of Travis Bickle or Jackie Brown in all of us. My 2 cents...
It's not really that Hollywood has a love/hate relationship with Marvel, it's that a couple of directors have complained about the overindulgence of these billion-dollar CGI spectacles. I recently read some commentary where someone called the Marvel movies "$500 million dollar roller coasters" and frankly I think they have a point. There's really quite a lot to legitimately criticize about the Marvel Cinematic Universe even when considering their better installments. Frankly I blame my generation: it was incredible to see my childhood heroes come to life on the screen but after a decade of this stuff pouring out non-stop it stops seeming like great cinema and starts looking like a compendium of gimmicks. It's not just Marvel and it's not just movies - far too much of our entertainment seems double-parked in the fantasy genre and it makes me wonder if we'll ever see truly successful movies that depict anything akin to real peoples' lives again. But it's likely the tide will turn again, and probably pretty soon.
I recently rewatched the one Marvel film I had thought was among the best of bunch: "Avengers: Infinity War." On my latest viewing, freed of "it's new in the series!" hype — Junk. Dumb. Clunky stringing together of action sequences. With silly comedy bits in-between. Amusement park ride.
The latest turn in Marvel is toward comedy like the Thor movies. That's when you know the genre is burning out. "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein," anyone?
I'm sure he's talking about the "popular" HOLLYWOOD FILMS (Kurasowa, Fellini, Ozu need not apply) of the day - same as the Marvel films are aimed at younger audiences. The 50s? Hot Rod movies. Cheapest sci-fi. Juvenile delinquent movies. Gidget. Lightweight musicals like "Gigi," the religious pictures.... Victor Mature, for God's sake. LOL. I hear him.
