TomS-
There's something more in them, something human. Maybe that's in his humanity
Tom- I certainly agree with you on the very idea what you are saying, however, there again comes the question- why this has to be compared in order to say that one is better than other?
It is just different- different in style or a task or a goal what the artist has set for himself, or perhaps, what was the revelation, or if that is not the right word, the point at his artistic life where he wanted to explore this or something else. He might completely turn around in a year or 2 and come to something else. This is my main objection from the very beginning of this discussion. The way Tarrantino is- it is how he is and he does not need to be better, just like the other guy, does he? Is Matisse better than Picasso, him better than Manet, Manet better than Ingres? Of course not- each one is a whole and complete world in itself. Most likely- I might have preferences, you might have preferences, we can discuss the aspects of these preferences from the angle of the impact on art as such, or personal, or cultural. Sure, there is always the temptation- in order to understand better we would emphasize the weakest side of the one which perhaps is not on the list of our favorites, we all have sinned in this. Still, to pursue intelectually honest and fruitful discussion, it is worth trying to avoid these traps.
About Tarantino.
Tom- I totally agree with you on Jackie Brown- I adore that movie. He made some mistakes perhaps in choice of the cast, but I believe he did what he thought was right at the moment, one can never predict the outcome, no matter how carefull and hard one works.
You have to know a bit about him where he is coming from. I don't think he ever graduated from college, perhaps now he has, or may be he bought the papers, I don't know
His mom were traveling all over California, never really settling down anywhere, living in some suburbs- the most boring places in universe, there were also several boyfriends. Imagine living in let's say- place like San Leandro or Livermoore or Fresno.
Every time I would have to go there- I wonder how come these people have not commited collective suicide, not by being cult memebers, but out of hopeless boredom.
QT- as a boy sitting in in his mam's apartment, watching TV, watching movies- there was nothing else to do, he had no friends, he was a newcommer everywhere, and other times looking trough comic books.
That was his world and his inspiration. It was the source where he was learning from -about life and art and beauty, tragedies and betrayals, revange and passion. I think the stilization he really learned there, because in the comics- it has to be very laconic, organized.
Other thing which came to his advantage was his mom's boyfriend- a black guy. He learned from him the style only black guys posess- the talk and the walk, the images, the likings and tastes.
It is almost like Elvis Presley, who learned so much from the black kids on the streets- the moves, the twists, the smooth talk, the use of the gentle vibration of the voice.
Well, I am not a expert on this, but sure, QT was introduced to the subculture so strong in artistic influences of culture in USA, it opened his eyes to deapth of things white guys don't know and will never guess.
And you can see it all in his work, not directly- but this is what he has been opened to. His talent, his big brain and his fanatical nature, and most of all- his imagination was leading him wher he is today.
He was so young when he was hired as a script writer in Hollywood. jeezz, I don't know - he is fenomenal to overcome all this shit around, most of all- Hollywood , the hellhole of wolfs and lions and jackals and rats, who don't give a damn about art, just $$$$ He did not have high protectors or big moneys from good standing family, or Hollywood "royalty".
Just he, himself, his soul and mind. Of course - Lady Luck is a must as always. OK, that's enough for tonight.
I would love to talk about Tarkovsky with you, juss when I gets up.
Time will tell, and good surgery'll hopefully heal the wounds...
). Probably because I found Truffaut's movies very weak, except for the first one (400 Blows, and maybe Jules and Jim (blasphemy, blasphemy - I hear thousands of film historicians/theorists/afficionados screaming). I feel the same most time about the 2nd big "new wave" director, J-L Godard. I prefer New Wave directors from the left side of the Seine, the intelectuals like Jacques Rivette, one&only Alain Resnais (I ordered his classic Last Year at Marienbad all way from the US), Agnes Varda. On the other side, I never was in Hitchock cult, although I love his movies from the best phase (North by Northwest, Dial M For Murder, Rear Window), although the others are also very good/excellent. I guess I like those because of their 50s stylishness.
did Hamlet.