Retro Filmdango Eps. 6 - Quentin Tarantino

A place for Fandanglers to chat about all things Retro Fandango
Post Reply
User avatar
BuriedOnMars
Rank: Warrior of Light
Rank: Warrior of Light
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:06 am
Gaming Since (Year): 1981
First Console: Commodore Vic 20
Favourite Genre: Games
Favourite Game: Super Metroid/Half Life

Retro Filmdango Eps. 6 - Quentin Tarantino

Post by BuriedOnMars » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:30 pm

Let's talk Quentin Taratino. Knowing how much we liked Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown, are any of his other films worth checking out? Let us know!

User avatar
xmattbandyx
Rank: Ex-SOLDIER
Rank: Ex-SOLDIER
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:42 pm
Gaming Since (Year): 1985
First Console: Nintendo Entertainment System
Favourite Genre: Action Platformer
Favourite Game: Mike Tyson's Punch Out

Re: Retro Filmdango Eps. 6 - Quentin Tarantino

Post by xmattbandyx » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:25 pm

Christopher Waltz's performances in both Inglourious Basterds and Django are amazing, although for me, the movies were just ok. Both are worth watching though.

User avatar
alatinolawyer
Rank: Tomb Raider
Rank: Tomb Raider
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:44 am
Gaming Since (Year): 1985
First Console: Atari 2600
Favourite Genre: Adventure/Fighting
Favourite Game: Super Metroid/Street Fighter 2 Turbo
Location: DeWitt, Michigan

Re: Retro Filmdango Eps. 6 - Quentin Tarantino

Post by alatinolawyer » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:45 pm

I listened mainly to the parts about Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction as I've never seen Foxy Brown and can't really relate to lengthy discussions of movies that I've never seen.

Pulp Fiction:

I'm glad somebody brought up the question of what's in the suitcase. I highly doubt that Quentin Tarantino ever said it's Marsellus Wallace's soul, except as a sarcastic nod to critics that he previously discredited. That has been a huge topic of theorizing and debating. The strongest argument for the soul explanation came from people who took apart every detail in the movie and cross referenced it with myths, theories, and ideologies elsewhere. The argument originated from people who noticed that Marsellus has a band aid on the back of his head and found ideology that the soul could be removed from a person through the back of their head and A HA WE FIGURED IT OUT!

Well, at one point Tarantino specifically said the band aid was only there because the actor cut himself shaving.

I think this level of interpretation in Tarantino movies is dangerous because the guy is creative and smart, but not an artistic genius. As you both pointed out his movies have moments of being unbelievable. Sure there are lots of cool details he likes to have in there, but I think he struggles to have cohesiveness between all his cool details. He's no Wes Anderson when it comes to world building, that's for sure.

Another interesting thing you could talk about is Bruce Willis's character selecting the samurai sword. It's a long, drawn out process. Why?

Hammer. Nope.
Baseball bat. Nope.
Chainsaw. Nope.

Then a change in camera view. We are the samurai sword. He is looking at us. He is choosing us. We don't know what he's choosing yet, but he's choosing us. Cut to new angle, close up of samurai sword. It's on display. He brings it down, takes it out of its sheath and away we go.

Now I've been in enough critical theory courses and seminars where this scene alone brings in debates about Marx, materialism vs ideology, etc., the argument goes hammer, baseball bat, and chainsaw are all items that he chooses against because they all have utility as something other than a weapon - they are tools either for sport or construction or cutting. But a samurai sword is pure ideology, there's no confusion, no distraction of its purpose. Pure weapon and violence. And yet we at one point shared that point of view as the sword, we the viewer are pure ideology in watching a film, we are not part of the film's material or utility, we only cause violence and dissect.

And I sit there going, yeah, so cool, awesome.

BUT TARANTINO IS NOT A GENIUS AND I DON'T THINK HE EVER EVEN THOUGHT THAT HARD ABOUT THIS SCENE.

So ultimately, Pulp Fiction is like, accidentally awesome because he does so much in it that ends up being cool. You could also go on about Samuel L Jackson's "Bible Quote" which isn't even really in the Bible. Is there a deeper meaning that having a made up Bible message that ends with SLJ saying "and you will know that I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee." Is Jules' favorite quote supposed to signify his egotism, that he creates up a made up bible verse from Ezekial (God strengthens) that's about him being the Lord, but ultimately he recognizes that believing you are all powerful is so false it can only occur through a made up Bible quote that isn't in the Bible?

Could Pulp Fiction really be that amazing a commentary on the Western fallacy of individualism and self-made man?!?!?! That would be AWES... oh wait, HIGHLY UNLIKELY BECAUSE TARANTINO JUST DOES SHIT HE THINKS IS COOL AND DOESN'T HAVE THE ARTISTIC GENIUS TO RETAIN COHESIVE STORYTELLING!

End of rant.

User avatar
BuriedOnMars
Rank: Warrior of Light
Rank: Warrior of Light
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:06 am
Gaming Since (Year): 1981
First Console: Commodore Vic 20
Favourite Genre: Games
Favourite Game: Super Metroid/Half Life

Re: Retro Filmdango Eps. 6 - Quentin Tarantino

Post by BuriedOnMars » Sat Apr 21, 2018 1:52 am

alatinolawyer wrote:
Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:45 pm
TARANTINO JUST DOES SHIT HE THINKS IS COOL AND DOESN'T HAVE THE ARTISTIC GENIUS TO RETAIN COHESIVE STORYTELLING!
Mostly agree with all of that. I think he just makes a cool movie that he wants to see. The way people look into things like the case and the samurai sword is people just looking to much into it. I think the simple answer to the case is anything they could show in it would not have been as cool as what our imagination can create. So why make it any one thing? I think it is best not to know.

Jackie Brown was the most cohesive story out of the three we did, but Elmore Leonard probably deserves the credit for that.

I'm not sure I'd label him as a genius too, but he certainly is talented. To be able to envision these films and place them onto the screen with his unique style is pretty remarkable. So, I'm not convinced his stories are absent of cohesion due to a lack of something on his part or a disinterest in them having a traditional ending.

Post Reply