Tarantino interview...

BMWZ4MC

BMWZ4MC

Lifer!
 Diving out of the sun
This is worth a watch. The man's a genius for sure but doesn't really shine :D

http://www.channel4.com/news/tarantino-uncut-when-quentin-met-krishnan-transcript
 
I'm a huge Tarantino fan and have seen many of his interviews, and it isn't like him to snap like that and get frustrated. Maybe he was tired :|
 
I didnt watch the whole interview but it appeared to be leading towards the recent killing spree's in the USA schools - Tarantino knew that question was coming up so kicked off before it was raised
 
I liked a lot of his films and his cinematography skills but it's interesting that he got very tetchy on the violence question because I think that's the one bit of his movie-making that lets him down. He relies too much on graphic, gratuitous, unnecessary violence in my opinion. Clearly that's a sore point that has been scratched many times over the years. To me that shows a lack of imagination but there seems to be a generation growing up who wants to see the blood splattered? :?

I don't imagine he is a particularly nice person to know.
 
If anyone remembers Notting hill, the bit in the hotel where the actors have to give interviews with a stream of journalists in succession. I can imagine every one asking the same question to Tarantino, just after another shooting in a school.
 
He makes a living from fetishising extreme violence. He would claim it is 'stylised' but the considering the tightness of Uma Thurman's leather pants I think I have a point.
 
Finisterre said:
He makes a living from fetishising extreme violence. He would claim it is 'stylised' but the considering the tightness of Uma Thurman's leather pants I think I have a point.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of Tarantino's movies and havent had the urge to rape ,maim or torture anybody yet !
Perhaps we should be blaming the idiots who actually do these things rather than trying to make excuses for them :idunno:
 
I'm a big fan of Marilyn Manson and Slayer, both of whom have been blamed by people like Tipper Gore and other similar nut jobs, for causing stuff like Columbine. However as i said above, even though I like Tarantino films, I think his films are unnecessarily violent and seem to revel in that violence and suffering. Whatever happened to leaving something to the viewers imagination? Oh i remember, most people don't have one now.
 
metal licker said:
Perhaps we should be blaming the idiots who actually do these things rather than trying to make excuses for them :idunno:
Click to expand...

showing inadequate and developmentally challenged people asserting themselves through violence is entertainment

It has nothing to do with mass shootings and a fear bred gun culture.
 
he must be asked those questions 50 times a day, and saying that his views were well documented is fair even if his irritation shining through may not cast him in the best light.

it seems there must be some connection between the things people watch and the despicable things people do - I'd hate to see what films politicians watch .....

But you can't censure - by overstepping the mark we define it, then we can question its impact. Troubled people that feed off the edge of society's art would only find something else to feed off, there is no shortage of examples of glorified violence in history.

It does seem to an outsider that the US gun laws are outdated and could use a review....
 
I accept the violence of Tarantino's films as the majority fits within the brutal spectrum of the life that he is exploring. Perhaps some of the violence depicted is unnecessarily graphic but equally perhaps the strength of the violence is true to life (see Inglorious Basterds) and adds weight to message presented. I don't perceive the violence in his films to be like that in many gory horror films where the shock response to grotesque violence supplements for an absent story and poor production values (not unlike cheap pornography!).
That it was so easy to provoke him in to such unintelligent retorts is disappointing. I think Sars point is valid but I cannot believe he didn't anticipate such a line of questioning. Perhaps he's lost his edge and has become too comfortable living as an "artist" in a land of sycophants.
 
chris g said:
....Troubled people that feed off the edge of society's art would only find something else to feed off, there is no shortage of examples of glorified violence in history....
Click to expand...

I suspect that the active experience of video games has a greater effect on lowering people's internal threshold for acceptable behaviour than does the passive experience of films.
 
OG made an interesting comment, if you look at one of his first films, Reservoir Dogs, the scene where Mr Blonde cuts the ear off the cop it was gory beyond belief because you didn't see anything. It was quite surreal to see him dancing to stuck in the middle with you combined with anticipation of something really nasty about to happen. Just about perfectly acted and directed. But there was no gore just our imagination filling in the pictures.

However how many times has that scene been reconstructed in life, I don't believe it's actually the film the promotes this violence, we continually improve on ways to make other people suffer, bring pain and death through our imagination and yes everybody has an imagination.
 
I'm with Sars (first comment) on this one. The interviewer is just the victim of bad timing as QT will have been asked the same questions all day long and has just got fed up. I don't think either of them come out of it particularly poorly though.

Superb film maker (Jackie Browns my favourite of his....quote 'The AK-47, the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively, got to kill every motherfucker in the room; accept no substitutes ).



I do like this alternative endings to PULP Fiction though.

[youtube]ASs8odtJjLI[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom