October 09, 2004
Quentin Tarantino: refusing to go deeper because he loves the surface so much
It's a rare thing that you come across an article that you utterly disagree with, and yet must admit is excellent at the same time. Katrina Onstad over at The National Post (one of Canada's national newspapers) has written such an article. In it, she discusses Quentin Tarantino and why she believes he belongs in the "Academy of the Overrated" (I like that phrase).
For the most part, her article deals with what she perceives to be a basic lack of real substance or "soul" to any of his films. One of her more interesting observations is that often "hit" movies like Tarantino's don't necessarily become hits because they're that good... but rather:
...overrated movies are those that generate a similar collective nervous energy, a sense that one must participate or miss the cultural conversation. When Star Wars and The Blair Witch Project were released, their content -- good or bad -- quickly didn't matter, but their momentum did. It's not necessarily superior filmmaking that causes the public to line up for hours; it's fear of being left behind.It's a point that's well made. I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine in Saskatoon named Shannon, an insanly talented musician, about the rise of N'Sync despite the lack of talent. Her observation was that it doesn't take talent to become the "in" thing. All it takes is a hook. The hook can be one catchy sounding song, good looks, dating the right celebrity or whatever. Popularity becomes it's own driving force and becomes self perpetuating. I remember a friend of mine telling me I had to watch Will and Grace because "it's what everyone is watching now". Seems to make Onstad's point doesn't it?
Onstad insists that Quentin Tarantino's film lacks real depth and soul while relying mainly on pop culture references, old movie tributes and connecting the spectacular with everyday life. I can't disagree with her. Actually I think she's 100% correct. HOWEVER, it begs the question "what is soul"? or "What is depth"? or "What is art"? I agree with Onstad's arguments... I just don't agree with her conclusions.
Yes, I like movies that make me think... but making me think is not a prerequisite to being a good movie. Movies are an art... But the art is entertainment. There are different brushes and mediums to achieve this goal of entertainment in the art of movie making. Despite herself, Onstad seems to believe there is one exclusive formula to making "ART" in film, human interest love stories I guess. philosophical debates or a contemplation on the meaning of existence. All that stuff is good... but it's only ONE brush... it's only ONE medium.
Quentin Tarantino, in my opinion, has a gift for making entertaining, emotion arousing films that keep many of us wanting more. Is that not an art? Like I said though, it is an excellent article that you really should read. Anyway, I'm just babbling now. Go enjoy your weekend.
Posted by John Campea at October 9, 2004 11:03 AM
Comments
Posted by: Hank Shiffman at October 9, 2004 11:45 AM
The 'Art' Onstead was referring to, 'the soul', 'the depth' is agreeable. yet it does not make Tarantino a bad film maker. His ability to grasp pop culture that masterfully makes it into an art form itself. Although lacking in 'the soul' and 'the depth', it is highly entertaining, and deserves credit for not trying to be entertaining using the tried and and tired hollywood blockbuster formula. Meshing in all the pop culture references from across the decades, Tarantino has appealed to the short attention spanned 'N'sync' type of fans and the die hard, cult fans.
it really irks me though, is the masses of 'surface' level people (the ones that make the most noise and yet have nothing to show for it) who bellow so loudly to become part of that pop phenomenon and yet don't appreciate and understand the essence of it. Countless amounts of people who watched kill bill (for example) proclaim they love it but they prolly don't relate to a quarter of the references that Tarantino made. Ask them why they like that movie and they prolly can't give you a concrete answer.
A lousy song given enough exposure on radio, getting played over and over again will eventually become popular. Such is the way this works. Sheesh...sorry i'm rambling...i make sense perhaps only to myself. lol
Posted by: Atticus at October 9, 2004 11:57 AM
I read the first part of that series last week while sitting on the john and laughed at all of the ones I agreed with. I haven't read this part yet, but I will be very upset if she slams QT and not that sham, M. Night. What a crock of shit his movies are. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... That would be my official critical opinion. :-) Can't wait to read the article. I think I will head out now to buy it. Thanks for reminding me of it. I'm off work this weekend, and probably would have missed it if you hadn't mentioned it.
Posted by: Lilly at October 9, 2004 12:05 PM
Intersting.. i used to think i was teh only one who found his movies overrated, (his recent ones at least)... still good flicks though
to check out a short comedy short i made bout college kids who are addicted to using google
check out http://www.collegeiseasy.net
Posted by: Troy at October 9, 2004 01:33 PM
Maybe if tarantino made more orignal films instead of lifting his ideas/storylines from JP or HK films, he might be considered to have more soul.
Posted by: Bill Cosby at October 9, 2004 02:30 PM
he's great at amalgamating other films in to one for american audiences - and then american movies are more noticed that films of a similar ilk in the countries whos films were pilfered. i bet KB dvd preorders were high, yet most of the films referenced go relatively unnoticed. i agree : QT = overrated. i agree : QT films = good, but not genius. overrated : maybe... probably... yes.
Posted by: logboy at October 9, 2004 02:39 PM
Quentin Tarentino's films?
Flawlessly Created: Yes
Entertaining and Exciting: Yes
Works of Art: No
His films still have a good amount of value, but so does a toaster.
:)
Posted by: iamNataku at October 9, 2004 03:28 PM
I agree that Tarantinos movies can be veiwed as surface.There is art there.Tarantino is an easy target for reviewers of movies who only like griping dramas or foreign films.
Movies can be about many things and dont always have to be about serious problems or overcoming adversity or romantic entanglements or having a quasi religious epiphany.
You have to ask yourself if you enjoyed your movie watching experience.
Al Pachino is Overrated
Posted by: thesecretsafe at October 9, 2004 04:33 PM
In general there would be no language system (no system for food gathering, etc.) if people didn't feel the "need to belong". And what's more humans need to HAVE the instinctual need "to belong" in order to survive.
So what that Quentin Tarantino's movies amount to a glorified collage/homage to the movie narratives that excite him? Obviously there's a large enough audience out there that can connect to that and enjoy the energy he brings to his work. And say what you want but the Superman reference in Kill Bill Vol. 2 is one of the truest metaphysical insights I've witnessed in a movie in a long time. His movies have "no soul"?
When I exit his movies I have a smile on my face and I'm ready to have a conversation about what I saw up on the screen. That's good FOR THE SOUL, no?
Posted by: Crystal at October 9, 2004 09:01 PM
Here's an article that takes off philosophically where Onstad's article left off:
http://metaphilm.com/philm.php?id=178_0_2_0_M
Posted by: iamNataku at October 12, 2004 01:41 AM
I LOOOOOVVVE Quentin Tarantino movies! Can't get enough! Love it!
Posted by: Lily Von Trap at February 6, 2005 04:02 AM
I'd liken films like Tarentino's and Star Wars (the original at least) to roller coaster rides. They're all about the moment, the adrenaline rush. I remember Star Wars as a phenomenon in large part because it was such great fun as a shared experience in a theater, before home video locked us away from each other.
That's separate from the idea of entertainments that everyone experiences because everyone is experiencing them. And although we may jump in because we don't want to feel left out, that has as much to do with the ongoing conversations as the need to belong. If I don't watch Survivor (and I don't), I can't understand and participate in the dialogue it engenders. And that's the cost I have to weigh against putting myself through an entertainment that doesn't entertain me.