The Stopped Clock Hates Tarantino Twice A Day
By Mitch Berg
James Wolcott is largely a waste of skin, one of America’s most loathsome excuses for a cultural critic.
But he’s oh so right about one thing:
ON the subject of [Quentin] Tarantino, I consur with Will Self, who wrote in Junk Mail “Mr. tarantino is essentially a pasticheru and an artistic fraud,”, to which I would add “and a pimp for geek sadism.” Indeed, he has in danger of becoming the Charles Graner of cinema, presiding over the festivities with a big thumbs up and a jack-o’lantern grin”.
How any cultural conservative anyone who is concerned with the future of Western culture can accept the case of artistic moral emphysema that is Quentin Tarantino and his mindless glorification of all that is ugly and stupid is well beyond me.
June 20th, 2007 at 6:40 am
All well and good, but if you want to impress me with your sophistication please try to use the language properly.
“I consur with Will Self”
“he has in danger of becoming the Charles Graner”
Waste of skin? Pffft.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Well, we agree that Wolcott is an air thief, but Tarantino — Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in particular — is one of my favorites. That said, I can easily live without Kill Bill, parts one and/or two.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Cultural termites can cull evidence from old movies to indict Tarantino for the specificity of what he borrows, but they can’t slag on him for how creatively he synthesizes them into his own films. His characters are idiosyncratic, free-thinking plot-movers. Actors in his movies give career-best performances. His stories are yarns well spun. His direction is full of finesse and formalistic pleasures. He’s not your cup of tea, but Tarantino takes bad and makes good very, very well.
The one area where I probably agree with your dislike of Tarantino is that he’s a mouthy, overbearing interviewee and his presence as an actor in any movie is obtrusive and unwelcome. Behind the camera, however, he’s uncommonly talented, easily in Hollywood’s top ranks of working writer-directors.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Whether or not you liked Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction isn’t very important… Pulp Fiction may have furthered the idea that movies don’t need a chronological story. Also, the anti-hero characters in his films might have paved the way for other likeable-unlikeables like Tony Soprano, Silvio, and Paulie Walnuts… or (possibly) the main characters in Rome.
For that, Tarantino might be somewhat important to modern film and television.
Of course, he’s still weird and a little too forced in his hip attitude.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:58 am
You had to like the Chinese guy in Kill Bill #2.
June 20th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Wolcott (and Mitch) are taking Tarantino far too seriously. The secret to Tarantino’s films is that they are comedies disguised as action/crime flicks.
June 20th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Terry… correct sir.
I still love Keitel’s dialogue-free moment where he tells Tarantino that the coffee is great.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Badda-
The best moment in “Pulp Fiction” was when Bruce Willis sneaks into his old apartment and finds a machine gun laying on the kitchen counter top. He looks confused and apprehensive since he knows that there is a price on his head. Then he hears the toilet flush and knows that he is stalked by a single, very stupid hitman. A whole story told in an eyeblink.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“Dead Nigger Storage” is a classic. It will be rememebred as one of the greatest short stories ever. Tarantino is capable of producing great social comedy in the vein of Mel Brooks.
Kill Bill is highly stylized violence. Like much art, not everyone appreciates it, but those of us that do think it is well worth watching.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:23 am
Terry,
That’s a great scene… I’m also partial to Jules asking Honey Bunny what Fonzie is like and responding with “Correctamundo”.
Tracy,
Very few films (if any) are anything like art, much less Tarantino films. I enjoyed a few (and I look forward to Jackie Brown), but art they ain’t. Stylized? Inovative? yeah, yeah, yeah… but they hold no artistic merit.
If any film has a component of art you better mention Lawrence of Arabia.
Oh, and Tarantino may take a page from Mel Brooks, but he’s out of Brooks’ league. That man was a genius… albeit one who didn’t always go from strength to strength. (Strongest perhaps in the middle of his career, as far as film goes.)
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:49 am
How a person can’t like Pulp Fiction is beyond Angryclown.