They are not defined, in personality or in motive, by their romantic or familial bonds. Perhaps consequentially, the balance between these male and female characters, when they inhabit the same films, is off. In only three of his ten feature films do women constitute more than half of the characters.
These women are exceptions to a larger rule, and flawed exceptions at that. Of course not. Women deserve better, and so did Beatrix Kiddo. Interestingly, a recent study found that horror fans and morbidly curious individuals were more psychologically resilient during the COVID pandemic. There are reasons to reconsider how much we like watching violence per se. For example, in one study researchers showed two groups of people the movie, The Fugitive.
One group were shown an unedited movie, while another saw a version with all violence edited out. Despite this, both groups liked the film equally. This finding has been supported by other studies which have also found that removing graphic violence from a film does not make people like it less.
There is even evidence that people enjoy non-violent versions of films more than violent versions. Many people may be enjoying something that coincides with violence, rather than violence itself. For example, violence creates tension and suspense , which may be what people find appealing. Another possibility is that it is action, not violence , which people enjoy.
Watching violence also offers a great chance for making meaning about finding meaning in life. Seeing violence allows us to reflect on the human condition , an experience we value. Other theories are also out there. Finally, it may be that it is justified punishment, rather than violence, that we enjoy watching. Indeed, whenever people anticipate being able to punish wrongdoers, the reward centres of their brain light up like fairgrounds.
With Kill Bill , Tarantino had blocked out the fight scenes beat for beat, but he directed from a composite document, half-screenplay, half-novel. With the novel, that process was reversed. More than that, he knew exactly what they looked like. The two leads are the same as in the movie. Playing opposite Dalton is his stunt double, Cliff Booth.
He was a little creep, petty thief, piece of shit. Does Tarantino agree with Booth? Does he also think that Seven Samurai is magnificent but with Red Beard Kurosawa started to fall off?
That Fellini got dull when he decided that life is a circus? A brief pause. All by Boss. Spoken like a true obsessive. In fact, Tarantino can marshal a raft of citations for any occasion, including, for instance, when GQ asks: um, what do you make of people thinking you have a thing about feet?
A pause. A sigh of disappointment that we would even think to ask such a thing. And Hitchcock was accused of it and Sofia Coppola has been accused of it. Feet are, as the man himself says, for the screen, whereas the novel is richer in backstory and interiority. It goes deeper into the sadness of actors, the career paths of walk-on parts and the tangled contingencies of life in Hollywood. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is, at its heart, a book about the sadness and excitement of expectation: Sharon Tate, the next-big-thing actor with her unborn child; Aldo Ray, a washed-up alcoholic with his own kind of dignity; even Manson feels more like a relatable kind of loser, trying to make it big as a hippie folk singer, than the electromagnetic pulse powering a murderous sex-and-bullshit cult.
Mr Zero the one about 6 inches above here that says "In fact I think the answer to the threads question is that QTs genius is that he manages to put all these disparate stolen influences and riffs from other movies together into a cohesive whole - and stitch it together with his brand of free-flowing pop culture dialog. I like QT - we can be buddies now!
Mr Zero thats a very precise percentage - did you get a statistician to do the math? And to answer your question Yes ,but he makes it abundantly clear everytime he does. Every Great film director has borrowed from previous or modern greats. This is expanding ones arsenal in film making. Kill Bill held many style shots and story based camera techniques directly from asian martial arts cinema, but that was the point of the film people.
He made it clear and doesnt try to hide this fact. He wanted to make a martial arts grind film because they dont make them anymore, and what did he do? He gave us a film that rivals the best in asian martial arts cinema. The film was still packed with his cynical and sarcastic dialgue touch along with his own style.
Unlike many Filmakers, when Tarentino gets and idea for scene he will not make exceptions in presenting his vision, not for the FCC and not for the fear that audience may not approve. Tarentino Doesnt change the pace and style of his movies, they always stay consistant, and everytime your watching one of his films you know that it is infact a tartentino film.
He is a filmaker that never strays from his style,but only elaborates on it. He came from nothing, and had only one shot to make it into movies, and succeeded because he has an original and vivid feeling to his movies. Cinemaddiction Except the stories and characters for his movies.
I am just saying he can't come up with idea's on his own. He may have movies with original feeling to his films yet the stories are anything,but original, yet he gets praised as being one of the most innovative and original directors out there. Ranson, EdtV, and parenthood are movie remakes. All others are eigther movies he fell into or were inspired from stories that have already been written, or has had other writers write the screenplays for him.
Even his techniques are greatly inspired by lucas, and Da palma. When Howard goes into making a movie, he has a crew of writers, and editors by his side. It is known he rarely writes the scripts and screenplays for his films, and also has an editing team. He say's he trusts his writers and editors because they have worked with him for so long. I don't think this is any exscuse though for taking the credit that he does.
I'm not saying he steals anything from anyone, that was an exageration. Tarentino Gains inspiration for his films. He doesnt steal a damn thing. When he uses inspired characters from stories or previous movie characters he always makes it known. Tarentino also writes all of his scripts and screenplays, and takes a full both hands in editing. He cares about his films,and does whatever it takes to make sure they get made in his vision.
Saying he steals his stories is like saying every director in the business steals their stories for having inspiration. If anyone in the business is a thief it would be Howard, every movie film he makes is eigther directly taken from a published story, or movie, or is dominated greatly by other films and stories.
Cinemaddiction I'm going to quote you a few times, so if this looks messy, I apologize in advance. That's not what's in question here. If that's the case, and you're arguing in the defense of Tarantino, he and Howard are in the same boat.
To cover his bases, he claims that he's "inspired" by grindhouse, blaxploitation, yadda, yadda, yadda. All he does is take characters and storylines from the most obscure movies imaginable, and uses them as his own, because he knows nobody is going to go through a video stores library, looking for the sources.
How many times has he acknowledged these "inspirations"? Stories and characters can only be used in so many ways. Tarantino is a thief. Plan and simple, and he has all his fans duped. No matter how nonchalantly they carry themselves when approached with the evidence, we all know that his lack of originality gets to them, and they are wallowing in some insufferable stage of denial.
A common thread of blood, sexism, and foul dialogue doesn't make him original. It makes him the Milli Vanilli of cinema. Like I say - I think he's amazing for pulling this grab-bag thing off with such style. He can write some snappy dialog but he can't put a plot together for shit and directorialy he's like a rap artist that can't write a tune so has to sample some old classic and mumble over the top about how big his dick is.
He never lied about that crap. I remember when pulp fiction Came out Tarentino was questioned about that a great deal. He always said that it was a heavy motivator for the film, that he has loved chow yun fat, and when watching city on fire he was overwhlemed with idea's on how to elaborate on the films story, and yes he did so greatly. The movie was so great because of the execution and the rawness in his writing. Yes he says all the time that the concept of the bride was taken from the bride wore black and snowblood very openly.
Every talk show he appeared on he always talked about it, and also the other schenes in the films that he took from old gring house films. Shit he even talks about the bride concept on the DVD. He says also that the movie was made for fans to the genre like me. Tarentino has also never tried to hide the fact that jackie brown was from the novel rum punch.
He also always gives the author recognition. Saying Tarentino cant create a plot is crazy. He makes movies that he wants and feel are worth making. Even with the stories that he borrows and elaborates which are fewer than you claim.
He writes the entire screenplay and script. This is a man that understands story telling. Many producers and directors have apporached tarentino many times to write seagments or elaborate on characters in their stories.
Tarentino wrote the story for the film true romance, which was directed by tony scott. True romance is a great movie and is acclaimed. Tarentino is a writer to rival any hollywood writer, and has a cinematic vision and excution that is totally unique. It's insane to suggest that Quentin tried to cover that up, especially since Leonard is even acknowledged in the film's opening credits. As to whether he's first denied, then admitted to using other films as inspiration to one extent or another, I'm not seeing any documentation here.
Like I said earlier, even his most hardcore followers would support any evidence of such machinations on Quentin's part, then chastise him accordingly. Even if he stole the plot for reservour dogs directly from city on fire, and never acknowleged it as being a motivator of his, and not only a dream of his to be his first film. If he would never have acknowledged this, my views on tarentino would be different. I would still like his films because there all products of great movie making, but i wouldnt be as fanatic about him.
He is a regular guy who dropped out of high school and was working a dead end job and decided to enter a film at some festivals.
Theguy has no reason to lie. He parties with his fans and recognizes his fan base as being the only reaosn he is able to make movies. He has no reason to lie, and when he says that he has taken certian characters or scenes in amovie to create a vision he was given from there inspiration, i tend to believe him especially since he gives credit where credit is due, even if he doesnt get all his credit.
Cinemaddiction I see I've wasted my time in this thread. Mr Zero You say that like you are surprised? It was a forgone conclusion Cinemaddiction I left the door open, given there was little hope for salvation, but alas. As for Stormydiction; he was last seen licking his wounds in the "Mona Lisa Smile" and "Blade" threads.
Mr Zero I actually seriously hurt my gut laughing. SlipknoT SD isnt going to be around for about 2 weeks. Cinemaddiction So I read. Sorry for the derailment, Q. RaventheOnly I concur Great director and filmaker yes! Why do we like him? One factor is that QT like the rest of us here loves movies. The man is an Encyclopedia of movies. Whether is classic Hollywood or Cult or foreign, QT has seen tons of those films. Some of us identified ourselves with his movies.
We'd all seen that before in other movies. And QT did it in Kill Bill. I'm sure there are ppl who don't like QT movies and that's understandble. I mean not every director can be like Spielberg or Lucas. But that's a thought for another time.
Tarantino is a genius is because he has a tested IQ in the 's -- well above genius level. Detractors will say that Tarantino is unoriginal and simply steals his work. Supportes claim he is merely paying homage to his favorites. What both sides seem to be forgetting is that Tarantino is an artist who has chosen film as his way of expressing himself.
And, like all true artists, his goal is to say as much as possible in a unique way with the medium he is using. While there is no argument that Tarantino "borrows" heavily from outside sources, you really need to consider why Tarantino chooses the homages to pay when he does choose them. Tarantino hides so much in his movies that the average movie goer fails to see. For example, read these quotes from Pulp: "Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children" -- Jules, from his Ezekial speech.
They were in the Valley of Darkness, now they needed Jimmy to be their brother's keeper. Do you know why you didn't see that sign? At least a part of it? Did he find these lost children? What's Fonzie like? But, I'm trying, Ringo, I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd".
Who was he trying to be like?
0コメント