QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Which director made the best films, made the best visuals, or smelled the best? This is the forum to find out.

Re: QT : The Man, The Myth, the Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Peven on Mon May 04, 2009 11:18 pm

i am glad i can separate the art from the artist, because as much as i like his movies the more i see him in interviews and learn about him the less i like him. everything from trashing on "The Goonies" to his stupid foot fetish to being so far off base with SR. where i once would have loved to meet him, i now have zero desire to do so. yet, his movies are some of my absolute favorite. go figure
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14455
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: QT : The Man, The Myth, the Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue May 05, 2009 7:20 am

I can't stand listening to Quinty's manic jabbering. It took me three stop and starts to make it through the interview stuff on the Jackie Brown special features.

I love a couple of his movie and can admire the other ones and am glad he's out there making movies, but the idea of spending an afternoon with him would be the ultimate test of my patience.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT : The Man, The Myth, the Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TonyWilson on Tue May 05, 2009 7:21 am

No I think all the coke you would both be doing would probably make it seem bearable.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 10, 2009 6:32 am

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2 ... itual.html

Seriously, Kill Bill is Tarantino's masterpiece, not Jackie Brown.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby GupterPuncher on Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:41 am

He gave an interview where he said real writers can write different characters and stories, without repeating the same schtick. He said he never repeats himself, but people accuse him of it.

Tarantino repeats himself, doesn't he?

All his characters sound the same, every film. The girls in 'Deathproof' talk like the guys from 'Reservoir Dogs', with only slight differences maybe. They know the same references, they say too many things, most of them are over-elaborate.

His WW2 film takes a bunch of Nazi slayers who talk about film and send them to a cinema in Paris, where they can talk about film and make no excuses for it. They're in a cinema, it's ok. Or they're near a cinema, whatever.

Am I that far off the mark here? Isn't he a one note writer?
"There's no social truth in General Zod." 'Benny Platonov'

www.yearzerowriters.wordpress.com
GupterPuncher
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby papalazeru on Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:44 am

I think quickfire talking is more his trademark.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11474
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby GupterPuncher on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:22 am

BUt it's all the same, innit?

Look at the Coens...their characters all seem different. Some talk alot like Buscemi in 'Fargo', some don't talk at all like Billy Bob in 'Man who wasn't there.'

The only Tarantino character i can think of that doesn't talk a lot is DeNiro in 'Jackie Brown.' Maybe Bruce in 'Pulp' too.
"There's no social truth in General Zod." 'Benny Platonov'

www.yearzerowriters.wordpress.com
GupterPuncher
TOMBOY BEANPOLE
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:34 pm

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby papalazeru on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:25 am

I can't quite say I'm a fan of QT as much as other people on the boards are.

I adored, and still do, Reservoir dogs. As for the quirky writing, I quite like it being his signature. I also can see similar traits in some characters like Uma Thurman in Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill but blatant copies? I'm not versed enough on QT to judge that.

You might be on to something though, I think there might be a few people here who would agree and disagree so there might be a flame war.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11474
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby DerLanghaarige on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:42 am

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying for years. Every character sounds the same in every movie. The one exception might be "Kill Bill 1", where he reduced the annoying Tarantino-talk to an acceptable minimum. (And of course "Reservoir Dogs", where much of the dialogue seriously serves the plot and the characterisation!)
Image
User avatar
DerLanghaarige
Lohman's Wet Shirt
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby tapehead on Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:11 pm

DerLanghaarige wrote:Every character sounds the same in every movie.


Ok, so riddle me this Batman; what about De Niro's quietly furious Con, Fonda's bong-head trophy blonde, or fiesty flight attendant Grier in Jackie Brown (not to mention the thoughtful, slow and rueful dialogue that comes out of Forster's mouth in that movie)? Or more obviously how about the fashionista, starlet, stunt-chick and stoner dj girls in Death Proof? It doesn't take much scrutinising of his films to see what you've been saying for years doesn't hold water, DL. QT has proved that, while he might have a predilection for putting his own pop-culture soaked, manic ramblings into the mouths of some of his characters, it's not something he's limited to or incapable of avoiding.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: Why cut Tarantino any slack?

Postby travis-dane on Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:49 pm

tapehead wrote:
DerLanghaarige wrote:Every character sounds the same in every movie.


Ok, so riddle me this Batman; what about De Niro's quietly furious Con, Fonda's bong-head trophy blonde, or fiesty flight attendant Grier in Jackie Brown (not to mention the thoughtful, slow and rueful dialogue that comes out of Forster's mouth in that movie)? Or more obviously how about the fashionista, starlet, stunt-chick and stoner dj girls in Death Proof? It doesn't take much scrutinising of his films to see what you've been saying for years doesn't hold water, DL. QT has proved that, while he might have a predilection for putting his own pop-culture soaked, manic ramblings into the mouths of some of his characters, it's not something he's limited to or incapable of avoiding.


Well spoken Sir.
One just needs to look at Kill Bill 1&2, it is one story but two very different movies, QT changes the style completely but tells a seamless story all the way through.
-
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs!
Image
User avatar
travis-dane
100% OLEG!
 
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:19 am
Location: DTVille

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Ribbons on Fri Jul 10, 2009 5:33 pm

I don't know; I haven't seen Jackie Brown (though it's in the queue!), so I can't comment on that one, but I wouldn't hold Death Proof up as an example of Quentin Tarantino writing characters that DON'T sound like Quentin Tarantino. Which is fine because 1) technically, almost no characters in any screenplay sound "real"; they almost always talk the way the writers wished they really talked, and 2) I think he's a good writer and his directing/storytelling capabilities more than make up for any limitations in dialogue. But almost all of Death Proof felt like an extended version of the diner scene at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs, to me anyways.

Speaking of Death Proof, did anybody else notice that one of the shots of Zoe Bell on top of Kurt Russell's car was really a bearded stuntman in drag? I'm pretty sure that was a nod to another film, but I can't remember which one. Or maybe I just hallucinated the whole thing.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13779
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TonyWilson on Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:17 pm

Kill Bill - The Bride doesn't sound like O-Ren who doesn't sound like Bill who doesn't sound like Budd who doesn't sound like Pei Mei who doesn't sound like Elle Driver. Tape's already pointed out Jackie Brown. I'll say Mr Orange doesn't sound like Mr Blonde or Nice Guy Eddie. And in Pulp Fiction Vincent doesn't sound like Butch who doesn't sound like Pumpkin or Honeybunny.
Besides that, the entire argument about Tarantino repeating himself is silly because, oh shit, that's what every great artist does. Spielberg has themes and stories running through all of his films, Kubrick is obsessed with analytical depictions of the duality of man, Scorsese is flooded with Catholic guilt etc etc. If Tarantino had continued to make heist movies or Pulp Fiction-esque ensemble pieces there'd be room to criticise that repetition, but dissing the man for following his loves and obsessions - in new ways against the backdrop of different genres, puts you on dodgy ground with nearly every great director.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby tapehead on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:00 pm

Ribbons wrote:But almost all of Death Proof felt like an extended version of the diner scene at the beginning of Reservoir Dogs, to me anyways.


I think he's definitely 'quoting himself' at times; the diner scene from the start of Res Dogs is replicated in the Death Proof diner scene in a number of ways - both lengthy scenes of really, really long-take rotating shots featuring funny conversational debates. In the first instance the talk concerns about tipping waitresses, Madonna lyrics and then, eventually the Heist that the film's plot centres upon. I think QT is making a comparison by referencing his earlier work in Death Proof; the girl's conversation consists of anecdotes, personal comparisons, and relatively inconsequential stuff util Zoe Bell starts talking about Vanishing Point and how she wants to drive a muscle car. It wouldn't mean much to someone who hadn't seen Res Dogs, but for the devotee the comparison is unavoidable, and there's a whole separate layer of meaning at play in the scene - QT is repeating himself, but to different effect and ends. Perhaps it's a commentary on the different ways that men and women communicate with each other, or a way of contrasting the trivial and casually analytical chat of the crooks is Res Dogs with the emotive and forceful debate amongst the girls, fuck if I know in the end (and I think Tarantino is a sophisticated film maker more likely to layer several possible meanings rather than wanting to tell one particular story), but the thoughts like these that come into my head as I watch one scene and think of the other are very entertaining. There's also the fact that Stuntman Mike is in the background at the bar, taking the girls' whole conversation in, which adds a slightly sinister edge to the proceedings.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby DaleTremont on Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:57 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Besides that, the entire argument about Tarantino repeating himself is silly because, oh shit, that's what every great artist does. Spielberg has themes and stories running through all of his films, Kubrick is obsessed with analytical depictions of the duality of man, Scorsese is flooded with Catholic guilt etc etc. If Tarantino had continued to make heist movies or Pulp Fiction-esque ensemble pieces there'd be room to criticise that repetition, but dissing the man for following his loves and obsessions - in new ways against the backdrop of different genres, puts you on dodgy ground with nearly every great director.


My thoughts exactly, only more eloquently expressed 8-)
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:47 pm

DaleTremont wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Besides that, the entire argument about Tarantino repeating himself is silly because, oh shit, that's what every great artist does. Spielberg has themes and stories running through all of his films, Kubrick is obsessed with analytical depictions of the duality of man, Scorsese is flooded with Catholic guilt etc etc. If Tarantino had continued to make heist movies or Pulp Fiction-esque ensemble pieces there'd be room to criticise that repetition, but dissing the man for following his loves and obsessions - in new ways against the backdrop of different genres, puts you on dodgy ground with nearly every great director.


My thoughts exactly, only more eloquently expressed 8-)


I wish I could change the name of TW's post so that it looks like I said it.

OH WAIT I CAN!

but i wont. :(

Well said sir.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby King Of Nowhere on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:03 pm

I don't think you can take the ad hominem approach on this.

I know i wasn't around back then, but i think the trend back when Kubrick, Scorsese or Spielberg were in their heyday was more towards the actors than towards the directors.

I'd say in the late 80's/90's you really started to see things like "A Film By" above the title on the poster & on the video cover & so on, even when it was the director's second feature.
That's when it kinda turned from "i want to see this film because it looks like something i'll enjoy," more to the modern "i want to see this film because x is directing it."
As an example, I don't think anyone was put off going to see Schindler's List because they'd already seen Spielberg tackle WW2 in 1941.
You could argue Hitchcock, he was kinda the exception that proved the rule though.

It's only now that we can look back on x directors entire body of work & notice these themes or whatever.
Partly due to the internet, partly to do with DVD's & partly to do with marketing.

QT is definitely the best example because he doesn't hold on to a particular genre.
You may not be interested in a WW2 film featuring Brad Pitt, but you'll watch it because QT is directing, or you may not be interested in a western with Uma as the lead, but you'll watch it because QT is directing...
It's not a safe approach & it doesn't pay off every time.

Kevin Smith has kinda been sitting at the opposite end of the spectrum. You know you're gonna get a comedy with a touch of sentimentalism when you see one of his films.

But Kubrick? Duality of man is a broad fucking concept.
I could argue that every story ever written is about the duality of man in one way or another.
If you want to say that people were going to see Kubrick's films to see inner conflict, i'll agree 100%
But at the time, Kubrick certainly wasn't the brand name that almost all directors are seen as today.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby tapehead on Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:09 pm

King Of Nowhere wrote:I'd say in the late 80's/90's you really started to see things like "A Film By" above the title on the poster & on the video cover & so on, even when it was the director's second feature.


May have been when you started noticing, but I'd have to say it's not (by a long shot) when it started happening. No offence KON, but Auteur Theory has been around since Truffaut in the '50's at least.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby King Of Nowhere on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:15 pm

The Auteur Theory doesn't really have to do with the part of my post that you quoted, unless you want to get into "ownership" or something else.
Regardless, i'm not saying "directed by" wasn't on the poster, just saying that it was around that time frame they started hammering the director as the brand rather than the man behind the camera.

I agree that studying a directors body of work for an overall theme or meaning has existed for a very long time.
I just don't believe that it was on the scale that it is today.

It also doesn't particularly interest me.
To me, the director of a film should tell the story of the film to the best of his capabilities.
I'm not looking for juxtaposition between works or some grand theme that i can ponder when i watch.
If i am thinking about anything other than the movie, the director has failed as a storyteller.

Does it matter if there's an overall theme to a body of work?
Should i watch something that may be a bad film again just because it has the same overall theme as something else the director did?
You could bring up film makers who have maybe a certain political message they are trying to get across.
To me, if they aren't able to express the idea in a single story, it doesn't matter what mindset they were in. I find it about as interesting as The Number 23.

If i liked the first film & they are trying to convey the exact same thing in the next, they're really just treading the same water & haven't really grown as a film maker.
Now maybe the director is just insecure & doesn't feel like he did it to the best of his abilities in work A, maybe he's learned things along the way that'll help him to express the message in a more fruitful way for film B.
But if he's trying to get the same point across after five or six or seven films, when he's clearly "found his feet" or whatever, i'm not interested.
I generally watch films to be entertained.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby tapehead on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:19 pm

oic.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby magicmonkey on Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:40 pm

King Of Nowhere wrote:The Auteur Theory doesn't really have to do with the part of my post that you quoted, unless you want to get into "ownership" or something else.
Regardless, i'm not saying "directed by" wasn't on the poster, just saying that it was around that time frame they started hammering the director as the brand rather than the man behind the camera.

I agree that studying a directors body of work for an overall theme or meaning has existed for a very long time.
I just don't believe that it was on the scale that it is today.

It also doesn't particularly interest me.
To me, the director of a film should tell the story of the film to the best of his capabilities.
I'm not looking for juxtaposition between works or some grand theme that i can ponder when i watch.
If i am thinking about anything other than the movie, the director has failed as a storyteller.

Does it matter if there's an overall theme to a body of work?
Should i watch something that may be a bad film again just because it has the same overall theme as something else the director did?
You could bring up film makers who have maybe a certain political message they are trying to get across.
To me, if they aren't able to express the idea in a single story, it doesn't matter what mindset they were in. I find it about as interesting as The Number 23.

If i liked the first film & they are trying to convey the exact same thing in the next, they're really just treading the same water & haven't really grown as a film maker.
Now maybe the director is just insecure & doesn't feel like he did it to the best of his abilities in work A, maybe he's learned things along the way that'll help him to express the message in a more fruitful way for film B.
But if he's trying to get the same point across after five or six or seven films, when he's clearly "found his feet" or whatever, i'm not interested.
I generally watch films to be entertained.


I'll spend a little more time on the reply post than tape. But, essentially, it is about VOICE. As in your voice. When you speak your voice remains the same, but the content of what you say may be different. Some directors, not all, write their script, direct, edit etc, the idea of voice may be an outdated concept but yeah, it goes out of fashion along with the notion of soul, intention and spirit.

Now DIRECTED BY etc is used merely for BRAND, or branding identity purposes and has usually nothing to do with whether the filmmaker is an Autuer or not. For people to be film literate it usually also means reading some books, studying film history and not living in an eternal present that post-modernism presents.

I am talking about film as an art form, not solely as entertainment.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby King Of Nowhere on Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:31 am

magicmonkey wrote:
I'll spend a little more time on the reply post than tape. But, essentially, it is about VOICE. As in your voice. When you speak your voice remains the same, but the content of what you say may be different. Some directors, not all, write their script, direct, edit etc, the idea of voice may be an outdated concept but yeah, it goes out of fashion along with the notion of soul, intention and spirit.

Now DIRECTED BY etc is used merely for BRAND, or branding identity purposes and has usually nothing to do with whether the filmmaker is an Autuer or not.

You want to be telling that to Tape.
He brought auteurism up, i just said it's not why i watch films.

magicmonkey wrote: For people to be film literate it usually also means reading some books, studying film history and not living in an eternal present that post-modernism presents.
I am talking about film as an art form, not solely as entertainment.


I don't care for it because i see it as entertainment. I enjoy the spectacle rather than the thought process or mindset behind it.
If that makes you lot classify me as "film illiterate" or whatever, that's fine. If you feel that you cant discuss something with me because of that (or even dignify me with an actual response) it's alright, i can continue to enjoy films regardless. People like different aspects of films & film making, that's what leads to discussions & differing opinions.

Anyway, Tony pretty much said that if you don't like that x director is going back to the well, you cant enjoy films by director y & z.
My point was that I don't find that to be true. I can enjoy films by Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese & whoever else while not particularly enjoying QT's recent output.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby stereosforgeeks on Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:32 am

It's like the above stated dinner scenes. QT as tape said is expanding and commenting on his own work. Recognizing this, the repeating motifs, shots, scenes in a directors movies add to the overall experience and do not detract from them. A work should stand own it's own but to see how a director develops is an extremely interesting thing.

Take Dreyer for example. He basically has a 20s film, 30s, 40s, 50s, ... and only one film a decade and seeing all of these films in order gives unique insight to how the medium and the man developed.
User avatar
stereosforgeeks
Re-Wound
 
Posts: 7857
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:46 pm
Location: DCish

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TonyWilson on Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:46 am

KingOfNowhere wrote:Anyway, Tony pretty much said that if you don't like that x director is going back to the well, you cant enjoy films by director y & z.
My point was that I don't find that to be true. I can enjoy films by Kubrick, Spielberg, Scorsese & whoever else while not particularly enjoying QT's recent output.


You cheeky bastard, you accuse me of "ad hominem" and then go and claim I said something entirely different from my post.
Look, you can watch films however the hell you like, you can ignore previous films from the director. BUT when you make a argument about a filmmakers entire ouevre, like say, "all his character's sound the same" you are NOT ignoring his previous work at all. So either you make with the historical analysis you've already started or you don't use past form to help judge new work, simple as that.
Anyway, KoN, my post was in response to DerLang's and Gupter's QT "criticism" so I'm not sure why you think it was for you as you hadn't said anything about QT's characters sounding alike when I made said post.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby tapehead on Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:54 am

King Of Nowhere wrote:
magicmonkey wrote:
I'll spend a little more time on the reply post than tape. But, essentially, it is about VOICE. As in your voice. When you speak your voice remains the same, but the content of what you say may be different. Some directors, not all, write their script, direct, edit etc, the idea of voice may be an outdated concept but yeah, it goes out of fashion along with the notion of soul, intention and spirit.

Now DIRECTED BY etc is used merely for BRAND, or branding identity purposes and has usually nothing to do with whether the filmmaker is an Autuer or not.

You want to be telling that to Tape.
He brought auteurism up, i just said it's not why i watch films.


He did tell me, as I'm reading the thread along with the group. As for being the one who brought up the notion of the 'Auteur', I'd still contend that was you dude - or at least the marketing of a version of the idea as a commodity in mainstream cinema. I took your speaking about the latter as referring to the former. It's often implicit in discussions here about certain directors, and as much as I enjoy the more post-structuralist/postmodernist take we all often have on movies, I can't entirely endorse the death of the author - ie watching and discussing movies without any regard of those that create them.

King Of Nowhere wrote:I don't care for it because I see it as entertainment. I enjoy the spectacle rather than the thought process or mindset behind it.


Sure, but you concede there's more going on than some lights and sounds, right? because as soon as you do you are admitting that you're engaged with a text or a structure of signs and meaning when you watch a film, and just as the audience is making sense out of the noises and the shapes on the screen, another group of individuals (the director being one) created those sensations and structured them into the elements of a story, into a view of a world, into a movie.
Movies are entertainment AND assemblages of thought processes, information, mindsets and so on, not one or the other.

And yes KON, I see what you are doing here whipping up a bit of interesting discussion, and that's very admirable; just be a devil's advocate though, there's no need to claim you have no soul...
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TonyWilson on Sat Jul 11, 2009 4:15 am

I don't think we have a "Auteur Theory" thread, perhaps we should start one if this conversation continues.
I'm moving away from the strict Auteur theory because unless you're doing a Jonathan Cauette, there has to be collaboration (which will always mean some compromise) and it tends to mean amazing editors like Thelma Schoonmaker get ignored. But when you have a QT or a Soderbergh who write (albeit often with a partner), produce, direct and in Soderberghs case are the cinematographer, camera operator and editor (The Coens are another good example) as well then it's sorta impossible not to think about that work in terms of auteurism. Having said all that - this "death of the author" bullshit must die or at least get sick and weak for a while - it's useful but it's prevalence is like making art a fluffy and soft democracy and we need some authority.


/rant
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby King Of Nowhere on Sat Jul 11, 2009 12:57 pm

tapehead wrote:
Sure, but you concede there's more going on than some lights and sounds, right? because as soon as you do you are admitting that you're engaged with a text or a structure of signs and meaning when you watch a film, and just as the audience is making sense out of the noises and the shapes on the screen, another group of individuals (the director being one) created those sensations and structured them into the elements of a story, into a view of a world, into a movie.
Movies are entertainment AND assemblages of thought processes, information, mindsets and so on, not one or the other.

And yes KON, I see what you are doing here whipping up a bit of interesting discussion, and that's very admirable; just be a devil's advocate though, there's no need to claim you have no soul...


I agree that there's a lot more going on than lights & sound, i just...
Right, i'll use Polanski as an example here.
The Pianist is moving because Polanski experienced that stuff first hand & it shows on screen. I know it was based on the book, but i think that very few people would've told it, or would've been able to, the way Polanski did. It's fine because it shows on screen, you don't have to know what happened to him during the war to be able to enjoy the film, "art" & "artist" become intertwined to some extent.

I'm not fond of his take on Macbeth.
Should i like it because i know that the Manson murders played a strong part in the film, maybe i should write off the things i didn't like because he was grieving & angry & whatever else? I just don't like it & move on.There will (and have been) other takes on Macbeth.
It's not for me to say that he shouldn't have made a film like that while he was still feeling the way he was about the deaths. I'm not sure any length of time can be placed before something like that stops affecting you. In one way or another, it will always be there. Polanski may be a touchy subject around here. I can see why people have problems separating the "art" from the "artist" when said "artist" is kinda seamlessly a part his films.

To clarify, i'm saying that yeah, the thought process is an integral part of film making.
To me, if it doesn't show on film & ultimately work towards the film's benefit, i'm not really interested. But i'm not just looking at the piece of metal & thinking "oh, shiny."

This is difficult.
Alright, QT referencing the dinner scene in Dogs has been posted quite a bit & i find that its a good example of how i feel on the matter. It may be showing that QT has grown as a film maker or it may be a reference to people calling him a plagiarist, it may even be QT saying "if i could go back & shoot that scene in Dogs again, this is how i'd do it."
To me, the scene was just boring & reflected the overall pacing problems that the film had. Whatever point he may have been trying to get across, i can't say it was lost, but for me it affected the film in a negative way.

It's probably just two sides of the same coin.
You would say that "in x scene, QT was riffing on noir & was really thinking about the feeling he got when he seen The Big Combo for the first time."
I'd just bypass the QT part & think "this reminds me of TBC."
Now maybe that's exactly what QT was after & he's succeed in his goal, but i'm not thinking about that, my mind has moved on to the next scene or shot or line of dialogue or whatever.
Maybe it's because i don't really write reviews or class myself as a critique or something like that.
User avatar
King Of Nowhere
SPAM Killer!
 
Posts: 6173
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:36 pm

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Nachokoolaid on Sun Jul 12, 2009 10:40 pm

Remember the Chris Farley show on SNL?

He'd always go, "Remember such and such time? Yeah... that was awwwwwesome!"

To me, Quentin Tarantino is the director version of that. He remembers something that he saw in film before that he thought was really cool, and he films whatever it happens to be in a way that makes him go, "That was awwesome."
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5588
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:24 am

This is a pretty good summary of all of Quinty's films that he talks about making but doesn't.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... ittle.html
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby DaleTremont on Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:16 am

Spandau Belly wrote:This is a pretty good summary of all of Quinty's films that he talks about making but doesn't.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... ittle.html


Thanks for that link.

I'd like to think such a thing as the library in Dream's domain really exists...so all the thousands of projects Tarantino never did are actually sitting on a shelf in some other dimension.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby magicmonkey on Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:25 am

DaleTremont wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:This is a pretty good summary of all of Quinty's films that he talks about making but doesn't.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... ittle.html


Thanks for that link.

I'd like to think such a thing as the library in Dream's domain really exists...so all the thousands of projects Tarantino never did are actually sitting on a shelf in some other dimension.


Is that Borges library? If so there would also be his remakes of everything ever made too, I personally look forward to reading his third remake of Reservoir Dogs cast entirely by actual dogs, except for Mr.Blue who remains oddly the same.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6031
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: QT : The Man, The Myth, the Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Ribbons on Mon Nov 16, 2009 11:41 am

TheButcher wrote:From /film: The Tarantino Mixtape


Nice!
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13779
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby DaleTremont on Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:59 am

magicmonkey wrote:
DaleTremont wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:This is a pretty good summary of all of Quinty's films that he talks about making but doesn't.

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2009/11 ... ittle.html


Thanks for that link.

I'd like to think such a thing as the library in Dream's domain really exists...so all the thousands of projects Tarantino never did are actually sitting on a shelf in some other dimension.


Is that Borges library? If so there would also be his remakes of everything ever made too, I personally look forward to reading his third remake of Reservoir Dogs cast entirely by actual dogs, except for Mr.Blue who remains oddly the same.


:lol:

I was actually thinking of the library that Lucien takes care of in the Sandman series...but that works too!
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:30 am

The funniest is the evolution of The Vega Brothers Movie. The idea of a prequel was okay, but then the actors started getting way too old to be believeable as younger than their appereances in Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs, but this was the first I heard about Quinty trying to keep the idea alive by making both Vega brothers twins and having Travolta and Madsen play the other two twins going out for revenge. That's such a terrible idea that I would just have to see it. And who would they go after? Bruce Willis? I think he's the only one left alive from either of those movies who did anything against a Vega. Unless Tim Roth's character from Resevoir Dogs also has a twin brother or something.

Actually, Quinty does just need to make a movie about the twins of all the characters from all his other movies all hanging out together. Madsen would have to play two sets of twins to be the twins of his characters from Kill Bill and Resevoir Dogs. I can't count how many characters Sam Jackson would have to play.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Wed Dec 09, 2009 3:36 am

Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3946
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:25 am

Wow that is the most awesome awesome I've seen today!
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:46 pm

Yeah well that is all well and good, Pacman, but all this talk of QT relaunching careers?!?!!?

Bullshit. I saw Daryl Hannah in a Godawful movie called, Shark Swarm the other night. Such a straight to cable bad bad bad Godawful cheap movie!!!
Well done, QT. Perhaps you could get me some Extra work? Idiot.

Do you hear me, Winslow?! DO YOUOUOU HEAAAEAEAERRRRRRR MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16580
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TheBaxter on Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:23 am

i didn't even know tarantino could speak japanese!
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 18893
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby so sorry on Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:42 pm

TheBaxter wrote:i didn't even know tarantino could speak japanese!



He only knows curse words.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15420
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:20 pm

so sorry wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:i didn't even know tarantino could speak japanese!

He only knows curse words.


It's Santori time, muthafucka!

Image
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby papalazeru on Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:55 am

Tarantino Mixtape

Very enjoyable.
Papa: The musical!

Padders: "Not very classy! Not very classy at all!"
So Sorry "I'll give you a word to describe it: classless."
Cptn Kirks 2pay: ".....utterly unclassy....."
DennisMM: "...Decidedly unclassy..."
User avatar
papalazeru
Not very classy! Not very classy at all!!
 
Posts: 11474
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:26 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby TheButcher on Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:35 am

From Motion Captured:
The Morning Read Nov 16, 2010
Moriarty wrote:The scholarly dissection of Tarantino's career has just begun, and I think it's going to be fun watching people dig into his work in the future. Here's a preview.



Pulp Non-Fiction: Where Tarantino Meets Aristotle
George Reisch wrote:Adapted from “Vinnie’s Very Bad Day: Twisting the Tale of Time in Pulp Fiction”, in Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy: How to Philosophize with a Pair of Pliers and a Blowtorch, Open Court, 2007, pp. 123–140.

In most movies the audience knows within the first five minutes who will be the main character. That is no fun. In Pulp Fiction, you might watch the movie nine times and still not immediately grasp which is the main character. Vinnie is the main character in the movie, which isn’t obvious until the script is put into sequence. When it is, it becomes very clear that Vinnie is a bumbling anti-hero who becomes the victim of his own carelessness. None of his character flaws—selfishness, laziness, hubris, careless inattention, even weakness of the will—is his “central flaw.” And we are supposed to overlook the fact that Vinnie is a ruthless killer, because frankly, everyone he kills is at least as bad as he is. As the Wolf says, “Nobody who’ll be missed,” at least by us. There will be no serious investigation, and you, my dear middle-American, have nothing to fear from Vincent Vega. Tarantino is not going to get preachy about character flaws in any case. The Moral of the Story does not come from some lesson about what makes a hit man a bad person.

Apart from Vinnie, it is pretty hard to miss that Butch, filled with testosterone and pride as he is, has a soft spot for his dear departed dad, and dangerous though he is, he puts up with whining from Fabienne that none of us would begin to tolerate. And Jules, well, he is trying to be the shepherd. He is by far the most dangerous of the dangerous boys, but even he believes in miracles, scolds blasphemers, and reads the Bible.

Le temps de me laver les mains, or Bathroom Loyalties
It is easy to miss, but Vinnie’s “incontinence”—and I mean this in the ordinary sense of the word—is the master key to the movie, and the monkey wrench. Everything bad that happens to Vinnie is signaled by what’s happening in the bathroom. The “fourth man” with the hand cannon is hiding in the bathroom when Vinnie and Jules make the “hit” in the apartment, but Jules takes the hint and Vinnie doesn’t get it. Vinnie is in the bathroom when Honey Bunny and Pumpkin pull their guns at the coffee shop to create the Mexican stand-off. Vinnie is in the bathroom when Mia Wallace mistakes his heroin for cocaine (saving them both from an impending and very disloyal tryst). And Vinnie is in the bathroom when Butch returns for his beloved watch, which is the end of Vinnie.

We do see Jules in the bathroom once, and we do see Butch there once: each is washing off the stain of a former life he intends to leave behind. And Tarantino makes it very, very clear that Vinnie does not wash his hands, showing him emerging from the bathroom at Butch’s apartment immediately after he flushes the toilet, still fastening his belt. You think I’m making too much of it. If so, then why do Jules and Vinnie have an argument about washing their hands in Jimmie’s bathroom? And I quote:
Jules: What the fuck did you just do to his towel?

Vincent: I was just dryin’ my hands.

Jules: You’re supposed to wash ’em first.

Vincent: You watched me wash ’em.

Jules: I watched you get ’em wet.

Vincent: I washed ’em. Blood’s real hard to get off. Maybe if he had some Lava, I coulda done a better job.

Jules: I used the same soap you did and when I dried my hands, the towel didn’t look like a fuckin’ maxipad.


Nothing happens by accident in a Tarantino movie. As Aristotle puts it, “that which makes no perceptible difference by its presence or absence is no real part of the whole” (Poetics, lines 1451a–35) Tarantino doesn’t waste your time with “that which makes no perceptible difference.” If Vinnie had the sense to wash his hands, thoroughly, he might still be with us—Butch would have had time to escape, and some noise to cover his exit. But no. Vinnie is lazy and careless and incontinent. Tarantino tells us what we need to know. It comes when Vinnie has taken Mia Wallace home after their “date” at Jack Rabbit Slim’s. Mia has her own issues with incontinence (as Marsellus well knows, from the infamous “foot massage” episode—he is testing Vinnie’s loyalty). Having excused himself to go to the bathroom after an “uncomfortable silence” with Mia, Vinnie has the following conversation with himself in the mirror:

One drink and leave. Don’t be rude, but drink your drink quickly, say goodbye, walk out the door, get in your car, and go down the road… It’s a moral test of yourself, whether or not you can main- tain loyalty. Because when people are loyal to each other, that’s very meaningful. So you’re gonna go out there, drink your drink,say “Goodnight, I’ve had a very lovely evening,” go home, and jack off. And that’s all you’re gonna do.

That’s the password to Tarantino’s tree house: “loyalty.” It’s very meaningful. What does Vinnie truly want that he cannot get? I mean he has the drugs and the cars and the money and women if he wants them (he turns down a free tryst with Trudi, so we know this isn’t his weakness). He tells us what he doesn’t have that he wants: self-control and true loyalty.

We may not be able to understand a world filled with people none of whom is morally similar to us, except that Tarantino shows us that they do have loyalties. Jules will deliver that briefcase to Marsellus even after he has decided to leave the “business,” and will risk his life to do so. Loyalty. Butch is loyal to the memory of his father, yes, but why, pray tell, does he turn around and save Marsellus Wallace when he could just as easily leave him to die at the hands of Zed and Maynard and The Gimp? If they kill Marsellus, all of Butch’s problems are over. But Butch is a man of honor, a man’s man, and he knows Marsellus is another man of honor, and to put it in his own words Marsellus at that moment is “very far from okay.” A loyal man just can’t let another loyal man meet such an end. Marsellus recognizes the deed for what it is when Butch saves him and also leaves him the privilege of taking care of Zed in “medieval” fashion.

The scene in the back of the pawn shop is a rerun of the rape of Ned Beatty from Deliverance. Butch’s search for the right weapon is the key to the scene. He picks up a hammer, then a chainsaw, then a baseball bat, discarding each after a moment’s thought, trying to decide what movie he’s in. Is it Friday the 13th? No. Is it The Texas Chainsaw Massacre? No. Is he in Walking Tall? Is this about justice? No. This is about honor. It’s the katana. Uma Thurman and Tarantino are already writing Kill Bill on the set of Pulp Fiction.

We never quite learn whether Vinnie is capable of genuine loyalty or not. We know he wants to be loyal. We know he is trying to be loyal. We know he values loyalty. We also know that he is weak-willed, careless, and incontinent; he knows that too, and doesn’t like it. But in the end, there is something different about Vinnie that curbs our sympathy. He doesn’t wash his hands when he goes to the bathroom. So the moral of the story? It’s three morals, but they all amount to one: Be loyal. It’s important. Don’t be weak-willed. It will lead you to a bad end. And wash your hands when you go to the bathroom… thoroughly; it says more about your character than you may realize.
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Tyrone_Shoelaces on Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:18 pm

Image
User avatar
Tyrone_Shoelaces
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3946
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:33 am
Location: Northern Frontier

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:17 am

magicmonkey wrote:
Retardo_Montalban wrote:So I was talking to a girl today and she told me she cannot watch an Tarantino film, because the man always has a gratuitous foot scene in every one of his movies. I had never noticed this and I've watched the shrimping scene from John Water's Pink Flamingos. Is there a Quentin Tarantino foot fetish thread?


Why yes, yes there is. Look at the foot of this post.



I was just joking when asking if there was a Tarantino foot fetish thread. I genuinely had no idea this was a legit thing and not the observations of a flighty broad.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Al Shut on Fri Mar 11, 2011 5:42 am

Seriously, how could one not notice? I did and I'm dense as a brick wall.
Note to myself: Fix this image shit!
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6186
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Fri Mar 11, 2011 9:04 am

I sort of noticed it in Death Poof and Kill Bill, but dismissed it entirely. I don't really watch Tarantino films more than once.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Jan 19, 2012 9:07 am

Quentin Tarantino wrote:Quentin Tarantino’s official Top 11 of 2011

1. Midnight In Paris
2. Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
3. Moneyball
4. The Skin I Live In
5. X-Men: First Class
6. Young Adult
7. Attack The Block
8. Red State
9. Warrior
10. The Artist / Our Idiot Brother (tie)
11. The Three Musketeers

Others considered in no particular order

50/50
Beginners
Hugo
The Iron Lady
Carnage
Green Hornet
Green Lantern
Captain America
The Descendants
My Week With Marilyn
Fast Five
The Tree Of Life
The Hangover Part II
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
The Beaver
Contagion
The Sitter
War Horse

Nice Try Award

Drive
Hanna
Drive Angry
Real Steel

Best Director

Pedro Almodovar
Bennett Miller
Woody Allen
Jason Reitman
Michel Hazanavicius

Best Original Screenplay

Midnight In Paris
Young Adult
Red State
Attack The Block
Our Idiot Brother
Beginners

Best Adapted Screenplay

Moneyball
The Skin I live In
Carnage
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Hugo
X-Men: First Class

Worst Films

Sucker Punch
Potiche (Trophy Wife)
Miral
Insidious
Rampart
Straw Dogs
Paranormal Activity 3
Meek’s Cutoff
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Ribbons on Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:55 am

Ugh, really? Between Paranormal Activity 3 and Insidious, I guess Tarantino isn't a fan of Oren Peli. And The Three Musketeers 3D one of the best films of the year, huh? That list is... weird.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13779
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:28 am

Yeah, I didn't really understand it completely either. I'm not sure if "also considered" is just a list of every other 2011 film he saw that is neither the top 11/12 (?) bottom 8 or the 4 "nice try" movies. If it's not, then I'm not sure whether "also considered" movies rank higher than "nice try" movies.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: QT: The Man, The Myth, The Foot-Fetishist.

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:38 pm

I'd be more interested in that list if there were a few choice QT quotes in the articles printed with it, otherwise it's just kind of confusing, boring, and apparently contradictory of the man's rep as a lover of indie, genre and left-of-centre movies.
Best thing about that list? it led me to this little internet myth/slander from last year that I had missed. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, Can I suck on your toes while I jerk off?
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

PreviousNext

Return to Director Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest