Fact: Quentin Tarantino Can Outcriticize His Critics
As the release date for Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds draws near we’re starting to see the publicity machine gear up, and plenty of interviews with both QT and Brad Pitt are popping up all over the place. GQ Magazine currently has a great piece on Tarantino where he talks about (among other things) the juicy topic of film criticism. Basterds got a mixed response after its premiere in Cannes, which isn’t all that surprising considering the mixed response to his last film, Death Proof as well. But does that really mean anything? Pretty much everyone has an opinion on Tarantino’s films, and according to him, they’re mostly irrelevant:
“I respect criticism, but I know more about film than most of the people writing about me. Not only that, I’m a better writer than most of the people writing about me. And I can write film criticism better than most of the people writing about me.”
Spoken like a true egomaniac. The thing is, after recently watching the documentary Not Quite Hollywood and hearing Tarantino talk at length about Australian exploitation flicks, it’s clear to me that he’s not exaggerating about this. Sometimes people say that movies like Transformers 2 are critic-proof, because they will make a boatload of money no matter how bad they are. In the case of Tarantino, he’s almost saying that his movies are critic-proof because if you don’t like them, you just didn’t get it. What do you think, is he right about this? Are most film critics (and the general public for that matter) ill-equipped to offer an opinion on his work? Or is he just an arrogant jackass who thinks he’s above pleasing the average moviegoer?
Comments (25)
The difference between QT’s asshole behavior and M.Bay’s asshole behavior is that
1. Tarrantino is right.
2. He backs up his ego with great film making.
Tarantino is the good kind of ego maniac.
Posted by Rusty James on July 17th, 2009He’s not wrong, but that’s only because you’d have to try real hard to be worse than most film critics, and I’d include myself in that group. In another part of the article he makes the distinction between critics worth listening to and the rest of the rabble, which is particularly inflammatory in this age where individual opinion is drowned out in favour of where a review sits on the Tomato-meter.
Posted by Wintle on July 17th, 2009Not a fan..I won’t see any of his films anymore after attempting to sit through Kill Bill 1.. had to turn it off half-way through due to excessive eye-rolling, boredom, and heavy sighing on my part.
Haven’t seen Death Proof.. but I did sort of enjoy Planet Terror.
He may be talented, but his movies are not my cup of tea. Naturally I’m in the minority on this with my friends, and all of them (except for one) seem to think he’s a genius or something.
Posted by Damndirtyape on July 17th, 2009There were too many scenes of “dialogue” in Death Proof that were just too soul-searingly PAINFUL to watch (in a bad way).
But there’s just too much to say about Tarantino:
Pulp Fiction is f’ing brilliant
Resevoir is fantastic
Kill Bill was sort of fun…
Ok… I guess that’s pretty much all there is to say about Tarantino.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 17th, 2009Tarantino has seen a lot of films. He’s made some good ones. He can also talk well.
Being a film critic is more than being able to recite John Woo’s filmography: critiquing also means stepping back and seeing where the film fits as a whole in the current culture, where it doesn’t work and where it is derivative – also, for reviewers, who should see it within the audience base.
I am sure Tarantino can do all these things, but, with most creative forces, sometimes it is the hardest to step back and see what could be improved within your own work.
Posted by Krizanovich on July 17th, 2009This reminds me of a brief article I read the other day:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2007/mar/26/whateveryfilmcriticmustkn
A part of what he said is a bit of bluff if you ask me (he did seem hurt about death proof’s under performance).
But hey, I think he’s awesome and a lot of it is down to his confidence and his knowledge. Fact is he loves cinema and it’s history which is more than some so-called directors and even some modern day critics.
Death Proof I’m still indifferent too.
Posted by Byron on July 17th, 2009Many critics tend to bash on Tarantino simply because his movies don’t tend to appeal to a large audience. If one takes a look at some pretty recent hit movies that everyone rushes off to go and see, they’ll notice that any major critic is going to give it their best rating, regardless of how awful the film may have been. This is simply because these movies, no matter what, will make a ton of money, and nobody would bother with reading a negative review that may be written about it because of all the other worthless minds that claim the picture to be brilliant.
Posted by Skyler on July 17th, 2009QT writes and directs films not to make boatloads of money, but to do what he seems to enjoy most. His films can certainly be considered critic proof, in the way that if the critic doesn’t like it, that critic has no place in the matter, because he/she isn’t part of Tarantino’s audience that he wants to see his films. Of course not everyone is going to like his films; he knows this better than anyone else. But when it comes to making movies, he also remains adamant on the fact that film making is the farthest thing from a popularity contest when it comes to making good ones.
haha tarentino is so badass with this kinda stuff. just saying what’s in his mind. he does look like an egomaniac but the fact that he’s right crosses it out.
Posted by modesilver on July 17th, 2009@ If one takes a look at some pretty recent hit movies that everyone rushes off to go and see, they’ll notice that any major critic is going to give it their best rating, regardless of how awful the film may have been.
now, it seems like I can think of at least one recent obvious exception.
Posted by Rusty James on July 17th, 2009QT’s line of thinking works more and more these days due to his films completely morphing into equal parts homage as original story. His latest flick homages old WW2 films and each chapter is a homage to other NON WW2 films. That’s multiple homages in each scene!
In this way he’s inoculated (God, I love that word, it’s sad I don’t get to use it very often) himself against criticism because he can justify every aspect in the film as a reference to some other part of film culture. And yes he is a walking encyclopedia of the film genres he loves and references. But I think he thinks he is also a master of story structure and character development. We shall see if his latest is all things to all people or another mash-up, blood bath run through film history it appears to be.
Can’t wait for the lesson.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 17th, 2009. I 100% agree with RUsty..
But i would like to add that Michael Bay’s Ego mania also makes you a huge load of money so.. there you go..
…
..
Ohh..
…QT.
Reservoir DOGS 11/10
Pulp fiction 10/10
jackie brown… i don’t know.. 7/10? i didn’t think it was boring like many people say… i just really didn’t like the whole female lead thing.. ..i waned her to die… or at least raped or somthng..
…
Kill bil 1-2.. i liked a lot. UMa therma best female lead ever . especially in the second part… She got raped murderd malested killed burried alive etc.. (whats the point of having female lead and not do those things) (right?) 9/10 for both.
But i think death proof (although i enjoyed as well) it was a little bit TOOO mutch over the top.. weird – pervert, selfendurement (did i spelled it right?) etc..
Great car scenes… BUT
I give Death proof 6/10 because of the ending. The movie ended to quickly. AND had a HUUUUUUGEEEEEEEEEEEEE plot hole.. (What happened to the girl that was left at the end with that weird guy ? No RAPE scene? nothing?? just a bunch of girls kicking the ass of Harvey kitel? …. i changed my mind 5/10
After Kill bill QT should had made a more ground -based – MAN-based movie..
Enough with those female leads! and enough with those over the top crap.
I ll watch inglorious basterds for sure.. (who won’t) but i don’t really expect much..
…
by the way Rodrique’s is an ass.. a massive asshole to be more precise I DONT LIKE HIM i don’t like his movies I HATED PLANET TERROR.
QT is the real thing..
Posted by kyriacos on July 17th, 2009It’s an old question about “art” being too esoteric to be popularly understood. The real issue of concern should be if he’s making movies for a mass audience does it require that they too have such a breadth of filmic knowledge? In terms of critique each movie is it’s own thing and that thing is what should be judged not the other things that thing references.
Posted by Ian on July 17th, 2009I love Tarantino’s films, in fact he’s one of my 10 favorite directors, but his movies shouldn’t depend on whether or not you know the history of the genre or every film reference in his pictures.
Posted by Allan on July 17th, 2009Movies should be as broad as possible, so more people can enjoy them – not only film buffs.
@ But i would like to add that Michael Bay’s Ego mania also makes you a huge load of money so.. there you go..
who me? I dont recall ever profiting from Bay’s ego. Even if I did he’d still be a shit film maker. Hopefully he’ll put more rape scenes in his movies.
Back to the point. I don’t think QT has ever hid behind his references. It’s exactly the opposite. References are the number one thing he’s attacked for.
Posted by Rusty James on July 17th, 2009Egomaniacal jerk. Of course, I can’t help but love his movies so I guess it’s warranted.
Posted by stevie_boy on July 18th, 2009No critique is for every viewer.
Beyond that, knowing a lot about something doesn’t qualify you to be a critic. A critique is an examination with the purpose of positioning the work properly in the mind of the likely viewer who has not seen it yet. This means, yes, knowing something about the body of work that you’re writing about, but it also necessitates an intuitive sense of who the likely viewer is and what words are going to properly position the work in their minds so they’re well informed as to whether the piece is worth their while or not.
Tarantino, by his own admission, does not have the latter as his own knowledge of cinema greatly outweighs that of most of his viewers to the point of being disconnected. This is why mostly like-minded cinephiles enjoy his work while a common viewer often just doesn’t get it.
To dismiss those common viewers is well and good when your work is doing fine financially, but when the eventual fall from grace occurs (Tarantino’s biggest success was more than 15 years ago), the same words become sour grapes; akin to a radio drama writer scorning the TV audiences for not appreciating his quality but dated pieces.
In other words, knowing a lot about cinema is great. Knowing a little bit about everything else is even better.
Posted by livyatan on July 18th, 2009Well I guess when a turd doesn’t want to flush everyone finds a reason to live with it and even admire it for it’s unbelievable buoyancy. Tarantino makes films for people who love watching films while being high or drunk. He’s a joke!!
Bottom line Tarantion fans you’re watching films made by someone whose only film education was to watch millions of hours of movies until his brain fell out the back of his head. I can do that too if I saved up all my money and played the lottery like he did. Think you could make a movie and mick a few big name stars to do a movie for you? You just might be the next Tarantino too.
Posted by Pharoh97 on July 18th, 2009Listen, Tarantino has genious in him, but that does not mean that everything he touches turns to gold. I loved True Romance (some of the best writing of all time), Pulp fiction is still one of my all time fav movies. But, then there is Jackie Brown.. a smidge above average. The Kill Bills had some fun shock moments but aside for that I could take ‘em or leave em. Actually, I’d leave ‘em…both. Death Proof was definitely cool as shit, but not a great film. Good, not great. As for the upcoming Basterds, I’m sorry, but Brad Pitt looks and sounds like a f***ing retard! So, if a trailer is indicative, I’m gonna probably pass. That is of course, if someone I know and trust tells me it’s the Cat’s Tits, then I’ll probably wind up seeing it…
Posted by STG on July 18th, 2009It sounds like QT is is starting to believe his own press. This idea that if you don’t like a QT film you ‘don’t get it’ has been around for ages. Death Proof was embarrassing to watch, but Res Dogs and Pulp fiction were brilliant. I hope IB is good; the trailer looks like it will be, but his films have been getting steadily worse for a while now, and until people start actually criticising them rather than falling over themselves with high praise for his latest self absorbed stylish twaddle things won’t get any better.
I want the old QT back – the one that made masterpeices of cinema.
Posted by Paul Andrews on July 18th, 2009I’m reminded of the last song on The Sound of Animals Fighting’s cd Lover, the Lord Has Left Us. Its my least favorite song as its intentionally doesn’t have a time signature or pattern or anything, its just sort of sporadic singing and drum beats and such. But then the lyrics are all about how we don’t recognize stuff like that as music because of what society has taught us, and we don’t understand it. It’s basically an incredibly pretentious way to make your music critic-proof.
Tarantino is doing the same thing. It might make some smaller critics scared to talk trash about you, but it’ll also make your fans feel like you are an egotistical jackass, and then all of a sudden they think less of you movies and maybe don’t see them anymore. He’s stabbing himself in the back, alienating himself from his fans. If he keeps doing it then he’ll regret it one day when there’s no one left who “understands” his movies.
Posted by Alex R. Cronk-Young on July 18th, 2009I agree Alex; Tarantino’s ploy of trying to make himself critic proof is the same ploy as releasing a ‘grindhouse’ film; you can’t accuse it as being rubbish because it’s meant to be rubbish, so you don’t get it. The sad thing was many people (including FilmJunk) thought Death Proof was really outre and bold. It’s the ‘emporer’s new clothes’ syndrome. If Inglorious Basterds turns out to be poor I hope perople have the balls to say so. Let’s hope it’s a return to form.
Posted by Paul Andrews on July 18th, 2009I read the full GQ article Sean linked and QT really seems focused on making his version of kickass movies and not falling in to the trap of “loosing your edge” that happens to other directors. This isn’t new, as he has stated it before. He even states, in so many words, he’s put off getting married or having kids for fear of making movies for “other reasons” then the story and characters. It is more evidence that he is probably a little to unbalanced for his own good but good for him. I like that he is one of the few directors working giving his all for the movies. We need more of these egomaniacs!
Posted by rus in chicago on July 19th, 2009“Critic-proof” means:
Posted by Laserbeard on July 20th, 2009Not enough substance in themes, tone, direction, characters, scriptwriting, or emotion to merit a thorough critical analysis.
I can write about myself better than anyone can.
Posted by Laserbeard on July 20th, 2009Am I egotistical?
I’ve never heard the phrase “critic-proof” used in that way before, but I guess it would also make sense. I’ve always heard it used as a way to describe a movie that will make a ton of money, regardless of how bad the reviews are.
Posted by Sean on July 20th, 2009Leave a Reply