Quentin Tarantino

[therewillbeblus]

Tarantino's interview with Marc Maron on WTF from today is expectedly great. It's interesting to hear about his life growing up and the various relationships with step-father, and lack thereof with his bio-father, which is what you come to expect from Maron actually caring about getting to know the person through their formative years and idols vs. swooning influenced by artistic fandom, but refreshing after all the superficial focus at which others typically aim their questions.

Tarantino also hints at how a slightly-cynical view of the film industry in its current state (the impact of streaming prohibiting getting "asses in seats") may be impacting his decision to focus on topping his last film right now. I get the feeling he's holding out to see if, and how, things bounce back, and if he becomes optimistic again maybe that'll come through creatively. He doesn't go so far as to outline any of this concretely, but it's just an added variable he brings up that I hadn't considered as impacting his enthusiasm.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

He also went on The Joe Rogan Experience and The Ringer's The Big Picture. I haven't listened to the BP episode yet, but they're typically good.

On Rogan, however, Tarantino said critics of his portrayal of Bruce Lee could "suck a dick."

[yoloswegmaster]

That's hilarious since I'm certain that one of the critics of the Bruce Lee scene was Joe Rogan himself.

[therewillbeblus]

That's hilarious since I'm certain that one of the critics of the Bruce Lee scene was Joe Rogan himself.

After Rogan initiates the conversation, Tarantino says that he figured it would be brought up because Rogan and co. talked about the controversy, and the way he delivers this doesn’t sound like he’s too happy nor excusing Rogan from his part. However, Rogan appropriately plays ball when Tarantino contextualizes his rationale with film history, even if he doesn’t tip towards validation on either position.

[mfunk9786]

Word to the wise: The Rogan interview is 1000x better than the Maron interview. Rogan likes to sit back and let people talk and ask (leading, designed imo) "dumb guy" questions to keep them flowing, and it is an incredibly tidy fit for the way Tarantino likes to hold court. Pulled away more stories and factoids about the way he ticks and his career from that interview than I have from any other he's done (that I can recall). And this isn't meant as a defense of Joe Rogan's weird political guests or him in general, I swear.

And yes, Rogan attempts to steer Tarantino toward a "isn't cancel culture/people telling you that you 'can't do _____ anymore' awful?" line and Tarantino snuffed it out immediately with a much wiser perspective than I was even anticipating from him, and I like the guy to begin with. His suggestion that this cultural moment has a lot of similarities to the late Reagan era was spot-on, and I think it was a subtly effective way to give context to how utterly unexpected and important the independent film movement of the late 80s/early 90s really was as far as shifting us back toward more complicated, adult fare at the movies and elsewhere.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

Tarantino is getting dragged online (not totally un-deservedly) for doubling down on the Bruce Lee stuff. One of the major attacks is that QT mentions how Bruce Lee didn't get along with "American stuntmen" even though Bruce Lee was American.

I think it's good to call QT out for that kind of framing and language. But I'm not a fan of having artists defend or apologize for their art. I think there needs to be discussion about representation in movies like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood... and In the Heights. But I don't like the idea that the artists themselves need to participate--with an either an apologetic or defensive stance--in that discussion.

I know it became kind of a meme two years ago, but I thought QT's "I reject your hypothesis" line, in response to a question about his supposedly sexist portrayal of Tate, was actually pretty adept. It was a way of saying, "It's not my role to respond at length to political critiques of my work, so I'm staying out of it."

[dwk]

Can't get enough Tarantino on podcasts, he is back on the Pure Cinema Podcast (2nd time in the last 3 episodes) for a nearly 4.5 hour discussion of public domain movies

[hearthesilence]

Tarantino is getting dragged online (not totally un-deservedly) for doubling down on the Bruce Lee stuff. One of the major attacks is that QT mentions how Bruce Lee didn't get along with "American stuntmen" even though Bruce Lee was American.

I think it's good to call QT out for that kind of framing and language. But I'm not a fan of having artists defend or apologize for their art. I think there needs to be discussion about representation in movies like Once Upon a Time in Hollywood... and In the Heights. But I don't like the idea that the artists themselves need to participate--with an either an apologetic or defensive stance--in that discussion.

I really don't like it when artists getting personally attacked as if they were consciously trying to do something malicious when they get something "wrong" in their work, but unfortunately QT can be an ass and it doesn't help when he responds with asinine statements.

[therewillbeblus]

Right, I think the issue is that Tarantino has granted all interviewers evidence that he can be baited and will respond to specific triggers. It's a bit like when a kid pokes fun at another kid, and that target has a huge reaction which just reinforces the teasing. If Tarantino just gave a "no comment" response to the questions about violence connectivity, for instance, or explained himself calmly, they wouldn't continue to be lobbed at him. But he loves to talk and will. The famous Channel 4 Django interview is a great example of an unfair question to which Tarantino responded well in bursts, but went overboard with the slavery comparison. The question was "How are you so sure there's no relationship" between the violence in movies and real-life violence, which is ridiculous and unfairly phrased- since it's not about 'belief' but 'certainty' which no researcher on the subject will ever reach absolutism on. The guy keeps coming at him for minutes after Tarantino explodes and says No, which is obnoxious, but it's also implicitly invited. I would have loved for Tarantino to fire back, "How are you so sure that assuming No means Yes while interviewing me, and continuing to persist without consent, doesn't cause viewers to assume this is acceptable behavior and go on to commit sexual assault"- an equally absurd question that would have exposed it as such, but alas, it's hard to think of a clever retort in the moment- or, for Tarantino, a response that doesn't focus around himself.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

Shannon Lee responds in an article in The Hollywood Reporter.

In closing, at a time when Asian Americans are being physically attacked, told to “go home” because they are seen as not American, and demonized for something that has nothing to do with them, I feel moved to suggest that Mr. Tarantino’s continued attacks, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations of a trailblazing and innovative member of our Asian American community, right now, are not welcome.

Mr. Tarantino, you don’t have to like Bruce Lee. I really don’t care if you like him or not. You made your movie and now, clearly, you’re promoting a book. But in the interest of respecting other cultures and experiences you may not understand, I would encourage you to take a pass on commenting further about Bruce Lee and reconsider the impact of your words in a world that doesn’t need more conflict and fewer cultural heroes.

[soundchaser]

Which would be very easy if people would quit asking him about it two years after the fact.

[TheKieslowskiHaze]

Which would be very easy if people would quit asking him about it two years after the fact.

Regardless of how one feels about the salience of such questions (I'm pretty ambivalent myself), the fact is that Tarantino freely chose to answer them, and his answers were bad and deserving of serious pushback. Lee, in her article, is providing that pushback quite eloquently and honestly. I am glad she is doing that.

[therewillbeblus]

I don't think it's fair to divorce the two so seamlessly through. Yes, Tarantino is responsible for the depths of the answers he provides, but when people continue to address the controversy (similarly to how interviewers continued to ask him about the relationship between movie violence and real violence until he blew up) he's placed in a position of needing to defend himself again, or at least being literally propositioned to defend himself. If he then chooses to defend himself, and that defense involves his own (mis?)interpretation and (mis?)characterization, well he loses. And if he doesn't choose to defend himself, he loses. That doesn't mean there is not a third option to just remain silent and move on, or that his answers could be less aggressive (they sure could!), but to pretend like the baiting is insignificant, when an artist with an ego who feels passionate about defending his art is baited, seems silly. He's responsible for his actions, yet Lee is addressing him as if he's going around wanting to discuss a topic and spread problematic arguments when he's only doing so when placed into the hot seat. I think the line between defending your choices and spreading harmful misinformation is blurry here, and I'm not sure Tarantino can do the former without triggering fury about the latter.

[Vincejansenist]

Eh, Shannon’s pearl-clutching around the impact of “words” and “cultural heroes” sounds like the type of person who thinks that rap turns black kids into gang-bangers and GTA will turn your precious boy into a school shooter. It presumes a lack of agency or formation amongst QT’s audiences and shifts that responsibility onto QT as if he’s some kind of all-powerful pied piper. It’s responsibilizing an individual for a set of much larger systemic causalities that the author herself is just as implicated in (and powerless against) as QT and each of us.

[Maltic]

You can't gently lampoon one of the major global icons of the 20th century, especially not if that person was related to Shannon Lee

[hearthesilence]

It doesn't help that he botched his claim that Bruce Lee had "nothing but disrespect for stuntmen" by citing Lee's biographer Matthew Polly. Polly has already stated the opposite as late as 2019 that Lee was known for being "very considerate" towards people "below him on film sets, particularly the stuntmen." His whole movie's a blatant fairy tale anyway, it's just digging himself deeper into a hole by trying to switch gears and pretend he knows this stuff better than he actually does.

[therewillbeblus]

Tarantino typically has two modes when it comes to being prompted with questions asking to 'explain' his art: Explaining what his intentions were, often stated in an objective manner as fact (which can be problematic as in this case, but plenty of people do that everywhere with opinions, including here, so it's hard to single him out as an anomaly) or telling those who don't like his truth to fuck off. The challenge is that because he refuses to lose face, he can only double down. I have no issue with someone explaining their art according to their own understanding of history and even phrased in a way that professes it as truth within the world of their movie, but by now we have enough evidence that the hardheaded ego will always prevail down some self-preserving avenue. So people will continue to bait him and he will take the bait on one of those two options because he's proven to be predictably reactive. It's futile to direct the question only at Tarantino to stop if you actually want it to stop, because his rationalism is an acutely micro-emotional one to keep his internal security in tact, operating against the rationale the critics are considering for progressive higher order and macro-concerns. That doesn't mean that critics should engage in handholding or not hold him accountable, but that exposition should be the goal of the comments rather than an expectation for him to change against a segregated internal logic that is not being validated and thus not reinforced to change.

[hearthesilence]

Quentin's mother probably regrets being really goddamn sarcastic and condescending to her son:

"My mom always had a hard time about my scholastic non-ability," he told Koppelman, adding that his mom "was bitching at me about [writing screenplays]... and then in the middle of her little tirade, she said, 'Oh, and by the way, this little 'writing career,' with the finger quotes and everything. This little 'writing career' that you're doing? That s--- is over.'"

He continued, "When she said that to me in that sarcastic way, I go, 'Okay lady, when I become a successful writer, you will never see one penny one from my success. There will be no house for you. There's no vacation for you, no Elvis Cadillac for mommy. You get nothing. Because you said that.' "

When Koppelman asked if Tarantino had really followed through with his promise, the director confirmed, "Yeah," explaining, "I helped her out with a jam with the IRS. But no house. No Cadillac, no house."

After Koppelman tried to push back, suggesting Tarantino's mother "drove him" to prove her wrong with her words, Tarantino replied, "There are consequences for your words as you deal with your children. Remember there are consequences for your sarcastic tone about what's meaningful to them."

[black&huge]

he should just write an autobigraphy chock full of lifelong grudges against everyone peppered with opinions on movies and other people and that time he assaulted a cabdriver. Then that should be his tenth and final film.

[hearthesilence]

I always found it hilarious how Michael Jordan's HOF acceptance speech and Bob Dylan's MusiCares acceptance speech were basically them calling out every single person who ever wronged them or didn't believe in them. Arguably the greatest in their respective fields, and their pettiness was apparently an effective motivator.

[therewillbeblus]

A significant portion of Bob Dylan's career has been comprised of translating this into his art, Positively 4th Street being the most obvious, and glorious, example

[domino harvey]

Even coming from someone who dislikes probably half of his output thus far, Tarantino is obviously very gifted and has built a brand, but his ego is hilariously inflated these days. He talked himself out of the screenplay Oscar for Hollywood by behaving in interviews as though he’d already won it. For someone who sees himself as a God, it’s not surprising he’s in favor of smiting any non-believers

[ford]

he should just write an autobigraphy chock full of lifelong grudges against everyone peppered with opinions on movies and other people and that time he assaulted a cabdriver. Then that should be his tenth and final film.

I dunno. As both a father and someone who (only after many, many years) "broke into" the business just before I turned 40, I gotta say I get it even if I personally couldn't muster such a contempt for the person who brought me into this world. My parents were always intensely supportive of my creative ambitions, even after it was looking like I really needed to give up and focus on finding a more practical way to support my young family.

I always thought this made them exceptional. And it certainly does in a way -- and I love them dearly for it. But now that I have kids of my own, I dunno, I can't imagine saying something like what Tarantino's mom said to him about their dreams. If you love your kid, you start to see things from their perspective and grow to appreciate what they're passionate about.

I'd also say that from everything I read, Tarantino's childhood sounds considerably more working class (and a lot more miserable) than the backgrounds of most people who break into high paying artistic fields like screenwriting -- most of whom benefited, like myself, from upper middle class institutions, expensive educations and private safety nets.

[beamish14]

Quentin's mother probably regrets being really goddamn sarcastic and condescending to her son:

"My mom always had a hard time about my scholastic non-ability," he told Koppelman, adding that his mom "was bitching at me about [writing screenplays]... and then in the middle of her little tirade, she said, 'Oh, and by the way, this little 'writing career,' with the finger quotes and everything. This little 'writing career' that you're doing? That s--- is over.'"

He continued, "When she said that to me in that sarcastic way, I go, 'Okay lady, when I become a successful writer, you will never see one penny one from my success. There will be no house for you. There's no vacation for you, no Elvis Cadillac for mommy. You get nothing. Because you said that.' "

When Koppelman asked if Tarantino had really followed through with his promise, the director confirmed, "Yeah," explaining, "I helped her out with a jam with the IRS. But no house. No Cadillac, no house."

After Koppelman tried to push back, suggesting Tarantino's mother "drove him" to prove her wrong with her words, Tarantino replied, "There are consequences for your words as you deal with your children. Remember there are consequences for your sarcastic tone about what's meaningful to them."

I've long wondered if Tarantino's very pronounced difficulties in school stemmed from an undiagnosed learning disability. I know he still needs a lot of assistance with spelling and typing up his scripts.

[colinr0380]

He should just write an autobigraphy chock full of lifelong grudges against everyone peppered with opinions on movies and other people and that time he assaulted a cabdriver. Then that should be his tenth and final film.

Only for it to ironically happen to someone else instead, completely changing the course of the late 20th century cinematic landscape!