His future in the industry? - Quentin Tarantino Discussion

[–] ebhaynz (3525) 3 years ago

I really don't blame him, these are far different times than when Spielberg and Scorsese etc. were at their peak. Today the business model is COMPLETELY different and TEN TIMES harder for a director to bust out a hit unless you make a dumbed down cartoon/super hero movie. I think Tarantino even had to cancel one of his movies because his script was stolen and released on the Internet..only to revise the script and agonizingly push forward..turned out to be his worst movie.
The way I look at it Tarantino had his day in the sun, he entertained millions and instead of constantly struggling to make another hit movie(he's been repeating himself lately) he's got a chance to settle down with his new wife and baby and have a normal life. Some of the pictures of him these last few years have been extremely unflattering, he looked to have gained 60 lbs. I think he's lost some so hopefully he'll stay healthy and happy and not die too young.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9344) 3 years ago

If somebody says, "I'm making ten movies and then I'm out," and then they follow through on that, why would he be looked on as a fraud?

I love Tarantino's pictures, so I hope he's got a few more in him, but he's the one saying he's retiring after ten, getting out before he loses cred. If he does that, good for him. He made some amazing pictures.

Backlash? Showbiz people retire all the time with no backlash. Gene Hackman, Rick Moranis, Sean Connery - they left and didn't come back (barring a little video game voice over or documentary narration). I don't remember anybody jumping around yelling that Sir Sean was a phony.

reply

[–] AP (5258) 3 years ago

I don’t know if he would he seen as a fraud for only doing 10 movies. You might be surprised how many directors only have a few films under their belts.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8100) 3 years ago

Personal career plans aren't written in stone and therefore need to be revaluated and tweaked as one matures. Just because something makes sense when you're 30 it doesn't mean it'll be applicable when you're 55.

If you're talented at something you might as well keep using your talents until the well is dry and you don't want to do it any longer. If what you do no longer gets mass accolades, so what? If you're gifted and diligent, many people will continue to appreciate your work.

reply

[–] diezman (1801) 3 years ago

I certainly hope he doesn't retire. I love his films. Hope he does a couple more at least.

reply

[–] sONOMArEturns (1253) 3 years ago

Here's how the careers of other classic directors would've ended if they retired after exactly 10 films:

Spielberg - Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom (1984)
Scorsese - The Color Of Money (1986)
R. Scott - G.I. Jane (1999)
W. Allen - Stardust Memories (1980)
Coen Bros - O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Kubrick - A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Kurosawa - Scandal (1950)
Hitchcock - Blackmail (1929)
Eastwood - Million Dollar Baby (2004)

Speilberg would've never made it past the 80's to make Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Alfred Hitchcock would've only ever made one film in the sound era, and he would've faded away into nothingness of history.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Speilberg would've never made it past the 80's to make Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Alfred Hitchcock would've only ever made one film in the sound era, and he would've faded away into nothingness of history.

---

But then, many of those directors made their ten films more rapidly. Hitchcock made 'em once a year.

QT seems to be aligning himself with Kubrick, who put years between movies -- 12 between Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. QT put 3 years between Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown, and 6 years between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill 1. His current rate between movies is three to four years.

QT's 9 films to date have been over a period of almost 30 years. That almost gets Hitchcock as far as Psycho in 1960, or past it if you count from Hitchocck's first American film (Rebecca) in 1940.

reply

[–] SandyR (7341) 3 years ago

Cool story.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

QT is basing his "10 films and out" rule on his view of "old time directors" like Hawks and Wilder and Hitchcock, whose final four films (in QT's opinion) were the work of "tired old men" and simply not among their best work(in his opinion.) QT called these movies "limp dick movies."

Wilder made Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, Some Like It Hot and The Apartment.

Here are Wilder's final four:

Avanti
The Front Page
Fedora
Buddy Buddy

Hitchocck made Rebecca, Rear Window, North by Northwest, and Psycho.

Here are Hitchcock's final four:

Torn Curtain
Topaz
Frenzy
Family Plot

Howard Hawks made Bringing Up Baby, The Big Sleep, Red River, and Rio Bravo.

Here are Hawks' final four:

Man's Favorite Sport?
Red Line 7000
El Dorado
Rio Lobo

What do you think? Have you even heard of those movies? Do you even know who these directors WERE? (QT does; and yeah, everybody knows Hitchcock.)

One area I think where QT is wrong is that THOSE old men had problems with health and age and they were tired by their 60's. Today's 60 and 70 is a lot more healthy and energetic. Scorsese and Spielberg are working well into their 70s, with no ill effects on screen, and Clint Eastwood has been working as a director -- and now a STAR -- into his 90's.

QT has "hedged his bets" recently, saying the ten films will be his "main" ten films...and that he might come back to do the occasional "old man's movie."

reply

[–] SandyR (7341) 3 years ago

Of course I've heard of all of them and all those movies. Front Page and El Dorado, while not necessarily the best from those directors, are still watchable (Rio Lobo is a little boring, but it has some gorgeous women in it that will hold your attention). Hitchcock's final four weren't great, but how is anyone supposed to follow up the sort of run he had from Vertigo to The Birds? An QT, who I think is a very good director, has already made a few clunkers, so he probably shouldn't be too judgmental.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Of course I've heard of all of them and all those movies.

--

My apologies. I'm never sure who I am posting to...some people (younger) haven't even heard of Hitchcock, and if they have, it seems to be Psycho and The Birds only. Hawks and Wilder recognized by the younger folk? Not that I've seen or read.

---

Front Page and El Dorado, while not necessarily the best from those directors, are still watchable (Rio Lobo is a little boring, but it has some gorgeous women in it that will hold your attention).

---

I've seen all of the movies listed above except two -- Hawks' Red Line 7000 (a race car moving with James Caan) and Wilder's Fedora(a "Sunset Boulevard" wannabee with -- wait for it -- William Holden, though much older in 1978.

For the most part, though all of them are "late works," they work AS late works, and I'm glad we have them. Rio Bravo(the best) begat El Dorado(not bad) begat Rio Lobo(the worst, and Hawks' last), but I'm glad that all of them exist and -- yeah-- the pretty ladies. I think that Man's Favorite Sport is a very good 1964 duplication of Hawks in his Bringing Up Baby/His Girl Friday period (Rock Hudson, in when Cary Grant quit, is fine; Paula Prentiss is GREAT, and there's a pretty French babe as her pal).

---

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Hitchcock's final four weren't great, but how is anyone supposed to follow up the sort of run he had from Vertigo to The Birds?

---

Here was the most famous director , and the author of that incredible streak. "The final four" for Hitchocck are really a rather problematic "final five" after The Birds: Marnie, Torn Curtain, Topaz, Frenzy, Family Plot.

And yet, I'm glad that Hitchcock made all of them. Marnie has a cult fan base and Frenzy was a "comeback hit" that ended up on many Ten Best of 1972 lists(it is also, perhaps. the most Tarantino-esque in its violence and comedy mix.) New York Times critic Vincent Canby wrote of "Topaz" --"Alfred Hitchcock at his Best" and named Topaz one of "the best of 1969" (I don't think anybody else did, however.) Torn Curtain is the Final Hitchcock with big stars (Paul Newman and Julie Andrews), and Hitchcock's final film, Family Plot, while poorly reviewed in some quarters, was heralded as one of Hitchcock's great works by others -- a "summary film." Critic Charles Champlin of the LA Times wrote a positive review of Family Plot that pointed out 1976 audiences should be grateful Hitchcock was still working and a icon.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

Billy Wilder was perhaps the most problematic with his late films. His final film -- Buddy Buddy -- with Lemmon and Matthau -- is a VERY bad film that made Lemmon and Matthau look bad, and that featured jokes (written by Wilder) in a 1981 film that hit targets from, oh, 1969 and 1975. And that was the problem with Wilder. He co-wrote his movies and his humor -- so great in 1959 and 1960 -- got old hat and Borscht Belt in the age of Woody and SNL.

Still...Sherlock Holmes is an expensive looking, melancholy movie with a great sad score; Avanti is a fun Italian-based romantic romp with some nudity for Jack Lemmon and Juliet Mills that ...works nicely. The Front Page is Lemmon and Matthau served by better material that Wilder couldn't hurt too bad.

In short, QT's theory is "right" and "wrong" at the same time. These older directors did not make their some of their greatest films in their final four(except Hitchcock with Frenzy, said the critics.)..but each of the films DID carry some of the good will, nostalgia and artistry of the makers at their best. These were "the late films of masters" and smart audiences accepted them as such.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

An QT, who I think is a very good director, has already made a few clunkers, so he probably shouldn't be too judgmental.

--

Well, I think QT is a good director and a VERY good writer, and I don't think he's ever made a bad film. As with Hitchcock before him, the films rank from "great" to "very good," and his fan base is always excited to learn when a new QT is going into production. Consider his most recent one -- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. He got Leo AND Brad, with Al Pacino and Margot Robbie thrown in. It was almost his biggest hit, it got Oscar nominations and a win for Brad. QT has still got it -- movies like Kill Bill and Death Proof may be from a "slump" period, but they are great in their own way, and Kill Bill has many fans, too.

--

QT surfaced recently to repeat his theory, but now its about the director's "final two films." He uses the example of Don Siegel(Dirty Harry) who "should have quit with Escape from Alcatraz" but went on to make Rough Cut(with Burt Reynolds) and Jinxed(with Bette Midler, the one time Siegel didn't work with a tough guy male star.) Personally, I think that Escape from Alcatraz is kind of dull, Rough Cut at least lets Burt play Cary Grant; and Jinxed is quite good -- a sequel of sorts to Siegel's great "Charley Varrick," with some of the same cast and Reno locations. (And Rip Torn is great in it, HE's the tough guy male star.)

And narrowing it down to "the director's final two films" instead of final four...doesn't work with Hitchcock. Frenzy was his penultimate film.

So, I dunno, QT...maybe it is time to retire this theory.

reply

[–] ElizabethJoestar (930) 3 years ago

I find Tarantino's statement about late periods for directors a bit offputting in that some filmmakers did their best work or at least some of it in their "late period." For example, Kurosawa's final films are some of his best IMO: RAN ties with HIGH AND LOW for my favorite of his works, and KAGEMUSHA was a great film as well. Kubrick's late period was still brilliant, even if I prefer his 60s and 70s movies to FULL METAL JACKET and EYES WIDE SHUT.

Hitchcock's late period is hit-and-miss for sure, but not terrible. TOPAZ has some brilliant scenes and really isn't as wretched as its reputation suggests (I gave it a 7/10). FRENZY is a cult favorite that I appreciate the more I see it and I will defend the goofy but likeable FAMILY PLOT with my dying breath.

Billy Wilder seems to be another deal. I loved his SHERLOCK HOLMES movie, which while old-fashioned, still has an elegaic elegance and wit that makes it worth seeing. However, FEDORA was an embarrassment, a tired retread of SUNSET BLVD. I haven't seen his other 70s movies yet, but FEDORA sure does not whet the appetite.

At any rate, I think if QT wants to retire, if he feels he has nothing more to offer in terms of cinema, then he may as well go off into the sunset. It's his career and his call, though I will miss having new work from the guy. However, if he's scared of turning out crap just because he's getting up there, I'm with ecarle: older people are generally healthier these days. I mean, look at Clint Eastwood, who's still directing and acting.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I find Tarantino's statement about late periods for directors a bit offputting in that some filmmakers did their best work or at least some of it in their "late period."

--

Its a weird thing. QT won't drop this theory(though by shifting it down to "final two films" from four, he's hedging his bets)...and it is at once "correct" (Wilder's final four and Hitchcock's final four are not at the level of their best, even as Frenzy seemed to be at the time, said the critics) and NOT correct (Hawks and Hitchcock -- and certainly Kubrick -- were still doing interesting auteur-identifying work in those late films.)

--

For example, Kurosawa's final films are some of his best IMO: RAN ties with HIGH AND LOW for my favorite of his works, and KAGEMUSHA was a great film as well.

---

There you go. I would suggest that maybe "foreign films" (to America) allow their directors to excel to the end because they aren't part of an expensive-overhead studio system that exposes tired directors or harms good directors with low budgets. In Hitchcock's case, Universal simply wouldn't give him big budgets for either Frenzy or Family Plot -- so he was hamstrung from delivering something on the scale of North by Northwest or The Man Who Knew Too Much 56. (Yes, Psycho was low budget, but with big moments.) The British-made Frenzy almost IS an indie film, and it is certainly a "foreign film."

--

Kubrick's late period was still brilliant, even if I prefer his 60s and 70s movies to FULL METAL JACKET and EYES WIDE SHUT.

---

I love both Full Metal Jacket (especially the first half) and Eyes Wide Shut(that orgy is...really weird, but in a scary and compelling way, says I.)

I know a lot of guys -- grown men -- who can quote Full Metal Jacket extensively, and the humor is foul:

Reporter: How can you shoot women and children?
Sniper: I just have to lead 'em a little longer..

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Hitchcock's late period is hit-and-miss for sure, but not terrible. TOPAZ has some brilliant scenes and really isn't as wretched as its reputation suggests (I gave it a 7/10).

---

Well...ol' Vincent Canby said Topaz was "Hitchocck at his best." (That said, Canby even with the New York Time behind him wrote some strange "off" reviews.)

I like Topaz very much. Hitchcock is there all through it. Here's my theory. With Topaz, Frenzy and Family Plot, Hitch no longer had to serve big stars...so HE became the star and the way he WAS a star was to convert these three films into experimental films. Topaz is FILLED with visual Hitchcock ideas, start to finish(the lightbulb in the bathroom at the Hotel Theresa; the "Pieta" homage of the tortured couple, and yes, Juanita's overhead death.) It has two great sequences in the opening Copenhagen defection and the Hotel Theresa sequence in Harlem. It does get overlong and diffuse and it famously falls apart at the end -- but -- if you still WANTED Hitchcock to be making movies, Topaz was good enough.

---
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

FRENZY is a cult favorite that I appreciate the more I see it

---

Funny its a "cult" thing now. The 1972 reviewers would have one thinking it was one of HItchocck's greatest movies, and a big hit. It was NOT a big hit -- but it made its money back, which Topaz did not.

One zeroes in on the brutal rape-murder in Frenzy(Hitchcock said "that's the reason I made the picture") but I find myself drawn to its eminent sense of Hitchocckian STYLE. In the book, the killer doesn't use a necktie, he uses his hands or a stocking -- in the movie , he DOES use a necktie and that becomes STYLISIH and the tiepin(a latch key in the book) becomes profound on its journey through the movie. Best of all: the Covent Garden setting, where the worker bee men in their caps and aprons cover up murder AND a murderer(Rusk dresses as one to dispose of a body.) Covent Garden also yields the potatoes that become so important to the story as well.

CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I will defend the goofy but likeable FAMILY PLOT with my dying breath.

--

Me, too. Look, the early cab sequence with Bruce Dern is embarrassing to look at technically(the opening Thames River scene in Frenzy is crystal clear in its cinematography in contrast) and Hour One has its slow parts(sorry, Mr. Dern -- they star you.)

But the story is always percolating along, the strands come together, and Hitchcock pays off the entire second hour with the glee of a born storyteller telling THIS story exactly RIGHT.

I'm also certain that Hitchcock strained(in age and health) to make the amiable Family Plot, so that the sexually ugly Frenzy would not be his final film.

This about Frenzy in 1972 -- it if was so GOOD, then Hitchcock couldn't be senile so...maybe, Marnie and Torn Curtain and Topaz were BETTER than they seemed. I think so. I think Frenzy rehabilitated all those other films by showing that Hitchcock was hampered by studios and temperament, not senility.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Billy Wilder seems to be another deal. I loved his SHERLOCK HOLMES movie, which while old-fashioned, still has an elegaic elegance and wit that makes it worth seeing.

--

Agreed. In its Technicolor elegance and its erudite British characters, it almost doesn't feel like a Wilder movie(though he puts in some gay humor and 1970 sexuality to show he is there.) This movie could have starred Peter O'Toole as Holmes and Peter Sellers as Watson. It ended up with a low-wattage star pair -- Wilder started having the same trouble Hitchocck did hiring stars. Indeed, Wilder stuck to Jack Lemmon(and sometimes Walter Matthau) in in four of his six films, William Holden in anotther, and near unknowns here.

---

However, FEDORA was an embarrassment, a tired retread of SUNSET BLVD.

---

That's what I've read. I guess I'll see it someday, but I expect disappointment.

--

I haven't seen his other 70s movies yet, but FEDORA sure does not whet the appetite.

--

The Front Page is, interestingly a return to the two-men story that Hawks turned into a romance with His Girl Friday. Matthau and Lemmon are fine -- though one could feel Lemmon losing his star power(to his overly neurotic, non-macho side) even as Matthau kept his. Carol Burnett is in the film(as a hooker; oops) and says she actually apologized over the mike to a planeload of passengers when she realized The Front Page was playing on her plane(more for her performance than the film.)

Universal released The Front Page a year after The Sting, and hoped for the same "buddy-buddy" nostalgia(both were Xmas releases.) Nope -- Matthau and Lemmon weren't Newman and Redford. Its an OK movie though, from a good source -- but with a few "modern" and lousy jokes written into the script by Wilder.

--
CONT

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

CONT

But the worst of the worst is Buddy Buddy. The film looked horribly photographed, horribly "out of its time"(1981) and Matthau(his looks about gone) and Lemmon are at their worst, personality wise.

Hollywood never let Wilder direct another movie after Buddy Buddy. Wilder complained: "Everybody tells me what a great director I am, but they never give me work." I guess that was the point. He WAS a great director -- and a great writer -- but no more, especially the writer part.

Wilder DOES make QT's point but...what the heck , it was nice to have a few more Wilder movies. Avanti has its moments, The Front Page does the job, etc.

By the way, I have read that there were a lot of agents and producers who WANTED guys like Hawks and Wilder and Hitchocck to keep working as long as they could, even if the movies were subpar. These agents MADE MONEY whenever these directors -- however old -- worked.

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

At any rate, I think if QT wants to retire, if he feels he has nothing more to offer in terms of cinema, then he may as well go off into the sunset.

--

Yeah. I think there is another reason he is doing this. He knew that the critics would eventually turn on him. "He's never done something as great as Pulp Fiction again." The dialogue and weirdness that made him so great in the beginning is now held against him. It happens to a LOT of directors and writers. So QT is saying: "I'll quit before you can kick me around anymore."

---

It's his career and his call, though I will miss having new work from the guy. However, if he's scared of turning out crap just because he's getting up there, I'm with ecarle: older people are generally healthier these days. I mean, look at Clint Eastwood, who's still directing and acting.

--

I recall QT being put on a talk show next to Ridley Scott(who directed well into old age) and looking visibly nervous as he laid out his "old director" theory. It just doesn't work given health today and also -- Hitch and Wilder et al were also getting kicked out because: the counterculture, New Hollywood. That barrier is gone today, Scorsese and Spielberg can get the biggest actors around to work for them.

QT has hinted that, with one film left, maybe this most recent one(Once Upon a Time in Hollywood) is the BIG movie near the end, and the final film will be a smaller coda. After all, this last one starred Leo AND Brad, AND Margot AND Al AND Kurt...got Oscar noms and an Oscar win and huge box office. Why not quit there?

Thus, pressure on the 10th and final QT film: how many years do we have to wait for it? What will it be about? Will QT cast every star in Hollywood in it?

Stay tuned.

And also stay tuned for QT to renege and make more movies...after a pause.

reply

[–] TearofLys (2398) 3 years ago

It's probably a good time to walk away as Hollywood has been changed forever. There is no going back to the old tinseltown

reply