Tarantino


Watching the likes of Scorcese's "Mean Streets" and this film makes me realise how unoriginal Tarantino really is.

The musical soundtrack to Tarantino films makes it plain he's usually stuck in a 70s timewarp, and can never quite shake off the influence of 70s cinema, and make his own way.

reply

Generic flame bait comment.

Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, whether it deserves to be or not. Tarantino does (or at least did) have one thing that most 70s directors didn't quite have, and it's a good sense of humor.

No doubt he ripped off Peckinpah, early Scorcese, Fellini, etc. But those guys became famous ripping other people off too. Don't kid yourself and act like there's anything truly original, cause someone will be able to give you 100 different things that predate it.

reply

No doubt he ripped off Peckinpah, early Scorcese, Fellini, etc. But those guys became famous ripping other people off too. Don't kid yourself and act like there's anything truly original, cause someone will be able to give you 100 different things that predate it.

I really don't think thats a true comparison. I defend Tarantino in some respects but in all honesty, he does truly 'homage' far more than your examples.

Fellini certainly never became famous by 'ripping' anyone off. While Scorcese has loads of film references and influences, he creates a style very much his own and his influences vary in years and dates WIDELY. As for Peckinpah, who did he 'rip off'? His sense of style was very much his own and which is why he polarized critics still to this day.

Sorry but you argument just doesn't hold up. In comparison to those three especially, it is easy to see that Tarantino is somewhat of a hack - a talented hack at that though (this is based off your comparison standards). Yes, he has a great sense of humor in some places, and he is very self-aware in that oh-so-postmodern way, but admitting his style is derivative and comparing him to those three just holds no water.

reply

The key phrase in your first paragraph is "far more."

It's all a matter of "how much" than "how little does so-and-so steal from so-and-so". All art is theft when you get right down to it. I wasn't comparing Tarantino to those guys, I was comparing every director to every other director.

People always talk about how much Tarantino "rips off" Mean Streets, or the Dollars trilogy, or The Killing. But would we associate these movies with one another if Tarantino hadn't made Resovoir Dogs? Jorge Luis Borges famously claimed that "Every artist creates his own precursors"; Tarantino's influences wouldn't share any affinity if it weren't for Tarantino's work itself.

For example, Fellini surely borrows from Kafka or Cocteau in his great works. The point is, Fellini isn't Kafka or Cocteau, but Fellini. And Pulp Fiction and Resovoir Dogs aren't Django or The Wild Bunch, although they certainly borrow from them. But that's a shallow way of looking at art. Shakespeare didn't come up with "Macbeth" or "Hamlet", but based them on existing stories. It's the differences that are significant, not the similarities. Pulp Fiction is a great film not because The Wild Bunch is a great film, but because of its own merits.

reply

Until you come up with a better way to relate Tarantino's precursors to Fellini's or any of the other directors you listed in your previous post, your argument holds no weight.

Fellini did not 'surely' borrow from Kafka or Cocteau. And if he ever did, it is on a far lesser scale than the influences Tarantino holds in his work.

Your claim was that Tarantino ripped off influences to get his own style, and you said just as did 'Peckinpah, Scorcese or Fellini'. I would say those guys ripoff their influences and favorites on a way lesser or less obvious scale than Tarantino. Scorcese being the most guilty, he at least has a greater extent from which he pulls his influences. I'm not quite sure how there can even be a comparison for arguments sake. I'll give you that Tarantino vs. Scorcese is the closest.

I love Pulp Fiction, I am not questioning the merits of that film in particular. What I do question is the argument that "he rips off just like everyone else does" as a way to justify his blatantly recognizable images, scenes and references.

reply

You're missing the point entirely. I don't care about relating predecessors; my argument is that it's completely pointless, because every director has predecessors. The value of a film has absolutely nothing to do with what came before it and how similar they are. Homage is not essence. Resovoir Dogs is the same film whether or not the viewer knows Fellini and Peckinpah. It's arrogant and elitist to dismiss a film just because of the way it reminds you of other films.

While comparing a film to its influences is a respectable and important part of criticism, it really has nothing to do with how good the film actually is. If something is derivative, it may necessarily be unoriginal, but it's not necessarily bad. Originality and quality are not at all correlative.

And I think it is as certain that Fellini was as familiar with Kafka (see "Intervista" for an overt reference/homage, although his mid-period classics emulate Kafka more) and Cocteau as Tarantino is with Peckinpah, Scorcese, etc. Once again you mention that even if Fellini is derivative of those influences, it is on a "lesser scale". I'm saying, who cares about the scale? Who determines what that scale is? If something's derivative, it's derivative. Tarantino may wear his influences on his sleeve prominently, but he's still doing something that his influences didn't do. No matter how heavily he references The Wild Bunch, he's not filming The Wild Bunch.

reply

I think you are missing the point. I and possibily the OP are not questioning how good Tarantino's films are. All I am saying is that he is far less original than most directors. I am just defending the OP's point which you are skewing out of proportion which is that Tarantino seems like hes in a 70s timewarp and on most of his projects seems to lack any original point of view.

reply

I suppose at least Tarantino casts wide... over to Japan etc But I wonder if younger folk were more familiar with Peckinpah and early Scorcese and/or tried to be blind to the period look of some of them if Tarantino would be so big... Tarantino's films also seem to be stuck in a kind of timewarp - it's as if the modern day never moved on in terms of fashion. His choice of music is the giveaway...

If you're going to steal at least try and put more of a twist on it. As for lifting from Kafka, no doubt Fellini did, but totally different mediums... Kafka never directed films. Star Wars took bits from all over the place, but at least it created a new look...

He's not the worst one though - Roland Emmerich seems to have made his career off Spielberg. You can see it in certain shots etc.

reply

"Generic flame bait comment."

Erm, no it isn't.

I genuinely think Tarantino is overrated. He's lifted so much from Scorcese and Peckinpah. His films rely on their sound tracks too much. Tarantino is a good director, but he is not a great director IMHO. Jackie Brown was horrendous, Kill Bill plain embarrasing.

"But those guys became famous ripping other people off too."

There are rip offs and rip offs. Tarantino relies on people's ignorance of certain periods/styles etc of films. A lot of American directors rip off non-American films, because American audiences are notoriously insular in their viewing.

reply

Peckinpah took INFLUENCE from "Seven Samurai", and tried to recreate the grittiness, the impending sense of death and slow motion action sequences, not rip it off. He didn't take influence from it because it made him look cool, but because he genuinely agreed with that approach, and that's what fitted him as a director and a person. Plus he was a badman. He didn't try to wholly rip off the style, as he had a grittiness of his own. Tarantino is an elitist geek who looks like he's on steroids whilst squinting his eyes, like he's taking a constant sh*t. And in the end, he is just taking a long *beep* made of old re-hashed films and pop culture references. He'll never be able to invent something, because- and this is my 5 cents (for all it's worth to you)- he doesn't look like someone who hasn't been scarred by, or has experienced life in all it's fullness. That's where Peckinpah is not just one step ahead, but light-years ahead. In all seriousness, Tarantino's films are funny, prove fun for watching, and have fast talking characters who he thinks think are cool. They have some artistic merit in that they almost amount to the films he tries to copy, but don't try and big him up against the Peckinpah's and Scorsese's of the world because you'll fall flat on your arse. Peckinpah's films almost have a dream like quality to them, they are mystical, special, poignant and make you ask yourself certain questions concerning life's problems as his characters in his films did. Never equalled, Peckinpah is sex, drugs and rock and ROLL.

reply

[deleted]

"And most of them are literally shots or even lines of dialogue that Tarantino took from these films. It's like Tarantino is so much of a film geek that he can't see past other people's films and have an original thought of his own."

Well said. I'm afraid we let people off the hook too much with the "it's po-mo, doncha know" line. As cinema continues there will be fewer and fewer original shots etc, but it's still all in the arrangement...

reply


Pulp Fiction is a masterpiece, whether it deserves to be or not. Tarantino does (or at least did) have one thing that most 70s directors didn't quite have, and it's a good sense of humor.


Michael Cimino's Thunderbolt and Lightfoot has a lot of grit and good humour

reply

True originallity is knowing to hide your sources. Albert Einstein.

reply

yeah, but Einstein ripped off Newton (& Scorsese)

What the $%*& is a Chinese Downhill?!?

reply

John Woo borrowed from this film when he made Bullet in the Head.

reply