Quentin Tarantino is one of the most overrated directors of modern times. Hold on, I think I should do this Tarantino style… a bit too long, full of expletives, out of sequence, and put pointlessly into chapters.
Chapter One: Django Was Not Off The Chain
Django Unchained was for some reason universally praised by critics and consumers alike. With all the hype surrounding this film, I was expecting some kind of Magnum Opus from Tarantino but in the end Django was just a 160 minute movie which made Sslavery seem trivial. The tone of the script and indeed the entire film was more Blazing Saddles than Roots, with its inept Ku Klux Klan members and unrealistic violence. In addition to this mediocrity, Django Unchained seemed yet another one of Tarantino’s “acceptable racism” vehicles; whereby the prejudice was cleverly disguised behind post-modernist references.
The racism of the screenplay went far beyond the façade of the film, which purported to be some kind of Django (1966) and Mandingo (1975) amalgamation. Regardless of its “borrowing” from Spaghetti Western and Blaxploitation films, it was all the other elements of the film which made it a pro-Caucasian anti-minority movie.
Firstly, Jamie Foxx as Django was a side character to Christoph Waltz, who played the superior Dr. King Schultz. The lead character’s name screamed superiority with “Doctor” reinforcing the idea of education, skill, and knowledge, “King” adding a touch of elitism and further ascendancy, and finally “Schultz” meaning headman or person in charge. Christoph’s character also exuded manners, and he tutted when Django placed his hat on the saloon table. Etiquette, education, and culture were attributes which only the white, righteous lead possessed.
The slaves on the other hand were anything but clever or educated. You could argue that this was an accurate portrayal of the time; but in a Western where rap music is playing in the background, we are hardly dealing with historical accuracy. The character Hildi (Django’s wife), full name “Broomhilda Von Shaft” (instead of the correct Schaft) seemed to see-saw between dull contemporary speech and caricatured “slave-speak”. Despite her character having learned German, she spoke without even a hint of elocution. Even the subtitles denoted her unschooled speech; as she spoke in German the subtitles read “I don’t got any friends”. I guess she was taught broken-german-english by her Mistress.
The strange mixture of contemporary and caricatured history was one of the elements which added to the trivialisation of this period in history. The black actors for instance, who played the slaves in this film, seemed to be either talentless or were simply following Tarantino’s direction by walking around with a 21st century swagger. This minute, yet integral part to the overall film, just added to the unrealistic portrayal of slavery. Instead of being downtrodden, mentally and physically abused victims, these slaves walked about like the shackle and chain they wore was some kind of fashion accessory; strutting around with a corny noughties Hip-Hop walk that could have only come from the Rick Ross-infused present day. A whole generation of minority actors who cannot imagine or portray anger, plight, and hardship that their own ancestors felt, is a sorry state of affairs. It’s even worse if the actors’ emotion was stifled by a director trying to create an impassive, cartoonish depiction of the past. With the King-Schultz character referring to these atrocities as just “slavery malarkey”, this just added to the down-played, historically-blind, offensiveness on show.
Additionally, with sadism and cruelty being an integral aspect of the plot, the inclusion of two Caucasian “heartthrobs” playing the two slave-owners in the film, did away with any emotive affectiveness the audience may have had. The two plantation owners were played by nineties and noughties’ hunk Leonardo DiCaprio and eighties’ hunk Don Johnson. The choice of casting these two actors essentially soothed their evil-doing, and as the audience glazed over the foulness of these characters (with their attraction for the actors) the barbarity became completely masked by the performer’s outward appearance.
Although Django Unchained was not Tarantino’s greatest script, when there was a clever quip or a blip of witty dialogue, this was more often than not given to the white actors. With every encounter Christoph Waltz had, he seemed to retort with charming and amusing repartee. The one and only funny line in the entire film (the “two weeks in Boston” punchline) was spoken by Leonardo Dicaprio. Jamie Foxx on the other hand, just seemed to mope about without anything memorable to say. The other black actors like Samuel L. Jackson just skirted around the fringes of the film, content in playing second-fiddle to a bunch of witty Caucasians. The irony that all the minorities played less important roles in a film about slavery, was the biggest comment about racism the film could have made; had it not been completely unintentional.
In the end, even though Django Unchained was financially one of Tarantino’s most successful films, in reality it was one of his worst. With the film, the characters, the dialogue, and even the plot largely coming off as fake and exaggerated, this was a missed opportunity of epic proportions. With a juxtaposed soundtrack (which was done more successfully in Young Guns II: Blaze Of Glory), and an empty-looking setting (strangely resembling the Back To the Future Part III set), the finished work seemed to reference all the wrong films in all the wrong ways. With no tension, no atmosphere, no feeling, and no realism, Django seemed like it was cobbled together by stitching together several small isolated scenes by a slowly diminishing talent. Django Unchained was a complete disappointment.
Chapter Two: Unglorious Bas-Turds
Inglorious Basterds was also a complete shambles. If Quentin felt the need to rewrite history, he should have done it like Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. Instead, Mr. Tarantino (once again) created a cartoon-like movie which seem to pointlessly caricature the past without any reasoning.
Inglorious was no Schindler’s List. There were no real horrors shown and no depictions of the Holocaust. The end result was about as believable as Brad Pitt playing a Jew, and even though it may have been intended as a revenge movie (even though making a shite film is hardly revenge for what the Nazis did) it came off as a crappy teleplay.
The fact that most of the characters were exaggerated (even when they were depicting real-life people) just made the entire movie and the topic it was trying to tackle, an outright farce. With Mike Myers doing his best “British stereotype courtesy of Hollywood” routine, and Michael Fassbender doing an over-the-top contrived British accent and saying “Jerry” as much as possible, the mood was again turned into a wannabe comedy (even though nothing was funnier than seeing Quentin’s fat chubby hands around Dianne Kruger’s neck).
When real-life characters like Churchill and Hitler were shown, they were so unlike their real-selves, that the unbelievably became extreme. In Pulp Fiction (where the casting didn’t really matter) the Marilyn Monroe lookalike actually looked like her real-self, but in Inglorious Basterds (where the casting actually mattered), the roles were given to rubber-faced buffoons.
Then there was all the pointless Tarantinoisms which seem to have been added to ward off the boredom. The pointless cut mid-scene to Joseph Goebbels fucking his French Translator was unneeded, and the inclusion of schizophrenic subtitles which translated “Oui” to “Oui” even though everything else was written in English, was nonsensical. There was the inclusion of David Bowie in the soundtrack, and there was the addition of Samuel L. Jackson as narrator; all elements which made a shitty film even shittier.
When the score gives more atmosphere and tension than the direction, you know a director has lost it. When the Entity-esque track played as Hans Landa (Christph Waltz) entered the restaurant, the music created more feeling and mood in a few seconds than Mr. Tarantino managed to create in over two hours.
This being one of Tarantino’s worst films, the last narcissistic line before the end credits “I think this may be my masterpiece” was so ironic, it was almost laughable (had the audience not been snoring by that point).
Chapter Three: Pulpy Reservoir Romance
Watching Django and Inglorious made me realise how much Quentin Tarantino’s talent has waned since he first hit the scene. Movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were both refreshing and entertaining, and even though they both referenced other’s work, they were still worthy of praise due to the intelligent and witty lines. Reservoir Dogs may have had entire scenes ripped from Hong Kong drama City On Fire, and the lead characters in Pulp Fiction seemed slightly The Executioner-ish, however with their great dialogue and chaptered segments, they were something unique and different back in the early-to-mid-nineties. Back then we all hoped Tarantino would keep it up.
Watching these movies today, you wonder what happened to the guy who used to write dialogue which could make an audience laugh at the same time as keeping them gripped to their seat. These days, the only thing left from Quentin’s heyday is the racism.
In Pulp Fiction in particular, there was a swath of racist epithets. The film opened with Tim Roth saying all Liqueur Store owners in America are foreign (the irony of a British person sat in an American diner moaning about foreigners was lost on even British viewers back in 1994). With the Ringo/Pumpkin character constantly using words like “Gooks” and describing the busboy as a “Wetback”, we could see racism forming a trend in Tarantino’s work.
Most people (including Quentin himself) usually excuse this racism as “accurate portrayal of a character”, with Mr. Tarantino saying “that’s how people talk” or “people in Inglewood speak like that” to paraphrase a quote. It is surprising then, given that only certain people talk like this, that everybody in a Quentin Tarantino film (regardless of time or place) speak in a prejudicial way:
- In Pulp Fiction, the S&M store-owner (not the Policeman “Zed”) called Ving Rhames’ character a “nigger”, not exactly a character that needed to say this word.
- There was the Captain Koons character played by Christopher Walken calling Asians “Gooks” and “Greasy Slopes”. In this flashback scene, we even see Butch watching a racist cartoon “Clutch Cargo” where an Eskimo talks in broken English (“He Tink Todem Po’ Alive!”). I guess everybody and everything in the fifties was racist.
- There was also Quentin Tarantino playing “Jimmie Dimmick”, a poncey L.A.-type who saw fit to spurt the “dead nigger storage” line. This was a stretch, I mean which pompous white guy would talk like this to a black hitman? I guess this is reality in Quentin’s world; in the real world, there aren’t many pairs of black and white, suited hitmen with afros and ponytails. This “realism” excuse is only brought up to defend the racism, not the plot or characters.
From the “Dead Nigger Storage” line in Pulp Fiction to the “Sicicilian Origin” scene in True Romance, you can almost imagine this whiteboy pounding words like “gook” and “nigger” into his fucking typewriter with great zeal. With his constant brown-nosing, Kangol-companion Samuel L. Jackson leaping to his defence every five minutes, it’s no wonder Quentin Tarantino wrote a “house-nigger” character for him in Django Unchained. People like Jackson, Luke from 2 Live Crew and directors like Antoine Fuqua seem to love sticking up for this imbecilic idiot, and it further bolsters Tarantino’s ego and increases the chance of another N-word-a-thon.
Forgetting the racism however, I have to admit that Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were pretty good films. Witty conversation like the Reservoir Dogs “Tipping” scene and quirky things like the unknown contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is what made these films special. It seemed back in the early nineties, that Quentin Tarantino would continue with his low budget, clever dialogue movies. Once the sun set on that decade however, all Tarantino films became full of big set-pieces and elaborate locations. Even though they might not be $200,000,000 budget films, the scope of them seem more important than the content these days. After Pulp Fiction, not a single film of Tarantino’s has been witty or clever…
Chapter Four Part 1: Jackie Was Brown
…Three years after Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, Quentin’s “I’ve made a movie for black people” bullshit ended up being a flick which was contrived and disappointing…
Chapter Four Part 2: The Pointless Volumes Of Kill Bill
…And then came the tediously horrid Kill Bill Volumes 1 & 2.
Kill Bill Volume 1 was one of the worst movies of the noughties. A wannabe Blaxploitation, Kung-Fu, Revenge, Action-Thriller, Kill Bill was a giant mess of a film. The end result was a poor movie with fight-scenes resembling a cheap Matrix Revolutions clone.
Volume 2 was one of the weirdest and most disjointed sequels in the history of film with a completely different look and even a different typeface for the opening credits. It seemed Tarantino threw every trick at these movies (including Noir and Anime) in order to claw back any credence he may once have had. But throwing crap into a pot already brimming with shit, makes for an overblown pile of dull nonsense.
If it were not for Michael Parks playing the pimp character Esteban Vinaio in Kill Bill Volume 2, the whole débâcle would have been better left in Quentin and Uma’s mind…
Chapter Four Part 3: Grinding With Rodriguez
…Then came Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino’s homage to Grindhouse cinema. With Robert Rodriguez by his side, Tarantino created yet another post-modernist “bad on purpose” movie, and surprise surprise, he once again crowbarred some racism into the film. The black DJ character called “Jungle Julia” felt contrived and prejudice even for a B-movie pastiche, and considering Rodriguez’ film (Planet Terror) with all its corniness was the better film of the two, Death Proof didn’t do much for Quentin’s credibility as a writer or director. I mean, when the spiritless Robert Rodriguez makes a better movie in your back-to-back festival of kitsch, you know you’re losing it. Sure, there were a few elements which worked; the colouring did at least look like the seventies, and the last twenty minutes or so was entertaining, but overall Death Proof was a far cry from the films that made Quentin Tarantino popular in the nineties.
Chapter Five: The Origins Of Quentin
The late nineties was a wash with crime movies with wannabe clever dialogue and non-linear storytelling. It seems that a man who made his life’s work from copying others, would ironically be copied by others. A career made from stealing, oh sorry, referencing other’s work, seems to have made Quentin one of the most successful directors of modern times. Once you become the Weinstein’s bitch, I guess you start winning awards for some of the worst films ever made.
If you took away all the corrupt media praise, you would see that Quentin Tarantino movies are always devoid of emotion. He is credited for being “the greatest filmmaker of his generation”, but in reality his films are usually made from the same ingredients… ratchet-up the violence, increase the racism and the coarse language, copy other people’s work, then point and shoot. His films are essentially a series of sketches compartmentalised into chapters, pretending to be high-brow. They are films which a pre-pubescent teenager thinks are violent and whose parents think are intelligent. His films in reality, are neither. These days they are just racist trash.
Mr. ‘Tino who is of Irish-Italian descent, could say “wop” or “mick” if he so pleases. Being the same race as your racial slurs entitles you to say them as much as your merry little heart wants. But just because QT’s mother dated Wilt Chamberlain, it doesn’t give him the right to say “nigger”, even once. And God only knows how he thinks he has the right to say “wetback” or “gook”, he’s hardly a melting pot of races.
Without anything new to offer, and without any more clever scripts, Quentin Tarantino is now just a racist director who looks like Richard Kiel’s twin with some form of mild ADHD and Autism. Tarantino himself once said “Directors don’t get better as they get older” in a Playboy interview a while back. This was I guess, a kind of prophetic irony. Surely even Quentin acknowledges that his films are getting worse?
Mr. Tarantino has also said that he will retire from film at age 60. After being subjected to the last decade or so of his work, I hope that he keeps his word. Only a decade to go…
Categories: Caricatures, Celebrities, Film And Movies, Reviews
This has to be your best work yet. You totally nailed it.
Big kudos for mentioned Young Guns II. I enjoyed both of those films, even though they are not historically accurate, they were still very fun movies, and yes even the Bon Jovi soundtrack to the second one was fun. Totally agree on Back to the Future Part III, the western town felt so empty and lifeless.
When I first heard of Django it reminded me of the Blaxplotation film “Boss Nigger”. I have not seen that in decades, but I remember it being a western movie with 70’s style funk played all through the movie, sorta like Django uses rap music from today. I thought they also made Jamie Foxx look like Fred Williamson from that film.
At first I thought it was a remake of the Django Spaghetti western films. I’ve never watched them, so I wouldn’t know first hand.
Another thing, using James Brown’s “The Payback” and remixing it just didn’t seem right at all. The Payback and the album of the same name came from a Blaxplotation film that was never released, so it felt a bit insulting to throw that in there. I just can’t in my right mind see Tupac and James Brown agreeing to a song on that soundtrack.
I don’t think you can even really pay “tribute” to those Blaxplotation films, cause they were the real first negative black material from Hollywood. More people know about the soundtracks to Superfly (Curtis Mayfield) and Trouble Man (Marvin Gaye) than they actually know of the specific films, that says a lot about the reputation of them.
Why do black people always have to be slaves in the western genre? I never understood this. Hollywood has totally whitewashed much of black history in this era. Most of the original cowboys after the civil war were black, and it would be very easy to make some films out of this, but they don’t even bother trying.
I watched some of Pulp Fiction the other day for the first, and one thing I always noticed with this guy’s work is he tends to go overboard with the violence. It can’t just be a murder scene, it has to be blood flying everywhere and taken to extremes. Does this guy have some kind of sick and twisted mind that loves torture and murder? Sometimes I can’t help but wonder.
It’s hard to say that considering what Hollywood can get away with but I remember the first time I ever saw stuff like Kill Bill and it totally freaked me out with the over indulgence in violence. When people talk about violent films, I think he is the king of it. No one can outdo Tarantino when it comes to senseless violence and Inglorious Bastards was a very good example. The whole film was basically centered around the killings, rather than an actual plot. This guy should be making video games with that crap.
I never understood the whole obsession with the Kill Bill movies, I thought they were cheap action flicks that had a lot of blood in them, nothing special.
I’m going to give you a lot of love for this article for tackling the racial issues. Most people that go after Tarantino ignore it and bring up the violent scenes in his films since that’s so easy considering how crazy he gets with it. The racism seems forgotten about as time goes on, or it’s always some excuse as to why they use it. I only watched a few scenes of Pulp Fiction and I saw a lot of it.
There was a few Quentin Tarantino films on TV over the last fortnight so I thought I’d go through his entire filmography.
To be honest, the over-the-top violence didn’t really bother me in films like Pulp Fiction because the overall tone matched the excessiveness. With Django & Iglorious however, when something like the violence was exaggerated; it looked like he was mocking historical atrocities. Either way, his recent films in my opinion (from Kill Bill onward) haven’t matched the skill and tone of his earlier work.
When Django Unchained was first released; all I ever heard was praise, so when I finally got a chance to watch it I was expecting something great. I’m not exactly a big fan of Westerns, so when somebody does a modern take on the genre I expect to see something more entertaining than a John-Wayne-type joint. With Young Guns, I felt this was a great updating of the Western genre. When I first watched it, I felt entertained and didn’t feel like I was watching something old. If something was going to be historically inaccurate; then that is how it should be done. I’m not exactly a fan of Bon Jovi either, but with Young Guns II, the soundtrack though contemporary really felt at home with the film. Also in both these films, I didn’t feel Lou Diamond Phillips’ character was being joked about or exploited like the minority characters in Django Unchained. For people to act like Tarantino was doing something new and refreshing with this film, when Westerns like Young Guns did the “updating” thing much better, plus Young Guns and even Silverado had minority cowboy supporting roles back in the eighties (on a side note films like “Braindead” and “Bad Taste” have done exaggerated violence better too). It makes me wonder why Tarantino receives so much praise for doing nothing better with the genre twenty-something years later, in 2013 I at least expected a lead black role.
I really agree with the Tupac/James Brown thing. To posthumously add somebody’s songs when they (had they been alive) may not have agreed to be in a soundtrack of a prejudicial film; is quite offensive. When the Tupac track was abruptly cut in Django, it felt even more misplaced.
I also agree with what you said about minority roles in Hollywood Westerns. I remember watching Posse by Mario Van Peebles, and it was a complete shock when I first discovered that there was Black cowboys, even as far back as Slavery (also Posse did the whole Hip-Hop Western Soundtrack way before Tarantino’s Django). I remember looking into this and found that films like John Ford’s The Searchers was inspired by Brit Johnson (a black cowboy) and like you said in a comment a while back, Bass Reeves inspired Hang Em High. The Lone Ranger was also believed to have been inspired by Bass Reeves, and the fact that he had a Native American sidekick, makes alot of these westerns very racist given the amount of Black, Mexican, Chinese, and Native Americans that played a part in that period of time. When Jamie Foxx in Django says “’cause they never seen no nigger on no horse before” (when the town folk are starring at him), this is stupid given that black cowboys existed, even at the time of this movie (set in 1858).
Quentin Tarantino has basically made film after film which all reference other people’s work, and when it comes to Blaxploitation and Grindhouse it seems he has picked a group of films which Hollywood (and the public) know to be cheap B-Movies. Once you copy or quote these films, it is not hard to make them better; but that doesn’t mean that these films are flawless and it definitely doesn’t mean that he is an infallible writer/director or some kind of genius.
Thanks for your reply, great points as always.
You said it best over the Young Guns trilogy. I didn’t see anything that felt discriminating towards the Chavez character. Using the 80’s songs in both movies may have felt somewhat out of place, but the movies truly clicked and I found them to be well made. Most people bring up how inaccurate they are, but they were still great movies for the time being when action films dominated the box office.
John Wayne had many, many stereotypical minority characters in many of his films. You could take The Searchers and shake that movie down for all it’s worth on all the American Native stereotypes and the hate the film influenced towards them. I think I read a long time ago all the Natives that were in Ford’s filmed were paid very cheap. It don’t even stop there, so many of the John Wayne westerns followed the same formula of the white guy hero defeating the evil Natives. His best movie in my opinion was The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and that was the only one I have seen so far where John Ford didn’t concentrate on a load of stereotypes, and the film followed a better plot.
You could go through the Western genre for hours on end finding exploitations of minorities with the white savoir roles. but John Wayne is easily the one with the most. What always bugged me was how he was sold as the “American Hero” crap just for playing a good guy in every single movie. Even his war movies are a perfect example of the “Americans save the day” crap that still plagues movies.
John Wayne was really the actor who i think set that trend of playing the super awesome white American that saves the day, that followed in the 70’s and 80’s with Clint Eastwood all the way to the Action stars like Sylvester Stallone in the 80’s.
You know I have no clue why no one has come along and made an actual film about Bass Reeves. He seems like a very ideal historical figure that someone would come across and want to give a proper tribute to. It disgusts me how we get so many films of historical dictators and rulers that people hate (the overkill of Nazi Germany) yet this guy, who was a hero is totally forgotten about in time.
When we do get something of him like Lone Ranger or Hang ‘Em High, it’s a white guy playing the main role.
I’ve never seen Posse before, but I studied historical eras for the 1800’s and was always fascinated with the cowboys and lawmen of that era, and many of them really were black. You never see this in films.
That’s what bothered me more than anything about Django. That quote though is priceless. It just goes to show how dumb Hollywood thinks we are. Most of the cowboys were black or Hispanic after the civil war, of course you never see Hollywood admitting this in all their films though.
The film is so blunt towards reality, it feels like someone is making fun of the true history.
I can’t knock Pulp Fiction since I have yet to see it all the way through, but from witnessing Django and the Kill Bill films, I can say he’s easily one of the most overrated directors I’ve ever seen.
Man you’re hostile, really just coming off as one pissed off black person with a chip on their shoulder. YOU seem like the racist on these boards (referring to your earlier responses to replies .. as well as a few points you bring up in the article). You know why Tarantino has a lot of racist parts in his movies? Because racism exists. It gives his films a gritty realism, a glimpse of the seedy underbelly of how people really think. He uses more than just racism to get this effect: the like a virgin convo in reservoir dogs, the “made him suck my warm black mamba” or whatever speech in the hateful eight, etc. And YES, it was justified to have the pawn shop owner in Pulp Fiction call Samuel Jackson a nigger, because that instantly let us know the kind of person he is. First we’re thinking he is just defending his store and that both of them will be going to jail, but him saying that lets us know he’s a piece of shit with racial prejudices, which just might be enough to get Bruce Willis off the hook. That makes him knocking them both out, and taking them both captive that much more surprising. Tarantino with the dead nigger storage rant in Pulp was fitting, because he was playing some uptight suburban white guy who’d probably piss his pants if he had to stand next to a black guy at a urinal, playing like a hard ass, because his equally racist bitch of a wife was about to come home. I came here to trash talk Tarantino. Not because he’s a racist, but because his writing has sucked ever since Pulp Fiction (though the Kill Bills did have some good moments). I was really not expecting some guy to label Tarantino as the culprit behind all things racist in America.
1. Firstly, who said I’m black? Can you not see the inerrant prejudice of you belittling my criticism of Tarantino’s racist scripts on the assumption that you think I’m black? But if I was white it’s fine to bring up the issue of racist language I guess? How very prejudice.
2. Where EXACTLY am I racist? I like the way you bandy that term about without giving examples (something I didn’t do with Tarantino).
3. No shit racism exists, but so does homophobia, sexism, ageism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, transphobia, it’s nice to see Tarantino tackling all that shit.
4. Pretty convenient that all his movies keep using racial epithets against ethnic minorities but hardly any anti-white sentiment. Does that not exist also?
5. Your excuse of that “dead nigger storage” scene makes no sense. If that was anybody other than the sellout Samuel L. Jackson, his white arse would have been gun-butted. Which white racist guy gets to talk that way to a black hitman? Makes a lot of frigging sense.
6. Where exactly did I “label Tarantino as the culprit behind all things racist in America”? That’s a stretch. Maybe crawl out of his racist, white, crickerty-crackerty, honkey arse and re-read the article.
6. Please don’t point out that point 6 was racist since I’ve already stated in point 1 that I may be white, which I am, or am I? 👻👻👻
Someone speaks the truth at last. When I tell people I dislike Tarantino, and Django was incredibly racist, it seems I insulted their mother
talentless tarantino is bob hope son. once upon a time… plugged by his father in hollywood
Is “Bob Hope’s son” a joke? His dad is Tony Tarantino.
I don’t understand why does Tarantino have to cater to how you want him to make his movies?
Why can’t you just enjoy his movies for what they are?
Why do they have to be a certain way to be acceptable?
I get these vibes from this article a lot…
I don’t understand why I can’t criticise Tarantino and the way he makes his movies.
Why can’t you just enjoy this article for what it is?
Why can I not be a certain way, when I’m not asking for acceptance?
Congrats on your awesome vibe-sensors….
Well I am not saying you can’t criticise Quentin…
I feel like I touched a nerve there by just mentioning that…
Well have a good day man.
It was a nice article btw, but like I said, I feel like you wish that Quentin changes into how you would want him to be. But I think that well you can only just accept that this is how he makes his movies.
And I did not ask you to not criticise Quentin, jheeze I just said what’s on my mind.
Thanks for being so warm and welcoming, thanks…a lot! (cough cough sarcasm cough :P)
Well, I am known for my warm and welcoming ways!
Tarantino is gonna do what he wants at the end of the day; I was just sick of all the praise he receives for his films (which in my opinion are getting progressively worse).
Glad to see somebody who gets sarcasm and throws some back (I just thought I’d reply to your previous statement by sending it back with a change of nuance).
Well I do agree that Tarantino does get too much praise.
For example I always heard about how Pulp Fiction was a masterpiece etc.
But when I finished watching it, I was like “That’s it?” It was a good movie and quite unique and creative, but what was so special about it? And to this day I don’t understand what the message of the movie was, or the point of the story? It still confuses me.
Yeh about my previous comment, look I just said what was on my mind really. I didn’t come here just to piss you off, what would I gain from that?
It just seemed that you wrote all that text, just to say that you don’t like what Quentin is doing :P.
But I am all for being honest and open about what you feel, so I am not complaining really.
BTW You’re articles on rappers like Kanye and ASAP are hilarious btw.
When was this blog created, is it quite old?
I started this blog in Summer ’12, and the way the Hip-Hop genre is going I’m sure I’ll write some more stuff on rappers…
Ohw alright I thought this would be up from aroun 2010-11.
Well I hope you write some stuff about Chief Keef, Rick Ross, Lil Wayne etc.
Especially Chief Keef…
He just shows how you can get away with little to no effort in lyrics and still “make it”, but I heard he’s gonna get dropped off his label soon because he is not making enough sales.
My problem with alot of these celebs has been brewing for a long time. The Kanye shit has been building since 2004, and A$AP since 2011, but I only got round to writing about it last year. Definitely agree about Chief Keef, he’s been getting away with some inaudible, dumbed-down, trash rap for a few years now.
“Django Unchained seemed yet another one of Tarantino’s “acceptable racism” vehicles”
Which is presumably why Samuel L Jackson and Jamie Foxx wanted to be a part of it then. Why would black actors keep working with him if he was as racist as you keep shouting.
Sellout ethnic minorities hanging around with white racists don’t nutralise the racism, just look at the EDL or any Trump rally, you twat.
Leaving multiple comments under various names doesn’t strengthen your cause, which seems to be venturing to the farthest regions of Tarantino’s arse.
I just saw Django unchained. I have to say, it proves again that Quentin is overrated. I think the movie was not even really bad. At least up to the death of Candy. From there it was a dive into a pile of shit. The rap music in the middle of the movie was so displaced and the death of Candy is so stupid and meaningless. The movie is at least 30 minutes to long. So i mostly agree with what you wrote.
But i have to correct you in two points. As you may concluded from the nic i used, i’m german. Brunhilde spoke perfect german. Flat and without emphasis, with a very heavy accent. But without errors. And yes i watched the english version of the movie, i only watch movies in english, thats the way i learned most of this language. And second, the name “von Shaft”. The word “von” means “of / from” in german and is only used in names from persons of “blue” blood, i.e. descendants from counts, barons, kings……The german royal houses are much related to the dutch royal houses. In dutch the german “sch” is written “sh”, like in the english language. So it could be very much possible for Brunhilde’s master to be a dutch related german who kept his dutch name.
Thanks for your reply. My point about the “Schaft” vs. “Shaft” spelling was the fact that Tarantino loves it when he can hint at anything Black (or in this case Blaxploitation) so I’m almost certain that he chose the spelling “Shaft” to allude to the 1971 film of the same name, over the alternate spelling. Also in English the idea of “Broom” and “Shaft” is just a joke about menial work (the shaft of a broom).
My point about Broomhilda speaking German was that the English subtitles during that scene read “I don’t got any friends”; when the correct way of speaking would be “I don’t have any friends” or “I do not have any friends”. The fact that you said she spoke perfect German meant that the subtitles ON PURPOSE relayed she was saying in broken/poor English to reinforce the idea of the stupid or uneducated black slave. This was the offensive part of the subtitling which I referred to as “unschooled” in the article.
Other than that, I pretty much agree with you. Although I personally think that the film was 165 minutes too long.
Yeah, how Brunhilde became Broomhilde in english, i cannot fathom. And i have to admit, i didn’t think about the Shaft movie, good point. Please forgive my ignorance, as a german i come from a complete different culture and so i don’t know to much about americas history. But wouldn’t a cultured slave be a curiosity? I read on the net that educating slaves was even forbidden. So depicting the slaves talking bad english isn’t too far off? The bigger concern i have is how the black butler Stephen is shown to be the real bad guy. I mean, what harm would have come to him if he looked the other way? But no, he had to interfere. He is so pleased and happy when he saw how antagonised the doctor is. So the black people are not only shown to be uneducated, but a opportunist who licks the ass of the guy who enslaved him.
Exactly, Broom (a brush) Hild (an obsolete way of saying held) and Shaft (handle) is just a poor euphemism, and something reminiscent of a Carry On film. I also agree that the “house negro” character played by Samuel L. Jackson was portrayed in such a way that he was seen as more of a villain than the racist, sadomasochistic but handsome Leonardo Di Caprio (who surely should have been the main antagonist and not the loveable rogue he was depicted to be). On the topic of educating slaves, Django who was a field slave and therefore uneducated should not have been aware that his name Django had a silent “D” since he couldn’t read or write. The inaccuracies of the characters are so bad; that I’ve almost given up trying to analyse them since they make very little sense (or any real point for that matter). Thanks for the reply.
I would like to see the person who wrote this article, make a movie, no make classics. He seems to know so much about directing movies. Kill Bill Vol. 1&2 are good movies I want to see the critics do better
I would like to see the person who wrote this reply think about the inane shit they’re saying.
So according to your logic; a person can’t have an opinion without first creating something in the same medium as the object or product they are critiquing.
I hope your shitty little comment was rhetorical; because otherwise in order FOR YOU to comment on ME, it would mean you would first have to…
a. set up your own website
b. write your own article
c. illustrate it with a caricature
…in order to qualify your comment.
Take your tongue out of Tarantino’s arse before you write any more contradictory garbage.
And FYI Kill Bill 1 & 2 ARE sub-par movies, but I guess I have to go and make two shitty films which constantly reference B-Movies before I can write this sentence… what a dumb fucking world Julius must live in.
Spot-on with the post. I swear Tarantino is always looking for an excuse to drop the N-Bomb. Pulp Fiction is a decent film but that scene when they are trying to figure out what to do with the body was way too much. It’s almost like he gets off on the word.
So, Tarantino is pretty much a disguised nazi/KKK member. Very informative.
Sigh. It never ceases me to surprise me how some people manage to spin things in a way to make everything seem more offensive or even damaging against some group (usually a socially disfavored one, but that’s not unlike the whine of actual white racist elites and underclass). More than anything, this movie brought to popular attention cruelty in slavery, and perhaps in some ways that historians would even say that can’t be generalized, as if slave owners were first and foremost violent sadists, and not mainly interested in cheap workforce. But no — it’s better to spin that somehow and make it something “anti-minority” and pro-white (even though whites are about to become a minority in the US, if they aren’t already), because that’s the spin that’s really more profitable. “Things aren’t that bad” doesn’t help much one make money or get praise out of exploiting people’s feelings of victimhood (from actual victimization or just from a cult-like brainwashing) or sympathy to actual victimization.
Are you fucking serious? Either you’re reading the census incorrectly, or you’re the disguised Nazi/KKK Member. It may be “predicted” that whites will “lose” the majority in the US by 2043, but that’s an estimate; and that’s a far cry from “becoming the minority” today as you put it. Look anywhere in the US, and you’ll see that it’s overrun with the offspring of imperialist, racist country-stealers. The fact that the richest people in the US are white, the fact that white people control most of the media and entertainment, the government, the police etc. makes your stance completely and utterly idiotic.
Where exactly are you located that you think whites are the minority? White people make more than 77% of the US, and considering the country was originally the Native Americans, maybe they should “become the minority” at some point.
So while you’re sat there jerking off to Tarantino and cumming into a confederate flag, thinking how white society is being overrun, maybe check the facts. The fool who has that kind of opinion about US population is exactly the kind of twat that I assumed would enjoy shit like Django Unchained, and now my suspicions are confirmed.
great, glaze over all his other racist films, defend django and then talk trash about how murica is overrun with blacks/latinos. you really are a douche
Exactly, I show how Tarantino uses racist themes across all of his films and he/she goes off on a racist tangent about American population!
Maybe its mentioned, maybe its not, but lets not forget the overly long long boring pretentious dialogues he sets between characters…ie Kill Bill 2, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs…..and actually there’s nothing intelligent in those dialogues but people just don’t want to admit it.
I agree with pretty much every point in this article, but drop the tone for chrissake. It makes you seem more adolescent than than intelligent, and does your writing no favors.
I am an enigma wrapped in a paradox… I’m both intelligent and adolescent, and it’s that “tone” as you put it; that makes my shit worth reading. That “tone” sets my articles apart from all the no-opinion, non-biased bullshit that fills the internet. Why would I change my USP on the behest of some nobody Yank?
The is no such thing as unbiased.
Your tone makes you articles difficult to take seriously as there is a confusing dichotomy of what I assumed to be satire and what is apparently genuine writing. I second the suggestion of changing the tone of writing so that the points you make are not glazed over by those turned off by your honestly unnecessary use of swear words and child-like combination of lower level structure and upper level vocabulary that makes a tempo of writing that is discordant.
With dearest regards please consider revising your style of writing.
Am I to take stylistic and literary suggestions from someone who misses crucial letters from key words, key words that I may add are within a comment intended to motivate me to adopt a better structure or “style” of writing? I hope you get the motherfucking irony.
With warmest regards from the deepest recesses of my sardonic heart, please consider updating your spell-check.
The philosophy of Quentin is very simple. He makes films for his fans, people who enjoy his work, people who share his perspective. You either love him sooo much or hate him sooo much. He relies on and is a fan of the “cinematic” element of cinema rather than realism. Im a fan of Tarantino and i do enjoy his work and i like reading about his film trivia and references.He is without a doubt a great dialog writer.A character in a film may or may not use the “n” word,he/she may or may not be criminals but that doesnt necessarily mean the writer shares their perspective.The writer creates diverse characters not necessarily reflections of himself so i dont think theres any point in saying “quentin gets of on saying the n word” or “he uses excuses for saying the n word”.We do live in a world where racists who use the n word exist so if a character in a film uses the n word how is the writer perspective responsible for it? Charecters in tarantino films uses the n word because they are racist not because quentin is a racist. I personally consider the n word to be sick and fucked up,i dont use it and i feel uncomfortable when im around people who use it too. BTW nowadays some afro americans use the nword more than racists…….lil wayne.
White people created the word “Nigger” to demean the black race.
Black people tried to take the word back and change the meaning.
Fuck Lil’ Wayne, but if he as a black man wants to say that word; that’s his right. Quentin Tarantino on the other hand is a white man who keeps making films in which pretty much everybody says “Nigger” but nobody says “Honky” or “Cracker”. Have you seen M. Night Shyamalan or Spike Lee make movies where everybody says “Cracker” every two minutes? No, because there is such a thing as white privilege and institutional racism in Hollywood.
Stop sticking up for white people when they use that word; all I’m doing is criticising Tarantino’s films, but you as a minority (judging by your name) want to defend a white man’s use of a racial slur and question my critique? Shows how pro-white entertainment affects people.
Are u saying that charecters in afilm should always be ideal people???
Why don’t you go and hound Quentin Tarantino rather than cluttering up this comment section with your inane babble?
I personally think it is brilliant that you believe only that racism is some sort of ethereal force that always acts and is never used simply for the sake of sending a message or telling story. Racism is a terrible thing however there is a way to use it as a tool to further story telling to either create a more immersive or a satirical representation of real-life uses of racism.
The reason that racism is not as common the other way around in cinema, that is with racism towards white people, is because it is not as common in the real world and is therefore not something that is often touched on as many times Caucasian peoples are often generalized as the ones doing the harm.
Furthermore it is important to counter the false dilemma you created by saying that “white people created the word” as this is not true for several reasons. Firstly, whites are not a unified people that all follow the same lifestyle and beliefs. As well the creation of the word “nigger” was created in the 17th century in the US largely as a result of slave trade as a derogatory term so one can very clearly understand that not a single person is still alive from that time and that statement should be “17th century white slave owners created the word”. However this is not to disregard the racism across all walks of life in the young USA. To continue the discussion of logical fallacies in your writing one could see that the “pro-white” phrase in unsubstantiated as well as many other implied mentions of this notion. You also completely disregard Nirmal’s opinion, or at least create a facade of brushing this comment off your shoulder, on the basis of him being profoundly affected by “pro-white entertainment”. Lastly you cherry pick the examples for you argument without discussing more minority directors and their choices of whether or not to discuss racism towards Caucasians.
One thing to suggest is proof-reading all comments and posts, straying away from swear words unless completely necessary to the statement you are making, ceasing the pun-like word play in titles that puts off a sense of deliberate satire that when clearly not intended off puts the reader to the point of assuming child-like thinking of the author, and try to look at both sides by perhaps discussing the positives of your material that you are critiquing before bashing it entirely.
To quote the author F. Scott Fitzgerald
“intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function”.
Perhaps you should not be so quick to throw away the opposition’s argument.
Wow, I nearly nodded off during that epic, overblown, pompous, largely off-putting comment. One thing I suggest is that you stop considering an article which starts with a giant fuck-off caricature as some kind of College essay for you to pick at with your contrived, post-modernist, reverse-racism-obssessed, pro-white speil.
To quote your dearest, darling, eugenics-loving white sweetheart F. Scott Fitzgerald (when discussing Europe) “The negroid streak creeps northward to defile the Nordic race. Already the Italians have the souls of blackamoors. Raise the bars of immigration and permit only Scandinavians, Teutons, Anglo-Saxons and Celts to enter”. Sounds very similar to Tarantino’s “Sicilian Scene” in True Romance, but we should just glaze over these little titbits of prejudice and wallow in the collective admiration of Caucasian writers.
Honestly, I preferred your brother Richard, he was more eloquent and supportive of left-field ideas.
what indicated hostility??
How is writing “calm down” calling you hostile? You obviously don’t get comedy. Typing “please reply” 2 minutes after you wrote a comment makes you sound a little volatile, anxious, and slightly weird.
HOW IS WRITING PLEASE REPLY MAKE SOMEONE VOLATILE,ANXIOUS AND WIERD?? YOU OBVIOUSLY DONT UNDERSTAND SOMEONES DOUBT ABOUT ACTUALLY RECIEVING A REPLY FROM ARTICLE WRITERS. NOW THAT MAKES YOU DUMB.
You’re the dumb fucking cunt who posted 15 comments within one hour, all of which I had to delete because they were so incoherent and incorrectly spelled… that’s almost the dictionary definition of “volatile, anxious, and weird”.
The reason I deleted your illiterate and shit-stained replies was because I have better things to do than answer your pernickety little comments on every minute nuance of Tarantino/Nolan’s films; It’s obvious that you ‘d love to eat out both their asses. What would be the use in me replying to multiple comments when they’re ALL badly written, missing prepositions, have no basis in reality, and are written by a psychotic fanboy-cocksucker?
And who in their right mind would answer a comment which reads “FUCK YOU AND ALSO YOIUR MOTHER AND YOUR FATHER YOU MOTHERFUCKER”? (And by the way that’s a direct quote; this dick spelled “your” with an “i”). Since you enjoy acting like some school-yard brat… fuck you, your mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, uncles, aunts, and all your cousins too. You petty little prick.
While you’re out there stalking Tarantino and Nolan, jerking off over their autographs, whilst dancing around covered in your own shit, please take the time to look up the words “weird” and “volatile” in the dictionary.
Now piss off, you mentally ill, deranged, certifiable cunt.
Surprise, surprise, your lame dipshit arse thought it was clever to go on Google, search for some “Your Momma” disses, cut, copy, and then paste them into several comments (which I’ve also deleted).
Changing your screen name to include the words “if someone gives you a proper reply that you cant counter you dont let them post it here” is the dumbest thing yet, especially since I’ve answered several of your so-called “replies” here, in the Nolan, and in the Interstellar article.
You asked about the N Word and I answered
You talked about respect for a Director and I replied
You asked about the planets in Interstellar which I answered
You then commented on my opinion of Actors and I answered
How much fucking attention do you want?
Plus your latest spate of spam proves that you clearly need psychiatric help. Is it because you have the word “mad” in your surname, or is it because the name “Nirmal” is just shy of “Normal”?
Don’t fight it, just take the Thorazine.
so this guy sent you disses, and thats after he said “NO ONE IS OBLIGED TO LIKE ANYONE,BUT THERE IS THIS THING CALLED RESPECT” wot a fucking retard
The fucking moronic cunt also said “I disagree with many of your opinions but i never insulted you nor did i resort to name calling”, then he spams my shit with like a hundred fucking comments, all of them insulting. Shows what kind of mindless, contradicting, tits Quentin Tarantino attracts (and Christopher Nolan for that matter).
“Weinstein’s bitch” ???? You do have the right to criticize, but that doesnt sentence sound like criticism to me.Its nothing but a straight out assault on someone you hate. 😦 “NO ONE IS OBLIGED TO LIKE ANYONE,BUT THERE IS THIS THING CALLED RESPECT”…………..I disagree with many of your opinions but i never insulted you nor did i resort to name calling.
Fuck respect. That’s my style.
Your style lacks manners and that is distasteful and honestly sophomoric.
Shit, I had to look up “sophomoric”
FYI: sticking up for Nirmal in two of your replies is unfortunate since he went psycho a few days later. Being on the side of a fanatic, especially a spamming fanatic is never a good idea.
Look, the vast majority of responders here punched in something like “Quentin Tarantino is overrated” on google, as you know, and that’s what I did, and we can all agree with that sentiment… because we already do, and that’s how we all got here. Preaching to the choir, as they say.
That being said, In my opinion, you are making too much of this racism theory. Here is a point in fact that completely contradicts it: Quentin Tarantino is not a racist individual. You may preceive that his “white privilege” has diluted his “imperialist country stealing, offspring” mind, and blinded him from realizing that his work is racist, despite his not being so in any way. However, that is a really unfair poistion to take and a tad moronic. Unless you actually beleive that the man is a racist white supremacist, and that the racism, that you preceive, is intentional. In that case, you are simply mistaken, and diluted by your extreme leftist white guilt or, if you are a person of color, your misguided paranoid victim mentality.
Basicly, you have derailed your own blog topic and turned it into another dumb race relations debate. Here’s a tip, forget all of your tired, regurgitated talking points on the plight of the black man in 2015. Making yourselves out to be a bunch of cry baby, overly sensitive bitches never helps build sympathy anyway. Life ain’t easy for nobody on this side of fence, but don’t let that hold you back. Instead, you could at least keep your blogs on point and not ambush your readers with a sensationalized racist spin, because the man is clearly not that. Warped maybe, but not racist.
you write about racism in films and this sucka brings up”plight of the black man”?!?!?! fucking white people
in my opinion tarantino probably isnt racist but his films damn sure are
If he made one movie without any racial slurs, I’d agree.
I love this website and I find your articles truly enlightening but I have to disagree with you on a few points. Tarantino’s movies are pretty much about the sick, twisted, and depraved, aspects of society; that entails racism. In the case of Django, while the two white characters, Dr. Schultz and Calvin, do take the spotlight, those two crackers die. It shows the white mans barbarity, hidden behind a facade of civilized manners; (I.E. Passive aggressive handshakes.) they end up killing each other. Django then gets to kill all of the white people and the Uncle Tom character.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
The one time I can remember the inappropriate and jarring use of the word nigger in a Tarantino film is the scene where Tarantino himself plays a character asking Jules if he saw the sign: “dead nigger storage.” What the hell was up with that? Like you said, no white man would have the gall to talk like that. It was pointless.
I don’t think Tarantino is racist and I don’t think his film is a rhetoric on race issues in America. His films are not to be taken seriously. They are comedic, fun and over the top. He even made fun of Marvin getting his head blown off in Pulp Fiction.
His new film, The Hateful Eight, set in 1865, has Samuel L Jackson playing as a famous bounty hunter who makes the son of a famous confederate general, strip butt naked and get down on his knees and suck his dick, whom is then left for dead to freeze to death. Later, Jackson’s character gets to kill off the famous father. That’s pretty damn far from pro white. It’s also the antithesis to the current formulaic, pro-white, super hero, movies. This is showing white people in a bad light.
I take your point, although I’ll have to watch The Hateful Eight and Kill Bill Vol. 3 to see if his movies continue in the same vein.
This article is hilarious. Tarantino’s style seems so far from anything you would want, one would think you wrote this article just to stir up his fans. It’s also unfairly one-sided.
About Django Unchained: I feel you don’t fully understand Christoph Waltz’s role. He pretty much made Inglorious Basterds work, and Tarantino even said he was going to pull the script if he didn’t find the right actor for Hans Landa’s role. He is easily the best actor in Django Unchained, it wouldn’t make any sense if Django was competing in terms of dialogue. Django was also glorified, Dr. King Schultz was killed and Django outwitted slavers to return and rescue his wife. You have no issue claiming that Jamie Foxx didn’t say much, but you seem to conveniently leave out this detail. Waltz’s character is also a die hard abolitionist, who was willing to pay for a slave’s freedom on Candie’s plantation, and freed several others. If Waltz is the main focus of this movie as you believe, his role is definitely a positive one.
I also find it funny how you criticize the way slaves walk on Candie’s plantation. The slaves could easily have been walking quickly to avoid being whipped. We see a slave get eaten by a dog for disobedience right after that sequence. And if you criticize the way the slaves walk for being “unrealistic,” why do you then claim you would like to see blacks educated and talk more, because this film “isn’t realistic.” It seems you’re a bit conflicted on what you want. Worth mentioning: Django’s ankle is completely deformed when the Dr. frees him, who calls it “some nasty business.”
Also, the Kill BIll anime sequence was in Part 1, not 2. So I guess you wrote this article long after seeing either film.
I really couldn’t give a toss what Tarantino’s fans think, I wrote this because this is my opinion, not to “stir” you up.
It’s pretty evident that you didn’t read the article properly. Where did I say I wanted “to see blacks educated and talk more”? You’ve muddled up two different parts together. What I said was; if Broomhilda is taught German then she should be able to speak the language correctly (a German commenter confirmed she spoke properly) however the subtitles read “I don’t got any friends” which is poor grammar and an obvious dig at black slave-speak from Tarantino.
Also if a slave who cannot read and write knows the “D” from his name is silent, the script doesn’t make any sense anyway, so why can’t Jamie Foxx’s character have something more memorable to say? Amongst all the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the film, why wouldn’t it “make any sense if Django was competing in terms of dialogue”? This isn’t wanting “to see blacks educated and talk more” it’s two completely different things. The fact that the white characters have all the best lines in a Western where there’s lame Hip-Hop playing in the background, it’s obviously not realistic, so why do the conventions of bad grammer and being uneducated have to remain since the slaves walked in a contemporary way? Surely these two points are synonymous with each other.
This has nothing to do with the plot about Django rescuing his wife at the end, the film is called “Django Unchained” anybody with any sense knows the ending of the film before it begins, although in such an unrealistic movie, why does the plot device of being “rescued” by a white man have to occur first in order for Django to achieve this goal? This was another occasion where someone white (Tarantino) acknowledges slavery as being abhorrent but at the same time gives all the praise to a “moral” white man who frees the black slave, if the film is so unrealistic why does the hand of bondage and the hand of freedom lay with white people? This is an obvious case of superiority and self-glorification, I guess imagination and fantasy only takes precedence over reality when it comes to Caucasians.
Tarantino wishes he was black PERIOD
couldn’t agree more
you can defend one film, maybe two for the characters using the n word, but several films all using the word and thats racism. it really bothers me when brothers like sam jackson defend this dude. he must love being the house nigger outside of the movies smh
I agree it’s time for Tarantino to just take a break from making films don’t retire yet but at least go back to his roots, fix your dialogues better storytelling and directing that way it’s not too offensive. But what I don’t get is why is Hollywood is obsessed with making movies about the past for that’s my question?(I mean come on we have a black president and we seeing films about slavery and butler shit again what gives) why can’t it be about the future and I don’t mean space crap but something where Black and white people can get along together without using or seeing violence as a means to bring folks together.
After seeing him at the anti police brutality rally I found myself agreeing with Tarantino for once. Typically the right are labelling him as anti police and the police are even threatening to avoid or boycott his latest movie, as usual in this country we are slowly moving toward the suppression of first amedment rights.
Maybe I’m a cynic, but don’t you think that it’s more than a coincidence that Tarantino aligns himself with Black Lives Matter before releasing The Hateful Eight? I haven’t seen the movie yet but by most accounts it heavily uses the N word (again) without balance or reason, so to have the respect of black American liberals prior to the release of H8ful Eight to me is just placating any potential backlash before it occurs.
I think I’m somewhat alone in my opinion that either Tarantino or just his movies or both have no soul.
I liked Reservoir Dogs, but everything else – meh. Sure, I watched Pulp Fiction, multiple times even, it definitely had its moments (and how), but to say that his films are moving – I honestly couldn’t. Entertaining? Sure. Enjoyable? Most of them mostly or at least somewhat are. Trendy and stylish? Yes. But they have no soul, no heart, just the cardboard cut-out characters. They evoke no profound emotion. It feels like the entire duration of most films is spent in pursuit of a clever catch phrase soon to become infamous or a cool scene to be deemed “iconic” but not much else. All style and no substance.
Another problem that I have with his movies is how racism of the characters is completely gratuitous. So we are told “Okay, this character is racist, that’s why he said X and did Y”. But is the racism of his characters adds anything to those characters, to their development, to the plot or to the storyline? Is it crucial to the plot or the storyline? Is the movie itself specifically about racism or prejudice where it’s needed to showcase the racist characters’ prejudice? Is it Rosewood, American History X or School Ties where racism and prejudice are the entire premise of the movie and the horrendous things that racist characters say and do are necessary for the plot? The answer to all of those questions is No. So my question is why the fuck is it there?
I completely agree. There is usually no rhyme or reason for the almost constant racial epithets used by the white characters. It adds nothing to the plot and more importantly it’s never balanced.
It seems very one-sided that every white character has excuses ranging from “that’s their lingo”, “that’s realistic”, “that’s how they talk”, to “that’s the time they’re from”, but conversely a minority character is never allowed to use a single derogatory term against a white character.
That’s an extremely prejudicial, so-called “artistic” choice for Quentin Tarantino to make as a WHITE writer.
Pulp Fiction is one of the most overrated movies ever. Everyone praises the shit of this movie, but is it worthy of praise? People will probably mention the non-linear narrative, but non-linear narratives have been done long before Tarantino even picked up a camera and the non-linear narrative was done to much better effect in Magnolia. But even with the non-linear narrative, the stories are completely basic. They are nothing groundbreaking. But the biggest problem is the racism. Not four minutes in and Tim Roth’s character was already using the words “Gook” and “Wetback”. The white characters were constantly using the word “nigger” and it was completely unbalanced. The racism doesn’t add anything to the narrative. I genuinely believe that Quentin Tarantino is subconsciously racist and no one critic has called him out on it.
The DIALOGUE abukar, that’s what makes Pulp Fiction a fucking awesome movie. It takes domestic scenes, and makes them special. It takes intense/violent scenes and/or characters and somehow makes them seem domestic, familiar, relatable. Writing is everything in a movie; a whole movie can take place in a closet, but if the script is solid, it will still be a killer movie, and Tarantino used to have it in spades … now not so much. Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, Pulp Fiction … as well as some fleeting moments in Kill Bill. It pains me, because every movie he makes now has at least one scene or character that has a quality reminiscent of the old stuff: The opening interrogation in Inglorious, Sam Jackson in Django, the first half of hateful eight up until the stupid Agatha Christie twist; but those moments are short lived. I can’t even pinpoint what it is I dislike so much about his recent stuff. It’s just very comical, or immature? They’re exactly like modern video games; lots of action and gore, and shock value – all amounting to zip. There’s no depth, no familiarity.
If you watchTarintino closely in any behind the scenes or interview you can see he has a abnormality. Very close to retardism. Find any interview and observe carfully.
Then what do you think of the opening scene of Inglorious Basterds? Do you think that Quentin Tarantino is masterful in creating suspense and tension in a long period of time?
There’s this channel on YouTube called Lessons From The Screenplay that analysed and broke down this whole opening scene from Inglorious Basterds as well as another scene and the person even claim that this is the best work Tarantino has done.
Here’s the link to the video. Curious to know what will be your perspective: https://youtu.be/AvtOY0YrF-g
Didn’t watch the whole thing. Yes, that scene was the best part of the movie but it’s not the greatest suspense scene, the effectiveness of it is largely due to Christoph Waltz’ acting. Tarantino is no Hitchcock, De Palma, or John Schlesinger, his expertise was and is the writing (the conversation between characters) rather than creating any kind of mood with his camera work. I personally have never felt any kind of “thrill” (or feeling of anything for that matter) when watching his films. Whilst I’m at it, I’d say movies such as Fight Club and Trainspotting did the whole “witty conversation” much better than him. All in all I think he’s one of the most overrated directors of modern times.
He worked at a video store, blew someone and got a film job. His movies are juvenile violence feats which some chickenhawk from his past touted as a reward. Smug little queen who takes himself and his art (loosely used here) way too seriously. If you think he’s a great director, contact the afi and recommend Lego Batman be put on the 100 best films list