You may or may not have caught this piece on Quentin Tarantino in Sunday’s New York Times magazine. Overall, it’s a fairly flimsy Cannes-oriented interview that serves mainly as an accompaniment to some pretty pictures (very pretty, in the case of the Diane Kruger shots), but two of QT’s statements jumped out at me.
In the first, he (fairly, I think) defends his decision to hand “Fahrenheit 9/11” the Palme d’Or in 2004 as a reward for being “a movie of the moment” — but when the conversation turns to “Inglourious Basterds,” he offers up this line:
NYT: On this movie, you worked very quickly. Was that partially to have the film ready in time for Cannes?
QT: Yes. I wanted to have a masterpiece before the decade’s out.
I’ll let slide the overweening pride of Tarantino’s statement for a moment — partly because, as many misgivings as I personally have about the new film, it’s that brash confidence that also gave birth to a genuine masterpiece like “Pulp Fiction.” Largely, however, it’s because I detect a note of cryptic self-deprecation there.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into his wording. But the use of the indefinite article “a” rather than, say, “another,” intrigues me. Is he admitting that, “Basterds” aside, he hasn’t made a masterpiece this decade? If so, on behalf of “Kill Bill: Vol. 1” — and only that, I hasten to add — I’d like to disagree.
Comments
10 responses to “Just the one, then?”
Having interviewed the man a couple of times, I can say I admire his films but that also he has never found a mirror he doesn’t like — massive ego, and I mean massive — yep, ‘Pulp Fiction” is superb, changed the course of indy film, and is a great American film, but is this guy on the level of Scorsese, Allen, Spielberg, Coppola, Soderbergh, or Cronenberg? I think not — and they are wonderful, humble men — the air sort of goes out of the room when Coppola walks because you are in the presence of greatness, Tarantino does not have that effect…period. He talks, and talks, and jabbers and is wildly energetic and clearly loves film, but he loves himself much, much more…If anything his ego was off putting…
His massive ego has always been his worst trait — always looking in mirrors — have interviewed the man, and though I love his films, an interview with him is treated like you are meeting God, which he is not — the man is not Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, PT Anderson, Allen, or Soderbergh is he?? They may be confident, but not ego-maniacs…
inglorious basterds looks great but to poppy to be a master piece, Im a huge Tarantino fan and I think Pulp Fiction is a better movie then anything soderbergh or(dont kill me) coppola has ever made. And foote Id love for you to add peter jackson to that list of greats you got going up there
Finally someone has the balls to put PTA in a list where he belongs. Thanks John.
Shades of Billy Walsh?
Guy none of his output this decade has been actual movies not presented in a non gimmicky fashion.
Kill Bill – split in two.
Death Proof – not a real stand alone film but exsiting as apart of Grindhouse.
IB will stand alone without those gimmicks to sell tickets. A singular experience like JB, PF, RD.
Flawed logic — by that rationale, none of the “Lord of the Rings” films are “actual movies” either. (I’m no fan, but I’d never deny their validity.)
Never seen them but are they all just one long movie?
Did he forget that he made Kill Bill Volume Two?
Still can’t say I am excited for his new movie. At all.