I’m not claiming to know [Quentin Tarantino] personally either, but I know enough of him to assert that he simply makes the sort of movies he wants to see, and that the Hitchcock likening of films as “slices of cake” are more apt to his Tarantino’s filmography than any of that vitriol. He’s infectiously in love with the movies, he writes terrific dialogue and he does what makes him happy. You’re basically pistol-whipping a puppy when you so harshly attack a guy like that.
Commenter Robert Cameron, in response to yesterday’s item concerning a Jeffrey Wells skewering of Quentin Tarantino and “Inglourious Basterds.”
Comments
One response to “Agree or disagree? (Take 2)”
To be honest, I have never found Quentin Tarantino’s work to be anything truly special warranting taking him seriously as an “artist”.
He’s an entertainer, like his contemporary Robert Rodriguez, and one of his favorites, Russ Meyer.
His first three films dabbled in thinking, read: not adolescent and outrageous, but he’s clearly not interested in making films like those anymore, he just wants to make fun ripoffs, which is fine.
Sergio Leone made his name on ripoffs of Kurosawa pictures. I guess when you consider that Tarantino has made his name on ripoffs of movies that teens and casual film fans have never heard of, people might be tiffed that instead of recognizing the “homage” (vom), they think that they’re Tarantino’s ideas. But I don’t really give a shit.
These “commentators” are really taking Tarantino too seriously, just as he probably takes himself too seriously, given the films he makes.
His films aren’t quite fast food, but they’re certainly entrees from a cheesy novelty sit-down chain.