Quentin Tarentino

[MichiganJ]

Tarentino based his script on the Elmore Leonard novel, Rum Punch. Like most of his novels, Rum Punch is very dialogue driven, and Tarentino lifted a great deal directly from the novel. (Spicing it up with his own, too.) The DeNiro and Fonda characters have a slightly larger role in the novel, but are very necessary if your story depends on dialogue--you need someone to talk to. The genius of Tarentino is that he turned Leonard's main character, Jackie Burke--a 44-year old white woman (but equally hard as nails) into Jackie Brown, the comeback role for Pam Grier. I actually do see a relationship of sorts between Brown and Max Cherry, but it certainly isn't overt. This, too, is carried over from the novel. There's a hint of romance, but nothing more.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Yes, many directors would have changed the ending, having Jackie and Max walk off into the sunset, but they remain true to their principals, which I think is the heart of the film. While the other characters are undone by greed and avarice (one of them simply for a plate of waffles!), Jackie and Max struggle to live on morals and ethics, which is why they survive. Or as a wise man once said:

The good person loves people and uses things, while the bad person loves things and uses people.--Sidney J. Harris

[mrsl]

After reading all these glorious tributes, I will again be the crank who admits I Don't get him at all. I haven't seen the new one, but his others were a waste of time and energy to me. If you're still reading, I felt he was some kind of a whack job and seeing him in person on the nightly talk shows nearly confirmed my suspicion. He's almost as frightening as Stephen King in person, fact is, they resemble each other.

Sorry but I believe his ideas are part of the reason we have so much junk on the screen today. He's leading the way, and other directors took up his banner, while people paid to see his exploitive movies.

Edited by Mrs. L because I was a little too harsh for no reason.

[Ollie]

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this article in THE ONION.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/ne ... =a-section

(I wish I could remember the command structure to paste a topic-name onto the link itself. Sorry! And I certainly hope readers know what THE ONION is all about.)

[klondike]

HAWWWW!
Ollie, I loved it!
And I'm willing to bet that when the Big Q himself reads it, he'll howl with unabashed glee.
(And hopefully, NOT start writing a first-draft treatment.)
The only downside here? Some totally pneumatic-minded geek ultra-fan is probably scouring the net even now, desperately seeking some brief mention of a release date!

[mrsl]

Ollie:

Since you assume everybody knows what the Onion is, please tell this obviously politically incorrect person what it is about.

Since I have yet to see anything I like from Tarantino, I fail to understand his popularity. For one thing, he uses the least attractive people in his movies. The older Brad PItt gets, the more he loses his looks, and Uma Thurman has got to be the plainest, least attractive female ever to 'grace' a movie screen. Naturally if you look at Tarantino, you can understand why none of his actors believe in washing their hair, and prefer the greasy dirty kids' look. He doesn't need pyro-technics in his movies, or CGI, just looking at his actors can give nightmares. :!:

[Mr. Arkadin]

For one thing, he uses the least attractive people in his movies. The older Brad PItt gets, the more he loses his looks, and Uma Thurman has got to be the plainest, least attractive female ever to 'grace' a movie screen. Naturally if you look at Tarantino, you can understand why none of his actors believe in washing their hair, and prefer the greasy dirty kids' look. He doesn't need pyro-technics in his movies, or CGI, just looking at his actors can give nightmares. :!:

I'd like to think in this day and age we're beyond judging people by their appearance, choosing to focus on ability instead. Nevertheless, I'm surprised that anyone would find Pam Grier ugly.

[mrsl]

Pam Grier is from the old group, I'm talking about the new ones. I'm sorry Arky but judging by looks is, I agree, low and beneath me, but it doesn't take a lot of money to wash your hair and have it clean looking especially when you're going to be on live with Letterman or O'Brien. That's the judgement I was making. His hair looked like it had not been washed in two weeks, and I groaned each time he reached up to push it out of his eyes thinking how greasy his hand was getting.

I'm not necessarily knocking physical looks that can't be helped, but think of Gable and Cooper and how they looked as they aged. Brad is not forming attractive ruggedness like they did. He's getting soft and blubbery. Again, I'm sorry Ark, but I'm used to my actresses looking like, yes, Pam Grier (prettier than your average girl next door). Out of all the newbies, Uma Thurman and Cate Blanchett both leave a lot to be desired if you're looking for glamour. Even all muddy and dirty, much as I dislike Nicole Kidman, her beauty still shone through in Cold Mountain. If you're really honest, you'll admit there are some actors/actresses who you personally cannot understand how they ever got their first film job.

[MichiganJ]

I'm not necessarily knocking physical looks that can't be helped, but think of Gable and Cooper and how they looked as they aged. Brad is not forming attractive ruggedness like they did. He's getting soft and blubbery. Again, I'm sorry Ark, but I'm used to my actresses looking like, yes, Pam Grier (prettier than your average girl next door). Out of all the newbies, Uma Thurman and Cate Blanchett both leave a lot to be desired if you're looking for glamour. Even all muddy and dirty, much as I dislike Nicole Kidman, her beauty still shone through in Cold Mountain. If you're really honest, you'll admit there are some actors/actresses who you personally cannot understand how they ever got their first film job.

Because acting is all about looks.

[Mr. Arkadin]

If you're really honest, you'll admit there are some actors/actresses who you personally cannot understand how they ever got their first film job.

I think that's a question everybody asks of certain actors, but in my case it's usually from the premise of acting ability. I personally find more people in the acting profession who are chosen for roles because of their looks rather than any talent they might have (I'd rather not name names here, but can if called upon). I would rather see a great performance than a good looking body/face on a set.

While I have never been a Brad Pitt fan, I'm not going to judge a man (or woman) on how they age, because in many cases we're talking about something entirely out of their hands (unless they are receiving cosmetic surgery). Mitchum aged pretty badly in my personal opinion (probably due to his drinking and hard living), but he was still a great actor, making some great films. Lillian Gish from early silent roles, to her later talking works is simply amazing and in films like Night of the Hunter (1950), I still find her beautiful because of the wonderful job she does with her character. Looks come and go, but talent is what produces longevity.

As for Tarantino, I'll agree, he's not a photogenic guy and we don't share the same taste in hair care products or clothes, but he spends most of his time (except for a cameo or two) behind the camera. In this sense, I'm more concerned with his product than personal appearance. I understand your feelings about his work, because there are many artists highly praised on this board and many others with whom I find no personal connection. That's only natural as we're all different people from different backgrounds and walks of life. If someone could make a single film that appealed to everyone, there would be fewer movies to choose from and I don't consider that a good thing.

[srowley75]

After reading all these glorious tributes, I will again be the crank who admits I Don't get him at all. I haven't seen the new one, but his others were a waste of time and energy to me.

I must admit I'm very curious as to which of his films you have seen.

I felt he was some kind of a whack job and seeing him in person on the nightly talk shows nearly confirmed my suspicion. He's almost as frightening as Stephen King in person, fact is, they resemble each other. Sorry but I believe his ideas are part of the reason we have so much junk on the screen today. He's leading the way, and other directors took up his banner, while people paid to see his exploitive movies.

I know I'm probably fighting a lost cause, but to judge simply from a 5-7 minute appearance on Letterman or The Tonight Show is quite unfair. Pardon my segue, but I'd bet my life savings that 90% of the people on this list would believe me a crackpot or an idiot if they ever met me in person. I suffer from severe agoraphobia and tend to tremble and stutter when meeting new people, especially people that I think will judge me too harshly by my looks or because of my behavior. I was a loner in high school and had only one genuine friend throughout most of my undergraduate college career. I tended to drown myself in film and television as a means of escape, something I probably would not have done if I'd known more about therapies or counselors that might've reversed my course in life (unfortunately, my parents were fundamentalists who believed more Christianity was the answer). And if anyone I met professed an interest in film, I usually stuttered and stammered from overexcitement because I wanted so badly to talk to someone else who seemed cinema literate. All that to say that while I know little about Tarantino's early life, I might venture a guess that perhaps he experienced a very similar background, and habits and characteristics acquired early in life can be difficult to alter even if you acquire friends and success later on. I know that often during his TV appearances, he gives me the impression that his enthusiasm for what he does is so great that often he becomes inarticulate (as he did a few times during the TCM Elvis Mitchell special). And his knowledge of film isn't at all confined only to the grindhouse and drive-in fare (though if it were there'd be nothing wrong with that), and his films testify to that. The fact that he still praises the work of directors like John Ford and actors like John Wayne (even though much of their work seems to have fallen from favor with the young film fans of today) should endear him to you even if you're not a fan of his work.

.For one thing, he uses the least attractive people in his movies. The older Brad PItt gets, the more he loses his looks, and Uma Thurman has got to be the plainest, least attractive female ever to 'grace' a movie screen. Naturally if you look at Tarantino, you can understand why none of his actors believe in washing their hair, and prefer the greasy dirty kids' look. He doesn't need pyro-technics in his movies, or CGI, just looking at his actors can give nightmares.

I'm sorry Arky but judging by looks is, I agree, low and beneath me, but it doesn't take a lot of money to wash your hair and have it clean looking especially when you're going to be on live with Letterman or O'Brien. That's the judgement I was making. His hair looked like it had not been washed in two weeks, and I groaned each time he reached up to push it out of his eyes thinking how greasy his hand was getting.

I'm not necessarily knocking physical looks that can't be helped, but think of Gable and Cooper and how they looked as they aged. Brad is not forming attractive ruggedness like they did. He's getting soft and blubbery. Again, I'm sorry Ark, but I'm used to my actresses looking like, yes, Pam Grier (prettier than your average girl next door). Out of all the newbies, Uma Thurman and Cate Blanchett both leave a lot to be desired if you're looking for glamour. Even all muddy and dirty, much as I dislike Nicole Kidman, her beauty still shone through in Cold Mountain. If you're really honest, you'll admit there are some actors/actresses who you personally cannot understand how they ever got their first film job.

I really can't say that I give a damn about any of this, though part of me finds some of it appalling. I suppose Charles Laughton and Marie Dressler each could've lost a few pounds, and Bette Davis and Kate Hepburn were hardly bathing beauties. And yet I can't imagine what film history would've been like had they all worked in a tile factory instead of a movie studio (and given the emphasis on looks in contemporary Hollywood, I venture to guess that all 4 would be ignored by a modern casting director). By contrast and with all due respect, I don't think the same loss would be felt if Robert Taylor, Sharon Stone, Lana Turner, Rhonda Fleming, Betty Grable, or Jane Russell never worked a single day. I again think of the 1954 A Star is Born, when ingenue Esther Blodgett is scheduled for a screen test and the technicians make her over to look like every other cheap, vacuous starlet in Hollywood. And then Norman Maine arrives and takes her backstage and wipes the goo from her face.

With regard to the "greasy kids' look" of today, I'd say we can look back to the 1950s for a primer in "greasiness." Wasn't that the pomade decade?

... I was a little too harsh for no reason.

On that we can agree.

[Dewey1960]

Thank you, Stephen for the most brilliant, poignant and insightful post ever recorded on this site.

[klondike]

Yeah, OK, nice job, Steve - you can use the car this weekend after all; just don't get a big head over it, alright?

[mrsl]

All Right, instead of saying 'Spoiler Alert', I preface my post with 'I'll be the crank', or something similar. I knew there would be people who disagreed with me, but for heavens sake is Tarentino your brother, that you have to defend the fact that he doesn't wash his hair? Even if he can't do it himself, he has enough money to go to the barber to have it done, I'm sure.

Yes Srowley 75, Mitchum did age badly because of his hard life and drinking. I don't know what it is with Pitt but he just doesn't have the charm he had a year ago in photos. If you don't think Bette Davis and Kate Hepburn were lovely when they were in their twenties, you ought to revisit some of their first movies. But on the other hand, that is your opinion of them, I find Tarantino unappealing, so what, that's my opinion.

I have seen Pulp Fiction about 3/4 through and turned it off, also Kill Bill (1 not 2) with another early exit. I've said many times, when people on this board talk about a certain person or movie, I make sure I see those works more than once to see if my opinion can be changed. In many cases it has changed. I still dislike Citizen Kane and always will, but I have always been under the impression that this was a free thinking board and opinions were permitted whether agreed to or not. I am not a first grader who likes someone because they like some one else as in; "You can't be my friend if you're her friend."

If I start a paragraph by deriding myself, that should be a clue to you that you are not going to like what I say depending on the subject, because it generally means I'm going to be the spoiler.

[Mr. Arkadin]

Yes Srowley 75, Mitchum did age badly because of his hard life and drinking. I don't know what it is with Pitt but he just doesn't have the charm he had a year ago in photos.

Actually that was me.

I knew there would be people who disagreed with me, but for heavens sake is Tarentino your brother, that you have to defend the fact that he doesn't wash his hair? Even if he can't do it himself, he has enough money to go to the barber to have it done, I'm sure. I have seen Pulp Fiction about 3/4 through and turned it off, also Kill Bill (1 not 2) with another early exit. I've said many times, when people on this board talk about a certain person or movie, I make sure I see those works more than once to see if my opinion can be changed. In many cases it has changed. I still dislike Citizen Kane and always will, but I have always been under the impression that this was a free thinking board and opinions were permitted whether agreed to or not.

No one is suggesting that you should not have your say, but are instead responding with their own opinions in an exchange of free thinking just as you have expressed your own thoughts. I think most people are shocked by the fact that you are judging people by their appearance and using harsh language to do so. If you don't like Tarantino's (or any person's) work, fine, but to use your standard, John Ford and Nicholas Ray would be a couple of cyclops, Alfred Hitchcock would be a fat, bald, sloth, etc. Is this how we should evaluate a person, or is it simply cruel? Following your logic, perhaps we should all post our pictures and vote on who is worthy to post here.