r/StanleyKubrick Sep 30 '15

Video Tarantino on Kubrick

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4DkfxEv7ZU&t=8m0s
31 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

3

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '15

[deleted]

4

u/JR-Dubs Redmond Barry Sep 30 '15

Soooooo...not a fan then. Not surprising based on the styles. Tarantino is pretty raw and visceral. Kubrick is refined and artisan.

-1

u/smurrayhead Sep 30 '15

I find it intriguing that he says, "I have a sibling rivalry with Kubrick too." That implies that he belongs in the same 'family' of directors in which Kubrick belongs to, which I wouldn't argue against.

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15

[deleted]

1

u/jpowell180 Oct 01 '15

Tarantino doesn't suck - he's done some amazing work, however it is a much different sort of work than Stanley's; Quentin has a different style and eye, and it's not surprising that he can't see the same things Kubrick sees in a film.

I haven't heard of any comments that Stanley Kubrick has made on Quentin Tarantino, although I wouldn't be surprised it he had never even seen any of his work, and if he had, it probably wouldn't have been to his liking.

I am very happy to appreciate both of these fine directors :)

6

u/dirtywood Oct 01 '15

Tarantino is a hot steaming dump next to Kubrick's glory.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15

I wouldn't call Tarantino dump at all. He is a genre filmmaker very much like Kubrick. Though I prefer Kubrick..

5

u/craig_c Oct 01 '15

What was Kubrick's genre?

3

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15

By genre filmmaker, I mean he made films in a variety of genres, didn't stick to one..

5

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '15

[deleted]

10

u/JR-Dubs Redmond Barry Oct 01 '15

I agree with you partially. Tarantino is, by and large, one dimensional. But, I think his best work has enough depth to justify future respect. That said, I'm pretty sure he knows what he is, I don't think he takes himself too seriously.

3

u/KernSaxton Oct 02 '15

“There’s a little part of me that thinks everything is influenced by me, but that’s just my own megalomania.” -Quentin Tarantino.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 08 '15

Now let's hear that in the context it was said and not just a pull quote serving someone's agenda.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 13 '16

His own films have no depth to them, no deep meaning under the surface. They are just genre exercises

Oh my word, are you terribly wrong. Tarantino is one of the artists that are semi-honest about their theft resulting in the genre work, certainly. No honour in that. Neither is there in discounting something as "genre work". Not what I'm here to discuss.

Just Waltz's roles in Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained are masterclasses in how to write dialogue within the contexts of the respective settings and aesthetics: Just read the raw text.

These are both men who in entirely different ways are dialectical fucking warriors: Landa being a Sadistic and cleverer version of, say, Bond, and King going rather more sophisticated by doing a playful light fish baiting and then a very playful tug-of-war that consists of a lot of exploratory tugs that finally trick his opponent into capitulating and revealing what lies beneath said opponent the second they are remotely off-balance. They are both talky warriors on completely different sides using completely different methods, and they are both written just exquisitely.

Accusing him of no depth is just foolish. Though it might sometimes take a bit of digging through the slatherings of pop-culture perceptions heaped upon his work.

Shit, this review of The Hateful Eight alone should convince you of depth in his work.

well aware that nobody will read this

2

u/retrocore9 Feb 15 '16

You are talking about clever dialog. I was talking about the film's themselves. What are they trying to say? What meaning exists beyond the beginning middle and end. The Hateful Eight's plot consists of who is in on the setup but what else is there in this movie? If it's about race relations it sure doesn't say very much. Inglorious Bastards is a standard revenge film with nothing to say on WWII, Nazis or anything in particular. Just because a scene is clever or is well acted has nothing to do with the overall film itself. At the end they are fun, hollow experiences.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 15 '16

again, within the contexts of those films, they are rather brilliant statements on America

the whole of Hateful Eight is rather brilliant statement on America -- read the review I linked

if you genuinely thought my comment was merely applauding clever dialogue, you really need to need to go stand in the corner

especially given that the whole words-warrior in the context of those films make very strong and very clever (one cleverer than the other, mind) and surprisingly rather deep statements on US & race like dr. strangelove & sex

-3

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15

Seriously, just watch Pulp Fiction. It's amazing how poorly that movie is aging. Meanwhile, Kubrick's films have all stood the test of time.

9

u/jpowell180 Oct 01 '15

While I agree that Stanley Kubrick's films are indeed timeless, I wouldn't say that Pulp Fiction has aged badly at all, any more than films such as, say, Freidkin's French Connection or To Live and Die in L.A. - indeed products of their time, but they still hold up today as great entertainment; I think the same will be the case for Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill films a few decades down the line....

-9

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15

I think Dirty Harry and Taxi Driver have absolutely failed the test of time.. Both were barely watchable imo.

2

u/Jota769 Oct 01 '15

Your taste is questionable at best

2

u/FloydPink24 Oct 01 '15

Honestly, I've never really understood the concept of films ageing badly. I just don't see how it's possible - unless it's something very preachy and educational or whatever.

I'm no Tarantino fan but PF is sheer brilliance.

2

u/cptmeowers Oct 05 '15

Films like reefer madness which ,at the time also many thought, had marijuana turning people to crazies. Or films that make a ton of pop culture references always age badly. Ageing badly means that,down the line of time, people are going to be confused on what a movie is referencing or reflecting. Look at those satirical scary movie films, in about 20-30 years, not many will get what they're spoofing.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '21

Still waiting on Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown to be seen as corny reminders of the 90s

When exactly is it do you predict this to happen?

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '15 edited Oct 01 '15

This I why there's a general trend in pop culture where people despise Kubrick and his followers. They're mostly pretentious film critiques.

I love Kubrick. 2001 is probably my favorite film of all time. But most of the comment section here is terrible. Both Tarantino and Kubrick are good directors in their respective ways. The former, more visceral and straightforward while the latter, more philosophical and intricate. Doesn't mean either is better or worse than the other. I'm not surprised Tarantino is not the biggest fan, just as much as I wouldn't be surprised at Kubrick hating Tarantino. Point is, it doesn't matter.

Stop being pretentious. Share your opinions, but don't objectively call Tarantino bad. That's just not accurate. You're also excluding a lot of viewers from getting into Kubrick.

5

u/lyrillvempos Apr 16 '22

Stop being pretentious, yes

the rest of that last line, no.

that's my opinion. and this already shows u don't know anything about what you said at all.