Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I think Quentin Tarentino has little idea what he is doing. But he got a lot of intuitive knowledge about film-making, fuled by a lot of actual knowledge about films of the past. But he messes up all the time, and when he is brilliant, it is either, because he combined so many classic tropes that it amounts ot a unique piece of a movie picture, or it is because he combines his love of classic movies with his lust for revolution, giving us classic, tried and true moves with a lot of taste of subversion.
Both requires little deeper understanding or skill. It just requires unique person within aunique situation.
Tarentino is eccentric and strong-willed. Particularly the latter. The will is his strange. His utter luck is that this will mett an orginaly and good enough formula in his case. Because as a person, I think Tarentino is very dumb. Very, very dumb. I think so, because of most of thei nterview I had the pleasure to see him in.
The best gems are those where he feels in control and at home. There he really reveals the shallow patterns of his mind. A lot of plot tropes, and emotional tropes, and tropes and tropes... nothing else. Tarentino is the prototype of a successful nerd. In that he is not only good in his obsession, but his narrow focus leaves him also stupid, but successful nevertheless.
You now may think: "But x and y and z were fantastic and he did it".
This is all true.
And not contrary to what I said.
I love Pulb Fiction, not least because I discovered it with my best friend when we were about 13 years old and we both FELL IN LOVE.
´
But in hindsight, it is good for reasons mentioned, in spite of Tarentinos intellectual handicap. That is what I am saying.
And this story is, really, as good as the story of Tarantino being a
genius
But my story will seem frustrated and angry and petty, while the other story may seem over the top, but still reasonable.
This is all really makes sense when you get into the differences of old and modern movies. And there is SO MUCH difference. Tarentino taps into that while being a mainstream childish nerdy punk.
Both requires little deeper understanding or skill. It just requires unique person within aunique situation.
Tarentino is eccentric and strong-willed. Particularly the latter. The will is his strange. His utter luck is that this will mett an orginaly and good enough formula in his case. Because as a person, I think Tarentino is very dumb. Very, very dumb. I think so, because of most of thei nterview I had the pleasure to see him in.
The best gems are those where he feels in control and at home. There he really reveals the shallow patterns of his mind. A lot of plot tropes, and emotional tropes, and tropes and tropes... nothing else. Tarentino is the prototype of a successful nerd. In that he is not only good in his obsession, but his narrow focus leaves him also stupid, but successful nevertheless.
You now may think: "But x and y and z were fantastic and he did it".
This is all true.
And not contrary to what I said.
I love Pulb Fiction, not least because I discovered it with my best friend when we were about 13 years old and we both FELL IN LOVE.
´
But in hindsight, it is good for reasons mentioned, in spite of Tarentinos intellectual handicap. That is what I am saying.
And this story is, really, as good as the story of Tarantino being a
genius
But my story will seem frustrated and angry and petty, while the other story may seem over the top, but still reasonable.
This is all really makes sense when you get into the differences of old and modern movies. And there is SO MUCH difference. Tarentino taps into that while being a mainstream childish nerdy punk.