h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Quentin Tarantino - From Amateur to Auteur - A1111447
Author: JD (Psychic required - you know where to go) - U103235

I think we're ready for this one now. It's an on-again/off-again entry that's seen some heavy revision, let me know what you think of it! Thanks!

- JD

Two weeks - no response? Boooooo!

I think this is great. I wonder whether the title would be better as "Quentin Tarantino - film maker" or "- actor, writer, and director". I think the "from Amateur to Auter" gives the impression that the entry is going to be a biog rather than filmography.

Other than that, great!

It'll need updating when Kill Bill 2 comes out, but that shouldn't be too difficult with the new system of updating.

More comments please!

Hi JD, I like this one

I'd suggest perhaps adding to the bit where you speculate on why QT disappeared from the public eye. He said himself that the reason he dropped out of view was because he'd spent most of his adult life writing scripts, and that they had now all been produced in some way, so he needed to take time out to write more.

Also, might be fun to mention that he started out as an extra in shows such as The Golden Girls in a 1988 episode in which he played an Elvis (A702839) impersonator.

QT gets a lot of flak because he's confident and brash and motor-mouthed, but I think his work stands up for itself. He has this weird way of writing completely unnaturalistic dialogue in a way that appears casual and improvised (though once you've seen a few of his films you kind of spot it a mile off - all the least successful bits in Kill Bill were the English-spoken 'hip' bits). Bt I love the way his films are recognisably him without being too samey. The playing with narrative in all of his scripts, the way the camera is always so knowing (like the way it pulls away from the ear-cutting scene in Dogs, the on-screen square that Uma Thurman draws in Fiction and the way details are revealed in Jackie Brown at just the point you need to knwo them for it to be dramatic).

Oops, I'm off waffling again. Good entry!

Thanks folks! I've obviously not had time enough to really update the article, but I plan to incorporate the comments here (so far) very soon. I was worried about putting this through before Kill Bill part 2 comes out, but if it's easy to update, then maybe that'll work. I can wait, really, so whichever's best for all you scouts, editors, subeditors, subeditors undersecretaries, undersecretaries' assistants, subassist... yes, that's enough of that.

Jimster: I'm going to quote some of your third paragraph there ("QT gets a lot of flak...") if that's okay with you. I'll clarify the reasons why he'd disappeared for so long with what you pointed out. I like that, actually - it helps appreciate why his latest film is different from his earlier films. That is, he'd taken time to write a new script rather than rehash the same concepts that were all part of a larger whole. What I mean is, in many ways Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown are all the same movie done in three parts (with elements from True Romance, Natural Born Killers, and arguably From Dust Till Dawn included). He's sort of refined that to be the two-part Kill Bill film. One wonders what sort of homage he plans for his upcoming "Inglorious Bastards" film.

Never knew he was an extra as an Elvis impersonator (got to be one of those myself for a movie called "Elvis Has Left The Building" that was filming in Albuquerque recently ). On the Golden Girls nonetheless! That's great, I gotta put that in there.

Regarding the title, I don't have a problem with changing it to be more accurate - I just liked the way the words Amateur and Auteur went along side each other, being of the same language of origin and all.

So, to be revised soon. No rush, we can wait until KB-2 is out. Though some more comments from others would not be unappreciated.

- JD

Just a note to say that I've updated this entry now, incorporating several comments. How's it lookin' now?


- JD

Looking good!

dialog = dialogue in British English.

On a more contentious note, I wonder if Tarantino's films could be considered a form of magic realism - the mundane (pop culture conversations) grounding extraordinary events and violence.

Otto

Re: spelling - there are probably many American spellings in there, as that's my native tongue. I'm relying on the Ed's for fixing 'em all to British English (that seems like a redundant phrase, doesn't it? )

Re: Magic realism, it's very interesting you bring up that style of writing. I thought about mentioning that as part of Tarantino's worship of Hong Kong cinema from the 60s and 70s, that his films have consequently borrowed a particularly Chinese version of magic realism in storytelling. I dunno, this is getting to be a thesis on filmmaking that I'm not totally qualified to debate. I just remember studying (and falling in love with) the magic realism style of storytelling from reading some South American authors (especially Gabriel Garcia Marquez), but I know it's a common enough style throughout Chinese lore as well as Latin American.

For my own opinion, I think the levels of magic realism tended to become more apparent as Tarantino developed his films further. That is, the levels of magic realism is Kill Bill (in particular during the huge sword fighting scenes) are far more noticable and important to the plot and style than previous films (such as Reservoir Dogs). Pulp Fiction seems to be somewhere in the middle while films like Natural Born Killers and From Dusk Till Dawn seem to almost lampoon the style as much as use it. This could very well be it's own separate topic for an article! I'd surely enjoy contributing.


- JD

This is an excellent entry. Hopefully someone will come along and pick it very soon.

Sprout

It's a good entry.

On the list of films that QT is involved in ... wasn't there a film about submarines (starring Gene Hackman / Denzel Washington). Checking IMDB it would be Crimson Tide I'm thinking of ... I believe he was a consultant on the script writing or something similar.

For me, one of QT's trademarks is to include "pointless" dialogues. The classic example being the "Madonna - Like A Virgin" discussion at the start of Dogs. In any usual Hollywood film all the dialogue, however meaningless at the time, comes in useful at some point later. For example, Mel Gibson's character in Lethal Weapon II demonstrates an ability to dislocate his shoulder joint during a bet in the office at the start of the film. He later uses this to get out of a strait jacket when faced with certain death.

Now to tie up my two points, I can't find a reference for QT under Crimson Tide, but there is a point when a guy walks into a cabin and starts chatting about the "Silver Surfer" comics ... it's pointless, but sooooo QT

BBS

Hi JD, here's assistant appointed (as opposed to disappointed) supplement coadjutor undersecretary deputy surrogate adjunct Scout Bossel at your service




Bossel

Hi BBS, thanks for the comments. In that section, I was trying to concentrate on the larger of the peripherally involved projects in QT's career - I figured people could read IMDB as well as I could, so I didn't put it all in there. I'd never heard of him being involved in Crimson Tide - being a consultant on a film script doesn't seem his style to me. My guess is that it's something of a studio-nod or blatant copycat (take your pick), particularly given the fact that at the time that movie came out it was the height of QT's popularity - 1995. *shrug*

About QT's use of "pointless" dialog, you hint at what I think of as a very important part of QT's style - that he uses dialog for character development as much as action, and maybe that is something we're not used to, particularly in action movies (as in your example of Lethal Weapon). It seems to me that in most movies, perhaps as a holdover from the days when films we silent, dialog is kept at a minimum and characters are defined more by their actions. Perhaps it is one of QT's innovations that his characters are developed and defined by what they say while they do very mundane things (eat, drink, go out on a date, use the toilet, etc). Their dialog is also quite mundane and realistic (insofar as how many "normal" people would talk) as a consequence. So I would hardly call his dialog "pointless," even in quotes. It's just using dialog differently, tossing out the economy of necessity and intentionally putting in lots of extraneous stuff that, when stepped away from and viewed as a larger character sketch makes it seem more innovative.

Oh, Bossel, Hi. Glad you could make it. I uhm ... well, I just hope I don't get referred to your dog's administrative subassistant viceundererrand boy.

- JD

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Congrats!

Well done!


Geggs

Had some help getting it started, I have to say. So on behalf of the original researcher (who has disappeared since starting this entry waaay back) and myself, I say thanks!

- JD

About time too!